[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3277-3301]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the House message to accompany S. 764, which 
the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       House message to accompany S. 764, a bill to reauthorize 
     and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for 
     other purposes.

  Pending:

       McConnell motion to concur in the House amendment to the 
     bill with McConnell (for Roberts) amendment No. 3450 (to the 
     House amendment to the bill), in the nature of a substitute.
       McConnell motion to refer the bill to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:45 
a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to express my disappointment that 
we have not yet been able to come to an agreement on the issue of GMO 
labeling. Senator Roberts and I have a

[[Page 3278]]

long history of friendship and of working together. We have both worked 
very hard to come to an agreement on an extremely difficult and 
emotional issue. I thank him for his continual work, and I am forever 
the optimist that we will get there, even though we are not there yet. 
We have continued to work, and my team and I have continued to work, to 
find common ground, all the way until very late last night. If we at 
this point do not proceed but can have some more time, I believe it is 
possible for us to come together in a bipartisan solution.
  While this debate has been difficult, there are some important areas 
where Senator Roberts and I agree. For instance, Senator Roberts and I 
agree that the science has shown us that biotechnology is safe.
  In fact, leading health organizations like the American Medical 
Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the FDA, and the World 
Health Organization all say there is no evidence that GMOs aren't safe. 
We agree that biotechnology is an important tool for farmers and 
ranchers, particularly as we tackle the challenges of climate change--
which, by the way, science also tells us is real. I believe in science, 
and I would love if we would all come together around the science on 
both of these issues.
  We have to tackle the need to feed a growing, hungry world. We agree 
that a 50-State patchwork of labeling laws is not a workable long-term 
solution. In fact, I don't know any Member on any side of this issue in 
the Senate who doesn't agree with that, that we have to have a national 
approach, not 50 different States. But we also know, as we have 
frequently debated States' rights, the importance of States making 
decisions, that when we preempt States, whether it is on fuel 
efficiency standards for automobiles or whether it is on food labeling, 
the approach has always been to go from 50 different States doing 50 
different things to having a national standard and a national approach. 
As it was with CAFE standards, in which I was very involved, it is 
important that it work from an industry standpoint. I know it can be 
done, and it is our job to get to that point.
  We also recognize, though, that a growing number of American 
consumers want to know more about the food they eat, and they have the 
right to know. They have the right to know what is in their food.
  I was very proud of the fact that we came together on the last farm 
bill to recognize all parts of agriculture. The fastest growing part of 
agriculture is the organic sector. We gave more opportunities to 
support the organic sector, the local food movement.
  People should have choices in deciding what food they eat, how it is 
grown, how it is processed, and that is something we have said in 
national policy that we support through our agricultural policies. 
Unfortunately, the Senate is poised to vote on a bill that I do not 
support, that does not fully answer this demand from consumers. 
Consumers want information about the food they eat, it is as simple as 
that. In fact, the bill continues the status quo on providing 
information to consumers. It lists a number of things, many of which 
are already being done, 1-800 numbers and so on. Look at the back of 
the pack; it lists things, but they are things that are already being 
done--not all but many, enough--and then says: We will keep the status 
quo nationally, but we will preempt the States and citizens around the 
country from taking individual action. I don't support that. That is 
not good enough. It doesn't reflect what we do when we are talking 
about Federal policy. That is one reason I think the approach put 
forward in the bill is the wrong path.
  Unfortunately, we have seen a lot of emotion around this issue on 
both sides--a lot of emotion. Frankly, there is a lot of confusion 
about GMOs and their safety, which is why I think this approach is the 
wrong approach. We should be telling the story, as should farmers, of 
biotechnology and the importance that it plays in our food production 
and in food security. We should not be taking action that further 
appears to stop consumers from getting the information they want and 
feeds into the idea that there is something wrong, that there is a 
reason to hide, because there is not. We should embrace this 
opportunity to share with the public what is in our food, talk about 
it, why we use these crops, why they are deemed safe.
  That is why, during the last several months of negotiations with 
Chairman Roberts, I offered several proposals that would shed light on 
this issue and do it in a way that is eminently workable for those 
involved in the food industry. While those proposals were not 
ultimately accepted, I still believe we need and can achieve a policy 
that creates a uniform national system of disclosure for the use of GMO 
ingredients and do it in a way that has common sense and works for 
everybody. The national disclosure system needs to provide real options 
for disclosing information about GMOs that work for both consumers and 
food companies.
  I believe we must create a system that provides certainty as well to 
our food companies and all of our companies--national, organic, 
traditional companies. Everyone knows that a 50-State system with 50 
different definitions, 50 different laws, and 50 different ways to do 
packaging doesn't work, so we all have a need to come together and to 
fix this. I also believe that a system must work for all companies--
very small companies, medium-sized companies, and large companies as 
well.
  I believe we must not harm the important work being done by our 
organic producers. Again, we made great strides in the farm bill, and 
we need to keep the choices that are in the marketplace now available 
to consumers and not pass something that will infringe on any of the 
choices consumers have.
  I am disappointed that we have not yet been able to come to a clear 
consensus on the issue of GMO labeling. I know this issue is 
contentious. As I said, it is very emotional on all sides. As far as I 
am concerned, it is time for us to come together on a thoughtful, 
commonsense approach that is best for consumers, for farmers, for 
families, and for our country.
  We have the most successful agricultural system, food economy in the 
world. We are the envy of the world. We want to make sure that whatever 
we do, we maintain that position. But part of who we are in America is 
a country that believes in people's right to know information and be 
able to make their own individual choices. I believe there is a way to 
do that, to make sure we continue to have the strongest, most vibrant, 
most successful and robust agricultural economy and food economy in the 
world--we are literally feeding the world--and at the same time be able 
to provide basic information that American consumers are asking to have 
provided.
  I will not be supporting Senator Roberts' amendment. I think this may 
be the first time in the years we have worked together--both with me as 
chair and now with him as chair--that we have not come to the floor 
united. It is not for lack of trying. We have been working very hard, 
and there are differences, but I believe that if we have the 
opportunity to keep working, we will be able to get to that spot where 
we can come together.
  As I urge colleagues to oppose this proposal and moving forward on 
cloture without having an agreement, I also commit to continue working 
to get there because we have to take action to solve this problem and 
it has to be done in a bipartisan way. That is how we get things done, 
and I am committed to continuing to work with our chairman and with 
Members on both sides of the aisle so we can do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this morning to discuss an issue 
that is pretty near and dear to my heart and I think to the hearts of 
many throughout the State of Alaska, and that is--I will call it an 
aberration, an aberration in the fish world. What I am talking about is 
genetically engineered salmon, GE salmon.
  We just heard from the ranking member on the Senate Committee on 
Agriculture. I appreciate the work she has done, along with the Senator 
from

[[Page 3279]]

Kansas, to try to forge a path forward as it relates to GMO, but when 
we are talking about genetically engineered salmon, let me make it very 
clear that we are talking about two very distinct and different issues 
here. This is separate from the larger GMO debate.
  Genetically engineered animals are not crops, and GE salmon is a 
genetically engineered animal. This is something that is entirely new. 
This is a new species. This is a new species that will potentially be 
introduced into our markets, into our homes, and quite possibly, 
contrary to what any environmental analysis claims, enters into our 
ecosystem.
  When we are talking about the GMO, the broader GMO debate here on the 
floor, keep in mind that when I stand up, when the other Senator from 
Alaska stands up, when Alaskans stand up to talk about genetically 
engineered salmon, we are talking about an entirely different issue.
  I get pretty wound up about this issue. I just came from a meeting of 
about 20 young Alaskans from around the State.
  I said: I am sorry, I have to leave because I have to go to the floor 
to speak to this issue that is so important to us in Alaska. Do you all 
know what genetically engineered salmon is?
  They said: Yeah. It is kind of that fake fish.
  It is Frankenfish, is what we call it because it is so unnatural. It 
is so unnatural that it is something that, as Alaskans, we need to 
stand up and defend against.
  I grew up in the State of Alaska. I was born there. I know well that 
escaping from pens occurs in hatcheries, and it can occur in facilities 
where fish are grown. I also well know the immense value of our 
fisheries and the potential for havoc that something like this 
Frankenfish could wreak upon our wild sustainable stocks.
  I am standing here this morning saying that I will not be supporting 
cloture on this bill, as it is an issue which is too important to so 
many and has not yet been adequately addressed. I have attempted to 
work with the chairman and the committee to offer sensible and what we 
believe are reasonable fixes, but there is no solution as of yet.
  I am standing today demanding, asking that the voices of Alaskans, 
who have stood with me in solidarity on this issue, be heard because we 
will not accept that genetically engineered salmon or Frankenfish--
whatever it is you want to call it--we will not accept that it will be 
allowed to be sold without clear labeling because I don't want to make 
any mistakes; I don't want to find that what I have served my family is 
a genetically engineered fish, and I use ``fish'' lightly.
  We talk about Frankenfish and some people kind of snicker nervously, 
but it is not a joke to Alaskans. This new species could pose a serious 
threat to the livelihoods of Alaskan fishermen, and I will stand to 
support the livelihood of Alaskan fishermen. Alaska's fisheries are 
world-renowned for their high quality and for their sustainability. The 
Alaska seafood industry supports more than 63,000 direct jobs and 
contributes over $4.6 billion to the State's economy. Nearly one in 
seven Alaskans is employed in the commercial seafood industry.
  That is how my boys put themselves through college--working in the 
commercial fishing industry. We know about fish. For generations, my 
family has been involved in one way, shape, or form with the fishing 
business.
  Salmon is a major part of Alaska's seafood economy, and commercial 
fishermen around the State harvested more than 265 million salmon this 
past season, including chinook, sockeye, coho, chum, pinks--all wild.
  As we all know, wild salmon is loaded with all of the good things in 
it that God has placed there: tremendous health benefits, lean protein, 
source of omega-3s, B-6, B-12, Niacin--everything good, all in that 
natural wild package.
  More than 1.5 million people wrote to the FDA opposing approval of 
genetically engineered salmon. So you have a groundswell of support 
around the country--this is not just from Alaskans weighing in. People 
are saying: No, we don't think this should be approved.
  The FDA went ahead anyway. Then you have a growing number of grocery 
stores--Safeway, Kroger, Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, and Target--that 
have all announced they are not going to sell this. They are not going 
to sell this genetically engineered species in their stores.
  Yet, despite this immense opposition, in November of last year, the 
FDA approved AquaBounty Technologies' application for its genetically 
engineered AquAdvantage salmon. So for those of you who are not fully 
informed on what this genetically engineered fish is--how it comes 
about--GE salmon start from a transgenic Atlantic salmon egg. This is 
an ocean pout. It is a type of an eel. As you can see, it doesn't look 
anything like a salmon, even if you don't know your salmon very well. 
This is a bottom-dwelling ocean pout eel.
  They take a slice of DNA from this, a slice of DNA from a magnificent 
Chinook salmon, and splice it into an Atlantic salmon egg. That egg is 
meant to produce a fish that will grow to full size twice as fast as a 
normal Atlantic salmon. So this is the push here--to push Mother 
Nature, which creates a perfectly beautiful fabulous salmon, and to 
take a slice of DNA here and a slice of DNA there and put it in an 
Atlantic salmon, which is a farmed fish, and grow it so that it grows 
twice as fast as a normal fish, but growing it in penned condition, 
theoretically, so that there is no way for escape. But are we 
guaranteed that there is no way for escape? I don't know. Show me that.
  But what we have here, I think, is a fair question as to whether or 
not this GE salmon can even be called a salmon. So the FDA signed off 
on this last November. But they made no mandatory labeling requirement. 
Instead, they said: Labels can be voluntary. So, in other words, if you 
want to say that this piece of fish that is in front of you in the 
grocery store is genetically engineered--or not real--you can 
voluntarily put that on your label. Nobody is going to do that. Nobody 
is going to voluntarily say this is genetically engineered.
  So what we have done--what I have done--is to fight to secure a 
mandatory labeling requirement both before approval of AquaBounty's 
application and since its approval. So we have been working hard on 
this issue. We have made some significant headway. But what we are 
dealing with on the floor right now--this legislation--would wipe that 
work clean, instead of using legislative tools at our disposal to 
effectively and precisely amend this legislation in order to address 
the issue of GE salmon.
  So what we did is that we got some language in the Omnibus 
appropriations bill that requires the FDA not to allow the introduction 
of any food that contains GE salmon until it publishes final labeling 
guidelines that inform consumers of that content. So what this did is 
that this kind of forced the FDA to issue an import alert, which 
effectively bans all imports of genetically engineered salmon for 1 
year.
  But it also directs the FDA to spend funds--significant funds--of no 
less than $150,000 to develop labeling guidelines and to implement a 
program to disclose to consumers whether salmon offered for sale to 
consumers is genetically engineered.
  Again, what we want to be able to do is to let consumers know whether 
this fish is genetically engineered or not. So we thought that was a 
pretty clear labeling mandate to the FDA. But the FDA then later came 
back to us and said they felt that there was still clarifying 
legislation that we needed to do. So I have worked with Senator 
Sullivan, my colleague from Alaska, as well as Senators Cantwell, 
Merkley, and Heinrich, and we introduced S. 738, which is the 
Genetically Engineered Salmon Risk Reduction Act.
  We also introduced a separate piece of legislation to respond to the 
FDA's November approval. We introduced S. 2640, the Genetically 
Engineered Salmon Labeling Act. What that bill would do is kind of to 
build on last year's omnibus provisions and would require labeling of 
genetically engineered salmon through language that I received

[[Page 3280]]

through technical assistance working with the FDA on this.
  Additionally, we would mandate a third-party scientific review of the 
FDA's environmental assessment of AquAdvantage salmon and the effects 
that these GE salmon would have on wild stocks and ecosystems, which, 
in my opinion--and I think, in the opinion of many others--were 
insufficiently addressed during the FDA's environmental assessment.
  So we have been working with the FDA on this, to develop this 
language to mandate labeling. The FDA has been cooperative at this 
point working on this issue. That really is a significant step forward.
  But it required me to do something that maybe others are perhaps a 
little more active on--to place a hold on a nominee. I placed a hold on 
the FDA Commissioner, Dr. Robert Califf. This is not something that I 
do lightly. I have not placed a hold on a nominee before. I don't take 
this action lightly. But it was necessary. It was necessary to bring to 
the attention of the FDA the significance of this issue and the 
seriousness of what we were dealing with.
  So we got FDA to the table. We have been working with them. They have 
been listening. They have been helpful. We are so close to resolving 
this. Now we are on the floor with GMO legislation. Again, as I said at 
the outset, GMO is different than what we are dealing with in this 
genetically engineered species, a new species designed for human 
consumption here.
  My concern is that with the GMO bill before us now, it really does 
threaten the good progress we have made at this point in time. It is 
not just the progress that the Alaska delegation made but really the 
work of so many Alaskans, the bipartisan hard-working efforts of so 
many around the country who share the same concerns.
  I think we have offered some pretty sensible solutions. I will 
continue to offer them. I will continue my efforts to work with the 
chairman, for whom I have great respect. Know that, while it is not 
opposition to the overall bill or its underpinnings, where my concern 
remains is mistakenly allowing genetically engineered salmon into our 
homes, mislabeled as salmon.
  This is something that we will continue to raise awareness on and 
raise the issue until we have finally and fully resolved it.


                         Iditarod Sled Dog Race

  Mr. President, if I still have a few minutes more this morning, I 
would like to switch topics and speak about the last great race--the 
last great race in Alaska and really around the world, which is the 
Iditarod sled dog race, a 1,049-mile race from south central Alaska to 
Nome, AK, where man-and-dog teams are up against Mother Nature, 
improbably one of the most incredible human and animal endeavors that 
are out there.
  Yesterday, we saw the conclusion. We greeted the front runner to the 
44th Iditarod sled dog race. So for 44 years now, it is an amazing race 
from Willow to Nome. Again, when you think about man and dog out on the 
ice, out in the raw wilderness for 1,000 miles, this race has been 
described as the equivalent of an attempt at Mount Everest.
  When you think about all that is Alaska and the open spaces, the 
independent people, and just man against nature or woman against 
nature, it is really the Iditarod that epitomizes so much of it. It 
demands not only the most out of our athletes but mental conditioning 
as well. It requires exceptional endurance, courage, and sound judgment 
as you navigate these amazing places. But it is not just the men or 
women who are the physical athletes. It is not just their judgment that 
guides this race. It is that of the teams--the dogs themselves.
  When you think about the amazing teamwork that goes on between a 
musher and his or her animals--the communication and the will to go 
1,000-plus miles in extraordinary conditions--it really is something 
that just stirs the greatest imagination. We have had Iditarods where 
teams have literally buried into the wind coming at them at 50 miles an 
hour and 30 below, in the dark, attacked by moose on the trail, losing 
the trail, with accidents, disasters.
  I was going to say it is like a reality TV show. Only it is not a 
reality TV show. It is what Alaskans and many around the world engage 
in. The mushers themselves are remarkable. I could stand here on the 
floor and talk all morning about them, but I won't.
  I will highlight just a few of them. DeeDee Jonrowe, is a longtime 
friend of mine. She ran her 34th Iditarod this year--talk about bravery 
and perseverance. This is a woman who the year before last lost her 
father. This summer she and her husband lost everything they owned in a 
wildfire out in Willow, AK. The only thing that was saved were her 
dogs.
  But she lost her sleds, her harnesses, her home, her everything. 
Then, just shortly after, she lost her mother. Her comment to me was 
this: I am going to go back on the trail so that I can just focus. That 
is one tough woman.
  Brent Sass is a guy who captured the lead for much of the race. He is 
one of these guys who came to Alaska to be a homesteader, a wilderness 
guy. He was champion of the Yukon Quest. He rescued mushers along the 
way--an amazing guy. He was actually in front position last year and 
was disqualified because he had an iPod and was listening to music.
  Along the trail, there are no electronic devices. There are pretty 
tough rules in the Iditarod. Can you imagine being out on a 1,000-mile 
trail with nobody else, and no device, no electronics for you?
  Jeff King is an amazing guy, whose grit and determination has been at 
the forefront of this race and so many others--a multiple winner. But 
he was involved with a horribly tragic accident when a snow machiner, a 
drunk individual, literally attacked his team, killed one of his dogs 
and injured a couple of others.
  It was extraordinarily difficult to handle that challenge--the 
emotion of losing a dog but also just the real tragedy and calamity of 
an accident like that. Jeff has finished the race in the top 10, which 
is remarkable.
  Another remarkable feat, though, is Aly Zirkle, who finished third, 
and was also subject to an extreme scare by this same snow machiner--a 
horribly tragic side to this year's Iditarod. But there was the fact 
that Aly, one tough lady, came in third and persevered all the way, 
just getting her head into the game.
  There are so many stories about these amazing men and women, but the 
winner of this year's Iditarod is a young man named Dallas Seavey, 29 
years old. He crossed the finish line into Nome at 9:30 p.m. last 
night. Dallas finished in 8 days 11 hours 20 minutes 16 seconds. This 
is his fourth overall win, and his third consecutive win. He is only 
one victory away from matching the ``king'' of the Iditarod, five-time 
champion Rick Swenson.
  Guess who was No. 2 in the Iditarod, trailing Dallas by about 45 
minutes. It was his dad. Father and son finished No. 1 and No. 2 in the 
Iditarod. What other sport can you think of where you have a father and 
son competing against one another and coming in first and second? You 
have to go back a ways to come up with an answer to that. It was 
absolutely an amazing story and Alaskans watched it play out.
  I had an opportunity to visit with the father of Mitch Seavey and the 
grandfather of Dallas Seavey. I asked: Dan, who do you predict is going 
to win the Iditarod this year? His response was: I don't care as long 
as it is a Seavey. He was right and certainly got his wish. Alaskans 
are proud of the men and women who take on these extraordinary 
challenges, capture the attention and the fascination of the world with 
their feats of physical and mental endurance. The men and women of the 
44th Iditarod race are to be commended and congratulated.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to express my opposition 
to the legislation introduced by Senator Roberts to preempt State 
labeling laws for genetically modified organisms, also known as GMOs.
  The Mellman Group released a poll last year that found that 89 
percent of

