[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15543-15551]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    TSUNAMI WARNING, EDUCATION, AND RESEARCH ACT OF 2015--Continued


                   Tribute To Trecia Bickford McEvoy

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today, not a minute too late, not a 
minute too early but at the exact time I am scheduled to speak. That is 
because of a remarkable woman, my scheduler Trecia Bickford McEvoy. 
Trecia has dedicated 25 years of her life to serving her country and 
the United States Senate. She has worked for a Republican, she has 
worked for an Independent, and she has worked for a Democrat, a true 
bipartisan public servant we can all learn a thing or two from.
  As a farmer, the schedule is rigorous but simple: You plant, you 
harvest, and then everything else in between, but when I got to the 
Senate, I found Washington, DC, is not as cut and dry as the farm. 
Luckily for me, after Trecia served Vermont Senator Jim Jefford's 
office for over 15 years, she came to my office to help me and my staff 
find the bathrooms.
  Since 2008, I have been lucky enough to have her in my office, and 
the State of Montana is better off for it. Thanks to her remarkable 
work, I have been able to see thousands of Montanans, in between 
thousands of committee hearings and briefings and runs to the airport, 
all because of an airtight schedule curated by Trecia.
  At an all-staff meeting, one of my staffers was asked to draw a 
picture of what she believes Trecia does every day. With her trademark 
humility, Trecia said: ``Well, that would be kind of boring,'' but what 
landed on that paper was a set of hands, a generous set of hands, that 
ensures that all Montanans can engage with the important policy 
decisions that shape our lives every day.
  Trecia acts as the hands that carry Montanans from all across the 
State to see their Senator. It is not boring at all. In fact, it is 
really important. If scheduling was an art, my schedules would be 
enshrined not just on my Web site but also down the street at the 
National Gallery. Trecia would know exactly how many minutes it takes 
every day to drive from the Hill to the museum.
  As my colleagues know, a good scheduler is hard to find and even 
harder to keep. Trecia has shown a staying quality that puts her in the 
Scheduler Hall of Fame, a hall that would be erected along the road 
from the Capitol to National Airport. Whether it is a call from my farm 
at 3 a.m. to tell her I am going to miss my flight because my truck 
can't make it through the snow or a text from the plane in Minneapolis 
asking which gate I need to get to for a tight connection, Trecia has 
always been ready and willing to answer the call.
  After 25 years on the Hill, I know I am not the only one who can 
attest to Trecia's talents as a scheduler, as a friend, and as a 
person. She is a critical part of my office, not only because she keeps 
me on schedule, but she is also a relentless mentor to my younger 
staffers, always sharing in their joys and consoling them in their 
tougher times.
  I will never forget that the first time I met Trecia is when I 
interviewed her for the job as my scheduler. A few months earlier, my 
wife and I had just been on an airplane from Seattle to Washington 
National Airport. My wife sat in the middle seat in row 12, and I sat 
in the middle seat in row 27.
  I said to Trecia: What is going to happen when you schedule me on a 
cross-country flight in a middle seat in the back of the plane and my 
wife in a middle seat in the front of the plane?

[[Page 15544]]

  She looked at me and said: That ain't ever going to happen.
  And it never has.
  Her smarts, her generosity, and her quick wit not only make my life 
easier but also make the lives of other Senators' staffs and, most 
importantly, Montanans' easier. As one of my former chiefs of staff 
pointed out, whether it is a veteran from Columbia Falls, a high school 
student from Billings, or a mom from Havre, Trecia has played a vital 
role in improving the lives of everyday Montanans. They may not know 
who made that moment happen, but I do.
  To me and to many others on the Hill and in the office, Trecia is 
more than just a scheduler. When I asked for the quintessential Trecia 
McEvoy story, one of her former bosses told a story--not about Trecia 
getting a meeting scheduled or pulling off an air traffic miracle, but 
they told a story about Trecia the coworker and friend. According to 
one of her former chiefs of staff, Trecia would give a secret heads-up 
to young, junior staff members any time their boss was coming by so 
that their pencils were sharpened and everything was on the up and up, 
even late on a Friday afternoon long after the Senator had flown home. 
This type of kindness, humor, and leadership shines through with 
Trecia's work every day.
  Whether it is a bright-eyed intern from Helena looking for a place to 
live for the summer, the ambitious staff assistant looking for 
professional guidance, or the know-it-all executive assistant who 
thinks he knows best, Trecia has been there to give advice, to listen, 
and to keep all of us grounded in a town where often the only thing 
bigger than the monuments are the egos.
  Despite a reputation as a miracle worker, her greatest accomplishment 
has been balancing the hectic profession of a scheduler with her 
critically important duties as a parent. When I call on Thursday night 
because a flight is delayed, it is not uncommon for me to hear in the 
background the cheer of a crowd from Ian's hockey game or a hushed 
whisper from an audience at one of Zachary's plays. Despite the long 
hours, frantic phone calls, and countless emails, Trecia's No. 1 
priority has always been crystal clear: her family. Over the past 25 
years, Trecia and her husband Jeff have made sure that their kids--
Alexis, Zachary, and Ian--have everything they need to be able to 
succeed.
  In the office and in life, Trecia is more than a scheduler. What has 
made Trecia a great scheduler over the years are the same qualities 
that have made her a great friend, counselor, and mother. Trecia's 
generosity, sympathetic ear, sharp wit, and understanding nature have 
made her a phenomenal scheduler, a great friend, and, most importantly, 
an ideal mother.
  On behalf of Montana, Vermont, countless staff members, and from this 
dirt farmer from Big Sandy, I thank Trecia for 25 years of service.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Overtime Rule

