[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[Issue]
[Pages 3175-3276]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 3175]]
SENATE--Tuesday, March 15, 2016
The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the President
pro tempore (Mr. Hatch).
____________________
PRAYER
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Merciful God, You alone have brought us to this moment. Help us to
hear Your whispers and to follow Your leading. Speak to our lawmakers
about the difficult issues of our time, reassuring them that You
continue to take control of our destinies. Teach them to count their
blessings, cultivating an attitude of gratitude. Give us the wisdom to
shut out yesterday's disappointments and tomorrow's fears. Lord, show
us how to live in day-tight compartments with total dependence on Your
mercy and grace. Help us to cherish the freedom of this land as You
continue to emancipate us from sin's slavery.
We pray in Your sacred Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The President pro tempore led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The majority leader is
recognized.
____________________
FILLING THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY AND GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD
LABELING BILL
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in the last national election, the
American people elected a Republican Senate. Since then, we have
accomplished a lot of important things for our country--landmark
education reform, permanent tax relief for families and small
businesses, significant action to repair America's roads and bridges--
and, just last week, decisive steps to address the prescription opioid
and heroin epidemic. The Republican Senate has been able to lead on
many important issues because we focused on areas where both sides can
agree, rather than just fight about issues where we don't.
Everyone knows one issue where we don't agree; that is, whether the
American people deserve a voice in filling the current Supreme Court
vacancy. Republicans think the people deserve a voice in this important
vacancy. The President and Senate Democrats do not.
Whoever is chosen to fill the Supreme Court vacancy could radically
change the direction of the Court for a generation. The American people
obviously deserve a voice in such an important conversation. They can
continue making their voices heard, and we can continue doing our work
in the Senate to move America forward on important issues.
Americans elected this Republican Senate to serve as a check-and-
balance to the President. It is natural that both parties will disagree
in some areas. It is natural we will find common ground in others.
Let's keep focused on those areas of common ground.
For instance, today I hope colleagues across the aisle will join us
in working to protect middle-class families from unnecessary and unfair
increases in their food and grocery bills. Vermont passed food-labeling
legislation that will be implemented soon and could increase annual
food costs across America by more than $1,000 per family. It is one
State's decision, but it could negatively affect families--especially
lower and middle-income families--in other States. Now we see other
States following in Vermont's footsteps, which could lead to a
patchwork of State laws. We should work to protect America's middle
class from the unfair higher food prices that could result, and that is
just what the Senate is working to do now.
We know this may be the last chance to stop this economic blow to the
middle class, but we can't act if colleagues block us from helping the
middle class. As our Democratic colleagues know, we are eager to
continue working toward a solution. I would encourage our colleagues
across the aisle to work with the bill managers to offer the amendments
or alternative proposals they may have.
The commonsense, bipartisan legislation offered by Chairman Pat
Roberts of the Agriculture Committee would set clear, science-based
standards in order to prevent families from being unfairly hurt by a
patchwork of conflicting State and local labeling laws passed in places
where they don't even live. This bipartisan bill would help meet
consumer interest for information about how food is made, while keeping
costs from rising at every level of production. It has earned the
support of more than 650 groups nationally, including farmers and small
businesses. As Kentucky's agriculture commissioner put it, this
bipartisan bill would ``allow for a more efficient flow of food to
consumers everywhere and would cut down on production costs.''
We know this is not a safety or health issue. It is a market issue.
Officials at both USDA and the FDA--the two agencies charged with
ensuring the safety and delivery of our Nation's food supply--have
found there are no health, safety, or nutritional risks associated with
bioengineered crops and products. At the same time, we recognize that
many families have a desire to know what is in the food they are
purchasing. That is why the legislation Chairman Roberts is working on
would offer incentives for the marketplace to provide more information
to consumers while also addressing many of the unintended consequences
of a patchwork of State laws. I thank Senator Roberts for his continued
work with colleagues from both sides of the aisle to move to a solution
this week.
The Agriculture Committee recently passed the chairman's mark by a
bipartisan vote, and the House passed its own legislation last summer.
Now it is time for the full Senate to act so we can protect the middle
class from higher food costs, and with continued cooperation from
across the aisle, that is just what we can do.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
____________________
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD LABELING BILL AND FILLING THE SUPREME COURT
VACANCY
Mr. REID. Mr. President, 90 percent of Americans want to know what is
in their food. All of Europe, China, Russia, they know what is in their
food. We should know what is in our food. Senator Stabenow, the ranking
member of the Agriculture Committee, has been trying to work to come up
with some reasonable approach, but what she has gotten is not much help
from the chair of the committee. There are no discussions going on
right now that are meaningful. The Republican leader has offered an
amendment that is a purely voluntary scheme, which is a quasi-Roberts
proposal and would leave consumers actually in the dark, and that is
the truth. But this is just another case of where Republicans in the
Senate are trying to create an appearance of doing something without
really doing anything at all. It happens so
[[Page 3176]]
often. This has happened so often during the past year. Things that my
friend the Republican leader comes to the floor and boasts about are
things we tried to do and we were blocked by Republican filibusters. We
have been happy in the minority to be responsible and work with the
Republicans to get things done, and we continue to do that. It is the
right thing for the country. We are not trying to block everything, as
they in fact did. We are trying to get things done.
One of the things we need to get done that belies the fact of this
great Senate Republican majority is the fact that we think there should
be a Supreme Court Justice. There should be 9, not 8.
One hundred years ago today, this very day, this Senate concluded the
confirmation hearing of Justice Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish
Supreme Court Justice ever. Prior to his nomination, it was not a
custom for the Senate to hold public confirmation hearings to set up
Supreme Court nominations, but over the last century these hearings
have become a vital part of the Senate's constitutional duty to provide
its advice and consent. For 100 years, the Senate has had open hearings
to deal with controversies--real or imagined--surrounding Supreme Court
vacancies and nominees.
It is disappointing that Republicans are now willing to throw away a
century of transparency and deliberation just to block President
Obama's Supreme Court nominee. Republicans will not even meet with this
man or this woman. Republicans will not allow a hearing for this man or
this woman. Republicans will not allow a vote on this man or this
woman, and that is wrong. We want transparency on what is going on here
with the Supreme Court. We want transparency on the food we eat.
They are adamant that President Obama's nominee will have nothing--no
opening hearing, no public hearing, no hearing at all. It is further
evidence of how far Republicans will go to avoid their constitutional
duties.
Mr. President, I see no one on the floor to speak, so I ask the Chair
to announce the schedule of the day.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the leadership time
is reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will be
in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m., with Senators
permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
Mr. REID. 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. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator is recognized.
____________________
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD LABELING BILL
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, many of you know that in my real life I am
a farmer. I know where my food comes from and how it is made.
Unfortunately, that is not true for most Americans.
We will be dealing with a bill called the DARK Act shortly, and quite
frankly the DARK Act does not empower America's consumers. It does not
tell them what is in the packaged food they purchase, and it doesn't
give them any information when we are dealing with genetically modified
ingredients.
I was told that the customer is always right. If you are a good
businessman, you listen to your customers. In this particular case, the
customer has a right to know what is in their food. In fact, they
expect it because 9 out of 10 consumers say they want labeling for
genetically engineered foods. Some of the folks in this body are not
listening to the customers. They are not listening to their
constituents. Instead, they are listening to the big corporations that
want to keep consumers in the dark, and we cannot allow that to happen
in this body today. The Senate is above that.
Transparency in everything leaves better accountability and gives
more power to average Americans, and that is also true when we talk
about food. Free markets work when consumers have access to
information. The U.S. Senate should not be in the business of hiding
information from consumers.
Let's be clear. What the new DARK Act, which is sponsored by the
Senator from Kansas, does is it tells the American people: We in the
Senate know what is best for you, and quite frankly, whether you want
this information or not, you are not going to get it.
How does this DARK Act do this? First of all, it blocks the States
from enforcing their own laws, so we can throw States' rights out the
window. Second, this ``compromise'' would hide the information behind
800 numbers and QR codes.
Let me tell you, if you think this is labeling, if you think this is
giving the consumer a right to know what is in their food, you are
wrong. This is a game. And for the mom who wants to know what is in her
child's cereal or soup or bread, there may be a bunch of different 800
numbers out there, and I don't know about you, but when it comes to
phone numbers, especially the older I get, the harder it is for me to
remember. Or you will stand in a grocery store aisle and scan each
individual product with a smartphone, if you have a smartphone and if
you have cell phone coverage at that location, because, quite frankly,
in rural America, we don't in a lot of places. And that is going to be
the labeling. Unbelievable.
The fact is, if folks are so proud of the GMOs, they should label
them. What they are saying is you can voluntarily do it. Frankly,
voluntary standards are no standards at all. If they were standards, we
would say to the super PACs: Tell us who you get your money from. Tell
us what you are spending it on, why you are spending it. We don't know
that. We don't know that in our elections, by the way, which puts our
democracy at risk, and we won't know about our food if this DARK Act
passes.
There are 64 countries out there that require GMO labeling. China,
Russia, and Saudi Arabia are not exactly transparent countries, but
they are requiring GMO labeling. Vermont passed a GMO labeling law that
would go in effect in July. Maine and Connecticut have passed mandatory
labeling laws. There are numerous States that require things like farm-
raised or wild- caught. FDA, in fact, even regulates terms such as
``fresh'' and ``fresh frozen.''
Some of the proponents of the DARK Act will say: Well, you know,
folks from California and Washington defeated it when it was on the
ballot.
Yes, they did. Let me give you some figures. In Washington, more than
$20 million was spent in opposition to the labeling law--more than $20
million. By the way, about $600 of that came from Washington residents,
according to the Washington Post. About $7 million was in support of
that campaign, with at least $1.6 million of that $7 million coming
from Washington residents.
In California, the opponents to labeling our food with GMOs spent
about $45 million to defeat it. Monsanto alone spent $8 million of that
$45 million. Supporters of the labeling spent about $7 million.
So let's be clear. When people have a choice to vote and get the
facts, they want their food labeled. This DARK Act does exactly the
opposite. It is bad legislation. It does not empower consumers. It does
not empower the American people. In fact, it does what the title of
this bill says: Keep them in the dark. That is not what the U.S. Senate
should be about. We need to defeat this bill, whether it is through the
cloture process or later on. This is bad, bad, bad policy.
I yield my time to the Senator from Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
[[Page 3177]]
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, will my colleague from Montana yield for
a question?
Mr. TESTER. Yes, I will.
Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you. I appreciate the Senator's presentation.
This Monsanto DARK Act 2.0--this new version--says to the States that
they no longer have the right to respond to consumers' interest in
providing a consumer-friendly label that alerts them to genetically
engineered ingredients, but it does not replace that with a federal
consumer-friendly label?
Mr. TESTER. Correct.
Mr. MERKLEY. Is it right that the Federal Government takes away this
power from States, which are, if you will, our places of
experimentation and creativity, and then does nothing at the national
level? Is this an overreach of the Federal Government?
Mr. TESTER. Absolutely. The Senator came out of the State Legislature
in Oregon. I came out of the State Legislature in Montana. Quite
frankly, much of the work is done at the State level. We follow their
lead. This bill does exactly the opposite. It prevents States from
labeling for genetically modified foods, and it replaces it with a
voluntary labeling system basically or QR codes that nobody is going to
have the technology, quite frankly, or the time to be able to
investigate. So the Senator is right. This tells folks in Vermont and
Maine and Connecticut and many other States--as I said, 9 out of 10
consumers want genetically modified foods labeled, and this replaces it
basically with nothing.
The proponents will walk out here and say: No, no, no, there is going
to be a QR code or 800 number. That simply does not give the consumers
the ability to know what is in their food. We live in a very fast-paced
society. I can tell you, it happened just this weekend when I was home.
I pulled up in a pickup. My wife ran in the grocery store, grabbed what
she needed, came out, and we zipped home. People don't have the time to
look unless it is sitting right there and they can see it. And that is
what your bill does, I say to Senator Merkley. Your bill gives the
consumer the ability to simply look at the package and know what is in
it, and that is what we should be fighting for in this body. We
shouldn't be fighting to keep people in the dark; we should fight to
let people know so they can make good decisions. If you have good
information--and it is true here and it is true amongst the American
public--if you have good information, you can make good decisions. When
parents buy food for their kids, they ought to have the information so
they can make good decisions. It is simply a right to know what is in
your food.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a
colloquy with my colleague from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I will use these papers as examples of food products. I have three
different bags of rice, and I want to look. I can scan the ingredients
list of these three products to see what they contain. Well, in about 5
seconds--if what is required of me is to pull out my phone, call up an
800 number, work my way through a phone tree, proceed to talk to
someone who may or may not even know what I am calling about--and maybe
I will get a busy signal or a message that says: I am sorry, our phone
lines are very busy, but we will get to you in 25 minutes. How long am
I going to have to stand there versus the 5 seconds that it takes if
there is a symbol or an indication on the ingredients panel for these
three products? While standing in the aisle of the grocery store, how
long is it going to take me to try to find out if these three products
have genetically engineered ingredients?
Mr. TESTER. Well, you said it. For the people who heard you explain
the process you would go through, that is not labeling. That is not
transparency. That isn't telling folks what is in their food.
Needless to say, I have to tell you, I think these are a pain in the
neck. If I wasn't in this body, I don't think I would even have one,
and there are a lot of people who feel that way. So now I am going to
have to spend money and get a plan so I can determine what is in my
food? Not everybody has the resources to have one of these. What does
this do to folks who are poor? They deserve to have the food that they
want to eat. They deserve to know what is in it. And they are not going
to have that capacity. Then what about folks in places such as eastern
Washington or all of Montana that isn't where a lot of people live?
Oftentimes there is not that service. So it just does not make any
sense. You are trying to replace what Vermont is doing with nothing,
and that is not fair. It is not fair to the consumers.
As I said in my remarks, the consumer is always right. They are. It
is a fact of business. We ought to be listening to folks. That is why
we have single-digit approval ratings in this body. We need to listen.
And we are not listening with the DARK Act.
Mr. MERKLEY. Is the Senator saying the whole idea presented in the
Monsanto DARK Act 2.0 about putting a phone number on the package so
someone can call a company is a sham?
Mr. TESTER. Bogus.
Mr. MERKLEY. Bogus.
Mr. TESTER. Yes. It is worse than nothing. At least if you had
nothing, you know what you have.
Mr. MERKLEY. There is a second option put into the Monsanto DARK Act,
which is the quick response code. You have to have a smartphone that
can take a picture of that quick response code, take you to a Web site
to get information--information, by the way, written by the very
company that controls the product you are looking at. It is not some
third party. I picture that as taking just as much time and being just
as complex for the ordinary person as the 1-800 number. The QR code
requires first that you actually have a data plan to be able to get to
a Web site, that you have a smartphone instead of an ordinary cell
phone, and furthermore it reveals information about you when you go to
that Web site, so you are giving up your privacy.
So is the QR code option being discussed also a sham?
Mr. TESTER. Absolutely. It is just as bogus as the 800 number, quite
frankly, if not more, for all the same reasons. First of all, you have
to have a phone. You have to have service. Oftentimes that isn't the
case.
Quite frankly, what we need is what your bill does, and that is, just
tell folks what is in the package--parentheses, three letters, or an
asterisk that says what it is, very simple. People can understand and
they don't have to jump through all these hoops.
I know proponents of this DARK Act will say: Well, you know, that is
going to cost a lot of money.
Look, Budweiser makes a beer labeled for every NFL football team in
the country. At Christmastime, they put Santa Claus on, and then they
make the ones in the blue cans too. It is standard stuff. It is all the
same price. Companies change their labels all the time.
So the fact that we are replacing what would be common sense--the
Senator's bill, which is what we should be taking up and passing here
on the floor because it makes sense, it gives consumers the right to
know what is in their food--with something that has an 800 number or QR
code is crazy. It is crazy. And the arguments that folks are using for
keeping people in the dark simply are not factual.
Mr. MERKLEY. Well, in this Monsanto DARK Act 2.0 that has been put on
the floor, there is a third option beyond the voluntary labeling and
beyond the 1-800 numbers and QR code, and the third option--door No. 3,
if you will--is that the company can put something on social media,
which means, I assume, Instagram, Facebook, or who knows what. So if I
am a customer and I am in the store and I see these three products and
I want to find out if they have GE ingredients and there is no 800
number and there is no QR code because the company has chosen door No.
3, how am I to know that?
Mr. TESTER. You don't. And by the way, there are three doors here,
and it is kind of like ``Let's Make a Deal.'' The problem is, what is
behind No. 1, 2,
[[Page 3178]]
and 3 are all zonks for the American consumers.
I say to Senator Merkley, this makes no sense to me whatsoever
because it is confusing. It absolutely keeps the consumers in the dark.
And we are actually going to try to promote something like that in the
Senate? It doesn't make any sense to me.
Mr. MERKLEY. The majority leader has put this bill on the floor, and
it has not even gone through a committee hearing because this is a new
creation that we have just seen for the first time last night.
Furthermore, it has been put on the floor the night before one of the
most important primary days in the Presidential election, strategically
scheduled, if you will, so that the news networks are busy with Florida
and Ohio and Illinois and two other States, and they are not paying
attention to this egregious proposal to take away States' rights and
consumers' rights.
We had a pledge from the majority leader coming into here that due
process--things would be considered in committee and things would be
fairly considered on the floor with an open amendment process. Has this
Monsanto DARK Act 2.0 gone through a committee process, and is it
getting a full opportunity to be heard on the floor? In fact, the
motion to close debate was filed within seconds of it being put on the
floor last night. Is this a true opportunity for the American people to
wrestle with a major policy decision taking away States' rights and
consumers' rights?
Mr. TESTER. No. In a word, no. And of all the choices that we have
out there, that we do every day, food is one of the most important
choices we make. That is what we put in our bodies. It gives us power.
It gives us intellect. It gives us the ability to do our daily jobs, to
work, to be successful, to support our family. Quite frankly, this
bill--and the timing of it is curious--this bill does none of those
things to help move families and the people and society forward. It
just keeps them in the dark, which is disturbing.
As I said in my opening statement, the Senate should be above this.
We should be empowering people, not taking away their right to know.
Mr. MERKLEY. Well, this taking away the right to know--it isn't like
the right to know some detail about how your car was manufactured. As
the Senator put it, this is about the food you put into your mouth.
This is about the food we feed our families. This is about what our
children consume.
I was very surprised to read this from a scientific study: Two-thirds
of the air and rainfall samples tested in Mississippi and Iowa in 2007
and 2008 contain glyphosate, which is the herbicide being applied in
massive quantities because of the genetically engineered resistance of
key crops, including corn and soybeans and sugar beets. So the
herbicide is very prevalent in the rainfall samples and it is very
prevalent in the air samples, or at least two-thirds of the air
samples.
Then, a recent study published in the Journal of Environmental &
Analytical Toxicology found that humans who consume glyphosate-treated
GMO foods have relatively high levels of glyphosate in their urine. So,
actually, residuals are finding their way into our bodies.
There are other effects. Glyphosate is a known carcinogen. It has
been defined as a known carcinogen. But this herbicide is also running
into the streams. Study after study is showing big impacts on the
microbial population, and that is at the base of the food chain, so it
is affecting the food chain inside our rivers and our streams. There is
gene transfer to relatives--weeds that are relatives of the growing
crops. There is an impact on the evolution of bugs; specifically, the
western corn root worm which is evolving, if you will, to become
resistant to the pesticide that is in the plant because of the
genetic--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to
continue for another 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. I thank the Chair.
So we have these affects that scientific documents are showing.
So when people come to this floor and say that it is OK to suppress
the consumers' right to know because consumers have no legitimate
concerns, that there are no scientific studies that show any legitimate
concerns about the impacts of genetically engineered plants, are they
telling the truth? Is that accurate?
Mr. TESTER. Well, I think that is up to the consumer to find out, and
the consumer never knows if it is not on the label. I think we put a
lot of things on labels. I bought some orange juice last night. It was
not from frozen concentrate; it was fresh squeezed. That is a consumer
choice that I have. I buy that because I like it. I think it is better.
I think it is better for you. That is what I choose to do.
I think what this DARK Act does is it doesn't allow consumers to make
the choices they want. They can do the research. Once they see what is
in it and make the decision whether they--some people may want to eat
it. It may be a positive thing: This is good. It has GMO in it. I want
to buy that. For other folks, they may say: No, I don't want to buy
that. That is their choice. That is what this country is about. It is
about freedom. Now we are stopping that. That is what this debate is
about. It is about labeling of food. It is about letting consumers know
what they are eating and letting them make the decision as to what is
best for their family.
Mr. MERKLEY. I think my colleague summed it all up in the word
``freedom''--the freedom to choose. And that freedom to choose--if it
is between wild fish and farmed fish, we facilitate that by giving the
information on the package. If it is the freedom to choose between
juice from concentrate versus fresh squeezed--juice from concentrate or
fresh juice--that, in fact, is a freedom of the consumer, and they can
exercise it from the package.
If someone decides they want to have a product that is vitamin A
enriched, such as golden rice which has been done by GE engineering--
maybe they need more vitamin A--they should have the freedom to choose
it.
In fact, my point here is that there are scientific studies that show
benefits in a variety of circumstances from genetic engineering, and
there are studies that show legitimate concerns. On the benefits side
we have cases--for example, sweet potatoes--in which they have been
made to resist viruses that kill. In South Africa, that has been very
important to the growth of sweet potatoes and the provision of that as
part of a significant source of food in parts of that country. Then
there is golden rice being enriched with vitamin A in regions of the
world where people eat primarily rice, but they really lack vitamin A.
But there are also studies that show concern.
Shouldn't we as consumers have freedom? Why is it that we have on the
floor a bill which not only takes away States' rights to respond to
consumers' interests in freedom, but proceed to squash, for all time
and in all geographic areas, the freedom of an individual to make that
decision? And then they put up a sham which says that somehow, the
consumer could inquire by guessing at a social media outlet or going to
a phone bank that is somewhere overseas in the Philippines to find out
whether or not there is a GE ingredient or having to give up their
privacy and go to a Web site sponsored by the company that made the
food. That is not information that allows the consumer to make a
choice.
What if a consumer had to go to a phone company operating overseas to
find out--I don't know--the calories that are in the food or the
vitamins that are in the food? That would be ridiculous. It is absurd.
It is a sham and a scam. It is a theft of individual freedoms in this
country. And shouldn't we all in the Senate be standing up for freedom
for American citizens who, by the way, when asked in a nationwide poll,
9 to 1 say they want this information on the package; 9 to 1 say that.
Here we are in this deeply divided country where we have this huge
spectrum of ideologies that we are seeing in the Presidential campaign.
Yet, on this
[[Page 3179]]
issue, Independents, Republicans, and Democrats, 9 to 1--I am rounding
off slightly, but very close--9 to 1 in all three categories say they
want this information on the package, and 7 out of 10 said they feel
very strongly about this. So that is the desire of the American people.
That is the ``We the People'' that is in our Constitution that we are
pledged to support.
Here we have a bill on the floor that is designed in the dark of
night while people are paying attention to Presidential primaries, the
press is paying attention to that, and in the dark of night they are
trying to take away that freedom. Isn't that just completely wrong?
Mr. TESTER. Well, absolutely. The Senator from Oregon hit the nail on
the head. We need to defeat cloture. We need to defeat this bill. If we
want to take up a labeling bill, we ought to take up the Merkley bill
and pass it. That would empower consumers. It would give them freedom.
It would live up to what our forefathers had in mind for this country.
Instead, in my opinion, they are doing exactly the opposite.
This is a bad piece of legislation. The Senator is right. The polls
do show that across the parties, we are all Americans on this one, 9 to
1. We have to listen.
If folks are having a hard time hearing what people are saying, they
should just read their emails. Hear what the folks out in front of our
offices are saying, because folks are talking and we need to listen.
Read the editorial pages. Folks are not asking for anything out of the
ordinary. They just want to know so they can make decisions.
So I hope this body will defeat this bill, put it to bed, and then we
can talk about a labeling bill that makes sense for this country.
Mr. MERKLEY. I thank so much my colleague from Montana for being such
a clear and powerful voice on this issue of freedom, of American
consumers' rights, of States' rights, and for his solid opposition to
this Monsanto DARK Act--Deny Americans the Right to Know--2.0. Thank
you.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from Arkansas.
____________________
NATIONAL AGRICULTURE DAY
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I grew up on a cattle farm in Dardanelle,
where I started helping my dad around the farm when I was just a little
boy. In fact, I was kicking hay bales off the truck when I was barely
bigger than those hay bales. Growing up, most people I knew had some
connection to farming, and I am proud to say that in Arkansas, that is
still mostly the case today.
In honor of National Agricultural Day, I wish to say a few words
about Arkansas' agriculture and what it means to our State.
Agriculture is Arkansas' largest industry. It accounts for over $20
billion in value added to our State economy each year and contributes
to thousands and thousands of jobs. Arkansas is a top 25 producer in 23
different agricultural commodities, and we rank first in the Nation in
rice production, producing close to 50 percent of the rice in the
United States.
It doesn't end there. We are also a major exporter of crops like
soybeans, cotton, poultry, and feed grains. Our catfish and timber
industries are booming and our cattle inventory exceeds 1.7 million
head. Our agriculture industry is also expanding by the day. We have
recently become a big player in the peanut industry.
For Arkansas, agriculture is more than just a business; it is a
passion and a way of life. We have nearly 50,000 farms in Arkansas, and
97 percent of them are owned by families. Neighborly chats in Arkansas
often tend to focus on planting seasons and beef prices. And in towns
like Dardanelle, kids don't have to worry about farm chores keeping
them from playing with their friends on a Saturday because those
friends are likely busy helping on their farms too.
Agriculture is who we are. I have certainly taken the lessons I
learned growing up on a farm with me into the Army, the Congress, and
now fatherhood.
So, today, and every day, let's remember Arkansas' and America's
farmers and ranchers. Happy National Agriculture Day.
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.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak
in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
____________________
FILLING THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY AND WOMEN'S HEALTH CARE
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor once again with a
simple message for Senate Republican leaders: Do your job and let me do
mine.
When President Obama sends us a nominee to fill this vacancy on the
Supreme Court, Republican leaders need to stop playing politics, stop
pandering to the tea party, and fulfill their responsibility to their
constituents, their country, and the Constitution. That is what people
across the country are demanding.
But the hearing Republicans on the Judiciary Committee held this
morning makes it clear they are not getting the message, because while
the Republicans on that committee say they won't take up their time to
do their most important actual job, they were happy to spend their time
this morning on their favorite hobby--doing everything they can to turn
back the clock on women's health care. While they say they won't even
hold a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee to fulfill their
constitutional responsibilities, they were eager to hold the hearing
this morning to attack women's constitutional rights.
Mr. President, I wish I were surprised by this, but, unfortunately,
this is just the latest example of Republican leaders playing political
games with the rights of women across the country and pandering to
their extreme tea party base.
Republicans love to say they want to keep government out of people's
lives, unless of course we are talking about women's health care and
their choices. They love to talk about the Constitution, unless we are
talking about a woman's constitutional right to make decisions about
her own body or the part that lays out the Senate's responsibility when
it comes to filling Supreme Court vacancies.
But people across the country are sick of the partisanship, sick of
the gridlock, and sick of the games. They want Republicans to do their
jobs, and they are not buying their excuses for inaction.
For the last few weeks, Republican leaders have been desperately
trying to convince people that there is a precedent for their extreme
obstruction in this election year. Well, first of all, their arguments
have run up against the facts. They simply are not true. The Democratic
Senate confirmed President Reagan's Supreme Court nominee in his last
year in office. And that is just one example of many.
But in case the facts weren't enough, last week the Republicans'
message facade began to crumble, and the truth began to come out.
First, one Republican leader warned that any potential nominee should
be aware that he or she will be treated like a pinata. Republicans say
they will refuse to even meet with the nominee. But they and their
special interest groups are clearly getting ready to drag him or her
through the mud.
Also, speaking to his constituents back home, another Senator made it
clear that Republicans' refusal to do their jobs right now is nothing
more than partisan politics. He said: If this President were a
Republican, it would be ``a different situation,'' and there would be
``more accommodation.''
[[Page 3180]]
We all knew this Republican obstruction had nothing to do with what
is actually right and everything to do with the fact they do not like
that President Obama is President right now, but it was nice to hear a
Republican Senator actually admit that out loud.
Another Republican, the senior Senator from South Carolina, admitted
last week that this kind of blind obstruction, this refusal to even
meet with a Supreme Court nominee or hold hearings, is absolutely
unprecedented. He said Republicans wanted to create a new rule--right
now--limiting President Obama's constitutional authority and
responsibility. Well, I am glad he made clear that what Republican
leaders have been saying about their obstruction being based on
precedent isn't true, but creating this new partisan precedent for
Supreme Court nominations would be absolutely wrong too.
Republicans may not like to hear this, but the American people spoke.
They elected President Obama twice, and they entrusted him with the
powers and responsibilities laid out in the Constitution. Those
responsibilities don't just last for 3 years. They last a full term,
and people across the country are making it very clear they expect
Republicans to work with the President, to meet with the nominee, to
hold hearings, and to do their job.
But if Republicans are open to new election-year precedents, I have
one I would like to offer for their consideration that would actually
be helpful. I propose that Republicans stop using attacks on women's
health care to rally their tea party base, that they stop using women's
rights as an election-year political football. That would be
unprecedented for sure, but it sure would be a step in the right
direction, and women across this country would really appreciate it.
So when President Obama sends us a nominee, I hope Senate Republican
leaders will move out of the partisan corner they are in now, will stop
focusing on throwing red meat to the tea party, and will do their jobs.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from
Washington for her remarks and for her passion for women's health and
also for doing our job--for doing our job.
The Senator from Washington is right. The Republican members of the
Senate Judiciary Committee have vowed not to hold a single hearing on a
Supreme Court nominee when the President does his job and sends us down
his nomination. They refuse to do their job. And I would say that if
every American just got up in the morning one day and said: You know
what, I don't feel like doing my job, they would be fired. They would
be fired.
But do our Republican colleagues have time to do other things with
their time? Oh yes. What are they doing right now? My colleague pointed
this out. They are holding a hearing today on legislation that, if
passed, would threaten the health and the lives of women.
This is about using women's health as a political football once
again. It is about reopening debates we have already settled, including
the debate over Roe vs. Wade itself. That case was decided in 1973.
Before that, women died from back-alley abortions. Women received no
respect for private personal decisions they made with their doctor,
they made with their God. Oh no, they have to keep challenging Roe v.
Wade.
That is what Republicans are doing today in the Judiciary Committee,
after they decided, well, they just don't have time enough or will
enough to hold a hearing on the President's nominee for the Supreme
Court.
Now, the decision in Roe was very clear. It said that in the early
stages of a pregnancy, a woman has the right to decide whether to
continue her pregnancy. Later decisions confirmed that, yes, she still
has that right. Roe also affirmed that later in the pregnancy, the
health and the life of the mother must always be protected. Let me say
that again. The health and the life of the mother must always be
protected. That is the law of this land.
Now, the major problems with the bills the Judiciary Committee is
hearing today is they have no respect for the health and the life of
the mother and they have no respect for doctors.
The first bill, the 20-week abortion ban, is a direct violation of
Roe v. Wade and a grave threat to women. And, by the way, the Senate
has already rejected that bill. They are bringing it back again. No
matter what Roe says--that you can't threaten the health and life of a
woman--they have brought it back. That bill--that 20-week abortion
ban--offers no health exception for a woman facing cancer, facing
kidney failure, facing blood clots, or other tragic complications
during the pregnancy. And it would throw doctors in jail for doing
nothing more than helping a woman who is at risk for paralysis or
infertility or who has cancer and whose life would be in danger if the
pregnancy continued.
That bill--that bill they say is going to help women--harms women. It
also revictimizes survivors of rape and incest by assuming they are
lying--lying--and creating unconscionable barriers to care.
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which
represents thousands of physicians nationwide--physicians who help
women with their first line of health care in many cases--said: These
restrictions are ``dangerous to patients' safety and health.''
So that is the first bill they are hearing today--a bill that has
already been rejected, a bill that will hurt women and their families.
The Judiciary Committee is also wasting precious time debating a
second bill this morning because we already have a law that we voted
for called the Born-Alive Infant Protections Act. That bill, which I
supported, says that a fetus that is alive at birth has the same
protections as every other human being. We voted on it, I say to my
friend, in 2002.
So what they are doing over in the Judiciary Committee is rehearing a
bill we already voted on, and they are rehearing a bill that passed,
and then they are rehearing a bill that we voted down. This is
politics, pure and simple.
Our job is to improve the health and lives of the people, not to
undermine it. Our job is to act when there is a vacancy on the Supreme
Court.
You know, the Republicans always quote Ronald Reagan. Some of us do
as well, but he is definitely a Republican hero. Let's see what
President Ronald Reagan said when there was an opening in an election
year during his Presidency and he nominated Justice Kennedy. What did
he say? Ronald Reagan said: ``Every day that passes with a Supreme
Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that
crucially important body.''
That is not Barbara Boxer. That is not Patty Murray. That is not
President Obama. That is not Vice President Biden. That is not Harry
Reid. That is not Chuck Schumer. And I could go on. That is Ronald
Reagan. So let me say it again. ``Every day that passes with a Supreme
Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that
crucially important body.''
You know what. We had a Democratic-controlled Senate, and we voted on
Justice Kennedy in an election year, and we didn't give speeches and
say: Well, let's wait for the American people to decide the next
election. You know why we didn't say that? Because that would be
laughable. Ronald Reagan got elected twice, just like Barack Obama got
elected twice. He deserves respect. He needs to do his job, and we need
to do our job.
So when you say you are not even going to hold a hearing on the
President's nomination, you are showing disrespect for the
Constitution--and let's see what the Constitution says--and disrespect
to Ronald Reagan, I would argue. Look at what the Constitution says:
The President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent
of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls, and Judges of the supreme Court.''
My friends are saying that the Constitution should be obeyed, that
they are strict constructionists. Where are these people? They are
hiding in the
[[Page 3181]]
corner not doing their job. Look at what it says: The President ``shall
nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall
appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court.'' It doesn't say: P.S.,
unless you don't like who is President. It doesn't say that.
So I say to everyone on the other side of the aisle who says they are
strict constructionists--and most of them do--read the Constitution and
read what Ronald Reagan said.
The American people have three words for Republicans: Do your job.
Stop disrespecting the Constitution. Stop disrespecting our President
and stop threatening to create a manmade crisis at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has to do its job. This isn't some ideological
discussion in a salon somewhere, because every day the Court considers
cases with profound impacts for the American people--like whether
States can have voter identification laws that put an unfair burden on
voters or whether the American people have the right to organize and
fight for fair pay. I could go on, because almost every issue that
American families face eventually winds its way to the Court. So
regardless of your political position or your personal position on any
individual case, we have to fill the vacancy because Americans deserve
a full functioning Supreme Court.
In closing, I want to quote Sandra Day O'Connor. Now, here is a
woman--the first woman on the Supreme Court, appointed by Ronald
Reagan--who made history. She says this to us in the clearest of terms:
``I think we need somebody there now to do the job, and let's get on
with it.'' So if you don't want to listen to the Constitution, and you
don't want to listen to Ronald Reagan, how about giving some respect to
a woman who made history and understands how the Court functions. We
have to get on with it.
Every one of us has to do our job. The Judiciary Committee should
stop holding hearings to hurt women, and they should instead go down to
the White House and advise and consent with the President on this
nomination. They should stop playing politics. We should all come
together. We see such division in the country. It is making a lot of
our people afraid because there is no respect. How about we start off
with respecting the Constitution and working together to fill this
vacancy and showing the public that we can come together to have a
fully functioning Supreme Court. The American people deserve nothing
else.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
JUSTICE AGAINST SPONSORS OF TERRORISM ACT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on two
topics. The first is the piece of legislation that I introduced last
year, along with the senior Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, right
after the anniversary of the September 11 attacks. This bill is
entitled the ``Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act,'' or JASTA
for short. It makes minor adjustments to our laws that would clarify
the ability of Americans attacked on U.S. soil to get justice from
those who have sponsored that terrorist attack.
The Senate Judiciary Committee considered this bill last month and
reported it to the floor without any objection, so now it is my hope
that we can soon take up this legislation because this is important to
the victims of the 9/11 attacks. Actually, that is an understatement.
This bill, if signed into law, will hopefully help victims and their
families achieve the closure that they so terribly need from this
horrific tragedy. But this legislation is more than that. As our Nation
confronts new and expanding terror networks that are targeting our
citizens, stopping the funding source for terrorists grows even more
important. So I hope Senators can work together to get this critical
bipartisan bill done soon.
____________________
FILLING THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on another note, I come to the floor to
make a few remarks about the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of
Justice Scalia.
It is pretty clear that our colleagues across the aisle do not
believe that the American people deserve a voice in the process by
which the successor to Justice Scalia is selected. We have made our
position pretty clear that there will not be a new Justice confirmed
until the American people, in the elections that come up in November,
make their preferences known about who will make that appointment.
Instead of following the rule book of the minority leader, the senior
Senator from New York, and our current Vice President--the ones that
they advocated for under a Republican administration--our Democratic
friends now argue that a lameduck President should be able to nominate
someone to a lifetime appointment to our Nation's highest Court, which
will upset the ideological balance on that Court for a generation. As I
have mentioned before, the last time a Supreme Court nominee was
nominated and confirmed during an election year was 1932, and we have
to go back much earlier, to 1888, to find a similar situation in
divided government, which we have now.
When Vice President Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, he made perfectly clear that a Supreme Court nominee should
not be considered until after a Presidential election has concluded. As
we all know, both Democrats and Republicans are well down the road to
making their selection for their nominee for President, and obviously
we will have that election in the coming November. But our friends
across the aisle continue to contradict themselves and their previous
statements, insisting that this decision is somehow unprecedented.
Well, we know it is not, because if the shoe were on the other foot,
they have made clear what they would do.
I thought I might share with my friends across the aisle what so many
of my constituents in Texas have told me about our decision to let them
have a voice in the selection of the next lifetime appointment to the
Court.
Killeen, TX, is the home of Fort Hood, one of the largest military
installations in the world. Last Friday, the town decorated a memorial
to honor those who lost their lives in the terrorist attack of 2009,
when MAJ Nidal Hasan went on his violent rampage. But John from Killeen
wrote:
President Obama is free to make any nomination he wants
under the Constitution. The Senate, under the same
Constitution, has no obligation to hold hearings on or
confirm that nomination. The Judiciary Committee's decision
to observe the so-called Biden Rule is absolutely correct.
The replacement for Justice Scalia should be nominated by the
next president.
I agree with the letter writer, and the minority leader agreed with
him in 2005 as well. That is basically what Senator Reid said in 2005
during the Bush 43 administration. While the President could nominate
anybody he wanted, the Senate was not obligated under the Constitution
to vote on that nominee.
At the end of the letter, John asked me to ``hold the line'' on this
decision. He, like many Americans, is passionate about having a say in
the selection of the next Supreme Court nominee. I intend to do
everything I can to make sure they do have that voice.
Another constituent from Plano--just north of Dallas--was emphatic
that the Senate should ``Give We The People a say.'' I couldn't agree
with him more.
The American people made clear they wanted a check on the Obama
administration in November of 2014 when they put Republicans in the
majority of the Senate. Now we have an obligation to use that mandate
from the people for issues that matter most to our country, and that
includes the direction of the Supreme Court.
My constituents are right to care deeply about this because there is
so much at stake. As I said, the next Supreme Court Justice could well
change
[[Page 3182]]
the balance of the Supreme Court for a generation and fundamentally
reshape American society in the process. So the people should have a
chance for input and should have a voice. I am proud to stand alongside
my Republican colleagues and make sure their voice is heard in the next
selection of a lifetime appointment to the Court.
____________________
RECESS
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
stand in recess, as under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 12:18 p.m., recessed until
2:15 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer
(Mr. Portman).
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is now closed.
____________________
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.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I suspect a quorum call has been
initiated. If so, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in a quorum call.
The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today is National Agriculture Day, and I
wish to thank the farmers and ranchers of America. The Senate is
considering legislation on an issue that is critically important to our
Nation's food supply. It affects everyone from our producers in the
fields to our consumers in the aisles of grocery stores. Without Senate
action, this country will be hit with a wrecking ball--an apt
description--that will disrupt the entire food chain. We need to act
now to pass my amendment to S. 764. This is a compromised approach that
provides a permanent solution to the patchwork of biotechnology
labeling laws that will soon be wreaking havoc on the flow of
interstate commerce, agriculture, and food products in our Nation's
marketplace, and that is exactly what this is about. Let me repeat
that. This is about the marketplace. It is not about safety. It is not
about health or nutrition. It is about marketing. Science has proven
again and again and again that the use of agriculture biotechnology is
100 percent safe.
In fact, last year the Agriculture Committee heard from three Federal
agencies tasked with regulating agriculture biotechnology: the
Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
the Environmental Protection Agency--yes, the EPA--and the Food and
Drug Administration, the FDA. Their work is based on sound science and
is the gold standard for policymaking, including this policy we are
debating today--one of the most important food and agriculture
decisions in recent decades.
At our hearing, the Federal Government expert witnesses highlighted
the steps their agencies have already taken to ensure that agriculture
biotechnology is safe--safe to other plants, safe to the environment,
and safe to our food supply. It was clear our regulatory system ensures
biotechnology crops are among the most tested in the history of
agriculture in any country. At the conclusion of the hearing, virtually
all Senate Agriculture Committee members were in agreement. What
happened? When did sound science go out the window? Since that hearing,
the U.S. Government reinforced their decisions on the safety of these
products.
In November, the FDA took several steps based on sound science
regarding food produced from biotech plants, including issuing final
guidance for manufacturers that wish to voluntarily label their
products as containing ingredients from biotech or exclusively
nonbiotech plants.
More important, the Food and Drug Administration denied a petition
that would have required the mandatory labeling of biotech foods. The
FDA stated that the petitioner failed to provide the evidence needed
for the agency to put such a requirement in place because there is no
health safety or nutritional difference between biotech crops and their
nonbiotech varieties, regardless of some of the rhetoric we have heard
on the floor of the Senate.
Thus, it is clear that what we are facing today is not a safety or
health issue, despite claims by my colleagues on the Senate floor; it
is a market issue. This is about a conversation about a few States
dictating to every other State the way food moves from farmers to
consumers in the value chain. We have a responsibility to ensure that
the national market can work for everyone, including farmers,
manufacturers, retailers, and, yes, consumers.
This patchwork approach of mandates adds costs to national food
prices. In fact, requiring changes in the production or labeling of
most of the Nation's food supply for a single State would impact
citizens in our home States. A recent study estimates that the cost to
consumers could total as much as--get this--$82 billion annually, which
comes to approximately $1,050 per hard-working American family. This
Vermont law, which is supposed to go into effect in July, will cost
each hard-working family $1,050. Let me repeat that. If we fail to act,
the cost to consumers could total as much as $82 billion annually and
will cost each hard-working American family just over $1,000. Now is
not the time for Congress to make food more expensive for anybody--not
the consumer or the farmer.
Today's farmers are being asked to produce more safe and affordable
food to meet the growing demands at home and around a troubled and very
hungry world. At the same time, they are facing increased challenges to
production, including limited land and water resources, uncertain
weather patterns, and pest and disease issues. Agriculture
biotechnology has become a valuable tool in ensuring the success of the
American farmer and meeting the challenge of increasing their yields in
a more efficient, safe, and responsible manner. Any threat to the
technology hurts the entire value chain--from the farmer to the
consumer and all those who are involved.
I also hear--and I do understand the concern from some of my
colleagues about consumers and available information about our food.
Some consumers want to know more about ingredients. This is a good
thing. Consumers should take an interest in their food, where it comes
from, and the farmers and ranchers who also produce their food. I can
assure you the most effective tool consumers have to influence our food
system or to know more about food is by voting with their pocketbooks
in the grocery stores and supermarkets. This legislation puts forward
policies that will help all consumers not only find information but
also demand consistent information from food manufacturers. However, it
is important, as with any Federal legislation on this topic, for
Congress to consider scientific fact and unintended consequences.
The committee-passed bill created a voluntary national standard for
biotechnology labeling claims of food. I have heard concerns that a
voluntary-only standard would not provide consumers with enough
information, even though there is no health, safety, or nutritional
concern with this biotechnology. So we worked out a compromise to
address these concerns by
[[Page 3183]]
providing an incentive for the marketplace to provide more information.
This legislation will allow the markets to work. However, if they do
not live up to their commitments and information is not made available
to consumers, then this legislation holds the market accountable. Under
this proposal, a mandatory labeling program would go into effect only
if a voluntary program does not provide significant information after
several years. The marketplace would then have adequate time to adjust
and utilize a variety of options--a menu of options--to disclose
information about ingredients, along with a wealth of other information
about the food on the shelves.
Simply put, the legislation before us provides an immediate
comprehensive solution to the unworkable State-by-State patchwork of
labeling laws. Preemption doesn't extend to State consumer protection
laws or anything beyond the wrecking ball that we see related to
biotechnology labeling mandates, and we do ensure that the solution to
the State patchwork, the one thing we all agree upon, is effective. It
sets national uniformity that allows for the free flow of interstate
commerce, a power granted to Congress in the U.S. Constitution. This
labeling uniformity is based on science and allows the value chain from
farmer to processor, to shipper, to retailer, to consumer to continue
as the free market intended. This ensures uniformity in claims made by
manufacturers and will enhance clarity for our consumers.
Increasingly, many Americans have taken an interest in where their
food comes from and how it is made. Let's keep in mind this is a good
thing. We want consumers informed about food and farming practices, but
at the same time we must also not demonize food with unnecessary
labels.
This debate is about more than catchy slogans and made-up names for
bills. It is about the role of the Federal Government to ensure the
free flow of commerce, to make decisions based upon sound science, all
the while providing opportunity for the market to meet the demands of
consumers.
This is not the first time this body has addressed this issue. In
2012 and 2013, Members of the Senate soundly rejected the idea of
mandatory labeling for biotechnology. That is right. Both times more
than 70 Members voted to reject mandatory labeling. This body then
stood up for sound science and common sense, and I trust my colleagues
will continue to stand up and defend sound science again.
Time is of the essence for not only agriculture in the food value
chain but also consumers who work together, face the wrecking ball of
this patchwork of State-by-State mandates. This legislation has the
support of more than 650 organizations. We never had 650 organizations
contact the Agriculture Committee about any other bill, any other piece
of legislation--more than 650. My staff now tells me that number is
over 700, large and small, representing the entire food chain, and that
number continues to grow every day. That is quite a coalition. They are
here in Washington trying to say: Look, this is not going to work with
regard to State-by-State regulation.
As I have said, never before in the Agriculture Committee have we
seen such a coalition of constituents all united behind such effort.
Their message is clear: It is time for us to act. It is time for us to
provide certainty in the marketplace.
I appreciate the bipartisan support of those on the committee who
joined me to vote out our committee bill. The vote was 14 to 6. We made
significant changes to address the concerns of others. Now we must
carry this across the finish line. I urge my colleagues to support this
compromising approach and protect the safest, most abundant, and
affordable food supply in the world.
I yield the floor.
Upon close inspection, 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.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a very important
issue for the American people--what they feed their families. Here is a
photo of a dad--a pretty typical photo of a dad taking his two kids
shopping. You can see he has one toddler there and he has one infant in
the cart. How well I remember doing this with my own kids and then
watching my kids with their kids. It is kind of a tradition.
So we have a couple of questions we have to ask ourselves when we
look at a photo like this. If this dad wants to know what ingredients
are in the food that he gives his kids, he should have a right to know
that. That is my deep belief. He has a right to know that, just as they
do in so many countries all over the world.
The bill that is going to come before us, called the Safe and
Accurate Food Labeling Act, is anything but that. I would call it the
``no label'' act. It is a ``no label.'' There is no label required. It
is a totally voluntary system. It is a ``no label'' label. Even if in 3
years Senator Roberts' mandatory labeling kicked in, you still would
not have a true label. I think it is an embarrassment. I think it is an
insult to consumers, and it is a sham. The goal of the bill--and I hope
we vote it down--is to hide the information from consumers. It is going
to make it harder, not easier, for consumers to know if they are
feeding their families genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.
So here again is our typical dad, and he has his kids in the cart.
They are shopping, they have had their outing, and he picks up a
product. He wants to see the ingredients, including whether it has been
genetically modified. Guess what. There is no GMO label.
So what are his options? Well, in 3 years, maybe he will have an
option. But before then, the voluntary program is going to make it
literally impossible for him to know what is in his food. It is either
going to be a QR code--so he will have to have a smartphone, and even
when he puts the smartphone up against the code, they don't really have
to tell you easily whether it is GMO, and it is going to have a whole
bunch of other information--or he is going to have to call a 1-800
number.
Can you believe this? The man is going through the grocery store. He
has 50 products in his cart. He is saying: Wait a minute, kids--just a
minute. Here, have some chips. Then he calls 1-800 and he tries to find
out, and he gets probably some person answering him in India, which is
usually what you get, and you go around the mulberry bush. How
embarrassing is this?
Now, if he is lucky, he gets some products from companies that really
are being fair about this, such as Campbell Soup Company. They are
doing a really smart, voluntary label. It says: ``Partially produced
with genetic engineering. For information visit . . .'' and they have a
site. Campbell's, if he is lucky, has enough products in here that have
a label. He may find out more information, but it is totally voluntary.
It is totally voluntary. I want to say thank you to Campbell's for
being upfront and putting the information right on the label.
As a mom and as a grandma, I want to know what is in my food. Because
of work we have done before, you do have to list how much sugar is in
the product, which is so critical as we combat diabetes and other
things. Sometimes you read that sugar content, and you think: Oh my
God, I am going to get something else. And you can see how many carbs,
how much fat. Why can't you find out if the product is genetically
modified? Seems to me, this is fair.
So while I call the Roberts proposal the ``no-label label,'' because
it makes believe you are going to have a label, but there is no label--
the groups, the consumer groups call it the DARK Act, because the label
is voluntary. There is not going to be a label, at least for 3 years
after that, if not longer. They will figure out another way to put it
off indefinitely. Even if, after 3 years USDA decides they have to make
something mandatory, information will be
[[Page 3184]]
hidden behind Web sites or phone numbers or these QR codes that are so
problematic.
So this busy dad that we have here, he is going to have to stop
shopping for every item on his list. He would have to pull out his
phone to make a call or go to a Web site or scan a code. You don't have
to live too long to know this is not going to happen. This dad is not
going to do that because he has two kids. By now they are screaming:
Get me out of here; I am hungry, and where is mommy? So as to all of
this notion that this dad is now going to deal with all of this--I
don't care how much of a super dad you are, you are not going to make
50 phone calls to 1-800 numbers. You are not going to go look at 50 QR
codes and find out whether the product has GMO. You are just not going
to do it. It is not going to happen. The kids are going to be melting
down. Even if he doesn't have kids with him, he has other things to do,
by the way, like live his life outside the supermarket. He is going to
want to get back home or get back to work. It makes no sense at all.
By the way, this dad--and I ask Senator Reid to take a look at this
picture, if it doesn't remind him of one of his kids taking his
grandkids shopping--is going to be expected--if he has 50 products and
he wants to find out--either to have a smartphone and to put it up
against the code and then find a whole bunch of information--
Mr. REID. Or call the 1-800 number.
Mrs. BOXER. Or he could call the 1-800 number, and we know what
happens then. He will be transferred around the world.
So Americans should not have to run through hoops. Life is difficult
enough already not to have to do that. This thing is a sham. It is an
insult. It is a joke.
Why are they doing it on the other side of the aisle? Because they
are beholden to the special interests that don't want to label GMOs,
that are afraid if people know the food is genetically modified, they
won't buy it, even though there is no proof of that at all.
Mr. President, 64 countries require labels. Some 64 countries today
require simple labels, and many of our products are sold in those 64
countries. Let me tell you some of these countries.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a list of the 64 countries that require GMO labeling.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Countries with GMO Labels
1. Australia, 2. Austria, 3. Belarus, 4. Belgium, 5.
Bolivia, 6. Bosnia and Herzegovina, 7. Brazil, 8. Bulgaria,
9. Cameroon, 10. China, 11. Croatia, 12. Cyprus, 13. Czech
Republic, 14. Denmark, 15. Ecuador, 16. El Salvador, 17.
Estonia, 18. Ethiopia, 19. Finland, 20. France;
21. Germany, 22. Greece, 23. Hungary, 24. Iceland, 25.
India, 26. Indonesia, 27. Ireland, 28. Italy, 29. Japan, 30.
Jordan, 31. Kazakhstan, 32. Kenya, 33. Latvia, 34. Lithuania,
35. Luxembourg, 36. Malaysia, 37. Mali, 38. Malta, 39.
Mauritius, 40. Netherlands;
41. New Zealand, 42. Norway, 43. Peru, 44. Poland, 45.
Portugal, 46. Romania, 47. Russia, 48. Saudi Arabia, 49.
Senegal, 50. Slovakia, 51. Slovenia, 52. South Africa, 53.
South Korea, 54. Spain, 55. Sri Lanka, 56. Sweden, 57.
Switzerland, 58. Taiwan, 59. Thailand, 60. Tunisia, 61.
Turkey, 62. Ukraine, 63. United Kingdom, and 64. Vietnam.
Mrs. BOXER. I am going to name some of these countries that require
the labels. So in other words, our companies have to put the label on
if they want to sell there, letting people know if their food is
genetically modified: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil,
Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland,
Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Mali, Malta, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia,
Senegal, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka,
Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and
Vietnam. I left some out, but they will be in the Record if anyone
wants to see them.
Why is it that consumers in Russia have more information than our
consumers do--the greatest country in the world? This makes no sense at
all. Why is it that our companies are up in arms, since they have to
put the label on in these other countries? They could put the label on
here.
Now, if we care at all about what the public thinks, we should vote
no on the Roberts bill. Some 90 percent of Americans want to know if
the food they buy has been genetically engineered--90 percent. That is
a majority of Republicans. That is a majority of Democrats. That is a
majority of Independents. I think the other 10 percent are working for
the big food companies, which don't seem to want to share this.
Millions of Americans have filed comments with the FDA urging the
agency to label genetically engineered food so they can have this
information at their fingertips.
The bill also preempts any State in the Union from doing a label.
Now, I don't like the notion of every State doing a label. That is why
I support my bill--which has about 14 sponsors and simply says to the
FDA to write a label and make this the law--or the Merkley bill, which
comes up with four labels. Senator Merkley will talk about this. We say
that would, in fact, be enough so that States wouldn't be able to act.
Meanwhile, this says no State action, and we are going to keep the
status quo for at least 3 years--no labeling. Even after those 3 years,
there may be no labeling at all. It is going to be barcodes, which are
confusing, and 1-800 numbers, which probably take you to India to try
and figure your way through it all.
Now, I have long believed in the power to give consumers information.
I think you are all familiar with the dolphin-safe tuna labeling law. I
am proud to say that I wrote that law. That law has been in effect
since the 1990s, and people like it. But guess what. They see a smiling
dolphin on the tuna can, and they know that tuna was caught in a way
that does not harm the dolphins. We found out so many years ago that
the tuna schools swim under the dolphins, and the tuna companies were
purse seining on dolphins. They were putting nets over the dolphins,
pulling them away and then catching the tuna, and the dolphins would
die by the tens of thousands. So the schoolkids in those years said--at
that time I was a House Member: Congresswoman Boxer, we don't want to
have tuna that resulted in the death of all these dolphins. So we
created the label, and the tuna companies were very helpful, just like
Campbell Soup Company has been very helpful in labeling their products.
When you have the companies come forward, it is very helpful. So we
passed the bill. Everybody said: Oh, this is going to be terrible; no
one will buy tuna. Actually, people started buying the tuna because
they changed the way they fish for the tuna. The dolphins weren't
harmed. We have saved literally hundreds of thousands of dolphins over
the period of time that label has been in effect.
Now, as to this label, all we are saying is to let us know. Let us
know. What we do know is that many of these genetically engineered
products, as they are growing in the ground, require huge amounts of
pesticides. Senator Heinrich talked about that. That is one issue which
has grown in importance to parents because they don't want to give
their kids food that is covered in pesticides if they have an option.
So the power we give the consumers is critical--the power to simply
know the truth. And, to me, knowledge is power. To me, it is respect.
You tell people the truth; you don't give them a sham bill and say:
Well, we won't require anything for 3 years, but then we may have a
barcode, and then we may have a 1-800 number. No. It is pretty simple:
Require a label. Require a label. A label is simple. A label works.
I see Senator Merkley on the floor, and I am finishing up. We have
various ways we can do the label. One way is to give it to the FDA and
tell them to come up with it, and another way is the way Senator
Merkley has proceeded in a way to attract more support. He has given
four options, all of which are very good and all of which would
immediately give consumers the information they need.
In 2000, when I introduced the first Senate bill concerning the
labeling of
[[Page 3185]]
GE foods, my legislation had one supporter, and it was me. I had no
other supporters back then. It was so long ago. It was in 2000. Now 14
Senators are cosponsoring the bill. I am so proud to cosponsor Senator
Merkley's bill, the Biotechnology Food Labeling and Uniformity Act,
which, again, will put forward four options for companies.
There are reasons people want this information, and not one of us
here should decry what our people want, even if they want to know if
the foods contain GMOs because of the prevalence of herbicide-resistant
crops. We know from the USGS that growers sprayed 280 million pounds of
Roundup in 2012--a pound of herbicide for every person in the country.
That is what they spray on these foods that contain GMOs. Whatever the
reason, Americans deserve to know what is in the food they are eating.
Some want to know it just to have the information.
Some in the food and chemical industry say that adding this very
small piece of information would confuse or alarm consumers. This is an
old and familiar argument raised by virtually every industry when they
want to avoid giving consumers basic facts. In fact, a 2014 study from
the Journal of Food Policy shows there is little evidence that
mandatory labeling of GE foods signals consumers to avoid the product.
There is no proof of that.
The FDA requires the labeling of more than 3,000 ingredients,
additives, and processes. Orange juice from concentrate must be
labeled. Consumers should be able to choose the product they prefer. If
they like it from concentrate, fine. If they prefer it in a different
fashion, fine. There is no reason they can't also have the knowledge
that the food they are buying is genetically engineered.
The world certainly has moved ahead of us. The Roberts bill would
take us way back into the dark, and that is why consumer groups call it
the DARK Act. It is a sham. It is an embarrassment. It is time for us
to shelve the DARK Act, to listen to 90 percent of the American people.
For God's sake, if we do nothing else, we ought to listen to 90 percent
of the American people, and we ought to pass a real bill to help
Americans make informed choices about the foods they eat.
Again, I wish to thank Senator Merkley for really delving into this
issue and coming up with another alternative that will be very
acceptable not only to me but to, I believe, the 90 percent of the
people who are crying out for this information.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this debate on the Monsanto DARK Act,
which stands for Denying Americans the Right to Know, centers around
two basic propositions. The first proposition is that it would be
chaotic to have 50 States with 50 different labeling standards. How
could a food company possibly always get the right label to the right
store if there are 50 different State standards? This is not a problem
we actually have yet because we have no States that have adopted a
standard for GE labeling. We have one State--I should say no States
have implemented it. One State has adopted a standard, and that won't
be implemented until July. So we are far away from having any issue
over conflicting standards. But I acknowledge the basic point. This
makes sense. It makes sense that we don't want to have a world in which
every State has a different approach: In this State you do X, Y, and Z,
and in this State you do A, B, and C, and what the exemptions are
differ, and the formats differ, and so on and so forth. So let's just
concede that at this point, it makes sense to have a single standard
for the country. But a single standard about what?