[[Page 3281]]

Americans support mandatory labeling of GMOs. The calls and letters I 
receive from California constituents confirm widespread support for 
this policy. Since 2015, I have received more than 90,000 letters and 
emails from constituents who want a mandatory labeling standard. Since 
the beginning of this year, my office has received nearly 2,000 calls 
in favor of mandatory labeling.
  Clearly, the public wants their food to be labeled in a consistent 
and transparent manner. However, Senator Roberts' proposal would 
preempt voter-passed mandatory GMO labeling laws in Connecticut, Maine, 
and Vermont. Overriding these State laws would be a step backward for 
consumer knowledge.
  I recognize that the food industry cannot comply with 50 different 
State labeling laws. That is why I have cosponsored legislation 
introduced by Senator Jeff Merkley to create a consistent, transparent 
Federal standard on how to label foods that contain GMO ingredients. 
This legislation would require food producers to add a statement or 
symbol after the ingredient list to state that the product contains GMO 
ingredients. Companies would be given four options to meet the 
requirement.
  In contrast, Senator Roberts' bill makes it more difficult for 
consumers to find out what is in their food. It requires the Department 
of Agriculture to create new, voluntary labeling guidance, despite the 
fact that the Food and Drug Administration already created voluntary 
guidance.
  Furthermore, Senator Roberts' bill allows a confusing array of 
options for disclosure beyond labeling. This includes 1-800 numbers, 
Web sites, smartphone applications, and social media posts.
  In my view, the only fair and consistent way to label food is on the 
package in a clear, straightforward, and consistent manner. Consumers 
do not have time to scan barcodes on food packages or to call 1-800 
numbers. Consumers want the information they need to make the best 
choices for them and their families readily available on packaging. And 
I believe they deserve to have that information.
  I want to make it clear that I recognize that the Federal Government 
and scientists agree that GMO products are safe. I also realize that 
California farmers may need to rely on genetic engineering to address 
challenges such as climate change and disease. But I do not understand 
why industry is so opposed to informing consumers of how their food was 
produced. The industry says it should only be required to label foods 
when there is a human health reason to do so.
  However, the Federal Government has always had labeling requirements 
for food that aren't due to a human health reason. These requirements 
exist because they allow consumers to make informed choices in the 
marketplace. For example, the Federal Government requires juice that 
was made from concentrate to be labeled ``made from concentrate.'' The 
Federal Government requires foods processed with irradiation to be 
labeled as such. The Federal Government has a specific labeling 
requirement for what constitutes ground beef based on what parts of a 
cow is used, the fat content, and how it is processed.
  During this election season, many Americans have expressed a view 
that Washington is out of touch with the rest of the country. So I want 
to ask, does Washington really want to overrule consumers who want GMO 
labeling? Does Congress know better than the majority of American 
consumers?
  In my view, we should trust consumers and make sure they have the 
information they want on the food they buy. As such, I urge my 
colleagues to oppose Senator Roberts' preemption legislation. Instead, 
I ask my colleagues to engage in a meaningful discussion for how we can 
create a mandatory standard that is flexible for industry but gives 
consumers the information they want.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I wish to start off my remarks with 
regard to the bill that is before us. There is an article from The Hill 
newspaper, and it is quoting Julie Borlaug, who is the granddaughter of 
Norman Borlaug, a University of Minnesota graduate who helped to spark 
the green revolution in agriculture technology that is credited with 
saving more than 1 billion people from dying of hunger.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from The Hill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From The Hill, Mar. 16, 2016]

Safe, Proven Biotechnology Deserves Non-Stigmatizing National Labeling 
                                Standard

                           (By Julie Borlaug)

       Global hunger is one of the most pressing challenges of the 
     21st century and the problem will only get worse if the U.S. 
     Senate fails to take action and prevent a costly state-by-
     state patchwork of labeling mandates for food containing 
     genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
       In a Senate Agriculture Committee mark-up last week, Sen. 
     Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) correctly noted that ``science is an 
     essential piece of the puzzle in addressing food 
     insecurity.'' The senator also praised the legacy of my 
     grandfather, Dr. Norman Borlaug, a University of Minnesota 
     graduate who helped spark the green revolution in 
     agricultural technology that is credited with saving more 
     than 1 billion people from dying of hunger.
       I am glad to see my grandfather's work praised. And, as an 
     associate director for the Borlaug Institute for 
     International Agriculture, I want to see his work, and the 
     work of his fellow agricultural scientists, protected. That 
     means ensuring that innovations in agricultural biotechnology 
     aren't sent to the dustbin of history, leaving future 
     generations asking why good solutions were abandoned.
       It really comes down to a simple label. In July, Vermont is 
     set to become the first state to begin enforcing a GMO 
     labeling mandate. The impacts will be felt on store shelves 
     and in science labs around this country. Make no mistake--
     these state labeling efforts are not about a so-called `right 
     to know' but are about enabling activists to drive GMOs out 
     of the marketplace. Leaders in the labeling movement 
     acknowledge this, with one saying ``If we have it labeled, 
     then we can organize people not to buy it.''
       These dangerous efforts undermine the critical importance 
     of biotechnology and the role it plays in feeding the world. 
     With the help of modern science and GMOs, farmers now have 
     the ability to produce crops that better withstand droughts 
     and require fewer pesticides. They can adapt genetic codes to 
     acclimate to new environments, and ensure that crops grow 
     well despite inhospitable climates.
       You cannot be anti-hunger and be anti-GMO. GMOs not only 
     make farming more sustainable, they directly impact national 
     and global food security at a time when warming temperatures 
     and rising populations mean that those living in poverty will 
     face increasingly unstable supplies of food.
       The safety of GMOs is as clear as their benefits. Every 
     major scientific organization that has examined this issue 
     has concluded that they are safe as any other food. Those 
     denying their safety are denying the science.
       By allowing state-mandated on package labeling of GMO 
     foods, Congress would be turning its back on decades of 
     advancements in biotechnology and allowing a small group of 
     activists to deny millions of people the tools that will 
     prevent starvation and death. We cannot allow that to happen.
       Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) 
     has put forward a bipartisan proposal that would establish 
     national standards for food made with genetically-engineered 
     ingredients. The Biotech Labeling Solutions Act would prevent 
     a costly state-by-state patchwork of labeling mandates. It 
     would also help ensure that providing greater information 
     could go hand-in-hand with providing greater education at a 
     national level about the safety and importance of GMO crops. 
     The Senate Agriculture Committee supported moving his bill to 
     the full Senate by a 14-6 bipartisan vote.
       Now, we need senators of both parties to come together to 
     support this common-sense approach.
       Sixteen years ago, my grandfather wrote that the world 
     would soon have the agricultural technologies available to 
     feed the 8.3 billion people anticipated in the next quarter 
     of a century. The more pertinent question is whether farmers 
     and ranchers will be permitted to use these technologies.
       The members of the Senate will decide that very question in 
     their votes on the Biotech Labeling Solutions Act. For the 
     sake of science and the world, the answer needs to be yes.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Quoting from the article, Ms. Borlaug said:

       I am glad to see my grandfather's work praised. . . . 
     Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts . . . has 
     put forward a bipartisan proposal that would establish 
     national standards for food made with genetically-engineered 
     ingredients. The Biotech

[[Page 3282]]

     Labeling Solutions Act would prevent a costly state-by-state 
     patchwork of labeling mandates. It would also help ensure 
     that providing greater information could go hand-in-hand with 
     providing greater education at a national level about the 
     safety and importance of GMO crops. . . . Sixteen years ago, 
     my grandfather wrote that the world would soon have the 
     agriculture technologies available to feed the 8.3 billion 
     people anticipated in the next quarter of a century. The more 
     pertinent question is whether farmers and ranchers will be 
     permitted to use these technologies.

  I rise again to discuss my amendment numbered 3450 on biotechnology 
labeling solutions. There has been a lot of discussion about this 
amendment and this topic in general. That is a good thing. We should be 
talking about our food, we should be talking about our farmers and 
producers, and we should be talking about our consumers as well. It is 
important--extremely important--to have an honest discussion and an 
open exchange with dialogue. After all, that is what we do in the 
Senate or at least that is what we are supposed to do. We are here to 
discuss difficult issues, craft compromised solutions, and finally vote 
in the best interest of our constituents. That is what we are doing 
here today: exercising our responsibility to cast a vote for what is in 
the best interest of those who sent us here.
  Let's start with discussing difficult issues. The basic issue at hand 
is agriculture biotechnology labeling. If you have heard any of my 
previous remarks, you have heard me say time and time and time again 
that biotechnology products are safe, but you don't have to take my 
word for it. The Agriculture Committee held a hearing late last year 
where all three agencies in charge of reviewing biotechnology testified 
before our members. Over and over again the EPA, the FDA, and the USDA 
told us that these products are safe--safe for the environment, safe 
for other plants, and safe for our food supply. This is the gold 
standard on what is safe with regard to agriculture biotechnology. Not 
only are these products safe, but they also provide benefits to the 
entire value chain from producer to consumer. Through biotechnology, 
our farmers are able to grow more on less land using less water, less 
fuel, and less fertilizer, but the difficult issue we are debating 
today is about more than recognizing the fact that biotechnology is 
safe. No, today our decision is about whether to prevent a wrecking 
ball from hitting our entire food supply chain. The difficult issue for 
us to address is what to do about the patchwork of biotechnology 
labeling laws that will soon wreak havoc on the flow of interstate 
commerce, agriculture, and food products in every supermarket and every 
grocery store up and down Main Street of every community in America. 
That is what this is about. It is not about safety, it is not about 
health, and it is not about nutrition. It is all about marketing.
  What we face today is a handful of States that have chosen to enact 
labeling requirements on information that has nothing to do with 
health, safety, or nutrition. Unfortunately, the impact of these 
decisions will be felt all across the country. Those decisions impact 
the farmers in the fields who would be pressured to grow less efficient 
crops so manufacturers could avoid these demonizing labels. Those 
labeling laws will impact distributors who have to spend more money to 
sort different labels for different States. Those labeling laws will 
ultimately impact consumers who will suffer from higher priced food. It 
will cost $1,050 per year for an average family of four. That is right. 
If we do nothing, it is not manufacturers that will pay the ultimate 
price, it is the consumer.
  A study released this year found that changes in the production or 
labeling of most of the Nation's food supply for a single State would 
impact citizens in each of our home States. The total annual increased 
cost of doing nothing today, such as not voting for cloture, could be 
as much as $82 billion every year. That is a pretty costly cloture 
vote. That is 1,050 bucks tacked onto each family's grocery bill, and 
that is a direct hit to their pocketbooks. Let me repeat that. If we 
fail to act today--if we do not have cloture and get to this compromise 
bill--the cost to consumers would total as much as $82 billion a year 
or 1,050 bucks for hard-working American families. I don't think that 
is what my colleagues want. I don't think they want to be responsible 
for that: a cloture vote with an $82 billion price tag? Come on.
  This is the difficult issue we must address and the question is, How 
do we fix it? That is why we have crafted a compromise solution and put 
it on the floor for debate and action. The amendment before us today 
stops this wrecking ball before any more damage can be done.
  Two weeks ago, the Agriculture Committee passed a bill with a 
bipartisan vote of 14 to 6. I am very proud of that legislation. It 
stopped the State-by-State patchwork and provided a national voluntary 
standard for biotechnology food products. For the first time, the 
Federal Government would set a science-based standard allowing 
consumers to demand the marketplace provide more information. Consumers 
are growing more and more interested in their food, and that is a good 
thing. We, as consumers, should learn more about where our food comes 
from and what it takes to keep our food supply the safest, the most 
abundant, and the most affordable in the world. However, the role of 
government in this space is to ensure that information regarding 
safety, health, and nutritional value are expressed directly to 
consumers, but the information in question today has nothing to do with 
safety or health or nutrition, so the responsibility and opportunity to 
inform the consumers falls on the marketplace. If consumers want more 
information, they demand it by voting with their pocketbooks in the 
aisles of the grocery store.
  As our bipartisan bill has come to the floor, I have heard concerns 
that this voluntary standard is not enough for our consumers. Yet again 
we worked with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The 
legislation before us goes further than the committee-passed bill. This 
legislation addresses concerns with a voluntary-only approach by 
providing an incentive for the marketplace to provide consumers with 
more information.
  To my friends on this side of the aisle, this legislation allows the 
market to work. To my friends on that side of the aisle, if the 
marketplace does not live up to their commitments, if information is 
not made available to consumers, then this legislation holds the 
markets accountable by instituting a mandatory standard. It is not just 
any mandatory standard, it is a standard that provides the same options 
and mechanisms for compliance as outlined and stated publicly by our 
Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack.
  Simply put, the legislation before us provides us an immediate and 
comprehensive solution to the unworkable State-by-State patchwork 
labeling laws. As chairman of the sometimes powerful Senate Agriculture 
Committee, I believe this is a true compromise. Like any bill, it is 
not perfect, and I know that, but to those who criticize this 
legislation in one breath and say they want a compromise in the next 
breath, I ask: Where is your plan? Where is your solution? We have 
heard the distinguished Senator from Oregon many times on this floor--
not a stranger to this floor--criticizing this compromise. I 
appreciate, and I am sure we all appreciate, his passion. I disagree 
with his views, but I appreciate that he did put his plan into a bill 
and put it out for public debate. What I don't understand is why he 
doesn't want to vote on it. Why would you put a bill out there and 
decide not to vote on it? Why would you not vote for cloture so you can 
get to a vote on your bill? We could have voted on his legislation 
today. Yet when he was presented with the option to take a vote, he 
declined. I have read the press release where he described the 
compromise as maintaining the status quo.
  If the truth be known, this compromise achieves just the opposite. In 
fact, voting no today is the only way that maintains the status quo. 
Voting no today does nothing to stop the wrecking ball. Voting no today 
ensures that the instability in the marketplace

[[Page 3283]]