  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, as we enter the holiday season, today 
should be a special day for 4.2 million working Americans, including 
75,000 Minnesotans. That is because today was supposed to be the day 
that the overtime rule would go into effect to ensure that workers are 
paid overtime wages when they work more than 40 hours in a week. 
Instead, the rule has been blocked, meaning that many of these working 
people will not be able to benefit from this rule, which is especially 
unfortunate given that the holidays are coming upon us. Right now, 
these 4.2 million employees don't have to be paid at all for overtime 
work they perform. That is what we are trying to change.
  As you know, we had a big election in which working people sent the 
clear message they are hurting. Yet less than a month later, 
Republicans have decided to attack a rule that would ensure that 
American workers are paid for every hour they work. This is exactly the 
type of policy we should all be able to agree on to help working people 
across the country.
  During the campaign, President-Elect Trump repeatedly said he was for 
working people. One important action he could take immediately would be 
to go on his twitter account and express support for the overtime rule.
  Here is why this rule matters so much. As our economy has changed in 
the past couple of decades, the rule on overtime pay has not kept pace 
at all. The last meaningful improvement for workers covered by this 
rule came in 1975, when the rule made 62 percent of so-called 
administrative and professional employees eligible for overtime pay. As 
a result of failing to keep the rule up-to-date and current with the 
rate of inflation, right now only 7 percent of employees in that 
category must be paid overtime.
  The Obama administration's update to the overtime rule was intended 
to change the fact that under the standard right now, employers aren't 
required to pay overtime to these employees unless the employees earn 
less than $23,000 a year. If you are paid on a salary basis and earn 
more than $23,000 a year, your employer can make you work more than 40 
hours a week and not pay you anything at all for your extra hours. 
Twenty-three thousand dollars is simply too low of a threshold. A 
salary of $23,000 a year is below the poverty line for a family of 
four. I believe workers and their families deserve better.
  That is why the Obama administration instituted an update to the 
overtime rule, to lift the salary threshold to $47,000 a year, bringing 
it closer to the original standard in place in 1975. It still wouldn't 
be as high as the comparable level in 1975, but it would be a vast 
improvement, and it would mean that 4.2 million more workers across the 
United States would qualify for overtime pay.
  Consider a retail manager making a salary of $40,000 a year at a big 
box store or fast-food chain. Right now, many employers are legally 
allowed to require such an employee to work 50, 60 or more hours in a 
week without paying him or her anything extra. This new rule would mean 
the employee would be paid extra when they work more than 40 hours a 
week.
  Similarly, the rule would make sure a trucking dispatcher earning 
$45,000 a year would not be forced to work late at night without 
compensation. The rule encourages his or her employer to send employees 
home to his or her family on time or else the employer will pay them 
for the overtime he or she works.
  This is very important for working men and women in America. That is 
why many of my colleagues and I have been strong supporters of this 
rule. That is why it has been very disappointing to see so many of my 
Republican colleagues attack and ultimately try to dismantle this rule.
  They have been attacking the rule ever since it was proposed. They 
have set out on a campaign to delay, to water down, or to block the 
rule entirely. In the Senate, 45 Republicans have signed on to a bill 
to block it. In the House, 202 Members have signed on to a companion 
measure to that bill. House Speaker Paul Ryan claims the rule is an 
``absolute disaster,'' and Senator Vitter claims the rule will ``reduce 
worker's opportunity for long-term advancement and increased pay.''
  Despite their attacks on this updated rule in the House and in the 
Senate, Republicans weren't able to block it through the legislative 
process. So they took their fight to the courts, where they used their 
old tactic of forum shopping, where they file a suit in the court they 
think is most likely to be favorable for their arguments. As a result, 
9 days ago, they convinced a Texas judge to put the updated overtime 
rule on hold. The 4.2 million workers who today were scheduled to be 
paid for every hour they work above the 40 could continue to be forced 
to work overtime without the additional compensation they deserve.
  As our economy has continued to recover from the Great Recession, too

[[Page 15545]]