That brings us to the second basic proposition, which is that there
be a consumer-friendly alert that there are GE ingredients in a
product. That is all. If a State says they want to have a simple,
consumer-friendly alert that there are GE ingredients, then they should
be able to do that.
If we don't want 50 standards, then we need to have the replacement
be a national standard that provides the same thing, that is a
consumer-friendly alert that there are GE ingredients. Then the
individual can do more investigation. They can go to the company's Web
site and find out the details, including what type of genetic
engineering it is, what is its impact, and so on and so forth.
Right now there is a coalition of individuals in this Chamber who
don't believe in Americans' right to know. They want to take it away.
They want to support a bill, which is currently on the floor right now,
that denies Americans the right to know because they are getting
pressure from Monsanto and friends, and they are not willing to stand
up for the American citizen, their constituents. They don't believe in
a ``we the people'' America; they believe in ``we the titans,'' that we
are here simply on the end of a puppet string. But we are not here for
that purpose. That is not the vision of our Constitution. The vision of
our Constitution is that we are an ``of the people, for the people, and
by the people'' world. That is what makes America beautiful, not that a
few powerful groups can control what happens here in this Chamber, this
honored and revered Chamber where it is our responsibility to hold up
our ``we the people'' vision of the Constitution.
So this bill, this Monsanto Deny Americans the Right to Know Act 2.0,
has a few shams and scams placed in it to pretend that it is a labeling
law.
The first scam that it has in it--or sham--is an 800 number. I as a
consumer can go to a grocery shelf and in 5 seconds I can check three
products for an ingredient by looking at the label; 1 second, 2
seconds, 3 seconds--well, less than 5 seconds. In 3 seconds I can check
and see whatever I want to find out. If I want to check the calorie
count or check for vitamin A or what percentage of the daily
recommended amount is in the food or if I want to see if it contains
peanuts because I am allergic to peanuts, I can do it for three
products in 3 seconds. That is consumer-friendly. That is why we put it
on the label. That is why we say: Oh gosh, we are going to give people
the information they want so they can exercise their freedom when they
buy things to support what they want. That is integrity between the
producer and the consumer.
But do we know what the opposite of integrity is? That is the DARK
Act. Deny Americans the right to know and ban States from providing
this basic information. It is the complete absence of responsibility to
the citizen.
Well, there is a 1-800 number. How would that work? First of all, I
have to find the 800 number. Then I have to make sure I have a phone
with me. Then I have to make sure I have good cell phone coverage. Then
I have to go to a phone tree. You know how these work. You go to the
phone tree, you listen to eight options, you pick the option, it takes
you to another list, you pick another option, and then finally, after
about five levels, they connect you. They say: If you want an operator,
press this, and you press it and you go to some call center in the
Philippines. They don't know what you are talking about. This is not
consumer-friendly.
Looking at the ingredient list takes 1 second. It is 10 minutes or
more when you call that 800 number, and maybe you get a message: I am
sorry, we have a large call volume right now, and we will be able to
answer your call in 20 minutes. That is not consumer information; that
is a scam and a sham.
That is not the only one that is in this DARK bill. The second sham
is this idea of a quick response code, like this one in the picture,
this square code. Again, as a consumer you can't look at the
ingredients and see the answer, if there are GE ingredients, no. Now
you have to have not just a phone but a smartphone. You have to hope it
has a battery, that it has a photo appliance with it. You have to take
a picture of that code, and then that code takes you to some Web site
written by the very producer who gives you the answer, maybe, or maybe
they lay out a whole architecture of stuff that obfuscates it, confuses
you, and you don't really get the answer, when all you needed was a
little tiny symbol on the package that indicated whether it had
[[Page 3186]]
GE ingredients. So, again, how long does that take? Ten minutes per
product? Thirty minutes for the first item on your shopping list as you
compare three products? That is not consumer-friendly--3 seconds versus
30 minutes--and that is just the first item on your shopping list.
There is not one person in this Chamber who truly believes this is a
fair substitute for consumer-friendly information. This is a sham and
scam No. 2.
If this QR code had a message on it and this message right here
written on the back said ``There are GE ingredients, and for details,
scan this code,'' that is consumer-friendly. That is all the consumer
wants to know. That is all we are asking for--a consumer-friendly
alert. Then that QR code for more information is fine. That is
perfectly fine. But without it, nobody even knows why it is there. What
is it there for? Is this where you find out information about the
company? Is this where you find out information about the new products
they are going to be putting out? Is this where you find information
about special sales that are going on? Nobody has any idea.
Well, the DARK bill doesn't stop with sham No. 1 and sham No. 2. No,
it gives us even more fake labeling because we see it says that a form
of labeling is to have no label but to put the information on your Web
site. Well, to call that a label is simply a misrepresentation--and
``misrepresentation'' is a fancy word for ``lie''--because there is not
any information that even appears on the product. None.
So we say: Well, I was told there would be an 800 number. I am not
finding it. I was told there might be a box, and I think it is for
finding out if there are GE ingredients. But I don't find that computer
code box, no, because they have adopted door No. 3, and door No. 3 is
to put something on some form of social media. But what social media?
Are you supposed to go to Instagram or Facebook or Twitter? Nobody has
any idea.
So now there is nothing--let me repeat: nothing--on the product. So
what could be learned in 1 second by a consumer, now the consumer has
fully no idea. And because this whole thing is voluntary, lots of
products may just choose to put nothing up.
The proponents of the DARK Act say: No, we have a pathway to more
information. If companies don't put up information in the form of a
barcode or a phone number or something on a social media Web site, well
then we will require something in one of those three areas. That
requirement down the road still provides no consumer-friendly
information. It is a pathway through a hall of mirrors that leads to a
hall of mirrors. It never leads to concrete, simple information.
Don't you know that if you told consumers they would have to go to a
Web site to find out if there is vitamin D in the product, that would
be ridiculous? It should just be printed on the package.
Don't you know if someone were interested in high fructose corn syrup
and they were told they had to dial a call center in the Philippines to
find out that information, consumers would say that is absurd? We all
know that is the case.
Ninety percent of Americans strongly believe--or believe when given
the choice--that there should be this information directly on the
label. I am rounding up from 89 percent. Let's round it off. When
questioned as to whether there should be information on the label to
say whether there are genetically engineered ingredients, 9 out of 10
Americans say yes, there should be, and 70 percent say they feel very
strongly about this. So here are our constituents, and 9 to 1, they
want us to provide information. But up here on Capitol Hill we have
Senator after Senator who does not care what their constituents think.
They care only what big Monsanto and friends want, which is to deny
Americans the right to know. That is irresponsible. That is wrong.
When we look at this number, you can see by how high it is that this
is not partisan because it would be impossible to have a big
difference--100 percent of one party and 80 percent of another might
round off to 90 percent. But that is not the way it is. Whether you are
an Independent, Democrat, or Republican, in all 3 groups, 9 out of 10
individuals, plus or minus a few percentage points, say they want this
information on the package.
So here we are with this vast difference in ideologies being
displayed by the Presidential debate, from the tea party right to the
far left and everything in between. There is disagreement on all kinds
of things, but on this, all the citizens agree--the right, left,
middle, far left, far right--because it is a fundamental freedom in
America to use your dollars based on basic, accurate information. That
is a basic freedom that a bunch of Senators on this floor want to take
away. It is just wrong to take away the States' rights to answer that
request, that need, that desire for information on GE ingredients and
not to replace it with a national standard. That is just wrong.
There are folks who say: Wait, I want to be on the side of science,
and I don't think there is any kind of scientific information that
there is any kind of disadvantage to GE products. Well, that is
fundamentally wrong. If you think there are no disadvantages, it is
because you don't want to know.
There are benefits, and there are disadvantages. For example,
recognize that this tool can be used in ways that produce some good
results and some not so good results. That is why it is up to the
consumer to decide how they want to use their dollars.
On the good side, we can talk about golden rice. There are parts of
the world that primarily eat rice. If they have a vitamin A deficiency,
there is rice that can be grown that has been genetically modified to
supply more vitamin A and makes for a healthier community. That is a
positive.
For example, sweet potatoes grown in South Africa are vulnerable to
certain viruses, but they have been genetically modified to resist
those viruses so there is more substantive food available to the
community. As far as we know, there are no particular side effects, so
that is a positive.
There are some interesting ideas that occur about edible vaccine
technology. This is an alternative to traditional vaccines, and they
are working to have transgenic plants used for the production of
vaccines that stimulate the human body's natural immune response.
Wouldn't that be amazing if we could essentially inoculate against
major diseases in the world through some type of GE, as long as there
weren't side effects? Who knows, that may end up being a major benefit.
Just as there are scientifically documented positives, there are
scientifically documented negatives. For example, let's talk about our
waterways. I put up a chart which shows that since the presentation or
production of herbicide-resistant crops, the amount of herbicides put
on crops in America has soared. We have gone from 7.4 million pounds in
1994 to 160 million pounds by 2012. It has gone up since. All of that
glyphosate is basically being sprayed multiple times a year. It gets
into the air, it gets into the plants, it gets into the runoff from the
fields, and it goes into our waterways. It has an impact because it is
a plant killer. That is what an herbicide is. It kills plants. If you
put millions of pounds of herbicide into our rivers, it does a lot of
damage.
I will not go through all the studies that have noted this damage.
Let me just explain that when you kill things at the base of the food
chain, you change the entire food chain. This is true for micro-
organisms in sea water, which we refer to as marine systems, and it is
very true in micro-organisms in freshwater systems.
Micro-organisms form the basis of food chains and provide ecological
services. There are a bunch of studies that show the impact of all this
plant-killing herbicide running into our rivers. It affects the soil
too. Quite frankly, it even creates some potential for an impact on
human health.
Let me explain. Two-thirds of the air and rainfall samples tested in
Mississippi and Iowa in 2007 and 2008 contain glyphosate. Those are
rain samples and air samples, two-thirds of which contained this
herbicide. Well, what we know is that not only do humans absorb some
therefrom, but they
[[Page 3187]]
also absorb some because of residuals in the food. A study published in
the Journal of Environmental & Analytical Toxicology found that humans
who consumed glyphosate-treated GMO foods have relatively high levels
of glyphosate in their urine because it is in their bodies. We also
know that glyphosate has been classified as a probable human carcinogen
by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World
Health Organization.
Here we have a probable carcinogen present in such vast quantities--
present in the rain, present in the air, present in the residuals on
the food. That is a legitimate concern to citizens. Does that mean that
it is causing rampant outbreaks of cancer? No, I am not saying that. I
am just saying there is a legitimate foundation for individual citizens
to say: I am concerned about the runoff into our streams. I am
concerned about the heavy application and its impact on local plants
and animals. I am concerned about the possibility of absorption of
anything that might contribute to cancer. That is the citizens' freedom
to have those opinions.
This is not a situation where Members of this body should say: We are
smarter than they are, and we don't care that they have scientific
concerns because, quite frankly, we want to suppress that information.
We don't want to give them a choice. We don't want to let them know. It
is just wrong. It is wrong to take away States' rights to provide such
basic information and not have a consumer-friendly version at a
national level. I will absolutely support a 50-State standard so there
is no confusion and no cost of overlapping standards or difficulties in
what food goes from what warehouse to what grocery store--absolutely
support that--but don't strip States from doing something 9 out of 10
Americans care about and then proceed to bury that and not provide that
information in the U.S. Senate.
I encourage my colleagues: Simply say no to this Monsanto Deny
Americans the Right to Know Act, the DARK Act. Simply say no. Stand up.
Have some respect for this institution.
This is a bill that never went through committee. Not a single phrase
of this bill went to committee. This is a new creation put on the floor
without juris, without consideration on committee, and no open
amendment process. How many colleagues across the aisle cried foul over
the past years when Democrats were in charge and didn't allow an
amendment process? They insisted they would never vote for cloture
unless there was a full amendment process that honored the ideas
presented by different Senators. But there is no open amendment process
here. So there we are--a bad process, mega influence by Monsanto and
friends oppressing and stripping the freedom of American citizens.
Let's not let that happen.
I have a host of letters I was planning to read, but I see my
colleague from Ohio is wanting to speak to this issue, and in fairness
to all sides of this debate or ideas that he might want to present, I
am going to stop here. If there is an opening later, I would like to
return to the floor because of the calls and letters overwhelmingly
from citizens stating they resent the Senators in this body trying to
strip them of their right to know.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Oregon,
and I am sure he will be back on the floor again to talk about this
issue.
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Bill
Mr. President, I want to address a couple of other issues quickly.
One is the last act that this Senate took last week, which was passage
of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. I didn't have a chance
to speak on it because the Senate adjourned at that point, but I just
want to congratulate my colleagues for coming together as Republicans
and Democrats. It was a vote of 94 to 1. That never happens around this
place. It is because people understand the significance of the
challenge of heroin and prescription drug abuse and addiction back in
our States and wanted to stand up and put forward Federal legislation
that would help make the Federal Government a better partner with State
and local governments and nonprofits that are out there in the trenches
doing their best, with law enforcement who are trying their darnedest,
and others in the emergency medical response community who are trying
to deal with this issue.
While traveling the State of Ohio the last 3 days, this Senator heard
about it constantly. Before I would give a speech, people would come up
and say thank you for dealing with this issue because my daughter, my
cousin, or my friend is affected. Today, I was with a group of young
people talking about other issues, and one said that his cousin at 23
years old had just succumbed to an overdose--died from an overdose of
heroin.
This a problem in all of our States. It is a problem where we can
help make a difference. I want to congratulate my colleagues, Senator
Whitehouse and others, for working with me to put this bill forward. We
worked on it over 3 years in a comprehensive way, using the best
expertise from around the country.
Now I am urging my colleagues in the House of Representatives to
follow suit. Let's pass this legislation. Let's send it to the
President's desk for his signature. Let's get this bill working to be
able to help our constituents all over this country to better deal with
a very real epidemic in our communities.
Now the No. 1 cause of death in my State is overdoses--from these
deaths that are occurring from overdoses of heroin and prescription
drugs. Again, I congratulate the Senate for acting on that on a
bipartisan basis and having thoughtful legislation that is going to
make a difference.
Read Aloud Month
Mr. President, I also rise today to speak about something that also
affects our young people, which is literacy and learning. This happens
to be Read Aloud Month. This U.S. Senate has established the month of
March as being the month that we hold up those who read aloud to their
kids, because we found it is incredibly important for a child's
development--particularly for the ability of a child to become adept at
other subjects at school by just being read to and the literacy that
results from that.
There is a campaign called the Read Aloud campaign. I congratulate
them for the good work they do around the country. They started in my
hometown of Cincinnati, OH, so I am very proud of them, but now it is a
national effort. In libraries and schools across the country, March is
held up as Read Aloud Month, where we encourage parents and other
family members to get into the habit of reading to their children, if
only for 15 minutes a day. That is all the Read Aloud campaign is
asking for. If parents and other caregivers read at least 15 minutes a
day to their kids, what an incredible difference it would make.
There is one study that is now quite well known that shows, on
average, by the time a child born into poverty reaches age 3, he or she
will have heard 30 million fewer words than his or her peers who are
not in poverty. What does that mean, 30 million fewer words? It means
that those children born into poverty are at a severe disadvantage. It
means they can have a lifetime of consequences that are negative for
them. The more we learn about the way the brain develops, the more
clear it is that verbal skills--like other skills--develop as they are
used and atrophy as they are neglected. The younger the children are,
the more important this is. So reading to children, particularly
younger children, is incredibly important to their development.
Even though this information is now out there and the Read Aloud
campaign is doing a great job of getting the education out there, even
with all this information we are told that in 40 percent of families in
America today parents and other caregivers are not reading to their
kids.
There is a doctor at Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Dr. Tzipi
Horowitz-Kraus, who is a real expert on this topic. She stated: ``The
more you read
[[Page 3188]]
to your child, the more you help the neurons in the brain to grow and
connect.'' So that is the physiological change that occurs.
We also know a child's vocabulary is largely reflective of the
vocabulary at home from their parents and caregivers. There is a 2003
study by Elizabeth Hart and Todd Risley studying the impact of this 30
million word gap we talked about between households in poverty and
those of their peers. They found that by age 3 the effects were already
apparent. Even at that young age, ``trends in the amount of talk,
vocabulary growth, and style of interaction were well established and
clearly suggested widening gaps to come.'' That is another study out
there about what the impact of this is.
There are a lot of adults who might not know how important reading
aloud is and don't feel they have enough to do it, but, again, 15
minutes a day is all they are asking. It adds up quickly and can help
close this word gap. As parents, it may be the most important single
thing we can do to help our children to be able to learn.
Illiteracy or even what is called functional illiteracy--not being
illiterate but not being able to read with proficiency--makes it so
much harder to do everything, to earn a living, obviously to get a job,
and to participate fully in society. It hurts self-esteem. It hurts
personal autonomy. Millions of our friends and neighbors are struggling
with these consequences every single day. According to the Department
of Education, there are about 32 million adults in the United States
who can't read. Nearly one out of every five adults reads below a fifth
grade level. Nearly the same percentage of high school graduates cannot
read. So one out of every five high school graduates not being able to
read is an embarrassment for us as a country, our school system, and
certainly what is not going on in our families, which again can help to
get these kids off to the right start. For these adults who are
functionally illiterate or illiterate, they all started with this
disadvantage we are talking about, not having this opportunity at home.
Some parents may say: OK, Rob. How do we afford this, because
children's books aren't inexpensive. How do you get the online
resources you might want to be able to read to your kids, if not books?
I have one simple answer for that, which is get a library card. Our
libraries in Ohio and around the country are all into this effort. They
have all rallied behind it, and they are all eager to be a part of
this.
My wife Jane and I made it a priority to read to our kids when they
were growing up, and a lot of that came from books we took out of the
Cincinnati and Hamilton County Libraries. It also had the consequence
of introducing our kids to the libraries and helped them to become
lifelong readers and learners. That is one way for those who are
wondering how to begin. Get a library card, go to your library, and get
started there.
I am proud Ohio has led the way in this effort. This campaign began
in Cincinnati and is now becoming a national movement.
We do talk a lot in this body about education. On a bipartisan basis,
we recently passed legislation that had to do with K-12 education
reform. I think it was an important step, but one thing it did is it
returned more power back to the States and back to our families, which
I think is a good thing.
The new law also authorized grant funding for State comprehensive
literacy plans, including targeted grants for early childhood education
programs--what we are talking about here, early childhood. It made sure
those grants are prioritized for areas with disproportionate numbers of
low-income families. We also authorized professional development
opportunities for teachers, literacy coaches, literacy specialists, and
English as a Second Language specialists. These grants will be helpful
in empowering our teachers to do their part to help our young people to
learn to read. Clearly, our wonderful teachers have a role to play.
To my colleagues, while this is all fine, there is no substitute for
the family. There is no substitute for what can happen in a family
before the child even goes to school and then while the child is
starting school to be able to give that child the advantage of being
able to learn more easily. Although I supported that legislation--there
are some good things in there--let's not forget the fundamental role
all of us play as parents or aunts or uncles or grandparents or other
caregivers.
Washington may be the only place on Earth where 30 million words--
which is this word gap we talked about, which is less than the length
of our Tax Code and regulations--doesn't sound like a lot, but it is a
lot, and there is no government substitute to close that 30 million
word gap. Ultimately, it is going to be closed by parents,
grandparents, uncles, aunts, other caregivers, and brothers and sisters
with the help of librarians, teachers, and others. We need to call
attention to this issue to let parents know that this 15 minutes a day
can make a huge difference. Every little bit counts. Every time you
read to the child, you are giving him or her an educational advantage,
you are making it easier for them to learn, helping to instill in them
a love of learning that will last a lifetime.
Again, I thank the Read Aloud campaign. I am proud of their roots in
my hometown and in Ohio. I thank them for all they are doing every day
for our kids and for our future.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I wish to continue sharing some
information about Monsanto and the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act
that is on the Senate floor being debated right now.
The reason I want to turn to this is this is such an egregious
overreach of the Federal Government, stripping States of the right to
respond to their citizens' desire for clear information, consumer-
friendly information, on GE--genetically engineered--ingredients and
stripping American citizens of the right to know.
I have already gone through a number of the points that are important
in this debate; that if you are going to eliminate the ability of
States to provide consumer-friendly information on their label--which
can be as simple as a tiny symbol or a letter such as Brazil uses--then
there has to be a national standard that provides consumer-friendly
information. Certainly, the hall of mirrors embedded in the DARK Act,
which says consumers have to call call centers somewhere around the
world and maybe they will eventually get an answer to their question
about GE ingredients or they have to own a smartphone and have a data
plan and take a picture of a computer code and give up some of their
privacy in the process in order to try to find out this information or
they have to guess where on social media the company has posted some
information about the ingredients they have in their product--those
three sets of components are completely unworkable, 100 percent
unworkable.
Ask yourself if that would be a logical remedy to people trying to
find out about the calories in a product. Instead of finding out in one
second, it could take them 10 minutes or, for that matter, an hour or
they may never even get an answer on the end of that call center
because the call center is too busy.
The point is that 9 out of 10 Americans believe this information
should be easily available on the label. I went through those numbers
before. The numbers are basically the same for Republicans, basically
the same for Democrats and Independents--slight variations. Throughout
the ideological spectrum, this is something American citizens agree on.
Along comes the Monsanto DARK Act and its proponents to say: We don't
care that the American people have finally found something to agree on
that goes to their core values about the right to know. We are going to
stomp out their right to know because we simply don't work for the
American people. We don't work for our constituents. We work for some
powerful special interest.
That is wrong. I hope the American citizens will let their Senators
know it
[[Page 3189]]
is wrong. They are certainly letting me know how they feel, and I
thought I would share some of those with you, but before I do that, I
had some inquiries about this situation of basically all citizens
throughout the ideological spectrum sharing this same point of view--9
out of 10. Is it also true for gender and age? Let me share that.
Specifically, there was a followup question which asked: Does a barcode
work to provide information on the label or do you want a physical
label stating that there are GE ingredients? Physical label versus this
barcode--which people don't even know where it is on the package.
It turns out again it is 90 percent. It is 88 percent of Democrats,
88 percent of Republicans, and 90 percent of Independents say: No, we
want the physical label, not some mysterious label that we have to use
our smartphone to interpret and give up some of our privacy.
How about men and women--87 percent of men, 97 percent of women.
How about younger and older--those who are less than 50 years old, 86
percent; those who are over 50 years old, 90 percent. Again, basically
9 out of 10 Americans, regardless of gender, regardless of age,
regardless of ideology, say: No, this is a fundamental issue of
American freedom, my freedom to exercise my choices based on basic
information that should be on the label.
Let's turn to some real constituents and some real letters so we are
not just talking numbers.
Bertha from Springfield writes:
I urge you to vote against SB 2609 concerning labeling of
foods that contain GMOs. Every American has the right to know
what they are putting in their bodies. You were elected to
represent all Oregonians and protect our rights, be assured I
will check yours and every other representatives' voting
records before I cast my votes in the future.
Let's turn to Eli from Medford, OR:
I want to hear you come out publicly against S. 2609.
Please lead the fight to get GMOs clearly labeled without
delay.
Well, Eli, that is exactly what I am doing. I hadn't read your letter
before I started speaking out strongly because I fundamentally believe
we are here to represent our citizens--not to bow down to special
interests--and this is as clear as it gets. This is as straightforward
as it could possibly be.
Let's turn to Ms. JC in Salem, OR:
Please, I am requesting you NOT to support (S. 2609)
(referred by some as the Dark Act) when it comes up for a
vote in the Senate. I know the Senate Agricultural Committee
voted 14-6 to pass the Dark Act S. 2609 last week. I believe
the government should protect OUR RIGHT TO KNOW what's in our
food. Please DO NOT VOTE to block GMO labeling.
She goes on:
Most European nations do not allow these types of food to
be grown or sold in their countries. This should give you
some information about how people in other countries view
genetically modified foods.
Please do not support this legislation. Your constituents
will appreciate your support for their right to know what's
in the foods we put on our plates to feed to our families.
That is a very personal issue: what you are putting in your mouth,
what you are putting on your family's table for your partner and your
children. That is a very powerful issue, and here we have Senators who
do not care and want to take away that right for something so close to
people's hearts.
Let's turn to Sheila in Pendleton, OR:
I want to urge Senator Merkley to vote against the S. 2609,
which would block mandatory labeling of genetically
engineered foods. I urge the Senator to stand up for states'
rights and individual rights to know. We have a right to know
what is in our food so that we can make educated decisions
about the food we eat.
She continues:
The free market can only work when consumers have the
information they need to make informed choices. Contrary to
what you hear from industry, GMO food labeling will not
increase food prices. Companies frequently change labels for
all sorts of reasons, without passing those costs on to
consumers.
Let me dwell on that point for a moment. It is completely reasonable
not to have 50 different State standards that are conflicting, but what
is unreasonable is to say that putting simple information on the
label--consumer-friendly information--costs a dime because that label
is printed at the same cost whether or not it includes a symbol that
says ``This food contains GE ingredients.'' It doesn't cost any more to
print the calories on the label, doesn't cost any more to put the
vitamin D content, doesn't cost any more to print a symbol or a phrase
or an asterisk indicating there are GE ingredients. So let's just be
through with that argument that somehow there is a cost issue.
Ronald from Medford writes:
Oppose S. 2609, the anti-GMO labeling bill. Allow States to
enact their own GMO labeling laws.
And that is a point--States' rights. I hear all the time from
colleagues here on this floor about States' rights, that the Federal
Government should treat States as a laboratory to experiment with
ideas, to see if they work, to perfect ideas that might be considered
for national adoption. And isn't that exactly what Vermont is--a State
laboratory that is implementing a bill on July 1? And we could all
watch and see whether it works.
On July 1, there will be no conflicting State standards because there
is only one State involved--Vermont. So we don't have to have confusing
labels going from different warehouses to different States because
there is just one State putting forward a standard. So it is an
opportunity for us to view that as a laboratory and see how it works.
Other States might want to copy if it works well, or they might want a
different version. Then the Senate could say: You know what, now we
have conflicting State standards, and let's address the core issue,
which is a consumer-friendly indication on the package, and get rid of
the conflicting State standards. That would be a fair and appropriate
role for this Senate to play.
But to crush the only State laboratory that is about to come into
existence in exchange for nothing but a hall of mirrors that does not
give any reasonable opportunity for the consumer as a shopper to find
out the information they need--the information they can get in 1 second
by looking on the label but would instead take 10 minutes or 30 minutes
or they may not even be able to get it at all while standing there in
the grocery store looking at the very first product on their list.
Joshua of Eugene says:
Please support the public's right to know what food has GMO
contained in it and work to defeat the DARK Act.
Additionally, I fully support also the public's right to
know where their food comes from, the country of origin, as
well as what nutritional content is in all food eaten in
restaurants.
So he is suggesting that we should expand this conversation to
restaurants. For now, let's talk about packaged foods. And he is also
commenting on country of origin.
I want to live in a nation where, if I choose to buy the produce
grown in America, I get to buy the produce grown in America. I want to
live in a nation where, if I choose to buy the meat raised in America
and support American ranchers, I get to support American ranchers. It
may simply be because I want to help out my fellow countrymen. It may
be because I think they have superior produce or make a superior
product, a type of meat. It may just be patriotism. But it should be my
right to know where that food is grown.
We have a law, country-of-origin labeling, that does exactly that
because consumers want to know. It isn't about what steak to put in
your mouth; it is about where the food was grown.
It so happens that we are part of a trade agreement--the World Trade
Organization--that says our labeling of where pork and beef are grown
is a trade impediment. I couldn't disagree more. We have lost case
after case in the WTO over this topic. Finally, we had to take country-
of-origin labeling off of our beef and off of our pork. We haven't had
to take it off our other meats, other produce. I hope we get to the
point where we can fully restore our country-of-origin labeling because
it matters to Americans.
What kind of country are we when we don't even have the right to buy
our fellow citizens' produce and our fellow citizens' meat? Talk about
stripping
[[Page 3190]]
away freedom. Yet here comes a group of Senators on this floor who want
to further strip the rights of consumers. No wonder American citizens
are angry with their government. No wonder they are angry specifically
with Congress, that they rate us so unfavorably, below 10 percent. No
wonder they are cynical because of things like this, where we ignore
the fundamental desires of citizens and instead cave in to a powerful
special interest. That is not the way it is supposed to be in the
United States of America.
Terry of Lake Oswego writes:
GMO free food is information we need to have. I need the
right to decide what to eat and feed my family. If the food
industry want[s] to produce foods without meeting certain
standards, using whatever they want to make their product,
sell foods to us, what protection do we have? Do we really
know the long term effects of altered food ingredients?
Well, Terry, no, we don't know all the effects, but we do know there
is a series of potential benefits and a series of problems. Those
problems are the massive runoff of herbicide--which is a name for
plant-killing chemicals--massive runoff of plant-killing chemicals into
our streams. There are plants in our streams--algae, microorganisms--
that are the fundamental basis of the food chain, and that makes a
difference. We do know this herbicide is classified as a potential
human carcinogen by the World Health Organization. We also know those
who eat GMO food end up with more glyphosate--that is herbicide--in
their body.
But it is up to you, Terry, to decide whether you have concerns about
this. You should get to decide. No Senator can come to this floor,
Terry, and say: I know better. I want to strip your ability to make a
decision because I know everything. And you know what. I don't care
about the scientific research; I just want to serve these powerful ad
companies that don't want you to know. So too bad, Terry, and too bad
to the 90 percent of Americans, 90 percent of Democrats, 90 percent of
Republicans, 90 percent of Independents, 90 percent of women, 90
percent of men--I am rounding off but pretty close--90 percent of the
young. Too bad for all of that because Senators here want to deny you
the information on which to make the decision you are asking for.
Gail of Portland, OR, says:
Please do all you can to defeat S. 2609. It is my
understanding that under this bill, it would be illegal for
States to require GMO labeling, even though polls show that
93 percent of Americans support labeling efforts.
Well, Gail, I don't have the poll you have that says 93 percent of
Americans support labeling, but I do have this poll done in November
2015 by a reputable pollster that says 89 percent. So let's take your
93 percent and let's take this poll's 89 percent and just agree that
basically 9 out of 10 Americans want this information on the product.
And when asked if they want it in the form of a mysterious barcode that
compromises their privacy if they use it--they don't even know why it
is on the product--or they want it in terms of a simple statement or
symbol, they want the simple statement or symbol.
So, Gail, thank you for your letter.
William of Chemult, OR, said:
I was distressed to learn that the Senate Agriculture
Committee last week approved the voluntary GMO labeling. . .
. This would be a disaster if it became law. As your
constituent, I'm writing to ask you to oppose this and any
other scheme that would make GMO labeling voluntary.
William, I am sorry to report that it is even worse than voluntary
because an actual label is banned by this bill. A State cannot put a
real label or symbol on the product. Instead, this is the anti-label
bill. It says you have to put on things so the customer can't see there
are GE ingredients. It has banned putting clear, simple, consumer-
friendly information on the product. Instead, it proposes a wild goose
chase where you have to call some call center somewhere, some 800
number somewhere and hope that you can get through the phone tree; hope
that eventually they will stop saying: Because of call volume, it will
be another 30 minutes before we can talk to you; hope that somehow when
you get to that call center, it is not staffed by folks who speak the
English language with such an accent that you don't even understand
what they are saying or they do not understand what you are saying.
It is even worse, William, because they want to put a barcode on as a
substitute, with no indication for the purpose of this barcode, so that
it is just a mystery. Why is this there? I don't know. Does this tell
you about their upcoming products? Does this tell you about
advertisements for discounts if you take your smartphone and you snap
on this? Because the only way that barcode has value--and every Senator
in this room knows this fact--it only has value if you tell the
consumer why that barcode is on the package. If it says ``This product
has GE ingredients. For details, scan this bar code,'' then that is a
valuable contribution, but without that indication, this is just
another wild goose chase taking customers on a crazy adventure with no
real information when they could have had a symbol that in 1 second
answered their question.
And, William, it gets worse. If you can believe it, it gets worse,
because under this voluntary standard, what counts as a nonlabel--not
only a 1-800 number or a barcode or a computer code of some sort--what
also counts is putting something in social media somewhere. Well, what
social media? There are a hundred different social media companies. How
are you possibly supposed to discover, even if you wanted to, what the
information is on that product?
All of this is designed, William, to prevent you from getting the
information you want right on the package with a simple little symbol--
not a symbol that is pejorative, not a symbol that is scary--chosen by
the FDA just to give you the information. Brazil uses a ``t'' in a
triangle. That would be fine. It doesn't really matter what the symbol
is because citizens who want to know can find out that indicates there
are GE ingredients. But, no, that would be giving you information, and
the goal of the Monsanto Deny Americans the Right to Know Act is to
prevent you from getting information.
I want to turn to Anna in Beaverton, OR. Anna says:
I wanted to ask that you share with your colleagues that
this bill is insulting to the intelligence of Americans,
limits citizens the right to make safe choices when
purchasing food; hamstrings diet and medical professionals
who treat, among other things, food allergies and therefore
could result in an allergic person ingesting a food fraction
that could result in a serious, even fatal, allergic
reaction.
Here is the point: This bill is an insult to the intelligence of
Americans. Anna, you have this right. This is about Senators who do not
respect your intelligence, who do not honor your right to make a
decision as a consumer. They know that this is an incredibly popular
idea to put a symbol or phrase on a package to indicate it has key
ingredients because citizens want to know. The Members here know this,
and they don't care because they want to make the decision for you.
They do not want to allow you freedom to make your own choices. They do
not consider you to be an adult. They want to treat you like a child
who is fed only the information they want to give you.
So, Anna, I am deeply disturbed about this insulting legislation that
tears down the intelligence of our American citizens, that says to the
9 out of 10 Americans in every State in this Union that we want to
strip away your ability to make your own choice.
Keri from Eugene writes: ``Why are we protecting large conglomerates
and processed food companies instead of protecting the American people
and the land?''
Well, that is a good question, Keri. I suppose it is because these
companies make huge donations under the constitutional decisions of our
Supreme Court.
It is a very interesting story about the evolution of our country.
When our forefathers got together to draft the Constitution, they had a
vision of citizens having an equal voice. That decision was somewhat
flawed, as we all know--flaws we corrected over time related to race,
related to gender. But the fundamental principle was that citizens got
to have an equal voice.
What they pictured was this: They pictured a town commons, which cost
nothing to participate in, and each citizen could get up and share
their view
[[Page 3191]]
in that town commons, could share their view before the town voted, or
could share that view equally with the person representing them in
Congress. This is what Thomas Jefferson called the mother principle--
that we are only a republic to the degree that the decisions we make
reflect the will of the people. He said for that to happen, the
citizens have to have an equal voice. Those are the words he used:
``equal voice'' and ``mother principle.'' Lincoln talked about the same
thing: equal voice as the foundation of our Nation.
So when you ask the question, Keri, about why are we protecting large
conglomerates at the expense of where the American people stand, you
have to go back 40 years ago to a case called Buckley v. Valeo. In
Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court stood this principle--the mother
principle of equal voice--on its head because now we have a commons
that is for sale. The commons is the television. The commons is the
radio. The commons is the information on Web sites.
They basically said that Americans could buy as much of that commons
as they want. So instead of an equal voice, Jefferson's mother
principle, we instead have a completely unequal voice. Those with
fabulous wealth have the equivalent of a stadium sound system, and they
use it to drown out the voice of ordinary Americans.
Then a couple of years ago, on a 5-to-4 decision of the Supreme
Court, they doubled down on the destruction of our ``We the People''
Nation. They tore those three words out of the start of our
Constitution, and they did so by saying: You know what. We are going to
allow the board members of a corporation to utilize their owners' money
for the political purposes that the board wants to use, and they don't
have to even inform the owners of the company that they are using their
money for these political purposes. So we have this vast concentration
of power in corporations because corporations are large. If they have a
small board, the board says: We want to influence politics in this
fashion, and we don't even have to tell the owners about it. So that is
a hugely additional destructive force on top of Buckley v. Valeo. There
is nothing in the Constitution that comes close to saying that
corporations are people, and there certainly is nothing that says a few
people who sit in the decisionmaking capacity should be able to take
other people's money and spend it for their own political purposes. It
was never envisioned.
Between these decisions over several decades, we have destroyed the
very premise of our Constitution, Thomas Jefferson's mother principle,
that we are only a republic to the degree that we reflect the will of
the people.
That is the best I can do, Keri, to explain how it is possible that
this bill, which flies in the face of 9 out of 10 Americans, has made
it to this floor. This bill didn't go through committee. We have
leadership in this body that pledged regular order. They were going to
put things through committee and bring bills to the floor that had been
passed by committee. But this hasn't been. That is how much, as Keri
put it, ``large conglomerates'' are influencing what happens here in
this Senate.
Judith of Grants Pass says:
Please do NOT support [this bill] that would block states
from requiring labels on genetically modified foods. People
have a right to know [whether or not they are considered
safe].
She is right. She is absolutely right. It is whether or not they are
considered safe. This isn't a scientific debate. There is science of
concerns--science that I have laid out here on the floor. There is also
science about benefits. But that is not the issue. The issue is a
citizen's right to make their own decision. If they are concerned about
the massive increase in herbicides and the destruction it does to the
soil, they have a right to exercise that in the marketplace. If they
are concerned about the massive amount of runoff of herbicides
affecting the basic food chains in our streams and rivers, they have
that right. If they are concerned about the fact that there has been
some movement of genes from crops to related weeds that then become
resistant to herbicides, that is their business. If they are concerned
that Bt corn is producing superbugs resistant to the pesticide, that is
their business.
These are not phantom ideas or phantom concerns. These are
scientifically documented concerns. None of this says it is unsafe to
put in your mouth. I hear that all the time: Well, it is not unsafe to
put these GE things in your mouth. But here is the thing: That isn't
the basis on which we label. We label things people care about, and
there are implications to how things are grown and their impact.
For example, we have a Federal law that says grocery stores have to
label the difference between wild fish and farmed fish. Why is that?
Well, there are implications to what happens in different types of
farms, and citizens are given a heads-up by this law, and they can
decide. They can look into it and see if it is a concern. They may not
be at all concerned about how catfish are raised in a farm setting, but
they may be very concerned about how salmon are raised in farm settings
because we find there are some bad effects of salmon raised in pens in
the ocean that transfer disease to wild salmon. That is their right.
They get to look into that. We give them that ability by requiring this
information be on the package.
I don't hear anyone in this Chamber standing up right now and saying
they want to strip our packages of the information of wild fish versus
farmed fish. We have basic information on packages regarding whether
juice is fresh or whether it is created from concentrate because
citizens care about the difference. So we give them this basic
information to facilitate their choice. And that is the point: We
facilitate their choice.
Kimberly writes in:
I am writing you today to urge you to vote no on . . .
[anything that would] block Vermont's . . . [bill].
The right to know what we eat is critical.
Richard from Portland writes: ``I urge you to filibuster, if need be,
to stop the `Dark Act.'''
Well, I would like to do that, Richard. I would like to do anything I
can to slow this down so the American people know what is going on. But
here is the level of cynicism in this Chamber: Last night, when the
majority leader filed this bill, which has never gone through
committee, he simultaneously filed a petition to close debate. Under
the rules of the Senate, that means, after an intervening day, there is
going to be a vote, and there is no way that my speaking here day and
night can stop it because it is embedded in the basic rules.
However, I can try to come to this floor several times and lay out
these basic arguments and hope to wake up America to what is being
plotted and planned in this Chamber right now. So that is what I am
trying to do. I hope that it will have an impact. I hope that when the
vote comes tomorrow morning after this intervening day--Tuesday being
the intervening day--that my colleagues will say this is just wrong--
stripping from Americans the right to know something 9 out of 10
Americans want, stripping States of the ability to respond to their
citizens' desires, shutting down a single State laboratory in Vermont
when there is no conflict on labels at this point because only one
State is implementing a law.
I hope that they will say: You know what. This should be properly
considered in committee. This bill should be in committee. It should be
given full opportunity when it does come to the floor--and I assume it
would--to be openly amended so that anyone who wants to put forward an
amendment would be able to do so. That is the way the Senate used to
work.
When I was here as an intern in 1976, I was asked to staff the Tax
Reform Act of that year. I sat up in the staff gallery. At that point
there was no television on this floor; therefore, nobody outside this
room could track what was going on. There were no cell phones. There
was no other way to convey what was occurring. So the staff sat up in
the staff gallery, and when a vote was called, you would go down the
staircase to the elevator just outside here. You would meet your
Senator, and you
[[Page 3192]]
would brief your Senator on the debate that was happening on that
amendment. That is what I did--amendment after amendment, day after
day. Then, as soon as that amendment was voted on, there would be a
group of Senators seeking recognition of the Presiding Officer, and you
would hear everyone simultaneously go, ``Mr. President,'' because the
rule is that the Presiding Officer is supposed to recognize the very
first person he or she hears, and so everyone tried to be first the
moment that an amendment was done, the moment the vote was announced.
Well, with all those people simultaneously seeking the attention of the
Chair, it is really impossible for the Chair to sort out exactly who is
speaking first. So they call on someone on the left side of the
Chamber, and then, when that amendment was done an hour later--because
they would debate it for an hour and hold the vote; when the vote was
done, they called on somebody on the right side of the Chamber. They
worked it back and forth so that everyone got to have their amendment
heard. That is an open amendment process.
I have heard many of my colleagues across the aisle call for that
kind of process when the Democrats were in charge, and I support that
kind of process. I supported it when I was in the majority; I support
it when I am in the minority. Everything I have proposed or talked
about to make this Senate Chamber work better as a legislative body I
have supported consistently, whether I am in the majority or whether I
am in the minority.
So here is the thing. We have the opposite of that right now. We
don't have the Senate of the 1970s, where Senators honor their right to
debate and have an open amendment process. That would really change
this. That would provide an opportunity for all viewpoints to be heard.
We would never have had a cloture motion filed within seconds of the
bill first being put on the floor, and it would have been incredibly
rare for a bill that had not gone through committee to be put on the
floor.
We have to reclaim the legislative process, and right now we don't
have it. So that is a great reason to vote no tomorrow morning. Voting
no tomorrow morning is the right vote if you believe in States' rights.
It is the right vote if you believe in the consumers' right to know,
the citizens' right to know. And it is the right vote if you believe we
shouldn't have a process in this Chamber that just jams through
something for a powerful special interest at the expense of the 9 or 10
Americans who want this information.
So tomorrow, colleagues, let's turn down this insult to the
intelligence of Americans, this assault on States' rights, this
deprivation, this attack on the freedom of our citizens.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the next Supreme Court Justice could
dramatically change the direction of the Court. And the majority of
this body believes the American people shouldn't be denied the
opportunity to weigh in on this question. We believe there should be a
debate about the role of Supreme Court Justices in our constitutional
system.
With that in mind, I wanted to spend a few minutes discussing the
appropriate role of the Court. Before I turn to that, I wish to note
that the minority leader continues his daily missives on the Supreme
Court vacancy.
Most of us around here take what he says with a grain of salt. So, I
am not going to waste time responding to everything he says. I will
note that this is what he said in 2005 when the other side was
filibustering a number of circuit court nominations, and a few months
before they filibustered the Alito nomination to the Supreme Court:
The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S.
Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate
has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote. It says
appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the
Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee
receives a vote.
With that, I will turn to the appropriate role of a Justice under our
Constitution. Part of what makes America an exceptional Nation is our
founding document. It is the oldest written Constitution in the world.
It created a functioning republic, provided stability, protected
individual rights, and was structured so that different branches and
levels of government can resist encroachment into their areas of
responsibility. A written Constitution contains words with fixed
meanings. The Constitution, and in many ways the Nation, has survived
because we have remained true to those words. And our constitutional
republic is ultimately safeguarded by a Supreme Court that enforces the
Constitution and its text.
Our Constitution creates a republic where the people decide who will
govern them, and by what rules. The Supreme Court can override the
people's wishes only where the Constitution prohibits what the people's
elected officials have enacted. Otherwise, the Court's rulings are
improper. Stated differently, the Justices aren't entitled to displace
the democratic process with their own views. Where the Constitution is
silent, the people decide how they will be governed.
This fundamental feature of our republic is critical to preserving
liberty. The temptation to apply their own views rather than the
Constitution has always lurked among the Justices. This led to the Dred
Scott decision. It led to striking down many economic regulations early
in the last century. And Americans know all too well in recent decades
that the Supreme Court has done this regularly. Justice Scalia believed
that to ensure objectivity rather than subjectivity in judicial
decision-making, the Constitution must be read according to its text
and its original meaning as understood at the time those words were
written.
The Constitution is law, and it has meaning. Otherwise, what the
Court offers is merely politics, masquerading as constitutional law.
Justice Scalia wrote that the rule of law is a law of rules. Law is not
Justices reading their own policy preferences into the Constitution. It
is not a multifactor balancing test untethered to the text. We all know
that Justices apply these balancing tests to reach their preferred
policy results.
The Court is not, and should not, be engaged in a continuing
Constitutional Convention designed to update our founding document to
conform with the Justices' personal policy preference. The Constitution
is not a living document. The danger with any Justice who believes they
are entitled to ``update'' the Constitution is that they will always
update it to conform with their own views. That is not the appropriate
role of a Justice. As Justice Scalia put it, ``The-times-they-are-a-
changin' is a feeble excuse for disregard of duty.''
Now, when conservatives say the role of Justices is to interpret the
Constitution and not to legislate from the bench, we are stating a view
as old as the Constitution itself. The Framers separated the powers of
the Federal Government.
In Federalist 78, Hamilton wrote, ``The interpretation of the laws is
the proper and peculiar province of the courts.'' It is up to elected
representatives, who are accountable to the people, to make the law. It
is up to the courts to interpret it.
These views of the judicial role under the Constitution were once
widely held. But beginning with the Warren Court of the 1960s, the
concept took hold that the Justices were change agents for society.
Democracy was messy and slow. It was much easier for Justices to impose
their will on society in the guise of constitutional interpretation.
Acting as a superlegislature was so much more powerful than deciding
cases by reading the legal text and the record. The view took hold that
a Justice could vote on a legal question just as he or she would vote
as a legislator. Perhaps the Framers underestimated what Federalist 78
called the ``least dangerous branch,'' one that ``can take no active
resolution whatever.'' Since the days of the Warren Court, this
activist approach has been common:
[[Page 3193]]
striking down as unconstitutional laws that the Constitution doesn't
even address.
Now, to his credit, President Obama has been explicit in his view
that Justices aren't bound by the law. While he usually pays lip
service to the traditional, limited, and proper role of the Court to
decide cases based on law and facts, he is always quick to add that on
the tough cases, a judge should look to her heart or rely on empathy.
The President's empathy standard is completely inconsistent with the
judicial duty to be impartial. Asking a Justice to consider empathy in
deciding cases is asking a Justice to rule based on his or her own
personal notion of right and wrong, rather than law.
As I have said, everyone knows this President won't be filling the
current vacancy. Nonetheless, the President has indicated he intends to
submit a nomination. That is ok. He is constitutionally empowered to
make the nomination. And the Senate holds the constitutional power to
withhold consent, as we will. But as we debate the proper role of the
Court, and what type of Justice the next President should nominate, it
is instructive to examine what the President says he is looking for in
a nominee.
The President made clear his nominee, whoever it is, won't decide
cases only on the law or the Constitution. He wrote that in ``cases
that reach the Supreme Court in which the law is not clear,'' the
Justice should apply his or her ``life experience.''
This, of course, is just an updated version of the same standard we
have heard from this President before. It is the empathy standard. Of
course, a Justice who reaches decisions based on empathy or life
experience has a powerful incentive to read every case as unclear, so
they have a free hand to rely on their life experiences to reach just
outcomes.
The President also said any Justice he would nominate would consider
``the way [the law] affects the daily reality of people's lives in a
big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times. That, I
believe, is an essential element for arriving at just decisions and
fair outcomes.''
With all respect to the President, any nominee who supports this
approach is advocating an illegitimate role for the Court. It is flatly
not legitimate for any Justice to apply his or her own personal views
of justice and fairness.
Perhaps most troubling is the President's statement that any nominee
of his must ``arrive[] at just decisions and fair outcomes.'' That is
the very definition of results-oriented judging. And it flies in the
face of a judge as a fair, neutral, and totally objective decision-
maker in any particular case. A Justice is to question assumptions and
apply rigorous scrutiny to the arguments the parties advance, as did
Justice Scalia.
Under the President's approach, a Justice will always arrive where he
or she started. That isn't judging. That is a super-legislator in a
black robe. In our history, regrettably, we have had Justices who
embraced this conception. Chief Justice Warren was infamous for asking,
``Is it just? Is it fair?'' without any reference to law, when he
voted.
Justice Scalia's entire tenure on the Court was devoted to ending
this misplaced and improper approach. In reality, a Justice is no more
entitled to force another American to adhere to his or her own moral
views or life experiences than any other ordinary American.
Imposition of such personal biases subjects citizens to decrees from
on high that they can't change, except through constitutional
amendment. And those decrees are imposed by officials they can't vote
out of office.
This is not the constitutional republic the Framers created. The
American people deserve the opportunity during this election year to
weigh in on whether our next Justice should apply the text of the
Constitution, or alternatively, whether a Justice should rely on his or
her own life experiences and personal sense of right and wrong to
arrive at just decisions and fair outcomes. Senate Republicans will
ensure the American people aren't denied this unique and historic
opportunity.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I listened to what my good friend from Iowa
said about the standards that he is afraid an Obama nominee would
utilize. I note that in the dozens and dozens of cases--probably
hundreds--that Obama nominees have been voted on, my friend from Iowa
did not mention a single case where they applied it to anything but the
law, and I suspect that standard would apply to anybody the President
would nominate.
Now, Mr. President, on another matter, I want to set the record
straight. Contrary to the remarks of the Senate majority leader
yesterday, Vermont has not recently passed a GE food-labeling law. I
mention that because I am old-fashioned enough to like to have things
clear and accurate in this Chamber.
It was in May 2014--nearly 2 years ago--that after 2 years of debate,
more than 50 committee hearings featuring testimony from more than 130
representatives on all sides of the issue, the Vermont Legislature
passed and the Governor of Vermont signed into law a disclosure
requirement for genetically engineered ingredients in foods.
Now, in this body: After one hearing 5 months ago that was only
tangentially related to the issue, and without any open debate on the
floor, the Republican leadership has decided that it knows better than
the State of Vermont. Today we are being asked to tell Vermonters and
constituents in other States with similar laws that their opinion,
their views, and their own legislative process simply doesn't matter
because we can decide on a whim to ignore them. We are actually being
asked to tell consumers that their right to know isn't, frankly, theirs
at all.
I think in my State, in the Presiding Officer's State, and all the
other Senators' States, consumers think they have a right to know. Now
we are telling them: Not so much.
I hear from Vermonters regularly and with growing frequency that they
are proud of Vermont's Act 120. It is a law that simply requires food
manufacturers to disclose when the ingredients they use are genetically
engineered. It doesn't tell them they can't use those ingredients; it
simply says: Consumers have a right to know. Tell us what you are
doing.
Vermonters are concerned and some are actually outraged that the
Congress is trying to roll back their right to know what is in the food
that they give their families. Vermont is not the only State whose laws
are under attack; we just happen to be the State with the fastest
approaching deadline for implementation.
The bill we are considering today is a hasty reaction--a reaction
with no real, open hearing--in response to a 2-year-old law that is set
to finally take effect and doesn't fully take effect until the end of
this year. Instead of protecting consumers and trying to find a true
compromise, this bill continues the status quo and tells the public: We
don't want you to have simple access to information about the foods you
consume. You don't need to know what is in the food. Trust us. We know
better. We, Members of the Senate, know better than you do, so we are
not going to let you know what is going on. It is no wonder that people
get concerned.
Vermont's law and others like it around the country are not an attack
on biotechnology. Vermont's law and others like it merely require
factual labeling intended to inform consumers. All we are saying is, if
you are going to buy something, you ought to know what you are getting.
If you want to buy it, go ahead. Nobody is stopping you. But you ought
to be able to know what is in it.
Producers of food with GE products have nothing to hide. Let's take
Campbell's, which is a multibillion-dollar brand. It is certainly one
of the biggest brands in this country. They are already taking steps to
label their products. They have to do that to comply with similar laws
in other countries. They said: Sure, we will comply, and we will label
our packages.
Our ranking member on the Agriculture Committee, Senator Stabenow,
[[Page 3194]]
has had commitments from other CEOs in the food industry who are ready
and able to move ahead with labeling and national disclosure. They
actually know that consumers really care about what they are getting.
Now the U.S. Senate wants to tell those millions of consumers ``You
have no right to know. We are going to block your chance to know, and
we are going to keep you from knowing what is in your food.'' And some
of these large companies are saying that they agree with the consumer.
An asterisk, a symbol, a factual notation on a product label is not
going to send our economy into a tailspin and cause food prices to
spiral out of control.
Again, let's get rid of the rhetoric. I heard some on the floor in
this Chamber argue that Vermont's labeling law will cost consumers an
average of $1,000 more per year on food purchases. Wow. The second
smallest State in the Nation passed a law that simply tells companies
to disclose the ingredients in the food consumers are buying, and
somehow that law is going to cost consumers $1,000 more per year in
food purchases? If the claim wasn't so laughable, we might be able to
ignore it. But we found out where that cost estimate came from. It came
directly from a study paid for by the Corn Refiners Association and is
based on every single food manufacturer in the United States
eliminating GE ingredients from their food. We are not asking anybody
to eliminate anything--this is not what anyone is asking companies or
farmers to do. We are just saying: If I buy something and I am going to
feed it to my children--or in my case, my grandchildren--or my wife and
I are going to eat it, I would kind of like to know what is in it. All
we are asking for is a simple label.
At a time when too much of the national discourse is hyperbolic at
best, why don't we set an example for the rest of the country? Try a
little truth in this Chamber. GE labeling should be the least of our
woes.
In fact, the bill before us today is an attack on another Vermont
law. That law has been on the books for only, well, 10 years. Oh my
God, the sky is falling. It is actually similar to a law that is on the
books in Virginia these are genetically engineered seed labeling laws.
Farmers in both Vermont and Virginia have benefited from this law, and
those selling seed to other States have complied with it. Why preempt
State laws that have worked well for 10 years and with which companies
are already complying? Are we going to do that because one or two
companies that are willing to spend a great deal of money feel
otherwise?
GE labeling is about disclosure. It gives consumers more information,
more choices, and more control on what they feed themselves and their
families. If we hide information from the consumers, we limit a measure
of accountability for producers and marketers.
I don't know what people are trying to hide. Our producers and
marketers in Vermont are proud to showcase not just the quality of
their products but the methods by which they are produced. We are not
blocking our markets to anybody, whether it is GE foods or otherwise.
If it works, we ought to give people a choice. Why have 100 people here
say: Oh no, we know better than all of you.
I am a proud cosponsor of Senator Merkley's bill. It provides for a
strong national disclosure standard. It would give manufacturers a
whole variety of options to disclose the presence of GE ingredients in
their food, and they can pick and choose how they do it.
I am equally grateful to Senator Stabenow. She has fought hard to
negotiate a pathway toward a national disclosure standard. We should
not move forward with this bill without an open and full debate. We
shouldn't just say to consumers throughout the country: We know better
than you.
I am not going to support any bill that takes away the right of
Vermont or any State to legislate in a way that advances consumer
awareness. If we don't want to have a patchwork of State disclosure
laws, then let's move in the direction of setting a national mandatory
standard. Some of the biggest food companies in this country are moving
forward and complying with Vermont's law.
This week is Sunshine Week, so let's hope the Senate rejects efforts
to close doors and not let the American public know what is in their
food. I hope they will oppose advancing this hastily crafted
legislation and work towards a solution that actually lets the
consumers in Texas, Iowa, Vermont, or anywhere else know what is in
their food.
I see the distinguished majority deputy leader on the floor. I have
more to say, but I will save it for later.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
____________________
FOIA IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2015
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last week, when the Senate passed the
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, I spoke on this floor about
the good work that is getting done in the Senate since Republicans took
over. Time and again, we have seen both sides of the aisle come
together to find practical solutions to real problems facing the
American people.
That is the way the Senate is supposed to work, and we need to keep
that momentum as we move forward to tackle other critical issues.
As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I continue to be proud of the
role we have played in getting work done in a bipartisan manner.
Today, on the floor of the Senate, we are doing that once again. We
are passing another Judiciary Committee bill that carries strong,
bipartisan support. We are passing another Judiciary Committee bill
that solves real issues and is supported by folks on all ends of the
political spectrum.
Don't get me wrong. Finding agreement on both sides of the aisle is
no easy task. Even the most well-intentioned efforts can get bogged in
the details.
But the fact that we are here today is a testament to good-faith
negotiations and a commitment to make government work for the American
people. And it is another indication of what this institution can be
and what it was meant to be.
The FOIA Improvement Act makes much-needed improvements to the
Freedom of Information Act, and its passage marks a critically
important step in the right direction toward fulfilling FOIA's promise
of open government.
I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the FOIA Improvement Act,
and I want to thank Senator Cornyn and the ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, for their tireless, bipartisan work
to advance this bill through the Senate.
I am especially proud that the bill's passage occurs during this
year's Sunshine Week, an annual nationwide initiative highlighting the
importance of openness and transparency in government.
Every year, Sunshine Week falls around the birthday of James Madison,
the father of our Constitution. This isn't by mistake.
Madison's focus on ensuring that government answers to the people is
embodied in the spirit of FOIA, so passing the FOIA Improvement Act
this week is a fitting tribute to his commitment to accountable
government and the protection of individual liberty. And it is an
opportunity for us all to recommit ourselves to these same higher
principles.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of FOIA's enactment. For over
five decades, FOIA has worked to help folks stay in the know about what
their government is up to. The Supreme Court said it best when it
declared: ``The basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed
citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to
check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the
governed.''
To put it simply, FOIA was created to ensure government transparency,
and transparency yields accountability.
After all, a government that operates in the dark, without fear of
exposure or scrutiny, is one that enables misdeeds by those who govern
and fosters distrust among the governed. By peeling
[[Page 3195]]
back the curtains and allowing the sunlight to shine in, however, FOIA
helps fight back against waste, fraud, and abuse of the taxpayer's
dollar.
No doubt, FOIA has successfully brought to light numerous stories of
government's shortcomings. Through FOIA, folks have learned about
public health and safety concerns, mistreatment of our Nation's
veterans, and countless other matters that without FOIA would not have
come to light.
But despite its successes, a continued culture of government secrecy
has served to undermine FOIA's fundamental promise.
For example, we have seen dramatic increases in the number of
backlogged FOIA requests. Folks are waiting longer than ever to get a
response from agencies. Sometimes, they simply hear nothing back at
all. And we have seen a record-setting number of FOIA lawsuits filed to
challenge an agency's refusal to disclose information.
More and more, agencies are simply finding ways to avoid their duties
under FOIA altogether. They are failing to proactively disclose
information, and they are abusing exemptions to withhold information
that should be released to the public.
Problems with FOIA have persisted under both Republican and Democrat
administrations, but under President Obama, things have only worsened,
and his commitment to a ``new era of openness'' has proven illusory at
best.
In January, the Des Moines Register published a scathing editorial,
outlining the breakdowns in the FOIA system and calling on Congress to
tackle the issue head-on.
The editorial described: ``In the Obama administration, federal
agencies that supposedly work for the people have repeatedly shown
themselves to be flat-out unwilling to comply with the most basic
requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.''