continues. Voting no today puts farmers and all of agriculture at risk. 
Voting no today negatively impacts the daily lives of everybody in the 
food chain from the farmer who will be forced to plant fence row to 
fence row of a crop that is less efficient to the grain elevator that 
will have to adjust storage options to separate the types of grain, to 
the manufacturer that will need different labels for different States, 
to the distributor that will need expanded storage for sorting, and to 
the retailer who may be unable to afford offering low-cost, private-
label products, and, finally, to the consumer who will be forced to pay 
for all this additional cost to the tune of $82 billion.
  Now we come to our final task as elected officials of this body 
taking a vote. But before we do, we should all know that never before--
never before in my experience as chairman of the House Agriculture 
Committee and chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee and all the 
years I have had the privilege to serve on both committees--we have 
never seen a bill in the Agricultural Committee with so much support, 
never. Over 800 organizations all across the food and agriculture 
perspective have a stake in this bill. It is at the national and State 
and local levels. They all support the bill. The bill has the support 
of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the 
American Farm Bureau, and many, many more.
  Virtually every farm group is in town. I just talked to the American 
Soybean Association this past week. One farmer said: Hey, if I cannot 
have agriculture biological crops with regard to increasing the yield 
that I plant, what am I going to do? Am I going to plant fence row to 
fence row? Am I going to lose in this situation when farming income is 
declining and farm credit is getting tighter?
  The fundamental role of the Agriculture Committee is to protect 
American farmers and ranchers who provide a safe, abundant, and 
affordable food supply to a very troubled and hungry world. So I will 
be voting yes to do just that, and I encourage my colleagues to do the 
same. Voting no today means telling your constituents next week that 
you are raising their grocery bill by over $1,000. Good luck with that.
  It is a pretty simple vote. You are either for agriculture or you are 
not.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, later this morning we continue to work 
on whether to consider a food labeling bill here in the Senate. As a 
dad, I know this bill is about much more than just words or symbols or 
a label. It is about the confidence we have in the food we eat and the 
food we feed our children. As a Hoosier, I also know this bill is about 
preserving confidence in a long and proud Indiana tradition of growing 
the food that feeds our communities and provides a safe and reliable 
food supply for the world. Whether you are a parent or a farmer, a 
Republican or a Democrat, our objectives in this debate should be the 
same: to provide consumers with access to accurate information about 
the food we eat and to do so in a way that does not mislead consumers 
into falsely thinking their food is unsafe.
  I believe strongly that consumers, our families, our kids, moms and 
dads, brothers and sisters deserve to feel confident in the food we 
feed our families. I want to know how much sugar is in my ice cream and 
how many calories are in that roast beef sandwich that I love so much. 
It is clear from this debate that many Americans want to know even more 
about where and how our food is produced. I believe we should have that 
information, and it should be easy to find.
  It is also common sense. This information should be delivered in a 
way that is fair, that is objective, and that is based in sound 
science. I have heard from many Hoosier farmers who are very concerned 
that some labels or symbols on packages would amount, in consumers' 
minds, to warning labels and could send a misleading message that the 
safe and healthy products our farmers grow--think of sweet corn in our 
fields--are somehow unhealthy or even dangerous.
  This morning, my good friend, Senator Tom Carper from Delaware, and I 
filed an amendment that builds off the framework of the proposal before 
us today. A framework I first suggested in the Agriculture Committee 
markup of this very bill. It creates a national voluntary bioengineered 
food labeling standard. It stipulates that if food companies fail to 
make sufficient information available, then a national food labeling 
standard for bioengineering becomes mandatory.
  Our amendment works for farmers, it works for manufacturers, and it 
works for our families. It establishes ambitious goals for the 
availability of information related to bioengineering by requiring that 
after 3 years, 80 percent of the food products covered by the 
legislation would provide direct access to information. If the food 
industry does not meet this threshold, then the labeling requirement 
becomes mandatory.
  Our amendment also requires clear and direct access to information on 
bioengineering. This could include explicit disclosures, such as 
organic or GMO-free, or voluntarily disclosing bioengineering on the 
box. Or companies choosing to participate in the voluntary program 
could use various electronic methods of disclosure, such as a Web site 
or a QR code in conjunction with a phone number that clearly indicates 
to consumers--to our families--where they can find more information and 
provides direct access to that information. This is important because 
our shared goal is to provide direct access to information about the 
contents of our food to everyone, whether you have access to the 
Internet or a smartphone or a regular phone. So let me repeat: Our 
amendment allows for electronic disclosure to be used only in 
conjunction with a phone number, and both methods would have to provide 
direct access to information on the product's contents.
  Finally, our amendment preserves State consumer protection laws and 
remedies. States write laws to protect our citizens from mislabeled 
products and to provide for remedies in case of false or misleading 
statements. Our amendment preserves those laws.
  Consumers, our families, farmers, and food producers are looking to 
the Senate for leadership. After months of discussion, we have been 
unable to agree yet on a proposal that gives consumers the information 
they want in a responsible way, but the issue remains. This will be 
another week of uncertainty for producers, for manufacturers, for our 
families who do not have the information they want, and for the 
producers and manufacturers I mentioned who don't know what is 
expected.
  I am going to continue to work on this issue with Senator Roberts and 
Senator Stabenow. I strongly encourage all my colleagues to consider 
the ideas that Senator Carper and I have put forward and to try to work 
with us to find a solution that works for America.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I am rising to speak to this issue from a simple American citizen 
point of view. The American citizen wants the right to know what is in 
their food. They want to know how many calories; they want to know what 
the minerals and the vitamins are and what the ingredients are. It is a 
simple standard because it is important to an individual to know what 
you are putting in your mouth, what you are putting on the table for 
your families and your children.
  This is a principle that we have honored time and again on our 
packages. We proceeded to put on our packages whether fish is farm 
raised or wild caught because citizens wanted to know. It makes a 
difference to them. It is their choice. It is their judgment. We put on 
our packages whether juice is from concentrate or is fresh because 
citizens wanted to know. It is important to them. It is their right to 
know.
  We put the list of ingredients on the package in a simple format, not 
so that

[[Page 3284]]

someone can spend an hour trying to research what is in it. No, we have 
a simple 1-second test. You pick up the food off the counter, you turn 
it over, you look at the list of ingredients and you say, this has the 
vitamin C I wanted; this has the calories I wanted--the 1-second test.
  That is what is at stake because the bill that is before us right now 
kills the 1-second test. It kills immediate access to information for 
consumers. It says we are going to eviscerate States' rights to respond 
to this desire of citizens to know what is in their food. This is a 
desire that stretches all across the United States, all genders, all 
ages, all parties. In fact, 9 out of 10 Americans say they want this 
simple information on the package to meet this 1-second test just like 
calories.
  Now here we are in this deeply divided Nation, this Nation in which 
we see in this Presidential campaign extremes to the left and the right 
and everything in between, and we wonder what is happening. Isn't there 
anything we can agree on?
  Well, the fascinating thing is that here is something we can agree 
on: 80-plus percent in every category--Republicans, Democrats, 
Independents--almost all of them near the 9-out-of-10 factor, women 
over 80 percent, men over 80 percent, young over 80 percent, old over 
80 percent. In other words, all of those are between 80 and 90 percent 
no matter who you are, where you are, what your gender is, or how old 
you are. Nine out of ten Americans want to know what is in their food, 
and they want it easily accessible on the package.
  My colleague talked about direct access to information. In this case, 
``direct access'' is somewhat of a term subject to interpretation 
because to the consumer, direct access is the 1-second test. I pick up 
the package, I flip it over, 390 calories, thank you very much. Done. 
But the term today is being used for indirect access.
  Let's look at these different hall-of-mirrors proposals that are 
being put forward. OK. Sham No. 1 is the 800 number, an 800 number on 
the package. What is the purpose of that 800 number? The package 
doesn't say. There are 800 numbers on all kinds of packages. You call 
up the company and complain because there is contamination in your 
frozen peas. What is the purpose of it? Is it so you can call the 
company and ask about new products coming out? Without any information 
around it, it is just a number. And citizens don't just go to a product 
and call a number. Why? Because they are busy. They are going down the 
grocery store aisle. They have a supermarket cart. They have a child in 
there. They want the 1-second test. They don't want to be told they 
have to call a call center and get in a phone tree and press a bunch of 
buttons, and then a message comes on and says: I am sorry, due to high 
call volume, we will get to you in maybe 20 minutes, but stay on the 
line and we will play sweet music for you. And maybe--if you stay on 
the line long enough--maybe it is not 20 minutes; maybe it is an hour. 
You get someone in a call center overseas who is saying things in an 
accent you can't understand. Citizens hate that. And they hate pretend, 
false solutions. This does not mean direct access to information. This 
is direct: It is in my hand, 1 second. I see it. That is direct.
  Now there is another idea. It is called a QR code, or quick response 
code--quick response, computer code. Why is this on the package? No 
explanation. So is putting something with no explanation on a package 
helpful to consumers? No. Is it there so you can scan it when you check 
out to see what the price is? Is it there to find out about new 
products that are coming out from this company? Is it there because you 
might possibly find out information about discounts? You have no idea. 
There is no explanation. And when you use that code, you give up 
personal information. So you have to have a phone. You have to have a 
smartphone. You have to have a data plan. You have to give up your 
privacy. And there is no explanation why you would even bother to go to 
it. That is completely misleading. That is why I call it the hall of 
mirrors. It is like you are at a circus. We have an 800 number, we have 
a QR code, no real information, no direct access to information.
  Let's be honest with the American public. Nine out of ten Americans 
want this information presented in a simple format. A nationwide poll 
that was done in November did a followup question: Would you prefer for 
it to be simply stated on the package or have a QR code? Again, 9 out 
of 10 said they wanted a direct statement on the package.
  Look how much room this takes up. Isn't it a lot simpler just to put 
a little symbol on there? That is all people want. They are not asking 
for anything that takes up room or costs anything, just like it doesn't 
cost anything to put another ingredient on your package if you add it 
to your ingredient list. Labels are changed all the time.
  I met with industry, and they said: Here are our top three 
priorities.
  Priority No. 1 is, we want a single national standard so we don't 
have conflicting State standards.
  OK. That is understandable. We are on the verge of having that. In 
July we would have one State with a standard. There is nothing on the 
horizon for two States. There are several States that have said: If a 
whole bunch of States sign up, we will do something collectively. But 
certainly we are not at risk in the months ahead of more than one State 
standard, so there is no emergency here. But I agree with the 
underlying principle that, indeed, when it comes to labels, a warehouse 
shouldn't have to worry about whether it is shipping product to one 
subdivision of the State or another subdivision of the State or one 
State versus another State. So one standard is reasonable.
  The second thing they said is, we don't want anything on the front of 
the package because that might imply there is something wrong with the 
food.
  OK. Fair enough.
  The third thing they said is, we don't want anything pejorative.
  Fair enough. Have the FDA select a symbol to put on the package.
  We could solve this whole debate immediately for those who want to 
put on a QR code and just say: Scan this code for GE ingredients in 
this product. OK. Now the consumer gets the 1-second test. They look at 
it and see there are GE ingredients, and that is all they want to know. 
They don't want to scan it and give up their privacy, and they don't 
want to have to go to the Web site and look up the product, where 
information would probably be misleading anyway. So that is fair 
enough.
  Now, there is a third idea that has been put forward, a third thing 
that is supposed to count as answering customer inquiries, and that is 
in this bill--to put information on social media. This triples the size 
of the house of mirrors. A consumer goes to look at the product to see 
if it has a code. No. Does it have an 800 number? No. Oh, there is this 
social media thing. Well, we all know there are over 100 companies 
doing different types of social media. We know the famous ones. We know 
Facebook and Instagram and Twitter. So where on their social media did 
this company put that information? Well, now you really have to be a 
detective. You could spend hundreds of hours trying to figure out the 
answer to that.
  So the 800 number is phony, the QR code is a scam, and this whole 
social media thing is a sham.
  All citizens want is for us to be honest with them about the 
ingredients. That is all they are asking for. It is not very much. 
Scientific studies point to the benefits of some genetic engineering, 
and they point to problems that have arisen from some genetic 
engineering. It should be up to the citizen. The citizen has the right 
to know.
  In this age where we are so divided, we have one thing in common, and 
that is that 90 percent of our citizens--whether from the Presiding 
Officer's State or any of the States represented by Senators in this 
distinguished Hall, 90 percent of the citizens want a simple indication 
on the package. So why today are so many Senators coming to this floor 
saying they don't care about what their citizens feel? They don't care 
about their citizens' rights, and they don't care about States' rights.
  I have heard so many colleagues who are planning to vote for this 
sham and

[[Page 3285]]

scam today come to this floor and talk about the beauty of States as a 
laboratory for ideas. Well, now, here is Vermont. Vermont has said: We 
will step up. We will be the laboratory. We will be the first standard 
and experiment in putting simple information on the package.
  Before we make any decision, the rest of the Nation gets the 
advantage to observe that State laboratory and then to say: Is it 
working or is it not working? Are there problems being created? How can 
it be improved? Do we want this as a model for the Nation for a single 
standard, or do we say that we absolutely don't want it as a model for 
the Nation?
  Well, many of my colleagues here plan to crush the State laboratory. 
They have given fancy speeches about States' rights, but they are 
coming down today to vote to crush States' rights to respond to a 
fundamental concern of their citizens.
  I must say I like the idea of the State laboratory and to see what 
one State does, but I also understand the underlying concern that in 
short order there might be multiple States and conflicting standards, 
and that is not a functioning situation for interstate commerce.
  So if we take away the right for a State to give the 1-second test 
for direct information--1 second--turn over the package; there are 880 
calories. That is the test. Turn over the package. GE ingredients are 
present. Thank you. That is the 1-second test. If we are going to crush 
the ability of a State to respond to a fundamental concern of its 
citizens, then we need to provide the same basic provision not in a 
scary fashion and not in a fashion that takes up space on the package, 
not on the front of the package; one standard for the entire United 
States, but it has to meet that test. That is all. It is a simple, fair 
exchange.
  So today I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture because this 
bill is among the worst bills I have ever seen on the floor of the 
Senate. It is without good justification, without resolving the issue 
at hand, crushing States' rights, taking away citizens' right to know, 
and putting out three phony scam, sham alternatives. That is a very sad 
state of affairs.
  Another sad state of affairs is that this bill is on this floor 
having not gone through committee. We have heard a lot of pontificating 
about good process in the Senate and how we were going to have good 
process, but here is a bill written entirely outside the halls of the 
committee, never considered in the committee, and here it is on the 
floor. Such an important issue would merit substantial debate. Such an 
important issue would merit a full and free amendment process.
  But two things happened immediately after this bill was introduced. 
The first is that the majority leader immediately filed cloture; that 
is, to close debate. So before one word--not one word had been said on 
this bill because no one was able to speak between the bill being put 
on the floor and cloture. Oh, hey, I just filed the bill, and I am 
closing debate. That is not a fair and open process. Then the tree was 
filled, so no one can put an amendment forward. On such an important 
issue, that is not a situation that is acceptable.
  Furthermore, this was deftly timed to occur simultaneously with the 
five big primaries yesterday. So this is a moment where the American 
people are paying attention to Florida, they are paying attention to 
Illinois, and they want to know what happened in Missouri. They want to 
know what occurred in these five States. The press is paying attention 
to that. That is the one day of debate allowed before this cloture 
motion is voted on.
  So let's take this bill and put it in committee and actually have a 
committee process to consider it. Then bring it back to the floor with 
whatever changes the committee makes, and hopefully the committee would 
honor the fundamental right to know by consumers. Bring the bill back 
to the floor and have a full and open amendment process on something so 
important to citizens. But do not crush States' rights. Do not steal 
consumers' right to know and try to do it in the dark of night while 
the Nation is distracted by major primaries. It is wrong on policy, it 
is wrong on process, and it is an injustice to every citizen in our 
Nation.
  Here is the situation: The Nation is very cynical about this body. 
This body here, they say, isn't responding to the concerns of the 
American citizens. Is there any single bill that has been more an 
example to justify that cynicism than this bill which is before us 
right now? When 9 out of 10 Americans say this is important to them, 
the majority of this body says: We don't care. When 9 out of 10--or 
roughly that number--Democrats and Republicans and Independents all 
agree on something, this body says: We don't care. Isn't the cynicism 
of the American citizens justified?
  Here is the thing: Our Nation was founded on a simple principle. That 
principle is embodied by three beautiful words in the beginning of our 
Constitution: ``We the People.'' Well, we the people want simple 
information on the package. So if we are here to honor that principle, 
why is this bill before us, I ask my colleagues. Why a bill that says 
the interests of a few titans in crushing a State laboratory is more 
important than the views of 90 percent of Americans? And when those 
Americans are asked, more than 7 out of 10 say this is very important 
to them, so this isn't one of those casual issues. Why is it so 
important? Because this is food they put in their mouths and on their 
table, and even if they have no concerns about the GE product itself, 
they feel they have a right to know.
  So let's return to the principles on which this Nation was founded. 
Let's quit feeding the cynicism of citizens across this Nation who see 
these powerful special interests doing the opposite of what citizens 
ask for. Let's be a Chamber that honors our relationship with our 
constituents, not one that tries to stomp out their rights. Let's not 
allow debate to close on this bill. Let's send it back to committee. 
Let's have a committee process. Let's have a floor debate in the 
future, with full and free amendments, on an issue so important to our 
States and so important to our citizens.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am going to proceed on my leader 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the next Justice could fundamentally 
alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on 
our country, so of course--of course the American people should have a 
say in the Court's direction.
  It is a President's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court 
Justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check 
on a President and withhold its consent.
  As Chairman Grassley and I declared weeks ago and reiterated 
personally to President Obama, the Senate will continue to observe the 
Biden rule so that the American people have a voice in this momentous 
decision. The American people may well elect a President who decides to 
nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next President may 
also nominate somebody very different. Either way, our view is this: 
Give the people a voice in filling this vacancy.
  Let me remind colleagues of what Vice President Biden said when he 
was chairman of the Judiciary Committee here in the Senate. Here is 
what he said:

       It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the 
     political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme 
     Court nomination must be put off until after the election 
     campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is 
     central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me . . . we 
     will be in deep trouble as an institution.

  Chairman Biden went on.

       Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court 
     with only eight members for some time, but as I see it . . . 
     the cost of such a result--the need to reargue three or four 
     cases that will divide the Justices four to four--are quite 
     minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the 
     Senate, and the Nation would have to pay for

[[Page 3286]]

     what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a 
     person is nominated by the President.

  That was Chairman Joe Biden.
  Consider that last part. Then-Senator Biden said that the cost to the 
Nation would be too great no matter who the President nominates. 
President Obama and his allies may now try to pretend this disagreement 
is about a person, but as I just noted, his own Vice President made 
clear it is not. The Biden rule reminds us that the decision the Senate 
announced weeks ago remains about a principle and not a person--about a 
principle and not a person.
  It seems clear that President Obama made this nomination not with the 
intent of seeing the nominee confirmed but in order to politicize it 
for purposes of the election--which is the type of thing then-Senate 
Judiciary Committee Chairman Biden was concerned about. It is the exact 
same thing Chairman Biden was concerned about. The Biden rule 
underlines that what the President has done with this nomination would 
be unfair to any nominee, and, more importantly, the rule warns of the 
great costs the President's action could carry for our Nation.
  Americans are certain to hear a lot of rhetoric from the other side 
in the coming days, but here are the facts they should keep in mind. 
The current Democratic leader said the Senate is not a rubberstamp, and 
he noted that the Constitution does not require the Senate to give 
Presidential nominees a vote. That is the current Democratic leader. 
The incoming Democratic leader did not even wait until the final year 
of George W. Bush's term to essentially tell the Senate not to consider 
any Supreme Court nominee the President sent. The Biden rule supports 
what the Senate is doing today, underlining that what we are talking 
about is a principle and not a person.
  So here is our view. Instead of spending more time debating an issue 
where we can't agree, let's keep working to address the issues where we 
can. We just passed critical bipartisan legislation to help address the 
heroin and prescription opioid crisis in our country. Let's build on 
that success. Let's keep working together to get our economy moving 
again and to make our country safer, rather than endlessly debating an 
issue where we don't agree. As we continue working on issues like 
these, the American people are perfectly capable of having their say on 
this issue. So let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people 
decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it 
considers the qualifications of the nominee the next President 
nominates, whoever that might be.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment with an amendment to S. 764, a 
     bill to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College 
     Program Act, and for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Mike Rounds, John Barrasso, Deb Fischer, 
           Tom Cotton, Roger F. Wicker, Mike Crapo, Johnny 
           Isakson, John Cornyn, Pat Roberts, Orrin G. Hatch, 
           Richard Burr, James M. Inhofe, Jeff Flake, Tim Scott, 
           Cory Gardner, Shelley Moore Capito.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 764, with amendment No. 
3450, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Are there any Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 37 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     McCain
     Moran
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--49

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cruz
     Rubio
     Sanders
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 
49.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider the 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  The Senator from Texas.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as the world now knows, this morning 
President Obama nominated his choice to fill the vacant seat created by 
the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. In doing so, the President 
exercised his unquestioned authority under the Constitution to nominate 
somebody to this vacancy, but that same Constitution reserves to the 
U.S. Senate--and the U.S. Senate alone--the right to either grant or 
withhold consent to that nominee. It is the same Constitution. They 
can't argue that the President somehow has an unquestioned right to see 
his nominee rubberstamped by the Senate and still show fidelity and 
honor to the same Constitution that gives him that authority to make 
that nomination.
  At this time, I reaffirm my commitment to share with other members of 
our conference that the President--this President--will not fill this 
vacancy. The Senate will not confirm this nominee to this vacancy. In 
so doing, we will follow the same rule book that Democrats have 
advocated for in the past. It can't be that one set of rules apply to a 
Democratic President and a second set of rules apply when there is a 
Republican President. This isn't just about speculating what Democrats 
might do were the shoe on the other foot and we had a Republican 
President because they have told us what they would do--they have done 
this since 1992--and in many ways they have kept their promise.
  There is a lot at stake. Justice Scalia served for 30 years on the 
U.S. Supreme Court. The next Justice could well change the ideological 
makeup and the balance of the Supreme Court for a generation to come 
and fundamentally reshape America as we know it.
  At this critical juncture in our Nation's history, and particularly 
with regard to the judiciary and the highest Court in the land, the 
American people deserve a chance to have a say in the selection of the 
next lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, and the only way to 
empower the American people and ensure they have that voice is for the 
next President to fill the nomination created by this vacancy.
  I have heard some people say that we had that election in 2012, when 
President Obama was elected, but I would say that you are half right. 
We also had

[[Page 3287]]

another election in 2014, where the American people gave Republicans a 
majority in the U.S. Senate because they saw what happened when this 
President didn't have any checks and balances. We saw this during the 
beginning of his term of office when ObamaCare was passed by a purely 
partisan vote. We saw it when Dodd-Frank was passed--again, by an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. So, in 2014, the American people said 
to President Obama: We want an effective check on Presidential power--
and that is what the American people got.
  We can't just look at the one side of the equation--the President's 
authority under the Constitution--and the fact that the President was 
reelected in 2012. We have to look at what happened in 2014 and the 
constitutional prerogative of the U.S. Senate either to grant or to 
withhold the confirmation.