much of the wealth in the last few years has accrued to the top 1 
percent in this country and often the top one-tenth of 1 percent. While 
new data suggests the economy has improved a bit for middle-class 
workers since last year, the median household income in the United 
States remains lower than it was in the year 2000 in real dollars. 
Updating our overtime pay rule is one of the most effective steps we 
can take to put working people back on a more level economic playing 
field.
  I hope my colleagues will join me today in pledging to fight in 
Congress, the executive branch, and the courts for a fairer system for 
all workers and for updating this incredibly outdated overtime rule. 
Let's hope that the postponement of the new rule today will be 
temporary. Let's join forces on behalf of American workers to stand 
strong in support of a fair overtime rule and to work together to build 
a stronger American middle class.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by my 
colleague from Minnesota. He has been a strong champion for America's 
workers and believes we should make this Nation and our economy work 
for working Americans. His leadership on this overtime rule is 
certainly much appreciated.
  Today should be a day of celebration. It should be a day in which 4 
million American workers who work overtime without getting paid but 
earn very modest salaries were going to get rewarded for their overtime 
work--get paid for their overtime work--but instead those 4 million 
Americans are getting scrooged.
  You all remember the story of Ebenezer Scrooge. He made a lot of 
money as a very successful businessman. He enjoyed counting his coins 
while treating his workers in a terrible fashion and paying them as 
little as he could get away with. That is exactly what is at stake with 
this overtime rule. The vision of the overtime rule was that when you 
had a very well-paid manager who was clearly earning far more than they 
would if they were earning a more modest amount plus overtime, you 
could reduce the complexity of tracking their overtime hours and 
instead simply pay them a salary without compensation for overtime. The 
key to that was that it was a very well-paid worker or manager and not 
someone earning near the bottom of the scale and barely making more 
than minimum wage.
  As I said, today should be a day of celebration with the overtime 
rule being modified so that it would catch up with inflation. Many 
decades have passed since it was put forward. It was supposed to be 
adjusted for inflation from here forward, but it was not adjusted.
  This is not a day of celebration; it is a day in which approximately 
4 million Americans are getting scrooged, and that also means 40,000 
Oregonians who were looking forward to finally getting compensated for 
the overtime they will be working during this coming holiday season 
will also be told: No go. No paycheck. No compensation for your 
overtime.
  These folks earn as little as $23,000 a year. Going into the 
holidays, a lot of retail workers are asked to work far more than 40 
hours a week. They are asked to work 50, 60, 70, 80 hours a week 
without a dime of overtime, and that is wrong.
  A whole lot of these workers are parents raising children. It is 
pretty hard to raise a child on $23,000 a year. I don't think anyone in 
this Chamber--any one of the Senators here in this Chamber--has raised 
a child on $23,000 a year. If they had attempted to do so, they would 
have an understanding of why they should be up here right now joining 
this fight for the overtime rule--which is hopelessly outdated and 
hopelessly unfair to America's workers--to be implemented in a timely 
fashion with legislation that we could pass today. Instead, Senators 
with their far larger salaries are very happily preparing for their 
holiday without considering that today is a day in which 4 million 
American workers are getting treated unfairly.
  Since 1975, the salary of full-time workers who qualify for overtime 
has plummeted from 62 percent to 7 percent. That is a pretty dramatic 
reduction. For over a year now, millions of American workers have been 
looking forward to today when their long hours of overtime were finally 
going to be compensated, and it is only fair that they have that 
compensation. But just like Ebenezer Scrooge, the Republican Party, in 
coordination with 21 States, has said to those 4 million American 
workers: Bah humbug. You don't get compensated for your overtime. We 
are putting a lump of coal in your stocking, and it is too bad that you 
are trying to raise kids. This happened because States filed a lawsuit 
and got a preliminary injunction granted by a judge to take away the 
power of today's overtime rule, the modified overtime rule, to assist 
American workers.
  I grew up in a blue-collar family. My dad was a mechanic, and my 
mother was a stay-at-home mom. My father, who had a basic blue-collar 
wage, was able to put food on the table, buy a three-bedroom ranch 
house with a garage, acquire a car, and have modest family camping 
vacations. It was a pretty square deal to provide a foundation for his 
children to thrive and have opportunities by working with his hands. 
Our blue-collar community was in much the same situation. When he 
worked overtime and stayed on the job because a machine needed to be 
repaired and finished in time for a client of the company to be able to 
put that heavy equipment to work to build highways, work in the forest, 
or work to build dams, he got paid for that overtime, and it was right 
and fair that he did.
  It is not right and fair that today America's workers are not getting 
paid for their overtime. They are working longer and harder only to see 
that extra wealth go to the CEO of the company. American workers are 
working longer hours, but their wages and paychecks are getting spread 
thinner and thinner. The overtime rule is a long overdue adjustment for 
those who are working those long hours. You don't get any help from 
this rule if you are not working more than 40 hours a week.
  When President Franklin Roosevelt was talking about the importance of 
living wages to support families, he said: ``By living wages I mean 
more than a bare subsistence level--I mean the wages of decent 
living.'' Isn't that what we are talking about, the wages of decent 
living?
  Is there anyone who would contend that a parent raising a child on 
$23,000 a year is making a wage that would allow them to have a decent 
living? I don't think so, at least not at the cost of what it is to 
exist in today's society, not when rent on a two-bedroom apartment is 
$800 to $900 in Portland, not when the cost of groceries is where it 
is, and not when the cost of health care is where it is. Franklin 
Roosevelt said that no one who works full time should live in poverty. 
He said that working Americans should make enough to raise and support 
a family and provide a foundation for their children to thrive. He 
meant that you should be able to earn enough to save up over time and 
retire with dignity. He meant that a working American should be able 
earn enough to cover the basic necessities of life, such as food, 
clothes, and shelter, but for many Americans, those goals are out of 
reach even though they are working a lot of overtime, overtime in which 
they are not getting paid. We just haven't kept pace with the vision of 
families being able to earn, as Roosevelt put it, the wages of a decent 
living--the wages that enable you to live decently. This rule is 
critical to changing and fixing that.
  While the courts tie up the process at the request of my Republican 
colleagues and State governments, we should instead have a bill here on 
the floor and simply pass this adjustment ourselves.
  Has anyone noticed that we just had a Presidential campaign in which 
both candidates talked about making America work for working Americans? 
The candidate who won the vote in the electoral college but lost the 
popular vote, by the way, has claimed he is going to watch out for 
working Americans.

[[Page 15546]]

Well, where is he today on the day 4 million Americans are getting 
scrooged? Where is Donald Trump today on the day that those who worked 
overtime are now told they will not get paid for that overtime? How 
about a tweet in the middle of the night saying: I get it.
  If we return to the story of Ebenezer Scrooge, we remember the fact 
that he was resisting any effort to enable his employee, Bob Cratchit, 
to have Christmas Day off with his family or to be able to have a 
decent amount of food on the table on that day. His heart was a few 
sizes too small. The night before Christmas he had a dream, and in that 
dream ghosts of Christmas past, Christmas present, and Christmas future 
came to him and showed the poverty--the spiritual poverty of his life. 
They showed him the emptiness of his life. That life is not about 
building up treasures you can count coin by coin, but helping other 
families to thrive and succeed and share in their joy. When he woke up, 
he was a changed man. He woke up and said: Yes, my team--my workers--
shouldn't be working on Christmas Day. Yes, I should pay them more. 
Yes, I should make sure they have bountiful food so they can care for 
their family. Yes, their son, Tiny Tim, should have the health care he 
needs so he can live a full and productive life. He took care of these 
things and personally went out and acquired the largest turkey he could 
for the Cratchit family.
  Isn't today the day when my colleagues who have been playing the role 
of Ebenezer Scrooge and fighting fair compensation for overtime--isn't 
today the day when they should take a nap and go to sleep tonight and 
have a little bit of a dream about the circumstances of working 
Americans? Here we are, just coming off a campaign where everyone 
talked about the plight of working Americans. Maybe a little of that 
should reverberate in their dreams tonight so that they might think 
about how families are struggling across America and how hard it is to 
put food on the table, not just during the holiday season but 
throughout the year. They should think about how unfair it is for 
someone to work 80 hours a week and not get paid overtime because they 
are being paid only $23,000 a year.
  Do I hear a single colleague volunteer to work for 80 hours a week 
for a year and get paid $23,000? I would love to hear that speech on 
this floor when someone says: I get it. I am all for the overtime rule 
of the past because I am willing to live on $23,000 a year.
  I don't think I have heard that from a single colleague. Colleagues 
here are paid many times that increment. Maybe it is a little hard to 
understand the plight of American workers when you are living in a 
bubble. Think about what it would be like to raise a family on $23,000 
a year, given the expenses you experience in today's society.
  So tonight, let's have a few of our colleagues who have been such 
advocates of the Ebenezer Scrooge strategy of denying overtime to 
workers who are paid very little go to sleep and maybe get visited by 
the ghosts of the past and the present and the future. Maybe they will 
be able to put themselves in the same pair of shoes that working 
Americans work in and place themselves in the same set of circumstances 
and financial challenges that American workers have. Maybe they can 
wake up tomorrow with a different vision--a vision of being a partner 
with working America--to make this Nation work for working America, 
make our economy work for working America. Maybe they can come to this 
floor and insist that we immediately pass a bill to take care of these 
workers so they are compensated for their overtime. That would be a 
Christmas story to celebrate.
  Maybe, while we are at it, our President-elect can tweet tonight in 
the middle of the night that he had a dream and he was visited by the 
ghosts of the past and the present and the future and he saw a vision 
of treating workers fairly, and he wants the Senate to act tomorrow 
morning. Wouldn't that be a fabulous Christmas story--one that is 
completely consistent with the rhetoric we heard in the campaign about 
an economy that works for working Americans. I hope tomorrow morning 
that is exactly what we hear.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                              The Economy