It continued: ``At some federal agencies, FOIA requests are simply
ignored, despite statutory deadlines for responses. Requesters are
often forced to wait months or years for a response, only to be denied
access and be told they have just 14 days to file an appeal.''
According to the editorial: ``Other administrations have engaged in
these same practices, but Obama's penchant for secrecy is almost
unparalleled in recent history.''
These are serious allegations, and no doubt, there are serious
problems needing fixed.
So reforms are necessary to address the breakdowns in the FOIA
system, to tackle an immense and growing backlog of requests, to
modernize the way folks engage in the FOIA process, and to ultimately
help change the culture in government toward openness and transparency.
What we have accomplished with this bill--in a bipartisan manner--is
a strong step in the right direction.
First, the bill makes much-needed improvements to one of the most
overused FOIA exemptions. It places a 25-year sunset on the
government's ability to withhold certain documents that demonstrate how
the government reaches decisions. Currently, many of these documents
can be withheld from the public forever, but this bill helps bring them
into the sunlight, providing an important and historical perspective on
how our government works.
Second, the bill increases proactive disclosure of information. It
requires agencies to make publicly available any documents that have
been requested and released three or more times under FOIA. This will
go a long way toward easing the backlog of requests.
Third, the bill gives more independence to the Office of Government
Information Services. OGIS, as it is known, acts as the public's FOIA
ombudsman and helps Congress better understand where breakdowns in the
FOIA system are occurring. OGIS serves as a key resource for the public
and Congress, and this bill strengthens OGIS's ability to carry out its
vital role.
Fourth, through improved technology, the bill makes it easier for
folks to submit FOIA requests to the government. It requires the
development of a single, consolidated online portal through which folks
can file a request. But let me be clear: it is not a one-size-fits-all
approach. Agencies will still be able to rely on request-processing
systems they have already built into their operations.
Most importantly, the bill codifies a presumption of openness for
agencies to follow when they respond to FOIA requests. Instead of knee-
jerk secrecy, the presumption of openness tells agencies to make
openness and transparency their default setting.
These are all timely and important reforms to the FOIA process, and
they will help ensure a more informed citizenry and a more accountable
government.
So I am pleased to see this bill move through the Senate. President
Obama has an opportunity to join with Congress in securing some of the
most substantive and necessary improvements to FOIA since its
enactment.
On July 4 of this year, FOIA turns 50. Let's continue this strong,
bipartisan effort to send a bill to the President's desk before then.
Let's work together to help fulfill FOIA's promise.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Iowa for
his remarks. As he knows, I have worked for years on improving FOIA
along with my friend, the senior Senator from Texas. We are celebrating
Sunshine Week, a time to pay tribute to one of our Nation's most basic
values--the public's right to know. Our very democracy is built on the
idea that our government should not operate in secret. James Madison, a
staunch defender of open government and whose birthday we celebrate
each year during Sunshine Week, wisely noted that for our democracy to
succeed, people ``must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.''
It is only through transparency and access to information that the
American people can arm themselves with the information they need to
hold our government accountable.
We are also celebrating the 50th anniversary of the enactment of the
Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, our Nation's premier transparency
law. I was actually at the National Archives yesterday, and I looked at
the actual bill signed into law in 1966 by then-President Johnson, Vice
President Hubert Humphrey, and Speaker John McCormack, all who were
here long before I was. I was thinking that, 50 years ago, the Freedom
of Information Act became the foundation on which all our sunshine and
transparency policies rest, so I can think of no better way to
celebrate both Sunshine Week and the 50th Anniversary of FOIA than by
passing the FOIA Improvement Act.
This bipartisan bill, which I coauthored with Senator Cornyn,
codifies the principle that President Obama laid out in his 2009
executive order. He asked all Federal agencies to adopt a ``presumption
of openness'' when considering the release of government information
under FOIA. That follows the spirit of FOIA put into place by President
Clinton, repealed by President Bush, and reinstated as one of President
Obama's first acts in office, but I think all of us felt we should put
the force of law behind the presumption of openness so that the next
President, whomever he or she might be, cannot change that without
going back to Congress. Congress must establish a transparency standard
that will remain for future administrations to follow--and that is what
our bill does. We should not leave it to the next President to decide
how open the government should be. We have to hold all Presidents and
their administrations accountable to the highest standard. I do not
think my friend, the senior Senator from Texas, will object if I
mention that in our discussions we have both said words to the effect
that we need FOIA, whether it is a Democratic or Republican
administration. I do not care who controls the administration. When
they do things they think are great, they will release a sheath of
press releases about them. However, it is FOIA that lets us know when
they are not doing things so well. The government works better if every
administration is held to the same standard.
The FOIA Improvement Act also provides the Office of Government
Information Services, OGIS, with additional
[[Page 3196]]
independence and authority to carry out its work. The Office of
Government and Information Services, created by the Leahy-Cornyn OPEN
Government Act in 2007, serves as the FOIA ombudsman to the public and
helps mediate disputes between FOIA requesters and agencies. Our bill
will provide OGIS with new tools to help carry out its mission and
ensure that OGIS can communicate freely with Congress so we can better
evaluate and improve FOIA going forward. The FOIA Improvement Act will
also make FOIA easier to use by establishing an online portal through
which the American people can submit FOIA requests, and it will ensure
more information is available to the public by requiring that
frequently requested records be made available online.
Last Congress, the FOIA Improvement Act, which Senator Cornyn and I
wrote, passed the Senate unanimously. The House failed to take it up.
So as the new Congress came in, to show we are bipartisan with a change
from Democratic leadership to Republican leadership, Senator Cornyn and
I moved quickly to reintroduce our legislation in the new Congress. The
Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved our bill in February
2015. Sometimes it is hard for the Senate
Judiciary Committee to unanimously agree that the sun rises in the
east, but on this issue, we came together. Our bill has been awaiting
Senate action for over a year. I urge its swift passage today. I want
the House to take it up. I want the President to sign it into law. I am
proud to stand here with my good friend, the senior Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to thank my colleague, the
Senator from Vermont, for being together with me on what some people
would regard as the Senate's odd couple--people with very different
views on a lot of different things but who try to work together on
legislation such as this, freedom of information reform legislation,
but I can think of others that we worked on as well, such as patent
reform and criminal justice reform.
I think most people are a little bit surprised when they see us
fighting like cats and dogs on various topics, which we will--and those
fights are important when they are based on principle--I think they are
a little bit surprised when they see us then come together and try to
find common cause, common ground on things such as this, but this is
the sort of thing that makes the Senate work. This is the sort of thing
that the American people deserve, when Republicans and Democrats,
people all along the ideological spectrum, work together to find common
ground.
I couldn't agree with the Senator more about, really, a statement of
human nature. It is only human nature to try to hide your failures and
to trumpet your successes. It is nothing more, nothing less than that.
But what the Freedom of Information Act is premised on is the public's
right to know what their government is doing on their behalf.
I know some people might think, well, for somebody who is a
conservative, this is a little bit of an odd position. Actually, I
think it is a natural fit. If you are a conservative like me, you think
that the government doesn't have the answer to all the challenges that
face our country, that sometimes, as Justice Brandeis said, sunlight is
the best disinfectant.
Indeed, I know something else about human nature: that people act
differently when they know others are watching than they do when they
think they are in private and no one can see what they are doing. It is
just human nature.
So I have worked together with Mr. Leahy, the Senator from Vermont,
repeatedly to try to advance reforms of our freedom of information
laws, and I am glad to say that today we will have another milestone in
that very productive, bipartisan relationship on such an important
topic. This is Sunshine Week, a week created to highlight the need for
more transparent and open government.
Let me mention a couple of things this bill does. It will, of course,
as we said, strengthen the existing Freedom of Information Act by
creating a presumption of openness. It shouldn't be incumbent on an
American citizen asking for information from their own government--
information generated and maintained at taxpayer expense--they
shouldn't have to come in and prove something to be able to get access
to something that is theirs in the first place. Now, there may be good
reason--classified information necessary to fight our Nation's
adversaries, maybe personally private information that is really not
the business of government, but if it is, in fact, government
information bought for and maintained by the taxpayer, then there ought
to be a presumption of openness. This legislation will, in other words,
build on what our Founding Fathers recognized hundreds of years ago:
that a truly democratic system depends on an informed citizenry to hold
their leaders accountable. And in a form of government that depends for
its very legitimacy on the consent of the governed, the simple point
is, if the public doesn't know what government is doing, how can they
consent? So this is also about adding additional legitimacy to what
government is doing on behalf of the American people.
I just want to again thank the chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee. We had a pretty productive couple of weeks with passage of
the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which the Presiding
Officer was very involved in, and now passage of this legislation by, I
hope, unanimous consent.
Presumption of Openness
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, Senator Cornyn and I have worked together
to improve and protect the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA--our
Nation's premiere transparency law--for many years and look forward to
continuing this partnership.
The bill we passed today codifies the principle that President Obama
laid out in his 2009 Executive order in which he asked all Federal
agencies to adopt a ``presumption of openness'' when considering the
release of government information under FOIA. This policy embodies the
very spirit of FOIA. By putting the force of law behind the presumption
of openness, Congress can establish a transparency standard that will
remain for generations to come. Importantly, codifying the presumption
of openness will help reduce the perfunctory withholding of documents
through the overuse of FOIA's exemptions. It requires agencies to
consider whether the release of particular documents will cause any
foreseeable harm to an interest the applicable exemption is meant to
protect. If it will not, the documents should be released.
Mr. CORNYN. I thank Senator Leahy for his remarks and for working
together on this important bill. This bill is a good example of the
bipartisan work the Senate can accomplish when we work together toward
a common goal. I agree with Senator Leahy that the crux of our bill is
to promote disclosure of government information and not to bolster new
arguments in favor of withholding documents under FOIA's statutory
exemptions.
I want to clarify a key aspect of this legislation. The FOIA
Improvement Act makes an important change to exemption (b)(5).
Exemption (b)(5) permits agencies to withhold documents covered by
litigation privileges, such as the attorney-client privilege, attorney
work product, and the deliberative process privilege, from disclosure.
Our bill amends exemption (b)(5) to impose a 25-year sunset for
documents withheld under the deliberative process privilege. This
should not be read to raise an inference that the deliberative process
privilege is somehow heightened or strengthened as a basis for
withholding before the 25-year sunset. This provision of the bill is
simply meant to effectuate the release of documents withheld under the
deliberative process privilege after 25 years when passage of time
undoubtedly dulls the rationale for withholding information under this
exemption.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank Senator Cornyn for his comments, and I agree with
his characterization of the intent behind the 25-year sunset and the
deliberative
[[Page 3197]]
process privilege. This new sunset should not form the basis for
agencies to argue that the deliberative process privilege somehow has
heightened protection before the 25-year sunset takes effect.
Similarly, the deliberative process privilege sunset is not intended to
create an inference that the other privileges--including attorney-
client and attorney work product, just to name a few--are somehow
heightened in strength or scope because they lack a statutory sunset or
that we believe they should not be released after 25 years. Courts
should not read the absence of a sunset for these other privileges as
Congress's intent to strengthen or expand them in any way.
Mr. CORNYN. I thank Senator Leahy for that clarification and agree
with his remarks. If there is any doubt as to how to interpret the
provisions of this bill, they should be interpreted to promote, not
detract, from the central purpose of the bill which is to promote the
disclosure of government information to the American people.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 17, S. 337.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 337) to improve the Freedom of Information Act.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Cornyn
substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a
third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered
made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3452) in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The bill (S. 337), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
Again, let me express my gratitude to my partner in this longstanding
effort. Since I have been in the Senate, Senator Leahy has worked
tirelessly, together with me and my office and really the whole Senate,
to try to advance the public's right to know by reforming and expanding
our freedom of information laws.
Thank you.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator
from Texas. He has worked tirelessly on this, and I think we both agree
that the best government is one where you know what they are doing.
____________________
NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2015--Continued
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, on another matter--and I thank the
distinguished Senator from Florida for not seeking recognition
immediately. I ask unanimous consent that as soon as I finish, I can
yield to the Senator from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Remembering Berta Caceres
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the woman in the photograph next to me is
Berta Caceres, an indigenous Honduran environmental activist who was
murdered in her home on March 3.
Ms. Caceres was internationally admired, and in the 12 days since her
death and since my remarks on the morning after and on the day of her
funeral on March 5, there has been an outpouring of grief, outrage,
remembrances, denunciations, and declarations from people in Honduras
and around the world.
Among the appalling facts that few people may have been aware of
before this atrocity is that more than 100 environmental activists have
reportedly been killed in Honduras just since 2010. It is an
astonishing number that previously received little attention. One might
ask, therefore, why Ms. Caceres' death has caused such a visceral,
explosive reaction.
Berta Caceres, the founder and general coordinator of the Civic
Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras, COPINH,
was an extraordinary leader whose courage and commitment, in the face
of constant threats against her life, inspired countless people. For
that she was awarded the prestigious 2015 Goldman Environmental Prize.
Her death is a huge loss for her family, her community, and for
environmental justice in Honduras. As her family and organization have
said, it illustrates ``the grave danger that human rights defenders
face, especially those who defend the rights of indigenous people and
the environment against the exploitation of [their] territories.''
This is by no means unique to Honduras. It is a global reality.
Indigenous people are the frequent targets of threats, persecution, and
criminalization by state and non-state actors in scores of countries.
Why is this? Why are the world's most vulnerable people who
traditionally live harmoniously with the natural environment so often
the victims of such abuse and violence?
There are multiple reasons, including racism and other forms of
prejudice, but I put greed at the top of the list. It is greed that
drives governments and private companies, as well as criminal
organizations, to recklessly pillage natural resources above and below
the surface of land inhabited by indigenous people, whether it is
timber, oil, coal, gold, diamonds, or other valuable minerals.
Acquiring and exploiting these resources requires either the
acquiescence or the forcible removal of the people who live there.
In Berta Caceres' case, the threats and violence against her and
other members of her organization were well documented and widely
known, but calls by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for
protective measures were largely ignored.
This was particularly so because the Honduran Government and the
company that was constructing the hydroelectric project that Ms.
Caceres and COPINH had long opposed were complicit in condoning and
encouraging the lawlessness that Ms. Caceres and her community faced
every day.
The perpetrators of this horrific crime have not been identified.
Since March 3, there has been a great deal of legitimate concern
expressed about the treatment of Gustavo Castro, the Mexican citizen
who was wounded and is an eyewitness, and who has ample reason to fear
for his life in a country where witnesses to crime are often stalked
and killed. In the meantime, for reasons as yet unexplained, the
Honduran Government suspended, for 15 days, Castro's lawyer's license
to practice.
That concern extends to the initial actions of the Honduran police
who seemed predisposed to pin the attack on associates of Ms. Caceres.
This surprised no one who is familiar with Honduras's ignominious
police force.
The fact is we do not yet know who is responsible, but a
professional, comprehensive investigation is essential, and the
Honduran Government has neither the competence nor the reputation for
integrity to conduct it themselves.
There have been countless demands for such an investigation. Like her
family, I have urged that the investigation be independent, including
the participation of international experts. With rare exception,
criminal investigations in Honduras are incompetently performed and
incomplete.
They almost never result in anyone being punished for homicide. As
Ms. Caceres's family has requested, the Inter-American Commission is
well suited to provide that independence and expertise, but the
Honduran authorities have not sought that assistance just as they
refused the family's request for an independent expert to observe the
autopsy.
The family has also asked that independent forensic experts be used
to analyze the ballistics and other evidence. The internationally
respected Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Foundation, which has
received funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development for
many years, would be an obvious option, but the Honduran Government has
so far rejected this request, too.
[[Page 3198]]
Like Ms. Caceres's family, I have also urged that the concession
granted to the company for the Agua Zarca hydroelectric project be
cancelled. It has caused far too much controversy, divisiveness, and
suffering within the Lenca community and the members of Ms. Caceres's
family and organization. It clearly cannot coexist with the indigenous
people of Rio Blanco who see it as a ``permanent danger'' to their
safety and way of life. It is no wonder that two of the original
funders of the project have abandoned it. The Dutch, Finnish, and
German funders should follow their example.
This whole episode exemplifies the irresponsibility of undertaking
such projects without the free, prior, and informed consent of
indigenous inhabitants who are affected by them. Instead, a common
practice of extractive industries, energy companies, and governments
has been to divide local communities by buying off one faction, calling
it ``consultation,'' and insisting that it justifies ignoring the
opposing views of those who refuse to be bought.
When a majority of local inhabitants continue to protest against the
project as a violation of their longstanding territorial rights, the
company and its government benefactors often respond with threats and
provocations, and community leaders are vilified, arrested, and even
killed. Then representatives of the company and government officials
profess to be shocked and saddened and determined to find the
perpetrators, and years later, the crime remains unsolved and is all
but forgotten.
Last year, President Hernandez, Minister of Security Corrales, and
other top Honduran officials made multiple trips to Washington to lobby
for Honduras' share of a U.S. contribution to the Plan of the Alliance
for Prosperity of the Northern Triangle of Central America. Among other
things, they voiced their commitment to human rights and their respect
for civil society, although not surprisingly they had neglected to
consult with representatives of Honduran civil society about the
contents of the plan.
The fiscal year 2016 Omnibus Appropriations Act includes $750 million
to support the plan, of which a significant portion is slated for
Honduras. I supported those funds. In fact I argued for an amount
exceeding the levels approved by the House and Senate appropriations
committees because I recognize the immense challenges that widespread
poverty, corruption, violence, and impunity pose for those countries.
Some of these deeply rooted problems are the result of centuries of
self-inflicted inequality and brutality perpetrated by an elite class
against masses of impoverished people. But the United States also had a
role in supporting and profiting from that corruption and injustice,
just as today the market for illegal drugs in our country fuels the
social disintegration and violence that is causing the people of
Central America to flee north.
I also had a central role in delineating the conditions attached to
U.S. funding for the Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity, and there is
strong, bipartisan support in Congress for those conditions. They are
fully consistent with what the Northern Triangle leaders pledged to do
and what the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International
Development agree is necessary if the plan is to succeed.
I mention this because the assassination of Berta Caceres brings U.S.
support for the plan sharply into focus. That support is far from a
guarantee.
It is why a credible, thorough investigation is so important.
It is why those responsible for her death and the killers of other
Honduran social activists and journalists must be brought to justice.
It is why Agua Zarca and other such projects that do not have the
support of the local population should be abandoned.
And it is why the Honduran Government must finally take seriously its
responsibility to protect the rights of journalists, human rights
defenders, other social activists, COPINH, and civil society
organizations that peacefully advocate for equitable economic
development and access to justice.
Only then should we have confidence that the Honduran Government is a
partner the United States can work with in addressing the needs and
protecting the rights of all the people of Honduras and particularly
those who have borne the brunt of official neglect and malfeasance for
so many years.
Madam President, I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from
Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I would just add to Senator Leahy's
comments that a year ago, unfortunately, Honduras was known as the
murder capital of the world, with the highest number of per capita
murders per 100,000 people. That has improved somewhat. But that
little, poor nation, under its new President, is struggling to overcome
the drug lords, the crime bosses who prey on a country that is ravaged
by poverty. It is such a tempting thing when all kinds of dollars are
put in front of their noses in order to tempt them to get involved in
these crime syndicates that have a distribution network of whatever it
is--drugs, trafficking, human trafficking, other criminal elements--a
distribution that goes from south to north on up into the United
States.
So I join Senator Leahy in his expression of grief and condolences
for the lady who was murdered.
Drilling Off the Atlantic Seaboard
Madam President, this Senator has conferred with the administration
on its proposal for the drilling off the Atlantic seaboard. At least
the administration listened to this Senator and kept the Atlantic area
off of my State of Florida from proposed drilling leases for this next
5-year lease period. They did that last year. We are grateful they did
that for the reasons for which we have fought for years to keep
drilling off of the coast of Florida, not only because of what we
immediately anticipate--tourism, the environment--but also our military
training and testing areas.
So this Senator made the argument to the Obama administration that if
you are coming out there with leases off the Atlantic seaboard, don't
put it off of Florida. We have military and intelligence rockets coming
out of Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. We have the rockets coming out
of the Kennedy Space Center for NASA. Obviously, we can't have oil rigs
out there when we are dropping the first stages of these rockets. And
the administration complied.
But the administration then went on to offer for lease tracks of the
Atlantic Ocean from the Georgia line all the way through the Carolinas,
including up to the northern end of Virginia--very interesting. Just
this morning the administration has walked back the offering of those
leases off the eastern seaboard of the United States.
Now, it is certainly good news not only for the fact that they never
did it in the first place off of Florida, but it is good news for the
Atlantic coast residents who then fought so hard to keep the drilling
off their coast. They first released this draft plan in January of
2015, a year ago, and the Department of the Interior had suggested
opening up these new areas of the Mid-Atlantic. As we would expect,
communities up and down the Atlantic seaboard voiced their objection,
and they did it in a bipartisan way. From Atlantic City to Myrtle
Beach, cities and towns along the coast passed resolutions to make
clear their opposition to the drilling off their shores. Obviously,
they weren't the only ones because--surprise, surprise--just this week
the Pentagon weighed in and voiced its concerns, having been just
corroborated in the Senate Armed Services Committee when I asked the
question of the Secretary of the Navy about the concerns that drilling
in the Mid-Atlantic region would impact the military's ability to
maintain offshore readiness because of the testing and training areas.
The Pentagon had voiced this concern two administrations ago with
regard to drilling in the gulf off of Florida, which is the largest
testing and training area for our U.S. military in the world. So today,
there is the Interior Department's decision to remove the Atlantic from
the 5-year plan. Well, what about the next 5-year plan? And
[[Page 3199]]
what about the rigs already operating in other areas off of our coast,
such as off of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas in the gulf.
We have carried on this fight now for four decades, and today we
still have a renewed push to allow drilling off of these sensitive
areas for the reasons I have mentioned. Some of our own colleagues are
offering an amendment to a little energy bill that is about energy
efficiency. It is a nongermane amendment. But what they want to do is
to sweeten the pot with all of the revenues for offshore drilling that
would normally go to the Federal Government instead to go to the
States--another incentive to do that drilling by the oil industry. But
what we saw was that the coastal communities--in this case the Mid-
Atlantic seaboard--rise up and voice objections, regardless of their
partisan affiliation.
We have seen again today that the Pentagon raised its objection, and,
unfortunately, we have found a Federal safety regulator asleep at the
switch. It has been nearly 6 years since we faced one of the greatest
natural disasters that our country has ever seen, and that was the gulf
oilspill. Yet, according to the GAO report released just last week, we
are no better off now than we were before that tragic accident. As a
reaction to that accident, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion
that, I remind my colleagues, killed 11 men and sent up to almost 5
million barrels--not gallons, barrels--of oil gushing into the gulf,
there were a number of questions that were asked: How could this
happen? Where were the safety inspectors?
Well, it soon became clear that the agency in charge--a subdivision
of the Department of the Interior, the Minerals Management Service--was
so cozy with the oil and gas industry that the Interior Department's
own inspector general considered it a conflict of interest. And in
response to the IG's findings, the Interior Department decided to
reorganize, and it split that agency--the Minerals Management Service--
into two, one in charge of leasing and the other in charge of safety.
Last Friday, the GAO--what is the GAO? It is the General Accounting
Office. It is the independent, nonpartisan research arm of Congress.
The GAO released a report that found that the ongoing restructuring--
that splitting into--actually ``reverses actions taken to address the
post-Deepwater Horizon concerns, weakening its oversight.''
The report goes on to say that the Interior Department's newly
created agency in charge of safety--one of the two that were split--the
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, suffers--this is the
report's words--``a lack of coherent leadership'' and ``inconsistent
guidance.''
So here we are 6 years after the gulf oilspill, and we are weakening
oversight--the very words of the report--6 years later. Obviously, this
is inexcusable. That is why a number of us have asked the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee to hold a hearing on this troubling report
to get to the bottom of it.
Now, at some point, the objections of the vast majority of people who
live along the coast and the economies that depend on those
environments and those white sandy beaches and crystal blue water and
the military bases that are utilizing the testing and training areas
over those waters have to be heard. Their concerns have to be
addressed. We can't continue to keep having a fight every time this
comes up every 5 years. There is too much at stake. Yet the fight goes
on. Now there is the new evidence mounted just last Friday and--lo and
behold--the results of that new evidence this morning--pulling the plug
on the leasing off the eastern coast of the United States.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I come to the floor today in support of
the biotechnology labeling solutions bill.
This legislation will avoid a patchwork of State labeling regulations
and in so doing will save families thousands of dollars a year to
protect American jobs and provide consumers with accurate, transparent
information about their food.
First of all, I wish to thank Chairman Pat Roberts for his leadership
on the issue of bioengineered food and for bringing forward his
chairman's mark. Specifically, the biotechnology labeling solutions
bill does three things. It immediately ends the problem of having a
patchwork of inconsistent State GMO labeling programs. Second, it
creates a voluntary bioengineered labeling program within 1 year. So
USDA would set up a voluntary program within a year, and then within 3
years, it requires the Department of Agriculture to create a mandatory
bioengineering labeling program if there is insufficient information
available on products' bioengineered content.
So it makes sure that we don't have a patchwork of 50 State labeling
laws. It sets up a voluntary program within 1 year. Then, if the
information isn't out there sufficient for consumers, it makes sure
that USDA follows up and ensures that the information is provided and
that it is provided in a variety of ways that work for consumers but
also work for our farmers and ranchers and for the food industry so
that we don't raise costs for our consumers.
This bill will ensure that the Vermont GE labeling law, which goes
into effect on July 1 of this year, does not end up costing American
families billions of dollars when they fill up their grocery carts. If
we don't act soon, food companies will have one of three options for
complying with the Vermont law. No. 1, they can order new packaging for
products going to each individual State with a labeling law; No. 2,
they could reformulate products so that no labeling is required; or No.
3, they can stop selling to States with mandatory labeling laws. Of
course, all of these options or any of these options would not only
increase the cost of food to consumers but could result in job losses
in our ag communities.
For millions of Americans, the GMO or bioengineered food labeling
issue will impact the affordability of their food. Testimony provided
by the USDA, FDA, and the EPA to the Senate Agriculture Committee last
fall made clear that foods produced with the benefit of biotechnology
are safe. Nobody is disputing that the food is safe. The real risk is
if we don't address the Vermont GMO law, real families will have a
tougher time making ends meet, they will face higher costs, and they
are going to have more challenges getting the foods they want.
In fact, if food companies have to apply Vermont's standards to all
products nationwide, it will result in an estimated increase of over
$1,050 per year per household. For families having a tough time paying
bills, this is in essence a regressive tax. It will hurt people of low
incomes more than it will hurt people with substantial means.
From a jobs perspective, the story is also concerning. It has been
calculated that if Vermont's law is applied nationwide, it will cost
over $80 billion a year to switch products over to non-GMO supplies.
Those billions of dollars a year in additional costs will hurt our ag
and food industry that creates more than 17 million jobs nationwide. In
my home State of North Dakota alone, 94,000 jobs or 38 percent of our
State's economy rely on the ag and food industry.
This is a bad time to make it more expensive to do business in the ag
sector. Recently, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas
City testified that net farm income in 2015 is more than 50 percent
less than it was in 2013, and it is expected to go down again in 2016.
So this is an issue that affects our family farms directly across the
country.
If Vermont's law goes forward, many farmers who rely on biotech crops
to increase productivity will be deprived of that critical tool. This
Senator knows how hard our farmers work and how much they put on the
line every year when they have to take out an operating loan for crops
that may or may not materialize. We shouldn't ask them to feed the
Nation with one hand tied behind their backs by taking away
biotechnology.
More than just overcoming the problems associated with having a
patchwork of State regulations, I think it is
[[Page 3200]]
important for Americans to know this legislation ensures that consumers
have consistent, accurate information about the bioengineered content
of their food. The biotechnology labeling solutions bill creates
greater transparency for consumers by putting in place, within 1 year,
a new voluntary bioengineered food labeling program to ensure products
labeled as having been produced with biotechnology meet a uniform
national standard.
As I mentioned, food produced with the aid of bioengineering are,
according to the FDA, EPA, and USDA, safe. However, many consumers want
to know if the food they are buying is produced using biotechnology,
which is why this legislation's national voluntary bioengineering
standard makes so much sense. The voluntary program in this legislation
will ensure that a consumer who buys a food product with a
bioengineering smart label in North Dakota is purchasing a product that
is held at the same disclosure standards as food sold in New York,
California, or North Carolina.
This voluntary program will let the marketplace respond to consumer
demand for information. You can look at the USDA organic food program,
a voluntary label many consumers look for in our grocery stores. Yet
this bill goes further to create a mandatory bioengineered food
disclosure program if the Secretary of Agriculture finds that there is
insufficient consumer access to information about bioengineered foods.
We need a solution, and this bill helps keep our Nation's food
affordable, it supports jobs, and it provides consumers consistent
information about bioengineered foods. I urge my colleagues to work
together to support this bipartisan measure.
National Agriculture Day
Madam President, I would like to take just a minute to acknowledge,
recognize, and thank our Nation's farmers on National Agriculture Day.
Today on National Agriculture Day, I want to celebrate and thank
America's ag producers. That includes those in my home State of North
Dakota who provide us with the lowest cost, highest quality food supply
not just in the world but in the history of the world. America's
grocery stores abound with fresh fruits, vegetables, and meats. Our
dinner tables are able to offer our families a greater variety of
nutritious, flavorful foods than ever before. They are a testament to
the hard work, commitment, and innovation of our Nation's agricultural
producers. Agriculture and ag-related industries is also an important
part of the American economy, contributing $835 billion to our Gross
Domestic Problem in 2014.
Further, our America's food and ag sector provides jobs for 16
million people and contributes billions of dollars to the national
economy. Agriculture also has a positive balance of trade and produces
a financial surplus for our country.
I especially want to thank the men and women of North Dakota who farm
and ranch. They made agriculture North Dakota's largest industry with
nearly $11 billion in sales last year. I am proud to say North Dakota
leads the Nation in the production of 9 important commodities and is
first or second in 15. This includes half of all the duram and spring
wheat, more than 90 percent of the Nation's flax, and more than 85
percent of the Nation's canola.
America's farmers and ranchers work through drought and floods, crop
disease, hail, and other challenges year in and year out. Yet they
still get up every morning, put on their boots, and go out in the field
and pastures for our country. Our farmers and ranchers built America,
and today they sustain it. On National Agriculture Day, we acknowledge
the enormous debt of gratitude we owe them.
Thank you, Madam President, and with that I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. TILLIS. Thank you, Madam President.
I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his comments,
and I would like to be associated with all of them, in fact,
particularly recognizing our farmers in North Carolina. The Senator
from North Dakota and I have had discussions about the friendly
competition among the agriculture States and the hard work they are
doing to feed America and the world, but today I rise to express my
support for Chairman Roberts' bill for the biotechnology labeling
legislation.
I am supporting Chairman Roberts' effort because it addresses a real
problem. The problem is that a small portion of the food industry is
trying to impose their policy preferences onto the entire food supply
chain in the United States. We are where we are because the Vermont law
is not written in a way that merely impacts the citizens of Vermont. It
is astonishing to hear the misleading claim that the Vermont law is
about the right to know. If the Vermont law is about the right to know,
why is it that the law exempts so many products?
Here are some examples of the absurdity of the Vermont law. Vegetable
cheese lasagna would be labeled, but meat lasagna wouldn't. Soy milk
would need to be labeled, but cow's milk would not. Frozen pizza would
need to be labeled, but delivered pizza would not. Chocolate syrup
would need to be labeled, but maple syrup would not. Vegetable soup
would need to be labeled, but vegetable beef soup would not. Food at a
restaurant would be totally exempt, but not food at a grocery store.
Vegetarian chili would need to be labeled, but meat chili would not.
Veggie burgers made with soy would need to be labeled, but
cheeseburgers would not.
By my way of thinking, it is a patchwork that doesn't make sense if
you are trying to come up with a consistent way to communicate to
consumers what is in the food they are eating. The Vermont law is a
classic case of the government picking winners and losers and putting
the burden of those decisions on the backs of hard-working Americans.
I had this slide up to begin with, but this is something we have to
continue to be focused on. If you were to take the Vermont law and have
a couple dozen States create their own variance and have all the
complexity added, it is estimated the added cost of compliance would
result in a cost of some 1,000 additional dollars per household. In
this economy, how many families can afford another $1,000 a year for
food?
I am surprised that number is not higher. It most likely will be and
here is why: Manufacturers are subject to a $1,000 fine if one of their
products is mistakenly or inadvertently found for sale in Vermont on a
store shelf. The food industry will have over 100,000 items in the
State of Vermont--a State that has roughly 625,000 residents. If only 5
percent to 10 percent of those products are even unintentionally
mislabeled, that means fines of as much as $10 million per day, in
addition to the millions per year companies will have to pay to
actually change their supply chains to comply with the law to serve a
population of 625,000.
We are often told in this Chamber we need to be more cognizant of the
science. Those who are irresponsibly scaring the American people to
defend the Vermont mandatory labeling law need to understand the
science is against them. Late last year, the FDA rejected a petition
calling for mandatory labeling of foods from genetically engineered
products stating that ``the simple fact that a plant is produced by one
method over another does not necessarily mean that there will be a
difference in the safety or other characteristics of the resulting
foods. . . . To date, we have completed over 155 consultations for GE
plant varieties. The numbers of consultations completed, coupled with
the rigor of the evaluations, demonstrate that foods from GE plants can
be as safe as comparable foods produced using conventional plant
breeding.''
During a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing last week, USDA
Secretary Vilsack responded to questions regarding GMOs by emphasizing
that the mandatory labeling efforts are not about food safety,
nutritional benefits, or sound science. Two weeks ago, the Secretary
was quoted at a conference referring to genetically modified products
saying, ``I am here to unequivocally say they are safe to consumers.''
[[Page 3201]]
Chairman Roberts' language does exactly what Congress should be doing
with regard to marketing standards; that is, setting rules of
engagement that are consistent, balanced, and fair for all players in
the industry by providing consistent information to consumers about the
content of their food. With the chairman's bill, the marketplace has an
opportunity to find the best approaches to getting consumers the
information they want without imposing new regulations that add costs
to our food supply, complexity, and no more real information or
clarity.
If we as a nation are going to have a discussion on the necessity of
labeling biotechnology products, fine, but the Vermont law is not the
catalyst for that debate, and that conversation should be with the
American people, not one State with roughly 625,000 people dictating to
the market of more than 317 million people.
I encourage my colleagues to recognize that we should do everything
we can to inform consumers about the content of their food. There is a
right way to do it and there is a wrong way to do it. There is a more
costly way to do it as proposed by the Vermont law or there is a more
straightforward, effective, and consistent way, and that is what
Chairman Roberts is trying to accomplish with this bill. I encourage
everyone to support it.
Thank you, Madam 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. MANCHIN. 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.
Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss Presidential
nominations. I think most people in this body know I am probably one of
the least partisan people--looking at the issues, working across the
aisle, always reaching out to my friends and colleagues on the other
side of the aisle. I don't look at the barrier a lot of people look at
here.
I know we are able to debate and we are able to advise and consent on
nominations because we just did it. I have a tremendous problem in my
State, and I think in all of our States--Colorado and all across the
country--with opioid addiction and drug abuse. With that being said, I
truly believe that for us to fight this war, we have to have a cultural
change within the FDA. The President of the United States nominated Dr.
Robert Califf, a very good man, but a person who came from within the
industry and who I did not think would bring a cultural change. Still,
he was the recommendation of the President.
The majority leader from Kentucky basically brought that to the floor
for a vote. I thought it was the wrong person, even though this was a
nomination from a President of my party, and me being a Democrat. So I
think it is a misnomer for us to believe we are going to hold hard to
party lines.
I have said that I didn't think Dr. Califf would bring the cultural
change. I hope he proves me wrong. I am willing to work with him on
that, and I will fight to make sure we rid this country of the scourge
of legal prescription drug abuse that is ruining families and
destroying lives. I think we have proved the President can bring people
up, which is his responsibility, and we can look at that person and
agree. In this case, I had only four votes on my side. The majority of
all the Republicans but one--yes, all the Republicans but one--voted
for him. I still think it was wrong, but we are going to make the best
of it that we can.
The bottom line is we did our job. We truly did our job, and I can
live with that decision. I look at the Constitution, and it is very
clear. It says the President ``shall.'' It doesn't say ``may.'' Being
in the legislature--and the Presiding Officer has been in the
legislature as well--the words ``shall'' and ``may'' are worlds apart.
It says ``shall,'' and we know he will nominate.
Why are we not willing to go through this process? I am as likely to
find someone he might recommend who I will not vote for as maybe the
Chair and maybe our other colleagues. I saw what happened when I first
got here. We got condemned for not voting at all. We weren't getting
any votes because there was protection going on. Basically, for whoever
is up in the cycle, tough votes make it very difficult for people to
get reelected. We proved that to be wrong because basically we saw a
big switch in the Senate from the majority to the minority and the
minority to the majority.
I have said very strongly that no vote is worse than a tough vote. A
no vote in this body is worse than a tough vote. If you are saying that
you would rather not vote at all because it might cause a problem back
home, I think we have more problems if we don't do our job. That is why
I can't figure this out.
If the President brings a person up, there is going to be 2 or 3
months, and if we can't find someone we can agree on--60 of us--that
means it will take at least 14 Republicans to find someone they can
agree on and they think is good for the country and move forward. If
not, then it will run right into the next administration, whoever that
may be. But basically we would be doing our job.
I just have a hard time on this one. I am going to evaluate that
nominee based on their legal qualifications and judicial philosophy. I
am going to look and basically see what type of jurist they have been,
what types of decisions they have made, what types of social media they
have been on, and what they have talked about. I will look at all of
that, which is what we should be doing, to find out as much about that
person as I can and to see how they will govern and rule in the future.
Hopefully we will find someone who will look at the issues, look at the
rule of law, and look at who we are as a country. I think we all can do
that. I know very well the Chair can. I know very well every one of our
colleagues on both sides of the aisle is able to do that.
I don't believe the President can count on all Democrats, just
because he is a Democrat, falling in line. If that were the case, we
wouldn't have had Senator Markey of Massachusetts, Dick Blumenthal, and
I voting against Robert Califf, who was the President's nominee.
So we are going to have to find that right person. But if we never
get the chance to evaluate the person, I don't know how we can do that.
Again, it truly gets down to the fact that this is the job we are
supposed to do. We talk about orderly business. We are getting things
done. I have heard people say: Oh, yes, we are getting things done now
that the Republicans are in the majority. The Chair has been here long
enough to understand that the majority might set the agenda, but it is
the minority that drives the train as to whether we get on something or
not. So we have to work together.
We have proved the old game plan didn't work. The new game plan is
fine. Let's have an open amendment process, let's go through it and
debate it, and then let it go up or down on its merits. That is what we
are asking for on this. Let it go to committee. When the nomination
comes, let it go to the committee and look at the nomination. I mean
dissect it in every way, shape, or form, whoever that person may be--he
or she. I am willing to live with whatever the committee comes out
with, and I am going to do my own research. When it comes to the floor,
there is no guarantee that I am going to vote for that person--
absolutely not. And I have already proved that. All of us have proved
that we haven't just blindly followed party lines, nor should we. We
aren't expected to. Our constituents don't expect us to do that. They
do not want us to do it, that is for sure.
Again, the Constitution states that the President ``shall nominate,
and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint. .
. .'' He can appoint only if we have the advice and consent of the
Senate. There is no other way this President or any other President can
make that decision. We make the final decision.
Again, we are to the point now where the rhetoric is back and forth
and it
[[Page 3202]]
gets a little harsher and everybody gets ingrained, entrenched: By
golly, we are not going to take anybody up; we don't care who that
person will be. And I just hate to see that. We are all friends. We all
know each other, and we all truly, I believe, are here for the right
reasons and want to do the best job we can. But we are still expected
to do our job.
At the end of the day, did you do your job? Yes, we looked; the
President gave us somebody; we didn't think that person was qualified;
we didn't think they were centrist enough; they didn't have the
background or a record that we could extract what we felt their
performance would be in the future; and for those reasons, we voted
against that person. Or the President gave us somebody who basically we
found did not have political ties to either side, who basically ruled
on the law--the best interpretation of the law--and with the
Constitution always at the forefront. That is the person he gave us,
and that is the person we would support. But if we never get a chance
to look at whoever is given to us, there is no way we can move forward.
When I was Governor of my great State of West Virginia, I had to do
the job 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, every minute of every day, every
day of every week, every week of every month, every month of every
year. It was expected. That was my job, and I tried to do the best I
could. There were some times when I had to make some tough decisions.
There were times I drew people together and times when there was so
much division that we had to basically let it cool off and then move
forward. But we always kept trying to do a better job for the people of
West Virginia.
I think the American people expect us to do a better job. I really
do. I don't care who gets credit for it--Republicans, Democrats.
Basically, it should be all of us because the way this body works, it
takes 60 votes to get on something, if we want to make that the
criteria.
With that being said, I can assure you there will not be a person the
President of the United States gives us--whether it is this President
or the next administration and the next President--who will be the
perfect jurist. We are not going to find that perfect jurist. We are
not going to find someone slanted too far to the left or too far to the
right so that we can't get 60 votes. We are going to have to find
somebody who has shown some common sense and has some civility about
them, basically using the Constitution as the basis and framework for
the decisions they made as a jurist, and show that is how they are
going to govern in the highest Court in the land and be a model for the
rest of the world, reflecting that we are still a government of rules.
We are a body where the rule of law means everything. It is hard for us
to do that if we can't find someone who we feel is qualified to do the
job.
So, Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues--all of my colleagues in
this great body and all of my dear Republican friends--to look and
think about this. If the right person is not there, don't vote for
them. As a matter of fact, I would probably vote against them too. I
have before. I think I am the most centrist Member of this body, and I
am going to vote for what I think is good for my country and for the
State of West Virginia. I think the people of West Virginia expect me
to do that, and they expect me to do my job too.
With that, I hope we have another opportunity to think this over. The
President probably will be giving us somebody in very short order. I
would hope we are able to move to where the Judiciary Committee is able
to look at that person, give us their findings on that person, and
either tell us why we should not advise the President we are going to
consent or find a person we can all agree upon and move forward.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be
in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak
therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
75TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE NEVADA PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATION
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to honor the 75th anniversary of the
Nevada Parent Teacher Association. The Nevada PTA will formally
celebrate 75 years of advocacy and work for and on behalf of the
children of Nevada, at various events in the State during the last week
of April.
Since 1941, the Nevada PTA has been part of the Nation's largest
volunteer child advocacy association. The organization promotes
education, health, safety, and the arts to the children of Nevada and
has been instrumental in fostering the growth of countless students.
The Nevada PTA takes pride in ensuring that schools are a central part
of the communities in which they reside. The organization has led
efforts to curb childhood obesity, foster connections between children
and the important men in their lives, and promote volunteering in
innovative ways.
Since its inception, they have also been a strong supporter of art
programs that allow children to grow as students and people. Working
with the national association, the Nevada PTA has participated in art
programs that allow children to create original works of art in
categories such as photography, film, and music composition. These
programs not only encourage students to be creative, but also allow
connections with fellow classmates that share common interests.
Nevada PTA exemplifies the broader objective of the National PTA,
advocacy for all children. Multiple schools in Nevada have been
recognized by the National PTA for the School of Excellence Awards
which are granted to institutions that promote diversity, demonstrate
clarity in academic standards, and establish meaningful connections
with their local parent teacher association.
I applaud President David Flatt and his team for his strong
leadership in one of the most important organizations for children in
the State of Nevada. I am pleased that, through yours and other's
selfless efforts, incalculable numbers of students, teachers, and
parents have been positively affected by the Nevada PTA. This
organization is an invaluable part of communities throughout the State,
and I would like to extend my best wishes for continued success.
____________________
VOTE EXPLANATION
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, due to a prior commitment, I regret I was
not present to vote on the nomination of Dr. John B. King to be
Secretary of the Department of Education. Had I been present, I would
have voted in support of his confirmation. I look forward to working
closely with him as the Department of Education continues implementing
the Every Student Succeeds Act in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
CASEY FAMILY PROGRAMS
Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, today I congratulate Casey Family
Programs for 50 years of public service to help vulnerable children and
families in the child welfare system. Founded in 1966 by Jim Casey, the
founder of United Parcel Service, UPS, this private operating
foundation has been working quietly and effectively on behalf of our
most vulnerable children and families.
At the beginning, Casey Family Programs started with a specific focus
on
[[Page 3203]]
providing quality foster care. After gaining considerable experience in
providing direct services, Casey Family Programs recognized that it
could help more families and children by working to support long-
lasting improvements across entire child welfare systems. Today the
foundation provides strategic consultation, technical assistance, data
analysis, and independent research and evaluation at no cost to all 50
states. It also serves county and tribal child welfare jurisdictions
across the Nation, including my State of Colorado.
Casey Family Programs seeks a unique partnership with the States by
asking what jurisdictions hope to achieve as it relates to the
foundation's mission.
In my State of Colorado, this means helping State leaders implement
Colorado's Federal waiver program. It means developing initiatives to
reduce reliance on congregate care, if other options may be more
appropriate for the child and family. It means working with our Denver
courts with a judicial engagement team to enhance collaboration among
the courts, agencies, and families. Casey Family Programs also has a
specific team based in Denver dedicated to Indian Child Welfare.
At the Federal level, Casey Family Programs offers its experience,
research, and data to help policymakers understand and address the
complicated issues of child welfare and foster care. Over the years I
have been proud to work with Casey Family Programs, and I appreciate
their dedication and commitment to the original vision of their
founder, Jim Casey.
I believe we all share this vision of helping children find a safe
and stable home, but achieving it is more challenging than it seems. I
congratulate Casey Family Programs on 50 years of public service, and I
look forward to continue working with the foundation in Colorado and in
Congress for years to come.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Mr. Pate, one of his secretaries.
____________________
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
(The messages received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
At 11:59 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, without amendment:
S. 2426. An act to direct the Secretary of State to develop
a strategy to obtain observer status for Taiwan in the
International Criminal Police Organization, and for other
purposes.
The message also announced that the House has passed the following
bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:
H.R. 1268. An act to amend the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 to promote energy efficiency via
information and computing technologies, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 2080. An act to reinstate and extend the deadline for
commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project
involving Clark Canyon Dam.
H.R. 2984. An act to amend the Federal Power Act to provide
that any inaction by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
that allows a rate change to go into effect shall be treated
as an order by the Commission for purposes of rehearing and
court review.
H.R. 4411. An act to extend the deadline for commencement
of construction of a hydroelectric project.
H.R. 4412. An act to extend the deadline for commencement
of construction of a hydroelectric project.
H.R. 4427. An act to amend section 203 of the Federal Power
Act.
H.R. 4721. An act to amend title 49, United States Code, to
extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding
and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund, and for other purposes.
The message further announced that the House has agreed to the
following concurrent resolutions, in which it requests the concurrence
of the Senate:
H. Con. Res. 75. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of Congress that the atrocities perpetrated by ISIL against
religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq and Syria include war
crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
H. Con. Res. 121. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress condemning the gross violations of
international law amounting to war crimes and crimes against
humanity by the Government of Syria, its allies, and other
parties to the conflict in Syria, and asking the President to
direct his Ambassador at the United Nations to promote the
establishment of a war crimes tribunal where these crimes
could be addressed.
Enrolled Bills Signed
The President pro tempore (Mr. Hatch) announced that on today, March
15, 2016, he has signed the following enrolled bills, which were
previously signed by the Speaker of the House:
S. 1172. An act to improve the process of presidential
transition.
S. 1580. An act to allow additional appointing authorities
to select individuals from competitive service certificates.
S. 1826. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 99 West 2nd Street in Fond
du Lac, Wisconsin, as the Lieutenant Colonel James ``Maggie''
Megellas Post Office.
H.R. 1755. An act to amend title 36, United States Code, to
make certain improvements in the congressional charter of the
Disabled American Veterans.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following bills were read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 1268. An act to amend the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 to promote energy efficiency via
information and computing technologies, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 2984. An act to amend the Federal Power Act to provide
that any inaction by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
that allows a rate change to go into effect shall be treated
as an order by the Commission for purposes of rehearing and
court review; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
H.R. 4411. An act to extend the deadline for commencement
of construction of a hydroelectric project; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 4412. An act to extend the deadline for commencement
of construction of a hydroelectric project; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 4427. An act to amend section 203 of the Federal Power
Act; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The following concurrent resolutions were read, and referred as
indicated:
H. Con. Res. 75. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of Congress that the atrocities perpetrated by ISIL against
religions and ethnic minorities in Iraq and Syria include war
crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
H. Con. Res. 121. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress condemning the gross violations of
international law amounting to war crimes and crimes against
humanity by the Government of Syria, its allies, and other
parties to the conflict in Syria, and asking the President to
direct his Ambassador at the United Nations to promote the
establishment of a war crimes tribunal where these crimes
could be addressed; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
____________________
MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR
The following bill was read the first and second times by unanimous
consent, and placed on the calendar:
H.R. 2080. An act to reinstate and extend the deadline for
commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project
involving Clark Canyon Dam.
____________________
MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME
The following bill was read the first time:
S. 2686. A bill to clarify the treatment of two or more
employers as joint employers under the National Labor
Relations Act.
____________________
ENROLLED BILLS PRESENTED
The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, March 15, 2016,
she had
[[Page 3204]]
presented to the President of the United States the following enrolled
bills:
S. 1172. An act to improve the process of presidential
transition.
S. 1580. An act to allow additional appointing authorities
to select individuals from competitive service certificates.
S. 1826. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 99 West 2nd Street in Fond
du Lac, Wisconsin, as the Lieutenant Colonel James ``Maggie''
Megellas Post Office.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. JOHNSON, from the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute:
S. 1492. A bill to direct the Administrator of General
Services, on behalf of the Archivist of the United States, to
convey certain Federal property located in the State of
Alaska to the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska (Rept. No.
114-228).
By Mr. JOHNSON, from the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, without amendment:
S. 2133. A bill to improve Federal agency financial and
administrative controls and procedures to assess and mitigate
fraud risks, and to improve Federal agencies' development and
use of data analytics for the purpose of identifying,
preventing, and responding to fraud, including improper
payments (Rept. No. 114-229).
By Mr. CORKER, from the Committee on Foreign Relations,
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
S. 1252. A bill to authorize a comprehensive strategic
approach for United States foreign assistance to developing
countries to reduce global poverty and hunger, achieve food
and nutrition security, promote inclusive, sustainable,
agricultural-led economic growth, improve nutritional
outcomes, especially for women and children, build resilience
among vulnerable populations, and for other purposes.
By Mr. ALEXANDER, from the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute:
S. 2512. A bill to expand the tropical disease product
priority review voucher program to encourage treatments for
Zika virus.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Ms. BALDWIN (for herself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr.
Booker, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Brown, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Casey,
Mr. Durbin, Mr. Franken, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Hirono,
Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Markey, Mr. Menendez,
Mr. Merkley, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Peters,
Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Schumer, Mrs.
Shaheen, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Udall, Ms. Warren, Mr.
Whitehouse, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 2677. A bill to make college more affordable, reduce
student debt, and provide greater access to higher education
for all students of the United States; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. SCHATZ (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Tester, Mr.
Cochran, Ms. Collins, and Ms. Baldwin):
S. 2678. A bill to direct the NIH to intensify and
coordinate fundamental, translational, and clinical research
with respect to the understanding of pain, the discovery and
development of therapies for chronic pain, and the
development of alternatives to opioids for effective pain
treatments; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
By Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. Tillis):
S. 2679. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish within
the Department of Veterans Affairs a center of excellence in
the prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and
rehabilitation of health conditions relating to exposure to
burn pits; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Cassidy, and Mr. Murphy):
S. 2680. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide comprehensive mental health reform, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
By Mr. HEINRICH (for himself and Mr. Udall):
S. 2681. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to retire coal preference right lease applications for which
the Secretary has made an affirmative commercial quantities
determination, to substitute certain land selections of the
Navajo Nation, to designate certain wilderness areas, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
By Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself, Ms. Warren, and Mr.
Blumenthal):
S. 2682. A bill to provide territories of the United States
with bankruptcy protection; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
By Ms. HIRONO (for herself and Mrs. Fischer):
S. 2683. A bill to include disabled veteran leave in the
personnel management system of the Federal Aviation
Administration; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 2684. A bill to provide for the operation of unmanned
aircraft systems by owners and operators of critical
infrastructure; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr.
Bennet):
S. 2685. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
improve mental and behavioral health services on campuses of
institutions of higher education; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr.
Isakson, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Blunt, Mr.
Boozman, Mr. Burr, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Cassidy, Mr.
Coats, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. Corker, Mr.
Cornyn, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines,
Mr. Enzi, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Flake, Mr. Gardner, Mr.
Graham, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Heller, Mr. Inhofe, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Lee, Mr. McCain,
Mr. Moran, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Risch, Mr. Roberts, Mr.
Rounds, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Scott, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
Shelby, Mr. Thune, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Vitter, and Mr.
Wicker):
S. 2686. A bill to clarify the treatment of two or more
employers as joint employers under the National Labor
Relations Act; read the first time.
By Mr. CASEY (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Bennet,
Mr. Hatch, Mrs. Murray, and Ms. Collins):
S. 2687. A bill to amend the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act to improve plans of safe care for infants
affected by illegal substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms,
or a Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr.
Franken):
S. Res. 399. A resolution supporting the goals and ideals
of ``National Professional Social Work Month''; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. ISAKSON (for himself and Mr. Casey):
S. Res. 400. A resolution designating March 25, 2016, as
``National Cerebral Palsy Awareness Day''; considered and
agreed to.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 207
At the request of Mr. Moran, the name of the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. Donnelly) was added as a cosponsor of S. 207, a bill to require
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to use existing authorities to
furnish health care at non-Department of Veterans Affairs facilities to
veterans who live more than 40 miles driving distance from the closest
medical facility of the Department that furnishes the care sought by
the veteran, and for other purposes.
S. 262
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 262, a bill
to reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, and for other
purposes.
S. 373
At the request of Mr. Toomey, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
373, a bill to provide for the establishment of nationally uniform and
environmentally sound standards governing discharges incidental to the
normal operation of a vessel.
S. 480
At the request of Mrs. Shaheen, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 480, a bill to amend and
reauthorize the controlled substance monitoring program under section
399O of the Public Health Service Act.
S. 586
At the request of Mrs. Shaheen, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
[[Page 3205]]
(Mr. Boozman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 586, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act to foster more effective implementation and
coordination of clinical care for people with pre-diabetes, diabetes,
and the chronic diseases and conditions that result from diabetes.
S. 764
At the request of Mr. Schatz, his name and the name of the Senator
from Washington (Ms. Cantwell) were withdrawn as cosponsors of S. 764,
a bill to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program
Act, and for other purposes.
S. 849
At the request of Mr. Isakson, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. Boozman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 849, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act to provide for systematic data collection and
analysis and epidemiological research regarding Multiple Sclerosis
(MS), Parkinson's disease, and other neurological diseases.
S. 857
At the request of Ms. Stabenow, the name of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) was added as a cosponsor of S. 857, a bill to
amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage
under the Medicare program of an initial comprehensive care plan for
Medicare beneficiaries newly diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and
related dementias, and for other purposes.
S. 1538
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1538, a
bill to reform the financing of Senate elections, and for other
purposes.
S. 1714
At the request of Mr. Manchin, the name of the Senator from
Washington (Mrs. Murray) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1714, a bill to
amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to
transfer certain funds to the Multiemployer Health Benefit Plan and the
1974 United Mine Workers of America Pension Plan, and for other
purposes.
S. 1785
At the request of Mr. Lee, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. Vitter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1785, a bill to repeal the
wage rate requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act.
S. 1830
At the request of Mr. Barrasso, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Whitehouse) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1830, a bill to
amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for the
coverage of marriage and family therapist services and mental health
counselor services under part B of the Medicare program, and for other
purposes.
S. 1865
At the request of Ms. Klobuchar, the names of the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Franken), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) and
the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) were added as cosponsors
of S. 1865, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect
to eating disorders, and for other purposes.
S. 1890
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the names of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Gardner) and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1890, a bill to amend chapter 90 of title 18, United
States Code, to provide Federal jurisdiction for the theft of trade
secrets, and for other purposes.
S. 1982
At the request of Mr. Cardin, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Rounds) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1982, a bill to
authorize a Wall of Remembrance as part of the Korean War Veterans
Memorial and to allow certain private contributions to fund the Wall of
Remembrance.
S. 2055
At the request of Mr. Burr, the name of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Alexander) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2055, a bill to amend
the Public Health Service Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act with respect to national health security.
S. 2067
At the request of Mr. Wicker, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2067, a bill to establish
EUREKA Prize Competitions to accelerate discovery and development of
disease-modifying, preventive, or curative treatments for Alzheimer's
disease and related dementia, to encourage efforts to enhance detection
and diagnosis of such diseases, or to enhance the quality and
efficiency of care of individuals with such diseases.
S. 2151
At the request of Mr. Thune, the name of the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Roberts) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2151, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act to provide liability protections for
volunteer practitioners at health centers under section 330 of such
Act.
S. 2166
At the request of Mr. Blunt, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. Boozman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2166, a bill to amend part
B of title IV of the Social Security Act to ensure that mental health
screenings and assessments are provided to children and youth upon
entry into foster care.
S. 2185
At the request of Ms. Heitkamp, the name of the Senator from Ohio
(Mr. Brown) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2185, a bill to require the
Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in recognition of the fight
against breast cancer.
S. 2216
At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Heller) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2216, a bill to provide
immunity from suit for certain individuals who disclose potential
examples of financial exploitation of senior citizens, and for other
purposes.
S. 2437
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2437, a bill to amend title
38, United States Code, to provide for the burial of the cremated
remains of persons who served as Women's Air Forces Service Pilots in
Arlington National Cemetery, and for other purposes.
S. 2512
At the request of Mr. Franken, the name of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Alexander) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2512, a bill to expand
the tropical disease product priority review voucher program to
encourage treatments for Zika virus.
S. 2550
At the request of Mrs. McCaskill, the names of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin)
were added as cosponsors of S. 2550, a bill to repeal the jury duty
exemption for elected officials of the legislative branch.
S. 2577
At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the names of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Portman), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from
Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall)
were added as cosponsors of S. 2577, a bill to protect crime victims'
rights, to eliminate the substantial backlog of DNA and other forensic
evidence samples to improve and expand the forensic science testing
capacity of Federal, State, and local crime laboratories, to increase
research and development of new testing technologies, to develop new
training programs regarding the collection and use of forensic
evidence, to provide post-conviction testing of DNA evidence to
exonerate the innocent, to support accreditation efforts of forensic
science laboratories and medical examiner offices, to address training
and equipment needs, to improve the performance of counsel in State
capital cases, and for other purposes.
S. 2630
At the request of Mr. Franken, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Brown) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2630, a bill to amend the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 to require certain disclosures be included
on employee pay stubs, and for other purposes.
[[Page 3206]]
S. 2646
At the request of Mr. Burr, the names of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford) and
the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) were added as cosponsors of S.
2646, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish the
Veterans Choice Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs to
improve health care provided to veterans by the Department, and for
other purposes.
S. RES. 199
At the request of Ms. Stabenow, her name was withdrawn as a cosponsor
of S. Res. 199, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate
regarding establishing a National Strategic Agenda.