                           Our National Debt

  Madam President, later today the Judiciary Committee will be holding 
a hearing addressing America's impending fiscal crisis, including some 
potential solutions to help reverse the unsustainable course we are on. 
I know we don't hear very much about it here in Washington. This seems 
to be ``people walking by the graveyard,'' so to speak, regarding the 
fact that our national debt hit $19 trillion for the first time ever. 
This means our debt climbed more than $1 trillion in a little over a 
year. In fact, this is a shocking statistic that we will not read about 
in most of the mainstream media. The national debt has roughly 
doubled-- roughly doubled--since President Obama took office a little 
over 7 years ago.
  The Congressional Budget Office projects that for the fiscal year 
2016, spending will reach $3.9 trillion, an increase of $232 billion 
from the previous year. I know that when we are talking about trillions 
and billions of dollars, it boggles the imagination. Most of us can't 
even conceive of numbers that large, but the fact is, when you borrow 
money, you have to pay it back at some point. Frankly, what I worry 
most about is that my generation is not going to be the one to repay 
the money we borrow. It is going to be the next generation. I know a 
lot of parents and grandparents worry about whether the American dream 
will still be alive and available to the next generation and beyond. 
This is a huge moral lapse on the part of the current generation, to 
not pay our own debts and to not come up with a system or a framework 
by which to begin that process.
  Rather than addressing this problem head on, government spending is 
set to remain high over the coming decade, even with the discretionary 
spending caps and sequester put in place by the Budget Control Act. 
Inside the beltway, people talk a lot about sequester and the Budget 
Control Act, but that is only 30 percent of Federal spending. Seventy 
percent of Federal spending is on autopilot, growing in some cases by a 
rate of 70 percent or more a year. Not addressing this is 
irresponsible, it is dangerous, and it also limits the choices 
available were our country to become embroiled in another fiscal crisis 
like we saw in 2008.
  If we ask our national security experts--former Chairman of the Joint 
Chief of Staff ADM Mike Mullen said the No. 1 security threat to the 
United States was the debt. That shocked me a little bit when I heard 
him say that, but what he meant--and I know it to be true--is that more 
and more of the tax dollars the Federal Government receives are going 
to be paid to the bondholders who own that debt--the Chinese and other 
people around the world. We have to pay the interest on the debt if we 
are going to borrow the money, but more and more the spending decisions 
will be taken out of the hands of the elected representatives of the 
American people and simply be left up to the accountants who say: OK. 
You have accrued this much debt. Here is the interest that needs to be 
paid on that debt to the bondholders, and there is not going to be 
enough money left over to protect the national security of the United 
States of America.
  We have already seen our military on a dangerous trajectory 
potentially leading to the smallest Army since World War II. We tried 
to deal with some of that just last fall, to begin to reverse some of 
this, because frankly this was no longer a matter of just cutting 
superficial cuts. These were into the muscle and the bone of what makes 
up our national security structure, and we know what happened too. Our 
friends on the other side said: If you want to spend more money to 
protect this country with national security spending, then we are going 
to demand dollar-for-dollar more spending on nondefense, discretionary 
spending. That is why we ended up with the deal we ended up with.
  I have found it very frustrating in my time in the Senate how many of 
our colleagues will talk about this issue, but I have to be honest, the 
ones who frustrate me the most are the ones who will not talk about it 
at all, to even acknowledge the fact. We need to have a conversation, 
and more than that we need to have a commitment and we need to have a 
goal when it comes to dealing with this national debt and runaway 
spending.
  Our Democratic friends apparently share the same philosophy as the 
current President to create a tax-and-spend agenda without considering 
the long-term ramifications to job creation, the economy, not to 
mention our children and grandchildren. I am glad to say this side of 
the aisle has tried to do what I described earlier, which is to take a 
responsible position on embracing a policy which would help us to pay 
down the debt, deal with this in a fiscally responsible way, and allow 
us to get our books back in good order.
  We are going to take up this matter before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee today. We will be discussing reining in spending and making 
progress on the debt, including an amendment to the United States 
Constitution that would require a balanced budget.
  I can hear it now--because I have heard it before--some of our 
colleagues across the aisle saying: Heaven forbid. We can't amend the 
Constitution. Well, we have done it 27 times. Now, we don't do it 
willy-nilly. We don't do it for small things, but for something like 
this, it may well be required. Frankly, this is one of the most 
important lessons of economics that all of us who have children have 
tried to teach our children, which is you don't spend money that you 
don't have--well, I guess, unless you are the Federal Government and 
you can print it or you can borrow it, but at some point the birds come 
home to roost.
  Of course, our commitment to commonsense spending goes far beyond 
today's hearing on the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. 
Many will recall that folks on this side of the aisle highlighted 
gimmicks in the discretionary budget process that only hide the real 
cost and don't actually reduce spending. There are a lot of shell games 
that go on here in Washington, DC. I am glad our budget amendment last 
year focused on bringing stunts like those to an end and placed a limit 
on their use in the appropriations process.
  Most recently, we used reconciliation through the budget process to 
keep our promise to vote to repeal ObamaCare--a law that has been 
burdening American families and businesses with higher taxes and 
mandates, while failing to contain premiums and financial losses on the 
exchanges. But instead of offering solutions to our growing debt, many 
of our Democratic colleagues are content to sit back and criticize 
those of us who are trying to come up with a solution to address this 
problem: how to safeguard our Nation's fiscal health. They argue that a 
balanced budget amendment isn't feasible or that certain government 
programs are so essential that we have to up their funding at the 
expense of the taxpayer, or they act as if the debt isn't a problem, or 
if it is a problem, that all they will do is raise taxes enough to try 
to balance the budget. You can't do that. You cannot raise taxes high 
enough on the American people to pay off $19 trillion in debt. Those 
aren't solutions; those are talking points. They don't help the 
American people make ends meet, and they don't help the U.S. Government 
live within its means.
  So I would like to ask, what are the Democratic solutions to our 
national

[[Page 3288]]

debt? We are going to ask that question this afternoon. We are going to 
have some expert witnesses offer a number of suggestions. Then we are 
going to ask our friends across the aisle, what is your solution? I 
hope we hear more than just crickets or criticism that what we are 
proposing simply will not work.
  I know my colleagues and I would welcome constructive input and 
serious, good-faith proposals to stem the burgeoning national debt, but 
until then, our friends across the aisle need to do more than sit on 
their hands or just whistle past the graveyard of this impending 
national disaster.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of my 
distinguished colleague from Texas. As usual, he is right on and one of 
the great leaders on trying to balance the budget through a 
constitutional amendment. I personally appreciate his efforts and his 
expertise in doing that.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Madam President, on a different subject, I rise today to speak about 
the need for the Senate to do its job regarding the Supreme Court 
vacancy created by the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
  The Constitution gives to the President the power to nominate Supreme 
Court Justices, and President Obama has exercised that power by 
nominating Judge Merrick Garland. The Constitution gives to the Senate 
the power of advice and consent, and it is time for the Senate to do 
its job.
  The sound bite ``do your job'' is catchy, quotable, and short enough 
to fit in very large letters on a large chart that Democratic Senators 
bring to this floor. Rarely, however, have so few words been so 
misleading for so many. This cliche begs but does not answer the most 
important question: What is the Senate's job regarding the Scalia 
vacancy? When Democrats and their liberal allies say ``Do your job,'' 
they really mean ``Do as we say now, not as we did then.'' Saying that 
would be more honest, but then no one else would be persuaded by it. So 
they say that the Constitution provides the Senate's job description, 
requiring a prompt Judiciary Committee hearing and a timely floor vote. 
There may be a constitution somewhere that says such a thing, but it is 
certainly not in our Constitution--the Constitution of the United 
States--that each of us has sworn an oath to support and defend.
  In a way, I am not surprised that liberals would use a made-up, 
fictional constitution to pursue their political goal. After all, they 
favor judges who do the same thing. From the time he was a Senator 
serving in this body, President Obama has said that judges decide cases 
based on their personal empathy, core concerns, and vision of how the 
world works. My goodness. If that were the case, any philosopher could 
be a Supreme Court Justice. He has nominated men and women who believe 
that judges may change the Constitution's meaning based on things such 
as cultural understandings and evolving social norms. Give me a break.
  The kinds of judges liberals favor see unwritten things in our 
written Constitution. They discover things between the lines of our 
written charter that come not from those who drafted and ratified the 
Constitution, not from the American people, but from the judges' own 
imaginations.
  If the Constitution we have--the one our fellow citizens can read--
suits them, then activist judges will use it. If not, then activist 
judges will make up a new constitution that is more useful to their 
purposes. America's Founders fashioned a system of government with 
built-in limits, including a defined role for unelected judges. The 
Supreme Court observed in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison that 
the Constitution is written down so that these limits will be neither 
mistaken nor forgotten and is intended to govern courts as much as 
legislatures. The activist judges whom liberals favor reject those 
limits. They look at written law such as the Constitution and statutes 
merely as a starting point, as words without any real meaning. Their 
oath to support and defend the Constitution is really an oath to 
support and defend themselves, since in the long run their constitution 
is one of their own making.
  So I am hardly surprised that today Democrats and their leftwing 
allies turn to a fictional constitution when telling the Senate to do 
its job. That constitution, however, simply does not exist. The real 
Constitution leaves to the President and to the Senate the decision 
about how to exercise their respective powers in the appointment 
process.
  What is the Senate's job regarding the Scalia vacancy? The Senate's 
job is to determine the best way to exercise its advice and consent 
power under the circumstances we face today. Thankfully, we are not 
without guidance in deciding the best way to exercise our advice and 
consent power regarding the Scalia vacancy. We can, for example, look 
at precedent.
  It hardly takes a law degree to know that a precedent is more 
legitimate if it is more similar to the situation before us. Comparing 
apples and apples is more helpful than, say, comparing apples and 
rocks. That is just a matter of common sense.
  Candidly, the fictional claims offered in recent days suggest that 
some of the lawyers among us could benefit from even more common sense. 
Over the years, the Senate has considered nominations in different ways 
at different times, depending on the circumstances. Consider these 
precedents with great bearing on the current circumstances: The Senate 
has never confirmed a nominee to a Supreme Court vacancy that opened up 
this late in a term-limited President's time in office. This is only 
the third vacancy in nearly a century to occur after the American 
people had already started voting in a Presidential election, and in 
the previous two instances--in 1956 and 1968--the Senate did not 
confirm a nominee until the following year. And the only time the 
Senate has ever confirmed a nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy 
created after voting began in a Presidential election year was in 1916, 
and that vacancy arose only because Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes 
resigned his seat on the Court to run against incumbent President 
Woodrow Wilson.
  There is also another precedent that has received little attention 
but is worth considering. President John Quincy Adams nominated John 
Crittenden to the Supreme Court in December 1828, after Andrew Jackson 
won the Presidential election. The Senate, by voice vote, rejected an 
amendment to a resolution regarding the Crittenden nomination that 
asserted it is the duty of the Senate to confirm or reject a 
President's nominees. In one of its reports on the confirmation 
process, the Congressional Research Service discussed this vote and 
concluded: ``By this action, the early Senate declined to endorse the 
principle that proper practice required it to consider and proceed to a 
final vote on every nomination.''
  I believe the precedents, such as they are, support the principle 
that the Senate must decide for itself how to exercise its power of 
advice and consent in each situation.
  We have another source of guidance for how to exercise the advice and 
consent power in the particular circumstances of the Scalia vacancy. In 
1992--another Presidential election year during divided government--
then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, now our Vice President, 
addressed this very issue. Senator Biden recommended that if a Supreme 
Court vacancy occurred that year, the entire appointment process--both 
nomination and confirmation--should be deferred until the election 
season was over. Here is what he said in a lengthy interview with the 
Washington Post:

       If someone steps down, I would highly recommend the 
     president not name someone, not send a name up. If [the 
     president] did send someone up, I would ask the Senate to 
     seriously consider not having a hearing on that nominee.

  Chairman Biden also explained the reasons for this recommendation. He 
said, for example, that an election-year nominee would be caught up in 
a

[[Page 3289]]

``power struggle'' over control of the Supreme Court.
  He was prescient.
  In that interview, Chairman Biden also said:

       Can you imagine dropping a nominee, after the . . . 
     decisions that are about to be made by the Supreme Court, 
     into that fight, into that cauldron in the middle of a 
     presidential year? . . . The environment within which such a 
     hearing would be held would be so supercharged and so prone 
     to be able to be distorted.

  A week later, Chairman Biden addressed the Senate about the 
confirmation process and further explained his recommendation for 
deferring the appointment process should a Supreme Court vacancy occur. 
He repeated his recommendation regarding how to handle a Supreme Court 
nomination occurring that year. Let me refer to this chart and read it:

       President Bush should consider following the practice of a 
     majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee 
     until after the November election is completed. . . . [I]f 
     the President . . . presses an election-year nomination, the 
     Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not 
     scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until 
     after the political campaign season is over.

  Chairman Biden again explained the reasons for this recommendation. 
The confirmation process had degraded in the wake of controversial 
nominations, and the Presidential campaign that year looked to be 
particularly bitter. As a result, he said, partisan bickering and 
political posturing would overwhelm the serious evaluation required. In 
addition, the Presidential election season was already well underway, 
and different parties controlled the nomination and confirmation phases 
of the appointment process.
  Chairman Biden could have been talking about 2016 instead of 1992. In 
fact, each of the factors leading to his recommendation for deferring 
the appointment process in 1992 exists in the same or greater measure 
today.
  Not a single Democrat objected to Chairman Biden's recommendation to 
defer the appointment process. Not one. Not one Democrat. If what 
Democrats say today is true--that the Constitution requires a prompt 
hearing and a timely floor vote for every nomination--surely someone, 
anyone would have said so in 1992. Not so. My colleagues will search 
the 1992 Congressional Record in vain for the slogan ``do your job.'' 
It appears that a different Constitution was in force in 1992 because 
no Democratic Senator or leftist organization insisted that the 
Constitution required a prompt hearing and timely floor vote. No one 
claimed that the Senate would be shirking its constitutional duty by 
following Chairman Biden's recommendation.
  The first step in exercising our power of advice and consent 
regarding the Scalia vacancy then is to decide how best to do so in the 
circumstances we face today. Precedent generally, and guidance from 
past Senate leaders specifically, counsel strongly in favor of 
deferring the confirmation process until after the Presidential 
election season is over. That is clearly the best course for the 
Senate, the judiciary, and, of course, the Nation. That conclusion is 
reinforced by another important factor: Elections have consequences. 
Democrats and their leftwing allies also use that axiom but want people 
to believe that 2012 was the only election relevant to the Scalia 
vacancy. They want people to believe that because President Obama was 
reelected in 2012, he should be able to appoint whomever, whenever, and 
however he likes. That idea must appear in another provision of the 
Democrats' fictional constitution because, once again, the real one 
says no such thing.
  The 2012 election did give the President the power to nominate, and 
he can exercise that power however he chooses until his final minutes 
in office next January, and I will uphold that right. He has exercised 
that power by nominating Judge Merrick Garland.
  The 2012 election, however, was not the only one with consequences. 
The 2014 election, for example, had tremendous significance for the 
Senate's power of advice and consent. The American people gave control 
of the Senate, and therefore control of the confirmation process, to 
Republicans. Here, too, we may find some guidance from our friends on 
the left in addressing this circumstance. President Ronald Reagan 
nominated Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987. This was 3 
years after his reelection and a year after the Senate majority changed 
hands.
  Here is how the New York Times addressed the argument that elections 
have consequences:

       The President's supporters insist vehemently that, having 
     won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change 
     the Court's direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 
     election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have 
     every right to resist.