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, one of the things I have been focused 
on--and I know many of my colleagues have been as well, such as the 
Presiding Officer--in the last couple of years in the Senate is coming 
to the Senate floor and speaking about this issue, certainly one of the 
most important issues we can be focused on in the Congress, and that is 
the economy and the economic growth for the United States.
  What we have here, shown by this chart, is really a lost decade of 
economic growth that we have had in America over the last 10 years--a 
lost decade. This chart reflects the gross domestic product, or GDP 
growth, in the United States over the last several decades. GDP is 
essentially really a measure of the health of the economy, the health 
of the opportunity that we have in this country. By any measure, over 
the last 10 years we have had a sick economy.
  So if we look here at the 3-percent GDP growth, this is OK growth. It 
is not considered that great. The average rate of growth for the United 
States over the last 200 years--what really has made our country 
great--has been about 3.9 percent, almost 4 percent. Three percent is 
not great. It is certainly below average. But we have a President--
President Obama--and an administration that is going to be the first 
President ever to never in 1 year, even once, hit 3 percent GDP growth 
ever.
  Let me cite a couple of recent numbers. In the fourth quarter of 
2015, we grew at 0.9 percent of GDP and did not even hit 1 percent. In 
the first quarter of 2016, it was 0.8 percent of GDP. In the second 
quarter of 2016, it was 1.1 percent GDP growth. It is true that the 
third quarter numbers came out estimated just a little above 3 percent 
for the quarter, but the year will be way off of even 3 percent.
  Again, traditional levels of American growth are close to 4 percent.
  So each quarter, when these numbers have come out--these dismal, 
anemic economic growth numbers--what I have tried to do is come to the 
Senate floor, talk about the issue, and then ask the question: Where is 
the Secretary of the Treasury? Where is the President of the United 
States? What is the plan? Is this really what we expect for Americans? 
We can't even hit 3 percent GDP growth.
  Look at every other administration, including Kennedy, Johnson, 
Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan--holy cow--6 percent, 5.5 
percent; Bill Clinton, 4.5, 5 percent; even George Bush, well above 3 
percent. Not once in 8 years--the lost decade of economic growth under 
President Obama. That is with low energy prices, and that is with 
super-low interest rates.
  So when we ask what the plan is, what the administration is doing to 
grow the economy, they come back and say: Well, listen, the new normal 
is about 2 percent, 1.5 percent GDP growth. They don't say we are going 
to grow the economy. They just dumb down American expectations. Go 
google the term ``new normal.'' Everybody uses it now in Washington. 
Essentially, they are saying that 1.5, 2 percent GDP growth is the best 
we can do.
  I have a lot of respect for my colleague from Oregon, but if you want 
to talk about an Ebenezer Scrooge strategy--growing the U.S. economy at 
1.5 percent and not even trying to grow
at traditional levels of American growth--that is the ultimate Ebenezer 
Scrooge strategy because the entire country, especially middle class 
families, are hurt by it.
  So this answer that, no, we can't even hit 3 percent, that the new 
normal is 1.5, 2 percent, that is an answer that we get from the Obama 
administration. The Secretary of the Treasury never comes out and tells 
us how we are going to get back to traditional levels of growth. That 
is an answer that consigns millions of Americans to lives where they no 
longer believe in economic opportunity, no longer believe in

[[Page 15547]]