S. RES. 340
At the request of Mr. Cassidy, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Inhofe) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 340, a resolution
expressing the sense of Congress that the so-called Islamic State in
Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS or Daesh) is committing genocide, crimes against
humanity, and war crimes, and calling upon the President to work with
foreign governments and the United Nations to provide physical
protection for ISIS' targets, to support the creation of an
international criminal tribunal with jurisdiction to punish these
crimes, and to use every reasonable means, including sanctions, to
destroy ISIS and disrupt its support networks.
S. RES. 383
At the request of Mr. Perdue, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Inhofe) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 383, a resolution
recognizing the importance of the United States-Israel economic
relationship and encouraging new areas of cooperation.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. BALDWIN (for herself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Brown, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Casey, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Franken, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Leahy,
Mr. Markey, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Peters, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. Schatz, Mr.
Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Udall, Ms. Warren, Mr.
Whitehouse, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 2677. A bill to make college more affordable, reduce student debt,
and provide greater access to higher education for all students of the
United States; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that
is of the utmost importance to me, Marylanders, and American families--
college affordability.
I have said this often, but we in this country enjoy many freedoms:
the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and the freedom of
religion. But there is an implicit freedom our Constitution does not
lay out in writing, but its promise has excited the passions, hopes,
and dreams of people in this country since its founding. It is the
freedom to take whatever talents God has given you, to fill whatever
passion is in your heart, to learn so you can earn and make a
contribution to society--the freedom to achieve.
The freedom to achieve should never be stifled in this country
because of economic reasons. Your freedom to achieve should never be
determined by the zip code you live in, by the color of your skin, or
by the size of your family's wallet. It should be, in a democratic
country, that everyone has access to be able to do that. That means
affordable education. That means access to the opportunity ladder that
students and families can count on, because we know a degree is
something that no one can ever take away from you.
When I was a young girl at a Catholic all-girls school, my Mom and
Dad made it very clear that they wanted me to go to college. But, right
around graduation, my family was going through a rough time because my
father's grocery store had suffered a terrible fire. I offered to put
off college and work at the grocery store until the business got back
on its feet. My Dad said, ``Barb, you have to go. Your mother and I
will find a way, because no matter what happens to you, no one can ever
take that degree away from you. The best way I can protect you is to
make sure you can earn a living all of your life.'' My father gave me
the freedom to achieve.
When it comes to higher education, I believe in choice and
opportunity. Anyone willing to work hard has a right to learn so you
can get a college degree or certificate. Millions of American students
are graduating colleges and universities, but as they are handed their
diplomas, they are being handed a lifetime of debt.
More than 58 percent of Maryland college students have taken on an
average debt of $27,000 or more. Having this debt is like a first
mortgage, making it hard to buy a home, start a business, or a family.
I am worried about them, as should the rest of us, and what it means
for their future. College is a part of the American dream; it should
not be a part of the American financial nightmare.
That is why, over the last several months, I embarked on a college
affordability tour across the state of Maryland. I wanted to find out
what were some of the challenges students faced when it came to
college. I wanted to know how the Federal Government can help them be
successful. The stories I heard were poignant, and were likely ones
that everyone in this chamber has heard time and time again.
I met a bright young woman last year. She had the financial support
of her parents to attend college. Unfortunately, during her sophomore
year, her mother--who was a nurse--lost her job. To make sure she could
still go to college, her family made the decision to dip into their
retirement savings to help pay. This goes to show that her family knew
how important it was that she continue her education. Even with this
additional financial support, she still had to rely on Federal
financial aid to pay for books.
Or the young man who is the first in his family to go to college. He
hopes he is not the last. He would not be where he is today had it not
been for a strong support system in high school through participation
in a college bound program that gave him the opportunity to be exposed
to college classes. While he came to college academically prepared, he
still needed help navigating our complex Federal financial aid system.
This is just a small sample of the stories I heard. But they all say
the same thing: ``We need help.'' Many students and families are
stressed and stretched, having to work and save to pay for college.
They want to know what Congress is doing for them. They need a Federal
Government that is on their side.
Student loan debt is more than $1.3 trillion, exceeding total credit
card and car loan debt, and eclipsed only by mortgage debt. Family
incomes are not keeping pace with inflation, which means they are less
able to help with the costs of higher education.
Getting a college education is the core of the American dream. Let us
continue to fight to make sure that every student in America, whether
you are in rural Eastern Shore or in big cities like Los Angeles, has
access to that dream. Let us work together to make sure that when
students graduate, their first mortgage is not their student debt.
Carrying the burden of student loans drags down young people's
financial future, making it harder to buy a home, start a family, or
save for retirement.
It is my belief that this bill--the In The Red Act--will make college
a reality for millions of Americans. I am pleased to see that
provisions in this bill would allow eligible student borrowers the
opportunity to refinance their Federal loans. I believe that if you can
refinance a yacht, you should be able to refinance your student loans.
This will help more than 24 million students in the United States,
including more than 800,000 student borrowers in Maryland.
I am also pleased to see that this bill increases Pell Grants to keep
pace with rising costs. This will ensure that college students, who
rely on Pell Grants,
[[Page 3207]]
can pay for tuition, books, room and board, and other living expenses
like child care.
The In The Red Act is absolutely a great bill for students, and it is
a great bill for America. It gives our students access to the American
dream. It gives our young people access to the freedom to achieve, to
be able to follow their talents, and to be able to achieve higher
education in whatever field they will be able to serve this country. It
is my hope that we come together to pass this bill in a swift,
expeditious, and uncluttered way.
While our work is not done when it comes to ensuring access to
affordable higher education, this bill helps us get there. I look
forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
move this issue forward.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Bennet):
S. 2685. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve
mental and behavioral health services on campuses of institutions of
higher education; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2685
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Mental Health on Campus
Improvement Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The 2014 Association of University and College
Counseling Center Directors Survey found that the average
ratio of counselors to students on campus is nearly 1 to
1,833 and is often far higher on large campuses. The
International Association of Counseling Services
accreditation standards recommends 1 counselor per 1,000 to
1,500 students.
(2) College counselors report that 10 percent of enrolled
students sought counseling in 2014.
(3) More than 90 percent of counseling directors believe
there is an increase in the number of students coming to
campus with severe psychological problems; today, 44 percent
of the students who visit campus counseling centers are
dealing with severe mental illness, up from 16 percent in
2000, and 24 percent are on psychiatric medication, up from
17 percent in 2000.
(4) The majority of campus counseling directors report that
the demand for services and the severity of student needs are
growing without an increase in resources.
(5) Many students who need help never receive it. Only 15
percent of college and university students who commit suicide
received campus counseling. Of students who seriously
consider suicide each year, only 52 percent of them seek any
professional help at all.
(6) A 2015 American College Health Association survey of
more than 93,000 college and university students revealed
that, within the last 12 months, 57 percent of students
report having felt overwhelming anxiety, 35 percent felt so
depressed it was difficult to function, and 48 percent felt
hopeless. However, only 12 percent of students reported
receiving professional treatment for anxiety within the past
12 months, and 11 percent reported receiving treatment for
depression within the past 12 months.
(7) The 2015 American College Health Association survey
also found that 9 percent of students have seriously
considered suicide in the past 12 months, a 20 percent
increase compared to 2012.
(8) Research conducted between 1997 and 2009, and presented
at the 118th annual convention of the American Psychological
Association found that more students are grappling with
depression and anxiety disorders than were a decade ago. The
study found that of students who sought college or university
counseling, 41 percent had moderate to severe depression in
2009, that number was 34 percent in 1997.
(9) A survey conducted by the student counseling center at
the University of Idaho in 2000 found that 77 percent of
students who responded reported that they were more likely to
stay in school because of counseling and that their school
performance would have declined without counseling.
(10) Students with psychological issues often struggle
academically and are at risk for dropping out of school.
Counseling has been shown to address these issues while
having a positive impact on students remaining in school. A
6-year longitudinal study found college and university
students receiving counseling to have a 11.4 percent higher
retention rate than the general college and university
population.
(11) A national survey of college and university students
living with mental health conditions, conducted by the
National Alliance on Mental Illness, found that 64 percent of
students who experience mental health problems in college or
university and withdraw from school do so because of their
mental health issues. The survey also found that 50 percent
of that group never accessed mental health services and
supports.
SEC. 3. IMPROVING MENTAL AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ON COLLEGE
CAMPUSES.
Title V of the Public Health Service Act is amended by
inserting after section 520E-2 (42 U.S.C. 290bb-36b) the
following:
``SEC. 520E-3. GRANTS TO IMPROVE MENTAL AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES.
``(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section, with
respect to settings at institutions of higher education, to--
``(1) increase access to mental and behavioral health
services;
``(2) foster and improve the prevention of mental and
behavioral health disorders, and the promotion of mental
health;
``(3) improve the identification and treatment for students
at risk;
``(4) improve collaboration and the development of
appropriate levels of mental and behavioral health care;
``(5) reduce the stigma for students with mental health
disorders and enhance their access to mental health services;
and
``(6) improve the efficacy of outreach efforts.
``(b) Grants.--The Secretary, acting through the
Administrator and in consultation with the Secretary of
Education, shall award competitive grants to eligible
entities to improve mental and behavioral health services and
outreach on campuses of institutions of higher education.
``(c) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (b), an entity shall--
``(1) be an institution of higher education; and
``(2) submit to the Secretary an application at such time,
in such manner, and containing such information as the
Secretary may require, including the information required
under subsection (d).
``(d) Application.--An application for a grant under this
section shall include--
``(1) a description of the population to be targeted by the
program carried out under the grant, including the particular
mental and behavioral health needs of the students involved;
``(2) a description of the Federal, State, local, private,
and institutional resources available for meeting the needs
of such students at the time the application is submitted;
``(3) an outline of the objectives of the program carried
out under the grant;
``(4) a description of activities, services, and training
to be provided under the program, including planned outreach
strategies to reach students not currently seeking services;
``(5) a plan to seek input from community mental health
providers, when available, community groups, and other public
and private entities in carrying out the program;
``(6) a plan, when applicable, to meet the specific mental
and behavioral health needs of veterans attending
institutions of higher education;
``(7) a description of the methods to be used to evaluate
the outcomes and effectiveness of the program; and
``(8) an assurance that grant funds will be used to
supplement, and not supplant, any other Federal, State, or
local funds available to carry out activities of the type
carried out under the grant.
``(e) Special Considerations.--In awarding grants under
this section, the Secretary shall give special consideration
to applications that describe programs to be carried out
under the grant that--
``(1) demonstrate the greatest need for new or additional
mental and behavioral health services, in part by providing
information on current ratios of students to mental and
behavioral health professionals;
``(2) propose effective approaches for initiating or
expanding campus services and supports using evidence-based
practices, including peer support strategies;
``(3) target traditionally underserved populations and
populations most at risk;
``(4) where possible, demonstrate an awareness of, and a
willingness to, coordinate with a community mental health
center or other mental health resource in the community, to
support screening and referral of students requiring
intensive services;
``(5) identify how the institution of higher education will
address psychiatric emergencies, including how information
will be communicated with families or other appropriate
parties;
``(6) propose innovative practices that will improve
efficiencies in clinical care, broaden collaborations with
primary care, or improve prevention programs; and
``(7) demonstrate the greatest potential for replication
and dissemination.
``(f) Use of Funds.--Amounts received under a grant under
this section may be used to--
``(1) provide mental and behavioral health services to
students, including prevention, promotion of mental health,
voluntary
[[Page 3208]]
screening, early intervention, voluntary assessment,
treatment, management, and education services relating to the
mental and behavioral health of students;
``(2) conduct research through a counseling or health
center at the institution of higher education involved
regarding improving the mental and behavioral health of
students through clinical services, outreach, prevention, or
academic success, in a manner that is in compliance with the
health privacy and security rules promulgated under section
264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 note);
``(3) provide outreach services to notify students about
the existence of mental and behavioral health services;
``(4) educate students, families, faculty, staff, and
communities to increase awareness of mental health issues;
``(5) support student groups on campus, including athletic
teams, that engage in activities to educate students,
including activities to reduce stigma surrounding mental and
behavioral disorders, and promote mental health wellness;
``(6) employ appropriately trained staff;
``(7) provide training to students, faculty, and staff to
respond effectively to students with mental and behavioral
health issues;
``(8) expand mental health training through internship,
post-doctorate, and residency programs;
``(9) develop and support evidence-based and emerging best
practices, including a focus on culturally and linguistically
appropriate best practices; and
``(10) evaluate and disseminate best practices to other
institutions of higher education.
``(g) Duration of Grants.--A grant under this section shall
be awarded for a period not to exceed 3 years.
``(h) Evaluation and Reporting.--
``(1) Evaluation.--Not later than 18 months after the date
on which a grant is received under this section, the eligible
entity involved shall submit to the Secretary the results of
an evaluation to be conducted by the entity (or by another
party under contract with the entity) concerning the
effectiveness of the activities carried out under the grant
and plans for the sustainability of such efforts.
``(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of the Mental Health on Campus Improvement Act, the
Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress a report concerning the results of--
``(A) the evaluations conducted under paragraph (1); and
``(B) an evaluation conducted by the Secretary to analyze
the effectiveness and efficacy of the activities conducted
with grants under this section.
``(i) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary may provide
technical assistance to grantees in carrying out this
section.
``(j) Definition.--In this section, the term `institution
of higher education' has the meaning given such term in 101
of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).
``(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
to carry out this section.
``SEC. 520E-4. MENTAL AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH OUTREACH AND
EDUCATION ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES.
``(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to
increase access to, and reduce the stigma associated with,
mental health services to ensure that students at
institutions of higher education have the support necessary
to successfully complete their studies.
``(b) National Public Education Campaign.--The Secretary,
acting through the Administrator and in collaboration with
the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, shall convene an interagency, public-private
sector working group to plan, establish, and begin
coordinating and evaluating a targeted public education
campaign that is designed to focus on mental and behavioral
health on the campuses of institutions of higher education.
Such campaign shall be designed to--
``(1) improve the general understanding of mental health
and mental health disorders;
``(2) encourage help-seeking behaviors relating to the
promotion of mental health, prevention of mental health
disorders, and treatment of such disorders;
``(3) make the connection between mental and behavioral
health and academic success; and
``(4) assist the general public in identifying the early
warning signs and reducing the stigma of mental illness.
``(c) Composition.--The working group convened under
subsection (b) shall include--
``(1) mental health consumers, including students and
family members;
``(2) representatives of institutions of higher education;
``(3) representatives of national mental and behavioral
health associations and associations of institutions of
higher education;
``(4) representatives of health promotion and prevention
organizations at institutions of higher education;
``(5) representatives of mental health providers, including
community mental health centers; and
``(6) representatives of private- and public-sector groups
with experience in the development of effective public health
education campaigns.
``(d) Plan.--The working group under subsection (b) shall
develop a plan that--
``(1) targets promotional and educational efforts to the
age population of students at institutions of higher
education and individuals who are employed in settings of
institutions of higher education, including through the use
of roundtables;
``(2) develops and proposes the implementation of research-
based public health messages and activities;
``(3) provides support for local efforts to reduce stigma
by using the National Health Information Center as a primary
point of contact for information, publications, and service
program referrals; and
``(4) develops and proposes the implementation of a social
marketing campaign that is targeted at the population of
students attending institutions of higher education and
individuals who are employed in settings of institutions of
higher education.
``(e) Definition.--In this section, the term `institution
of higher education' has the meaning given such term in 101
of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
to carry out this section.''.
SEC. 4. INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP ON COLLEGE MENTAL HEALTH.
(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to provide
for the establishment of a College Campus Task Force to
discuss mental and behavioral health concerns on campuses of
institutions of higher education.
(b) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'')
shall establish a College Campus Task Force (referred to in
this section as the ``Task Force'') to discuss mental and
behavioral health concerns on campuses of institutions of
higher education.
(c) Membership.--The Task Force shall be composed of a
representative from each Federal agency (as appointed by the
head of the agency) that has jurisdiction over, or is
affected by, mental health and education policies and
projects, including--
(1) the Department of Education;
(2) the Department of Health and Human Services;
(3) the Department of Veterans Affairs; and
(4) such other Federal agencies as the Administrator of the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, in
consultation with the Secretary, determines to be
appropriate.
(d) Duties.--The Task Force shall--
(1) serve as a centralized mechanism to coordinate a
national effort--
(A) to discuss and evaluate evidence and knowledge on
mental and behavioral health services available to, and the
prevalence of mental health illness among, the age population
of students attending institutions of higher education in the
United States;
(B) to determine the range of effective, feasible, and
comprehensive actions to improve mental and behavioral health
on campuses of institutions of higher education;
(C) to examine and better address the needs of the age
population of students attending institutions of higher
education dealing with mental illness;
(D) to survey Federal agencies to determine which policies
are effective in encouraging, and how best to facilitate
outreach without duplicating, efforts relating to mental and
behavioral health promotion;
(E) to establish specific goals within and across Federal
agencies for mental health promotion, including
determinations of accountability for reaching those goals;
(F) to develop a strategy for allocating responsibilities
and ensuring participation in mental and behavioral health
promotions, particularly in the case of competing agency
priorities;
(G) to coordinate plans to communicate research results
relating to mental and behavioral health amongst the age
population of students attending institutions of higher
education to enable reporting and outreach activities to
produce more useful and timely information;
(H) to provide a description of evidence-based best
practices, model programs, effective guidelines, and other
strategies for promoting mental and behavioral health on
campuses of institutions of higher education;
(I) to make recommendations to improve Federal efforts
relating to mental and behavioral health promotion on
campuses of institutions of higher education and to ensure
Federal efforts are consistent with available standards and
evidence and other programs in existence as of the date of
enactment of this Act; and
(J) to monitor Federal progress in meeting specific mental
and behavioral health promotion goals as they relate to
settings of institutions of higher education;
(2) consult with national organizations with expertise in
mental and behavioral health, especially those organizations
working with the age population of students attending
institutions of higher education; and
(3) consult with and seek input from mental health
professionals working on campuses of institutions of higher
education as appropriate.
[[Page 3209]]
(e) Meetings.--
(1) In general.--The Task Force shall meet not less than 3
times each year.
(2) Annual conference.--The Secretary shall sponsor an
annual conference on mental and behavioral health in settings
of institutions of higher education to enhance coordination,
build partnerships, and share best practices in mental and
behavioral health promotion, data collection, analysis, and
services.
(f) Definition.--In this section, the term ``institution of
higher education'' has the meaning given such term in 101 of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 399--SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF ``NATIONAL
PROFESSIONAL SOCIAL WORK MONTH''
Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Franken) submitted
the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
S. Res. 399
Whereas the primary mission of the social work profession
is to enhance well-being and help meet the basic needs of all
people, especially the most vulnerable in society;
Whereas social work is one of the fastest growing careers
in the United States with more than 640,000 members of the
profession;
Whereas social workers work in all areas of our society to
improve happiness, health and prosperity, including in
government, schools, universities, social service agencies,
communities, the military, and mental health and health care
facilities;
Whereas social workers daily embody this year's ``National
Professional Social Work Month'' theme, ``Forging Solutions
Out of Challenges'', by helping individuals, communities and
the larger society tackle and solve issues that confront
them;
Whereas social workers have helped the Nation live up to
its ideals by successfully pushing for equal rights for all,
including women, African Americans, Latinos, people who are
LGBTQ, and various ethnic, cultural, and religious groups;
Whereas social workers have helped people in the Nation
overcome racial strife and economic and health care
uncertainty by successfully advocating for initiatives such
as the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social
Security Act, unemployment insurance, workplace safety
initiatives, benefits under the Social Security Act, the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act;
Whereas social workers are the largest group of mental
health care providers in the United States and work daily to
help people overcome depression, anxiety, substance abuse,
and other disorders so they can lead more fulfilling lives;
Whereas the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs employs
more than 12,000 professional social workers and social
workers help bolster the Nation's security by providing
support to active duty military personnel, veterans and their
families;
Whereas thousands of child, family, and school social
workers across the country provide assistance to protect
children and improve the social and psychological functioning
of children and their families;
Whereas social workers help children find loving homes and
create new families through adoption;
Whereas social workers in schools work with families and
schools to foster future generations by ensuring students
reach their full academic and personal potential;
Whereas social workers work with older adults and their
families to improve their quality of life and ability to live
independently as long as possible and get access to high-
quality mental health and health care; and
Whereas social workers have helped the United States and
other nations overcome earthquakes, floods, wars, and other
disasters by helping survivors get services such as food,
shelter, and health care, and mental health care to address
stress and anxiety: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) supports the goals and ideals of ``National
Professional Social Work Month'';
(2) acknowledges the diligent efforts of individuals and
groups who promote the importance of social work and observe
``National Professional Social Work Month'';
(3) encourages the people of the United States to engage in
appropriate ceremonies and activities to promote further
awareness of the life-changing role that social workers play;
and
(4) recognizes with gratitude the contributions of the
hundreds of thousands of caring individuals who have chosen
to serve their communities through social work.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 400--DESIGNATING MARCH 25, 2016, AS ``NATIONAL
CEREBRAL PALSY AWARENESS DAY''
Mr. ISAKSON (for himself and Mr. Casey) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 400
Whereas a group of permanent disorders of the development
of movement and posture that are attributed to nonprogressive
disturbances that occur in the developing brain is referred
to as ``cerebral palsy'';
Whereas cerebral palsy, the most common motor disability in
children, is caused by damage to 1 or more specific areas of
the developing brain, which usually occurs during fetal
development before, during, or after birth;
Whereas the majority of children who have cerebral palsy
are born with cerebral palsy, but cerebral palsy may be
undetected for months or years;
Whereas 75 percent of individuals with cerebral palsy also
have 1 or more developmental disabilities, including
epilepsy, intellectual disability, autism, visual impairment,
or blindness;
Whereas according to information released by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention--
(1) the prevalence of cerebral palsy is not decreasing; and
(2) an estimated 1 in 323 children has cerebral palsy;
Whereas approximately 800,000 individuals in the United
States are affected by cerebral palsy;
Whereas although there is no cure for cerebral palsy,
treatment often improves the capabilities of a child with
cerebral palsy;
Whereas scientists and researchers are hopeful for
breakthroughs in cerebral palsy research;
Whereas researchers across the United States conduct
important research projects involving cerebral palsy; and
Whereas the Senate can raise awareness of cerebral palsy in
the public and the medical community: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates March 25, 2016, as ``National Cerebral Palsy
Awareness Day'';
(2) encourages each individual in the United States to
become better informed about and aware of cerebral palsy; and
(3) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate
transmit a copy of this resolution to the Executive Director
of Reaching for the Stars: A Foundation of Hope for Children
with Cerebral Palsy.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 3451. Mr. McCONNELL submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed to amendment SA 3450 proposed by Mr. McConnell
(for Mr. Roberts) to the bill S. 764, to reauthorize and
amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3452. Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Leahy) proposed an
amendment to the bill S. 337, to improve the Freedom of
Information Act.
SA 3453. Mrs. SHAHEEN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3450 proposed by Mr. McConnell (for
Mr. Roberts) to the bill S. 764, to reauthorize and amend the
National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3454. Mrs. SHAHEEN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3450 proposed by Mr. McConnell (for
Mr. Roberts) to the bill S. 764, supra; which was ordered to
lie on the table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 3451. Mr. McCONNELL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 3450 proposed by Mr. McConnell (for Mr. Roberts) to the
bill S. 764, to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College
Program Act, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
At the end add the following.
``This Act shall take effect 1 day after the date of
enactment.''
______
SA 3452. Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Leahy) proposed an amendment
to the bill S. 337, to improve the Freedom of Information Act; as
follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``FOIA Improvement Act of
2016''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO FOIA.
Section 552 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
[[Page 3210]]
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``for public inspection and copying'' and inserting ``for
public inspection in an electronic format'';
(ii) by striking subparagraph (D) and inserting the
following:
``(D) copies of all records, regardless of form or format--
``(i) that have been released to any person under paragraph
(3); and
``(ii)(I) that because of the nature of their subject
matter, the agency determines have become or are likely to
become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially
the same records; or
``(II) that have been requested 3 or more times; and''; and
(iii) in the undesignated matter following subparagraph
(E), by striking ``public inspection and copying current''
and inserting ``public inspection in an electronic format
current'';
(B) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking clause (viii) and
inserting the following:
``(viii)(I) Except as provided in subclause (II), an agency
shall not assess any search fees (or in the case of a
requester described under clause (ii)(II) of this
subparagraph, duplication fees) under this subparagraph if
the agency has failed to comply with any time limit under
paragraph (6).
``(II)(aa) If an agency has determined that unusual
circumstances apply (as the term is defined in paragraph
(6)(B)) and the agency provided a timely written notice to
the requester in accordance with paragraph (6)(B), a failure
described in subclause (I) is excused for an additional 10
days. If the agency fails to comply with the extended time
limit, the agency may not assess any search fees (or in the
case of a requester described under clause (ii)(II) of this
subparagraph, duplication fees).
``(bb) If an agency has determined that unusual
circumstances apply and more than 5,000 pages are necessary
to respond to the request, an agency may charge search fees
(or in the case of a requester described under clause
(ii)(II) of this subparagraph, duplication fees) if the
agency has provided a timely written notice to the requester
in accordance with paragraph (6)(B) and the agency has
discussed with the requester via written mail, electronic
mail, or telephone (or made not less than 3 good-faith
attempts to do so) how the requester could effectively limit
the scope of the request in accordance with paragraph
(6)(B)(ii).
``(cc) If a court has determined that exceptional
circumstances exist (as that term is defined in paragraph
(6)(C)), a failure described in subclause (I) shall be
excused for the length of time provided by the court
order.'';
(C) in paragraph (6)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``making such
request'' and all that follows through ``determination; and''
and inserting the following: ``making such request of--
``(I) such determination and the reasons therefor;
``(II) the right of such person to seek assistance from the
FOIA Public Liaison of the agency; and
``(III) in the case of an adverse determination--
``(aa) the right of such person to appeal to the head of
the agency, within a period determined by the head of the
agency that is not less than 90 days after the date of such
adverse determination; and
``(bb) the right of such person to seek dispute resolution
services from the FOIA Public Liaison of the agency or the
Office of Government Information Services; and''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``the agency.''
and inserting ``the agency, and notify the requester of the
right of the requester to seek dispute resolution services
from the Office of Government Information Services.''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(8)(A) An agency shall--
``(i) withhold information under this section only if--
``(I) the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would
harm an interest protected by an exemption described in
subsection (b); or
``(II) disclosure is prohibited by law; and
``(ii)(I) consider whether partial disclosure of
information is possible whenever the agency determines that a
full disclosure of a requested record is not possible; and
``(II) take reasonable steps necessary to segregate and
release nonexempt information; and
``(B) Nothing in this paragraph requires disclosure of
information that is otherwise prohibited from disclosure by
law, or otherwise exempted from disclosure under subsection
(b)(3).'';
(2) in subsection (b), by amending paragraph (5) to read as
follows:
``(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters
that would not be available by law to a party other than an
agency in litigation with the agency, provided that the
deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records
created 25 years or more before the date on which the records
were requested;''; and
(3) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting
``and to the Director of the Office of Government Information
Services'' after ``United States'';
(ii) in subparagraph (N), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(iii) in subparagraph (O), by striking the period at the
end and inserting a semicolon; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following:
``(P) the number of times the agency denied a request for
records under subsection (c); and
``(Q) the number of records that were made available for
public inspection in an electronic format under subsection
(a)(2).'';
(B) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Each agency shall make each such report available for
public inspection in an electronic format. In addition, each
agency shall make the raw statistical data used in each
report available in a timely manner for public inspection in
an electronic format, which shall be made available--
``(A) without charge, license, or registration requirement;
``(B) in an aggregated, searchable format; and
``(C) in a format that may be downloaded in bulk.'';
(C) in paragraph (4)--
(i) by striking ``Government Reform and Oversight'' and
inserting ``Oversight and Government Reform'';
(ii) by inserting ``Homeland Security and'' before
``Governmental Affairs''; and
(iii) by striking ``April'' and inserting ``March''; and
(D) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:
``(6)(A) The Attorney General of the United States shall
submit to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of
the House of Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary
of the Senate, and the President a report on or before March
1 of each calendar year, which shall include for the prior
calendar year--
``(i) a listing of the number of cases arising under this
section;
``(ii) a listing of--
``(I) each subsection, and any exemption, if applicable,
involved in each case arising under this section;
``(II) the disposition of each case arising under this
section; and
``(III) the cost, fees, and penalties assessed under
subparagraphs (E), (F), and (G) of subsection (a)(4); and
``(iii) a description of the efforts undertaken by the
Department of Justice to encourage agency compliance with
this section.
``(B) The Attorney General of the United States shall
make--
``(i) each report submitted under subparagraph (A)
available for public inspection in an electronic format; and
``(ii) the raw statistical data used in each report
submitted under subparagraph (A) available for public
inspection in an electronic format, which shall be made
available--
``(I) without charge, license, or registration requirement;
``(II) in an aggregated, searchable format; and
``(III) in a format that may be downloaded in bulk.'';
(4) in subsection (g), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``publicly available upon request'' and
inserting ``available for public inspection in an electronic
format'';
(5) in subsection (h)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following:
``The head of the Office shall be the Director of the Office
of Government Information Services.'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (C) and
inserting the following:
``(C) identify procedures and methods for improving
compliance under this section.'';
(C) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) The Office of Government Information Services shall
offer mediation services to resolve disputes between persons
making requests under this section and administrative
agencies as a nonexclusive alternative to litigation and may
issue advisory opinions at the discretion of the Office or
upon request of any party to a dispute.''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(4)(A) Not less frequently than annually, the Director of
the Office of Government Information Services shall submit to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House
of Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate, and the President--
``(i) a report on the findings of the information reviewed
and identified under paragraph (2);
``(ii) a summary of the activities of the Office of
Government Information Services under paragraph (3),
including--
``(I) any advisory opinions issued; and
``(II) the number of times each agency engaged in dispute
resolution with the assistance of the Office of Government
Information Services or the FOIA Public Liaison; and
``(iii) legislative and regulatory recommendations, if any,
to improve the administration of this section.
[[Page 3211]]
``(B) The Director of the Office of Government Information
Services shall make each report submitted under subparagraph
(A) available for public inspection in an electronic format.
``(C) The Director of the Office of Government Information
Services shall not be required to obtain the prior approval,
comment, or review of any officer or agency of the United
States, including the Department of Justice, the Archivist of
the United States, or the Office of Management and Budget
before submitting to Congress, or any committee or
subcommittee thereof, any reports, recommendations,
testimony, or comments, if such submissions include a
statement indicating that the views expressed therein are
those of the Director and do not necessarily represent the
views of the President.
``(5) The Director of the Office of Government Information
Services may directly submit additional information to
Congress and the President as the Director determines to be
appropriate.
``(6) Not less frequently than annually, the Office of
Government Information Services shall conduct a meeting that
is open to the public on the review and reports by the Office
and shall allow interested persons to appear and present oral
or written statements at the meeting.'';
(6) by striking subsections (j) and (k), and inserting the
following:
``(j)(1) Each agency shall designate a Chief FOIA Officer
who shall be a senior official of such agency (at the
Assistant Secretary or equivalent level).
``(2) The Chief FOIA Officer of each agency shall, subject
to the authority of the head of the agency--
``(A) have agency-wide responsibility for efficient and
appropriate compliance with this section;
``(B) monitor implementation of this section throughout the
agency and keep the head of the agency, the chief legal
officer of the agency, and the Attorney General appropriately
informed of the agency's performance in implementing this
section;
``(C) recommend to the head of the agency such adjustments
to agency practices, policies, personnel, and funding as may
be necessary to improve its implementation of this section;
``(D) review and report to the Attorney General, through
the head of the agency, at such times and in such formats as
the Attorney General may direct, on the agency's performance
in implementing this section;
``(E) facilitate public understanding of the purposes of
the statutory exemptions of this section by including concise
descriptions of the exemptions in both the agency's handbook
issued under subsection (g), and the agency's annual report
on this section, and by providing an overview, where
appropriate, of certain general categories of agency records
to which those exemptions apply;
``(F) offer training to agency staff regarding their
responsibilities under this section;
``(G) serve as the primary agency liaison with the Office
of Government Information Services and the Office of
Information Policy; and
``(H) designate 1 or more FOIA Public Liaisons.
``(3) The Chief FOIA Officer of each agency shall review,
not less frequently than annually, all aspects of the
administration of this section by the agency to ensure
compliance with the requirements of this section, including--
``(A) agency regulations;
``(B) disclosure of records required under paragraphs (2)
and (8) of subsection (a);
``(C) assessment of fees and determination of eligibility
for fee waivers;
``(D) the timely processing of requests for information
under this section;
``(E) the use of exemptions under subsection (b); and
``(F) dispute resolution services with the assistance of
the Office of Government Information Services or the FOIA
Public Liaison.
``(k)(1) There is established in the executive branch the
Chief FOIA Officers Council (referred to in this subsection
as the `Council').
``(2) The Council shall be comprised of the following
members:
``(A) The Deputy Director for Management of the Office of
Management and Budget.
``(B) The Director of the Office of Information Policy at
the Department of Justice.
``(C) The Director of the Office of Government Information
Services.
``(D) The Chief FOIA Officer of each agency.
``(E) Any other officer or employee of the United States as
designated by the Co-Chairs.
``(3) The Director of the Office of Information Policy at
the Department of Justice and the Director of the Office of
Government Information Services shall be the Co-Chairs of the
Council.
``(4) The Administrator of General Services shall provide
administrative and other support for the Council.
``(5)(A) The duties of the Council shall include the
following:
``(i) Develop recommendations for increasing compliance and
efficiency under this section.
``(ii) Disseminate information about agency experiences,
ideas, best practices, and innovative approaches related to
this section.
``(iii) Identify, develop, and coordinate initiatives to
increase transparency and compliance with this section.
``(iv) Promote the development and use of common
performance measures for agency compliance with this section.
``(B) In performing the duties described in subparagraph
(A), the Council shall consult on a regular basis with
members of the public who make requests under this section.
``(6)(A) The Council shall meet regularly and such meetings
shall be open to the public unless the Council determines to
close the meeting for reasons of national security or to
discuss information exempt under subsection (b).
``(B) Not less frequently than annually, the Council shall
hold a meeting that shall be open to the public and permit
interested persons to appear and present oral and written
statements to the Council.
``(C) Not later than 10 business days before a meeting of
the Council, notice of such meeting shall be published in the
Federal Register.
``(D) Except as provided in subsection (b), the records,
reports, transcripts, minutes, appendices, working papers,
drafts, studies, agenda, or other documents that were made
available to or prepared for or by the Council shall be made
publicly available.
``(E) Detailed minutes of each meeting of the Council shall
be kept and shall contain a record of the persons present, a
complete and accurate description of matters discussed and
conclusions reached, and copies of all reports received,
issued, or approved by the Council. The minutes shall be
redacted as necessary and made publicly available.''; and
(7) by adding at the end the following:
``(m)(1) The Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall
ensure the operation of a consolidated online request portal
that allows a member of the public to submit a request for
records under subsection (a) to any agency from a single
website. The portal may include any additional tools the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget finds will
improve the implementation of this section.
``(2) This subsection shall not be construed to alter the
power of any other agency to create or maintain an
independent online portal for the submission of a request for
records under this section. The Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall establish standards for
interoperability between the portal required under paragraph
(1) and other request processing software used by agencies
subject to this section.''.
SEC. 3. REVIEW AND ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the head of each agency (as defined in
section 551 of title 5, United States Code) shall review the
regulations of such agency and shall issue regulations on
procedures for the disclosure of records under section 552 of
title 5, United States Code, in accordance with the
amendments made by section 2.
(b) Requirements.--The regulations of each agency shall
include procedures for engaging in dispute resolution through
the FOIA Public Liaison and the Office of Government
Information Services.
SEC. 4. PROACTIVE DISCLOSURE THROUGH RECORDS MANAGEMENT.
Section 3102 of title 44, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) procedures for identifying records of general
interest or use to the public that are appropriate for public
disclosure, and for posting such records in a publicly
accessible electronic format;''.
SEC. 5. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED.
No additional funds are authorized to carry out the
requirements of this Act or the amendments made by this Act.
The requirements of this Act and the amendments made by this
Act shall be carried out using amounts otherwise authorized
or appropriated.
SEC. 6. APPLICABILITY.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall take
effect on the date of enactment of this Act and shall apply
to any request for records under section 552 of title 5,
United States Code, made after the date of enactment of this
Act.
______
SA 3453. Mrs. SHAHEEN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 3450 proposed by Mr. McConnell (for Mr. Roberts) to the
bill S. 764, to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College
Program Act, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
At the end, add the following:
SEC. ___. REPEAL OF DUPLICATIVE MANDATORY INSPECTION PROGRAM.
(a) Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.--Effective
June 18, 2008, section 11016 of the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 2130) is
repealed.
[[Page 3212]]
(b) Agricultural Act of 2014.--Effective February 7, 2014,
section 12106 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law
113-79; 128 Stat. 981) is repealed.
(c) Application.--The Federal Meat Inspection Act (21
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Agricultural Marketing Act of
1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.) shall be applied and
administered as if the provisions of law struck by this
section had not been enacted.
______
SA 3454. Mrs. SHAHEEN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 3450 proposed by Mr. McConnell (for Mr. Roberts) to the
bill S. 764, to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College
Program Act, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
At the end, add the following:
SEC. ___. REPEAL OF DUPLICATIVE MANDATORY INSPECTION PROGRAM.
(a) Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.--Effective
June 18, 2008, section 11016 of the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 2130) is
repealed.
(b) Agricultural Act of 2014.--Effective February 7, 2014,
section 12106 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law
113-79; 128 Stat. 981) is repealed.
(c) Application.--The Federal Meat Inspection Act (21
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Agricultural Marketing Act of
1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.) shall be applied and
administered as if the provisions of law struck by this
section had not been enacted.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on March 15, 2016, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on March 15, 2016, at 10 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during
the session of the Senate on March 15, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., in room SR-
253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled
``Hands Off: The Future of Self-Driving Cars.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on March 15, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of
the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on March 15, 2016, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled
``Ukrainian Reforms Two Years after the Maidan Revolution and the
Russian Invasion.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on homeland security and governmental affairs
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate on March 15, 2016, at 10 a.m., to
conduct a hearing entitled ``The Security of U.S. Visa Programs.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on the judiciary
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate
on March 15, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate
Office Building, to conduct a hearing
entitled ``Late-Term Abortion: Protecting Babies Born Alive and Capable
of Feeling Pain.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on veterans' affairs
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on March 15, 2016, at 2:15 p.m., in room SR-418 of the Russell
Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
select committee on intelligence
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on March 15, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Hart
Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on readiness and management support
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on
Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate
on March 15, 2016, at 10 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
NATIONAL CEREBRAL PALSY AWARENESS DAY
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 400, submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 400) designating March 25, 2016, as
``National Cerebral Palsy Awareness Day.''
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 400) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record
under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
____________________
MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--S. 2686
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the
desk, and I ask for its first reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill by title for the
first time.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2686) to clarify the treatment of two or more
employers as joint employers under the National Labor
Relations Act.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading and, in
order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule
XIV, I object to my own request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The bill will be read for the second time on the next legislative
day.
____________________
ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY,
MARCH 16, 2016
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:15 a.m.,
Wednesday, March 16; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning
hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date,
and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the
day; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate then resume
consideration of the message to accompany S. 764; further, that
notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the cloture vote on the
motion to concur with further amendment occur at 11:45 a.m.; finally,
that the time following leader remarks until 11:45 a.m.
[[Page 3213]]
be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned
under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Blumenthal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD LABELING BILL
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, an important consumer right is under
attack, under siege today in the United States Senate. It is the right
to know what is in your food. A lot of consumers take for granted that
they will read the ingredients on a package and they will know what is
in their food. The right to know what you are putting in your body is a
basic right, especially what your children are putting in their bodies.
I understand that the Agriculture Committee has reported--and the
majority leader has indicated that he will bring to the floor--a
misguided anti-consumer measure that will not only dilute but decimate
an essential aspect of that right to know. It is not the name of the
bill its proponents are using, but I agree with Members of the House
and this body who have called this bill the DARK Act. Why? Because it
denies Americans the right to know. Unfortunately, that is essentially
what the bill does. It denies Americans the right to know.
I hold a pretty simple belief that labels on the food we buy should
accurately reflect what is in the food. Whether it is the nutritional
content, the ingredients--whether something is organic or not--
consumers should know what they are paying for and what they are
putting in their bodies. That is how we keep the large corporations
that make most of our food from using ingredients that are
unhealthful--unhealthful and, essentially, potentially deceptive.
Like the overwhelming majority of people in this country--and by the
way, a poll released in December said it was about 90 percent--I
support mandatory on-package labeling of food containing genetically
modified organisms, GMOs. This support cuts across geographic lines and
party lines because it is such a commonsense position. Leave it up to
consumers--you and me--to decide when we buy food products and when we
consume them. If they want to buy a particular product, let them do so,
but make sure they know what they are getting. This issue is of
particular importance to my constituents.
I am proud that Connecticut was the first State to enact legislation
that would require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.
And as attorney general of Connecticut, I championed this measure, and
it is a consummate example of consumer protection and consumer
education.
The DARK Act, by contrast, would strip my State of its ability to
protect our own people. It would prevent States, including Connecticut,
Maine, and Vermont, which have already done so, from enacting laws
requiring the labeling of GMO foods. It would take away from States
their right to pass laws to ensure their citizens have access to basic
information about their food, and it would preempt longstanding State
consumer protection laws in all 50 States. These laws pertain to false
advertising, consumer protection, fraud, breach of warranty, or unfair
trade practices.
This measure is a sweeping and draconian proposal, and that would be
bad enough, but the DARK Act actually goes further. It would also bar
States and local communities from enacting any kind of law overseeing
genetically modified crops. Several counties in California and Oregon,
as well as the States of Washington and Hawaii, have restricted
planting of GMO crops, citing the health effects of the seeds and
economic effects of megacompanies that produce these seeds on local
farmers and the unknown long-term environmental consequences. But this
bill would stop all of those efforts, State and local efforts. It would
stop them dead in their tracks.
In addition to keeping information from consumers, the DARK Act would
affect hard-working farmers who will have no way of knowing if the seed
they purchased is genetically engineered, and that is true even if the
seeds are altered in any way that prevents crops from reproducing,
forcing farmers to buy new seeds every season from the GMO company.
I don't mean to cast aspersions on the biotechnology industry. There
is enormous potential in research on this front, and scientists have
made many, many contributions to our food supply. There may be
scientific efforts under way in this area that have healthful and
economically beneficial results, but keeping consumers in the dark is
harmful, and the rule ought to be first do no harm.
If there is scientific support for the health or environmental
benefits, why not let consumers know? Let consumers make knowledgeable
and informed choices. Consumers are capable of those kinds of choices,
and I am shocked that this deliberative body is considering a measure
that is crafted so purposefully and intentionally to, in effect,
deceive the American public and actively deny them the accurate
information they deserve.
There is no question that this bill is nothing more than a carve-out
for big businesses and mega-GMO seed corporations. My view is that this
body ought to facilitate transparency. The Federal legislation should
promote information and education, not inhibit or prevent it. That is
why I have endorsed a bill that Senator Merkley and others of us are
proposing and advocating that in a very commonsense way allows
manufacturers to choose from a menu of options to indicate to consumers
whether a product includes genetically engineered ingredients.
I want to make clear and emphasize we are not calling for some kind
of skull and crossbones logo or black box warning label. In fact, we
are not talking about a warning; we are talking about information. The
options on the menu that would be offered to food producers are
nonjudgmental, clear, concise, and accurate. This information is
impartial and objective, allowing consumers to make informed decisions.
Last month, the Secretary of Agriculture convened a series of
meetings in an attempt to broker a compromise between industry and
labeling advocates, and I want to take a moment to commend the
unflagging leadership of a number of groups in my State and one of my
constituents, Tara Cook-Littman, who by coincidence was the only woman
at these meetings. She is the cofounder of Citizens for GMO Labeling.
She led the grassroots effort in Connecticut to pass the first-in-the-
Nation GMO labeling law. She is also the mother of three children whom
I have met. Like most Americans, she cares deeply about what she and
her family are eating.
As part of their innovation cycle, food companies often redesign and
relaunch products, adding new attributes to existing products, such as
flavors and new ingredients, so they can handle the normal course of
relabeling and repackaging.
One of the most important points Tara has raised is that the
industry's proposed solution to include QR codes on GMO products is
really no solution at all. QR codes, which let customers use a
smartphone to scan a product to be linked to a Web page with
information, are no substitute for clear, explicit labels that all
consumers can see with the transparency and objectivity they deserve
and need. Relying on QR codes discriminates against people who
[[Page 3214]]
are unable to afford a smartphone or a data plan. It threatens privacy
by allowing industry to keep track of who is scanning what product--
information that many of us might not want to be in the hands of
companies and used to market to us--and, from a very practical
standpoint, may not be usable where reception is weak or nonexistent.
As anyone who has ever shopped with a baby or a child knows, shopping
is hard enough under some circumstances, and forcing consumers to try
to get the right scan of a product when information could simply appear
on the label is absurd. What is the reason for the QR code other than
to make it more difficult for a consumer to know? What rationale could
there be other than creating a hurdle for that consumer to learn that
information?
So I urge my colleagues, do not be fooled or tricked by the DARK Act
claims that food prices will rise with GMO labeling--not so. Food
processors regularly make changes to these labels to meet changing
consumer demands or for other marketing or regulatory reasons. In fact,
Ben & Jerry's cofounder, Jerry Greenfield, confirmed: ``It's a normal
course of business to be going through changes on your labels.'' And
other responsible food companies have joined Ben & Jerry's, most
prominently Campbell's Soup. I commend their leadership. My
constituents and all consumers should be aware that there are companies
like Campbell's that have stepped forward and want consumers to be more
informed, not less.
We are on the brink of potentially passing legislation as early as
tomorrow morning that would ban States such as Connecticut from
requiring GMO labeling. That is a violation of the very essence of
States' rights to protect their citizens. It may well be that some
States would want to be stronger in protecting their citizens than
others, and they should have the right to do so. Preempting all State
legislation in this area infringes on that fundamental sovereignty and
right of States to protect their citizens.
As the American Association for Justice has stated, this legislation
will unjustly preempt State consumer protection laws. I know the
importance of that preemption doctrine as a former attorney general who
has fought consistently to allow States to set standards for consumer
protection and enforce those standards, both Federal and State.
I commend those manufacturers that have realized that now is the time
to embrace GMO labeling, including Campbell's, Ben & Jerry's, Amy's
Kitchen, and Nature's Path. I hope we can work together with food
manufacturers to give American consumers, like consumers in 63
countries around the world--63 countries around the world--a more
transparent food system by approving a mandatory on-packaging GMO
labeling system and rejecting this anti-consumer effort.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10:15 A.M. TOMORROW
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands
adjourned until 10:15 a.m. tomorrow.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 6:44 p.m., adjourned until Wednesday, March
16, 2016, at 10:15 a.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the Senate:
THE JUDICIARY
WALTER DAVID COUNTS, III, OF TEXAS, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, VICE ROBERT
A. JUNELL, RETIRED .
E. SCOTT FROST, OF TEXAS, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, VICE SAM R.
CUMMINGS, RETIRED.
REBECCA ROSS HAYWOOD, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE UNITED STATES
CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, VICE MARJORIE O.
RENDELL, RETIRED.
JAMES WESLEY HENDRIX, OF TEXAS, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, VICE JORGE
A. SOLIS, RETIRING.
IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, OF TEXAS, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, VICE TERRY
R. MEANS, RETIRED.
UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION
DANNY C. REEVES, OF KENTUCKY, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE UNITED
STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION FOR A TERM EXPIRING OCTOBER 31,
2019, VICE RICARDO H. HINOJOSA, TERM EXPIRED.
THE JUDICIARY
KAREN GREN SCHOLER, OF TEXAS, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, VICE RICHARD A.
SCHELL, RETIRED.
KATHLEEN MARIE SWEET, OF NEW YORK, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, VICE
WILLIAM M. SKRETNY, RETIRED.
IN THE NAVY
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:
To be rear admiral
REAR ADM. (LH) PAUL J. VERRASTRO
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:
To be rear admiral
REAR ADM. (LH) WILLIAM J. GALINIS
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:
To be rear admiral
REAR ADM. (LH) CHRISTIAN D. BECKER
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:
To be rear admiral
REAR ADM. (LH) TIMOTHY J. WHITE
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:
To be rear admiral
REAR ADM. (LH) BRUCE L. GILLINGHAM
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:
To be rear admiral
REAR ADM. (LH) KYLE J. COZAD
REAR ADM. (LH) LISA M. FRANCHETTI
REAR ADM. (LH) ROY J. KELLEY
REAR ADM. (LH) DAVID M. KRIETE
REAR ADM. (LH) BRUCE H. LINDSEY
REAR ADM. (LH) JAMES T. LOEBLEIN
REAR ADM. (LH) WILLIAM R. MERZ
REAR ADM. (LH) DEE L. MEWBOURNE
REAR ADM. (LH) MICHAEL T. MORAN
REAR ADM. (LH) STUART B. MUNSCH
REAR ADM. (LH) JOHN B. NOWELL, JR.
REAR ADM. (LH) TIMOTHY G. SZYMANSKI
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be rear admiral (lower half)
CAPT. TROY M. MCCLELLAND
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be rear admiral (lower half)
CAPT. PHILLIP E. LEE, JR.
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be rear admiral (lower half)
CAPT. ALAN J. REYES
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be rear admiral (lower half)
CAPT. MARY C. RIGGS
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be rear admiral (lower half)
CAPT. CAROL M. LYNCH
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be rear admiral (lower half)
CAPT. MARK E. BIPES
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be rear admiral (lower half)
CAPT. BRIAN R. GULDBEK
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be rear admiral (lower half)
CAPT. LOUIS C. TRIPOLI
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be rear admiral (lower half)
CAPT. ROBERT T. DURAND
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be rear admiral (lower half)
CAPT. JON C. KREITZ
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be rear admiral (lower half)
CAPT. SHAWN E. DUANE
CAPT. SCOTT D. JONES
CAPT. WILLIAM G. MAGER
CAPT. JOHN B. MUSTIN
CAPT. MATTHEW P. O'KEEFE
CAPT. JOHN A. SCHOMMER
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be rear admiral
REAR ADM. (LH) THOMAS W. LUSCHER
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be rear admiral
REAR ADM. (LH) BRIAN S. PECHA
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be rear admiral
REAR ADM. (LH) DEBORAH P. HAVEN
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be rear admiral
REAR ADM. (LH) MARK J. FUNG
[[Page 3215]]
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be rear admiral
REAR ADM. (LH) RUSSELL E. ALLEN
REAR ADM. (LH) WILLIAM M. CRANE
REAR ADM. (LH) MICHAEL J. DUMONT
FOREIGN SERVICE
THE FOLLOWING-NAMED CAREER MEMBERS OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR PROMOTION INTO THE SENIOR
FOREIGN SERVICE, AS A CAREER MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN
SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CLASS OF COUNSELOR:
RIAN HARKER HARRIS, of Virginia
TIMOTHY MEADE RICHARDSON, of Maryland
THE FOLLOWING-NAMED CAREER MEMBER OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE
FOR PROMOTION INTO THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, AS A CAREER
MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, CLASS OF COUNSELOR, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 18, 2016:
HUGO YUE YON, of California
THE FOLLOWING-NAMED CAREER MEMBER OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE
FOR PROMOTION INTO THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, AS A CAREER
MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF COUNSELOR, AND
CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
GREG A. SHERMAN, of Virginia
THE FOLLOWING-NAMED PERSONS FOR APPOINTMENT AS A FOREIGN
SERVICE OFFICER OF CLASS FOUR, CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY
IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
SUEMAYAH M. ABU-DOULEH, of Illinois
KATIE M. ADAMSON, of Colorado
ANI A. AKINBIYI, of Florida
HANNAH M. E. AKINBIYI, of Florida
KHARMIKA T. ALSTON, of North Carolina
JONATHAN R. ANDERSON, of Virginia
PAULINE W. ANDERSON, of Nevada
BENJAMIN D. ARTERBURN, of Tennessee
JASON P. AZEVEDO, of Massachusetts
OSCAR A. BAEZ, of Massachusetts
DREW D. BAZIL, of Colorado
JAMES J. BOYDEN, of Washington
COURTNEY J. BRASIER, of Florida
DIANA F. E. BRAUNSCHWEIG, of California
HECTOR RODRIGUEZ BROWN, of Texas
KETURA D. BROWN, of the District of Columbia
SHANNON S. BROWN, of Florida
ELISE B. BRUMBACH, of Pennsylvania
SEAN T. BUCKLEY, of the District of Columbia
DAVID S. BURNSTEIN, of the District of Columbia
PATRICIA A. BURROWS, of Maine
CAROLYN KRUMME CALDERON, of Texas
HANNAH CHA, of Ohio
LAP NGUYEN CHANG, of Washington
PETER H. CHRISTIANSEN, of Alaska
ERIN E. CONCORS, of Arizona
TAVON H. COOKE, of New Jersey
JAMES T. CORE, of Wyoming
MERCEDES L. CROSBY, of Massachusetts
THOMAS L. CZERWINSKI, of Texas
RANYA M. DAHER, of Virginia
EION M. DANDO, of Minnesota
QUAZI RUMMAN DASTGIR, of the District of Columbia
JOHN K. DE LANCIE, of California
ALEXANDER FAIRBANKS DOUGLAS, of Virginia
SAMUEL C. DOWNING, of Washington
PATRICK R. ELLIOT, of New Hampshire
LANCE C. ERICKSON, of Ohio
CHRISTOPHER F. ESTOCH, of Florida
DOUGLAS SOMERVILLE EVANS, of Virginia
EVAN M. FRITZ, of Texas
KATHERINE D. GARRY, of the District of Columbia
CARRIE A. GIARDINO, of Florida
SARAH D. GLASSBURNER-MOEN, of Oregon
GAYSHIEL F. GRANDISON, of Florida
THOMAS E. GRIFFITH, of Virginia
JULIA M. GROEBLACHER, of Kansas
MATHEW L. HAGENGRUBER, of Montana
KATHERINE E. HALL, of Colorado
CHRISTINA E. D. HARDAWAY, of Georgia
CAITLIN B. HARTFORD, of Washington
JENNIFER A. HENGSTENBERG, of Georgia
MARK J. HITCHCOCK, of California
KATHERINE L. HO, of Texas
GREGORY HOLLIDAY, of Minnesota
NINA E. HOROWITZ, of Virginia
PHILLIP C. HUGHEY, of Virginia
LAUREN N. HUOT, of Florida
IRINA ITKIN, of Indiana
ADAM J. JAGELSKI, of Washington
SURIYA C. JAYANTI, of California
ANTON P. JONGENEEL, of California
HELENA U. JOYCE, of California
NATHAN D. KATO-WALLACE, of the District of Columbia
JEHAN M. KHALEELI, of New York
DANIEL E. KIGHT, of Virginia
ERIN L. KIMSEY, of North Carolina
COURTNEY E. KLINE, of Pennsylvania
KRISTINE M. KNAPP, of South Dakota
JOSEPH R. KNUPP, of Pennsylvania
SHEELA E. KRISHNAN, of Virginia
JENNIFER LANDAU-CARTER, of Oregon
ADRIAN J. LANSPEARY, of New York
JON R. LARSON, of Florida
YALE H. LAYTON, of Wyoming
ANDREW L. LEAHY, of Oregon
JUDITH K. LEPUSCHITZ, of California
KELLI S. LONG, of South Carolina
MERIDETH S. MANELLA, of New Jersey
JAMES S. MANLOWE, of New Mexico
MICHAEL A. MARCOUS, of Florida
STEPHEN L. MARTELLI, of Delaware
DWAYNE THOMAS MCDAVID, of Nevada
SHAUN M. MCGUIRE, of Louisiana
SEAN P. MCKEATING, of Texas
BENJAMIN W. MEDINA, of Texas
LUKE E. MEINZEN, of Missouri
PARINAZ KERMANI MENDEZ, of Florida
SCOTT E. MILGROOM, of Massachusetts
ROLAND P. MINEZ, of Washington
ANGELA C. MIZEUR, of the District of Columbia
ROBYN B. MOFSOWITZ, of the District of Columbia
KEITH W. MURPHY, of Texas
KHANH P. NGUYEN, of Massachusetts
ADAM R. OLSZOWKA, of Illinois
KATIE A. OSTERLOH, of Florida
BENJAMIN J. PARISI, of Florida
STRADER PAYTON, of Missouri
KIMBERLY A. PEASE, of Wisconsin
HILARY J. PETERS, of Washington
DREW N. PETERSON, of Pennsylvania
ELLIOT M. REPKO, of Florida
RONALD S. RHINEHART, of Washington
DANIEL C. RHODES, of Virginia
AMANDA S. ROBERSON, of Arizona
GREGORY L. ROBINSON, of Virginia
JOHN A. ROWOLD, of Missouri
SUJOYA S. ROY, of the District of Columbia
CLAIRE E. RUFFING, of New York
KATHLEEN M. RYAN, of Massachusetts
MEGAN M. SALMON, of Illinois
STEPHEN V. SASS, of New Jersey
BRYAN SCOTT SCHILLER, of Florida
SHILOH A. SCHLUNG, of Alaska
LYNN MARIE SEGAS, of California
TAU N. SHANKLIN-ROBERTS, of the District of Columbia
DIVIYA SHARMA, of Florida
SHANA Y. SHERRY, of California
SHAN SHI, of Wisconsin
TAMARA R. SHIE, of Florida
COLLEEN E. SMITH, of Washington
CARLA ELENA SNYDER, of Florida
JORGE E. SOLARES, of Texas
JOIA A. STARKS, of Virginia
ADAM J. STECKLER, of Texas
EMILY MARIE STOLL, of Virginia
ELIZABETH A. STREETT, of Washington
BRUCE W. SULLIVAN, of New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER E. TEJIRIAN, of New York
TRACI DENISE THIESSEN, of the District of Columbia
BAXTER J. THOMASON, of Tennessee
JERAD S. TIETZ, of New York
VICKI S. TING, of California
THAO ANH N. TRAN, of the District of Columbia
DANIEL R. TRIPP, of Florida
DAVID L. WAGNER, of Massachusetts
LISA M. WILKINSON, of Virginia
BRIAN P. WILLIAMS, of Florida
JAMES S. WILSON, of Virginia
DUDEN YEGENOGLU, of Georgia
SYLVIE YOUNG, of California
THE FOLLOWING-NAMED PERSON FOR APPOINTMENT AS A MEMBER OF
THE FOREIGN SERVICE TO BE A CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN
THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
EFFECTIVE MAY 30, 2015:
JENNIFER MARIE SCHUETT, of New Mexico
THE FOLLOWING-NAMED PERSONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR
APPOINTMENT AS A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER OF CLASS ONE,
CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
MELINDA L. CROWLEY, of Maryland
BOOTS POLIQUIN, of Maryland
THE FOLLOWING-NAMED PERSON FOR APPOINTMENT AS A FOREIGN
SERVICE OFFICER OF CLASS THREE, CONSULAR OFFICER AND
SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA:
SARAH E. EVANS, of Virginia
THE FOLLOWING-NAMED PERSONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR
APPOINTMENT AS A MEMBER OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE TO BE A
CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
PAUL J. ANDERSEN, of Virginia
BERNIE SARFO ANNOR, of Virginia
KENDRA MICHELLE ARBAIZA-SUNDAL, of Wisconsin
KENT M. ARGANBRIGHT, of Virginia
RAINA T. ARMSTRONG, of Virginia
SARAH HART ASHBY, of Texas
CLAIRE JUMANNA ASHCRAFT, of California
KATHERINE ANN AVONDET, of Virginia
JOHN THOMAS AVRETT II, of Virginia
JEFFERY C. BAMBERG, of Virginia
BENJAMIN BANFIELD, of Virginia
SARAH JANE BANNISTER, of Pennsylvania
SAPTARSHI BASU, of the District of Columbia
ADAM WADDELL BENTLEY, of California
CHELSEA ROSE BERGESEN, of Washington
DANIEL MARK BINGHAM-PANKRATZ, of Wisconsin
CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH BODINGTON, of Ohio
ANDREW MICHAEL BOLAND, of Virginia
MATTHEW CARL BOWLBY, of Minnesota
SUSAN SILSBY BOYLE, of Maryland
ALEX BRANIGAN, of Virginia
JOHN BRUNO, of Virginia
ANNE BURKETT, of Virginia
MARGARET J. CADENA, of Virginia
KENDALL MERLE CALKINS, of Virginia
MICHELE C. CALVERT, of Virginia
NORTH KEENEY CHARLES, of Kansas
GRACE CHENG, of Virginia
BRANDON D. CHIN, of Virginia
KEVIN CHING, of Illinois
AIMEE NICOLE CHIU, of Virginia
TASHINA ETTER COOPER, of Virginia
ALEXANDRE JULES COTTIN, of New Mexico
DAVID PATRICK COUGHRAN, JR., of Washington
WILLIAM LYNWOOD COX, of Virginia
JENNIFER ANN CROOK, of Virginia
STEPHANIE CURTIS SCHMITT, of Virginia
DENNIS DAME, of Maryland
DANIEL ALLAN DARBY, of Virginia
GREGORY DAVID, of California
CLAIRE YERKE DESJARDINS, of Ohio
MICHAEL H. DING, of Massachusetts
JEFFREY D. DIRKS, of Washington
JOHN R. DOW, of the District of Columbia
RAISA NICOLE ELLENBERG DUKAS, of Virginia
ERIC CONRAD EIKMEIER, of Virginia
ERIC SPENCER ELLIOTT, of New Mexico
JULIE ANN ESPINOSA, of Maryland
PAUL ESTRADA, of California
GERALD EURICE, of Virginia
CRAIG LOUIS FINKELSTEIN, of Virginia
JOHN TIMOTHY FOJUT, of New Jersey
ROBERT S. FRANCIS, of Virginia
NATHANAEL LAWRENCE GIBSON, of Virginia
TIJR AIIRE GILLIAM, of Virginia
GLENN CHAPMAN GODBEY, of Florida
SAMUEL C. GOELLER, of Virginia
MICHAEL ANTHONY GONZALEZ, of Florida
LUIS L. GONZALEZ III, of Texas
CARA BRICKWEG GREENO, of Missouri
EMILY RAE HALL, of Virginia
TARYN KATHLEEN HANLEY, of Virginia
JORDAN T. HARDENBERGH, of Virginia
CHERYL ANN HARRIS, of Virginia
HOUSTON RANDALL HARRIS, of Texas
RYAN D. HARVEY, of Virginia
FREDERICK HAWKINS, of Virginia
AARON MICHEAL HAYMAN, of Virginia
DAVID C. HONG, of Virginia
HYE JIK HONG, of Virginia
ILDIKO ANG HRUBOS, of Hawaii
DARYL L. HUMES, of Virginia
JASON INSLEE, of Colorado
BARRY ALAN JOHNSON, of Michigan
DAVID HOWARD JOHNSON, of Wisconsin
LAUREN AMANDA JOHNSON, of North Carolina
ALBERT BERTRAND KAFKA, of the District of Columbia
SYDNEY KELLY, of Nevada
SENG JAE KIM, of New York
PAUL KOPECKI, of the District of Columbia
LAURI A. KRANIG, of Virginia
MICHAEL JAMIE KRIS, of Virginia
ERJON KRUJA, of Virginia
MAUREEN KUMAR, of Texas
WILLIAM SETH LACY, of Virginia
NEAL BRIAN LARKINS, of Massachusetts
JOHN DANIEL LATHERS II, of the District of Columbia
BRIGID A. LAUGHLIN, of New Jersey
DELLA P. LEACH, of Virginia
HYE RI LEE, of Virginia
STACY LEMERY, of the District of Columbia
ERICA PAIGE LENGYEL, of Virginia
AVA G. LEONE, of the District of Columbia
JARED AMI LEVANT, of Virginia
LENECIA HELENA LEWIS-KIRKWOOD, of New York
JAKOB KANE LOUKAS, of the District of Columbia
ANN R. MANGOLD, of the District of Columbia
JENNIFER D. MARSH, of Virginia
JUAN ERNESTO MAUNEZ, of Virginia
JAY R. MCCANN, of Maryland
KATHLEEN M. MEILAHN, of Texas
NICOLE E. MELLSTROM, of Virginia
ROBERT DANIEL MERVINE, of Virginia
DAVID MESSENGER, of Virginia
JILL MARGARET MESSINGER, of the District of Columbia
STEPHANIE E. C. MILLER, of Virginia
HENRI SCOTT MINION, of Virginia
BRIAN R. MIRANDA, of Virginia
BRANDICE P. MITHAIWALA, of Virginia
IAN LOUIS MORELLO, of Virginia
SEAN CHRISTIAN MURRAY, of Virginia
ROBERT MUTCHLER, of Virginia
MAUREEN F. O'CONNELL, of California
CHELSEA DE VITA OPPENHEIM, of Virginia
DAVID DANIEL OSWALD, of Virginia
GEORGE OTTERBACHER, of Virginia
MATTHEW J. PAGETT, of Florida
DONALD R. PARRISH III, of Virginia
CAROLINE LAHEY PLATT, of Virginia
GORDON ALMA PLATT, of Oregon
ZACHARY T. PONCHERI, of Virginia
ROBERT ERLE POULSON-HOUSER, of Pennsylvania
SANJIN PRASTALO, of Virginia
RICHARD PRATT RALEY, of Virginia
[[Page 3216]]
BRIDGET ELIZABETH ROCHESTER, of Virginia
KARL ROGERS, of New York
JASON RUBIN, of Florida
REBECCA SATTERFIELD, of Texas
MIKEL LEWIS SAVIDES, of California
CECELIA A. SAVOY-CHASE, of Virginia
MATTHEW LOUIS SCHUMANN, of Virginia
COLIN M. SEALS, of Illinois
MICHELLE F. SEGAL, of California
JULIECLAIRE BOND SHEPPARD, of California
CHIMERE MELODY SHERROD, of Virginia
SHAHTAJ SIDDIQUI, of California
ASHLEY MARTINA SIMMONS, of Florida
HEATHER ANN SIZEMORE, of Virginia
JESSICA K. SLATTERY, of the District of Columbia
SHANNON SMALL, of the District of Columbia
MELANIE JO SMITH, of Washington
BRIAN E. SMYSER, of New York
SUMIT K. SOOD, of Virginia
ROBYN JANELLE SOTOLOV, of Virginia
PHILLIP WESLEY STARKWEATHER, of Connecticut
CATHERINE SWANSON, of Texas
ALLEN R. TACKETT, of the District of Columbia
LUKE TATEOKA, of Hawaii
ERIN K. THOMAS, of Virginia
LARRY ANTOINE THOMPSON, of Virginia
ANDREW STEPHEN THORNHILL, of Virginia
MARCUS WILLIAM THORNTON, of Missouri
NATHANIEL GRAY TISHMAN, of California
PETER E. TRAVIA, of Virginia
LAURA JENNIFER TRUGLIO, of Virginia
MARY KAY TRUONG, of Virginia
RYAN H. USTICK, of the District of Columbia
WILLIAM R. VAN DE BERG, of North Carolina
STAVROS VASILIADIS, of Virginia
NATHAN CORY VOELKER, of Washington
JERRY WANG, of Texas
KENNETH DAVID WILCOX, of Maryland
KELLY MARIE WINCK, of Tennessee
ALAN BRYCE WINDSOR, of the District of Columbia
MATTHEW D. WINSLOW, of Wyoming
JOSHUA DAVID WODA, of Massachusetts
MICHAEL TSENG WU, of Virginia
JOANNA CHRISTINE WULFSBERG, of Arizona
TAO ZENG, of Pennsylvania
JULIE ELIZABETH ZINAMON, of Virginia
March 15, 2016
[[Page 3217]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, March 15, 2016
The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore (Mr. Hardy).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
March 15, 2016.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Cresent Hardy to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
MORNING-HOUR DEBATE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 5, 2016, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with each
party limited to 1 hour and each Member other than the majority and
minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes, but in no
event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.