  The same circumstances obviously exist today. By the way, no one 
should waste time wondering if the New York Times has applied the same 
principle today. It, of course, hasn't.
  In addition to 2012 and 2014, the 2016 election will have tremendous 
consequences for the American people and the courts. It will give the 
American people a unique opportunity to express their opinion about the 
direction of the courts by electing the President who nominates and the 
Senate that gives advice and consent. Republicans and Democrats, 
conservatives and liberals, have very different views about the kind of 
judge that America needs. Justice Scalia represented a defined, modest 
approach to judging while, as I mentioned earlier, President Obama has 
advocated an expansive and activist approach.
  I have served on the Judiciary Committee longer than all but one 
Senator since the committee was created 200 years ago. One thing is 
clear to me: The conflict over judicial appointments is a conflict over 
judicial power. The two models of judicial power or judicial job 
descriptions that I have described have radically different 
consequences and implications for our Nation and our liberty.
  The American people have expressed increasing concern about the 
Supreme Court's direction since President Obama was elected. Most 
Americans, for example, believe that Supreme Court Justices decide 
cases based on their personal views and object to their doing so. With 
Justice Scalia's untimely passing, the American people now have a 
unique opportunity to have a voice in charting a path forward.
  I cannot conclude today without addressing what is widely understood 
to be part of the President's strategy in nominating Judge Garland to 
the Scalia vacancy. The Senate confirmed Judge Garland to the U.S. 
Court of Appeals by a vote of 76 to 23 in 1997. This, I take it, is 
supposed to suggest that the Senate should do likewise regarding Judge 
Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court.
  So there is no mistake, I will say this as clearly as I can: The 
confirmation process regarding the Scalia vacancy will be deferred 
until after the election season is over for the reasons I have 
explained. That decision has nothing whatsoever to do with the identity 
of the nominee, and Republicans made our decision known weeks ago, 
before the President had chosen anyone.
  I think highly of Judge Garland. But his nomination doesn't in any 
way change current circumstances. I remain convinced that the best way 
for the Senate to do its job is to conduct the confirmation process 
after this toxic Presidential election season is over. Doing so is the 
only way to ensure fairness to the nominee and preserve the integrity 
of the Supreme Court.
  I also want to emphasize that the considerations relevant to an 
individual's nomination to one position do not necessarily lead to the 
same conclusion regarding his nomination to another position, 
especially the Supreme Court. Here, too, I want my colleagues to be 
aware of guidance we can draw on from the past.
  In 1990, then-Chairman Joseph Biden presided over the hearing on the 
nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 
Circuit. He said: ``[T]here is a fundamental distinction between what 
is required of and should be sought of a circuit court judge and a 
district court judge and a Supreme Court Justice.'' He was right then, 
and he is right today.

[[Page 3290]]

  Democratic Senators made the same point in 2005 when they sought to 
distinguish their earlier support for John Roberts' appeals court 
nomination from their intention to oppose his Supreme Court nomination. 
Mr. Schumer, our distinguished Senator from New York, for example, 
called it a whole new ball game. He said, ``you've got to start from 
scratch.'' Senator Leahy agreed, saying that the Supreme Court is 
different from the lower courts. I couldn't agree more. Add this to the 
list of standards that my Democratic colleagues have reversed now that 
the partisan shoe is on the other foot. Senate Republicans have 
explained repeatedly and in detail why the best way to exercise our 
advice-and-consent power in this situation is to defer the confirmation 
process. That conclusion is completely unrelated to whether the 
President chooses a nominee, or if he does so, who that nominee is.
  President Obama could have followed Vice President Biden's 1992 
advice and deferred a nomination to fill the Scalia vacancy. He chose 
not to do so. For the reasons I have discussed--precedent, past 
guidance, and the consequences of elections--the Senate should follow 
that advice and defer the confirmation process for the good of the 
Senate, the Judiciary, and the American people.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the vacancy on the 
U.S. Supreme Court in light of President Obama's announcement that he 
has nominated Chief Judge Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia.
  Replacing Justice Antonin Scalia, who was one of our Nation's 
strongest defenders of our Constitution, will be difficult. For almost 
30 years, with his brilliant legal mind and animated character, he 
fiercely fought against judicial activism from the bench. He will be 
greatly missed by not only his family and loved ones but by all 
Americans who shared his core conservative values and beliefs.
  Under the Constitution, the President shall nominate a replacement, 
as he did today, and the Senate has a constitutional role of advice and 
consent. This is a constitutional responsibility that I take very 
seriously.
  The decisions the Supreme Court makes often have long-lasting 
ramifications that--with one-vote margins--can dramatically alter the 
course of our country. At a time when the current administration has 
stretched the limits of the law and attempted to circumvent Congress 
and the Federal court system, choosing the right candidate with the 
aptitude for this lifetime appointment is as important as ever.
  I have determined that my benchmark for the next Supreme Court 
Justice will be Justice Scalia himself. Scalia's strict interpretation 
of the Constitution and deference to States' rights set a gold standard 
by which his replacement should be measured.
  As we all know, every Republican member of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell 
expressing their firm belief that the people of the United States 
deserve to have a voice in determining the next Supreme Court Justice. 
In their letter, they wrote:

       Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution is clear. The 
     President may nominate judges of the Supreme Court. But the 
     power to grant--or withhold--consent to such nominees rests 
     exclusively with the United States Senate.

  As a result, the committee does not plan on holding any hearings 
related to this issue until after a new President has taken office. 
This decision will allow the American people to have a voice in the 
next Supreme Court Justice based upon who they elect as the President 
this November.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued that the 
American people did have a voice when they elected President Obama in 
2012, but that election was nearly 3\1/2\ years ago. Since that time, a 
lot has changed in our country, signaling a shift in America's views of 
our President and his philosophy of government. We don't need to look 
any further than the 2014 elections for proof. In the 2014 elections, 
the Senate switched from Democratic-controlled to Republican-
controlled. In fact, I am one of those Republican Senators who replaced 
a Democrat in the last election. Many of us who ran were not supporting 
the President's policies. In fact, we ran because we wanted to change 
the direction the President was moving our country.
  At the State level, in 2012, the last time President Obama was 
elected, there were 29 Republican Governors and 20 Democratic 
Governors. In 2014, the number of Republican Governors rose from 29 to 
31, while the number of Democratic Governors decreased from 20 to 18. 
We saw similar results in State legislative races across the country.
  In 2012, Republicans held a majority in both chambers of 26 State 
legislatures. In 2014, that number rose to 30. And if we take into 
account the conservative-leaning but officially nonpartisan legislature 
of Nebraska, that number jumps even higher--to 31.
  In 2012, Democrats held the majority of both chambers in 15 States. 
In 2014, that number was reduced to 11.
  So in the years since the President's last election, Republicans not 
only held a strong majority in the House of Representatives, but they 
took back control of the Senate and increased their numbers at the 
State level as well.
  There is no doubt that there has been a clear shift in the minds of 
the American people since President Obama's last election.
  I believe, just as many of my colleagues do, that the Republican 
victories of 2014 should be taken into consideration and, therefore, we 
should wait to confirm the next Supreme Court Justice until after a new 
President takes office. Overwhelmingly, South Dakotans who have 
contacted my office agree with this decision.
  One gentleman from Lemmon, SD, wrote to me saying: ``Our country 
hangs in the balance as to what the future of this great country will 
look like. . . . This decision is too crucial and the next Supreme 
Court nominee should be nominated by the next President of the United 
States.''
  Another South Dakotan from Brandon noted: ``This is a rare 
opportunity for the American voter to actually have a voice in how the 
Court will be structured for many years to come. Please help preserve 
that opportunity for us all.''
  In another example, a woman from Estelline wrote saying: ``Hearing of 
the passing of Justice Scalia was heartbreaking news. I ask that you do 
your part to allow the people to have a say in who the next Justice of 
the Supreme Court will be.''
  These are just a few examples of the numerous South Dakotans who have 
contacted my office who agree that the American people have a voice in 
the direction our country will take in the decades to come. As much as 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to see the 
Senate confirm a nominee from our current President, the reality is 
that when the tables are turned, they agree with our position. In fact, 
it was Vice President Joe Biden who, when he served as the chairman of 
the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on this very floor in 1992: ``It 
is my view that if a President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and 
Johnson and presses for an election-year nomination, the Senate 
Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling 
confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political 
campaign season is over.''
  It was minority leader Harry Reid who said in 2005: ``The duties of 
the United States Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the 
United States. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a 
duty to give presidential nominees a vote.''
  And the Senate Democrats' next leader, Senator Schumer, said in 2007, 
close to 2 years before President Bush's

[[Page 3291]]

term ended: ``We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme 
Court except in extraordinary circumstances.''
  Whoever is confirmed to fill the open seat on the Supreme Court will 
be serving a lifetime appointment. Keeping in mind the current 
political makeup of the Court, the man or woman who will replace 
Justice Scalia has the potential to hold incredible influence over the 
ideological direction of the Court for a generation to come.
  It is critically important that the next Justice be committed to 
upholding the principles of the Constitution. We owe it to Justice 
Scalia, our judicial system, and the Constitution to uphold the highest 
standards when determining our next Supreme Court Justice. We also owe 
it to the American people to make certain that their voice is heard in 
this election.
  For these reasons, I agree with my colleagues on the Judiciary 
Committee and in the Senate leadership that we should not hold hearings 
on a Supreme Court nominee until after our new President takes office.
  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. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Wasteful Spending

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am once again on the floor for my 37th 
edition of ``Waste of the Week'' speech, where I disclose wasteful 
spending, fraud, and abuse of taxpayers' dollars. It seems it is never 
ending because after 37 weeks I feel as if I am just scratching the 
surface.
  Last week, as some will remember, I talked about how the National 
Science Foundation spent $331,000 of hard-earned tax dollars by giving 
a grant to researchers to study whether or not being ``hangry'' is a 
real thing. Most people have not heard about the word ``hangry.'' Last 
week I suppose people ran to the dictionary to see what the description 
was. ``Hangry''--I think among the younger people--means that you are 
both hungry and angry, and you are angrier than you normally would be 
in a situation because you are hungry.
  I wasn't hungry last week when I was talking about ``hangry,'' but I 
was angry. I was angry over the fact that $331,000 of taxpayers' money 
was being used to offer a grant from the National Science Foundation to 
study whether this exists. They came up with this crazy situation of 
giving voodoo dolls to husbands and wives. Every time a husband was 
angry with his wife, he would take a pin and stick it into the voodoo 
doll or if she was angry with him, she would take a pin and stick it 
into the voodoo doll. I don't know who ended up with the most pins. 
Probably the wife had more pins in the voodoo doll than the husband 
did. Nonetheless, then a glucose test was taken to see if they were 
actually a little short on glucose in the bloodstream, meaning they 
were hungry. Well, the conclusion was that, yes, if you were hungry, 
you tended to be a little more on edge, a little more testy.
  That might have been a fun study to be engaged in just for laughs, 
but this was paid for with taxpayer dollars. This was a grant issued by 
the National Science Foundation. We tell people about the National 
Science Foundation, and they must think, oh, that is probably one of 
the better government agencies.
  So that was last week, and I wasn't sure that anything could top last 
week. Because I was quoted as saying--who could make up stuff like 
this? Do people sit around and say: Let's see if we can get a grant to 
do some kind of research project that is nothing but crazy? The amazing 
thing is someone over at the National Science Foundation looked at this 
study and thought: Hey, this is a good idea. Let's give them a $331,000 
grant. And so we added it to the chart.
  Now we are here this week, and I want to talk about something that is 
maybe even scarier than sticking pins in voodoo dolls, and it is called 
the Master Death File. This is not the name of a new novel on the New 
York Time's best seller list. This is not the name of a new movie 
coming out. The Master Death File is something, folks, you don't want 
to be on.
  The Federal Government, by law--the Social Security Administration--
has to maintain the Master Death File. Obviously, those of us on Social 
Security or who are of Social Security age don't want to see our name 
on that list. If your name is on that list, you are no longer eligible 
for Social Security payments because it is a death list; you have died.
  So as sinister as it sounds, it is probably necessary that we do 
this--that we have at least some list that lets the Social Security 
Administration know that it is time to stop sending Social Security 
checks to dead people. The beneficiary or the recipient has died, and, 
therefore, procedures are made so that the next check doesn't keep 
rolling out and rolling out and rolling out.
  A lot of us here in the Senate get on different kinds of lists--voter 
records, awards for standing up for certain issues and policies that 
people respect--and I have found myself on a number of those. One list 
I don't want to be on, but know that as a human being I am sort of 
careening toward, is the Master Death File. So we thought, well, let's 
dig into this and see how it works. So we went to the Government 
Accountability Office and said: What about this Master Death File?
  So we did some investigation on that. Out of that investigation came 
an example of one agency the General Accountability Office had 
examined, and it is the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Department 
of Agriculture sends out checks--payments for conservation, disaster 
relief and crop subsidies. Well, we found that between 2008 and 2012, 
$27.6 million in payments for conservation, disaster relief, and crop 
subsidies were made to people who had died. What is more disturbing is 
that many of those recipients had been dead for more than 2 years.
  This is just one department out of all the hundreds of Federal 
agencies that issue checks for all kinds of different purposes. So it 
is important to have a Master Death File because what we want these 
agencies to do--in fact, they are obligated to do under the law--is to 
check the master death list to make sure the checks aren't going to 
people who are on that list.
  Obviously, with this one agency--the Department of Agriculture--one 
of two things happened: Either names did not get on that list, or names 
were on the list, but they didn't check it. Either way, there is a 
responsibility here for the Federal Government in handling taxpayer 
dollars to make sure that for those who are deceased, their names get 
on the Master Death File--as scary as that is--and/or, if they are on 
the list, they do not receive the payments.
  In this digital age, it shouldn't be too hard to keep that Master 
Death File updated. Every State has records that have to be kept--sent 
by the coroner or authorized by the hospital or whatever. There are a 
number of sources of finding out. Particularly in the digital age, it 
is pretty easy to enter a name when you get the certificate of death. 
You enter the name, it goes onto the master death list, and it ought to 
be relatively easy for agencies sending out checks to coordinate with 
that by either pushing a button or going into an app or whatever and 
finding out that John Jones or Bill Smith still qualifies for his 
Social Security payments. That check ought to be pretty automatic.
  Unfortunately, it isn't, particularly when you find people have been 
receiving these checks even 2 years after they have died. So something 
is amiss here. It is not like in the old days, where you probably had 
to call Farmer Bob out in rural America and say: Do you know if Farmer 
Joe down the road is still living? Have you seen him in town lately? 
What is happening? Did you go to the funeral? We don't have to do all 
that anymore. This stuff is all digitized and all very accessible.
  So here we are with the Social Security Administration needing to do 
what

[[Page 3292]]

it needs to do to make sure that list is kept up-to-date. And, as I 
say, none of us are anxious to get on that list. I see all the young 
pages down here thinking: I have a long time to go. They are looking at 
this aging Senator thinking: You are a lot closer to that list than we 
are. I hope they are not thinking that. Some of them are smiling. 
Nonetheless, the agencies that are issuing the checks also have to do 
their job because, in a serious way, this is taking money from hard-
working taxpayers. It is hard-earned money taken from those who have to 
pay the bills at the end of the week, who have to cover their mortgage 
and provide for the education of their children and who have to buy 
food at the grocery store and gas at the gas pump. People are scraping 
by, and when they see this kind of thing or hear about this kind of 
thing, they are outraged.
  We are seeing this being played out in the nomination process on both 
sides--the Republicans and the Democrats. People are frustrated with 
the inefficiency and the ineffectiveness of the Federal Government in 
the use of their tax dollars. So I am here to illustrate that--not to 
spur continued anger and outrage but to get people seriously focused on 
the fact their dollars are not being wisely spent. They need to call 
their Congressmen and Senators, and they need to say: You need to do a 
better job of managing our money we are sending you to protect this 
Nation, to provide for roads, bridges, health care, and so forth.
  There are some essential things government needs to do, but surely it 
doesn't need to put out $331,000 for a ``hanger'' study with voodoo 
dolls, and it doesn't need to waste $27.6 million of checks going to 
people who are deceased and who are no longer eligible for receiving 
that.
  So we continue to add money to our total--another $27.6 million to 
our $157,619,142,953. These numbers get up there. So we are at 
$157,619,142,953, and we will be back next week with the next edition 
of ``Waste of the Week.''
  I thank the Chair.
  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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Methane Emissions

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last week the Prime Minister of Canada 
came for a visit. President Obama used that opportunity to take yet 
another cheap shot at American energy producers. The administration has 
made a deal with Canada to cut methane emissions from oil and gas 
production facilities.
  They want tough new restrictions to cut emissions almost in half over 
the next decade. The very same day, the Environmental Protection Agency 
said that it plans to come up with more regulations for methane.
  The Obama administration is already trying to limit the methane that 
gets released from new oil and gas wells as they get put into 
production. Now the administration wants to go back and impose those 
limits on existing wells--ones that were built to actually comply with 
the current rules on the books.
  Here is what I find most interesting about this. This was an official 
state visit by a foreign leader to the United States. It was the first 
trip for the new Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau. So President 
Obama decided that the most important thing the two countries could 
talk about was methane--not Syria, not trying to stop radical Islamist 
terrorists, not dealing with ISIS, not the hostile regimes of North 
Korea, Iran, or Russia, not what we could do to actually help our 
economies grow--no. Instead, President Obama chose to focus on methane.
  Why is President Obama so fixated on this? Let me tell you. The 
President is bitter--bitter that the Supreme Court is blocking his 
Clean Power Plan. He is pouting and he is pandering. He has gone after 
coal, he has gone after oil, and now he is going after natural gas. It 
is a vendetta against American energy producers.
  The President and other Democrats are pandering to radical 
environmental extremists and to their billionaire donors.
  We all want to make sure that we have a clean environment. My goal is 
to make American energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, and to 
do it in ways that don't raise costs for American families. That is why 
the people I talk with in Wyoming believe that this new regulation is 
the wrong approach.
  My local newspaper, the Casper Star Tribune, had a front-page article 
about it on Friday. The headline was this: ``Cuts to methane emissions 
proposed.'' The article quotes John Robitaille. He is from the 
Petroleum Association of Wyoming. He says the Environmental Protection 
Agency ``has failed to recognize the economic burden placed on 
replacing equipment on existing wells as opposed to new wells''--ones 
that are still to be built.
  John Robitaille may say ``failed to recognize.'' I say the 
administration deliberately refuses to recognize--refuses. For 
Washington to come in and demand expensive new equipment for all of 
these oil and gas wells would be a huge cost. It would drive up prices 
for consumers, and it would mean that some of these wells wouldn't be 
economically worthwhile anymore. The oil and gas would stay in the 
ground where it does nothing to help power our economy or power our 
country.
  States are already doing their part. States are trying to limit 
methane leaks where they find a problem. Colorado has a leak detection 
and repair program that will help keep ozone and methane from escaping. 
Wyoming, my home State, is looking for ways to get more up-to-date 
equipment on new wells as they get going.
  So the States are already taking the lead, and they are already 
coming up with solutions where they are needed. This is not a one-size-
fits-all regulation coming from unelected, unaccountable Washington 
bureaucrats. But that is what we are having to deal with now in this 
administration.
  What we prefer are State solutions. What I just described are State 
solutions that strike a commonsense balance between a strong economy 
and a very healthy environment. It is not just the States that are 
taking action. Oil and gas producers also want to reduce how much 
methane escapes from these wells.
  When you think about it, producers would prefer to capture that gas 
and then to sell it so it can be used. That is why the industry reduced 
methane emissions by 13 percent between 2008 and 2013. Over the same 
years, U.S. shale gas production grew by 400 percent. So the industry 
actually cut emissions even while gas production went way up. This 
happened because of the action that the producers in the States have 
already been taking, not because of more regulations coming out of 
Washington, DC. Energy producers need the flexibility to tackle these 
emissions when and how it makes sense.
  There are already too many rules on the books. The Bureau of Land 
Management has another methane rule in the works. More duplicative 
regulations will just raise costs for Americans at a time when our 
economy is weak and emissions actually are already dropping.
  This new redtape could add hundreds of millions of dollars every year 
onto the cost of producing American red, white, and blue energy. If the 
Obama administration really wants to reduce emissions from oil and gas 
wells, it should help the industry to capture this gas and to use it.
  This was the subject of bipartisan legislation that Senator Heidi 
Heitkamp of North Dakota and I offered last month. It was an amendment 
to the energy legislation. Our bipartisan amendment would have 
expedited the permit process for natural gas gathering lines--the lines 
that gather