strong wages and in terms of growth for our wages, and no longer 
believe in a future in which their kids are going to do better than 
they did.
  We talk a lot about stats, which are important to understand. So let 
me give my colleagues some of the numbers behind them. In the last 8 
years, we have now had, in terms of people working in the workforce, 
the lowest labor-force participation rate since 1978. What does that 
mean? Again, that is a health issue of our economy. It means that 
millions of Americans have just quit looking for work. Can we imagine 
being that discouraged because the economy is not growing and so you 
just quit looking?
  The percentage of Americans below the poverty line has grown by 
almost 4 percent over this period, where we see no growth. Real medium 
household income during this period sank by almost $2,000. Food stamp 
participation in this period--again, 8 years--has soared by almost 40 
percent. The percentage of Americans who own homes, which is one of the 
ultimate markers of the American dream, is the lowest it has been since 
1965. So we were talking about Ebenezer Scrooge. My colleague was just 
talking about him. Those are Ebenezer Scrooge numbers, and those are 
Americans who are hurting because we can't grow the economy.
  We need to change that. The Obama administration has not been focused 
on this issue. We never hear the Secretary of the Treasury come out--or 
even the President--and talk about how we get back to traditional 
levels of American growth, like every Republican and Democratic 
President has done for decades. They don't talk about it. They haven't 
been focused on it. But I think on November 8, we saw that the American 
people are very focused on this issue. Millions and millions of 
Americans rejected the idea that, because of these growth rates, they 
had to give up on the American dream and a strong U.S. economy and good 
jobs. They did not want to give up on it. We do not want to give up on 
that.
  In essence, Americans saw that the idea of the new normal--which is 
this, peddled by the Obama administration--is a surrender, and they 
didn't want to surrender. We shouldn't surrender. We need to grow this 
economy.
  So what now? Well, I find it very encouraging that the President-
elect and his team, including his nominee for the Secretary of the 
Treasury, have been talking very regularly about this issue. We need to 
grow the economy--not at new normal rates of 1.5 percent or 2 percent 
but at 3, 3.5, or 4 percent GDP growth. That is what we need to do. We 
in this body need to help them do that because that is what the 
American people want. In fact, with the exception of having a strong 
military and keeping this country safe in terms of national defense, 
growing our economy, creating economic opportunity for all Americans is 
certainly one of the most important things we can do in the Senate. But 
we need a partner in the executive branch. We need a partner in the 
executive branch that is actually focused on the issue, that actually 
cares about these numbers, and we haven't had it in 8 years. So where 
do we start?
  I think we need to start on this issue of the overregulation of our 
economy. Again, the incoming administration has talked a lot about this 
issue. When we ask people outside of Washington what is keeping our 
economy down, they refer to this. This chart is a chart of the 
cumulative number of Federal rules that have come out of this town onto 
American businesses, small businesses, and working-class families. That 
is what we see--pure growth, pure growth.
  President Obama has enacted more than 600 new major regulations, 
totaling close to $800 billion or $2,300 per American. What is really 
interesting is that, despite the fact that the American people on 
November 8 said they want to grow the economy and they don't want to 
see this continue, this administration is putting its pedal to the 
metal on trying to see how many more regulations they can issue and 
promulgate to crush our economy and opportunity.
  My State has been ground zero for a lot of these regulations. We are 
a resource development State in Alaska. The President just last week 
came out with a new regulation that said: I know that the vast majority 
of Alaskans want to responsibly develop their resources, but I am going 
to take the entire Outer Continental Shelf off the table for Alaska. 
Sorry, Alaska. Sorry, workers. Sorry, American energy independence. I 
am taking it all off the table. That was a regulation the President put 
on the table and issued last week that is going to hurt our economy, 
that is going to hurt American energy independence, that is going to 
hurt jobs, that is going to hurt our national security, and he did it 
anyway. There are no leases in my State because the President, in 
Executive order, issued that. That is not what the American people 
voted for on November 8.
  So several Senators, led by Senator Gardner, are going to be sending 
the President a letter very soon saying: Mr. President, the American 
people have spoken. The American people are tired of this. You are on 
your way out. Please, respect the results of the election and quit 
issuing these regulations that are stifling economic growth and 
crushing middle-class families. I hope he will abide by that. I hope he 
listens to us. I hope he listens to the American people. But, somehow, 
I think we are going to see even more of these in the next month or so.
  I wish to conclude by noting something that I think most Americans 
understand intuitively. When it comes to our Nation and the comparative 
advantages that we have over other countries--and I am talking about 
the major countries in the world, whether it is China or Russia or the 
EU or Brazil or Japan--we have so many incredible comparative 
advantages relative to anyone. We have energy. We have great 
entrepreneurs. We have world class universities. We have agriculture 
and fisheries that literally feed the world. We have some of the 
brightest young people, like our pages here. We have a military that is 
the most professional and lethal in the world, by far. We have 
alliances all over the world where countries want to be close to the 
United States. Our adversaries and potential adversaries, such as 
China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, have very few, if any, allies.
  We have so many advantages, and yet the majority of Americans think 
we are heading in the wrong direction. I believe they think that 
because we can't grow the economy. So what we need to do is for all of 
us to work closely with the new administration, and I would encourage 
all of my colleagues here in the Senate to focus back on this issue. We 
need to return to traditional levels of American economic growth, and 
we can do it with the right policies.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 579

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Members of the Senate, I come to the 
floor to speak about and to propound a unanimous consent request in 
regard to the Inspector General's Empowerment Act. I would like to 
defer. I ask unanimous consent to not lose the floor but yield to 
Senator Johnson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for letting 
me speak to a very important issue. I also thank him for his 
leadership. Long before I came to the Senate, I know the Senator from 
Iowa was working tirelessly to make sure government was more efficient, 
more effective, and more accountable. He has done an awful lot of work 
to ensure that. Certainly he has relied on inspectors general to 
bolster his efforts.
  So I am completely in support of S. 579, the Inspector General 
Empowerment Act of 2015. When I took over the chairmanship of the 
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the 
Senator from Iowa

[[Page 15548]]