____________________
NEW MEXICO'S BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CRISIS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago in my home
State of New Mexico, our behavioral health system was thrown into
crisis when the State froze payments to 15 New Mexico behavioral health
providers, resulting in the eventual closure of some and replacement by
5 Arizona providers.
This transition and turmoil caused many New Mexicans to fall through
the cracks. As a result, too many families are hurting, too many people
are suffering, and too many New Mexicans have been unable to access the
care they need.
To date, 13 behavioral health providers have been exonerated of
fraud, the charges leveled by the State of New Mexico as the reason to
cut off funding. But the damage has been done. That is why, along with
my colleagues, Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham in the House and Senators Tom
Udall and Martin Heinrich, I have called for a Federal investigation
into this unwarranted and reckless disruption of services to some of
our most vulnerable citizens.
I am also working with the delegation on legislation to prevent
something like this from ever happening again. I am working to
strengthen a behavioral health system that is currently in shambles
through legislation that will provide enhanced funding to States that
prioritize behavioral health infrastructure, data, and access. If we
want States to build and maintain strong behavioral health systems,
then we must provide States with the necessary support.
During our many conversations with CMS on the crisis and its impact
on New Mexicans, it has been clear there is a lack of meaningful data
that is needed to hold policymakers accountable. It is unacceptable
that after months and months of requesting State-provided data on the
behavioral health system in New Mexico, CMS would simply determine this
data to have ``significant limitations.''
A report from New Mexico's Legislative Finance Committee identified
similar concerns. The report stated that the amount and quality of
utilization data collected by the State of New Mexico had
``deteriorated, leaving the question of whether enrollees are receiving
more or less care.''
Without access to meaningful data, we cannot determine how best to
invest to strengthen our behavioral health system, and we cannot
possibly know if we are doing enough to ensure that the most vulnerable
are being protected. What we do know is New Mexico's behavioral health
system has been needlessly broken and that a full accounting is
necessary to rebuild it and ensure that this will never happen again.
____________________
AMERICA MUST LEARN FROM VENEZUELA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Brooks) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, America has led the world
culturally, scientifically, militarily, in freedom, and in many other
ways, but if America does not stop its overspending and binge
borrowing, then we are doomed to follow the footsteps of countries that
chose to be financially irresponsible and are condemned to suffer the
same dire consequences.
America need not speculate on our fate. Rather, America must learn
from bad example countries, such as Venezuela, a socialist country that
has already walked the financially irresponsible path America,
unfortunately, is on.
Venezuela suffered the world's highest inflation rate, at 275
percent, in 2015. According to the International Monetary Fund,
Venezuela's 2016 inflation rate will be 720 percent. Compare that to
America, where 3 to 5 percent inflation causes concern.
To put Venezuela's inflation rate in everyday terms, let's apply it
to things we buy. If a gallon of milk costs you $3 today, it will cost
you $21 a year from now. If a pound of ground beef costs you $4 today,
it will cost you $28 a year from now. A new car that costs you $25,000
today will cost you $175,000 a year from now.
But the damage and danger does not end with hyperinflation. The
International Monetary Fund reports Venezuela is experiencing
``widespread shortages of essential goods, including food, exacting a
tragic toll.'' Grocery stores have rows and rows of empty shelves.
Venezuelans can't find food to feed their families and form long lines
outside of stores, hoping to buy whatever is in stock, from sugar to
shampoo.
In response, Socialist President Maduro has ordered police to limit
consumers to two shopping days per week at government-owned food
stores. One frustrated Venezuelan shopper noted: ``It is exasperating,
but it is the only way to get food in Venezuela.''
Inflation and food shortages are only the tip of the iceberg. When
supplies run out, when jobs can't be found, violence erupts. In just 1
month in 2014, violent street riots killed 43 Venezuelans, blocking
citizens from accessing food, transportation, and medical services.
Occupied buildings were torched, injuring hundreds.
Venezuela is now one of the most violent countries in the world, with
a chilling 82 homicides per 100,000 population, roughly 20 times worse
than America's homicide rate. Caracas, Venezuela's capital, is the
world's most violent city, with a war-zone-like 120 murders per 100,000
citizens.
Venezuela's insolvency has forced it to slash defense spending by 34
percent, putting Venezuelan citizens at even more heightened risk of
loss of life.
Venezuela's tragedy is not because it is a resource-poor country. To
the contrary, Venezuela has more proven oil reserves than any country
on Earth, even more than the entire oil-rich North American continent.
[[Page 3218]]
Venezuela's collapse is because of two things. First, Venezuela
decided to experiment with socialism, an economic model that has failed
every country that has tried it. Second, Venezuela's politicians were
seduced by the lure of out-of-control spending financed by more
borrowing and higher debt, the same temptation Washington politicians
have succumbed to for decades.
America must learn from Venezuela and every other country that has
been financially irresponsible. Mr. Speaker, time is running out.
Washington must balance the budget before America's debt burden spirals
out of control. America cannot wait until our financial crisis is lost
and it is too late to prevent the debilitating insolvency and
bankruptcy that awaits us.
I pray the American people will be good stewards of our Republic in
2016 and elect Washington officials who both understand the threat
posed by deficits and debt and have the backbone to fix it. Mr.
Speaker, America's future depends on it.
____________________
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CRISIS HURTS REAL PEOPLE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham) for 5 minutes.
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak about a crisis in my home State of New Mexico, a crisis that has
hurt real people who rely on the Medicaid program for lifesaving care.
Mr. Speaker, almost 3 years ago, the New Mexico Human Services
Department, with the support of Governor Susana Martinez, claimed that
it had credible allegations of fraud and suspended Medicaid payments to
15 behavioral health providers. This move wiped out the behavioral
health system in a State where there are already significant provider
shortages.
I want to take a minute to talk about what that really means. That
means if you are a person who struggles with schizophrenia but manages
it effectively with regular treatment, that regular treatment stops and
you go back to square one. That means that if you are someone who has
been diagnosed as bipolar, who has finally found a trusted provider,
someone who has brought some stability and comfort to your care plan,
you no longer have access to that person.
The loss of services is devastating, and I have seen it firsthand.
There is a constituent who typically calls my office every day,
multiple times a day. He calls my office. He calls other members of the
delegation, the mayor's office, and the chief of police. But from time
to time the calls stop. They stop because this individual, who can be
the most warm-hearted person I know, is in jail. He has a mental
illness and a substance abuse problem and can be belligerent when he
feels threatened, so he sometimes has run-ins with local law
enforcement, and he ends up in jail because the system is failing him.
He is not receiving the services he needs.
Our jails and sometimes our emergency rooms have become the de facto
behavioral health system in our State because, when you don't have the
infrastructure to care for individuals with behavioral health issues,
that is where people end up.
Mr. Speaker, I am, frankly, appalled that people in my home State are
being treated in this way, but if you can believe it, it gets worse.
Last month, the New Mexico attorney general completed his review of
the allegations and found that there did not appear to be a pattern of
fraud. Thirteen of the 15 providers accused of fraud have now been
cleared, and the people of New Mexico are left to wonder why, why a
whole State's behavioral health system was wiped out and a large
population of vulnerable individuals left to fend for themselves. I
think they deserve answers.
I have been working with my colleagues in the New Mexico delegation,
pushing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to exercise
Federal oversight and ensure accountability since the payment
suspension was announced. We have sent multiple letters, made phone
calls, held in-person meetings with officials at every level at CMS and
HHS, and I have to say I am extremely disappointed by their lack of
engagement.
We sent another letter to CMS in February sharing the attorney
general's report and asking that they conduct a Federal investigation,
and we are going to continue pushing for accountability and working to
make sure this never happens again.
I plan to introduce legislation that would ensure network adequacy
and continuity of care in a State's Medicaid program, and I know my
colleagues have legislation in the works as well.
Mr. Speaker, I have spent my entire career fighting for vulnerable
New Mexicans, people who are voiceless in the political process. It
would be easy to ignore them, as so many have done, because they are
too busy struggling to survive to engage in the political process. It
would be easy, but it would be wrong.
This is the most egregious abuse of power I have seen in my decades
of government service, and I will not sit idly by while the most
vulnerable among us suffer. We must have action. We must have
accountability.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in calling for a long
overdue Federal investigation of the behavioral health provider
suspension in New Mexico.
____________________
NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN COLOMBIA AND THE FARC
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for 5 minutes.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the
ongoing negotiations in Havana between the Government of Colombia and
the terrorist group known as the FARC.
This draft agreement contains alarming provisions that could empower
the ringleaders of the world's largest cocaine cartel and undermine
America's security interests in the region.
It would also make American taxpayers foot the bill, through their
tax dollars, in support of this bad agreement that effectively
whitewashes human rights abuses while the administration of President
Obama seeks more than $70 million to help implement this proposal.
This agreement diminishes the FARC's responsibility for its role in
drug trafficking as well as the thousands of murders and kidnappings
and other innumerable crimes that the FARC has perpetrated against the
Colombian people by allowing the soldiers and the leaders of the FARC
to avoid any jail time for all of those crimes.
To make matters worse, this agreement creates an equivalency between
the FARC and innocent civilians, categorizing both as actors in the
conflict, when it has been civilians who have been the victims of the
FARC's narcoterror and the FARC's brutality.
{time} 1015
As if that were not awful enough, Mr. Speaker, to equate innocent
victims with the FARC in the courts of law, the draft agreement goes
even further by allowing those very same violent drug dealers and
insurgent leaders to not only stand for election to public office, but
also to use the proceeds of the drug trade, the kidnappings, and all of
the other illicit sources to fund their campaigns. This is incredible.
But the flaws in this deal don't end there, Mr. Speaker. This
agreement will prevent the United States from extraditing any FARC
members who have been accused of crimes against American citizens. This
is especially troubling when we consider that many of the FARC members
may receive immunity.
It would not surprise me if the Obama administration uses this deal
as an excuse to drop the FARC from our list that designates the FARC as
a foreign terrorist organization.
The Obama administration has never met a bad deal that it did not
want to say yes to, especially if the deal empowers tyrants or
acquiesces to terrorist demands. This puts our credibility and our
national security at risk.
But what is really driving these requests is the Obama
administration's
[[Page 3219]]
continued quest to appease the Castro regime. This is the same Castro
regime whose weapons systems from China to Cuba was intercepted by the
Colombian Government just last March and which were suspected of being
intended for the FARC.
While negotiations were taking place, they were doing this illicit
arms shipment. Incredible. It is the same Castro regime that, for
decades, has supported the FARC and trained many of its leaders in the
terror camps.
Mr. Speaker, Cuba has no interest in a peaceful resolution to the
conflict in Colombia. The Castro regime is only interested in
leveraging a strengthened and legitimized FARC as a dominant player in
Colombia.
The proposed deal as well as those requests by Colombia of the U.S.
Government are not only dangerous to our Colombian partners, but they
are also dangerous to our national security and our interests in the
region.
I urge my fellow Members of Congress to speak out against this
terrorist group, the FARC, as well as to block any attempts by our
administration to go soft in these negotiations because this weak
position could threaten our safety and block American citizens from
receiving their rightful justice.
I urge my colleagues to block attempts by the Obama administration to
use U.S. taxpayer dollars for this agreement between the Colombian
Government and the FARC.
A reinforced FARC with established political legitimacy sets a
dangerous precedent for other organizations with similar dangerous
aspirations and anti-American objectives in the region.
Let's not force our constituents to pay for this flawed and dangerous
deal with terrorist groups.
____________________
GUN CONTROL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Speier) for 5 minutes.
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, on February 25, in Hesston, Kansas, a
disgruntled coworker killed Renee Benjamin, 30; Josh Higbee, 31; and
Brian Sadowsky, 44, with an imported Serbian AK-47-type assault weapon.
ATF has the power to ban these weapons. President George H.W. Bush
demanded a ban in 1989. Ironically, his son, President George W. Bush,
was pressured by the NRA when he took office to repeal the importation
of the assault weapon ban.
Today I am introducing the Imported Assault Weapons Ban, a bill that
would ban the importation of these assault weapons once and for all.
This continued bloodshed must stop. But, somehow, my colleagues
continue to accept outrageous violence as part of everyday life.
In February 2016--just last month--there were 35 mass shootings,
which is to say 35 acts of violence where four or more people were
wounded or killed. That is more than one per day.
Here are the real people who died because of gun violence in
February. Sadly, I don't have time on the floor today to name those who
were injured, but those who died include the following:
Marvin Douglass Lancaster, III, age 21, was killed while in an adult
club on February 6 in Tampa, Florida. Christopher Houston, 20, was also
shot there and died later.
Carlos Doroteo, 49, was killed while walking in his neighborhood on
February 6 in Los Angeles, California.
Jennifer Jacques, 42; Arthur Norton, 58; and Phinny Norton, 60, were
killed by Jennifer's 19-year-old son Dylan in their home on February 6
in Uvalde, Texas.
Ernesto Ayber, 29, was killed on February 7 in Rochester, New York.
Joseph Villalobos, 22, and Jonathan Avila Rojas, 33, were killed
inside a nightclub on February 7 in Orlando, Florida.
Carlos Bates, 29, and Isaiah Major, III, 43, were killed at a Mardi
Gras parade on February 7 in Pass Christian, Mississippi.
Dwight Hughes, Jr., 21, was killed on February 7 in Chicago,
Illinois.
Trisha Nelson, 28, was killed by her fiance, who was angry about
parking, as she fled their car on February 12 in Plymouth, Minnesota.
Her fiance was later killed in a shootout with police.
Armando Curiel, 17; Raul Lopez, 19; and his brother Angel Lopez, 20,
were killed in an SUV on February 18 in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Michael Broadnax, 41, was killed in a driveway on February 19 in
Vallejo, California. His son, Bomani Broadnax, 22, died later of his
injuries.
Officer James Lee Tartt, 44, was killed in a shootout on February 20
in Iuka, Mississippi. His family had just moved into their new home
just a month earlier.
Manual Ortiz, 28, was killed at a bar on February 20 in Tampa,
Florida. He had a month-old son.
Mary Lou Nye, 62; Mary Jo Nye, 60; Dorothy Brown, 74; and Barbara
Hawthorne, 68, were killed in a parking lot on February 21 in
Kalamazoo, Michigan. The gunman then killed Rich Smith, 53, and son
Tyler Smith, 17.
Emma Wallace, 37, was killed in a car on February 21 in Hazelwood,
Missouri.
The Buckner family, including mother Kimberly, father Vic, 18-year-
old daughter Kaitlin, and 6-year-old daughter Emma, were killed at
their family home on February 23 in Phoenix, Arizona. Their son, the
shooter, was killed by police.
A deputy sheriff, Corporal Nate Carrigan, 35, was killed while
serving an eviction notice on February 24 in Bailey, Colorado.
Lana Carlson, 49, and her sons Quinn, 16, and Tory, 18, as well as
their neighbor, Donna Reed, 68, were killed at their home by Lana's
husband on February 25 in Belfair, Washington.
Crystal Hamilton, 29, was killed by her husband on February 27 in
Woodbridge, Virginia. Officer Ashley Guindon, also 29, was killed while
responding to the scene. It was her first shift as a police officer.
An unidentified man was killed in a parking lot on February 28 in
Riverside, California.
May the dead rest in peace, the wounded recover quickly and
completely, and the bereaved receive comfort. These are the faces of
Americans gunned down because we lack the guts to do anything about gun
violence.
____________________
WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE IN AFGHANISTAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Jones) for 5 minutes.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I came back to Washington, as my
colleagues did, and I saw the headlines in Politico that said: Hill GOP
on the Hot Seat Ahead of Recess. It was a piece about the leadership's
effort to pass a $1.7 trillion budget.
Mr. Speaker, we are headed off a fiscal cliff, with over $19 trillion
in debt. Yet, Congress keeps driving toward that cliff.
Like most Members of Congress, I go home every weekend. I live in
eastern North Carolina. I am very active in my district. I talk to many
people, from the grocery store to church. Many times the conversation
is: Why can't you in Congress wake up before it is too late?
We just heard Congressman Brooks from Alabama talk about Venezuela.
We are headed right there just as quick as we can.
The waste, fraud, and abuse in Afghanistan is a prime example of
Congress not doing its job. When I tell people back home that it was
reported recently by John Sopko, Inspector General of Afghanistan
Reconstruction, that the Pentagon spent $6 million to buy nine goats
from Italy, some laugh and some are just disgusted.
How in the world could we keep funding the Pentagon when they waste
money buying goats for $6 million? The waste of American taxpayer
dollars in Afghanistan never ends.
The Wall Street Journal recently ran a story titled: ``Afghan Police
Force Struggling to Maintain Membership,'' by Jessica Donati, in which
she reports that more than 36,000 Afghanistan policemen left the force
last year because of Taliban attacks and poor leadership.
We have spent $18 billion on training the Afghan police force and,
here again, we lost 36,000. The poor taxpayer. We keep funding this
waste in Afghanistan like we have got plenty of
[[Page 3220]]
money. What we are doing in the Congress is absolute madness.
Mr. Speaker, I will include in the Record a NBC News report titled:
``12 Ways Your Tax Dollars Were Squandered in Afghanistan.''
[From www.nbcnews.com, March 5, 2016]
12 Ways Your Tax Dollars Were Squandered in Afghanistan
(By Alexander Smith)
The United States has now spent more money reconstructing
Afghanistan than it did rebuilding Europe at the end of World
War II, according to a government watchdog.
The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan
Reconstruction (SIGAR) said in a statement to Congress last
week that when adjusted for inflation the $113.1 billion
plowed into the chaos-riven country outstripped the post-WWII
spend by at least $10 billion.
Billions have been squandered on projects that were either
useless or sub-standard, or lost to waste, corruption, and
systemic abuse, according to SIGAR's reports.
NBC News spoke to SIGAR's Special Inspector General John F.
Sopko about 12 of the most bizarre and baffling cases
highlighted by his team's investigations.
Paraphrasing Albert Einstein, Sopko said the U.S.'s
profligate spending in Afghanistan is ``the definition of
insanity--doing the same things over and over again,
expecting a different result.''
1. $486 million for `deathtrap' aircraft that were later sold for
$32,000
Two of the G222 aircraft in a corner of Kabul International
Airport in November 2013. SIGAR
The Pentagon spent close to half a billion dollars on 20
Italian-made cargo planes that it eventually scrapped and
sold for just $32,000, according to SIGAR.
``These planes were the wrong planes for Afghanistan,''
Sopko told NBC News. ``The U.S. had difficulty getting the
Afghans to fly them, and our pilots called them deathtraps.
One pilot said parts started falling off while he was coming
into land.''
After being taken out of use in March 2013, the G222
aircraft, which are also referred to as the C-27A Spartan,
were towed to a corner of Kabul International Airport where
they were visible from the civilian terminal. They had
``trees and bushes growing around them,'' the inspector
general said.
Sixteen of the planes were scrapped and sold to a local
construction company for 6 cents a pound, SIGAR said. The
other four remained unused at a U.S. base in Germany.
Sopko called the planes ``one of the biggest single
programs in Afghanistan that was a total failure.''
2. $335 million on a power plant that used just 1 percent of its
capacity
Tarakhil Power Plant pictured in October 2009. SIGAR
The Tarakhil Power Plant was fired up in 2009 to ``provide
more reliable power'' to blackout-plagued Kabul, according to
the United States Agency for International Development, which
built the facility.
However, the ``modern'' diesel plant exported just 8,846
megawatt hours of power between February 2014 and April 2015,
SIGAR said in a letter to USAID last August. This output was
less than 1 percent of the plant's capacity and provided just
0.35 percent of power to Kabul, a city of 4.6 million people.
Furthermore, the plants ``frequent starts and stops . . .
place greater wear and tear on the engines and electrical
components,'' which could result in its ``catastrophic
failure,'' the watchdog said.
USAID responded to SIGAR's report in June 2015, saying:
``We have no indication that [Afghan state-run utility
company] Da Afghanistan Breshna Sherkat (DABS), failed to
operate Tarakhil as was alleged in your letter.''
3. Almost $500,000 on buildings that `melted' in the rain
The dry-fire range in Wardak is pictured in February 2013.
SIGAR
U.S. officials directed and oversaw the construction of an
Afghan police training facility in 2012 that was so poorly
built that its walls actually fell apart in the rain. The
$456,669 dry-fire range in Wardak province was ``not only an
embarrassment, but, more significantly, a waste of U.S.
taxpayers' money,'' SIGAR's report said in January 2015.
It was overseen by the U.S. Central Command's Joint Theater
Support Contracting Command and contracted out to an Afghan
firm, the Qesmatullah Nasrat Construction Company.
SIGAR said this ``melting'' started just four months after
the building was finished in October 2012. It blamed U.S.
officials' bad planning and failure to hold to account the
Afghan construction firm, which used poor-quality materials.
The U.S. subsequently contracted another firm to rebuild the
facility.
Sopko called the incident ``baffling.''
4. $34.4 million on a soybean program for a country that doesn't eat
soybeans
Some of the remaining soybean inventory in March 2014 after
it was imported from the U.S. to Afghanistan. SIGAR
``Afghans apparently have never grown or eaten soybeans
before,'' SIGAR said in its June 2014 report. This did not
stop the U.S. Department of Agriculture funding a $34.4
million program by the American Soybean Association to try to
introduce the foodstuff into the country in 2010.
The project ``did not meet expectations,'' the USDA
confirmed to SIGAR, largely owing to inappropriate farming
conditions in Afghanistan and the fact no one wanted to buy a
product they had never eaten.
``They didn't grow them, they didn't eat them, there was no
market for them, and yet we thought it was a good Idea,''
Sopko told NBC News.
``What is troubling about this particular project is that
it appears that many of these problems could reasonably have
been foreseen and, therefore, possibly avoided,'' the
inspector general wrote in a letter to Agriculture Secretary
Tom Vilsack in June 2014.
5. One general's explanation why 1,600 fire-prone buildings weren't a
problem
Fire breaks out at an arch-span building at the Afghan
National Army's Camp Sayer in October 2012. SIGAR
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built some 2,000 buildings
to be used as barracks, medical clinics and fire stations by
the Afghan National Army as part of a $1.57-billion program.
When two fires in October and December 2012 revealed that
around 80 percent of these structures did not meet
international building regulations for fire safety, Sopko
said he was ``troubled'' by the ``arrogant'' response from a
senior USACE chief.
Major General Michael R. Eyre, commanding general of
USACE's Transatlantic Division, said the risk of fire was
acceptable because ``the typical occupant populations for
these facilities are young, fit Afghan soldiers.'' Writing in
a January 2014 memo published by SIGAR, Eyre said these
recruits ``have the physical ability to make a hasty retreat
during a developing situation.''
Sopko told NBC News that Eyre's comments ``showed a really
poor attitude toward our allies.'' He added: ``It was an
unbelievable arrogance, and I'm sorry to say that about a
senior officer.''
6. A $600,000 hospital where infants were washed in dirty river water
A room in Salang hospital in January 2004. SIGAR
Despite the Department of Defense spending $597,929 on
Salang Hospital in Afghanistan's Parwan province, the 20-bed
facility has been forced to resort to startling medical
practices.
``Because there was no clean water, staff at the hospital
were washing newborns with untreated river water,'' SIGAR's
report said in January 2014. It added that the ``poorly
constructed'' building was also at increased ``risk of
structural collapse during an earthquake.''
NBC News visited the hospital in January 2014 and witnessed
some disturbing practices: a doctor poking around a dental
patient's mouth with a pair of unsterilized scissors before
yanking out another's tooth with a pair of pliers.
The United States Forces-Afghanistan responded to SIGAR's
report in January 2014 saying it would investigate why the
building was not constructed to standard.
In a separate report, SIGAR said that USAID reimbursed the
International Organization for Migration for spiraling costs
while building Gardez Hospital, in Paktia province.
The IOM's ``weak internal controls'' meant it paid $300,000
for just 600 gallons of diesel fuel--a price of $500 per
gallon when market prices should not have exceeded $5, SIGAR
said.
7. $36 million on a military facility that several generals didn't want
An unused room at the so-called ``64K'' facility. SIGAR
The so-called ``64K'' command-and-control facility at
Afghanistan's Camp Leatherneck cost $36 million and was ``a
total waste of U.S. taxpayer funds,'' SIGAR's report said in
May 2015.
The facility in Helmand province--named because it measured
64,000 square feet--was intended to support the U.S. troop
surge of 2010.
However, a year before its construction, the very general
in charge of the surge asked that it not be built because the
existing facilities were ``more than sufficient,'' the
watchdog said. But another general denied this cancellation
request, according to SIGAR, because he said it would not be
``prudent'' to quit a project for which funds had already
been appropriated by Congress.
Ultimately, construction did not begin until May 2011, two
months before the drawdown of the troops involved in surge.
Sopko found the ``well-built and newly furnished'' building
totally untouched in June 2013, with plastic sheets still
covering the furniture.
``Again, nobody was held to account,'' Sopko told NBC News,
adding it was a ``gross . . . really wasteful, extremely
wasteful amount of money.''
He added: ``We have thrown too much money at the country.
We pour in money not really thinking about it.''
8. $39.6 million that created an awkward conversation for the U.S.
ambassador
A now-defunct Pentagon task force spent almost $40 million
on Afghanistan's oil, mining and gas industry--but no one
remembered to tell America's diplomats in Kabul,
[[Page 3221]]
according to SIGAR, citing a senior official at the U.S.
embassy in the city.
In fact, the first the U.S. ambassador knew about the
multi-billion-dollar spend was when Afghan government
officials thanked him for his country's support, SIGAR said.
The project, administered by the Task Force for Business
and Stability Operations (TFBSO), was part of a wider $488
million investment that also included the State Department
and USAID. These organizations ``failed to coordinate and
prioritize'' their work, which created ``poor working
relationships, and . . . potential sustainability problems,''
according to SIGAR.
It was, according to Sopko, ``a real disaster.''
One USAID official told the watchdog it would take the U.S.
``100 years'' to complete the necessary infrastructure and
training Afghanistan needs to completely develop these
industries.
9. $3 million for the purchase--and then mystery cancellation--of eight
boats
One of the eight boats sitting in a Virginia warehouse in
June 2014. SIGAR
SIGAR said the U.S. military has been unable to provide
records answering ``the most basic questions'' surrounding
the mystery purchase and cancellation of eight patrol boats
for landlocked Afghanistan.
The scant facts SIGAR were able to find indicated the boats
were bought in 2010 to be used by the Afghan National Police,
and that they were intended to be deployed along the
country's northern river border with Uzbekistan.
``The order was cancelled--without explanation--nine months
later,'' SIGAR said. The boats were still sitting unused at a
Navy warehouse in Yorktown, Virginia, as of 2014.
``We bought in a navy for a landlocked country,'' Sopko
said.
10. $7.8 billion fighting drugs--while Afghans grow more opium than
ever
Afghan farmers harvest opium sap from a poppy field in
Nangarhar province in May 2015. NOORULLAH SHIRZADA/AFP--Getty
Images, file
Despite the U.S. plowing some $7.8 billion into stopping
Afghanistan's drug trade, ``Afghan farmers are growing more
opium than ever before,'' SIGAR reported in December 2014.
``Poppy-growing provinces that were once declared `poppy
free' have seen a resurgence in cultivation,'' it said,
noting that internationally funded irrigation projects may
have actually increased poppy growth in recent years.
The ``fragile gains'' the U.S. has made on Afghan health,
education and rule of law were being put in ``jeopardy or
wiped out by the narcotics trade, which not only supports the
insurgency, but also feeds organized crime and corruption,''
Sopko told U.S. lawmakers in January 2014.
Afghanistan is the world's leader in the production of
opium. In 2013, the value of Afghan opium was $3 billion--
equivalent to 15 percent of the country's GDP--according to
the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime.
Sopko told NBC News the picture is no more optimistic
today. ``No matter which metric you use, this effort has been
a real failure,'' he said.
11. $7.8 million on a nearly-empty business park
The entrance to Shorandam Industrial Park in June 2014.
SIGAR
The USAID-funded Shorandam industrial Park in Kandahar
province was transferred to the Afghan government in
September 2010 with the intention of accommodating 48
business and hundreds of local employees. Four years later,
SIGAR inspectors found just one active company operating
there.
This was due to the U.S. military building a power plant on
one-third of the industrial park to provide electricity to
nearby Kandahar City, causing ``entrepreneurs to shy away
from setting up businesses'' at the site, SIGAR said in its
report of April 2015.
After the military withdrew in mid-2014, the investigators
were told that at least four Afghan businesses had moved into
the industrial park. However, SIGAR said that it could not
complete a thorough inspection because USAID's contract files
were ``missing important documentation.''
12. $81.9 million on incinerators that either weren't used or harmed
troops
The DOD spent nearly $82 million on nine incineration
facilities in Afghanistan--yet four of them never fired their
furnaces, SIGAR said in February 2015. These four dormant
facilities had eight incinerators between them and the
wastage cost $20.1 million.
In addition, SIGAR inspectors said it was ``disturbing''
that ``prohibited items,'' such as tires and batteries,
continued to be burned in Afghanistan's 251 burn pits. U.S.
military personnel were also exposed to emissions from these
pits ``that could have lasting negative health
consequences,'' the watchdog said.
The Department of Defense said it was ``vitally interested
in exploring all possible ways to save taxpayer dollars and
ensure we are good stewards of government resources.''
A spokesman added: ``We'll continue to work with SIGAR, and
other agencies, to help get to the bottom of any reported
issues or concerns.''
A spokesman for Afghanistan's President Ashraf Ghani
declined to comment on this story.
Mr. JONES. Some of the most egregious examples of waste in this list
are the $486 million the Pentagon paid for deathtrap aircraft that were
scrapped and sold for $32,000. You spend $486 million and what you get
back is scrap. It costs $32,000. Also, $500,000 on training facilities
for Afghan police that melted in the rain. The poor American taxpayer.
John Sopko, the Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, has
told Congress on many occasions to look at the waste, fraud, and abuse
in Afghanistan. Yet, every year we will pass appropriations bills on
the floor of the House to continue to spend billions of dollars in
Afghanistan. I do not understand it.
It is time for America to wake up. It is time for the Congress to
wake up and bring our troops home from Afghanistan. It is time to say
to Afghanistan: Fight it out, if you want to. It is your country.
Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. There is a headstone in that
graveyard that says: America, I am waiting for you. You are headed for
this graveyard.
____________________
ZIKA VIRUS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ruiz) for 5 minutes.
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address a serious public health
issue facing our country.
As a physician, I am very concerned over the recent spread of the
Zika virus in the Americas, particularly given the potential long-term
effects that are now being linked to the virus.
Zika was first discovered in 1948 in Uganda. Until recently, little
research or attention was paid to the virus. It was not thought to have
any lasting effects until recently. Because of this, there is no
vaccine, no drug treatment, and testing is not readily available.
It is important to note that four out of five individuals who
contract Zika are unaware that they have it because they do not ever
show any symptoms. For those that do, symptoms are generally mild.
However, as the virus continues to spread, researchers are
identifying a link between Zika and infants being born with congenital
microcephaly as well as a link between Zika and Guillain-Barre
syndrome.
There are still many questions, and scientists are searching for
answers. For example, can Zika be transmitted sexually? If so, for how
long is it transmittable? What are the long-term health and economic
effects of this infection?
While at this time there have been no reported cases of mosquito
transmission within the U.S., there have been over 150 travel-related
cases reported. Most recently a Zika case was found in Orange County,
not too far from my district.
{time} 1030
The CDC is currently advising pregnant women to postpone travel to
Zika-affected areas, and if they must travel, to first consult with
their physician and take all necessary precautions to avoid mosquitos.
Last month, the administration submitted a supplemental
appropriations request for emergency funding to help fight the Zika
virus. And my physician-scientist colleagues at the CDC and NIH have
echoed the need for funding.
As we enter mosquito season and families start to travel for summer
vacation, it is important that we do not delay this funding and work to
ensure that we contain the damage the virus could cause if left
unchecked. Timing is of the essence and emergency funding needs to be
appropriated immediately to mitigate any potentially destructive
effects.
This is why I sent a bipartisan letter, along with 61 of my
colleagues, urging Speaker Ryan to bring to the floor legislation that
would appropriate emergency funding to help fight the Zika virus.
[[Page 3222]]
This is not a Democratic issue. This is not a Republican issue. It is
a public health and health security issue. The cost of not acting is
just too high.
____________________
SHENANDOAH AREA COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA'S 2016 DISTINGUISHED
CITIZEN OF THE YEAR
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mooney) for 5 minutes.
Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition
of an outstanding member of my community in the Eastern Panhandle of
West Virginia's Second Congressional District, Ed Wilson.
This afternoon in Martinsburg, Ed Wilson is being named the
Shenandoah Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America's 2016
Distinguished Citizen of the Year. This award is given to exceptional
members of the community who have ``noteworthy and extraordinary
leadership.''
Past honorees include Senators Robert Byrd, Jay Rockefeller, Shelley
Moore Capito, and Joe Manchin, as well as Brigadier General V. Wayne
Lloyd, the former head of the 167th Airlift Wing in Martinsburg.
My friend, Ed Wilson, also truly personifies all that this award
embodies. Born in Woodbridge, New Jersey, Ed's journey of faith and
service included a very early milestone.
At the age of 10, he joined the St. Vincent de Paul Society. This
Catholic charitable organization, whose local chapter was founded by
his wife, Midge, offers not a handout, but a hand up. This same ethic
lies behind the mission of the Boy Scouts, who Ed has worked with for
so many years.
Ed served in the Navy for 3 years before earning a position with the
intelligence community as a linguist and analyst. Ed worked for the CIA
for 31 years, 24 of which were overseas. He was stationed around the
globe, in Europe, the Middle East, Central America, and Asia.
Finally, in 1977, Ed and his wife, Midge, moved to Falling Waters, in
Berkeley County, West Virginia, where they have been committed to
serving our community and its needs ever since.
Ed's work for our community has been called legendary by some, and I
couldn't agree more. He has served with 16 agencies, charitable
organizations, and community projects, including Big Brothers and Big
Sisters of the Eastern Panhandle, Catholic Charities, March of Dimes,
Martinsburg-Berkeley County Chamber of Commerce, Mountain State Apple
Harvest Festival, and the United Way of the Eastern Panhandle.
Ed likes to say that life is too important to be taken seriously. I
do agree, but I must add this. One of the serious reasons why the Boy
Scouts honors Ed is the importance of his lifetime of service.
Ed provides an important role model for young men about the
importance of commitment, virtue, culture, and just basic decency. With
that in mind, I not only congratulate, but also thank my friend, Ed
Wilson, for all he has done for our country and community.
We Need an All-Of-The-Above Energy Policy.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on a recent statement made by
the leading Democrat candidate for President and former Secretary of
State, Hillary Clinton, who just on Sunday night on CNN was asked about
her policies.
She said, ``I am the only candidate which has a policy about bringing
economic opportunity, using clean, renewable energy as the key into
coal country because we are going to put a lot of coal miners and coal
companies out of business.''
Mr. Speaker, we need a President who has an all-of-the-above energy
policy, not one who so blatantly discriminates against coal. This
attack and war on coal that Hillary Clinton plans to continue, just
like our current President, has devastated our State. We are in a
recession in West Virginia. We need a President who will fight for our
coal miners, promote the all-of-the-above energy policy, and utilize
our country's natural resources, including coal.
This is important to West Virginia and everyone in the country, so I
call upon all of us to look at the importance of this upcoming
discussion on this issue.
____________________
PENN STATE STUDENTS COMMITTED TO ADDRESSING THE NATIONAL DEBT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) for 5 minutes.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to laud the
efforts of a student organization at Penn State University, located in
the Pennsylvania Fifth Congressional District.
These students are participating, Mr. Speaker, in a nationwide
competition called Up to Us. The goal is raising awareness of the
national debt and the impact it will have on the leaders of tomorrow
and generations to come, especially in terms of their future economic
opportunities. The winning team will be recognized later this year and
will receive $10,000.
The national debt isn't something you often hear much about from men
and women in their late teens and early twenties, which is why I was so
impressed by this.
These are signatures of more than 1,500 students seeking to raise
awareness among the men and women who represent them in such places as
the United States House of Representatives and the Senate.
I was happy to share some of the work we have done over the past few
years in lowering the debt and pledge to continue that effort.
Spending has been reduced to historic levels under the Republican-led
Congress. These fiscally responsible reductions are greater than those
achieved under President Reagan and greater than those under former
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.
This has been a challenge, given that before Republicans took charge
of the House, total spending to gross domestic production had
skyrocketed from 21 to 24 percent. Discretionary spending alone went
from 7 percent to 10 percent. We were drowning in debt.
One of the first measures in restoring financial common sense
advanced by Republicans was the Budget Control Act that decreased
government spending by more than $2 trillion over 10 years. By flexing
the power of the purse, the Republican-led House reduced spending from
9.1 to 6.5 percent of gross domestic product.
The second significant and successful debt reduction measure came in
the form of the Ryan-Murray deal. This extended the Budget Control Act
savings an additional 2 years.
Newly hired Federal employees are now required to contribute more to
pension plans, and taxpayers contribute less. The spending reductions
that were impacting mandatory spending for the first time resulted in
faster and greater debt reduction.
The very first meaningful entitlement reform that provided even
greater debt reduction came from the Republican-led Medicare reform
legislation that has been enacted, known as the doc fix.
Now, while this legislation provided a permanent patch of the
Medicare outpatient payment system, securing access to care, health
care for America's older adults, the reforms are estimated to save $2.9
trillion over 10 years in Medicare's unfunded liabilities. This
leadership reduced the debt and supported the Medicare program's
sustainability.
While the Republican-led Congress has taken action on debt reduction,
much work remains. Raising awareness of the threats that debt creates
for fiscal health, individual opportunity, upward mobility, and
national security is a critical step.
I want to say thank you to the students at Penn State University who
are involved in leading the Up to Us project for their work in this
effort. I wish them the best of luck as they continue to work to bring
attention to this very important issue.
[[Page 3223]]
I look forward to working with them as we continue to work at
eliminating the debt that threatens their future and the future of our
Nation.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until noon today.
Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 39 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess.
____________________
{time} 1200
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Emmer of Minnesota) at noon.
____________________
PRAYER
Reverend Tyrone M. Thomas, Charity Church, Baltimore, Maryland,
offered the following prayer:
O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is Your name on all the Earth. We
come before You today, first thanking You for another day You have
allowed us to see and partake in.
We thank You for Your grace, mercy, and loving kindness you have
extended to us on this day. God, we thank You for allowing us to arrive
at destinations free from hurt, harm, or danger.
We ask You now, God, that You would allow our day to be a productive,
purposeful, and peaceful day. Creator and God, we ask that You allow us
to remain focused and on task as we go about our day-to-day
responsibilities.
We ask Your continued blessings upon every Member of the House of
Representatives who are represented here today. We ask that You would
lead, guide, and strengthen their ability to make sound decisions for
Your people.
God, as we conclude our day, we want to hear You say: Well done, thy
good and faithful servant. We ask all these things in the name of the
God who created all and who made all things.
Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty)
come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mrs. BEATTY led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will entertain up to 15 requests
for 1-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.
____________________
NATIONAL AGRICULTURE DAY
(Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, today is National Agriculture Day, where we
recognize and celebrate the important role that agriculture plays in
the United States.
As a lifelong farmer--on a small scale at times--and a longtime
Christmas tree grower, I am committed to actively engaging in the
creation of responsible farm policies that honor taxpayers while
protecting the way of life of North Carolina's farming families.
The Fifth District of North Carolina has a rich agricultural
tradition, and it is a privilege to work with local farmers to ensure
they have the tools they need to continue producing their outstanding
commodities.
I will keep looking for legislative innovations that ensure North
Carolina's farmers are free to compete, adapt, and seize opportunities
to safely maximize production and meet the needs of America and the
world.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE GIRL SCOUTS
(Mrs. BEATTY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the young women
of Girl Scout Daisy Troop 1944, ages 6 to almost 8 years of age, who
recently visited my office.
After meeting with them, I was truly inspired. Mr. Speaker, they
alerted me to all their great work, from volunteering in a local animal
shelter to hosting a birthday party for homeless children. We also
discussed the importance of civic engagement and honoring our Nation's
veterans.
The members of this impressive troop are Roxanne Dion, Kirsten
Wilson, Harley Craig, Cecelia Rodriguez, Aubree Meyerin, Kileigh
Solberg, Brooklyn Cress, DeLana Windnagel, Lily Denovo, Georgia
Woodward, Allison Helser, Kaylee Thompson, and Isabelle Jones.
During Women's History Month, let us pay tribute to the next
generation of women leaders, like the young women of Daisy Troop 1944.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing the works of the 1.9
million girl members of the Girl Scouts as well as the individuals who
volunteer to help them as troop leaders, their parents, and Girl Scouts
CEO Anna Maria Chavez, all who strive to make the world a much better
place.
I say to you, Daisy troops: Job well done.
____________________
MINNESOTA'S FIRST FEMALE BRIGADIER GENERAL
(Mr. EMMER of Minnesota asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. EMMER of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, in honor of Women's History
Month, I rise today to celebrate an inspiring woman who now has a
permanent spot in Minnesota's history books. Last week Sandra Best
became the first female Brigadier General in the Minnesota National
Guard.
General Best was a 20-year-old college student when she joined the
Air National Guard in 1984. During her 32 years of service, Best has
proven her dedication to this Nation and to Minnesota through a variety
of leadership positions.
In her new position as Brigadier General, Best will serve as the
chief of staff for the Minnesota National Guard and will be in charge
of the 133rd Airlift Wing and the 148th Fighter Wing.
General Best is a true trailblazer. She has broken down barriers and
forged a path that other women are sure to follow. It is with great
respect and great pride that I recognize her today.
____________________
HONORING DR. JUAN FRANCISCO LARA
(Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to
honor the life of Dr. Juan Francisco Lara.
Dr. Lara passionately advocated for access to the University of
California system for all students. For over 35 years, he was involved
at UCLA and the University of California, Irvine, in many roles,
including dean, professor, and assistant vice chancellor.
At UCI, Dr. Lara played a pivotal role in the Santa Ana Partnership,
an educational partnership between UCI, Cal State Fullerton, Santa Ana
College, and the Santa Ana Unified School District, which is now a
national model in collaborative education.
Dr. Lara was a devoted husband, father, and grandfather known for his
commitment to community and love for his family. I counted him as my
friend. He believed that, with the power of knowledge, kindness, and
education, we could change the world.
On behalf of the people of California's 46th Congressional District,
I am proud
[[Page 3224]]
to honor this inspiring and incredible man.
____________________
RETIREMENT OF MIKE BROWN
(Mr. McCLINTOCK asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express the heartfelt
gratitude of the people of the Tahoe Basin for Chief Mike Brown of the
North Lake Tahoe Fire Department.
On March 18, Chief Brown will close a distinguished career of 26
years with that department, including 9 years as its chief, and a total
of 37 years as a firefighter.
The greatest environmental threat to the Tahoe Basin is catastrophic
wildfire. Chief Brown has led the fight to develop community wildfire
protection plans, promote best practices for fire management, and
educate the public on maintaining defensible space.
His success is measured not only in the fires he has extinguished
but, far more important and far less appreciated, the fires he has
prevented.
Chief Brown has been a tireless advocate for restoring sound
management to our public lands to protect our communities, and Tahoe
has been most fortunate to have had him.
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE OF RODERICK ``ROD'' DURHAM
(Ms. GRAHAM asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to mourn the loss of Roderick
``Rod'' Durham, a Tallahassee teacher, actor, community leader, role
model, and dear friend.
Rod was born in Maryland in 1964 and moved to Tallahassee in his
teens. He graduated from Leon High School in 1982 with my sister,
Cissy, and then returned to teach there in 1997.
However, Rod was far, far more than a teacher. He was a role model.
His students knew they could trust to confide in him or look to him for
inspiration in difficult times.
His personality was larger than life. He embodied joy and happiness.
His positive energy would fill any room with smiles, love, and
laughter.
His loss is heartbreaking for so many in north Florida, but I am
blessed to have called him my friend. Our community will be forever
grateful for his service and spirit.
Rest in peace, dear friend. Rest in peace.
____________________
PENN HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS BASKETBALL TEAM
(Mrs. WALORSKI asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Penn
High School girls basketball team for winning the Class 4A Girls
Basketball State Championship on Saturday, February 27. This impressive
achievement is the program's first State title.
The Kingsmen team entered the game ranked fourth in the division, but
didn't let that deter them. They took a 31-30 lead at the beginning of
the third quarter. The momentum continued when, after a pair of big
runs, the team opened a 19-point lead early in the fourth quarter.
The Kingsmen rolled past the defending champs, the Columbus North
Bulldogs, to win the championship 68-48. They finished the night
shooting 52 percent from the floor and, after getting out-rebounded in
the first half, topped the Bulldogs over the final 16 minutes.
This is truly an exciting victory, and it is because of the
dedication of Coach Kristi Ulrich and the hard work of these student
athletes that this honor has been earned.
Mr. Speaker, the names of the student athletes are: Kaitlyn Marenyi,
Amber Smith, Makenzie Kilmer, Sara Doi, Chloe Foley, Delaney Jarrett,
Tia Chambers, Claire Carlton, Camryn Buhr, Lindsay Chrise, Lindsy
Kline, Kamra Solomon, and Janessa Chesnic. Also, Coach Kristi Kaniewski
Ulrich.
On behalf of the people of Indiana's Second Congressional District, I
applaud Kristi for building this team, thank the student athletes for
their determination, and congratulate them all on an amazing season.
____________________
HONORING SOON-TO-BE BRIGADIER GENERAL JEANNIE LEAVITT
(Mr. HARDY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Speaker, every day is a good day to honor the
achievements of strong women in our lives, but March is a special time
of year to highlight the stories of trailblazing women who serve as
leaders in our communities and around the Nation.
This Women's History Month, I would like to recognize Colonel and
soon-to-be Brigadier General Jeannie Leavitt, a woman who knows a thing
or two about breaking through glass ceilings. In fact, as the Air
Force's first female fighter pilot, the sky has always been her limit.
Colonel Leavitt will soon take command of the 57th Wing at Nellis Air
Force Base back in my district, becoming the first woman to ever do so.
This will make her the highest ranking female officer ever at Nellis
and will place her in charge of our military's most important air
combat testing and training assets.
While Colonel Leavitt's distinguished career in the United States Air
Force has been filled with many firsts for women, it is important to
remember that her achievements are a result of her being the best
officer and commander for the job, man or woman.
____________________
FIX THE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM
(Mr. POLIS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the time to fix our broken immigration system
is now. This is the time to make sure that families are unified and
children aren't taken from their parents, the time to make sure we
secure our southern border to prevent the illegal flow of people and
drugs, the time to make sure that we know who is in our country and to
make sure that they don't represent a security threat to American
citizens.
The time is long overdue. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle appreciate that we need to work together to restore the rule
of law, secure our border, and make sure there is a path to
legalization for the 11 million people who work hard every day and
contribute to make our country even greater.
In doing immigration reform, we can reduce our deficit by over $200
billion. That is an estimate of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office. Part of those savings go to securing our southern border and
enforcing our laws, which remain completely unenforced because they are
unenforceable.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work together to
finally fix our broken immigration system with one that works, restore
the rule of law, and recognize that we are a Nation of laws and a
Nation of immigrants.
____________________
{time} 1215
ANTI-TRUMP DEMONSTRATORS
(Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, WMAL Radio in Washington
reported yesterday that a group affiliated with Senator Bernie Sanders
tweeted out a congratulations to those who forced the cancellation of
the Trump rally in Chicago this past Friday, calling it a great
victory.
This morning, Willie Geist, a co-host of the Morning Joe television
program, said that one poll showed that 88 percent said Mr. Trump had
actually been helped by the extremism of the anti-Trump demonstrators
in Chicago.
Then Joe Scarborough reported that Mr. Trump had gone up 6 points in
one poll in Florida since the Chicago protests, despite having $25
million in negative ads against him.
[[Page 3225]]
It was sad to see such hateful intolerance on public display this
past Friday, and I am pleased that no conservatives are doing things
like this to Clinton or Sanders rallies.
I have not endorsed anyone in this Presidential campaign, but these
anti-free speech thugs and their leftist supporters should realize that
all they did was make Donald Trump more popular.
____________________
RECOGNIZING RUNNING START
(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, as the first Hispanic woman elected to
serve in Congress and as the 2016 Republican co-chair of Running Start,
I am proud to recognize the great work that Running Start does to
empower young women to become engaged in elective office.
Since its inception almost 10 years ago, Running Start has trained
over 10,000 young ladies, many of whom are currently assisting in our
congressional offices throughout the Star Fellowship program.
I have seen firsthand the level of commitment and professionalism
that these young women possess. My office was introduced to Whitney
Holliday, our first Start fellow, in 2009. Since then we have hosted a
number of remarkable young women, including Lucinda Borque, Alexandra
Curtis, Sarah Fink, and Shannon Carney. One of my staffers, Taylor
Johnson, is also a proud alumna of this wonderful Running Start
program.
They have all proven to be resilient young women with the skills
necessary to thrive and become the leaders of tomorrow.
____________________
RECOGNIZING STATE SENATOR TOMMIE WILLIAMS
(Mr. CARTER of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Senator
Tommie Williams and his retirement from the Georgia State Senate.
Since first being elected to office in 1998, Senator Williams has
spent the last 18 years representing his South Georgia constituents in
extraordinary fashion.
Through the years, Senator Williams' hard work and passion has
flourished as he has moved through the ranks from majority leader to
President pro tempore, always working to keep Georgia's economy
growing.
As a true conservative from Lyons, Georgia, a great friend, and a
passionate lawmaker, Senator Williams' service to the State of Georgia
will be missed. I wish my friend the best of luck in his future
endeavors.
____________________
NATIONAL AGRICULTURE DAY
(Mr. BENISHEK asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of National
Agriculture Day. Today we celebrate the farmers and ranchers who
literally work to put the food on our dinner tables.
Last week I was in Posen, Michigan, and met the Styma family. They
are growing hundreds of thousands of potatoes each year that families
across the country will enjoy.
The next time you put a cherry on your ice cream sundae, think of
Glen and Ben LaCross, who not only work full time raising cherries in
northern Michigan, but also manage a fruit processing business to make
delicious products, like maraschino cherries and pie fillings,
available in Michigan and around the country.
Farmers, ranchers, and agribusiness owners and workers don't just
provide food and fiber for the Nation; they are an important part of
our economy.
In Michigan alone, the agriculture industry contributes over $100
billion annually to the economy, accounting for a quarter of Michigan's
workforce.