[[Page 3293]]

this gas on the Federal land, on Indian land and then help take it to 
market.
  Gas gathering lines are essentially pipelines that collect 
unprocessed gas from oil and gas wells and then ship it to a processing 
plant. At the plant, different kinds of gases--methane, propane--are 
separated from one another. They are then shipped out again to 
locations where they can be sold and used by people.
  That is what the producers want to do. The problem is that we don't 
have enough of these pipelines now to gather up the gas and to send it 
to the processing plants. A lot of times there is only one option if 
you don't have the gathering lines, and that is to flare or vent the 
excess natural gas at the well. If there were more gathering lines, we 
would have a lot less waste of energy. We would have a lot less of 
these methane emissions that President Obama claims to be so worried 
about. So Senator Heitkamp and I offered a better way to deal with the 
problem, and 43 Democrats here in the Senate blocked our amendment.
  At a hearing of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last 
month, I actually asked Interior Secretary Jewell about the idea. Even 
she had to concede that speeding up the permits was something that they 
should be looking into.
  This doesn't have to be a fight. We all agree there is too much of 
this gas that has been vented or burned off at the oil and gas wells. 
Republicans know it. Democrats know it. Energy producers know it. So 
why can't we agree to let the industry build the gathering lines to 
help them capture the gas where it makes sense and how it makes sense? 
Why do we need more Washington regulations that impose higher costs?
  America's energy producers have increased production while reducing 
emissions. They have provided what may be the only bright spot in our 
economy over the past 7 years. We should be doing all that we can to 
help and to encourage them. We should be looking for voluntary, cost-
effective ways to make sure that we can make American energy as clean 
as we can and as fast as we can without raising costs on American 
families. The Obama administration is going in the wrong direction.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Tribute to Kyle Ruckert

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor my longest serving 
staff member, my chief of staff, campaign manager, and close friend 
Kyle Ruckert, who is departing the Senate at the end of this week to 
start an exciting new career. Kyle was one of my very first hires when 
I was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1999. He 
started as my legislative director in the House under the wonderful 
tutelage of my first chief of staff, Marty Driesler. And I know Kyle 
and I are both indebted to Marty, who is now unfortunately deceased, 
for getting us started on a wonderful footing in Congress. Then Kyle 
became my chief of staff upon Marty's retirement in 2002.
  I guess I would sum up the bottom line in a very simple but important 
way: There has not been one moment during these 17 years when I have 
regretted placing my complete trust in Kyle to lead our office and 
serve the people of Louisiana--not one. From day one, Kyle set the 
office standard of service to constituents and set it as a top 
priority. He established offices throughout the State. One of his most 
memorable decisions instituted a mobile office on wheels so that we 
could reach out to those hit hard by Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 
2008--folks who could not otherwise reach our permanent offices. I say 
``memorable'' because for the staffers who actually had to man and 
woman that vehicle, it was an adventurous ride.
  Of course, Kyle's leadership style and commitment to service comes 
from his wonderful parents, and I take a moment to thank his parents, 
John and Ellen Ruckert, who are with us in the Gallery and whom I have 
also come to know and respect.
  I also think a big part of Kyle's commitment to serve others comes 
from his time at Jesuit High School in New Orleans, where the motto is 
``Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam''--``For the Greater Glory of God''--and where 
all students are expected to accept the challenge of becoming a ``man 
for others'' as part of the Ignatius tradition. Kyle is probably one of 
the best ambassadors for Jesuits, and he even played a role in my son 
Jack going there. Go, Blue Jays.
  In 2004, Kyle moved down to Louisiana to manage my first Senate 
campaign. He quickly earned the respect of national political 
prognosticators on the campaign side who quite frankly belittled our 
chances from the beginning. Kyle reacted to the conventional wisdom 
that we couldn't win a runoff against our so-called moderate Democratic 
opponent in a pretty straightforward way: He simply made sure we got 
more than 50 percent of the vote in the open primary, so we never went 
to a runoff. Problem solved. Kyle's discipline and strategic thinking 
are largely to thank for that win, and after that he immediately 
returned to manage our Senate office as chief of staff. Unfortunately, 
our first major test in the Senate was a tragic one. In 2005, Hurricane 
Katrina devastated Louisiana and was followed very shortly by Hurricane 
Rita. Constituent service, always a top priority, took on an even 
greater urgency and seriousness, and Kyle led our team to help, 
console, and serve all ``For the Greater Glory of God,'' acting as a 
``man for others.''
  Kyle led our staff managing an effective operation, first and 
foremost, assisting constituents on the ground, and in Congress, 
helping to put together emergency assistance legislation, making sure 
people in real need received what they absolutely needed. This was one 
of the most chaotic times for all of us from Louisiana, but Kyle was 
always calm and methodical, always steering the ship with a steady 
hand.
  Kyle's leadership is contagious. His expectations are very high--be 
at work, get it over 100 percent, and get the job done. If that means 
working at night and on weekends, he would expect that out of everyone 
on the team and, unlike some other so-called leaders, he would be right 
there leading the way in that regard. Our staff has become stronger 
because of that leadership by example and that contagious work ethic.
  Besides his calm, disciplined, methodical leadership style, Kyle's 
strongest attribute is his loyalty and trust he places in those he 
works with. He always encourages staff to take chances, to be bold in 
pushing new reforms, in negotiating amendment votes, in pushing 
important stories with the press. When staff would run ideas by him and 
ask him what he thought, he would say: If you think it is the right 
thing to do, go for it. Just don't--bleep--it up.
  His leadership was tested again on the campaign side in our 2010 
reelection race, where again the political commentators largely bet 
against us, and again Kyle made sure they were wrong in a big way. We 
won that race by 19 points. Since then I have had the real fortune of 
serving in leadership positions in the Senate, as the ranking 
Republican in the EPW Committee in 2013 and 2014 and currently as chair 
of the Small Business Committee.
  Aside from our many legislative accomplishments under Kyle's 
leadership, what I am perhaps most proud of is the close-knit team we 
built together. We call it Team Vitter, and those are more than just 
words in our office. We both look at our staff as an extension of our 
immediate families. Certainly my wife Wendy and our kids and I 
definitely think of Kyle and his family as part of ours.
  Kyle sets a gold standard for thinking of staff as family--for 
treating them that way. Perhaps, in part, because he married another 
one of my former staffers, Lynnel. Lynnel started working in my office 
on the House side early on in 2002. She worked there until

[[Page 3294]]

2004 and also joined that first winning Senate campaign. It is 
interesting, Kyle and Lynnel started dating secretly, not telling 
anyone in the office--certainly not me. I think they were first 
discovered when my first chief of staff, Marty Driesler, got a call 
from her daughter who had witnessed them being weekend tourists in 
Philadelphia together. Of course, I was still kept in the dark for 
months after that, even though Marty discovered their courtship.
  Lynnel, too, always stressed constituent service and is a brilliant 
political strategist. They truly were meant for each other in all sorts 
of ways. Lynnel has continued her extremely successful career, most 
recently serving as chief of staff to House majority whip Steve 
Scalise.
  In 2005, Kyle and Lynnel got married, and since then our office has 
had three other couples from Team Vitter get married. Perhaps there is 
more to those late work nights than I had imagined originally.
  Kyle and Lynnel and their two kids, Jack, who is now 9, and Mary 
Kyle, who is now 6, are getting settled in Baton Rouge as part of a 
new, exciting chapter of their lives. It is going to be fun. We are 
going to miss them, but it is going to be fun to see this new chapter 
for Kyle and Lynnel and their family develop, especially when we get to 
see Kyle, as a New Orleans native and an avid Tulane Green Wave alumn, 
having to start wearing purple and gold around Baton Rouge at the 
urging of their son Jack.
  Who knows, maybe he will even develop a superstition before LSU 
games. Something a lot of folks don't know about Kyle is he is 
incredibly superstitious--knock on wood. He will detour his Monday 
morning drive in New Orleans to pass by the Superdome if the Saints won 
on Sunday. He will sip the same type of bourbon for good luck or wear 
his lucky green polo if we need a win in sports, politically, or 
anything in between.
  I will tell a quick story related to that about his green polo. On 
election day in 2004, Kyle was wearing a campaign T-shirt, but he 
wasn't going to be able to go to the polls that way to vote and do some 
poll watching, so he asked around the office if he could borrow a 
different shirt. Mac Abrams, who is now Dean Heller's chief of staff--
and who was a key staff member in my office in my campaign at the 
time--loaned him his green polo. Well, we won that race big, and Kyle 
hasn't returned the green polo yet. He wears it every election day, 
although we are not sure if it is superstition or also because he is so 
darn cheap.
  While Kyle will now be living in Louisiana, his impact will remain 
strong in our work and our office and our culture. He will be able to 
see it in legislation which helps Louisiana and the country, in 
thousands and thousands of constituents whom he and our team 
effectively reached out to, and in the great example he set for so many 
staffers and interns and others on our team.
  So let me end really where I began, by paying him the highest 
compliment possible, repeating that there hasn't been one moment in 
these great 17 years where I regretted placing my complete trust in 
Kyle Ruckert to lead our team, to lead our office, to help lead us in 
serving the people of Louisiana--not one.
  Kyle, thank you for your service to Louisiana, for the countless 
hours you have spent helping me, for the fun memories and laughs we 
have shared, and most importantly for your friendship. You truly are 
part of my family. I have the greatest confidence that you will 
continue on ``Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam''--``For the Greater Glory of 
God''--truly a ``man for others.''
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may address 
the Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona


                    Imprisonment of Nadiya Savchenko

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it has been 2 years since Nadiya 
Savchenko, the first female military pilot in post-Soviet Ukraine and 
an Iraq war veteran, was abducted from Ukrainian territory by pro-
Russian separatists and smuggled across the border to Russia where she 
faces false charges and illegal imprisonment.
  She is accused by Russia of having directed artillery fire that 
killed two Russian state television journalists in Eastern Ukraine in 
June of 2014 and then illegally crossing into Russian territory without 
proper paperwork. This is despite clear evidence provided by her 
lawyers that she was captured by separatists before this incident 
occurred and then hauled across the border in handcuffs with a sack 
over her head.
  Following her capture, Nadiya has reportedly endured interrogations, 
solitary confinement, and was subjected to a psychiatric evaluation at 
the infamous Russian Serbsky Institute, where Soviet authorities were 
once known to torture political dissidents. Further media reports 
suggest that she is gravely ill and near death.
  There are international laws that govern treatment of prisoners of 
war, but Russia continues to deny it is fighting a war in Ukraine and 
is therefore treating Nadiya as a common criminal. While there are also 
international laws that govern the treatment of common criminals, 
Russia has shown as much regard for those laws as for Ukraine's 
sovereignty or the rights of Russians such as Boris Nemtsov.
  This is a picture of Nadiya standing trial in a cage. From her prison 
cell in Russia, Nadiya said:

       If I am found guilty, I will not appeal. I want the entire 
     democratic world to understand that Russia is a Third World 
     country with a totalitarian regime and a petty tyrant for a 
     dictator and it spits on international law and human rights.

  In her last appearance in court, Ms. Savchenko said:

       The trial proves the guilt of Russian authorities; they are 
     to blame for seizing Ukrainian lands, capturing Crimea and 
     starting a war in the Donbass region. They are to blame for 
     trying to establish--through their foul undeclared wars all 
     over the world--a totalitarian regime dominated by Russia.

  She ended her court appearance by saying:

       Russia will return me to Ukraine yet. Whether I am dead or 
     alive, it will return me.

  Nadiya's captivity represents just the latest example of Russia's 
brazen aggression and disregard for the independence and territorial 
integrity of Ukraine.
  Last summer another brave Ukrainian and film director from Crimea, 
Oleg Sentsov, faced a similar fate. A Russian court sentenced Mr. 
Sentsov to 20 years in prison based on charges that he was planning a 
terrorist attack against Russian forces after the peninsula was annexed 
by Russia. Despite strong evidence that Mr. Sentsov was innocent and 
despite international condemnation of his case, he remains in a Russian 
prison serving out his 20-year sentence. As Mr. Sentsov said in remarks 
following his sentence: ``A court of occupiers can never be just.''
  Nadiya is just one of President Putin's countless victims. Her show 
trial--a throwback to the Stalinist Soviet era--is intended not to 
establish innocence or guilt, but to punish dissent, evoke fear, and 
remind citizens of what happens to people who dare defy the former KGB 
officer, Vladimir Putin.
  Her trial illustrates just how far President Putin is willing to go 
to humiliate Ukraine for its pursuit of freedom and punish Ukrainians 
for refusing to accept its illegal occupation. It is just one more way 
that Putin is trying to bully free peoples and free nations into 
submission. He is sending the message that anyone who dares to 
challenge him will end up in a cage just like her--or worse.
  Putin's efforts are failing. The Ukrainian people have shown that 
they will not be intimidated, they will not

[[Page 3295]]

be silenced, and they will not give into fear. They have shown that 
they will continue to fight for a free and democratic future for 
Ukraine with or without the international support they need and 
deserve.
  One of the more shameful chapters in American history will be the 
fact that we still refuse to give Ukrainians defensive weapons with 
which to defend themselves. This President has made a lot of grievous 
errors, but it is outrageous, as we watch Ukrainians slaughtered by 
Russian tanks, that we will not even give them the weapons to defend 
themselves.
  The Ukrainian Government has urged Moscow to release Nadiya in 
accordance with the Minsk II agreement that provides for the release of 
all illegally held persons. International leaders have echoed this 
call, but her illegal imprisonment continues. It is time to move past 
meaningless condemnations and expressions of concern and respond to 
Putin's shameful and blatant breach of international law by 
sanctioning--I emphasize sanctioning--those responsible for the 
kidnapping and illegal, unjust imprisonment of Ms. Savchenko, as well 
as the officials involved in the fabrication of false charges against 
her.
  A clear message must be sent to Moscow: Release Nadiya or face 
sanctions. Release her or face sanctions.
  The United States has a critical role to play in the preservation of 
freedom and democracy throughout the world, and it is a role that we 
suppress at our own peril. I know this is not a popular cause in the 
United States right now, but nothing will relieve us of the 
responsibility to stand up for those whose fundamental human rights are 
being violated and to defend the values that America and our allies 
have sacrificed so much to preserve.
  How we respond to each and every attempt by Putin to suppress 
democracy and freedom will have far-reaching repercussions. The United 
States and the entire international community must respond to this 
latest outrage in a way that demonstrates the inevitability of the 
values which Nadiya so clearly represents. Nadiya's fight--and that of 
all Ukrainians who rose up peacefully against tyranny in their quest 
for freedom--must also be the world's fight. We must continue to show 
Putin that he cannot halt the march to freedom and democracy. The 
Ukrainian people--and the Russian people, too--deserve no less.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  Cuba

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as the President prepares to go to Cuba, 
I rise in memory of all of those Cuban dissidents who have given their 
lives in the hope that Cuba one day would be free from the yoke of the 
Castro regime. It is that freedom I had hoped President Obama was 
referencing when he said:

       What I've said to the Cuban government is--if we're seeing 
     more progress in the liberty and freedom and possibilities of 
     ordinary Cubans, I'd love to use a visit as a way of 
     highlighting that progress. . . . If we're going backwards, 
     then there's not much reason for me to be there.

  But that is obviously not the case, which is why the Boston Globe's 
headline on February 25 says it all: ``Obama Breaks Pledge, Will Visit 
Cuba Despite Worsening Human Rights.'' Instead of having the free 
world's leader honor Latin America's only dictatorship with a visit, he 
could have visited one of 150 countries that he has not visited, 
including several in Latin America that are democracies.
  The President has negotiated a deal with the Castros--and I 
understand his desire to make this his legacy issue--but there is still 
a fundamental issue of freedom and democracy at stake that goes to the 
underlying atmosphere in Cuba and whether or not the Cuban people will 
still be repressed and still be imprisoned or will they benefit from 
the President's legacy or will it be the Castro regime that reaps those 
benefits?
  Unless the Castros are compelled to change their dictatorship--the 
way they govern the island and the way they exploit its people--the 
answer to this won't be much different than the last 50-some-odd years. 
The Castro regime will be the beneficiary.
  At the very least, the President's first stops should be meetings 
with internationally recognized dissidents: U.S. Presidential Medal of 
Freedom winner Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet and the European Union's Sakharov 
prize recipients Guillermo Farinas and Rosa Maria Paya, in respect for 
her murdered father, Oswaldo Paya, who was leading the Varela Project, 
advocating for civil liberties, and collecting thousands of signatures 
petitioning the Castro regime for democratic change--as permitted, by 
the way, under the Cuban Constitution. So threatening was his peaceful 
petition drive that he was assassinated by Castro security agents.
  The President should meet with Berta Soler at her home, in her 
neighborhood, with the Ladies in White, and with dissidents and 
democracy advocates in Havana. That should be the front-page photograph 
we see next week. Only then will the message that the United States 
will not give in or give up on our commitment to a free and democratic 
Cuba be clear to the world and to the Cuban people.
  To leave a truly honorable mark in history would mean the President 
leaving Castro's cordoned-off tourist zone and seeking Berta Soler and 
her Ladies in White at their headquarters in the Lawton neighborhood of 
Havana, where poverty, Castro-style--not opportunity, not freedom, not 
democracy but poverty created by a Stalinist state--is the umbrella 
under which they live.
  The President should witness their bravery, listen to their stories, 
feel their despair, see the fear under which they live, and stand up 
with them and for them. If he did, he could learn of the story of 
Aliuska Gomez, one of the Ladies in White, who was arrested this past 
Sunday for marching peacefully.
  Basically, the Ladies in White dress in white as a form of a symbol. 
They march with a gladiolus to church every Sunday in protest for their 
sons and husbands who are arrested simply for their political dissent, 
and they are beaten savagely--savagely.
  The President could learn of the story of Aliuska Gomez, one of the 
Ladies in White, who was arrested this past Sunday for marching 
peacefully. I am reading from an article in Diario de Cuba where she 
told her story:

       ``We were subjected to a lot of violence today,'' said 
     Aliuska Gomez. ``Many of us were dragged and beaten,'' she 
     added, pointing out that this has taken place only one week 
     before President Obama's visit. Aliuska related how she was 
     taken to a police station in Marianao where she was forcibly 
     undressed by several uniformed officers in plain view of some 
     males. . . . ``After they had taken away all of my 
     belongings,'' she said, ``they told me to strip naked, and I 
     refused, so they threw me down on the floor and took off all 
     of my clothing, right in front of two men, and they dragged 
     me completely naked into a jail cell.'' Aliuska was then 
     handcuffed and thrown on the cell's floor naked and left 
     alone.