had been working long and hard on this act. I was happy--I was pleased 
to utilize our committee to move this bill through our committee 
unanimously.
  The bill has 18 bipartisan cosponsors. It is just incredibly 
important. The Senator from Iowa will certainly fill us in on the 
details of what has happened and what has made this bill so important. 
I just want to spend a little bit of time on how important inspector 
generals are.
  We, working together with the Senator from Iowa, asked the inspectors 
general, for example, to report back to us how many of their 
recommendations--off of their tireless work--have gone unimplemented. 
We just received that report. Over 15,000 recommendations from 
inspectors general have not been implemented. The total aggregate 
savings could be as high as $87 billion. Even in this massive Federal 
Government, $87 billion is real money. Of course, inspectors general 
need access to the records from their agencies, from their departments, 
so they can determine what is happening so they can make these kind of 
recommendations.
  We also have had and witnessed a real tragedy, for example, at the 
Tomah VA Medical Center. We had an inspector general who had inspected 
and investigated over 140 different instances, then issued reports on 
those inspections, investigations, and then buried those reports--did 
not make those reports public.
  One of those had to do with the Tomah VA Center in terms of the 
overprescription of opioids. Because that report was not made public, 
we were unaware of the problems there, and the problems persisted. For 
over a decade, opioids were being overprescribed. The result was that 
veterans--the finest among us--some of them died because of 
overprescription.
  It is not an overstatement to say that the work of the inspector 
general is crucial and that work--those reports, those inspections, 
those investigations--literally is the difference between life and 
death. Again, I am here supporting the Senator from Iowa in his 
tireless efforts to get this bill passed, the Inspector General 
Empowerment Act of 2015. I urge all of my colleagues to allow this to 
pass by unanimous consent so we can get this put on the President's 
desk and it can be signed into law as quickly as possible.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, while I am waiting for Senator McCain to 
come to the floor before I speak about the specific unanimous consent 
request I am going to make, I would like to point out, in a very 
general way, that the pursuit of what we are doing, in so many other 
ways, is part of Congress's constitutional responsibility and 
constitutional authority under the checks and balances of government to 
make sure the laws are faithfully executed.
  There are several different tools that are used in that direction. 
They can be individual Senators. Any time an individual Senator wants 
to ask questions of whether the laws are being faithfully executed, 
that Senator can do it, that Member of the House of Representatives can 
do it, through the particular committees of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives, through both letter as well as open hearings about 
certain subjects of whether money being spent by the executive branch 
is according to Congressional intent or whether laws are being carried 
out the way Congress intended.
  That is all part of congressional oversight, but there has also been 
seen a need, over a course of many years, for other ways to make sure 
it is done. One of those was the setting up of the Government 
Accountability Office that has authority, at the request of committees 
and request of individual Members of Congress, to investigate and do 
research on certain problems we have in the executive branch of 
government.
  That predates, by a long time, the passage of the inspectors general 
law that we are dealing with, with this subject I have before the 
Senate now. The inspector general was set up for the purpose of being 
within the executive branch to see that the laws are faithfully 
executed and the money spent according to Congress. I see that Senator 
McCain has come to the floor. I would like to make my opening statement 
on the legislation. I thank Senator McCain for the courtesy he gives me 
to come and listen to my request. Whatever he decides to do with it 
will be his choice, but I want to tell him I appreciate the cooperation 
he has given me on so many different things
  To justify my unanimous consent request, I start out with some of the 
issues that are involved with the legislation, the Inspector General 
Empowerment Act. In 1978, Congress created inspectors general or IGs as 
they are often known, to be the eyes and ears within the executive 
branch.
  These independent watchdogs are designed to keep Congress and the 
public informed about waste, fraud, and abuse in government. They also 
help agency leaders identify problems and inefficiencies they may not 
be aware of. IGs are a very critical part to good governance and to the 
rule of law.
  In order for IGs to do their job, they need independent access to 
information. That is why, when Congress passed the Inspector General 
Act of 1978, we explicitly said IGs should have access to all records 
of the agency they are charged with overseeing.
  However, since 2010, more and more agencies have refused to comply 
with this legal obligation. This obstruction has slowed down far too 
many important investigations, ranging from sexual assault in the Peace 
Corps to the FBI's exercise of anti-terrorism authority under the 
PATRIOT Act.
  Those are just two of the things I have been involved in. Every one 
of the other 99 Senators would probably have to say that in their 
oversight work, somehow the executive branch agencies have not carried 
out the spirit of the 1978 legislation.
  It got worse in July of 2016. The Justice Department's Office of 
Legal Counsel released a memo supporting this obstruction of 
congressional intent. Now, let me put this in a commonsense form that 
surely everybody ought to understand. In 1978, Congress passes the 
inspectors general law. It is voted on by a majority of the Congress. 
It is sent to the President. The President signs it. It has been law 
since that period of time, but we have a situation where 1 bureaucrat 
out of 2 million Federal employees sits and reads something into a 
piece of legislation that was never intended because the legislation 
says the inspector general should be entitled to all records, but the 
Office of Legal Counsel opinion says: Well, maybe not all. It kind of 
depends on the head of the department. There are some exceptions in the 
inspectors general law that ought to be there--those are spelled out--
some of them dealing with national security, some of them dealing with 
the Department of Defense, as just one example.
  So we have this opinion in July of 2016. The memo argued that 
Congress did not mean what it very clearly said; that the IG gets 
access to all records. This is unacceptable. It undermines Congress's 
intent. It undermines the rule of law. It makes a mockery of government 
transparency. The public deserves a robust scrutiny of the Federal 
Government. Every eighth grade civics student understands what checks 
and balances is all about.
  Congressional oversight is one of those checks. Since September 2015, 
a bipartisan group of Senators and I have been working to overturn the 
Justice Department's opinion through S. 579, the Inspector General 
Empowerment Act. Among other things, this bill further clarifies that 
Congress intended IGs to access all agency records, notwithstanding any 
other provision of law, unless--and this is a big unless--other laws 
specifically state that the IGs are not entitled to receive such 
access.
  A lot of those fall into the area of national security and defense. 
The bill has a total of 20 cosponsors, including seven of my Democratic 
colleagues: McCaskill, Carper, Mikulski, Wyden, Baldwin, Manchin and 
Peters. At the Judiciary Committee hearing in August of last year, 
Senator Leahy also agreed that this access problem needs to be fixed by 
legislation because it is ``blocking what was once a free flow of 
information.'' Even the Justice Department witness at that hearing 
disagreed

[[Page 15549]]