As a member of the House Committee on Agriculture, I want to thank
the farmers, producers, and agribusiness workers who feed and clothe
America's families.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emmer of Minnesota) laid before the
House the following communication from the Clerk of the House of
Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 15, 2016.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
The Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in
Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Clerk received the following message
from the Secretary of the Senate on March 15, 2016 at 9:29
a.m.:
Appointment:
United States Commission on International Religious
Freedom.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Karen L. Haas.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4596, SMALL BUSINESS BROADBAND
DEPLOYMENT ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3797,
SATISFYING ENERGY NEEDS AND SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT ACT
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 640 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 640
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4596) to
ensure that small business providers of broadband Internet
access service can devote resources to broadband deployment
rather than compliance with cumbersome regulatory
requirements. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and
Commerce now printed in the bill shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; (2) the
further amendment printed in part A of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered
by the Member designated in the report, which shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order, shall be
considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to
a demand for division of the question; and (3) one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3797) to establish the bases by which the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency shall issue, implement,
and enforce certain emission limitations and allocations for
existing electric utility steam generating units that convert
coal refuse into energy. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment
to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part B
of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
[[Page 3226]]
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Committee on Rules met and
reported out a rule for H.R. 4596, the Small Business Broadband
Deployment Act, and H.R. 3797, the Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving
the Environment Act. House Resolution 640 provides a structured rule
for consideration of H.R. 4596 and H.R. 3797.
The resolution provides each bill 1 hour of debate equally divided
between the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
Additionally, the resolution provides for the consideration of five
amendments offered to H.R. 3797, as well as one amendment offered to
H.R. 4596.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for a motion to
recommit for each bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the resolution and the
underlying legislation. The SENSE Act would modify the EPA's Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule and Mercury and Air Toxics Standards as they
apply to coal refuse-to-energy power plants, while still requiring
those facilities to reduce their emissions.
There are only 19 coal refuse-to-energy facilities in the United
States, but they provide an estimated 1,200 direct and 4,000 indirect
jobs, many of them in economically depressed areas.
In addition to providing well-paying jobs and generating affordable
energy, these power plants also address issues presented by coal refuse
at no cost to the taxpayer.
Coal refuse is a waste product of coal mining found near many
abandoned coal mines, and they present environmental and safety hazards
to communities around the country.
They are a source of major fires. They pollute waters. They are
eyesores that threaten economic development in the surrounding areas.
In Pennsylvania alone, the cost of addressing coal refuse is estimated
to be $2 billion.
Coal refuse-to-energy plants use coal refuse as an energy to generate
affordable and reliable electricity, and it is estimated that these
facilities have removed 214 million tons of coal refuse from the
environment, again, at no cost to the taxpayer, and they also generate
electricity, in addition to removing this coal refuse.
However, only a few of the most recently built coal refuse-to-energy
plants can comply with the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and
their Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, neither of which took the
unique characteristics of these facilities into account.
Because coal refuse is a waste product containing varying levels of
sulfur and other regulated contaminants, the plants using it need rules
that reflect this variability. The EPA refused to provide any
flexibility, placing the continued operation of these coal refuse-to-
energy plants in doubt.
One way the SENSE Act would correct this is by making adjustments to
sulfur dioxide allowances for these plants, without lowering the
overall cap on emissions.
Forcing these plants to close would harm our communities, it would
actually hurt jobs, it would make our environmental problems worse, not
better, and it would cost our taxpayers more money.
The other bill under consideration is the Small Business Broadband
Deployment Act, and it would exempt Internet service providers with
250,000 subscribers or fewer from having to implement the FCC's
enhanced transparency requirements under the 2015 Open Internet Order.
Under this legislation, the exemption would remain in effect for 5
years, enabling these small Internet service providers to focus on
expanding their networks and improving connectivity.
This is a major issue for my congressional district, which includes a
lot of rural communities, and they are in need of faster Internet. Many
of the communities I serve in rural southeast and southwest Ohio do not
have a 4G-like connection.
I know that this is an issue that is shared by many districts across
the country, many Members across the country, from both sides of the
aisle. So I am hopeful that this measure will pass with strong
bipartisan support.
It is also important to note that the Small Business Broadband
Deployment Act does not prevent consumers from accessing information,
as the disclosure requirements from the 2010 Open Internet Order remain
in effect.
I look forward to debating these bills with my colleagues. I urge
support for the rule and the underlying pieces of legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1230
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the first of the
two underlying bills. The second one is largely uncontroversial. The
first, the Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment bill--so-
called Saving the Environment bill--the SENSE Act, actually leads to
greater risks and more contaminations I will discuss; and then the
second, the noncontroversial bill, is called the Small Business
Broadband Deployment Act.
I'm a little curious as to why we are going through this particular
rule process. This could be scheduled for a suspension vote. We could
have possibly even done it with unanimous consent and probably finished
it yesterday. But apparently the Republicans don't find that there is
anything important that America wants Congress to address, so they have
us debating bills that are largely not controversial that we could get
done in a matter of minutes and, instead, are spending several hours
debating these bills, one of which will go nowhere, the other of which
we could have done very quickly to avoid this Congress having the real
discussions that I believe the American people want us to undertake.
When I go back home and have townhalls and hear from constituents, I
hear people crying out for a Congress that will do something about our
Federal budget deficit and that will actually pass a budget. You will
see later in my remarks I will mention that our previous question
motion will be one that would require Congress to stay in session until
we pass a budget, because there has been discussion--I hope it is not
true--that the Republicans are thinking of giving up on passing a
budget in the House and simply sending all of Congress home for a
vacation.
I think, already, Congress is scheduled to finish Wednesday of next
week. Most Americans have to work Thursday and Friday of next week. I
don't know why Congress only has to work 2\1/2\ days. But that is what
they are telling us. If we can't even accomplish a budget during those
2\1/2\ days, I don't know what we expect the American people to think
we are doing.
So we should be talking about the tough decisions we need to make:
How do we reduce the deficit and make the necessary investments in
growth? How do we pass a budget? How do we fix our broken immigration
system with one that works, one that secures our borders, unites
families, and has a pathway to citizenship for those who work hard and
contribute to our country? How do we make sure that we can improve and
build upon the successes of the Affordable Care Act, recognize its
shortcomings, and make the improvements necessary to move it forward?
But, no, instead, we are not doing that. We are taking up a
controversial
[[Page 3227]]
bill, the SENSE Act, that won't become law. It has a misleading title.
It won't do anything to satisfy American energy needs and certainly
will not help the environment, which is why it is opposed by many
environmental groups. The SENSE Act makes anything but sense.
What would make sense, of course, is discussing and voting on a
budget. What would make sense is passing immigration reform. What would
make sense is making progress towards balancing our budget. What would
make sense is investing in research to cure cancer. What would make
sense is doing our best to make America secure.
But, no, instead, we are discussing something that the Republicans
have given the title the SENSE bill to, perhaps to overcompensate for
the fact that it simply doesn't make sense.
Now, Republicans know the SENSE Act won't become law. Instead, we are
spending, I don't know, half a day, three-quarters of a day bringing up
yet another partisan attack on the Environmental Protection Agency,
whose job it is to protect our air. We all breathe the air. Democrats,
Republicans, Independents, animals, and plants all breathe the air.
What we need is common sense to improve our air quality and move
forward. What we need are solutions to break through congressional
gridlock.
Again, this set of rules in this bill--which I call upon my
colleagues to vote down--is clear that the Republicans are not serious.
They are either unable or unwilling to bring forward fresh ideas or
address the issues that our constituents are crying out that we need to
deal with. This bill is simply another form of pandering when we should
be taking advantage of the few remaining weeks we have of session to
address the real problems of our Nation.
Now, these two bills under one rule are completely unrelated. When
the Speaker came into office, he promised we would move bills with
regular order. I don't understand why we can't pass the
noncontroversial one. I would have gotten it done already and then had
more of an open process. We did an amendment in Rules Committee to
allow for an open amendment process on the SENSE Act, but it was voted
down on a partisan vote. Unfortunately, the two were combined under one
rule, and I am very disappointed it is not an open rule.
We need to move forward on FAA reform, making sure that we
reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration to keep our skies that
we rely on for commerce and tourism safe and open. We face an imminent
expiration of that. We need to reauthorize the Child Nutrition Act, the
Higher Education Act, find a solution to the affordable housing crisis.
And, yes, we need to pass a budget. All of those things should be done
before Congress gives itself another vacation. I think that is common
sense.
We wonder why, in poll after poll, Congress has an approval rating of
12 percent or 14 percent. I sometimes wonder who those 12 percent are.
I wonder who those 12 percent are, because I haven't met any of my
constituents that have said: ``Congress is doing great. Keep on doing
what you are doing.'' I think they misunderstand the question and they
are probably answering in the negative, because I don't understand how
any American could be satisfied with a United States Congress that
punts and punts and punts on issue after issue and instead spends its
entire days and weeks, on the rare occasion when it is in session,
debating bills that won't go anywhere and won't be signed into law and
then promptly give themselves additional vacation time as an extra
bonus while patting themselves on the back. That is not the Congress
that the American people want.
First, let me talk about the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act.
Again, it is a bipartisan bill. I think we could have done it on
suspension or unanimous consent on Monday. We could have finished it.
I come from the private sector. I operated several businesses, grew
them over time and played various roles. Do you know what? In the
private sector, when you can get something done quickly, the last thing
you want to do is draw it out, to spend a couple of days on it. So if
we have something that Congress could have finished Monday evening so
that we could get moving and discussing and debating the important
issues that the American people are crying out for Congress to address,
why didn't we do it then? Why didn't we do it then? If they are drawing
out something and having us spend half a day on something, then I
think, because of the hard work of many Members who collaborated on
this, we could probably complete it in 10 or 15 minutes.
This legislation is important, of course. I think we can pass it. The
bill would make the temporary exemption that the FCC granted to ISPs
with 100,000 or fewer subscribers and extend and expand the cap to ISPs
with 250,000 or fewer subscribers that addresses bipartisan concerns
about speeds and costs and gives regulatory certainty to Internet
service providers, keeps the exemption level at a level that protects
consumers, keeps the Internet free and open, doesn't allow large
Internet service providers to act as gatekeepers that favor some
content over others; and Congress should take notice of the
administration's statement on this legislation, which cautions about
bills that move towards threatening the open Internet. But on this
exemption, specifically, I don't think we have enough information to
know whether it needs to be made permanent, so I support the efforts of
this bill to spur the FCC to provide needed information.
Again, I think there are a lot of Democrats and Republicans who have
worked hard on this bill. We probably could have dispensed with it on
Monday. But, hey, here we are. We are dealing with it under this rule.
I thought, if we are going through the rulemaking process, we should at
least offer an open rule. Every piece of legislation, even if it is
passable, ought to encourage ideas from Democrats and Republicans in
amendments to make it better. But, no, under this rule, the Rules
Committee shut down the open amendment process and is not allowing
Democrats or Republicans to offer germane, relevant amendments on the
floor to the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act.
Now, moving on to the SENSE Act--or the non-SENSE act, as I like to
call it--it won't become law. We spend a lot of time debating bills
that won't become law. In fact, this House, apparently for lack of
anything more important to do, has voted to repeal the Affordable Care
Act over 60 times. The good news is we are not doing that again today.
I thank the Speaker for not having us repeal the Affordable Care Act
for the 65th time this week. That would have been a waste of time.
Instead, the Republicans are being creative about how we are going to
waste our time. This is a new way to waste our time. Rather than
discussing the budget or the FAA reauthorization or childhood nutrition
or balancing our budget or fixing our broken immigration system, rather
than doing any of those important things, we found a new and clever way
to waste the time of the United States Congress in debate of a bill
that will not become law.
Now, thank goodness it won't become law because the non-SENSE act is
bad for Americans and poor for our health. It is a convoluted,
senseless manner going after the Environmental Protection Agency's
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which is called CSAPR, and going after
the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which is called MATS.
Specifically, this bill would change the requirements for plants that
use coal refuse.
Now, there are about 20 of these coal refuse plants in the entire
country. What this bill would do is it would abandon the market-based
approach for sulfur dioxide emission allowances in favor of a one-size-
fits-all Federal Government approach. So this bill is effectively a
Federal takeover of the regulatory structure around our coal refuse
plants.
Again, it is a particularly creative way to waste Congress' time, and
it is ironic because the Republicans often attack efforts to take away
control
[[Page 3228]]
from the States. They say: How dare you Democrats suggest that anything
can be done better at the national level. How dare you suggest that.
How dare you suggest something that contravenes the 10th Amendment.
Do you know what? In this bill, the Republicans are proposing taking
away State authority and a Federal takeover, because currently States
have control over the incentives and work with coal refuse plants, but
this simply says the Federal Government should override that work.
Now, that seems hypocritical. It seems against the philosophy that
many Republicans have come here arguing, and it leads me to believe
that many proponents of this bill seem to value their special interest
pork over their philosophical integrity.
Now, this bill would create a system that the government picks
winners and losers rather than markets. CSAPR has a trading program
that allows plants to conform to emissions standards in different ways,
like trading emission allowances; and that program, that market-based
program, would be thrown out of the window with this legislation and
the keys would be handed over to the Federal Government. Even more
astonishing is allowing coal refuse plants to slip through loopholes in
order to balance our credits actually makes it harder for regular coal
plants to meet their pollution reduction goals.
I honestly don't know if the Republicans have thought about the
impact of this bill or what it would do.
Now, again, knowing that it won't become law is simply a creative way
for Congress to waste its time as congressional approval sinks even
lower. I know that the Republicans have often accused some Democrats of
engaging in a war on coal, but with this particular bill, they are the
ones attacking the coal industry.
The Republicans claim that this legislation is needed to allow coal
refuse plants to be able to meet various air quality standards under
the MATS rule, yet throughout the entire rulemaking process there
hasn't been any evidence that they can't meet the standards that are
already in place. That was recently confirmed by the D.C. circuit
court.
Now, it is apparent that both CSAPR and MATS are workable, smart
rules that approximately 20 coal refuse plants in our country can abide
by in flexible, market-oriented ways. I want to be clear. Leaving coal
refuse to spontaneously combust or seep into the ground via acid rain
is simply unacceptable, and we need to be cleaning it up; but allowing
the plants that are processing it to do so with a weak compliance
system is harmful to our health, our homes, our communities, and the
environment.
Simply put, this bill is an unnecessary, imprudent bill that does
nothing to help our environment or put our country on the right track.
I oppose the rule, in addition to H.R. 3797.
Today we could have shown the American people that Congress can come
together and do something to solve important issues in a bipartisan
manner, to keep our skies safe and open, protecting commerce, by
reauthorizing the FAA to pass a bipartisan budget which balances our
budget and deals with our deficit; to improve the Child Nutrition Act,
the Higher Education Act, any of the myriad challenges that I hear
about and, frankly, I believe my Republicans hear about in their
townhalls.
I don't think when we are home and hearing from our constituents--by
the way, I haven't received a single letter about this coal refuse
bill. I haven't heard it in any of my townhalls or gotten calls from
any of my constituents. They want us dealing with the pressing issues
facing the American people.
We have 84 days of session left in this Congress. By the way,
Congress works 84 days. Most Americans have at least 145 days that they
go to work. As an example of that, Congress is scheduled to leave town
next Wednesday, will have 2 days off that week, then 2 weeks off, then
another day off. So that is the type of schedule we are running here.
People wonder what Congress is doing. The answer is we are not doing
anything. When we are here, we are spending more time than necessary on
uncontroversial bills and we are debating bills that won't become law,
and then we all go home and take a vacation. That is the Republican
Congress. That is the image of what the Republican Congress is and how
they are running this institution. It spends a lot of time debating
something that you don't even need to. It spends other time debating
things that aren't going to become law, like repealing the Affordable
Care Act over 60 times and like this non-SENSE Act, and then gives
Congress much greater vacation time than the American people enjoy
because, apparently, Republicans think this Congress is doing so well
that we all deserve a lot of vacation.
Democrats want to stay here and work on the budget. That is going to
be our previous question. We believe we should get a budget done. We
would like it to be a bipartisan budget. It certainly is a governing
majority. We encourage Republicans to pass a budget, but if they don't
have the votes, then, by all means, let's do a bipartisan budget that
makes sense for our country.
{time} 1245
You will find us willing to roll up our sleeves and get to work, stay
here this weekend, stay here next Thursday and Friday, stay here the
following week. Let's get this done. This is the work the American
people want to see done.
They want to see a budget. They want to see competence. We need to
show people that Congress and competence are not mutually exclusive;
yet, we continue to do the exact opposite by this course under this
rule of debating a bill--and wasting a day--that won't even become law.
Now, look, we have an opportunity here. A vote on this rule is an
important vote for that reason. If we defeat this rule--and I call upon
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do so--we can truly send
the message that we want to spend time debating the issues that the
American people care about.
We want to fix the budget, the deficit, immigration, health care.
Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work rather than continue to blame
the President for this or that or blame the Democrats for this or that.
I am honestly curious. If we can't blame the President because he was
on time with his budget and you can't blame the Democrats because we
are willing to roll up our sleeves and work with you on a budget deal,
who are the Republicans going to blame if they can't deliver a budget?
I remember the Republicans assailing the Democrats for not delivering
budgets. I am sure my colleague will remind me of that yet again. But,
again, that is something that you criticized us on.
If you can't deliver a budget yourself, what is the use of the
American people even having the Republicans here? What use was that
criticism of the Democrats for not delivering budgets on time if the
Republicans themselves don't have the ability to deliver a budget?
Now, look, we can deliver a budget with you. If the Republicans are
unable to because there is freedom this or liberty that or all these
different buzzwords out there for people who don't want to vote for a
budget, we are happy to work with the Republicans on a budget.
Ultimately, what comes out of this process between the House and the
Senate is usually some bipartisan buy-in into the budget, anyway.
We are happy to start here with you. The perfect time to do that is
now. The perfect time to do that is next Thursday and Friday and the
following week. I think we owe the American people a budget rather than
an enormous vacation, a paid vacation, for Members of Congress.
Look, we can do better by voting down this rule. I promise you we
will do better.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to clear up some misconceptions about the calendar, the
budget, the rule, and the SENSE Act.
[[Page 3229]]
With regard to the calendar, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how the
gentleman from Colorado manages his calendar. But when I go home to my
district--and I won't speak for every Member of Congress--it is
certainly not a vacation.
I am home meeting with constituents, touring businesses, and letting
my constituents talk to me so that I know what they think so that I can
do my job of representing them. That is how most of the 435 Members of
this Chamber treat the district workweeks.
To assume that we are only working when we are in Washington, the
other side of the aisle might love Washington, but I prefer to be home
in my district working with people and then come back to Washington to
represent them.
With regard to things we have done, the gentleman talked about the
Affordable Care Act, but he ignored the fact that I believe--and I may
get this wrong, but I am close--seven of the changes to the Affordable
Care Act were signed into law.
The gentleman talked about a budget. He did finally acknowledge that,
when the Democrats were in charge, Mr. Speaker, they didn't pass a
budget.
I have been here since 2011, when we took over the majority, and we
have passed a budget every year and have passed a budget that balances.
I believe we are going to pass a budget this year. I hope not to be
proved wrong, Mr. Speaker, but we are working hard at it.
With regard to the rule, the gentleman seems to want to have it both
ways. He says that the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act should
have been done on suspension, on the one hand, and then he wants an
open rule that would eat up even more time, on the other hand. I am not
sure which it is he wants here, but let's have it one way or the other.
And then, finally, on the SENSE Act, the gentleman from Colorado
ignores the fact that this bill does not change the overall emissions
cap. He wants to talk about how it loosens the overall emissions cap.
It does not.
Let's be clear. It does not change the overall emissions cap. It
provides flexibility for only 19 refuse-to-power plants across this
country, and it saves money because it would cost $2 billion in
Pennsylvania alone just to clean up that refuse around these coal
mines.
It is dangerous and it is bad for the environment. Providing this
flexibility does not change our overall emissions, but it does help get
those reclamation sites cleaned up cheaper, not as a cost to the
taxpayer, and provides an additional benefit of jobs in energy. That
sounds pretty American to me.
I think it is time to end this war on coal that some people in this
administration and the other side of the aisle have. That is what the
SENSE Act would do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Ohio talked about what we do when we are back
home. Of course we tour businesses, meet with people, and do all of
those wonderful things. What I hear from them is: Why aren't you back
in Washington solving problems?
Look, I represent one of the most beautiful districts in the entire
country: Winter Park, Vail, the beautiful Flatirons near Boulder, Rocky
Mountain National Park, Estes Park, the great Arts Center in Loveland,
and Fort Collins. I love nothing more than going home.
But when we got elected to this position, Mr. Speaker, we promised
our constituents that we will make a sacrifice. Part of that sacrifice
is saying: You know what. We are going to take some time away, leave
our friends and family, to work for the good of the country, to roll up
our sleeves and actually solve problems.
As much as I would like to be back in Colorado, in my beautiful
district, right now and I would rather personally be hiking in the
hills above our home in north Boulder than I would be debating the
finer points of coal refuse policy with the gentleman from Ohio, that
is what I signed up for.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that that is what he signed up for, too. We
signed up to do work. We owe the American people a budget. We should
stay here until we complete that budget, even if it means canceling the
vacation that we have scheduled.
And, yes, that vacation--when we are back home, we can't do
legislative work. Sure, we can put on an apron and visit a local
kitchen. We do, and I do. And you know what, it is part of the job. I
am happy to do it.
But we can't pass a single law while we are back home. It is
impossible, Mr. Speaker, to pass a budget while we are all back home
and Congress is not in session. It is not possible if Congress is not
in session.
The gentleman asked: What is a better way to proceed with this
noncontroversial bill and the controversial bill? Look, either way is
fine if we had an open rulemaking process, an open rule.
At least there would be some point to these discussions on the floor.
There would be Republicans and Democrats who might have ideas to make
these bills better that would be bringing them forward. At least there
would be some point to it.
But, no, there is no point to it. Because we are debating it, we know
the outcome, and Republicans and Democrats can't even offer their bills
to enhance it.
We are prohibited during all of this time debating one bill that is
largely noncontroversial and one bill that isn't going anywhere and
won't become law.
We are spending the entire week debating these bills--or most of the
week. I know we will be back to discuss another court case relating to
immigration later this week.
But the bulk of the week is debating this rather than the budget,
securing our border, keeping the American people safe, growing the
economy, creating jobs, investing in infrastructure, FAA authorization,
any of those issues.
But when I am back home and visiting businesses, I hear about it from
my constituents. You would think that, with all the time we spend back
home that the gentleman from Ohio calls nonvacation time because we are
always listening to people, we would listen more and actually do what
the American people say.
Are the American people saying to address the miniscule aspects of
the coal refuse plant and CSAPR and MATS?
Let me be honest, Mr. Speaker. Until this debate, I thought CSAPR was
just a friendly ghost, because the American people back in my district
are not really about CSAPR and MATS.
In fact, once I understood them, I thought they sounded good. They
are market-based approaches. I don't think this Federal takeover that
the Republicans are proposing is a good idea.
Instead, if we are spending all this time listening back home, which
we certainly are because Congress is hardly working here, then at least
let's listen to what the American people say.
I believe they are speaking strongly with one voice, whether they are
Republican or Democratic. I hear the same things from my constituents,
the unaffiliated constituents, the Republicans, the Democrats, the
Greens, the Libertarians. What they all tend to say, what they all say,
is: Go do your job. Pass a budget. Pass a budget.
Democrats believe that. Republicans believe that. Unaffiliated voters
believe that. Greens, Libertarians, and the American Constitution Party
believe that. If I have left out any other parties, I am pretty sure in
saying that they also think that Americans should have a budget.
We have budgets for our households. I have a budget for my household.
We have budgets for our States. Doesn't the American Congress owe the
American people a budget?
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to prohibit the House from going on recess next
week until we do our job and pass a budget.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with the extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Colorado?
[[Page 3230]]
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to remind the gentleman from Colorado that, when
the Democrats were in charge of Congress, they went on--I will use his
word--vacation 4 years in a row without passing a single budget, not a
single budget.
We have passed a budget every year, and I believe we are going to
pass a budget this year, just as a reminder to the gentleman of what
happened. I think he wants to have it both ways again, and I would just
like to remind him, Mr. Speaker.
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus),
who listened to his constituents to deal with an issue that is very
important to him. I will let him address it.
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
In addition to listening to my constituents, I have been listening to
my good friend from Colorado about wanting to come here to solve
problems. Well, the SENSE Act is about solving a problem.
I, too, have a beautiful district. I consider it the most beautiful
district in the country. You get on top of some of those mountain
vistas and it is breathtaking.
But unlike the gentleman from Colorado, there are some scars when you
look up at some of those vistas. The scars are a vestige of ages-ago
mining.
That is why the SENSE Act, Mr. Speaker, is a smart and important
legislative fix to ensure that the coal refuse-to-energy facilities can
be held to strict, but achievable, standards.
Coal refuse, as some of you may know--and perhaps this is an
educational moment for people in this country to learn more about what
we have up there in Pennsylvania--is a byproduct of historic coal-
mining operations. Anyone who has driven through coal country has seen
the towering black mounds of this material that loom beside cities and
towns and countrysides.
These mounds catch fire, burning uncontrollably and sending hazardous
smoke into the air. Rainwater leaches terrible chemicals from those
mounds, polluting nearby rivers and streams.
The coal refuse-to-energy industry turns this material into energy
and uses the profits and beneficial residual material to remediate
these formerly polluted sites at no cost to the taxpayer. It is really
the only feasible solution to this massive environmental problem.
I have seen the tremendous work done by the hardworking men and women
in this industry firsthand. I have stood on coal refuse piles in the
process of remediation. I have walked on the restored sites. Parks and
meadows now are regarded as community assets rather than liabilities.
Despite all the good that this industry does for Pennsylvania, coal
refuse-to-energy facilities are under attack from the EPA. The people
of my State and other coal States expect us to stand up for them as
their environment and livelihoods come under threat from Washington.
As we debate the rule for this legislation and prepare for general
and amendment debate, I want to share a few stories from the people in
this industry. These are people who are proud of the great work they
have done for their communities. Unfortunately, their way of life is
currently endangered.
Bill Turner is a shift supervisor at the A/C Colver coal refuse
facility in Cambria County. Bill has served at Colver for 22 years. He
is a long-term resident of western Pennsylvania and has lived alongside
coal refuse piles for many years.
Bill and his colleagues are proud of the reclamation work that his
plant and others in the area have been able to complete over the years.
He was able to put three kids through college, thanks to his job at
Colver, and I should mention that these kids grew up playing soccer on
a field reclaimed from a coal refuse site.
{time} 1300
When I asked him about the prospect that his industry might be
destroyed by the EPA, he remarked, ``To see it disappear would be a
travesty.''
Tim is an operations shift supervisor--a younger man, in his early
thirties, with a wife and two small kids. Wages at his plant are well
above the area average, and he is planning on building a new house near
the plant for his young family.
Again, Mr. Speaker, these plants are in economically challenged
areas. These jobs that these individuals have are not replaceable.
Allowing inflexible EPA orthodoxy to shutter his plant, a plant that
supports family-sustaining jobs and that repairs the local environment,
would be a disaster for Tim and his family.
At least 5,200 jobs are at stake, and each one of those jobs is more
than just a number. Each job lost is a Tim or a Bill. Each job lost
represents a major hardship for an American family.
As we debate the SENSE Act, please keep in mind what the bill's
supporters are fighting for. The SENSE Act is about protecting family-
sustaining jobs and is about ensuring the continuation of the
environmental success story of the coal refuse-to-energy industry.
I urge all Members to support this rule and the SENSE Act today so
that we can begin to solve problems.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would, of course, like to remind the gentleman from Pennsylvania
that my mountains are higher than his mountains. I also want to let the
gentleman know that my district is no stranger to coal mining as well.
Coal mines in northern Colorado existed throughout my district and near
my district in Marshall, Superior, Louisville, Lafayette, Erie, Dacono,
Frederick, and Firestone. The mines employ thousands of people.
Just 2 years ago, we observed the 100th anniversary of the Ludlow
Massacre, which was an attack by the Colorado National Guard and the
Colorado Fuel and Iron Company guards on a tent colony of 1,200
striking coal miners and their families in Ludlow, Colorado, on April
20, 1914.
Unfortunately, in that tragedy, two-dozen people were killed in that
black mark on our Nation's labor history. I would like to think how far
the United Mine Workers have come and how far we have come in
protecting workers' rights.
Certainly we understand the legacy of not just coal mining in my
district. The gentleman mentioned abandoned mines in the mountain
territory of our district. We have many abandoned silver and gold
mines. We have an active molybdenum mine right near my district. Many
workers live in my district and, of course, mining remains an important
part of the West and, of course, of the East as well.
Again, I would certainly advance the argument that even coming from a
mining district, Congress spending an entire week, basically, debating
these two bills is not something that justifies our time here.
The gentleman from Ohio rightly mentioned that Democrats did not
produce a budget, and yes, that might have been one of the reasons the
American people said, ``Okay. Republicans, we will give you a chance.
You guys produce a budget.''
Do you know what?
If you guys don't produce a budget, you guys are blowing that
opportunity, Mr. Speaker. If the Republicans can't deliver a budget, I
think the Democrats have learned from experience.
I certainly will go out and campaign on--and I think many of my
colleagues will say--``Look. The Republicans could not deliver a
budget.''
Most Democrats have learned our lesson. We are going to get back in
the majority and we are going to deliver a budget to the American
people. I certainly will work very hard to do that.
I am proud to be one of about 16 Democrats and a similar number of
Republicans who voted for a bipartisan budget in the last Congress. It
didn't pass. It was the only budget that had Democrats and Republicans
supporting it. Of course, it also had Democrats and Republicans
opposing it in greater numbers, unfortunately; but that is at
[[Page 3231]]
least the spark--the kind of idea we need to pursue--to be able to work
together to govern this country.
Rather than spinning our wheels and spending a lot of time debating a
bill that isn't controversial and a lot of time debating a bill that
isn't going anywhere, we should take up important legislation. We
should address comprehensive immigration reform; securing our borders,
making sure that workers who are important to our country have a way
out of the shadows; uniting families; and protecting the security of
the American people rather than wasting time in trying to change
commonsense rules for 20 coal refuse plants--rules that are working and
that have been affirmed by the district court.
We could be addressing the Nation's pressing issues like climate
change and carbon emissions and out-of-control student debt or how we
can improve opportunities for the struggling middle class.
Rather than wasting the American people's time and taxpayer dollars
on debating a special interest provision, we could take up the Email
Privacy Act, which would protect the American people's privacy and
which has 312 cosponsors--more than any other bill in this Congress and
which has a solid veto-proof majority.
We could take up criminal justice reform, which I know many people on
both sides of the aisle feel very strongly about and which I strongly
support, which could improve our economy, reduce crime, reduce costs,
and is a moral imperative; or as I mentioned, we could take up our
budget, as is the duty and responsibility of Congress, rather than all
go back to our districts and put on aprons and serve lattes and meet
people in our local diners.
I urge the House majority to take up these important pieces of
legislation, which are supported by a majority of Americans, that are
critical to our economy and align with our values rather than to debate
stale, unnecessary miner bills that won't even become law.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to remind the gentleman from Colorado that it is
not a ``minor'' bill for the 5,200 people whose jobs are on the line
every day right now.
Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STIVERS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. It is a ``miner'' bill. I was spelling ``miner'' a
different way than you.
Mr. STIVERS. Okay. That kind of ``miner'' I am good with. I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), an esteemed member of both the Rules and
Budget Committees.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding the time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I had not planned on coming down here. I know we are on
a clock and we are trying to get some things done, but I heard the
passionate words of my friend from Colorado--and he is my friend from
Colorado.
I think about what is, sadly, the sometimes short list of folks who
are on the other side of the aisle with whom you can grapple with the
really difficult issues of the day in this institution.
Mr. Polis is one of those folks to whom you can always go and have a
very candid and serious conversation about things, even those things on
which you disagree, which I think is why it has so distressed me to
hear some of the words that he had to share today.
Now, I confess that this is sometimes part of the show down here on
Rules Committee day, and sometimes folks have the talking points, and
they are obligated to go through those talking points. Yet, as a member
of the Budget Committee and as a relatively young Member in this
institution, I would say to my friend from Colorado that the reason
approval ratings in this institution are so low is that you and I stand
up here and we tell our constituents that they are supposed to be so
low.
Instead of telling our constituents that we have been working on a
budget the way we are supposed to work on a budget--line by line, word
by word because it is a serious challenge that deserves a serious
solution--we tell folks we have just thrown up our hands and quit. Not
true.
I sit on the Budget Committee. Tomorrow, from dawn until dusk, we
will be in that hearing room doing nothing but budgeting. We will hear
every single idea, every single alternative. Every choice that can be
made, we are going to make tomorrow. Now, that is not just one day of
budgeting; that is the culmination of days, weeks, and months of
working together, trying to get this budget done.
My friend is right. When I hear constructive criticism about how
Republicans ought to work to pass budgets, I know that doesn't come
from this decade, because Democrats have not passed a budget this
decade. This House has. Together we have, and I am very proud of that.
Every year since I have come to this institution--5 years ago--we
have come together and we have passed a budget. Last year, we came
together and we passed a budget for the entire United States of
America. For the first time in a long time, we got the Senate to move.
This is a cooperative exercise, and I am proud to be in it; but we
can't tell people that we are letting them down when, in fact, we are
delivering.
I look at my friend from Pennsylvania who is delivering on the SENSE
Act. I think the non-SENSE Act is a clever term, but the truth is the
``nonsense'' is suggesting that he is doing anything except the job his
constituents sent him to do. He has facilities in his district that are
closing down. He has families in his district who are losing their
jobs. He has people who are depending on him, his bosses back home in
the district depending on him to come and make a difference for them.
I get it. Folks over here might not like it, folks over here might
not like it, folks over there might not like it, but it is what he gets
paid to do. To suggest that bringing his ideas down here is a waste of
time is something I reject in the most forceful terms. He is doing what
he is supposed to do.
I would tell you that, if we all spent less time being focused on
being good Republicans and less time on being good Democrats and more
on being good servants to the people who sent us here, those approval
ratings would take care of themselves.
These campaign seasons drive me crazy. Folks spend 18 months not
doing their jobs and 6 months raising money, trying to convince people
they were. I believe if we do our jobs, we are going to get rewarded
for it; and if we don't do our jobs, we are going to be punished for
it; but we have got to be clear about what our job is.
Keith Rothfus' job is not to make anybody in the great State of
Georgia happy or anybody in the great State of Colorado happy. His job
is to stand up for families who can't stand up for themselves in
Pennsylvania, and I applaud him for it. His job is to do the things
that nobody else in this institution is going to do, because he works
for them.
This is not a waste of time today. This is exactly what we are
supposed to be doing. Don't you worry about that budget. Your Budget
Committee is going to deliver for you, and you are going to be proud of
the work product that we do; but we have got to tell folks that
representative government still works. We have got to tell folks that
Congress still works. We have got to tell folks that they are still the
boss of the United States of America.
You look at this Bernie Sanders phenomenon and this Donald Trump
phenomenon. Folks think they are no longer the boss. I look at Keith
Rothfus' State, and I know of the good men and women of Pennsylvania
who sent him here to stand up in the face of attacks from all sides. He
is delivering for his people back home. Vote ``yes'' or vote ``no.'' It
is your voting card--do what you want to with it--but let's never
impugn one of our colleagues for doing exactly what he was sent here to
[[Page 3232]]
do, and that is to stand up for the men and women we represent back
home.
Again, I say to my friend from Colorado, when it comes to the really
hard issues of the day, there is no one who I am more comfortable
working with. There is no one who is more willing to reach across the
aisle, and I admire that vote on the bipartisan budget that he took.
That was the very first year that I arrived here. Yet we can't let
these political seasons turn into telling each other why everybody up
here is a scoundrel and a cheat. There are some good men and women up
here. The gentleman from Colorado is one, the gentleman from Ohio is
one, and the gentleman who brings the SENSE Act here before us today is
absolutely one. I am proud to serve with each of you.
Mr. POLIS. Does the gentleman from Ohio have any remaining speakers?
Mr. STIVERS. I am prepared to close.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his thoughtful remarks.
Certainly there is no one in this debate who has called anybody a
scoundrel or anything of the sort.
The specific concerns of Mr. Rothfus would best be addressed in
Harrisburg. For the Republicans, that is the capital of Pennsylvania.
Don't worry. I had to ask as well. That is where this could best be
addressed. The Republicans have talked a lot about empowering the
States to solve problems rather than always coming to Washington to
solve our problems for us.
Guess what?
Harrisburg is empowered to deal with this issue today, and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania would be best served in spending time with
his Governor, the State regulators, and the State legislature to
address the very issues for which he is trying to do this end run in
coming to Congress to spend our time here, debating.
The gentleman from Georgia also mentioned that they are hard at work
on the Budget Committee. I hope so. I mean, I trust the gentleman. I am
sure they are. They are working. I hope that this Congress will stay in
session long enough to see the results of that and to pass a budget.
That is what our ``previous question'' motion would do. It would simply
say that we prohibit the House from going into recess until we do our
job and pass a budget. It is entirely consistent with the work that the
Budget Committee is doing that will ultimately have to then be
reflected in the rank-and-file membership on both sides being a part of
that process as well, and we owe it to the American people to let that
process be completed and to pass a budget.
I urge the Republicans to take up these important pieces of
legislation that I have talked about--a budget, the FAA
reauthorization, the Child Nutrition Act, securing our border and
fixing our broken immigration system, balancing our budget, investing
in infrastructure, tax reform. These are actions that I hear about back
home every day I am back, and I think it is important that we act on
them. They are important to our economy and they are important to our
values as Americans--rather than debating bills that might feel good
but won't become law and ultimately are not the right way to solve our
problems.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would like to urge my
colleague from Colorado to use his 5 legislative days to ensure the
Congressional Record does appropriately say it is a miner act--M-I-N-E-
R instead of M-I-N-O-R act--where he said it was a minor act. I think
that is a very important distinction, and it is a distinction with a
difference. He made the statement earlier, so I hope he does use his 5
legislative days to correct the Record on that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 640 Offered by Mr. Polis
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 3. It shall not be in order to consider a motion that
the House adjourn on the legislative day of March 23, 2016,
unless the House has adopted a concurrent resolution
establishing the budget for the United States government for
fiscal year 2017.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess for a period of less than 15
minutes.
Accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 15 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess.
____________________
{time} 1331
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro
[[Page 3233]]
tempore (Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia) at 1 o'clock and 31 minutes p.m.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings
will resume on questions previously postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order:
Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 640;
Adopting House Resolution 640, if ordered;
Suspending the rules and passing H.R. 2081; and
Suspending the rules and passing H.R. 3447.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4596, SMALL BUSINESS BROADBAND
DEPLOYMENT ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3797,
SATISFYING ENERGY NEEDS AND SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on
ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 640)
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4596) to ensure that
small business providers of broadband Internet access service can
devote resources to broadband deployment rather than compliance with
cumbersome regulatory requirements, and providing for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3797) to establish the bases by which the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency shall issue, implement, and
enforce certain emission limitations and allocations for existing
electric utility steam generating units that convert coal refuse into
energy, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235,
nays 177, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 114]
YEAS--235
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--177
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--21
Babin
Becerra
Beyer
Blackburn
Brady (PA)
Capuano
Carter (TX)
Davis, Danny
Duckworth
Ellmers (NC)
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Herrera Beutler
Joyce
Lipinski
Roskam
Rush
Smith (WA)
Takai
Thornberry
Wenstrup
{time} 1353
Messrs. TED LIEU of California, GRAYSON, and ASHFORD changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235,
noes 176, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 115]
AYES--235
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
[[Page 3234]]
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--176
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--22
Babin
Becerra
Blackburn
Brady (PA)
Cole
Davis, Danny
Duckworth
Ellmers (NC)
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Herrera Beutler
Joyce
Lipinski
Rogers (AL)
Roskam
Rush
Smith (WA)
Takai
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Watson Coleman
Wenstrup
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1400
Ms. CLARKE of New York changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT INVOLVING
GIBSON DAM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2081) to extend the
deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project
involving the Gibson Dam, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 410,
nays 2, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 116]
YEAS--410
Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amodei
Ashford
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Benishek
Bera
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blum
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bost
Boustany
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DeSaulnier
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Emmer (MN)
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hahn
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Honda
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Knight
Kuster
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Moulton
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
Nunes
O'Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Pallone
Palmer
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
[[Page 3235]]
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (NC)
Price, Tom
Quigley
Rangel
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Speier
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--2
Amash
Watson Coleman
NOT VOTING--21
Babin
Becerra
Blackburn
Brady (PA)
Davis, Danny
Duckworth
Ellmers (NC)
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Hardy
Herrera Beutler
Joyce
Lipinski
Roskam
Rush
Smith (WA)
Takai
Thornberry
Waters, Maxine
Wenstrup
Yarmuth
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fleischmann) (during the vote). There
are 2 minutes remaining.
{time} 1408
Mr. RANGEL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT NUMBERED
12642
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3447) to extend the
deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project,
as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, as amended.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 406,
nays 3, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 117]
YEAS--406
Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amodei
Ashford
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Benishek
Bera
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blum
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bost
Boustany
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DeSaulnier
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Emmer (MN)
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (LA)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hahn
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Honda
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Knight
Kuster
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Moulton
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
Nunes
O'Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Pallone
Palmer
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (NC)
Price, Tom
Quigley
Rangel
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Speier
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Waters, Maxine
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--3
Amash
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
NOT VOTING--24
Babin
Becerra
Blackburn
Brady (PA)
Davis, Danny
Duckworth
Ellmers (NC)
Gibbs
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Herrera Beutler
Joyce
Lipinski
Poliquin
Roskam
Rush
Salmon
Smith (WA)
Takai
Thornberry
Turner
Wenstrup
Yarmuth
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1415
Mr. TAKANO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 117, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
[[Page 3236]]
____________________
SATISFYING ENERGY NEEDS AND SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT ACT
General Leave
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 3797.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 640 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3797.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1417
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3797) to establish the bases by which the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall issue, implement, and enforce
certain emission limitations and allocations for existing electric
utility steam generating units that convert coal refuse into energy,
with Mr. Westmoreland in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
It is not often that Congress has the opportunity to help an industry
that creates both jobs and energy while also improving the environment,
and it is especially rare when we can do that at no cost to the
taxpayer. H.R. 3797, the SENSE Act, accomplishes all this. That is why
we are here today, and that is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes''
on this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Rothfus), the author of the legislation.
Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank him for
the support that he and the Energy and Commerce Committee have
expressed for H.R. 3797, the Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the
Environment Act, also known as the SENSE Act.
Mr. Chair, the SENSE Act is a vitally important effort that I have
championed in various forms for my nearly 3 years in Congress. This
bill recognizes the overwhelming success of the endangered coal refuse-
to-energy industry in making my district in western Pennsylvania and
others across coal country healthier and cleaner places to work and
live.
Without the SENSE Act, coal refuse-to-energy facilities will close,
and their environmental mediation efforts will end. Contrary to the
claims of this legislation's supposedly environmentalist opponents, the
SENSE Act is a pro-environment bill.
As many of you know, the coal industry has been an important part of
the economy in Pennsylvania for many generations. Historic mining
activity unfortunately left behind large piles of coal refuse. These
piles consist of lower quality coal mixed with rock and dirt. For a
long time, we did not have the technology to use this material, so it
accumulated in large piles in cities and towns, close to schools and
neighborhoods, and in fields across the countryside. This has led to a
number of environmental problems that diminish the quality of life for
many people in the surrounding areas. Vegetation and wildlife have been
harmed, the air has been polluted, and acid mine drainage has impaired
nearby rivers and streams.
I have been to many of these sites and seen firsthand the
environmental danger they pose. Coal refuse piles can catch fire,
causing dangerous and uncontrolled air pollution. Runoff from these
sites can turn rivers orange and leave them devoid of life.
The cost to clean all this up is astronomical. Pennsylvania's
environmental regulator estimates that fixing abandoned mine lands
could take over $16 billion, $2 billion of which would be needed for
coal refuse piles alone.
We needed an innovative solution to this tough challenge. A
commonsense compromise was necessary to get the job done and protect
the environment. That is where the coal refuse-to-energy industry comes
in. Using advanced technology, this industry has been able to use this
previously worthless material to generate electricity. This activity
powers remediation efforts that have so far been successful in removing
over 200 million tons of coal refuse and repairing formerly polluted
sites across the Commonwealth and other historic coal regions.
Thanks to the hard work of the dedicated people in this industry,
landscapes have been restored, rivers and streams have been brought
back to life, and towns across coal country have been relieved of
unsafe and unsightly waste coal piles.
They do say that a picture paints a thousand words, and that is what
I have here. In the foreground you have a waste coal pile that is under
the process of remediation. In the background, the green hillside used
to look just like the black foreground that you see here. This has been
reclaimed. This is what is happening across Pennsylvania as we restore
these hillsides.
It is important to note that private sector leadership on this issue
has saved taxpayers millions of dollars in cleanup costs. That is why
Pennsylvania's abandoned mine reclamation groups have endorsed my bill,
and that is why we have also earned the support of clean water
advocates.
Unfortunately, intensifying and inflexible EPA regulations threaten
to bring much of the coal refuse industry's activity to a halt. This
would leave billions of dollars of vital cleanup unfinished, lead to
thousands of job losses, and endanger our energy security.
The SENSE Act addresses challenges arising from the implementation of
two existing rules: MATS, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and
CSAPR, known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.
Though all coal refuse-fired power generators can meet--can meet--the
mercury standard under MATS, many facilities will be unable to meet the
rule's new hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide standards. Contrary to
what critics allege, the SENSE Act simply provides operators with
alternative MATS compliance standards that are strict but achievable.
Similarly, although coal refuse-fired power generators were provided
sufficient sulfur dioxide allocations in phase 1 of CSAPR's
implementation, these facilities were allocated insufficient credits in
phase 2, which is set to begin in 2017. The SENSE Act seeks to provide
coal refuse-fired power generators with the same allocations levels in
phase 2 as in phase 1.
My bill also contains provisions to ensure that this change does not
simply create a profit center for the industry. Credits allocated as a
result of the SENSE Act's implementation must go to covered plants,
specifically those that use bituminous coal refuse, and they cannot be
sold off to other operators.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Pennsylvania
an additional 1 minute.
Mr. ROTHFUS. In the last Congress, I merely attempted to exempt these
facilities from MATS compliance with SO2 and HCl. Building
upon my efforts, Senators Toomey and Casey from the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania offered a bipartisan amendment providing similar treatment
for these plants within the context of both MATS and CSAPR. While this
proposal was supported by a bipartisan majority of Senators, it failed
to achieve the supermajority necessary to pass.
What we are looking to achieve today is much narrower and far more
limited than our effort in the last Congress,
[[Page 3237]]
which received bipartisan support. This should not be a controversial
or bipartisan issue. We want to hold this industry to high standards,
but standards they can actually achieve.
My bill will help keep the coal refuse industry in business so that
the local community, economy, and environment will continue to reap the
benefits. The people who live near coal refuse piles and all of the
communities downstream of these hazards expect us to find a solution.
I thank the chairman for his time and cooperation with this vital
piece of legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3797. Once again, this
House is using valuable time to consider a bill that has no chance of
becoming law.
H.R. 3797, the Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment
Act, or the SENSE Act, is an unnecessary bill that undermines public
health and the environment. Unfortunately, this is no surprise.
Throughout this Congress and the previous one, House Republicans have
brought many bills to the floor that undermine the Clean Air Act, which
also undermines public health and environmental protection. But this
bill deserves special recognition because it also undermines States'
authorities and picks winners and losers in the emission reduction
effort.
H.R. 3797 denies a State's right to decide which tradeoffs to make in
allocating emission credits among different facilities in its
jurisdiction. It allows waste coal-burning facilities to generate more
pollution, forcing other facilities, including traditional coal-fired
utilities, to find greater emission reductions.
The legislation undermines two important public health rules issued
under the Clean Air Act. The first is the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule, or CSAPR, and the second is the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards,
or MATS, rule. These rules will help reduce toxic air emissions,
including sulfur dioxide, hydrochloric acid, and mercury, which makes
the air cleaner and safer to breathe for all of us.
CSAPR uses an emissions trading mechanism to incentivize utilities
and other facilities to reduce harmful air pollutants. These market-
based mechanisms have been very successful at reducing pollution at the
lowest cost. Facilities that become cleaner, either by becoming more
efficient, installing pollution control equipment, or by switching to
another fuel, generate valuable pollution credits, and they can use
these credits or sell them to other facilities.
Unfortunately, this legislation undermines the proven market
mechanism used in CSAPR. If the SENSE Act were to become law, there
would be far less incentive to reduce pollution because the bill
effectively reduces the value of making emission control investments.
With respect to the second rule, the MATS rule, the bill's advocates
claim that waste coal plants deserve special consideration due to the
nature of the fuel that they burn. They argue that these plants are
being used to clean up waste coal piles, the coal refuse and other
materials that were left over from past coal mining operations. This
waste causes land and water pollution problems in many former coal
mining areas.
While there may be benefits to burning waste coal to generate
electricity, it can and should be done in a manner that avoids undue
air pollution. Otherwise, the problems that now exist on land and in
the water will simply be transferred to the air and spread out over a
larger area. Mercury, in particular, is a highly toxic substance that
does not break down. It is associated with serious health impacts,
including neurotoxicity and cancer.
The operators of waste coal facilities asked EPA to consider their
facilities separately from other coal plants, but EPA found these
facilities are able to comply with these rules and there is no
justification for treating waste coal facilities differently from other
coal-fired generation facilities--and the courts agreed. These are
coal-burning utilities, and they can use existing pollution control
technologies to reduce their emissions.
So, Mr. Chairman, under the conditions of CSAPR, States have the
authority to design their own emission allocation. Today, a State can
allow waste coal facilities to emit higher levels of pollution and
impose stricter pollution limits on other facilities if they choose to
do so, but this legislation eliminates the State's flexibility and
imposes a one-size-fits-all solution on the States. This legislation is
essentially coming to the floor to benefit fewer than 20 facilities
that exist in a handful of States, with most of the facilities located
in Pennsylvania.
The States already have the ability to provide waste coal facilities
with additional emission credits or other assistance if they choose to
do so. So the SENSE Act creates more problems than it solves. It is
unnecessary. It undermines the incentive to produce cleaner air, which
is essential to improving public health and the environment, and it
undermines State authority.
The White House strongly opposes the bill and has issued a veto
threat saying that it would threaten the health of Americans. I agree,
and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3797, the Satisfying
Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act, or the SENSE Act.
Mr. Chairman, coal refuse is an aboveground waste product of coal
mining that can pose a number of environmental and safety threats to
our country. To address these threats, specialized power plants, known
as coal refuse-to-energy plants, were developed to recycle their waste
product while generating affordable, reliable electricity to the
American people.
{time} 1430
Yet, the EPA has continually written rules and regulations that will
ultimately shut down these specialized plants.
The Agency's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and their Mercury and Air
Toxics Standards include certain emission limits that are just not
achievable for coal refuse-to-energy plants.
These EPA regulations will cost and result in billions of dollars in
environmental cleanup. This could all be prevented by refuse-to-energy
plants.
That is why H.R. 3797 is so important. It will provide targeted
modifications to the EPA rules as they apply to coal refuse-to-energy
plants.
There are no major initiatives. There are no new laws being created.
We are only making target modifications to EPA's Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule and their Mercury and Air Toxics Standards so Americans
can receive safe, affordable energy, keep their jobs, and have a
cleaner environment.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3797 so that we can make sure
that we continue to create more jobs while making our environment
cleaner.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), my colleague.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank
my ranking member, Mr. Pallone, for the time.
I rise in opposition to the SENSE Act.
This bill, introduced by Congressman Rothfus from my home State, is
an effort to help coal refuse plants, most of which are located in the
State of Pennsylvania.
Industry estimates that coal waste piles cover approximately 170,000
acres of Pennsylvania, left over from coal-mining operations that
stopped decades ago.
Coal refuse plants then turn this coal waste into a small portion of
Pennsylvania's energy portfolio and play an important part in
remediating and rehabilitating the environment.
Left alone, these waste coal fields can pollute the groundwater and
contaminate other water sources. They
[[Page 3238]]
can also, if sparked by an ATV, lightning, or other occurrences, burn
unabated and release dangerous pollutants at eye level.
For years, these waste coal plants have provided an important
service, turning environmental hazards into energy. Accordingly, they
have enjoyed many years of bipartisan support in my home State.
I want to say at the outset I appreciate what Mr. Rothfus is trying
to do. This is an important issue in our State, and it needs to be
addressed. The problem is it is his solution that I can't support.
This bill seeks to make it easier for these plants to comply with two
regulations, CSAPR and MATS. It does this not by funding new technology
to make plants cleaner or more efficient, reducing costs of operation,
or changing electricity contracts.
Instead, what the SENSE Act does is two things. It fundamentally
changes CSAPR by playing favorites with power sources and then rolls
back important standards under MATS.
By extending phase 1 implementation standards for SO2 for
only these plants, but not increasing the overall cap, the SENSE Act
prioritizes coal refuse plants over all other sources of electricity.
All other sources in my home State have to make up for the extra
credits coal refuse plants get to keep. This is bad policy and bad
practice. You can't rob Peter to pay Paul in complying with
regulations.
The SENSE Act would significantly increase the proportion of
SO2 credits allocated to coal refuse plants. I have seen
estimates that the percentage of SO2 credits allocated to
these plants would actually double. Again, all other plants in my State
would then have to make up the difference.
The SENSE Act also removes an important option provided to States
under CSAPR: the ability to draft and submit their own compliance plan.
At this point, our State has chosen not to take this option, but we
shouldn't remove Pennsylvania's and other States' abilities to craft
their own implementation plans. The SENSE Act just creates alternative
implementation standards for coal refuse plants under MATS that are
weaker on protecting our air.
What comes next? I know we have implementation dates for
NOX standards that could be tough across the coal industry
in my own State. Are coal refuse plants going to come back and say they
need another carveout, another exception? This just sets a bad
precedent.
But it is not just a bad precedent. It is a dangerous precedent.
CSAPR and MATS protect the air we breath and help mitigate the impact
that we have on our climate. If every single source of power was
allowed to make exceptions to rules and regulations, we would be in
deep trouble.
There are coal refuse plants that burn both bituminous and anthracite
waste coal that have said they will be able to comply with CSAPR and
MATS. There are only 19 of these facilities in the entire country.
Fourteen of them are in Pennsylvania, and five of those plants say
they can comply with CSAPR and MATS as currently written. They may need
to add some new technology and improve their processes, but that is the
nature of the power industry in the 21st century.
It is changing. We have to adapt. Bills that roll back or modify
these regulations I just don't believe are the right way forward. I
think there may be alternative ways forward on this tough issue.
Like I said earlier, these plants provide an important environmental
benefit to my home State, and I would like to see it continue.
We should look at all available options, whether it is States
drafting their own implementation plants, whether it is providing a tax
credit for the processing of this coal based on its environmental
benefit, incentivizing other plants to co-fire with waste coal, or
adding new fuel sources at existing waste coal plants.
I want to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take
a hard look at this and try to come up with a solution that we can all
agree to because this is a critical issue.
I want to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for bringing much-
needed attention to waste coal. I hope that we are able to work
together on this issue in the future. But, for now, the SENSE Act is
not the right solution to the problem, and I must oppose it.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Mr. Rothfus once again for
introducing this important legislation.
We find ourselves here today because the EPA in the Obama
administration has been more aggressive than any EPA in history.
I might say that the Supreme Court recently issued a stay on the
clean energy plan because it was so extreme, so unprecedented, that
even legal scholars like Professor Larry Tribe at Harvard University
said that the clean energy plan was like tearing up the Constitution of
the U.S., that what they are doing under that plan is so extreme.
What we are talking about here is we are talking about 19 coal
refuse-to-energy facilities operating in America. They employ about
1,200 people directly, about 4,000 people indirectly, and they have a
payroll of about $84 million a year. Each one of these plants, on
average, is less than 100 megawatts.
The amount of emissions is very small. But the fact that they are
able to use coal refuse that has been accumulating for years and years
and years as America burned coal to produce electricity--we have a lot
of waste refuse out there. These plants are cleaning it up. We know
that, without this kind of cleanup, taxpayer dollars would be used to
do it.
It is true that they have some emissions. It is also true that there
is a tremendous environmental benefit by cleaning it up, not to mention
the jobs that are created.
Now, people always say: Well, if you change this rule at all, if you
adjust what EPA has done at all, you are going to make it more harmful
to Americans who are breathing the air.
In our hearings about this particular issue, the Mercury and Air
Toxics rule, I want to point out that the EPA admitted that its own
Mercury and Air Toxics rule would not generate significant mercury
reduction benefits and, in fact, attributes nearly all of that rule's
benefits to the indirect reductions in fine particulate matter that is
regulated in another part of the Clean Air Act.
EPA itself has admitted that allowing these plants to operate and the
adjustments to be made is not a significant issue.
If you consider the fact that--actually, the U.S. Court of Appeals
rendered a decision because a lawsuit was brought about EPA not forming
a special subcategory for these coal refuse plants and they said it was
not a violation of the Clean Air Act, that a subcategory was not set up
by EPA.
But if you read the opinion, EPA certainly could have set up a
special category for these coal refuse plants and decided not to do it.
The reason we are here today is because we have a job. We are the
party, we are the body, that wrote the Clean Air Act, and we disagree
with the EPA on this particular issue.
We are saying 19 plants, 14 in one State, 1,200 jobs directly, 4,000
jobs indirectly, $84 million in a payroll, and EPA itself says this is
not a major environmental issue.
We make the argument that the benefits of cleaning up these abandoned
sites would offset the minute lack of reduction in the MATS rule and
the SOx rule.
For those reasons, I respectfully would say that I think, overall,
the benefits are much greater by adopting the SENSE Act as authored by
Mr. Rothfus.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to respond to some of the Republican claims
regarding the MATS rule.
The Energy and Commerce Committee held a legislative hearing on the
[[Page 3239]]
SENSE Act on February 3 of this year. At that hearing, we heard
testimony regarding the ability of waste coal units to meet the
requirements of the MATS rule.
As Mr. Walke testified, when waste coal plants owners filed lawsuits
challenging the MATS rule, claiming it was ``virtually impossible to
meet the acid gas and sulfur dioxide limits,'' the court had little
trouble rejecting these arguments unanimously.
The judge pointed to the evidence and data submitted to EPA showing
that many of the waste coal units could already meet the rule's acid
gas standard or alternative sulfur dioxide standard.
The court also noted that some of these already-compliant plants are
among the best performers in reducing hydrogen chloride emissions among
all coal-burning power plants around the country.
If the majority, along with the bill's proponents, are trying to say
that the bill is needed because all of the currently operating waste
coal units can't meet the MATS standards, that is not how the Clean Air
Act works.
The Clean Air Act's use of maximum achievable control technology for
setting air pollution standards takes a reasonable approach.
It says that EPA should set emission limits based on the emission
levels already being achieved by similar facilities in the real world.
For existing sources, EPA bases the emission standards for each
pollutant on the average emissions achieved by the best performing 12
percent of facilities.
Congress, in setting up its program, did not want to merely maintain
the status quo. They wanted all facilities within an industrial sector
to make the necessary upgrades to reduce their emissions in line with
the best performing units.
The advocates of this bill claim that coal refuse facilities should
be treated differently from other coal fuel-generation facilities and
that the technology and fuel used would prevent these facilities from
meeting the MATS standards for acid gases and sulfur dioxide, but that
is simply not true.
First, under the MATS rule, facilities have a choice of meeting
either the acid gas standard or the sulfur dioxide standard. They don't
have to meet both.