  Or how about the young Cuban dissident who met with Ben Rhodes and 
was arrested in Havana. This is from a report dated March 14:

       Yesterday the Castro regime arrested Carlos Amel Oliva, 
     head of the youth wing of the Cuban Patriotic Union, a major 
     dissident organization. He is being accused of antisocial 
     behavior. On Friday, Amel Oliva had participated in a meeting 
     in Miami with Ben Rhodes, President Obama's Deputy National 
     Security Advisor. He returned to Havana on Sunday.

  I guess that is what Raul Castro thinks and does to those who meet 
with the President's Deputy National Security Advisor.
  Notwithstanding their true stories and the stories of thousands like 
them, the President first announced sweeping changes to America's 
strategic approach to the Castro regime in December 2014. In broad 
strokes, we learned of the forthcoming reestablishment of diplomatic 
relations--an exchange of symbols, with the American flag flying over a 
U.S. Embassy in Havana and the Cuban flag flying over a Cuban Embassy 
in Washington. We learned about

[[Page 3296]]

the process by which Cuba's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism 
would be lifted. We learned about the forthcoming transformative 
effects of a unilateral easing of sanctions to increase travel, 
commerce, and currency.
  But for those of us who understand this regime, we cautioned for 
nuance and urged against those broad strokes. We asked that the 
administration at least require the Castros to reciprocate with certain 
concessions of their own, which would be as good for U.S. national 
interests as for the Cuban people and for U.S.-Cuba relations.
  For example, before the President ever traveled to Burma--a country 
with notorious human rights abuses and with which this administration 
began to engage--the United States first demanded and received action 
by the Burmese to address their human rights record. To be sure, the 
Burmese Government agreed to meet nearly a dozen benchmarks--a dozen 
benchmarks--as a part of this action-for-action engagement, including 
granting the Red Cross access to prisons, establishing a U.N. High 
Commissioner for Human Rights office, release of political prisoners, 
conclusion of a cease-fire in Kachin State, and ensuring international 
access to conflict areas.
  We asked, as the President's Cuban policy unfolded, that they push 
for changes that put Cubans in control of their own future, their 
political process, economic opportunities, civil society, and 
governance. We didn't get a single one.
  We asked for changes that would honor America's legacy as a champion 
for human rights. We didn't get those either.
  We suggested changes that would ultimately bring Cuba into the 
community of nations, contributing to, rather than detracting from, the 
overall prosperity of the hemisphere. And there were none.
  Most importantly, we asked that they remember that it is a lack of 
resources, not a change of heart, that slowed the Castros' adventurism 
and instability-inducing support for those who would pose threats to 
our national interests within the Western Hemisphere.
  In essence, we were thinking strategically. Instead, we traded 
strategy for tactics. Leading Cuban human rights and democracy 
activists have criticized U.S. policies--those languishing inside of 
Cuba who risk their lives and their liberty every day.
  The simple truth is that deals with the Devil require the Devil to 
deal. Opening channels of communications controlled by the regime means 
nothing unless we are going to communicate our values. It means nothing 
if we do not champion the material changes the Cuban people seek. It 
means nothing if we do not speak the language the Castros understand--
that the Communist revolution has failed miserably and it is time to 
let the Cuban people decide their future.
  The Castros know it, but it is the antiquated hallmark of the 
revolution and the iron-fisted rule that came from it that keeps them 
in power. We talk about being in the past. Well, that is in the past, 
but no one challenges that past. Until that power is truly challenged, 
we can expect to witness the further weakening of our leverage on 
behalf of democracy and human rights.
  In the meantime, the regime is already moving forward, already 
breathing new life into its existing repressive state systems. Cubans 
are being beaten, arrested, and otherwise muzzled at higher rates--
higher rates--than ever before. The Cuban Commission for Human Rights, 
which is within Cuba, has documented 1,141 political arrests by the 
Castro regime in Cuba during the short month of February 2016. In 
January 2016 the commission documented 1,447 political arrests. As 
such, these 2,588 political arrests in the first 2\1/2\ months of this 
year represent the highest tally to begin a year in decades. This is 
what happens when President Obama first announces he will not visit 
Cuba until there are tangible improvements in the respect for human 
rights, and then he crosses his own red lines--nearly 2,600 arrests in 
2\1/2\ months, and these are only political arrests that have been 
thoroughly documented. Many more are suspected.
  U.S. fugitives and members of foreign terrorist organizations, such 
as Joanne Chesimard, the convicted killer of New Jersey State Trooper 
Werner Foerster, or Charlie Hill, who killed New Mexico State Trooper 
Robert Rosenbloom, still enjoy safe harbor on the island. Not a penny 
of the $6 billion in outstanding claims by American citizens and 
businesses for properties confiscated by the Castros has been repaid.
  Unrelenting censorship and oppression of Cuban journalists continues 
unscathed, and the Cuban path to liberty doesn't even include the U.S. 
Embassy.
  So what do we learn? We learn that, despite the Obama 
administration's engagement with the Castro dictatorship and increased 
travel to the island, repression on the island is rising exponentially. 
Why? Because the Castro regime, one of the most astute observers of the 
American political system, is rushing to take advantage of the 
permissive environment created by the President's hunger for legacy and 
the relaxation of restrictions. But legacy is not more important than 
lives.
  For years we have heard how an improvement in U.S.-Cuba relations, an 
easing of sanctions, and an increase in travel to the island would 
benefit the Cuban people--a benefit not realized despite the visits and 
investments of millions of Europeans, Canadians, Mexicans, and South 
Americans. There is not one iota of better life or greater democracy 
for the Cuban people. These assumptions are wrong. And since December 
17, 2014, the President has engaged the regime, offering unilateral 
concessions that the Castros are more than happy to accept. If that is 
not enough for us to at least question our Cuba policy, we are now 
facing an unfolding Cuban migration crisis.
  The United States is faced with the largest migration of Cuban 
immigrants since the rafters of 1994. The number of Cubans entering the 
United States in 2015 was nearly twice that of 2014--some 51,000--and 
tens of thousands more are desperately trying to make the journey via 
South and Central America. I ask: Why would Cubans flee if the promise 
of a better life in Cuba is just on the horizon? When President Obama 
took office, those numbers were less than 7,000 annually--51,000.
  We hear that ``self-employment,'' such as it is in Cuba, is growing. 
But the number of ``self-employed'' workers in Cuba has actually 
decreased. The Cuban government today is licensing 10,000 fewer ``self-
employed'' workers than it did in 2014. In contrast, Castro's military 
monopolies are expanding at record pace. Even the limited spaces in 
which ``self-employed'' workers previously operated are being squeezed 
as the Cuban military expands its control of the island's travel, 
retail, and financial sectors of the economy.
  While speaking recently to a business gathering in Washington, here 
in the Nation's Capital, President Obama argued how he believes this 
new policy is ``creating the environment in which a generational change 
and transition will take place in [Cuba].'' But the key question is, A 
``generational change and transition'' toward what and by whom?
  Cuban democracy leader, Antonio Rodiles, has concisely expressed this 
concern. He said ``legitimizing the [Castro] regime is the path 
contrary to a transition.''
  CNN has revealed that the Cuban delegation in the secret talks that 
began in mid-2013 with U.S. officials in Ottawa, Toronto, and Rome, and 
which led to the December 17 policy announcement, were headed by 
Colonel Alejandro Castro Espin. Colonel Castro Espin is the 49-year-old 
son of Cuban dictator Raul Castro.
  In both face-to-face meetings between President Obama and Raul Castro 
this year--first at April's Summit of the Americas in Panama City and 
just recently at the United Nation's General Assembly in New York--
Alejandro was seated, with a wide grin, next to his father. Alejandro 
holds the rank of colonel in Cuba's Ministry of the Interior, with his 
hand on the pulse and trigger of the island's intelligence services and 
repressive ordinances. It is no secret that Raul Castro is grooming 
Alejandro for a position of power.

[[Page 3297]]

  Sadly, his role as interlocutor with the Obama administration seeks 
to further their goal of an intrafamily generational transition within 
the Castro clan, similar to the Assads in Syria and the Kims in North 
Korea. And we know how well those have worked out.
  To give an idea of how Colonel Alejandro Castro views the United 
States, he has described its leaders as ``those who seek to subjugate 
humanity to satisfy their interests and hegemonic goals.'' This is who 
is being readied to be the next leader of Cuba, with whom we have been 
negotiating.
  Of course, it also takes money to run a totalitarian dictatorship, 
which is why Raul Castro named his son-in-law, General Luis Alberto 
Rodriguez Lopez Callejas, as head of GAESA, which stands for Grupo de 
Administracion Empresarial S.A., or translated, Business Administrative 
Group.
  GAESA is the holding company of Cuba's Ministry of the Revolutionary 
Armed Forces, Cuba's military. It is the dominant driving force of the 
island's economy. Established in the 1990s by Raul Castro, it controls 
tourism companies, ranging from the very profitable Gaviota S.A., which 
runs Cuba's hotels, restaurants, car rentals, and nightclubs, to TRD 
Caribe S.A., which runs the island's retail stores. GAESA controls 
virtually all economic transactions in Cuba.
  According to Hotels Magazine, a leading industry publication, GAESA--
through its subsidiaries--is by far the largest regional hotel 
conglomerate in Latin America. It controls more hotel rooms than the 
Walt Disney Company.
  As McClatchy News explained a few years back:

       Tourists who sleep in some of Cuba's hotels, drive rental 
     cars, fill up their gas tanks, and even those riding in taxis 
     have something in common: They are contributing to the 
     [Cuban] Revolutionary Armed Forces' bottom line.

  In essence, Cuba's military and its repressive system.
  GAESA became this business powerhouse, thanks to the millions of 
Canadians and European tourists that have and continue to visit Cuba 
each year. The Cuban military-owned tourism company, Gaviota Tourism 
Group S.A., averaged 12 percent growth in 2015 and expects to double 
its hotel business this year.
  These tourists have done absolutely nothing to promote freedom and 
democracy in Cuba. To the contrary, they have directly financed a 
system of control and repression over the Cuban people, all while 
enjoying cigars by Cuban workers paid in worthless pesos and having a 
Cuba Libre, which is an oxymoron, on the beaches Varadero. Yet, despite 
the clear evidence, President Obama wants American tourists to now 
double GAESA's bonanza and, through GAESA, strengthen the regime.
  An insightful report by Bloomberg Business also explained:

       [Raul's son-in-law, General Rodriguez] is the gatekeeper 
     for most foreign investors, requiring them to do business 
     with his organization if they wish to set up shop on the 
     island. If and when the U.S. finally removes its half-century 
     embargo on Cuba, it will be this man who decides which 
     investors get the best deals.

  Again, he is part of the Cuban military. So this is not about people 
to people. This is about us helping the very entities that help fund 
the Cuban military and security agencies. In other words, all of the 
talking points about how lifting the embargo and tourism restrictions 
would somehow benefit the Cuban people are empty and misleading 
rhetoric.
  In addition, Internet ``connectivity ranking'' has dropped in Cuba. 
The International Telecommunication Union's ``Measuring the Information 
Society Report'' for 2015, the most reliable source of data and 
analysis on global access to information and communication, dropped 
Cuba's ranking to 129, down from 119. Cuba fares much worse than some 
of the world's most infamous suppressors, including Syria, Iran, China, 
and Venezuela--worse.
  In Cuba, religious freedom violations have also increased. According 
to the London-based NGO, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, last year, 
2,000 churches in Cuba were declared illegal and 100 were designated 
for demolition by the Castro regime. Altogether, they documented 2,300 
separate violations of religious freedom in 2015, compared to 220 in 
2014--2,300 versus 220. So religious oppression is on the rise. And if 
that is not enough, Castro reneged on the release of political 
prisoners and visits by international monitors. Most of the 53 
political prisoners released in the months prior and after the 
President's December 2014 announcement have since been rearrested on 
multiple occasions. Five have been handed new long-term prison 
sentences. Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch noted in its new 2016 report 
that ``Cuba has yet to allow visits to the island by the International 
Committee of the Red Cross or by the United Nations human rights 
monitors, as stipulated in the December 2014 agreement with the United 
States.''
  These were the conditions that prompted Congress, over the course of 
our long history with Cuba, to pass successive laws to build on--not 
detract from--Executive orders that created the embargo. So I stand 
with thousands of Cuba's civil society leaders, dissidents, journalists 
and everyday men and women who long for the day when the freedom we 
enjoy in our great country extends to theirs. As long as I have a 
voice, they will have an ally to speak truth to power against this 
dictatorship and against any effort to legitimize it or reward it.
  We must realize the nature of the Castro regime will not be altered 
by capitulating on our demands for basic human and civil rights. If the 
United States is to give away its leverage, it should be in exchange 
for one thing, and one thing only: a true transition in Cuba.
  Finally, as for the latest announcements from the administration, I 
stand against any rollback of the statutory provisions that codify Cuba 
sanctions. We learned this week that the administration has cleared the 
way for individual travel to Cuba outside the auspices of a group or 
organization, and that is tourism, plain and simple.
  We learned this week that the administration has cleared the way for 
Cubans--athletes, artists, performers, and others--to earn salaries in 
the United States, which, in and of itself would be a good thing, 
except that, unfortunately, much if not all of those salaries will go 
back to the regime, as they must pay the regime most of what they make 
abroad.
  We learned that Americans may purchase Cuban-origin products and 
services in third countries--cigars, alcohol, and basic products 
produced by a system of slave labor that funnels proceeds to one place: 
the regime's pockets.
  When it comes to banking and financial services, we will now permit 
the U.S. financial system to facilitate the flow of these and other 
proceeds directly to the regime. The administration will allow the 
Cuban Government, which profits from the sale of intelligence--as when 
they had our Hellfire missile--to export Cuban-origin software to the 
United States. Never mind that the Cuban Government aggressively 
monitors the Internet activity of Cuban dissidents and sensors users on 
the island. And then we are going to permit direct shipping by Cuban 
vessels. These ``significant amendments'' to the Cuban Assets Control 
Regulations and the Export Administration Regulations, cornerstones of 
implementation of United States sanctions against the Castro regime 
announced on Tuesday, create new opportunities for abuse of permitted 
travel. They authorize trade and commerce with Castro monopolies and 
permit the regime to use U.S. dollars to conduct its business. They are 
unilateral concessions, requiring no changes from the Castro regime to 
the political and economic system under which the Castros exploit lives 
and labor of Cuban nationals.
  In a meeting late last week, I warned officials at the Department of 
Treasury that these changes ``come up to the line and in some cases 
cross it,'' with respect to statutory authority. Their actions are 
inconsistent with existing statutes and incompatible with the intent of 
Congress as expressed through those statutes. I should know, as I was 
one of the authors of the Libertad Act when I served in the House of 
Representatives.