with the results of the Office of Legal Counsel opinion and supported 
legislative action to solve the problem.
  As of today, a large majority of Senators, the Las Vegas Review 
Journal--and I say that for the benefit of Senator Reid who at one time 
objected--the New York Times, the Washington Post, good governance 
groups like Project on Government Oversight and Citizens Against 
Government Waste, all support restoring the intent of that act through 
S. 579.
  I want to emphasize that the intent of the act was destroyed by one 
bureaucrat writing a legal opinion that has been a crutch for a lot of 
people who don't want to cooperate with the inspector general.
  Despite strong bipartisan and public support for the bill, we have 
not been able to pass the bill by unanimous consent. We attempted to 
pass the bill by unanimous consent September 2015 and again December 
2015.
  In December, the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence 
Committee raised concerns about the bill. It is perfectly legitimate 
for them to do that. My cosponsors and I worked with our colleagues on 
those committees to address and resolve their concerns. Ultimately, 
Chairman McCain and Chairman Burr lifted their holds, and in December 
2015 the bill cleared the Republican side with no objections. But when 
we tried to pass the bill on the floor by unanimous consent, Senator 
Reid, as I previously said, objected on the Democratic side.
  In the meantime, the House passed its own version of the bill. Since 
then, we have worked closely with the House to resolve minor 
differences between the House and Senate bills. Now it is time to press 
forward and finally pass this critical bill to ensure the effective 
oversight of waste, fraud, and abuse in government--in other words, to 
make very clear that when the act says they are entitled to all 
records, ``all'' means all.
  There is one provision of the bill we had to remove from this version 
at the insistence of Senator Leahy. It relates to testimonial subpoena 
authority for inspectors general.
  First, let me be clear about why the testimonial subpoena authority 
is important to the ability of IGs to conduct effective investigations. 
When employees of the U.S. Government are accused of wrongdoing or 
misconduct, IGs should be able to conduct a full and thorough 
investigation. Unfortunately, employees who may have violated that 
trust are often able to evade the IG's inquiry simply by retiring from 
the government. Testimonial subpoena authority empowers IGs to obtain 
testimony about waste, fraud, and abuse from employees after they leave 
the agency.
  Similarly, the subpoena authority helps IGs investigate entities that 
receive Federal funds. In other words, if you want to know what is 
wrong, follow the money. The subpoena authority enables IGs to require 
testimony from government contractors, subcontractors, grantees, and 
subgrantees. Currently, most IGs can subpoena documents from entities 
outside of their agency, but most cannot subpoena testimony. The 
ability to require witnesses outside the agency to talk to the IG can 
be critical in carrying out an inspector general's statutory duties or 
recovering wasted Federal funds.
  Let me also be clear that when we learned of Senator Leahy's concerns 
with this provision in November 2015, my bipartisan cosponsors and I 
worked in good faith for 12 months to address them. We offered at least 
half a dozen accommodations that would provide meaningful and 
appropriate limitations on the subpoena in question, but Senator Leahy 
continued to demand the removal of that from the bill.
  Despite a year of negotiation, we were unable to reach a resolution, 
so I proposed bringing the provision to the floor for debate. I offered 
Senator Leahy the option of debating on the floor the merits of the 
testimonial subpoena authority so that the Senate could vote on whether 
to keep or remove the provision from the bill, but my colleague 
declined to agree to floor time so that we could have an open debate on 
the issue.
  His continued refusal to debate and vote on the much needed 
testimonial subpoena authority threatens to derail the entire bill, 
which has such substantial bipartisan public support.
  Despite my strong belief that IGs need that subpoena authority, I 
also recognize that the IG bill contains many other critical provisions 
the IG needs to move forward with it, and now is the time to do that. 
We cannot afford to wait any longer for those provisions that empower 
the IG. This bill is still necessary to help IGs and to ensure to the 
American people that there is transparency and accountability within 
the government.
  Before I ask unanimous consent, I wish to say for the benefit of the 
position that I think Senator McCain is going to take that the 
Secretary, under existing law, may block an IG investigation if it is 
necessary to preserve the national security and interests of the United 
States and if the information the IG has requested concerns any one of 
five categories: sensitive operation plans, intelligence matters, 
counterintelligence matters, ongoing criminal investigations, or other 
matters that would constitute a serious threat to national security if 
they were to be disclosed.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 68, S. 579. I further ask that 
the Johnson substitute amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be 
read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the hard work the Senator 
from Iowa and his staff have done. The Senator and I are old friends, 
and I know he is one of the most zealous advocates for government 
oversight and reform in the Senate. I am aware of the many years of 
hard work he has put into this legislation.
  I believe we share the same goal of ensuring that inspectors general 
across the Federal Government have the authorities and support they 
need to do their vital work on behalf of the American people. At the 
same time, I have serious concerns about a few aspects of this 
regulation as written.
  I have been working with the Senator from Iowa. I wish to continue 
working with him.
  To tell you the truth, I say to my friend from Iowa, I don't know why 
we cannot reach agreement. What we are really talking about are a few 
words. For example, this legislation would substitute the words ``under 
the nominal supervision of the head of the establishment involved''--
that takes the place of the wording ``under the general supervision of 
the establishment involved.'' I say to my friend from Iowa, what 
springs to mind is, why would we want to change that wording unless 
there was some intent to do so? Isn't the ``general supervision of the 
establishment involved''--we have to have ``under the nominal 
supervision''? What is this wordsmithing stuff that, frankly, I can 
only assume has some underlying purpose? Why would you want to 
substitute ``under the nominal supervision'' for ``under the general 
supervision'' without some reason? I don't get it. There is no 
explanation for why this change is necessary. It is unclear what 
``nominal supervision'' means. If ``nominal'' means literally ``in name 
only''--that is what ``nominal'' means--then it would remove the IG 
from the supervisory authority of the agency or department head.
  The legislation would impose further restrictions on the ability of 
the Secretary of Defense--which is the area of my responsibility--to 
supervise and support the inspector general of the Department of 
Defense, so it is a reach too far.
  The legislation would also restrict the President from placing an 
inspector general in an involuntary nonduty status, either paid or not 
paid, except as narrowly defined, for cause. This is likely an 
unconstitutional restriction on the authority of the President, who

[[Page 15550]]