But, second, there is emission control technology available today
that can bring these waste coal facilities into compliance with the
rule.
I see no justification for allowing these facilities to emit more
pollutants than other similar facilities.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1445
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to point out, once again, that we are here because Congress
wants to make the decision that the EPA should set up subcategories in
this particular instance. Both the Clean Air Act and the EPA
regulations promulgated under it, on a routine basis, divide regulated
entities into separate categories, but the EPA was unwilling to do it
in this case primarily because coal was involved. It is no secret that
when the President was running, in an editorial interview in San
Francisco, he made the comment publicly that he would bankrupt the coal
industry; and that actually is happening.
Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the author of this bill.
Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, there are only 19 plants we are talking about here and
four States that are involved. There are some plants out there that can
comply--there is not a question about that--but there are only a few of
them, and we are looking at a number of plants that do not have the
capacity to comply with these one-size-fits-all standards.
While the State should be looking at this, the SENSE Act does what
the EPA should have done in creating these categories. It could take up
to 2 years, Mr. Chairman, for the EPA to get back as to any kind of
modification. The State could propose a change, but then it has to wait
and wait and wait, and while it waits, we will see power plants close
that do not have this technology.
There is something called a ``margin'' in business, Mr. Chairman. You
take a look at the expense of doing things, you look at the cost of
things, and you look at the income. Once the expense or the cost
exceeds the income, plants' businesses go out of business. People lose
jobs. That is what we are talking about. In this case, not only do
people lose jobs, but the tremendous environmental cleanup stops that
is taking place.
Pennsylvania estimates it would take $2 billion to clean up these
waste coal sites. I have walked the fields where they have been cleaned
up in Allegheny County and in Cambria County. I have seen hillsides on
which deer now graze where it used to be just a martian landscape, and
I have seen rivers that used to be orange that now have fish in them.
This is an industry that has been cleaning up these sites without the
taxpayers picking up the tabs.
Every State in this country is having budget issues and is trying to
find resources to address critical things like environmental cleanup.
This is something that is working. When you have one size fits all,
where the EPA refuses to make an accommodation because it does not
recognize the tremendous benefit that these facilities are bringing to
Pennsylvania, that is what this legislation seeks to change.
There is no free pass here for these plants. They will still be
measured and they will still have to comply, but this is a
customization to something that is achievable, and it is a
customization that I would argue is what the EPA should have been doing
all along.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my friend from Pennsylvania that
I agree with a lot of what he said as far as the value of these coal
refuse sites. No one is debating that. Certainly I am not. This is
almost a Pennsylvania exclusive piece of legislation given the fact
that 14 of the 19 sites are in our State, and I believe about five of
those can comply at this point.
The problem I have with the gentleman's proposal is that when one
takes emission credits and gives them to the coal refuse plants in
excess of what they get, it is coming out of somebody else's
allocation. In western Pennsylvania, where we are both from, most of
our electricity is from coal-fired utilities. What one is doing, in
effect, is taking those emission credits from other coal-fired
utilities to give them to this small number of coal refuse plants, and
that is going to cost others' margins on those utility sites. It will
affect their margins because now they have to work harder to clean up
their emissions because they don't have these credits because they have
gone to the coal refuse plants. That is a big problem I see, especially
in a State like ours that still has a lot of coal-fired electricity
generation.
I think there are better ways forward. I think we would be better
served in our State to push our State legislature and the Governor's
office, too, to come up with a State implementation plan that allows
for some flexibility and takes into account what goes on at these
plants, because this is primarily a Pennsylvania issue. As I said in my
remarks before, there are other ways, I think, to solve this problem.
Look, the President has issued a SAP. He is going to veto this bill.
So this piece of legislation isn't going to become law. Yet I am not
standing here to say that I think we should stop our efforts to do
something to keep this resource, because it is cleaning up a lot of
sites in Pennsylvania, and there is a benefit to the environment. There
is a lot of water pollution potential for leaving these sites as they
are.
I want to work with the gentleman, and I say to him that, while this
piece of legislation may not ever become law, I extend my offer to work
with the
[[Page 3240]]
gentleman in constructive ways, both with our Governor and State
legislature, and in alternative ways to attack this problem that
doesn't take emission credits from other coal-fired utilities in our
State.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the author of the
legislation.
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, it would be great for Pennsylvania to come
up with a customization on its own, but that would take a couple of
years for approval from the EPA. In the meantime, these plants will be
closed.
Few, if any, conventional coal plant owners have expressed concerns
about the SENSE Act. Bear in mind, we are talking about an overall
allocation for SO2 and a reconfiguring within that overall
allocation. So there is not going to be an increase in SO2;
it will be a mere customization and allocation, and it should have been
done and should have been allowed by the EPA.
While the President may have issued a veto threat, my hope is, before
the President would follow through on such a veto threat, that he would
come to western Pennsylvania, that he would walk the hills with me,
that he would see the streams that have come back to life, that he
would talk to Tim and talk to Bill and talk to the men and women at
these plants who are taking care of their families, so they can say,
``Mr. President, we need some help here. Our communities have been
economically distressed. We are sustaining our communities with these
jobs. We are raising our kids with these jobs. What we don't like, Mr.
President, are these one-size-fits-all edicts coming out of Washington,
D.C., that give our States and communities the burden of complying--
totally excluding the benefits that have been happening on the
ground.''
Again, to see these places that have been reclaimed is remarkable. It
is my hope that the President would visit those places before he
follows through on any kind of veto threat.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. I will not consume any more
time after this. I don't want to play Chip and Dale with the gentleman
all day.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say that our President has been to
Pittsburgh probably more than to any city in the country, and I have
been with him many times when he has been there. I have walked on these
sites, too. I have one up in Harmar Township. I have seen them. I know
what the gentleman is talking about, and I think it is a problem we
need to address. The SENSE Act is really a one-size-fits-all kind of
solution, not current law. Current law gives States flexibility, and I
think that is what is important.
I would just say to my friend that this is a real problem and a real
concern in our home State, and I reiterate my willingness to work with
him on a solution.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, there are no additional speakers on my
side of the aisle.
I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I include in the Record the Statement of
Administration Policy.
Statement of Administration Policy
h.r. 3797--satisfying energy needs and saving the environment (sense)
act--rep. rothfus, r-pa, and six cosponsors
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3797, which would
threaten the health of Americans by requiring changes to the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and the Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards (MATS) for electric generating units (EGUs) that
use coal refuse as their main fuel source. Specifically, H.R.
3797 would restrict the market-based approach currently used
to allocate sulfur dioxide emission allowances issued under
the CSAPR, thereby raising the costs of achieving the
pollution reduction required by the rule. The bill also would
undermine the emissions limits for hazardous acid gases from
those established under the MATS, leading to increased health
and environmental impacts from increased emissions of
hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, other harmful acid
gases, and sulfur dioxide.
CSAPR and MATS protect the health of millions of Americans
by requiring the reduction of harmful power plant emissions,
including air toxics and emissions that contribute to smog
and fine particle pollution. The pollution reductions from
CSAPR and MATS will prevent thousands of premature deaths,
asthma attacks, and heart attacks. An important feature of
the CSAPR is its trading program which allows power plants to
meet emission budgets in different ways, including by trading
emissions allowances between emission sources within a State
and some trading across States. This market-based approach
reduces the cost of compliance while ensuring reductions in
air pollution for citizens across the CSAPR region.
H.R. 3797 would create an uneven playing field by picking
winners and losers in CSAPR compliance. The bill establishes
a special market of CSAPR allowances for EGUs that burn coal
refuse and prohibits the trading of allowances allocated to
coal refuse EGUs, which would interfere with and manipulate
market conditions. By doing so, H.R. 3797 would: (1)
economically advantage coal refuse EGUs over other EGUs by
giving them allowances that would otherwise have been
allocated to others; (2) reduce compliance choices for other
State units; and (3) distort the economic incentives of coal
refuse EGUs to reduce emissions. Further, the allowances
allocated to coal refuse EGUs would be unavailable for use by
any other sources, resulting, in the aggregate, in less
efficient and more costly CSAPR compliance. Additionally,
H.R. 3797 would interfere with existing opportunities under
the CSAPR for each State to control the allocation of
allowances among its EGUs.
If the President were presented with H.R. 3797, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
Mr. PALLONE. The sponsor of the legislation mentioned the President's
coming to visit, but I think if you look at the Statement of
Administration Policy, it is quite clear that what the President is
essentially saying is that he doesn't want the Congress to pick the
winners and the losers. He wants the States--in this case,
Pennsylvania--to have the flexibility to make their own decisions.
It is not a question of what the President decides. It is clear that
he is vetoing this legislation or would veto this legislation because
he thinks that the flexibility is already there under the law and that
the States should make those decisions rather than having Congress pick
the winners and losers.
I am not going to read the whole thing, Mr. Chairman, but I did want
to just read the section that relates to that, if I could, from the
Statement of Administration Policy.
It reads:
``H.R. 3797 would create an uneven playing field by picking winners
and losers in CSAPR compliance. The bill establishes a special market
of CSAPR allowances for EGUs that burn coal refuse and prohibits the
trading of allowances allocated to coal refuse EGUs, which would
interfere with and manipulate market conditions. By doing so, H.R. 3797
would: (1) economically advantage coal refuse EGUs over other EGUs by
giving them allowances that would otherwise have been allocated to
others; (2) reduce compliance choices for other State units; and (3)
distort the economic incentives of coal refuse EGUs to reduce
emissions. Further, the allowances allocated to coal refuse EGUs would
be unavailable for use by any other sources, resulting, in the
aggregate, in less efficient and more costly CSAPR compliance.
Additionally, H.R. 3797 would interfere with existing opportunities
under the CSAPR for each State to control the allocation of allowances
among its EGUs.''
Again, I think the Statement of Administration Policy is based on the
idea that there is flexibility under the law and that States are in the
best positions to make these decisions. I think it is quite clear, and
I agree with everything that is in this veto message as being the basis
for why we oppose the legislation; so I urge my colleagues to oppose
the bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would just reiterate, once again, far from undercutting States, the
SENSE Act offers the best solution for States. The EPA, in these two
regulations, is
[[Page 3241]]
dictating to the States what can and cannot be done. Even if the States
wanted to take additional action, they would have to meet the
requirements of those regulations. The SENSE Act makes minor
modifications to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and to the Mercury
and Air Toxics Standards, and it does not raise the cap of the
emissions.
I have a great deal of respect for both of the gentlemen on the other
side of the aisle who have different views on this subject; but I can
tell you the generating plants that are burning coal to produce
electricity have not talked to us at all about being concerned about
the SENSE Act. They are overwhelmingly concerned about the clean energy
plan, which is basically going to change every aspect of the way they
do business if the courts do not rule it in violation of the Clean Air
Act.
In closing, as a Member of Congress and as Congresspeople, we do have
the responsibility to step in and change some parts of the Clean Air
Act if we view it as being in the best interest of the American people.
Because these coal refuse plants have already cleaned up, recycled,
over 200 million tons of coal refuse by combusting it to produce
electricity and because the overall caps are not going to be raised,
there are going to be minor modifications, we are going to continue to
clean up these refuse piles. We are going to continue to protect 1,200
direct jobs, 4,000 indirect jobs, $84 million in payroll.
It seems to me that the benefits far outweigh the negative aspects of
this legislation. For that reason, I would respectfully request my
colleagues to support H.R. 3797 and pass this legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of legislation that's
important to my part of Pennsylvania, and to all of the coal-producing
regions of this country.
The SENSE Act, offered by my colleague from western Pennsylvania, Mr.
Rothfus.
This bill is a long time coming.
In my part of the country, we are familiar with ``coal refuse''--a
mixture of low-quality coal, rock, and dirt, which is left behind after
mining.
This coal refuse has a much lower energy content, and for years it
could not be processed efficiently or economically.
As a result, piles of it were left behind, which led to a variety of
detrimental results: loss of vegetation and wildlife, and concentrated
levels of acid drainage into local streams and ponds.
But the technology has advanced, and we can now reclaim that waste--
the private sector can use the coal waste product to burn and generate
electricity.
What's left over after that can be used to restore the natural
landscape, or refill abandoned mines.
But, once again, the Environmental Protection Agency couldn't stand
this type of progress.
They came up with the MATS Rule--the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
rule.
This sets certain unattainable levels for the industry.
The SENSE Act provides relief from these unrealistic limits.
It seeks to establish an alternative compliance standard for coal
refuse facilities based upon the removal and control of Sulfur Dioxide.
Now, in some parts of the country, and in some speeches on the
campaign trail, it has become fashionable to attack the coal industry,
and make its people out to be the bad guys.
As a candidate, our current president promised to bankrupt the coal
industry.
And he has made a tremendous effort to do just that--including this
MATS Rule from his EPA.
Just in the last few days, the frontrunner on the Democratic side
promised that as president, she would put coal mines and coal miners
out of work.
Now, all of that might sound pretty good in certain focus groups, or
around the cocktail party circuit, but let me tell you . . . where I
come from, it sounds pretty devastating.
The coal industry--in no small part--helped build this country and
make it a world leader.
It generates cheap electricity for millions of people.
And for many tens of thousands of people back home in Pennsylvania,
it still provides a good living, and it puts food on the table.
This bill makes sense--common sense.
It provides a use for coal refuse, generates electricity, and
protects jobs.
And it will allow us to reclaim land previously mined, which means it
has a positive impact on the environment.
And when that land is reclaimed, it can again be put to use, and
placed back on the tax rolls, making it good for local government.
I urge support for the SENSE Act.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, today we have another opportunity to say yes to
energy and protect jobs with H.R. 3797, the SENSE Act. This sensible
bill will help coal refuse-to-energy facilities continue their work
producing energy while addressing the nation's coal refuse problem.
Vast mounds of coal refuse sit near many abandoned coal mines
throughout coal country, and they pose a serious threat to air and
water quality as well as to public safety. But through American
ingenuity, coal refuse-to-energy plants have been developed that
actually use this harmful waste product to generate electricity. The
end product is ash, which is environmentally safe and used to reclaim
the land.
There are 19 such plants in operation today that are producing energy
and jobs while providing a practical solution to the coal refuse
problem that would otherwise cost billions of dollars to address.
Unfortunately, there are two EPA rules targeting all coal-fired power
plants that are causing some problems. Coal refuse-to-electricity
plants are very different than conventional coal-fired plants and may
not be able to meet these EPA rules which are geared toward the
conventional plants. As a result, the future of these facilities and
their environmental and economic benefits is now in danger.
Thankfully, Mr. Rothfus of Pennsylvania has spearheaded a solution.
The SENSE Act still requires coal refuse-energy-plants to reduce their
emissions, but creates new compliance methods more appropriate for this
technology. This would allow these plants to continue operating, to the
great benefit to the communities where these facilities are located.
The SENSE Act is about as commonsense as they get. I urge all my
colleagues to support this pro-energy, pro-jobs, and strongly pro-
environment bill.
{time} 1500
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3797
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Satisfying Energy Needs and
Saving the Environment Act'' or the ``SENSE Act''.
SEC. 2. STANDARDS FOR COAL REFUSE POWER PLANTS.
(a) Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Boiler operating day.--The term ``boiler operating
day'' has the meaning given such term in section 63.10042 of
title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor
regulation.
(3) Coal refuse.--The term ``coal refuse'' means any
byproduct of coal mining, physical coal cleaning, or coal
preparation operation that contains coal, matrix material,
clay, and other organic and inorganic material.
(4) Coal refuse electric utility steam generating unit.--
The term ``coal refuse electric utility steam generating
unit'' means an electric utility steam generating unit that--
(A) is in operation as of the date of enactment of this
Act;
(B) uses fluidized bed combustion technology to convert
coal refuse into energy; and
(C) uses coal refuse as at least 75 percent of the annual
fuel consumed, by heat input, of the unit.
(5) Coal refuse-fired facility.--The term ``coal refuse-
fired facility'' means all coal refuse electric utility steam
generating units that are--
(A) located on one or more contiguous or adjacent
properties;
(B) specified within the same Major Group (2-digit code),
as described in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual
(1987); and
(C) under common control of the same person (or persons
under common control).
(6) Cross-state air pollution rule.--The terms ``Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule'' and ``CSAPR'' mean the regulatory
program promulgated by the Administrator to address the
interstate transport of air pollution in parts 51, 52, and 97
of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, including any
subsequent or successor regulation.
[[Page 3242]]
(7) Electric utility steam generating unit.--The term
``electric utility steam generating unit'' means either or
both--
(A) an electric utility steam generating unit, as such term
is defined in section 63.10042 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, or any successor regulation; or
(B) an electricity generating unit or electric generating
unit, as such terms are used in CSAPR.
(8) Phase i.--The term ``Phase I'' means, with respect to
CSAPR, the initial compliance period under CSAPR, identified
for the 2015 and 2016 annual compliance periods.
(b) Application of CSAPR to Certain Coal Refuse Electric
Utility Steam Generating Units.--
(1) Coal refuse electric utility steam generating units
combusting bituminous coal refuse.--
(A) Applicability.--This paragraph applies with respect to
any coal refuse electric utility steam generating unit that--
(i) combusts coal refuse derived from the mining and
processing of bituminous coal; and
(ii) is subject to sulfur dioxide allowance surrender
provisions pursuant to CSAPR.
(B) Continued applicability of phase i allowance
allocations.--In carrying out CSAPR, the Administrator shall
provide that, for any compliance period, the allocation
(whether through a Federal implementation plan or State
implementation plan) of sulfur dioxide allowances for a coal
refuse electric utility steam generating unit described in
subparagraph (A) is equivalent to the allocation of the unit-
specific sulfur dioxide allowance allocation identified for
such unit for Phase I, as referenced in the notice entitled
``Availability of Data on Allocations of Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule Allowances to Existing Electricity Generating
Units'' (79 Fed. Reg. 71674 (December 3, 2014)).
(C) Rules for allowance allocations.--For any compliance
period under CSAPR that commences on or after January 1,
2017, any sulfur dioxide allowance allocation provided by the
Administrator to a coal refuse electric utility steam
generating unit described in subparagraph (A)--
(i) shall not be transferable for use by any other source
not located at the same coal refuse-fired facility as the
relevant coal refuse electric utility steam generating unit;
(ii) may be transferable for use by another source located
at the same coal refuse-fired facility as the relevant coal
refuse electric utility steam generating unit;
(iii) may be banked for application to compliance
obligations in future compliance periods under CSAPR; and
(iv) shall be surrendered upon the permanent cessation of
operation of such coal refuse electric utility steam
generating unit.
(2) Other sources.--
(A) No increase in overall state budget of sulfur dioxide
allowance allocations.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
Administrator may not, for any compliance period under CSAPR,
increase the total budget of sulfur dioxide allowance
allocations for a State in which a unit described in
paragraph (1)(A) is located.
(B) Compliance periods 2017 through 2020.--For any
compliance period under CSAPR that commences on or after
January 1, 2017, but before December 31, 2020, the
Administrator shall carry out subparagraph (A) by
proportionally reducing, as necessary, the unit-specific
sulfur dioxide allowance allocations from each source that--
(i) is located in a State in which a unit described in
paragraph (1)(A) is located;
(ii) permanently ceases operation, or converts its primary
fuel source from coal to natural gas, prior to the relevant
compliance period; and
(iii) otherwise receives an allocation of sulfur dioxide
allowances under CSAPR for such period.
(c) Emission Limitations To Address Hydrogen Chloride and
Sulfur Dioxide as Hazardous Air Pollutants.--
(1) Applicability.--For purposes of regulating emissions of
hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide from a coal refuse
electric utility steam generating unit under section 112 of
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412), the Administrator--
(A) shall authorize the operator of such unit to elect that
such unit comply with either--
(i) an emissions standard for emissions of hydrogen
chloride that meets the requirements of paragraph (2); or
(ii) an emission standard for emissions of sulfur dioxide
that meets the requirements of paragraph (2); and
(B) may not require that such unit comply with both an
emission standard for emissions of hydrogen chloride and an
emission standard for emissions of sulfur dioxide.
(2) Rules for emission limitations.--
(A) In general.--The Administrator shall require an
operator of a coal refuse electric utility steam generating
unit to comply, at the election of the operator, with no more
than one of the following emission standards:
(i) An emission standard for emissions of hydrogen chloride
from such unit that is no more stringent than an emission
rate of 0.002 pounds per million British thermal units of
heat input.
(ii) An emission standard for emissions of hydrogen
chloride from such unit that is no more stringent than an
emission rate of 0.02 pounds per megawatt-hour.
(iii) An emission standard for emissions of sulfur dioxide
from such unit that is no more stringent than an emission
rate of 0.20 pounds per million British thermal units of heat
input.
(iv) An emission standard for emissions of sulfur dioxide
from such unit that is no more stringent than an emission
rate of 1.5 pounds per megawatt-hour.
(v) An emission standard for emissions of sulfur dioxide
from such unit that is no more stringent than capture and
control of 93 percent of sulfur dioxide across the generating
unit or group of generating units, as determined by
comparing--
(I) the expected sulfur dioxide generated from combustion
of fuels emissions calculated based upon as-fired fuel
samples; to
(II) the actual sulfur dioxide emissions as measured by a
sulfur dioxide continuous emission monitoring system.
(B) Measurement.--An emission standard described in
subparagraph (A) shall be measured as a 30 boiler operating
day rolling average per coal refuse electric utility steam
generating unit or group of coal refuse electric utility
steam generating units located at a single coal refuse-fired
facility.
The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those
printed in part B of House Report 114-453. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Pallone
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part B of House Report 114-453.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike sections 2(a)(6), 2(a)(8), and 2(b) and redesignate
accordingly.
Amend section 2(a)(7) to read as follows:
(7) Electric utility steam generating unit.--The term
``electric utility steam generating unit'' means an electric
utility steam generating unit, as such term is defined in
section 63.10042 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or
any successor regulation.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 640, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
in support of my amendment.
This is a targeted amendment that strikes section 2(b) from the bill.
This section deals with EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, also
known as CSAPR. This is one of the most important Clean Air Act rules
in recent years. It protects the health of millions of Americans by
requiring upwind States in the eastern and central United States to
reduce power plant emissions that cause air quality problems in
downward States.
As I have mentioned before during general debate, an important
feature of CSAPR is the trading program that allows sources in each
State to meet emission budgets in many different ways, including
trading of emission allowances. This approach reduces the overall cost
of compliance, while ensuring reduction in air pollution.
I mentioned previously during general debate that the Committee on
Energy and Commerce held a legislative hearing on this bill on February
3. At that hearing, the EPA and John Walke from the Natural Resources
Defense Council provided testimony that described a number of policy
and technical issues with this section of the bill, and I just want to
touch on a few of them now.
First, by allocating emission allowances to waste coal units that
cannot be traded, the SENSE Act would eliminate economic incentives to
reduce toxic air pollution at these waste coal units.
Second, by reallocating allowances from other sources within the
State to waste coal units and then limiting the ability to transfer or
trade these additional allowances to other facilities, the bill would
choose winners--that is,
[[Page 3243]]
the waste coal plants--and losers--that is, all other coal plants in a
given State.
Third, by interfering with the conditions of the CSAPR market,
compliance costs would increase for covered facilities.
Now, the SENSE Act would also remove a State's right to determine the
appropriate method of compliance with CSAPR. To be more specific,
currently, under the Clean Air Act, an individual State may choose to
reduce emissions from power plants based on EPA's CSAPR framework, or
they can choose to comply with the rule by reducing emissions based on
a framework the State develops and the EPA approves.
One of the most egregious aspects of the bill's CSAPR provision--and
it is one that I am surprised my Republican colleagues would support--
is that, if the bill were to become law, it would actually take this
power away from the States and give it to the EPA. Or, to put it
another way, the SENSE Act would wrest control away from States to make
these basic decisions for the first time in the 39-year history of the
Clean Air Act's interstate air pollution program.
EPA also pointed out that the SENSE Act would deny States control
over allocations of allowances by rendering any submitted State plan
with a different allocation to these units unapprovable. So why
supporters of this bill would want to change a successful EPA program
to make it less flexible and more costly is beyond me. The CSAPR
provisions of the bill make unnecessary changes to the rule since
States already have the power to help out waste coal plants if they
want to.
So, again, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
amendment to strike the CSAPR portion of this SENSE Act.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not warranted because
any change in a State's compliance cost will be very low. There are
only 19 coal refuse-to-energy facilities in the United States, mostly
small, under 100 megawatts, and only a subset will avail themselves of
the bill's provisions. We are only talking about four States: West
Virginia, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Montana.
The bill merely reallocates emission allowances under the Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule from other plants to coal refuse-to-energy
facilities. This will help ensure the continued operation of these
plants but is unlikely to have much of a cost impact.
As was stated in an earlier debate, this bill does what the EPA
should have done. It creates provisions that are realistic and
achievable for coal refuse-to-energy facilities. Both the Clean Air Act
and the EPA regulations promulgated under it routinely divide regulated
entities into separate categories that are treated differently based on
their unique characteristics.
Coal refuse-to-energy facilities have many such unique
characteristics and should have been treated as a separate category in
EPA rulemakings. It was discretionary for them not to, the Court held,
but that doesn't mean they should not have. And it is the policymaking
branch of this government, this Congress, this Article I branch, where
the people should have a say in how they are governed. They were not
accommodated in the EPA rulemakings, and the SENSE Act addresses that
omission.
Any modest costs, Mr. Chairman, are more than offset by the jobs,
energy, and especially the environmental benefits of keeping the coal
refuse-to-energy fleet in operation. States' environmental regulators
estimate the cost of addressing coal refuse to be approximately $2
billion in Pennsylvania alone, and that is just for cleanup.
When one of these coal piles catches fire and the damage that is
done--and when they are on fire, there is no control, Mr. Chairman.
There is no control. Nothing is being eliminated as these waste coal
piles burn. When the waste coal is being used by the energy industry in
these plants, there are controls in place.
Finally, with respect to giving States flexibility, everything has to
be approved by the EPA, Mr. Chairman. That is illusory. It could take 2
years for the EPA to approve a State plan. In the meantime, the plants
close, the progress stops, and the people lose their jobs.
I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Pallone
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part B of House Report 114-453.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Engel), I offer amendment No. 2.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 8, after line 23, insert the following new paragraph:
(3) Applicability.--This subsection shall not apply with
respect to a State if the Governor of the State, or the head
of the authority that implements CSAPR for the State, makes a
determination, and notifies the Administrator, that
implementation of this subsection will increase the State's
overall compliance costs for CSAPR.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 640, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Last month, the Energy and Power Subcommittee held a hearing that
identified numerous flaws in the SENSE Act, and this amendment is
designed to correct two of them.
If the SENSE Act were to become law, waste coal facilities would be
able to emit more than their fair share of pollution under the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule, known as CSAPR. Specifically, section 2(b) of
the SENSE Act would reserve emission credits for waste coal plants,
thereby prohibiting them from being traded under the CSAPR trading
system.
According to Janet McCabe, the Acting Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Air and Radiation at EPA, this would remove the economic
incentives to reduce emissions and ultimately increase the cost of
compliance. Section 2(b) would also interfere with the State's right to
determine how to best comply with the rule, instead putting those
decisions in the hands of the EPA Administrator. Not only are these
changes harmful, but they are also unnecessary because the State that
wishes to give a break to waste coal units can already do so under the
rule.
So this bill, as written, would take longstanding State authority,
transfer it to the Federal Government, and then use that authority to
pick winners and losers; and it does all of this while increasing the
cost of compliance. This amendment would allow a State to opt out of
section 2(b) of the SENSE Act if it determines that implementation of
the subsection would increase the State's overall compliance cost.
I urge my colleagues to protect the integrity of the CSAPR rule and
support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that what we are
[[Page 3244]]
looking at here is that the SENSE Act seeks to accomplish what the EPA
should have done in creating special categories.
Again, if you are looking at compliance costs, any costs are going to
be low. And then when you combine that with the requirement to seek EPA
approval and the delays that that would incur, these plants will be
closed, the environmental progress will stop, and challenged
communities will be further challenged.
These are solid, good-paying, family-sustaining jobs in these plants.
We know that while some plants are in compliance, others are not.
So, again, this SENSE Act seeks to do what the EPA should have done
from the very beginning and create appropriate categorization.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the underlying
bill but in support of the Engel amendment. It is perfect, good sense
giving the Governor of a State the ability to opt out of the section of
the bill that modifies the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule if the
Governor determines that implementing those provisions would increase
the overall cost of complying with the rule.
There goes, if you will, the underlying problem of this bill. There
has been no determination as to the burden of this particular bill, and
I oppose it.
I oppose it in particular because the bill would undermine the
emissions limits for hazardous acid gasses from those established under
the MATS, leading to increased health and environmental impacts from
increased emissions of hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and other
harmful acid gasses and sulfur dioxide.
Specifically, the CSAPR and MATS protect the health of millions of
Americans by requiring the reduction of harmful power plant emissions,
including the air toxics and emissions that contribute to smog and fine
particle pollution. The pollution reduction from CSAPR and MATS have
real-life impacts: prevention of thousands of premature deaths,
asthmatic attacks, and heart attacks.
I would offer to say, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee,
we are always dealing with toxics as it relates to chemical plants and
protecting the homeland in the area of security, but we also need to
protect them in the area of good quality health care.
I would argue that this bill would economically advantage coal refuse
EGUs over other EGUs, reduce compliance choices for other State units,
and distort the economic incentives of coal refuse EGUs to reduce
emissions. Also, the allowances allocated to coal refuse EGUs would be
unavailable for use by any other sources.
I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation. I don't believe that
this bill will be considered in the Senate. I don't believe that it
will be considered for signature by the White House.
I would offer to say that, besides the budget and the appropriations
process that is ongoing, we in this Congress need to deal with the
restoration of the Voting Rights Act and provide for section 5. Let's
get to work on things impacting the American people, creating more
jobs, as opposed to providing poor quality of life, poor quality of air
for our citizens throughout this Nation.
Once again, I support the Engel amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3797--Satisfying
Energy Needs and Saving the Environment (SENSE) Act.
I oppose this unwise and unnecessary legislation for several reasons.
H.R. 3797 would threaten the health of Americans by requiring changes
to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)
for electric generating units (EGUs) that use coal refuse as their main
fuel source.
In doing this, H.R. 3797 would restrict the market-based approach
currently used to allocate sulfur dioxide emission allowances issued
under the CSAPR, thereby raising the costs of achieving the pollution
reduction required by the rule.
This bill also would undermine the emissions limits for hazardous
acid gases from those established under the MATS, leading to increased
health and environmental impacts from increased emissions of hydrogen
chloride, hydrogen fluoride, other harmful acid gases, and sulfur
dioxide.
Specifically, CSAPR and MATS protect the health of millions of
Americans by requiring the reduction of harmful power plant emissions,
including air toxics and emissions that contribute to smog and fine
particle pollution.
The pollution reductions from CSAPR and MATS have real life impacts:
prevention of thousands of premature deaths, asthma attacks, and heart
attacks.
Let me also underscore that an important feature of the CSAPR is its
trading program which allows power plants to meet emission budgets in
different ways, including by trading emissions allowances between
emission sources within a State and some trading across States.
This market-based approach reduces the cost of compliance while
ensuring reductions in air pollution for citizens across the CSAPR
region.
I oppose H.R. 3797 because it would create an uneven playing field by
picking winners and losers in CSAPR compliance.
Indeed, this bill establishes a special market of CSAPR allowances
for EGUs that burn coal refuse and prohibits the trading of allowances
allocated to coal refuse EGUs, which would interfere with and
manipulate market conditions.
Specifically, H.R. 3797 would: economically advantage coal refuse
EGUs over other EGUs by giving them allowances that would otherwise
have been allocated to others; reduce compliance choices for other
State units; and distort the economic incentives of coal refuse EGUs to
reduce emissions.
Also, the allowances allocated to coal refuse EGUs would be
unavailable for use by any other sources.
This will result in the aggregate, in less efficient and more costly
CSAPR compliance.
Finally, I oppose H.R. 3797 because it would interfere with existing
opportunities under the CSAPR for each State to control the allocation
of allowances among its EGUs.
Instead of wasting time supporting this bill, I urge my colleagues to
join me in focusing on more important issues affecting our nation: more
jobs for Americans in the energy and other sectors, energy security and
independence and utilization of innovation in energy to solve some of
the contemporary issues we face in our country.
{time} 1515
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I would just respond to the gentlewoman
from Texas. She mentioned the word ``burdensome.'' What is really
burdensome is the way that these rules are being applied. When the EPA
had a chance to do a customized approach, they chose not to.
Why is it burdensome? It is burdensome because there are plants that
will not be able to comply, which means the environmental progress that
we have seen will stop, which means that their jobs will be lost.
I do note that there is bipartisan support for this initiative. Both
Senators Casey and Toomey, on the other side of this Capitol, from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania--one a Republican, one a Democrat--
recognize the practicality of this approach. They recognize that the
legislation makes sense.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
The underlying bill is another unnecessary special interest bill that
undermines Clean Air Act regulations. The bill, if it were to reach the
President's desk, will be vetoed.
We should be using our time to move forward with the many other
issues that need to be addressed in this Congress. Our water
infrastructure is in dire need of repair and maintenance. We have
Superfund and brownfield sites that need to be cleaned up and returned
to productive use. States need
[[Page 3245]]
support for modernizing and hardening the electricity grid, and there
are still many Americans who are unemployed or underpaid for the work
that they are doing. All of these things, especially the infrastructure
issues, must be addressed by Congress. They impact every person, every
State, and every industry in the country.
Instead of wasting time on bills like the SENSE Act, we should get to
work on these important issues that will support economic growth and
job creation throughout the country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Bera
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
part B of House Report 114-453.
Mr. BERA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 11, after line 17, insert the following new section:
SEC. 3. GAO REPORT.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall issue
a report detailing the increase in emissions of sulfur
dioxide and other air pollutants that will result from
implementation of this Act and the effect of such emissions
on public health.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 640, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Bera) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. BERA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would require the
Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan government watchdog, to
complete a report on the impact this legislation would have on public
health.
I look at this from the perspective of a doctor and public health
expert, and one of my guiding principles as a doctor is to make sure we
protect the public health.
Coal refuse plants not only increase the amount of pollution in our
air, they also use a power source which is less efficient than normal
coal and contains higher levels of mercury. Exposure to sulfur dioxide
and other pollutants such as mercury have been known to increase risks
of cardiovascular disease and respiratory illnesses, including
aggravated asthma, bronchitis, and heart attacks.
My amendment would require the GAO to investigate whether this
legislation would increase emissions of sulfur dioxide and other
pollutants.
I strongly believe the EPA plays an important role in protecting the
health of our families and our environment from dangerous pollutants.
While we should be mindful about the impact of regulations on our
economy, we have a responsibility to address urgent threats to the
planet, such as climate change, and we have a responsibility to make
sure legislation that is being passed protects our public health.
This legislation before us today would hamper the EPA's ability to
limit dangerous pollution and protect public health, and it will also
slow down our transition to clean energy. That is why I introduced my
amendment today, to ensure that we know the true impact this bill would
have on public health and on our environment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this
amendment. This amendment would require a GAO report detailing an
increase, if any, in sulfur dioxide and other emissions and the effect
of implementing the legislation on public health.
Now, this legislation has come about because of two EPA rules--the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
rule--and I might say that the SENSE Act does not change in any way the
caps on sulfur dioxide. That would basically remain the same. Coal
refuse-to-energy plants are negligible emitters of mercury. In fact,
EPA testified that by closing down the coal refuse plants, there would
not be any significant benefit on the mercury side. All of the benefits
come from the reduction in fine particulate matter, and we are not
addressing that.
I would point out once again that 214 million tons of this refuse
have already been cleaned up. If we allow these regulations to go into
effect and these plants close down, those refuse piles will not be
cleaned up, 1,200 people will lose their jobs, 4,000 indirect people
will lose their jobs, and $84 million in payroll will be lost.
EPA has admitted that there is no significant environmental benefit,
and they had the opportunity to set up a special category for these
coal refuse plants, all of which are less than 100-megawatt plants.
They are very small. There are only 19 in the country, 14 in one State.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania and others from Pennsylvania have
asked Congress to intervene to help them on this matter. For that
reason, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment and ask
that the amendment be defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BERA. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment. It is a no-nonsense amendment that will allow us to know the
impact on public health.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Bera).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BERA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Peters
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
part B of House Report 114-453.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 11, after line 17, insert the following new section:
SEC. 3. PUBLIC NOTICE.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator shall give notice of the anticipated
effects of this Act on air quality to all States,
municipalities, towns, tribal governments, or other
governmental entities in areas that--
(1) include or are adjacent to a coal refuse electric
utility steam generating unit to which this Act applies; or
(2) are likely to be affected by air emissions from such a
unit.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 640, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Peters) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, the existing Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
set new standards for the emission of sulfur dioxide based on public
health risks.
Under this rule, States can choose to comply by adapting new
technologies or employing cleaner energy sources. Today's bill would
raise the acceptable levels threshold for sulfur dioxide emissions from
one source, coal waste plants, allowing them to pour more of these
pollutants into our air.
It props up coal waste plants, thereby undermining flexibility for
States to meet public health targets. It also distorts the ability of
the market to determine which energy sources are most sustainable, cost
effective, and meet the public's need.
The underlying bill would pick winners and losers by favoring waste
coal-
[[Page 3246]]
burning power plants at the expense of other power sources. If coal
waste plants can adapt and reduce their emissions to help States meet
these targets, then they should do so; but short of that, the market is
determining that there are more efficient ways to produce energy.
Congress should not subsidize any energy source that does not compete
with innovative and cleaner options that also better protect our
children's health; but if this bill is going to raise these limits and
allow more pollutants to be emitted, we should be honest with the
communities that will be affected. My amendment requires the EPA to
inform the general public and municipalities adjacent to waste coal
plants about the anticipated effects of this bill on air quality not
later than 90 days after its enactment.
According to the American Lung Association, sulfur dioxide can cause
breathing problems, exacerbate asthma symptoms, and reduce lung
function. Exposure to sulfur dioxide has been connected to an increased
risk of hospital admissions, especially among children, seniors, and
people with asthma. This puts families' health at risk in the
communities downwind and nearby.
Last month I visited Flint, Michigan, with my colleagues, where we
saw the devastating effects of keeping the public in the dark.
Americans have a right to know how this legislation is going to
affect the quality of the air they breathe.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, if we could take a look at this amendment,
this amendment would require the EPA Administrator to notify affected
States and localities of any anticipated effects of the legislation on
air quality.
The issue is the SENSE Act prohibits any increase in covered
emissions, so any impact on air quality will be very limited. The SENSE
Act mandates that sulfur dioxide emissions stay within the EPA-approved
caps so there can be no increase above approved levels.
Coal refuse-to-energy plants are negligible emitters of mercury, and
the bill requires emissions reductions of hydrogen chloride and other
compounds only at a rate achievable for this type of facility.
The proposed amendment is one-sided, as it ignores the air and water
quality benefits from reducing the coal refuse problem, including
reducing the risk of heavily polluting coal refuse fires that can
affect many State and local governments. For example, this amendment
would not require the EPA Administrator to notify affected communities
of what happens when a coal refuse pile catches on fire and there is an
uncontrolled release of pollutants into the environment.
We should be focused on ensuring that these innovative refuse-to-
energy facilities can continue to operate and reduce the serious water
and air quality problems posed by coal refuse.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Peters).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Veasey
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in
part B of House Report 114-453.
Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end, add the following new section:
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act may not go into effect until the Administrator
certifies that implementation of this Act will not cause or
result in an increase of emissions of air pollutants that
adversely affect public health, including by increasing
incidents of respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses and
deaths, such as cases of heart attacks, asthma attacks, and
bronchitis.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 640, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Veasey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to
H.R. 3797, the so-called Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the
Environment Act. This bill is anything but that.
What this bill does do is that it gives special breaks under two very
important Clean Air Act rules and allows certain power plants to spew
out as much nasty pollution as they wish to. These power plants, which
use waste coal, still emit all the toxic substances a regular coal
plant does, and they absolutely should not get a pass.
If the SENSE Act passes, it will significantly affect air quality.
This is not some radical assertion, and it has stood up to the scrutiny
of the courts. These rules, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule, are two important rules for
protecting public health from toxic air pollutants like mercury and
sulfur dioxide.
If this bill were to become law, waste coal facilities would be able
to pollute at a higher rate than any other power plants. There are many
pieces of particulate matter emitted by coal plants, such as sulfur
dioxide, mercury, and others, and science has clearly shown that air
pollutants such as these cause severity when it comes to asthma,
bronchitis, and even can contribute to heart attack risk. My amendment
protects the most vulnerable from these adverse health effects.
{time} 1530
My amendment today would ensure that public health is front and
center in this conversation, which it needs to be. Air quality is an
issue that affects the most vulnerable among us.
When you think about it, children, pregnant women, and the elderly
are some of the members of our society that are most at risk when it
comes to respiratory diseases from toxic emissions, such as sulfur
dioxide. My amendment ensures that the effects of air quality are taken
into account before enactment of the SENSE Act.
Mr. Chairman, I know a thing or two about this. I don't know how
often you get to Dallas-Fort Worth, but when you come to our area,
despite all the jobs and prosperity that we have, we have some of the
absolute worst smog in the entire country.
This amendment would serve to protect vulnerable populations by
ensuring their health is not in danger if this bill becomes law.
Also, only after their health has been deemed safe may the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency allow this law to
go into effect.
There are so many different economic costs when it comes to asthma,
Mr. Chairman. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention alone
estimates that asthma costs the United States $56 billion each year
when it comes to treating people for asthma, particularly our young
children with asthma.
So at the end of the day, what I want to do, Mr. Chairman, is make
sure that the least that we do in this House is to make sure that
everybody can breathe clean air. I don't think that that is asking for
too much.
If my Republican colleagues truly believe the public health of our
Nation will not be affected by this bill, they will have no problem
voting for my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
I would remind everyone that we are talking about 19 coal refuse
plants around the country. They have already cleaned up 214 million
tons of coal refuse that are creating significant environmental
problems.
The SENSE Act does not change or increase in any way the sulfur
dioxide
[[Page 3247]]
emission caps. So it does not have any impact on that.
The EPA itself said that the only benefit from their Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule and their sulfur dioxide emission rule would be the
reduction in particulate matter, which is regulated in another aspect
of the Clean Air Act, and the SENSE Act does not affect or have any
impacts on that.
So even the EPA has said that this is not really an issue of
polluting or endangering the clean air. They simply made a decision
that they were not going to have a subcategory to deal with these
plans.
The gentleman's amendment would require the EPA Administrator to
certify that the act would not result in the increase in emission of
air pollutants. They have already basically said that.
One thing that he does not look at in his amendment is the tremendous
benefits that the public is receiving by the cleaning up of these coal
refuse piles around the country.
So, for those reasons, we respectfully oppose the gentleman's
amendment. I would remind everyone once again that the SENSE Act is
designed to clean up these environmental problems, protect 1,200 direct
jobs and 4,000 indirect jobs and an $84 million payroll, all doing so
without increasing any emission toxics to the American people.
For that reason, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Veasey).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 114-453 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Pallone of New Jersey.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Pallone of New Jersey.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Bera of California.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Veasey of Texas.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Pallone
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166,
noes 224, not voting 43, as follows:
[Roll No. 118]
AYES--166
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--224
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--43
Babin
Becerra
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Butterfield
Costa
Davis, Danny
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellmers (NC)
Frankel (FL)
Garamendi
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Hartzler
Herrera Beutler
Johnson (GA)
Joyce
King (IA)
Lipinski
Marino
Matsui
Payne
Polis
Roskam
Rush
Scott, David
Sessions
Sinema
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Takai
Thompson (MS)
Turner
Visclosky
Waters, Maxine
Welch
Wenstrup
Zinke
{time} 1555
Messrs. MESSER, WESTERMAN, Mrs. BLACK, Messrs. HUELSKAMP, HANNA,
PEARCE, JORDAN, FITZPATRICK, and GENE GREEN of Texas changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 118 on H.R. 3797, I
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yes.''
[[Page 3248]]
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 118 on H.R. 3797, I
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yes.''
Stated against:
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 118, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Pallone
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175,
noes 233, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 119]
AYES--175
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--233
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--25
Babin
Becerra
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Davis, Danny
Duckworth
Ellmers (NC)
Garamendi
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Herrera Beutler
Joyce
Lipinski
McNerney
Meadows
Polis
Ribble
Roskam
Rush
Smith (WA)
Takai
Velazquez
Wenstrup
Zinke
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1559
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Bera
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179,
noes 235, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 120]
AYES--179
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
[[Page 3249]]
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--235
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--19
Babin
Becerra
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Davis, Danny
Duckworth
Ellmers (NC)
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Herrera Beutler
Joyce
Lipinski
Roskam
Rush
Smith (WA)
Takai
Waters, Maxine
Wenstrup
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1604
Mr. HIMES changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Veasey
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 234, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 121]
AYES--182
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--234
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
[[Page 3250]]
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--17
Babin
Becerra
Blackburn
Brady (PA)
Davis, Danny
Duckworth
Ellmers (NC)
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Herrera Beutler
Joyce
Lipinski
Roskam
Rush
Smith (WA)
Takai
Wenstrup
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1608
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Westmoreland, Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3797) to
establish the bases by which the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall issue, implement, and enforce certain emission
limitations and allocations for existing electric utility steam
generating units that convert coal refuse into energy, pursuant to
House Resolution 640, reported the bill back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Adams moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3797 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
At the end, add the following new section:
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall not take effect until the Administrator
certifies that implementation of this Act will not result in
an increase in air emissions that--
(1) harms brain development or causes learning disabilities
in infants or children; or
(2) increases mercury deposition to lakes, rivers, streams,
and other bodies of water, that are used as a source of
public drinking water.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, my amendment is a critical improvement that would help
protect American children in our most vulnerable communities.
This unnecessary bill would weaken both the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards by allowing waste coal
plants to emit more sulfur dioxide. Health risks from exposure to
sulfur dioxide can cause breathing problems, reduced lung function, and
asthma exacerbations.
I think about the children in Mecklenburg County that I represent who
are already suffering from high asthma rates. This bill would further
put their health at risk as well as the communities both near waste
coal plants and downwind.
Communities with limited resources and political clout are often low-
income communities and communities of color. We must ensure, together,
that these communities and their unique needs have a voice when it
comes to environmental health policy so that we bolster their
resilience and reduce the impacts of future disasters.
As representatives of the people, only negligence and apathy could
lead us to ignore the risks that this bill poses to human health and
the environment.
If my amendment passes, it would make sure that an increase in
emissions will not harm brain development or cause learning
disabilities in infants or children and will protect our Nation's
sources of public drinking water from mercury pollution.
Research shows that babies and children who are exposed to mercury
may suffer damage to their developing nervous systems, hurting their
ability to think, to learn, and to speak.
Have we not been paying attention?
Just look at North Carolina. It took a disastrous spill of coal ash
into the Dan River to make it clear that we were not doing a good
enough job to protect our communities and our waterways.
Look at the children and the families in Flint who will never be the
same because we failed to protect their basic human right of access to
clean water.
How could this be a 21st century issue in America? And what has this
body done to help?
Not much.
When will it stop?
Republicans and Democrats, alike, voted in 1990 to strengthen the
Clean Air Act to require dozens of industry sectors to install modern
pollution controls on their facilities. Since then, EPA has set
emissions standards that simply require facilities to use pollution
controls that others in their industry are already using. But a few
major industrial sources so far have escaped regulation, and the
Republicans appear to be on a mission to help them continue to evade
emissions limits on toxic air pollution.
This bill is just another Republican handout: weakening the rule and
allowing more toxic air pollution and more of these types of health
hazards. It favors polluting industries at the expense of Americans and
air quality.
Moreover, the bill sets a very dangerous precedent that could open
the floodgates to other special treatment bills, creating loopholes and
lax treatment that may cause additional health hazards that the Mercury
and Air Toxics Standards now prevent. This bill is toxic, and it will
be the knife in our children's back.
My amendment will improve the bill by putting the health and safety
of our Nation's children first instead of allowing Republicans to
continue their assault on the health of our Nation. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
{time} 1615
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, as the father of six children, I, too, am
very concerned about environmental risk to our kids, and I am very
concerned about the ending of the environmental progress of what we
have seen in the refuse-to-energy industry to date.
Let me be clear. There is no change because of the SENSE Act in
overall changes on SO2, and there is no issue with mercury
because these plants already comply with the mercury requirements.
We need to consider the health of our communities if these facilities
close. This is a reasonable, balanced, and commonsense approach. Let's
not circle the wagons and say no to continued cleanup on the hillsides
of Pennsylvania. Let's not say no to restoring streams. Let's not say
no to the jobs that these plants represent.
Mr. Speaker, my district is in danger and my constituents are at risk
unless this bill passes. Coal refuse piles that have persisted for
generations catch fire and burn uncontrollably, spewing toxic
pollutants into the air.
Acid mine drainage leaches into rivers and streams, turning them
orange and destroying wildlife. Great mountains of coal refuse
reminiscent of moonscapes feature prominently in the countryside,
looming over towns, school yards, and farms.
Without the hard work of the men and women of the coal refuse-to-
energy industry, work that includes painstaking remediation, this
problem
[[Page 3251]]
would be far worse. Yet, EPA regulations that are blind to this
industry's unique circumstances threaten to bring their work to an end.
You would think our environmental regulatory agencies and
conservation-minded Members of Congress would be eager to find a viable
solution to addressing this environmental problem and protecting
vulnerable communities across coal country.
Some Members of this body, it seems, choose not to acknowledge the
challenges faced by the coal refuse-to-energy industry. They look past
the overwhelming good done by these plants as they seek to impose their
environmental orthodoxy.
It would seem, based on this afternoon's debate, that preventing
uncontrolled coal refuse fires, ruined waterways, and environmental
degradation is outweighed by an unflinching attachment to inflexible
and unfair Washington environmentalist dogma.
Contrary to what the SENSE Act's opponents claim, these facilities
will be forced to close if we fail to provide them with reasonable and
achievable emissions limits.
It may interest some in this Chamber that the SENSE Act has typically
been a bipartisan proposal. In fact, both of Pennsylvania's Senators--
Republican Pat Toomey and Democrat Bob Casey--previously introduced an
amendment that was much broader than the conservative and restrained
bill on the House floor today. Despite it being a far more aggressive
proposal, the Casey-Toomey amendment earned the support of a majority
of Senators.
Back home, organizations that work to actually address Pennsylvania's
environmental issues have rallied to the SENSE Act. Both the Western
and Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation have
endorsed my bill. Watershed groups have also issued letters of support.
Some today have wrongly argued that the SENSE Act picks winners and
losers, that it somehow advantages small, endangered coal refuse-to-
energy facilities.
Somehow, in the minds of the bill's opponents, David became Goliath.
They fail to see that the issue at hand concerns a small socially
beneficial industry unfairly battered by an all-powerful regulatory
giant and fighting for survival.
What is most striking about the opposition's mischaracterization is
that the EPA has created winners and losers through its inflexible
implementation of these rules in which they refuse to treat these
plants as a separate category.
The SENSE Act merely recognizes what the EPA should have acknowledged
a long time ago, that coal refuse facilities are different from
traditional coal-fired power plants.
This bill eliminates the EPA's unfairness by giving these facilitates
a realistic chance of complying with air quality rules.
Some today have suggested that the States could simply address this
issue on their own, that my bill gets in the way of State autonomy. In
fact, States have little to no autonomy in administering CSAPR, since
any requested change must be approved by the EPA.
According to the SENSE Act's opponents, the EPA, which has thus far
refused to provide flexibility for these plants, would somehow have a
change of heart and decide to approve State-requested policy changes. I
find that hard to imagine.
Some have also charged that the SENSE Act would threaten air quality,
forgetting that this legislation specifically avoids causing any
increase in State SO2 allocations.
More importantly, without the remediation work fueled by this
industry, the uncontrolled and environmentally catastrophic coal refuse
pile fires that are far too common will only continue. The unregulated
emissions from these fires are a greater concern to public health.
It is unfair that some in Washington have pursued an unfair and
uncompromising orthodoxy on this issue and have derided in their zeal
an overwhelmingly successful private sector solution to a pressing
environmental challenge.
The SENSE Act is about protecting vulnerable coal country communities
from pollution and environmental degradation. It is about standing up
for over 5,200 family-sustaining jobs, many of which are in areas that
have experienced economic hardship. These jobs come with names: Robert,
John, Tim, James, Pat.
I urge approval of this legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute
vote on passage of the bill, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173,
noes 236, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 122]
AYES--173
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--236
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
[[Page 3252]]
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--24
Babin
Bass
Becerra
Blackburn
Brady (PA)
Davis, Danny
Duckworth
Ellmers (NC)
Engel
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Herrera Beutler
Hoyer
Joyce
Lipinski
Pelosi
Rice (NY)
Roskam
Rush
Smith (WA)
Stivers
Takai
Welch
Wenstrup
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1626
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231,
noes 183, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 123]
AYES--231
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--183
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--19
Babin
Becerra
Blackburn
Brady (PA)
Davis, Danny
Duckworth
Ellmers (NC)
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Herrera Beutler
Joyce
Lipinski
Rice (NY)
Roskam
Rush
Sanford
Smith (WA)
Takai
Wenstrup
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1631
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
RECOGNIZING PENN STATE UNIVERSITY'S BIG TEN WRESTLING TITLE
(Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the
Penn State Nittany Lion wrestling team on earning its fifth Big Ten
wrestling title in the past 6 years.
The Lions scored 150.5 points to win the title over Iowa earlier this
month, which was just one-half point shy of its school record. Beyond
the title itself, Penn State wrestler Zain Retherford was named Big Ten
Wrestler of the Year, and Jason Nolf won the conference's Freshman of
the Year award. Penn State coach Cael Sanderson was also named Coach of
the Year.
With a Big Ten title on the books, the focus shifts this week to the
NCAA
[[Page 3253]]
National Championships in New York City. Nine members of the team will
compete for the university's fifth national title in 6 years, mirroring
their Big Ten success.
I wish these young men the best of luck as they compete in New York
City this week, and I congratulate them on their achievement in
securing the Big Ten title.
____________________
VICTIMS OF GUN VIOLENCE
(Mr. PETERS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, Mountain, Alabama, November 16, 2015: Pamela
Oshel, 49 years old.
Tyrone, Missouri, November 18, 2015: Darrell Dean Shriver, 68 years
old; Garold Dee Aldridge, 52; Harold Wayne Aldridge, 50; Janell Arlisa
Aldridge, 48; Julie Ann Aldridge, 47; Carey Dean Shriver, 46; Valirea
Love Shriver, 44.
Manchester, Connecticut, December 8, 2013: Artara Benson, 46 years
old; Brittany Mills, 28; Kamesha Mills, 23 years old.
Manson, Washington, March 10, 2015: Jose Rodriguez, 58 years old;
Maria Sedano, 50; Edgar Costumbre, 24.
Glade Spring, Virginia, February 25, 2014: Terry Griffin, 75 years
old; Nancy Griffin, 74; Kristin Palmer, 46; Kevin Palmer, 44; Griffin
Palmer, 17.
Fontana, California, December 31, 2013: Silvia Miranda, 34 years old;
Rayna Miranda, 10; Ramon Miranda, Jr., 12 years old.
____________________
GOVERNMENT SPIES ON CITIZENS
(Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in a secret court, the FBI quietly
revised its privacy policy for searching through data that is collected
on Americans by the NSA. The NSA, which I call the National
Surveillance Agency, gives the FBI access to not only the data it
collects but to the content of personal communications, like emails,
texts, and phone calls.
What the intelligence agencies have been doing is lawfully collecting
information on foreign terrorists but, at the same time, creating large
databases of information that also contains information on American
citizens. This identifying information is then used for what the FBI
calls routine searches that are unrelated to national security.
Mr. Speaker, the FBI does not obtain a court-approved Fourth
Amendment warrant for these searches. This leeway by the NSA and the
FBI allows for a backdoor to spy on Americans. Thus, the FBI is
ignoring the U.S. Constitution.
The NSA and the FBI will continue to violate the constitutional
protections that are guaranteed to all Americans unless Congress
intervenes and protects and upholds the right of privacy of all
Americans.
And that is just the way it is.
____________________
WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
(Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate
Women's History Month.
As one of the 108 women in Congress today, I am thankful to follow
the trail blazed by so many American women who demanded the right to
vote and participate in our democracy.
I am inspired by recent historic milestones, for example, of the
first women ever who are graduating from the Army's elite Ranger school
and of the Department of Defense, which is finally expanding all combat
roles to qualified servicewomen. These achievements are further proof
that women can break any barrier if they are given the chance, if they
are willing to, and if they are given the support and opportunity to do
so.
Unfortunately, today's widespread social and economic inequalities
disproportionately hurt American women. In 2016, a typical woman in
America earns only 79 cents to the dollar that a man earns. Over a
lifetime, that is $400,000 of wages lost, and she risks losing her job
if she needs to care for her children or sick family members.
So we take this month to thank America's women, but there is a lot
more to do.
____________________
CONGRATULATING DUNBAR HIGH SCHOOL
(Mr. VEASEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Dunbar High School
for its recent advancement to the UIL 5A Texas State basketball
tournament.
Dunbar High School has been recognized throughout the years for both
its academic and athletic achievements, with the fine Wildcats'
basketball success being the latest. The Wildcats were led by Coach
Robert Hughes, Jr., and they fought their way all the way to the State
tournament in San Antonio, Texas. The team entered unranked and as one
of only two qualifiers that were unranked.
Dunbar, a three-time champion, is no stranger to big games, with
their last trip being in 2007. They won the UIL State Basketball
Championship in 1963, 1965, 1967, 1993, 2003, and 2006. Back in the
sixties and early nineties, they were under the leadership of Coach
Robert Hughes, Sr.
Today I am proud to recognize the success of Dunbar High School's
basketball team and their outstanding 23-12 record. They have made Fort
Worth very proud, and I wish the program continued success.
____________________
VETERANS WHO RETURN HOME WITH THE MENTAL WOUNDS OF WAR
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Buck). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 2015, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
General Leave
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous materials on the topic of this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise on behalf of our veterans who
return home with the mental wounds of war.
For generations, we have sent our sons and daughters into harm's way.
For generations, they have served this country honorably. They don't
come home in the same way they left. There were generations who came
back to the United States who didn't even receive a ``thank you.''
There was not even a handshake or a hug waiting for them.
For our Vietnam veterans who are watching at home, we say to this
day, ``welcome home,'' because when they first came home, they were
spat on. Fortunately, we have learned a lesson from that generation.
For me and my generation, as we return from Iraq and Afghanistan, there
is a ``thank you,'' but there is so much more that needs to be done.
That is why we are here tonight for this Special Order. It is on
behalf of our veterans who return home with the mental wounds of war.
Each and every one of our congressional districts is home to these
veterans. For me, I represent Suffolk County, New York, on the east end
of Long Island. We are proud of not only having the highest veterans'
population of any county in New York, but of having the second highest
veterans' population of any county in the country.
We have veterans who come home to family, to friends, and to people
with whom they work who don't understand what it is their loved one or
colleague is going through. Isolated and alone, too many of our
veterans are losing their struggles with posttraumatic stress disorder
and traumatic brain injury, and there is so much more that each and
every one of us can do on their behalf.
Tonight is a bipartisan Special Order. We are joined by my colleague
from
[[Page 3254]]
Arizona, who has led the fight on a national level on behalf of men and
women from all corners of this country who are struggling with
recoveries from suicide attempts, and who has led in the effort to
prevent that attempt in the first place.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).