[[Page 3298]]

  In my view, at the end of the day, this is a unilateral transfer of 
the little remaining leverage that the administration hadn't given away 
prior to this week's announcement. With these steps, I believe Commerce 
and Treasury have set the stage for legal action against the 
administration. Congress has authorized categories of travel to Cuba, 
but none of these categories were tourism or commerce for commerce's 
sake with the regime. The President has said his Cuba policy ``helps 
promote the people's independence from Cuban authorities,'' but it is 
clear that it does not. Yet, this week, in what would seem to 
contravene not only the letter but the spirit of the law, the 
administration will reportedly allow the regime to use U.S. dollars in 
international financial transactions and a U.S. hotel company to 
partner with a Cuban military conglomerate run by the Castro family.
  Let's be clear. It is not the Cuban people who are eager and willing 
to shuffle dollars through BNP Paribas, INB Group, or HSBC Bank; only 
the regime is willing and eager to do so.
  As for the reports that Starwood-Marriott is looking for an 
arrangement with the regime, with the blessing of the administration, 
it would be an agreement with a subsidiary of GAESA, the Cuban military 
conglomerate run by Raul Castro's son-in-law, General Luis Alberto 
Rodriguez Lopez-Callejas. So how does that help the Cuban people when 
you are working and helping the regime? It would be an agreement to 
manage a hotel for the Cuban military. Among those considered is 
Havana's swanky hotel Saratoga, which has been confiscated twice by the 
Castro regime--an agreement by which employees are also hired by the 
regime's state employment agency instead of directly by a company, in 
violation of international labor laws.
  So I ask, how does allowing U.S. companies to do business with the 
regime, let alone the Castro family itself, ``promote the Cuban 
people's independence from the authorities,'' as the President has 
said?
  This breathes new life into the Castro's repressive state systems, 
and that new life means one thing: The repressive system will continue 
without changes.
  Next week, when we anticipate we will see a photograph of the 
President of the United States laughing and shaking hands with the only 
dictator in the Western Hemisphere, I will be thinking of Berta Soler 
of the Ladies in White and her fellow human rights and democracy 
advocates. She testified before Congress last year and said: ``Our 
demands are quite concrete; freedom for political prisoners, 
recognition of civil society, the elimination of criminal dispositions 
that penalize freedom of expression and association and the right of 
the Cuban people to choose their future through free, multiparty 
elections.'' It is not an overwhelming ask. What American would be 
willing to not have those basic fundamental freedoms?
  What are we willing to do to impose on another country--to say: We 
will deal with you even though you repress your people and deny them 
those freedoms.
  Those are the words of freedom Berta Soler spoke on her behalf and 
all of those who risk their lives and liberty every day inside of Cuba 
to create that possibility. That is the legacy we should work toward 
until the Cuban people are finally freed.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                     Nomination of Merrick Garland

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, early this morning I got a telephone call 
from a White House staffer who told me that the President was going to 
announce his choice to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court 
occasioned by the passing of Antonin Scalia. This morning I was invited 
to the Rose Garden to witness that ceremony, and I thought it was one 
of the President's best deliveries of a message to the American people 
about a critically important issue.
  I applaud President Obama for his nomination of Chief Judge Merrick 
Garland to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. No one questions that Judge 
Garland is an outstanding attorney and has been an exceptional judge 
during his 19 years on the DC Circuit Court. No one questions his 
qualifications and experience to serve with distinction on the Supreme 
Court. I congratulate him, his wife Lynn, whom I just met, and his 
daughters, Becky and Jessie, on this nomination.
  Judge Garland is a proud son of Illinois. He is the grandson of 
immigrants who fled anti-Semitic persecution. He was born in Chicago to 
parents who ran a small business and volunteered in their community. He 
graduated at the top of his class from Niles West High School, received 
his undergraduate and law degree from Harvard, and clerked for the 
legendary Judge Henry Friendly of the Second Circuit and Justice 
William Brennan of the U.S. Supreme Court. He has an incredible legal 
resume. He served in the Justice Department and worked in private 
practice before he was nominated to the DC Circuit Court.
  Today President Obama told the story of how Merrick Garland in the 
U.S. Department of Justice was sent down after the Oklahoma City 
bombing to handle the prosecution and how he carefully, deftly, and 
professionally handled that prosecution in a way that it would stick 
and it wouldn't be overturned because of legal mistakes. He personally 
felt an attachment and obligation to the victims and their families, 
and he carried with him the memorial service bulletin that was given 
out with the names of each one of the victims. He brought it with him 
to the courtroom each day. He is that kind of person--a prosecutor but 
with empathy to the victims and a determination to make sure he 
followed the law. He did.
  President Obama has fulfilled his constitutional responsibility, and 
now the Senate must do the same. Article II, section 2, of the 
Constitution provides the requirement that the President shall appoint 
a nominee to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, and the 
President did that today.
  That same section of the Constitution goes on to say that it is the 
responsibility of the Senate--this Senate--to advise and consent to 
that nominee. There is no requirement that we approve the President's 
nominee. He wants us to. I hope we do. But what it says is we have a 
responsibility under the Constitution--the same Constitution we swore 
to uphold and defend.
  So the President is using his authority and constitutional 
responsibility by naming Merrick Garland. Now what will happen? The 
Republican leadership in the Senate has said: End of story; we are not 
going to do anything. Some Senators have gone so far as to say they 
will not even meet with this man, will not even meet with the 
President's nominee for the Supreme Court. In the history of the United 
States of America, there has never--underline ``never''--been a 
situation where the President sent a nominee to the Supreme Court to 
the Senate and there was not a hearing. Never. And now the Republican 
majority here has said: Ignore history. Ignore the Constitution. We are 
not going to let this President fill this vacancy.
  Their argument is this: Let the American people decide. There is an 
election coming. It will be in November. Let them pick a President, who 
will then choose that Supreme Court nominee.
  Well, that is an interesting approach. It might make some sense had 
President Barack Obama been reelected in 2012 to a term of 3 years and 
2 months. He was reelected to a 4-year term by a 5 million-vote 
plurality. He is the President. And to argue that in his last year in 
office, he should have no authority or power in the Constitution to 
exercise what is required of him is to ignore the obvious.
  By what right do we, in the closing year of a Senator's term, vote on 
the floor of the Senate if we are disqualified from making important 
decisions in our last year in office in each term? It is a ludicrous 
position, a ridiculous position. It is a position which I find 
offensive.
  This system of government gives to the American people the last word 
about who the President will be. There

[[Page 3299]]

have been times when I have applauded that decision and times when I 
didn't. But if you are respectful of this Constitution and this 
government, then you follow the will of the people of this great 
Nation, and they made a decision by a plurality of 5 million votes that 
Barack Obama would have this power for 4 years, until January of 2017. 
So the President has sent this name, and now it is up to the Senate.
  The Judiciary Committee plays an important role in this decision, and 
I am honored to serve on it. In 2001, then-chairman of the committee 
Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, joined with Ranking Republican 
Member Orrin Hatch of Utah and they sent a letter to the Senate about 
this issue of filling Supreme Court vacancies--a bipartisan letter, 
Leahy and Hatch. Here is what it said: We both recognize and have every 
intention of following the practices and precedents of the committee 
and the Senate when considering Supreme Court nominees.
  We should hold a hearing without delay. If this letter was the case 
15 years ago and Senator Hatch, who was then the ranking Republican, 
joined with Senator Leahy, the Democratic chairman, what has changed? 
The only thing that has changed is we have a President named Barack 
Obama.
  You see, in 1987 there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Ronald 
Reagan was President. In 1988 he sent the name Anthony Kennedy to this 
Chamber to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The Senate at that time 
was under the control of the Democrats. Ronald Reagan, a Republican 
President, sent his nominee to the Democratic Senate, and what 
happened? Did they announce: We are not going to fill this; we will 
wait until after the election. No, no. The Democratic-controlled Senate 
held a hearing for Anthony Kennedy, brought him up for a vote, and 
passed him unanimously to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Now look at 
what we are facing--Republican colleagues who refuse to do their job 
under the Constitution. For what reason? Obviously for political 
reasons.
  My Republican colleagues say they are standing behind a principle 
that the President should not get to name the Supreme Court Justice in 
his final year. That principle has no history, no precedent, and is 
virtually impossible to defend.
  I would suggest a different principle to my Republican colleagues. 
Since Judge Merrick Garland is unquestionably qualified and you clearly 
would vote to confirm him under the next President, why wait? Why not 
vote to confirm him under this President? Failing to fill this vacancy 
on the Supreme Court means there will be over 1 year from the death of 
Justice Antonin Scalia until a successor is chosen. The only time in 
history when the Senate left a vacancy on the Supreme Court for that 
period of time--1 year or more--was during the Civil War when we were 
literally at war with one another in the United States. If that is the 
only time that ever happened, there is no excuse for us to let it 
happen again at this moment in our history.
  To my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, do your job. Fill 
this vacancy. Meet your constitutional responsibility.


                  For-Profit Colleges and Universities

  Mr. President, on Friday the Department of Education released its 
latest proposals for new regulations on borrower relief when a school 
engages in unfair, deceptive, or abusive conduct. The proposals will be 
debated this week at the third negotiated rulemaking session as part of 
the formal rulemaking process.
  I want to speak about one of the issues addressed in the latest 
proposal from the Department of Education--the use of mandatory 
arbitration in enrollment contracts by institutions of higher 
education. These clauses, which for-profit colleges and universities 
often bury in fine print, prevent students from bringing suit against a 
school in court as an individual and often as part of a class action. 
It means, for example, that if a student applying to a school is 
deceived and misled by that school as to the degree they will receive 
or the job they will qualify for, they can't bring a legal action in 
court against the school. Instead, the student is forced into a secret 
proceeding where the deck is stacked against him. It allows schools to 
avoid accountability for their misconduct and prevents misconduct from 
coming to the attention of Federal regulators.
  While nearly unheard of in not-for-profit institutions--think about 
public universities and private, not-for-profit colleges--mandatory 
arbitration has now become virtually standard in for-profit colleges 
and is used by all of the majors, such as the University of Phoenix, 
ITT Tech, and DeVry University, just to name a few. It was also used by 
Corinthian. Corinthian, another for-profit college, made sure that if 
their students signed up for a contract with the school, they signed 
this arbitration clause which eliminated the student's day in court.
  I was pleased when the Department, in its latest proposal for current 
rulemaking, included an option for banning the use of mandatory 
arbitration by all institutions receiving Federal title IV dollars. I 
thank the Department for including it in its proposal.
  I also want to take a moment to discuss ITT Tech. ITT Tech is another 
for-profit college that is under scrutiny by Federal and State 
regulators. Last year the Department of Education found that the 
company, ITT, failed to meet its fiduciary duty to the Department and 
failed to meet the standards of administrative capability required of 
institutions under title IV, and they placed restrictions on ITT. The 
Department then required ITT Tech to pay nearly $80 million to be kept 
in escrow to guard against the potential collapse of this for-profit 
school. The company is under investigation by 18 State attorneys 
general related to deceptive marketing. This is deceptive marketing of 
college students who are being misled into signing expensive tuition 
contracts with this school.
  The New Mexico attorney general found that ITT Tech placed students 
into loans without the knowledge of the students, falsely stated the 
number of credits a student had to take in order to push them into more 
debt, failed to issue refunds of tuition and fees in compliance with 
Federal law, and a variety of other deceptive practices. If that wasn't 
enough, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is also suing the 
company for predatory lending.
  This is the exploitation of college students. This is piling up debt.
  We have to frequently remind ourselves of the basics. Ten percent of 
the students in college are in for-profit colleges and universities. 
Among those are the University of Phoenix, DeVry, Kaplan, and ITT Tech. 
Out of that 10 percent, 40 percent of all student loan defaults are 
from students in the for-profit colleges and universities.
  How is it that 10 percent of the students in for-profit schools 
account for 40 percent of all student loan defaults?
  First, the students go too deep in debt. These for-profit schools are 
way too expensive. Second, when the students can't keep up with the 
debt they are accumulating, they drop out, and when they drop out, it 
is the worst of both worlds. They don't even have a diploma from the 
for-profit school, and they still have a debt. Third, if they hang 
around long enough and finish and get a diploma from these for-profit 
schools, they find out many times they are worthless. Forty percent of 
the loan defaults are from students who attended for-profit colleges 
and universities. These schools are coercing students into high-cost 
loans with interest rates as high as 16 percent and more, and they 
misrepresent future job prospects to them.
  Finally, the Securities and Exchange Commission is suing the company, 
ITT, and two of its executives, Kevin Modany, its CEO, and Daniel 
Fitzpatrick, its CFO, personally for concealing the poor performance of 
private institutional student loans from investors.
  Behind all of this scrutiny by Federal and State regulators are 
students who have been harmed irreparably. According to a recent 
Brookings study, ITT Tech students cumulatively owe more than $4.6 
billion in Federal student loans.

[[Page 3300]]

  How much is being paid back on this cumulative debt? According to the 
study, negative 1 percent of the balance has been repaid in 2014. What 
does it mean? How can it be a negative number? Simple--the interest on 
this accumulative debt is occurring faster than it can be paid off by 
the students. Individual students often have no chance of paying back 
this personal debt when they have taken out a loan and end up with a 
worthless degree from ITT Tech.
  What responsibility do we have as a government when it comes to these 
schools that are deceiving students, dragging them into debt, and then 
watching as they default? We have a major responsibility. For-profit 
colleges and universities are the most heavily subsidized private 
businesses in America today. We have all heard the term ``crony 
capitalism.'' It couldn't apply more aptly to for-profit colleges and 
universities. Most of their revenues don't come from students and 
families--only indirectly. Most of their revenue comes through the 
Federal Treasury in the form of government loans that end up in the 
pockets of the owners of these for-profit colleges and universities.
  More than half the students who left ITT in 2009 are in default on 
their student loans 5 years later--half.
  One former student of ITT Tech is Marcus Willis from Illinois. He was 
aggressively recruited by ITT Tech with multiple phone calls each day. 
He finally signed up for classes. He graduated in 2003 from ITT Tech 
and spent months unable to find a job. When talking about his debt, 
Marcus said:

       It's too much to even keep track of. I will never, ever be 
     able to pay it back.

  He said that he ``wouldn't wish ITT Tech on his worst enemy.''
  Despite all the lawsuits, the scandal, and students like Marcus, 
January was a big month for ITT Tech executives Kevin Modany and Daniel 
Fitzpatrick. They both got big bonus checks. Modany received $515,000 
and Fitzpatrick received $112,000. They can expect more. In 2014, Mr. 
Modany was paid more than $3 million. These are the same two who the 
SEC says violated numerous Federal securities laws in a fraudulent 
scheme to hide information from investors. But ITT Tech's board looks 
the other way. Instead of penalizing or dismissing them, they give them 
a bonus. ITT Tech investors have a right to be outraged.
  Current and former ITT Tech students are also outraged. The Federal 
taxpayers should be outraged too. You see, ITT Tech receives 80 percent 
of its revenue from Federal student aid funds. Nearly $1 billion a year 
comes from the Federal Treasury, and even more than that when you count 
the money they take in from VA, GI bills, and the Department of Defense 
tuition assistance funding.
  Recently, I sent a letter to ITT Tech's accreditor, the Accrediting 
Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, asking them what steps 
they were going to take to respond to this company's misconduct and 
shaky financial situation. They responded last week that they have 
required ITT Tech to submit teach-out plans to ensure that students can 
continue their education at other institutions should the company fail. 
Incidentally, the other institutions are probably going to be more for-
profit schools. So they transfer the kids from one failing for-profit 
to another questionable for-profit college.
  They also told me that they will assess ITT Tech's financial 
stability, education quality, and program integrity when they get 
together in April.
  I encourage the council which accredited Corinthian, which is now out 
of business, to make sure they take a hard look at ITT Tech. The 
writing is on the wall. There are reports that the University of Akron 
may be interested in buying this questionable college. I will be 
watching this development carefully to ensure that any potential 
transaction is in the best interest of students, their families, and 
taxpayers.


                Mental Health on Campus Improvement Act

  Mr. President, mental health conditions affect one out of five 
American adults. Yet this disease continues to be stigmatized, 
undertreated, and reduced to second-class status when it comes to 
certain health care benefits. Just like any other physical health 
disease, mental health conditions require a dedicated treatment plan 
and support for full recovery.
  I still remember years ago, when Paul Wellstone, who used to sit 
right back there, and Pete Domenici, who sat over there, were in the 
Senate. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, was a Democrat, and Pete Domenici 
of New Mexico was a Republican--what an unlikely pair. They came 
together because each of them had family experiences with mental 
health. What they tried to do--and successfully did--was to include in 
all of our health insurance plans coverage for mental health counseling 
as well as substance abuse treatment. It became standard. When we 
passed ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, it was built into health 
insurance policies. I have heard Members stand here and say: I am 
getting rid of ObamaCare. We are going to vote against it and make that 
go away. When they say that, we need to ask them: Will the coverage for 
mental health conditions go away too? How about the coverage for 
substance abuse treatment, will that coverage go away too?
  This change made a big difference. It was a huge step in the right 
direction to expand access to mental counseling. We have to further 
eliminate barriers to treatment.
  Last week, the Senate passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery 
Act, authorizing several important programs to help people deal with 
mental health and substance abuse issues. I supported it because it was 
a step in the right direction. We know that approximately 44 million 
Americans experience some sort of brain health or mental illness issue 
during the year, and millions don't receive treatment or support. This 
need for mental health services is especially dire with one group of 
Americans.
  How often in your life experience have you noticed a young man or 
woman go off to college and for the first time ever manifest some 
serious mental health issues? I have seen it with frequency, and I know 
that many schools struggle with it.
  Studies have shown that one-half of all chronic mental illness begins 
by age 14 and three-fourths by age 24. College students can face stress 
in new academic surroundings and new social environments. Many of them 
are away from home for the first time, and mental health concerns start 
to manifest. Despite this, colleges and universities have limited 
resources to deal with it. The ratio of counselors to students far 
exceeds recommended levels, preventing colleges and universities from 
identifying the most at-risk students.
  Right now, we are seeing a huge disparity between reported mental 
health needs and services being provided. In one nationwide study, 57 
percent of students reported having felt overwhelming anxiety, 35 
percent felt so depressed it was difficult to function, and 48 percent 
felt hopeless. Now, I remember some bad nights and bad mornings when 
facing a tough test, but we are talking about young people who have 
gone beyond that. They are facing some serious personal challenges.
  Only 10 percent of enrolled students seek any kind of counseling. 
This means that too many are slipping through the cracks and too many 
are not receiving treatment for mental illness. This can have tragic 
results.
  While millions of Americans suffer from serious mental illness, a 
very small statistical group engages in violence against themselves or 
others. We have examples of what happens when someone dealing with 
mental illness becomes violent. There was a horrific tragedy in 2008 on 
the campus of Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. Six people died 
in a school shooting as a result of someone suffering from mental 
illness. Their families were changed forever, and so was the campus.
  Not all mental health emergencies grab national headlines. Suicide is 
the second leading cause of death among Americans aged 15 to 34. We 
can't ignore the silent suffering of millions of Americans, including 
many young people. That is why I have joined with Senator Susan 
Collins, a Republican of Maine, and Senator Michael Bennet, a Democrat 
of Colorado, to introduce bipartisan legislation to improve

[[Page 3301]]

mental health services on college campuses, expanding outreach and 
counseling and tackling the mental health illness stigma. I am happy to 
partner with Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of Illinois in introducing 
this legislation.
  Our bill, the Mental Health on Campus Improvement Act, will support 
colleges and universities by giving them resources to better support 
the mental health needs of their students. It establishes a grant 
program to provide direct mental health services and outreach. Our bill 
will also increase awareness and treatment by promoting peer support 
training and engagement with campus groups. It launches a national 
education campaign to reduce the stigma, encourage identification of 
risk, and enhance the conversation about mental health and seeking 
help.
  This bill is sponsored by the American Foundation for Suicide 
Prevention, the American Psychology Association, the National Alliance 
on Mental Illness of Chicago, and the American College Health 
Association, among others.
  This morning this legislation was adopted by a voice vote as an 
amendment to the Cassidy-Murphy Mental Health Reform Act in the HELP 
Committee.
  I thank Senators Collins and Bennet for their efforts to advance the 
bill. I also thank Senators Cassidy, Murphy, Murray, and Alexander for 
working with us to ensure this important provision was included in the 
larger bill.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on this bipartisan 
measure. I also know there is a lot of interest in addressing barriers 
to treatment in Medicaid, known as the IMD exclusion, which is under 
the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. I will continue to push a bill 
that I cosponsored with Senator King of Maine, the Medicaid Care Act, 
which expands access to treatment and coverage.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________