has the authority to appoint and to remove his or her own appointees. 
Constitutionally appointed officers serve at the pleasure of the 
President. Constitutionally appointed officers serve at the pleasure of 
the President, some subject to advice and consent of the Senate, some 
not. In other words, us saying what a Member of Congress can do to put 
someone on nonduty status is not the responsibility or the authority of 
the Congress of the United States.
  It would limit the President's authority to place an inspector 
general
in an involuntary, paid or unpaid, nonduty status for more than 14 
days, unless the Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors 
General on Integrity and Efficiency, a well-known organization, submits 
to the President a written recommendation for additional time, which is 
acted upon by the President, and the decision is communicated 
immediately to both Houses of Congress. That is a further restriction 
on Presidential power by a committee of the Council of the Inspectors 
General on Integrity and Efficiency--by the way, an organization whose 
existence I was unaware of.
  The people expect the President to have both control and 
responsibility over employees and officers in the executive branch, 
subject to advice and consent--the constitutional authorities of the 
Senate of the United States. It is clearly outlined in the 
Constitution.
  The people expect the President to have both control and 
responsibility over employees and officers in the executive branch. The 
Founders believed that this design ensured effective government but, 
most importantly, protected our liberty from rogue government agents 
who might accrue vast power but be responsive and responsible to no 
elected, accountable authority. We just saw a dramatic example of that, 
as I know my colleague from Iowa understands, in the Dodd-Frank 
legislation, which created agencies of government that have no 
accountability whatsoever, even to the appropriations process.
  The legislation would also undermine congressional oversight of the 
IGs. For example, with this language, a congressional investigation 
conducted by committees into complaints that the IG has violated 
whistleblower protections could be labeled as ``interfering with the 
independence of the IG'' if the committee is communicating with an 
agency or department as part of that investigation.
  While I appreciate the effort to provide exemptions to the Department 
of Defense from this legislation, that exemption only relates to 
certain subsections and sentences of the overall Inspector General Act. 
Thus, many of these new rules and requirements would apply to the 
Department of Defense. For example, the new ``timely access to 
information'' requirement is included in the legislation, but there is 
no exemption for DOD from that requirement. It is unclear that existing 
exemptions would apply.
  The Senate Armed Services Committee conducts a regular, stringent 
oversight of the Department of Defense, including its inspector 
general. The committee and the Congress pass defense legislation on an 
annual basis, and this will be the 55th year we will do so. I do not 
believe there is any problem at present in the DOD IG that requires the 
solution this legislation would require, and in the event the Senate 
Armed Services Committee uncovers problems in the course of our 
oversight work, we will address those issues in our annual 
authorization legislation.
  Look, I have great affection for my friend from Iowa. It is obvious 
that this issue is important to him. It is obvious he has been working 
on it for years. If I could make a suggestion to my friend from Iowa, 
let's set a time tomorrow to sit down with our staffs, find out what 
the problem is, see if we can get it resolved, and then that will give 
us 24 hours to try to resolve these issues.
  I understand what the Senator from Iowa is seeking and trying to do. 
I support the intent of that legislation. My responsibilities are 
oversight of the Department of Defense, the largest part of our 
government, and I have these concerns about it. I believe we can 
resolve these problems maybe with a face-to-face with our staffs's 
engagement.
  For all those reasons, I regret to tell my friend from Iowa that I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I knew ahead of time that we would have 
this objection. The only difference between this objection this time 
and a year ago is the fact that a year ago we worked out differences 
with other committees of the Congress and had, evidently, 99 Senators 
ready to pass this bill, except for Senator Reid. So it is 
disappointing that when we work out one problem we had a year ago, that 
now we have serious objections, very numerous, as it worked out, 
considering the fact that the committee of jurisdiction--Senator 
Johnson is chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee, passing this bill out unanimously, getting it cleared on 
both sides a year ago, except for Senator Reid, and now all these other 
problems come up.
  It is impossible for me to respond to all the problems that have been 
presented by the Senator from Arizona. Obviously, the legislative 
process does emphasize cooperation between Members when there are 
differences, but I believe that it is probably going to be impossible 
this year for us to work out those differences. So I will be prepared 
to come back next year and pursue this legislation again and see what 
we can do.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could I just say to my friend from Iowa 
that I am willing to maybe have a sit-down sometime in the next 24 
hours to see if we can get this done.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. OK. I will take that under advisement.
  I would simply close with further evidence of the importance of this 
legislation and try to respond to what the Senator from Arizona said 
about its impact on the Defense Department.
  Section 8 of the IG Act already contains an exception that allows the 
Secretary of Defense to prohibit the inspector general from conducting 
an investigation and gathering documents to protect national security. 
The exception is broad. The Secretary may block an IG investigation if 
it is necessary to preserve the national security interests of the 
United States and if the information the IG has requested concerns 
sensitive operation plans, intelligence matters, counterintelligence 
matters, ongoing criminal investigations, and other matters that would 
constitute a serious threat to national security if disclosed.
  In addition, cosponsors and I worked with the Committee on Armed 
Services last year to ensure that the bill makes the Secretary of 
Defense's authority to restrict certain types of sensitive information 
even more clear than it was in the 1978 legislation. After we made 
those changes, Senator McCain, as I have already said, cleared this 
version of the access language last year.
  I guess at this point I am going to yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Tennessee Tragedies

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deepest 
sympathies and offer steadfast support to the countless Tennesseans who 
have experienced tragedy in the recent days.
  It has been a rough few weeks in our great State. Last week, my 
hometown of Chattanooga lost six young children in a tragic schoolbus 
crash. Today, countless East Tennesseans face a long road ahead after 
severe storms and tornadoes ripped through southeast Tennessee, leaving 
tremendous damage and taking the lives of two individuals in Polk 
County.
  Tomorrow morning, I will be in another area of our State that is 
dealing with unimaginable tragedy. As you have likely seen by now, the 
damage

[[Page 15551]]

caused by wildfires in Sevier County, the place where my wife was 
raised, is heartbreaking. While officials continue to assess the full 
extent of the damage, we know that many have suffered tremendous loss. 
As of this morning, officials confirmed that they are still addressing 
the remnants of smoldering wildfires. More than 400 firefighters are 
supporting the effort. The exact number of structures affected remains 
unknown, but local officials are estimating 700 impacted structures and 
more than 17,000 acres burned. More than 200 individuals remain in 
shelters, and just moments ago, we learned that 10 fatalities have been 
confirmed.
  Sevier County is a special place, surrounded by some of the country's 
most beautiful God-given amenities. Millions of people from around the 
world visit each year and have built memories in this treasured 
community. But as the mayor of Gatlinburg noted earlier today, ``it's 
not the attractions or the restaurants that make this place special, 
it's the people'' who live there.
  So many wonderful families call Sevier County home--tough, proud 
people whose roots in the area span generations.
  Those who know the area and these people are not at all surprised by 
the community response. The Nation has watched and read countless 
stories of selfless individuals--many who lost everything themselves--
helping others. We have watched the mayor and city manager of 
Gatlinburg, both of whom lost their own homes, provide steadfast 
strength and grace. We have watched the Sevier County mayor close each 
press conference with a simple request: ``Pray for us.''
  The coming days, weeks, and months will not be easy. The recovery 
will take time. We are committed to doing everything that we all can do 
to help you rebuild. The support does not end when the cameras leave. 
Governor Haslam, Senator Alexander, Congressman Roe, and I are ready to 
support requests for assistance for the recovery efforts. People 
throughout Tennessee and across the Nation will be back to visit very 
soon. Of course, as has been requested, we will continue to pray.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________