{time} 1645
Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Zeldin for organizing
this Special Order hour and for bringing attention to this important
issue.
An estimated 22 American veterans die by suicide every day. These men
and women are our neighbors and our friends, our sons and our
daughters, our mothers and our fathers.
Veteran suicide is too important an issue to be overshadowed by
bipartisan politics. It is why we have come together tonight to show
our commitment to veterans who have given so much to keep America safe.
We must do more--Congress, the VA, the American public--to end the
epidemic of veteran suicide and to ensure veterans and their families
have access to the best possible mental health care. This is a
responsibility we all share.
That is why I support Congressman Zeldin's legislation, the PFC
Joseph P. Dwyer Veterans Peer Support program, to expand access to
peer-to-peer counseling for veterans.
A battle buddy can open the door to the care and support a veteran
needs, and we must support efforts to expand the availability and
accessibility of mental health care. No one who returns home from
serving our country should ever feel like he or she has nowhere to
turn.
I have often shared this story of a young veteran in my district,
Sergeant Daniel Somers. Sergeant Somers was an Army veteran with two
tours in Iraq.
Diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress
disorder, Sergeant Somers ultimately took his own life after struggling
with the VA bureaucracy and not getting the help he needed in time.
Together with the Somers family, we have worked to develop
legislation to ensure that all veterans, including those with
classified experiences, get immediate access to mental health services
in the appropriate care setting.
The Daniel Somers Act was combined with Congresswoman Julia
Brownley's Female Veteran Suicide Prevention Act and passed unanimously
by the House of Representatives.
Senator Jon Tester introduced companion legislation in the Senate,
and we continue to work to get this bill signed into law.
I pledge to continue working with my colleagues to ensure that no
veteran feels trapped like Sergeant Somers did and that all of our
veterans have access to appropriate mental health care.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Zeldin for his work on behalf of our
veterans and for hosting this bipartisan Special Order on veterans
mental health care.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I commend Representative Sinema for her
efforts on behalf of the Somers family.
We lose a lot of our sons and daughters in harm's way, and there is
reflection for that family as to what that sacrifice accomplished. I
guess it depends on the year, the place, the circumstances.
But the Somers family knows that they have a champion here fighting
on their behalf so that the sacrifice was not for naught. A legacy is
left behind that those who struggle moving forward might have a helping
hand.
I thank Ms. Sinema for her advocacy not just on behalf of the Somers
family in her district, but for all of our veterans who need more help
all across America.
At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus) and thank him for his efforts in his home
State and for joining this cause tonight on behalf of our veterans who
not only are going to benefit from the immediate effort of this Chamber
with all the different ideas that are before it now, but really for the
decades and generations still to serve ahead.
I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his
service to this country, having himself put on the uniform prior to his
coming to this Congress.
He is one of the greatest assets we have in this Chamber. It is just
a real pleasure to have gotten to know him over the last year and a
half and to call him a friend.
When this country makes a decision to send people to war, we need to
understand that the people own that decision. What does that mean?
It means, when we put people out in harm's way, our servicemen and
servicewomen, we better be there when they come home. It is the
principle of solidarity. They stand for us. We have to stand for them.
I am joining this Special Order today because I want to again bring
attention to this serious issue that should trouble everyone's
conscience.
We have been made painfully aware in the past several years that the
VA has failed in a number of ways to adequately serve our Nation's
veterans. As I understand it, while most Americans are patriotic, too
few have taken the time to develop empathy for what our veterans go
through, especially in combat.
Mr. Speaker, everyone in America needs to be engaging our veterans.
This is all hands on deck. We all know veterans. It is good to ask them
about their service and to walk with them.
As I have talked to veterans across my district, I asked for some
emails from them because I knew I was going to be coming to have this
Special Order.
``The United States isn't united in purpose,'' one veteran explained
to me. ``We're divided, fighting a global war with a peacetime mindset.
Americans have never been farther away from our Nation's veterans . . .
from what it takes to defend our Nation's freedom. The true cost of war
is lost on most.''
The failure to understand what veterans have gone through is not just
characteristic of the broader population, but it is also a problem at
the VA, an agency that should strive to fully understand the experience
of our servicemen and -women so that they can better serve them.
Many veterans suffering with mental health issues as a result of
traumas experienced during their service have too often been left to
fend for themselves.
In fact, the VA has come up short so often it has risen to the level
of a scandal, with an estimated 22 veteran deaths per day, or over
8,000 annually, as a result of mental health issues.
One young veteran told me about the condescending and patronizing
language used by some--let me emphasize some--VA staff.
There are VA staff on the front lines who are very dedicated and very
committed to serving our veterans. It is disturbing that we would have
some who don't see it that way.
He told me that one staff stooped so low as to call veterans bums
when they were seeking financial assistance during hard times.
It is outrageous and painful to think that men and women who are
willing to die for this country are not being treated with the utmost
dignity and respect. But that is the tragic reality, and it is
unacceptable.
The good news is that we can and must do better. I have heard
directly from veterans in my district about what they believe can be
done to improve this startling trend.
I have been working to reform the VA throughout my time in Congress
to improve its standards and ensure quality service for our veterans by
increasing accountability within the agency. Beyond this, however,
there are commonsense and innovative ways we can help veterans.
One of them is to facilitate veteran peer support programs. Veterans
want to help each other. Because while many VA employees may have never
served in the military, the men and women of our Armed Forces have
experiences in common that civilians do not share.
Less than 1 percent of Americans serve in the military and fewer
still see combat. They truly understand each
[[Page 3255]]
other. They speak each other's language, so to speak. The VA should not
be an obstacle to veterans coming to each others' aid.
Another veteran told me this: ``Peer-to-peer counseling for combat
veterans is a critical aspect of a multifaceted approach to healing an
invisible wound that lacks a universal fix.
``The universal nature of recognizing that the veteran is not alone:
acknowledgement other veterans have faced the same problems and
situations, and hope from their stories of triumph over their demons,
enables the combat veteran to take the critical steps of admitting to
themselves they have a problem.''
It helps them take the ``seemingly hardest step of admitting they are
not in a hopeless situation,'' this veteran told me.
He also told me, ``Peer-to-peer counseling helps the counselor as
much as the counseled via preservation of camaraderie and the
fulfillment of helping their own.''
Far too many veterans experience hopelessness and isolation even
though they do not have to. This needs to change, and I am sure that we
can do better for the men and women who risked everything to protect
our way of life.
Mr. Speaker, the VA's inadequacies are unacceptable, and the agency
should embrace commonsense solutions to provide veterans with higher
quality, effective treatment and opportunities for healing.
I laud my colleague, Representative Zeldin, for his PFC Joseph Dwyer
Veterans Peer Support program. As I looked at this legislation,
inevitably, you go look at who Joseph Dwyer was.
I would encourage this country to look at that and to look for the
other Joseph Dwyers, to look and reach out to those who have served
empathetically.
To our veterans who may be watching today, you are not alone. Thank
you for your service.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Zeldin for his service and for
his work on this important piece of legislation. I look forward to
further consideration by this House.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman literally for every
single word and for his passion and advocacy on behalf of all the
veterans not only in his district, but in mine and elsewhere.
It is so incredibly important for the words that we just heard to be
echoed throughout this Chamber and inspiration to be found for some of
what are great ideas to actually come into effect.
Because while there is one Joseph Dwyer who served our country, as
the gentleman just pointed out, there are numerous Joseph Dwyers all
around America who have not yet lost their struggles.
Now, it is interesting because we so often call those who lose their
bouts with the mental wounds of war--we call it suicide. Joseph Dwyer's
last words were, ``I don't want to die.'' He was huffing, trying to get
temporary relief from his pain.
The struggles with post-traumatic stress disorder led to him losing
his life, and he left behind a young widow and a 2-year-old daughter.
There are Joseph Dwyers all around America who have not yet left
behind young children and young widows. It is our duty in this House to
fight for them with whatever energy and inspiration that we can find
within us to ensure that what starts as a good idea becomes law.
The PFC Joseph Dwyer Veterans Peer Support program is not a new idea.
It may be a new idea for this Chamber. We created it in New York State
back in 2012. At that time, I was in the New York State Senate, and we
created it as part of the 2012-2013 State budget.
As we just heard from the gentleman from Pennsylvania, veteran-to-
veteran peer support, veterans helping veterans, is the key.
We started the program in four counties in New York: Suffolk County,
which is my home county; Jefferson County, home of the 10th Mountain
Division, Fort Drum; Rensselaer County; and Saratoga County.
The program was so successful in these four counties and, by the way,
operating at just $200,000 per county. Here in Washington, we talk
about programs in the billions, the trillions, and the hundreds of
millions.
In my home county, we helped hundreds of veterans in just that first
year. Hundreds of veterans were helped, over 400, and $200,000.
We know firsthand how many lives were saved as a result. It was so
successful. It started in four counties and expanded to over a dozen.
In New York State, we are so proud of the Dwyer program.
I just came to Congress. This is my first term. I was sworn in
January of 2015. There may be no other mission during my time here in
this Chamber that will be more satisfying for me personally than to do
my part to hopefully save at least one veteran's life. But there are so
many more that can be saved if this Chamber takes up this bill and
makes it law.
It doesn't matter whether you live in one of the most populated
counties in America of veterans, like Suffolk, or if you live in a
county that might not be that well populated overall anywhere else in
this country.
If you raised your hand and you are willing to lay down your life in
protection of our freedoms and liberties for that flag, for everything
that makes our country great, to protect it and defend it, when you
come home, you should have shoes on your feet.
{time} 1700
There should be food on your table. There should be a roof over your
head. Some come home with the physical wounds of war; others come home
with the mental wounds of war.
Our veterans are fighting for us, all of us--not just for their
family or friends, but for strangers, too. Isn't it our duty while we
are here, as elected representatives, to be fighting for not just those
veterans with the mental wounds of war whom we know, but the countless
others who are under the radar right now? They are under the radar
because they don't know where to go for help.
Within our communities, we have veterans. We have veterans service
organizations--you know, like the VFW, the American Legion, the Vietnam
Veterans of America, the list goes on--and we have mental health
professionals who want to offer their services. We have others who may
want to provide a venue for a meeting, others who may want to provide
food.
The setting is not that hard to put into place. For someone from our
community who may live around the block from any Member of this
Chamber, the setting is not that hard to put together for that veteran
to go to that room and be with maybe 8, 10 veterans, understanding the
struggles that they are going through so that they can share each
other's stories and help each other cope with what are the mental
wounds of war. It is our duty; it is our opportunity to be able to
bring these veterans together and to save lives.
As was noted earlier, the statistics are staggering: an estimated 22
veteran deaths per day--22. That is 8,000 in a year. It was just about
a month ago when the Department of Veterans Affairs indicated that 17
of these 22 individuals weren't even in the VA system.
Some don't go for help because they don't know where to go; others
might fear the consequences. What is so important is, with the Dwyer
program, maintaining confidentiality so our veterans won't fear that
they might lose their job because they are going for help. That is
incredibly important as well.
A recent New York University Medical Center report indicated over
270,000 Vietnam-era veterans still suffer from post-traumatic stress
disorder. These figures are alarming. They are disturbing. The VA
doesn't currently offer what we are talking about. This is different.
We are hearing about how some of our veterans are being helped
because of pets--dogs, horses--fishing, other activities. Let's think
outside the box. Let's not think of just the same way of doing things
that have not worked inside the Department of Veterans Affairs. Let's
do something different. We are not starting from scratch.
I would encourage any Member of this House to look at what we are
[[Page 3256]]
doing in my home county of Suffolk. I am proud to say that we are
leading the way in America, and there is a model there that works and
should be replicated everywhere.
Staffing shortages, untrained support staff, lacking family support
services and access to services during nonbusiness hours are just some
of the problems that have been reported at the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
I recently introduced legislation, H.R. 4513, which would expand
nationally the PFC Joseph P. Dwyer Veterans Peer Support program. PFC
Joseph Dwyer was from my district. His home was Mount Sinai, New York.
A lot of people know Joseph Dwyer because of an iconic photo from the
start of the Iraq war. This picture was on national news. It was on the
front cover of magazines. It was that iconic picture of that American
soldier post-
9/11 at the start of the war holding a wounded Iraqi boy as his unit
was fighting its way up to Baghdad.
It looked like Joseph came home in one piece, a hero. While it may
have seemed that he came home in one piece because he didn't have some
of the physical wounds of war that we unfortunately see from other
heroes, he came back with post-traumatic stress disorder.
PFC Dwyer died in 2008. Matina, his young widow, was left behind.
Meaghan, his 2-year-old daughter, was left behind.
This was an effort that was launched in his honor, the PFC Joseph P.
Dwyer Veterans Peer Support program. It is for our veterans with post-
traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. It provides a
safe, confidential, and educational platform where all veterans are
welcome to meet with other veterans to build vet-to-vet relationships
in support of one another's successful transition from military life to
post-service life.
We were able to conduct 148 group sessions, serving 450 veterans in
my home county of Suffolk, just in the first year. Since 2013, the
program has helped, now, into the thousands, as we count veterans from
across New York with PTSD and TBI.
Through my bill, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs would be
authorized to make grants to State and local entities to carry out
peer-to-peer mental health programs. The bill would secure $25 million
over a 3-year period to establish a grant program at the VA that will
provide up to $250,000 in funding for all selected entities, such as
nonprofits, congressionally chartered VSOs, or State or local agencies
to implement the peer-to-peer program.
Let's think about that--$250,000. The Denver VA Hospital construction
project, originally budgeted for just over $600 million, is operating
$800 million to $900 million over budget--$800 million to $900 million
over budget.
The Department of Veterans Affairs came to a Committee on Veterans'
Affairs hearing, which I am proud to serve on that committee, and they
said that they are operating off what they referred to as an artificial
budget. Has anyone ever heard of an artificial budget?
I had one colleague who was asking for when she was going to get a
timeline of when we would have an actual budget. Unable to get an
answer, she asked the follow-up question, not trying to embarrass the
Department. She ended up asking the follow-up question of when she was
going to get a timeline of when she was going to get a timeline of when
we were going to have an actual budget.
When $800 million to $900 million ends up getting spent over budget,
think of the hundreds of veterans in one county alone who could be
helped for just $200,000. The money is there.
When the Secretary of the VA, when the Department of Veterans Affairs
signs off on a relocation and incentive bonus for one of their own,
whose position is in Washington, D.C., and she wants to go to
Philadelphia, where her family is, and take over a position in charge
of their Veterans Affairs hospital, she arranges a move to get the
person, the gentleman in charge of the Philly VA hospital moved to Los
Angeles. So now she gets the job she wanted. She is closer to family,
and she gets herself a relocation and incentive bonus over $200,000.
The Office of Inspector General was outraged. They made a report
recommending that this gets referred to the Department of Justice. The
Department of Veterans Affairs was so outraged at this report from the
inspector general that they ended up turning on their own inspector
general, not referring anything to the Department of Justice.
One of the responsibilities of this House is oversight. You look at
our Constitution. Article I is long, all the powers granted to
Congress. Look at the powers of the President and the executive. It is
short. Within that article, it talks about the oversight of this body,
oversight to make sure that money is being spent appropriately, wisely,
efficiently, and that people are held accountable when they are not
doing the right thing on behalf of our veterans.
My bill would effectively and efficiently, as it has proven, provide
24/7 peer-to-peer mental health services by trained peer specialists
for veterans, Reservists, and National Guardsmen wherever and whenever
they are needed.
In addition, the Dwyer program will provide group and individual
meetings to help foster a greater sense of inclusion and community
amongst our veterans and, as I mentioned earlier, the program also
addresses the many privacy concerns that veterans and other
servicemembers have, as the Dwyer program representatives themselves
will be veterans and would not be responsible to the Department of
Veterans Affairs, therefore easing reporting concerns.
This is a bill that I have been working on since I took office in
January 2015, working closely with the House Committee on Veterans'
Affairs that I serve on, the American Legion, other VSOs, the National
Disability Rights Network, various healthcare providers on Long Island,
as well as my Veterans Advisory Panel, which is made up of
representatives from veterans groups and veterans themselves.
I want to thank the Dwyer family for all the inspiration the
sacrifice of Joseph has provided to so many in our community and our
country, and for me included. There would not be a Dwyer program in the
State of New York without the sacrifice of Joseph Dwyer.
I want to thank the county of Suffolk and specifically Tom Ronayne,
who runs the Veterans Service Office, for the countless hours and the
love that he and his team have put into this effort that we talk about
here tonight on the House floor; to Chris Delaney, Joseph's friend, who
has served our country as well as Tom has and has done so much through
his work with
9/11 Veterans and also serving on my Veterans Advisory Panel.
I think of so many individuals who have given so much of their
personal time to make this work. It is an honor to be here on behalf of
that team advocating for this cause.
I unapologetically love my country. I believe that we live in the
greatest Nation in the world. I will say that the highlight of my day
during my time in Iraq was going back to my tent at the end of the day.
There would be care packages waiting for us from strangers--8-year-
olds, 9-year-olds from other corners of the country--with pictures of
tanks and flags and soldiers, cards saying, ``Thank you for your
service.'' The generation that came before me didn't get that
treatment.
Just think. Right now we have servicemembers in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and elsewhere who were 4 years old on 9/11. Their entire generation, it
is all they know. They went through their entire life, from 4 years old
to today, knowing exactly what they were signing up for; and actually
knowing what they were signing up for gave them all the motivation and
inspiration in the world they needed to put on that uniform.
It is a great feeling the first time you get to put on our Nation's
uniform. For me, it wasn't a feeling that I had about myself when I
looked in the mirror and I saw myself wearing a uniform. It was
thinking of those generations who came before us, like our Nation's
Greatest Generation. It is a challenge
[[Page 3257]]
for our generation to earn the title of our Nation's next Greatest
Generation. Maybe that generation is now serving here in this Chamber
where 31 Members of the House are under the age of 40, including new
Members who have come in who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
{time} 1715
As I think about that 8-year-old and 9-year-old who wrote that card
to that stranger they did not know and as we stand here today enjoying
our freedoms, we think of those who are in harm's way--strangers--we
don't know them--they are going to come back after seeing things none
of us would ever want to see in our lives. And will we be there for
them?
Mr. Speaker, there is one other bill that was filed in this Chamber
called the Fairness for Veterans Act. An Iraq veteran from Long Island,
Kristofer Goldsmith, received a general discharge, which is a less-
than-honorable discharge.
As a result, he doesn't have the same veterans benefits that someone
who is separated with an honorable discharge would receive. He came
back with post-traumatic stress disorder. He attempted to take his own
life.
When your post-traumatic stress disorder ends up leading to a
discharge with a less-than-honorable discharge, isn't it our
responsibility to ensure that they have the ability to diagnose and
treat their post-traumatic stress disorder?
What if they are applying for an upgrade of their discharge status?
Should we put the burden on that veteran to prove that the
circumstances that led to their discharge is connected to their post-
traumatic stress disorder? No.
This bill addresses that by putting the burden on the government to
show that the circumstances weren't connected to what led to that
discharge.
We must fight for all our veterans who are willing to fight for us.
My bills will bring much-needed support--the Dwyer Program and the
Fairness for Veterans Act--to millions of veterans, if you think of all
those not only serving now, but in the future, and their families.
Passing these bills and others to address veterans' mental health is
of the highest priority for many of us in this Chamber. I will work
every day in Congress to spread awareness of these two bills and gather
cosponsors and the support of veterans groups and mental health
organizations from all across the country so that we pass this bill as
soon as possible.
One last word about our families. We often say thank you to our
veterans, as we should. We say thank you to our first responders, our
law enforcement, our volunteer firefighters, our EMTs.
There are so many people who try to give back and who believe in
service because they love their community, their State, their country.
They want to give back. They want to leave this place better than they
found it.
When I was in Iraq this past Christmas, I met the Command Sergeant
Major for the 82nd Airborne Division. He is on his 11th deployment. I
spoke earlier about that veteran who was 4 years old on 9/11. We also
have that Command Sergeant Major of the 82nd Airborne Division who was
on his 11th deployment.
My daughters were born 14\1/2\ weeks early. They were less than a
pound and a half when they were born. They spent their first 3\1/2\
months in the hospital. After they came out of the hospital--I was
stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, at the time--I came across
this woman who had three sets of triplets. She lost one from each set.
All six of her kids had special needs.
Her shopping cart was full. Her husband was on another deployment to
Iraq. With a smile on her face, with a very positive attitude, she is
telling my wife and I all the resources that were available to us at
Fort Bragg so that we could be better parents.
That was the last time my wife or I would ever have the nerve to feel
sorry for ourselves for what we were going through with our daughters.
They came home with about a dozen medications and heart monitors. They
were going through a hard time.
But this woman, with her husband on another deployment, her shopping
cart full, with six special needs kids with her as she is walking
through the Fort Bragg commissary, with that positive attitude and a
smile on her face, helping us be better parents, I realized that, when
she was going to go home, no one was going to be waiting with an
outstretched hand and a hug and say: Thank you for your service.
These bills and this effort tonight are for our veterans and their
families in need, and it is the way that we give back. This is how to
say a proper thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, last year, Congress took
an important step towards improving mental health services for our
veterans. The Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act
was a landmark, bipartisan effort that improved suicide prevention
programs and mental health care at the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA). I was proud to cosponsor and to vote in support of that
legislation, but more needs to be done.
You do not have to look hard to see the need for critical mental
health care and services for our veterans. Among servicemembers
returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly 20% suffer from post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or depression, and during deployment,
18.5% report experiencing a traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, only
50% of servicemembers seek treatment. As a member of the House
Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am working tirelessly to help those
returning from the battlefield who face these mental health challenges.
Mr. Speaker, Congress can combat PTSD and TBI through greater
awareness, prevention, and research. We can work with the VA and
interested stakeholders to take commonsense steps to address staffing
shortages, improve family support services, and increase access to
services during non-business hours.
Likewise, we need to allow our veterans the freedom to receive mental
health care at non-VA facilities. We cannot allow bureaucracy to stand
in the way of veterans receiving the critical treatment and services
they need. H.R. 1604, the Veterans Mental Health Care Access Act,
introduced by Congressman MacArthur, would do just that. I am proud to
cosponsor this legislation.
Congressman Zeldin has introduced H.R. 4513, the PFC Joseph P. Dwyer
Veteran Peer Support Program, to provide 24/7 peer-to-peer mental
health services for veterans, reservists, and National Guardsmen. Our
men and women in uniform deserve a strong support system, and this is
one way we can ensure they have a trusted sense of community whenever
they need it.
____________________
PUBLICATION OF BUDGETARY MATERIALS
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC, March 15, 2016.
Re Communication from the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Section 3(h) of House Resolution 5
requires the concurrent resolution on the budget to include a
section related to means-tested and non-means-tested direct
spending programs. It also requires the Chair of the
Committee on the Budget to submit a statement in the
Congressional Record defining those terms prior to the
consideration of such concurrent resolution on the budget.
Enclosed please find two tables prepared in order to
fulfill this requirement. I have also included a
communication and associated tables from the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office, with whom I have consulted in
the preparation of this material. While the non-means-tested
list is not exhaustive, all programs not considered means-
tested can be considered non-means-tested direct spending.
Sincerely,
Tom Price, M.D.,
Chairman,
Committee on the Budget.
____
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, February 16, 2016.
Re Spending for Means-Tested Programs in CBO's Baseline,
2016-2026.
Hon. Tom Price, M.D.,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr Chairman: As you requested, enclosed are two tables
that show federal spending for the government's major
mandatory spending programs and tax credits that are
primarily means-tested (that is, spending programs and tax
credits that provide cash payments or other forms of
assistance to people with relatively low income or few
assets):
Table 1 shows CBO's January 2016 baseline projections for
the 2016-2026 period.
[[Page 3258]]
Table 2 shows historical spending data from 2006 through
2015 along with CBO's estimates for 2016.
Each table also includes a line showing total spending for
mandatory programs that are not primarily means-tested. (Some
of those programs--the student loan programs, for example--
have means-tested components, however.) The tables exclude
means-tested programs that are discretionary (such as the
Section 8 housing assistance programs and the Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program). However, each table shows
discretionary spending for the Federal Pell Grant Program as
a memorandum item because that program has discretionary and
mandatory components and because the amount of the mandatory
component depends in part on the amount of discretionary
funding.
In The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2016 to 2026, which CBO
published in January 2016, mandatory outlays for means-tested
programs are projected to grow over the next decade at an
average annual rate of 4.3 percent, compared with an average
rate of 5.5 percent for non-means-tested programs, such as
Social Security, most of Medicare, and civilian and military
retirement programs (see Table 1). Mandatory outlays in 2016
will be boosted by an estimated shift of $39 billion in
payments from fiscal year 2017 to 2016 (because October 1,
2016, falls on a weekend). If not for that shift, mandatory
outlays for means-tested programs would grow over the next
decade at an average annual rate of 4.4 percent, compared
with 5.7 percent for non-means-tested programs. Compared with
growth from 2007 through 2016, projected growth from 2017 to
2026 (adjusted for shifts in the timing of payments) is much
lower for means-tested programs (which will have grown at an
average rate of 7.2 percent from 2007 to 2016, by CBO's
estimate). In contrast, projected growth for non-means-tested
programs (which will have grown at an average rate of 4.8
percent from 2007 to 2016, CBO estimates) is almost one
percentage point higher per year, in part because of the
aging of the population (see Table 2).
Overall, the growth rates projected for total mandatory
spending over the coming decade are slower than those of the
past 10 years--by about one-half of a percentage point per
year, on average. However, most of that difference results
from the shift of some payments from 2017 to 2016. If not for
that shift, the average growth rate projected for total
mandatory spending over the coming decade would be 5.4
percent, equal to the rate recorded for the past 10 years.
A number of programs shown in Tables 1 and 2 have been or
are scheduled to be significantly affected by changes in law.
The most recent recession and the continuing recovery also
exert an influence. As a result, important aspects of the
programs in the future may differ significantly from
experience over the past decade, and those differences may be
the source of some of the variation between the growth rates
in the past 10 years and those in the coming decade. For
example, spending for several programs--Medicaid, the
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), subsidies for
health insurance purchased through an exchange, the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the
refundable portions of the earned income and child tax
credits--has been or will be significantly affected by
program changes that unfold over time:
Medicaid spending shot up by 35 percent from 2008 to 2010,
during the most recent recession, both because of enrollment
growth and as a result of a temporary increase in the federal
matching rate. After dropping off a bit subsequently, that
spending has been boosted by the expansion of Medicaid
coverage under the Affordable Care Act. As that expansion has
been phased in, spending for the program increased by 32
percent from 2013 to 2015 and is projected to rise by 9
percent in 2016. Under current law, the rate of growth in
Medicaid spending would decline through 2019, CBO projects,
after which it would largely level off at a rate of roughly 5
percent per year through the end of the projection period.
Under current law, spending authority for CHIP will expire
at the end of fiscal year 2017. Consistent with statutory
guidelines, CBO assumes in its baseline spending projections
that annual funding for the program after 2017 will continue
at $5.7 billion.\1\ As a result, in CBO's baseline, spending
for CHIP is projected to drop to $11 billion in 2018 and to
about $6 billion in subsequent years; it had grown from $5
billion to $13 billion from 2006 to 2016.
Payments of subsidies for health insurance purchased
through an exchange began in January 2014 and totaled $27
billion in fiscal year 2015. They are projected to continue
to grow rapidly between 2016 and 2018, largely as a result of
significant growth in enrollment. CBO and the staff of the
Joint Committee on Taxation project annual growth averaging
about 4 percent between 2019 and 2026.
SNAP spending increased markedly during the most recent
recession--roughly doubling between 2008 and 2011--as more
people became eligible for those benefits. In addition, the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)
temporarily raised the maximum benefit under that program.
The combination of higher enrollment and an increased benefit
caused outlays to peak at $83 billion in 2013. Spending has
fallen since then because subsequent legislation eliminated
the increase in the maximum benefit (as of October 31, 2013)
and because the program's caseload (which peaked in 2014) has
declined. CBO expects that enrollment will continue to fall
in each year of the projection period as the economy
continues to improve. As a result, spending for SNAP is
projected to decline slightly over the next several years,
after growing by an average of 8 percent per year over the
2007-2016 period.
Outlays for the earned income and child tax credits rose by
almost 40 percent from 2007 to 2008 and have grown slowly
since then. Provisions expanding the refundability of those
credits originally enacted in ARRA (and subsequently
extended) recently were made permanent.\2\ As a result, those
outlays are projected to continue to grow slowly--by an
average of about 2 percent per year--over the projection
period.
Finally, because of the unusual budgetary treatment of the
Pell grant program--which has mandatory and discretionary
components--the growth rates for the mandatory portions of
that program give incomplete information. The bulk of the
funding is provided annually in appropriation acts and thus
is discretionary. In recent years, spending for the program
also has included two mandatory components that have allowed
the discretionary budget authority provided by the regular
appropriation acts to remain well below the full cost of the
program.
In keeping with procedures that govern CBO's baseline, the
projection for the discretionary portion of the Pell grant
program is based on the budget authority appropriated for
fiscal year 2016, adjusted for inflation. (That projection of
discretionary spending is shown as a memorandum item in both
tables.) Thus, the baseline projection for both discretionary
and mandatory spending for Pell grants does not represent an
estimate of the expected future costs of the program; such a
projection also would account for such factors as award
amounts, eligibility, and enrollment.
I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have
any further questions, please contact me or my staff. The
primary staff contact is Barry Blom.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall,
Director.
Enclosures.
Endnotes
1. Under current law, funding for the program in 2017
consists of two semiannual allotments of $2.85 billion--
amounts that are much smaller than the allotments made in the
past. (The first semiannual allotment in 2017 will be
supplemented by $14.7 billion in one-time funding for the
program.) Following the rules prescribed by the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, CBO
extrapolates the $2.85 billion provided for the second half
of the year to arrive at projected annual funding of $5.7
billion.
2. Refundable tax credits reduce a filer's overall income
tax liability; if the credit exceeds the rest of the filer's
income tax liability, the government pays all or some portion
of that excess to the taxpayer. Those tax credits also affect
the budget, to a lesser extent, by reducing tax revenues;
those revenue effects are not shown in the tables.
TABLE 1--MANDATORY OUTLAYS IN CBO'S 2016 BASELINE
[Outlays by fiscal year, billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Annual
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Growth
(Percent)
2017-2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Means-Tested Programs:
Health Care Programs:
Medicaid.................... 381 401 420 439 460 484 509 536 564 593 642 5.4
Medicare Part D Low-Income 28 28 27 32 34 37 44 44 45 53 57 7.4
Subsidies..................
Health insurance 39 57 67 70 71 74 79 82 86 89 93 9.1
subsidiesa,b...............
Children's Health Insurance 13 13 11 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 -7.6
Program....................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................ 460 499 525 546 571 601 637 668 700 740 798 5.7
[[Page 3259]]
Income Security:
Earned income and child tax 83 82 82 84 86 88 91 93 95 97 99 1.8
creditsb,c.................
SNAP........................ 75 74 73 73 72 72 72 72 72 73 74 -0.1
Supplemental Security Income 59 56 53 60 61 63 70 67 64 71 74 2.2
Family support and foster 31 32 32 33 33 33 34 34 34 35 35 1.1
cared......................
Child nutrition............. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 4.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................ 271 267 265 274 280 285 296 296 297 309 317 1.6
Veterans' pensions.......... 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 7 7 8 8 2.9
Pell Grantse................ 7 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 2.3
Subtotal, Means-Tested 744 778 804 835 865 901 948 979 1,012 1,065 1,130 4.3
Programs...............
Non-Means-Tested Programsf.......... 1,959 2,018 2,076 2,238 2,377 2,519 2,720 2,829 2,933 3,156 3,362 5.5
Total Mandatory 2,703 2,796 2,880 3,073 3,243 3,419 3,669 3,808 3,944 4,221 4,492 5.2
Outlaysg...........
Memorandum:
Pell Grants (Discretionary)h........ 23 25 28 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 1.8
Means-Tested Programs Adjusted for 737 778 811 835 865 901 939 979 1,021 1,065 1,130 4.4
Timing Shifts......................
Non-Means-Tested Programs Adjusted 1,927 2,015 2,111 2,238 2,377 2,519 2,669 2,825 2,988 3,156 3,362 5.7
for Timing Shifts..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Budget Office; staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.
The projections shown here are the same as those reported in Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2016 to 2026 (January 2016).
The average annual growth rate over the 2017-2026 period encompasses growth in outlays from the amount projected for 2016 through the amount projected for 2026.
Projections of spending for benefit programs in this table exclude administrative costs that are classified as discretionary but generally include administrative costs that are classified as
mandatory.
SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Because October 1 will fall on a weekend in 2016, 2017, 2022, and 2023, certain federal payments that are due on those dates will instead be made at the end of the preceding September and thus
be shifted into the previous fiscal year. Those shifts primarily affect outlays for Supplemental Security Income, veterans' compensation benefits and pensions, and Medicare.
aDiffers from the amounts reported in Table 3-2 in The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2016 to 2026 in that it does not include payments to health insurance plans for risk adjustment
(amounts paid to plans that attract less healthy enrollees) and reinsurance (amounts paid to plans that enroll people with high health care costs). Spending for grants to states to establish
exchanges is also excluded.
bDoes not include amounts that reduce tax receipts.
cDiffers from the amounts reported in Table 3-2 in The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2016 to 2026 in that it does not include other tax credits that were included in that table.
dIncludes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the Child Support Enforcement program, the Child Care Entitlement program, and other programs that benefit children.
eIncludes mandatory spending designed to reduce the discretionary budget authority needed to support the maximum award amount set in the appropriation act plus mandatory spending that, by
formula, increases the total maximum award above the amount set in the appropriation act.
fDoes not include offsetting receipts.
gDoes not include outlays associated with federal interest payments.
hThe discretionary baseline does not represent a projection of expected costs for the discretionary portion of the Federal Pell Grant Program. As with all other discretionary programs, the
budget authority is calculated by inflating the budget authority appropriated for fiscal year 2016. Outlays for future years are based on those amounts of budget authority and also reflect a
temporary surplus of budget authority provided in 2016.
TABLE 2--MANDATORY OUTLAYS SINCE 2006
[Outlays by fiscal year, billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
Growth
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Est., 2016 (Percent)
2007-2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Means-Tested Programs:
Health Care Programs:
Medicaid.................... 181 191 201 251 273 275 251 265 301 350 381 7.7
Medicare Part D Low-Income 11 17 17 19 21 24 20 22 22 24 28 9.6
Subsidies
Health insurance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 27 39 n.a.
subsidiesa,b...............
Children's Health Insurance 5 6 7 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 13 8.7
Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................ 197 213 225 277 302 308 279 297 346 411 460 8.8
Income Security:
Earned income and child tax 52 54 75 67 77 78 77 79 82 81 83 4.8
creditsb...................
SNAP........................ 35 35 39 56 70 77 80 83 76 76 75 8.1
Supplemental Security Income 37 36 41 45 47 53 47 53 54 55 59 4.8
Family support and foster 30 31 32 33 35 33 30 32 31 31 31 0.3
carec......................
Child nutrition............. 14 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 22 23 5.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................ 168 170 202 217 247 260 254 266 263 264 271 4.9
Veterans Pensions............... 4 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 5 6 5.5
Pell Grantsd.................... 0 0 1 2 4 14 12 16 8 10 7 n.a.
Subtotal, Means-Tested 369 386 431 501 557 587 550 584 623 690 744 7.3
Programs...............
Non-Means-Tested Programse.......... 1,188 1,242 1,349 1,787 1,553 1,648 1,710 1,752 1,753 1,865 1,959 5.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Mandatory 1,556 1,628 1,780 2,288 2,110 2,236 2,260 2,336 2,376 2,555 2,703 5.7
Outlaysf...........
Memorandum:
Pell Grants (Discretionary)......... 13 13 15 13 20 21 21 17 23 20 23 5.8
Means-Tested Programs Adjusted for 368 389 431 501 557 581 556 584 623 690 737 7.2
Timing Shifts......................
Non-Means-Tested Programs Adjusted 1,202 1,241 1,349 1,787 1,553 1,627 1,731 1,752 1,753 1,865 1,927 4.8
for Timing Shifts..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Budget Office; staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.
The average annual growth rate over the 2007-2016 period encompasses growth in outlays from the amount recorded in 2006 through the amount projected for 2016.
Data on spending for benefit programs in this table exclude administrative costs that are classified as discretionary but generally include administrative costs that are classified as
mandatory.
SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; n.a. = not applicable.
Because October 1 fell on a weekend in 2006, 2007, and 2012, certain federal payments that were due on those dates were instead made at the end of the preceding September and thus shifted into
the previous fiscal year.
aDiffers from the amounts reported in Table 3-2 in The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2016 to 2026 in that it does not include payments to health insurance plans for risk adjustment
(amounts paid to plans that attract less healthy enrollees) and reinsurance (amounts paid to plans that enroll people with high health care costs). Spending for grants to states to establish
exchanges is also excluded.
bDoes not include amounts that reduce tax receipts.
cIncludes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the Child Support Enforcement program, the Child Care Entitlement program, and other programs that benefit children.
dIncludes mandatory spending designed to reduce the discretionary budget authority needed to support the maximum award amount set in the appropriation act plus mandatory spending that, by
formula, increases the total maximum award above the amount set in the appropriation act.
eDoes not include offsetting receipts.
fDoes not include outlays associated with federal interest payments.
[[Page 3260]]
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 21 minutes
p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow,
Wednesday, March 16, 2016, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
4648. A letter from the Under Secretary, Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, Department of Defense,
transmitting the Department's Chemical Demilitarization
Program Semi-Annual Report to Congress for March 2016,
pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1521(j); to the Committee on Armed
Services.
4649. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for
Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services,
transmitting a report entitled ``Community First Choice:
Final Report to Congress'', pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1396n(k)(5)(C)(ii); Public Law 111-148, Sec. 2401; (124 Stat.
300); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4650. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's delegation of authority -- Announcement of the
Delegation of Partial Administrative Authority for
Implementation of Federal Implementation Plan for the
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation [EPA-R10-OAR-
2015-0847; FRL-9943-54-Region 10] received March 11, 2016,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Added by Public Law 104-
121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
4651. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for
Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services,
transmitting a report entitled ``Office of Refugee
Resettlement Annual Report to Congress FY 2014'', pursuant to
Sec. 413(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
4652. A letter from the Executive Director, National Mining
Hall of Fame and Museum, transmitting the Museum's 2014
Report and Audit, pursuant to 36 U.S.C. 152112; Public Law
105-225, 152112; (112 Stat. 1412) and 36 U.S.C. 10101(b)(1);
Public Law 105-225, 10101(b)(1); (112 Stat. 1283); to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
4653. A letter from the Director, National Legislative
Division, American Legion, transmitting a financial statement
and independent audit of The American Legion, and proceedings
of the 97th Annual National Convention of the American
Legion, held in Baltimore, Maryland from September 1-3, 2015,
and a report on the organization's activities for the year
preceding the convention, pursuant to 36 U.S.C. 10101(b)(1);
Public Law 105-225, 10101(b)(1); (112 Stat. 1283) (H. Doc.
No. 114--116); to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and
ordered to be printed.
4654. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for
Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services,
transmitting a report entitled ``Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) Program Eleventh Report to Congress'',
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 611(b); Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title
IV, Sec. 411 (as added by Public Law 104-193, Sec. 103
(a)(1)); (110 Stat. 2148); to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
4655. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
IRB only rule -- Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) Guidance
and Transition Relief [Notice 2016-22] received March 11,
2016, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Added by Public Law
104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
4656. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for
Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services,
transmitting the Department's Evaluation of the Medicare
Patient Intravenous Immunoglobulin Demonstration Project:
Interim Report to Congress, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1395l note;
Public Law 112-242, Sec. 101(f)(1); (126 Stat. 2375); jointly
to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions of the
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. BISHOP of Utah (for himself, Mr. Simpson, Mrs.
Lummis, Mr. Amodei, Mr. Bridenstine, Mr. Weber of
Texas, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr.
Lamborn, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Hardy, Mr. Zinke, Mr. Hurd
of Texas, Mr. Cook, and Mr. Chaffetz):
H.R. 4739. A bill to provide for the conservation and
preservation of the Greater Sage Grouse by facilitating State
recovery plans; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts:
H.R. 4740. A bill to direct the Attorney General to make
grants to States and units of local government for the
prevention, enforcement, and prosecution of cybercrimes
against individuals, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
By Mr. THORNBERRY:
H.R. 4741. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
provide for modular open system architecture in major defense
acquisition programs, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
By Ms. ESTY (for herself, Mrs. Comstock, Ms. Eddie
Bernice Johnson of Texas, and Mr. Smith of Texas):
H.R. 4742. A bill to authorize the National Science
Foundation to support entrepreneurial programs for women; to
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
By Mr. CASTRO of Texas (for himself, Mr. Richmond, Mr.
Hurd of Texas, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Smith of
Texas, and Mr. Welch):
H.R. 4743. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Homeland
Security to establish a National Cybersecurity Preparedness
Consortium, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Homeland Security.
By Mrs. KIRKPATRICK:
H.R. 4744. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior
to carry out a 5-year demonstration program to provide grants
to eligible Indian tribes for the construction of tribal
schools, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the
Committees on Financial Services, and Natural Resources, for
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. MULVANEY:
H.R. 4745. A bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982 to authorize the Secretary of Energy to enter into
contracts for the storage of certain high-level radioactive
waste and spent nuclear fuel and take title to certain high-
level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. RUSSELL:
H.R. 4746. A bill to provide that no additional Federal
funds may be made available for National Heritage Areas, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Tom
Price of Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Lewis, Mr.
Woodall, Mr. Graves of Georgia, Mr. Johnson of
Georgia, Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, Mr. Bishop of
Georgia, Mr. Collins of Georgia, and Mr. Allen):
H.R. 4747. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 6691 Church Street in
Riverdale, Georgia, as the ``Major Gregory E. Barney Post
Office Building''; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
By Ms. SPEIER (for herself, Ms. Adams, Mr. Beyer, Mr.
Blumenauer, Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Cardenas, Ms. Clarke of New York, Ms. Clark of
Massachusetts, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Conyers, Mr.
DeSaulnier, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Honda,
Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. Lee, Mr. Lynch, Ms. McCollum,
Mr. Meeks, Mr. Nadler, Ms. Norton, Mr. Pallone, Mr.
Quigley, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Rush, Mr. Scott of Virginia,
Mr. Serrano, Mr. Sires, Mr. Swalwell of California,
Mr. Takano, Mr. Van Hollen, Mrs. Watson Coleman, and
Mr. McGovern):
H.R. 4748. A bill to ban the importation of semiautomatic
assault weapons, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
By Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California:
H. Res. 643. A resolution honoring women who have served,
and who are currently serving, as members of the Armed Forces
and recognizing the recently expanded service opportunities
available to female members of the Armed Forces; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. PEARCE (for himself, Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham
of New Mexico, Mr. Jones, Mr. Ashford, and Mr. Sam
Johnson of Texas):
H. Res. 644. A resolution recognizing the 100th anniversary
of the First Aero Squadron's participation as the first
aviation unit to take part in military operations, and the
group's contribution to the Nation's airpower heritage; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mrs. WALORSKI (for herself, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Coffman,
Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Lamborn, Mr.
Austin Scott of Georgia, Mr. Wilson of South
Carolina, and Mr. Zinke):
H. Res. 645. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
that individuals captured by the United States for supporting
the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant should be detained
at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; to the
Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee
on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
[[Page 3261]]
____________________
MEMORIALS
Under clause 3 of rule XII,
178. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Legislature of
the State of New Mexico, relative to Senate Joint Memorial
15, stating that the State of New Mexico stands in support of
the passage of the Dine College Act of 2015 and urges the New
Mexico Congressional Delegation to work to ensure its passage
into Federal Law; which was referred to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
____________________
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the following statements are submitted regarding the
specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the
accompanying bill or joint resolution.
By Mr. BISHOP of Utah:
H.R. 4739.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 8 provides authority to Congress to
provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the
United States; as well as to make provisions and regulations
for the military forces of the United States. Since proposed
Sage Grouse habitat negatively impacts several military
installations and training facilities, the Congress has
authority under Section 8 to act to mitigate those impacts in
order to preserve national defense readiness, while at the
same time, empowering the States which have conservation
plans for preservation and recovery of the Sage Grouse
species.
By Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts:
H.R. 4740.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Secton 8
By Mr. THORNBERRY:
H.R. 4741.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The constitutional authority on which this bill rests is
the power of Congress ``to provide for the common Defence'',
``to raise and support Armies'', ``to provide and maintain a
Navy'' and ``to make Rules for the Government and Regulation
of the land and naval Forces'' as enumerated in Article I,
section 8 of the United States Constitution.
By Ms. ESTY:
H.R. 4742.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
article I, section 8, clause 18 of the Constitution.
By Mr. CASTRO of Texas:
H.R. 4743.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Constitutional Authority--Necessary and Proper Clause (Art.
I, Sec. 8, Clause 18 THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I, SECTION
8: POWERS OF CONGRESS CLAUSE 18
The Congress shall have power . . . To make all laws which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the
foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this
Constitution in the government of the United States, or in
any department or officer thereof.
By Mrs. KIRKPATRICK:
H.R. 4744.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I Section 8 (18) To make all Laws which shall be
necessary and power for carrying into Execution the foregoing
Powers, and all other Powers vest by this Constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any Department or
Officer thereof.
By Mr. MULVANEY:
H.R. 4745.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. ``The Congress shall have
Power To . . . provide for the . . . general Welfare of the
United States . . .''
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. ``To regulate commerce with
foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the
Indian tribes.''
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. ``To make all Laws which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the
foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in
any Department or Officer thereof.''
By Mr. RUSSELL:
H.R. 4746.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3
By Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia:
H.R. 4747.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I Section 8 Clause 7 of the Constitution, giving
Congress the power to ``Establish Post Offices and Post
Roads''.
By Ms. SPEIER:
H.R. 4748.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to
Congress under Article 1, Section 8 of the United States
Constitution.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions, as follows:
H.R. 153: Mr. Webster of Florida.
H.R. 242: Mr. Quigley, Mr. Pascrell, and Mr. Beyer.
H.R. 244: Mr. Newhouse.
H.R. 303: Mr. Peterson and Mr. DeSaulnier.
H.R. 465: Mr. Franks of Arizona and Mr. Brat.
H.R. 494: Mr. Trott.
H.R. 546: Mr. Calvert and Mr. Franks of Arizona.
H.R. 556: Mrs. Ellmers of North Carolina.
H.R. 619: Ms. Edwards.
H.R. 649: Mr. Pascrell.
H.R. 711: Mr. Messer, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr.
Latta, and Mr. Gibbs.
H.R. 748: Mr. Grijalva and Ms. Sinema.
H.R. 759: Mr. Vargas.
H.R. 845: Mr. Gibson.
H.R. 913: Mrs. Lawrence.
H.R. 953: Mr. Grayson, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Polis, and Ms.
Bonamici.
H.R. 986: Mr. Zeldin and Mr. Pitts.
H.R. 1116: Mr. Rush and Mrs. Ellmers of North Carolina.
H.R. 1130: Mrs. Comstock.
H.R. 1185: Mr. Trott, Mr. Guinta, Mr. Hastings, Mr.
Shuster, Mr. Huizenga of Michigan, and Mr. Fortenberry.
H.R. 1193: Mr. Ruppersberger.
H.R. 1220: Mr. Lewis, Mrs. Roby, Mr. Hultgren, and Mrs.
Lawrence.
H.R. 1221: Mr. Ted Lieu of California.
H.R. 1336: Mr. Boustany.
H.R. 1397: Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 1427: Mr. Reichert and Mr. Smith of Washington.
H.R. 1515: Mr. Grayson.
H.R. 1631: Mrs. Ellmers of North Carolina.
H.R. 1655: Mr. Jolly and Mr. Sarbanes.
H.R. 1671: Mr. Thornberry.
H.R. 1707: Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 1797: Mr. Cicilline.
H.R. 1996: Mr. Duncan of South Carolina.
H.R. 2170: Mr. Renacci and Ms. Clark of Massachusetts.
H.R. 2205: Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. McClintock, Mr.
Rangel, and Mr. Ashford.
H.R. 2237: Mr. DeSaulnier.
H.R. 2254: Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 2260: Mr. Ted Lieu of California.
H.R. 2264: Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Collins of New York, Mr.
Kelly of Pennsylvania, and Mr. DeSaulnier.
H.R. 2293: Mr. Trott and Mrs. Bustos.
H.R. 2313: Mrs. Miller of Michigan.
H.R. 2404: Mr. Nolan.
H.R. 2483: Mr. Emmer of Minnesota.
H.R. 2567: Mr. Walker and Mr. Moolenaar.
H.R. 2711: Mr. Gosar, Mr. Emmer of Minnesota, and Mr. Brat.
H.R. 2712: Mr. Cramer.
H.R. 2726: Mr. Johnson of Ohio.
H.R. 2775: Mr. Cicilline.
H.R. 2802: Mr. Huizenga of Michigan.
H.R. 2826: Mr. Renacci.
H.R. 2844: Mr. Langevin and Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas.
H.R. 2874: Mr. Boustany.
H.R. 2896: Mr. Jenkins of West Virginia.
H.R. 2902: Mr. Schrader.
H.R. 3048: Mr. Pearce.
H.R. 3084: Mr. Murphy of Florida.
H.R. 3099: Mr. Bishop of Michigan, Mr. Hunter, and Mr.
Smith of Washington.
H.R. 3180: Mr. Moolenaar and Mr. Polis.
H.R. 3209: Mr. Rangel and Mr. Nunes.
H.R. 3235: Mr. Takano.
H.R. 3326: Ms. Esty.
H.R. 3399: Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 3411: Ms. Adams and Mr. Michael F. Doyle of
Pennsylvania.
H.R. 3546: Mr. David Scott of Georgia, Mr. Denham, Mr.
Lynch, and Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 3648: Mr. DeFazio.
H.R. 3713: Mr. Lewis.
H.R. 3747: Mr. Cohen and Ms. Frankel of Florida.
H.R. 3765: Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mr. Ashford, Mr. Carter
of Georgia, and Mr. Russell.
H.R. 3779: Mr. Peters.
H.R. 3799: Ms. Jenkins of Kansas.
H.R. 3804: Mr. Renacci.
H.R. 3808: Mrs. Ellmers of North Carolina and Mr. Kline.
H.R. 3817: Mr. Rangel, Mr. Amodei, Mr. Ashford, Mr.
Hastings, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, Ms. Slaughter, and Ms. Norton.
H.R. 3849: Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California.
H.R. 3851: Mr. Grayson.
H.R. 3974: Mr. Foster, Mr. Cardenas, and Mrs. Kirkpatrick.
H.R. 3982: Mr. MacArthur.
H.R. 4016: Mrs. Wagner.
H.R. 4043: Ms. Judy Chu of California.
H.R. 4062: Mr. Fitzpatrick.
H.R. 4073: Mrs. Kirkpatrick, Mr. Ross, and Mr. Carney.
H.R. 4126: Mr. Grothman and Mr. Carter of Georgia.
H.R. 4133: Mr. Brooks of Alabama and Mrs. Roby.
H.R. 4144: Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York and Mr.
Rush.
H.R. 4177: Mr. Hardy and Mr. Fleming.
[[Page 3262]]
H.R. 4197: Mr. Boustany.
H.R. 4229: Mr. Chabot, Mr. Bishop of Michigan, and Mr.
Ashford.
H.R. 4247: Mr. Polis.
H.R. 4249: Ms. Maxine Waters of California.
H.R. 4262: Mr. Trott and Mr. Mooney of West Virginia.
H.R. 4277: Mr. Ted Lieu of California.
H.R. 4293: Mr. Olson, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. Latta.
H.R. 4301: Mr. McCaul.
H.R. 4336: Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Hardy, Mr. Jolly, and
Ms. DeLauro.
H.R. 4352: Ms. Eshoo and Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico.
H.R. 4375: Mr. Emmer of Minnesota.
H.R. 4400: Mrs. Ellmers of North Carolina.
H.R. 4420: Mr. Miller of Florida.
H.R. 4428: Mr. Abraham and Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 4442: Mrs. Beatty.
H.R. 4447: Mr. Welch, Mr. Tonko, and Mr. Keating.
H.R. 4469: Mr. Gibbs.
H.R. 4472: Mr. Reichert, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Kelly
of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Renacci.
H.R. 4481: Mr. McGovern, Mr. Ross, and Mr. McCaul.
H.R. 4490: Mr. Beyer.
H.R. 4511: Mr. Olson.
H.R. 4514: Mr. Schiff, Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois, Mr.
Fleming, Mr. Cole, and Mr. Sherman.
H.R. 4553: Mr. Cramer.
H.R. 4570: Ms. Tsongas and Mr. O'Rourke.
H.R. 4622: Mr. Allen.
H.R. 4626: Mrs. Comstock.
H.R. 4651: Mr. Loudermilk, Ms. McSally, Mr. Rogers of
Alabama, and Mr. Duncan of South Carolina.
H.R. 4653: Mr. Van Hollen and Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 4662: Mr. Crowley, Ms. Norton, Mr. Hastings, Ms. Brown
of Florida, Ms. Plaskett, Mr. Costello of Pennsylvania, and
Mr. Duncan of Tennessee.
H.R. 4664: Mr. Cicilline.
H.R. 4668: Mr. Cicilline, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New
York, Mr. Ted Lieu of California, Mr. Keating, and Mr. Beyer.
H.R. 4678: Mr. Cook and Mrs. Walorski.
H.R. 4681: Mr. DeSaulnier.
H.R. 4690: Mr. Hill.
H.R. 4700: Mr. Takai and Ms. Eshoo.
H.R. 4712: Ms. Lee, Mr. Carson of Indiana, and Mr. Veasey.
H.R. 4720: Mr. Sessions.
H.R. 4723: Mr. Meehan and Mr. Renacci.
H.R. 4730: Mr. Flores.
H.R. 4731: Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Sessions, and Mr.
Chaffetz.
H.J. Res. 12: Mr. Ribble.
H.J. Res. 55: Mr. Renacci.
H.J. Res. 85: Mr. Carter of Georgia.
H. Con. Res. 19: Mr. Costa.
H. Con. Res. 40: Ms. Slaughter and Mr. O'Rourke.
H. Con. Res. 56: Mr. DeSantis.
H. Con. Res. 89: Mr. Walberg.
H. Con. Res. 122: Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico and Ms.
Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico.
H. Res. 12: Mr. Latta.
H. Res. 28: Mr. Latta.
H. Res. 207: Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania and Mr.
Benishek.
H. Res. 220: Ms. Matsui and Ms. Velazquez.
H. Res. 294: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania.
H. Res. 343: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H. Res. 374: Mr. Kilmer.
H. Res. 419: Mr. Reichert and Mr. McCaul.
H. Res. 432: Mr. Huffman.
H. Res. 541: Mr. DeSaulnier and Miss Rice of New York.
H. Res. 631: Mr. Takai.
H. Res. 641: Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York.
H. Res. 642: Mr. Pocan.
[[Page 3263]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
HONORING THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF SAINT LOUIS CRISIS NURSERY
______
HON. BLAINE LUETKEMEYER
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Saint Louis
Crisis Nursery, which will celebrate its 30th Anniversary on April 2,
2016. In 1986, Saint Louis Crisis Nursery opened its doors to provide
twenty-four-hour shelter and special care for children whose families
have faced an emergency or crisis. Numerous areas are served by Saint
Louis Crisis Nursery including St. Louis City, St. Charles, and
Wentzville. For over 30 years, Saint Louis Crisis Nursery has provided
protection for more than 98,000 children who were at risk of abuse and
neglect. With the month of April being National Child Abuse Prevention
Month, this recognition is well deserved for an organization that is
working to prevent child abuse.
The mission of Saint Louis Crisis Nursery is to keep Missouri's most
vulnerable citizens safe from harm. Supporting and strengthening the
fragile and the under-resourced is key to overcoming the cycle of
neglect and abuse.
In addition to providing shelter during emergencies, Saint Louis
Crisis Nursery offers a variety of programs: parent education groups,
home visits, teen parenting groups, art and play therapy, holiday
hearts campaign, training institute, school supply drive, community
outreach, and family emergency fund. These programs enrich the families
in the community, which in turn encourages children to be raised in a
healthy environment.
Saint Louis Crisis Nursery started out with one crisis nursery
location and has grown to five crisis nursery locations during the past
30 years. They have also established seven community outreach centers
and a regional administrative office. The staff has grown from 12 to
more than 100, and counseling/support services that started with
assisting 435 families now touches over 6,000 lives.
I ask you to join me in recognizing Saint Louis Crisis Nursery on
their 30th Anniversary of serving the citizens of their community.
____________________
CONGRATULATING MR. JIM BROWN ON BEING ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE
PENNSYLVANIA BUILDERS ASSOCIATION
______
HON. BILL SHUSTER
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Jim Brown
of Hollidaysburg, PA, on being elected 2016 President of the
Pennsylvania Builders Association (PBA).
Chartered in 1952, PBA is a statewide non-profit affiliated with the
National Association of Home Builders. The guiding voice for the
state's home building industry and housing consumers, PBA provides an
admirable service to countless people, especially as in one way or
another, we all have a fundamental need for shelter. At the core of
this herculean task, PBA works to enhance and improve the ability of
our state's building professionals to provide the best quality homes at
the most affordable prices for all Pennsylvanians. Given these
significant responsibilities, it's easy to see why the organization
needs strong and experienced leadership. That's why I am proud to
highlight Jim's election.
As president of J.R. Brown Construction, Inc., a member of the board
of the National Association of Home Builders, and a member of the
Blair-Bedford Builders Association, where he has served as president,
vice president, builder director, chairman of the Scholarship and
Social Committees, and co-chair of the Home and Garden Show Committee,
Jim undoubtedly has the experience and service-minded approach
necessary to lead PBA in its noble mission. I am also pleased to
highlight that Jim is the first Blair County builder to be elected to
this office since 1972, a fact that our communities can take pride in.
I have complete faith that Jim will put his 26 years of building
experience to work in representing this critical industry and all those
who rely on affordable housing to pursue their version of the American
Dream.
On behalf of the citizens of the Ninth District of Pennsylvania, I
want to thank Mr. Jim Brown for continuing his service to our community
and congratulate him for being elected President of the PBA.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO KAREN BARNETT--28TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT WOMAN OF THE YEAR
______
HON. ADAM B. SCHIFF
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Women's History
Month. Each year, we pay special tribute to the contributions and
sacrifices made by our nation's women. It is an honor to pay homage to
outstanding women who are making a difference in my Congressional
District. I would like to recognize a remarkable woman, Karen Barnett,
of Atwater Village, a unique neighborhood in Los Angeles, California.
A Los Angeles native, Karen has lived in Atwater Village for the past
14 years. In pursuing her education, Karen chose to stay local and
attended Art Center College of Design in Pasadena. Today, her
experience as a designer provides a unique perspective on improving her
community and neighborhood.
Currently, Karen Barnett is a member of the Atwater Village
Neighborhood Council. She serves as Chair of the Atwater Village
Neighborhood Council River Committee, which she initiated because of
her concerns regarding the present and possible future uses of the Los
Angeles River. In this capacity, Karen has dedicated many hours finding
ways to get the community involved in possible projects along Atwater
Village's four mile section of the Los Angeles River.
Ms. Barnett has been a steadfast advocate for the environment and for
the Los Angeles River. Under Karen's direction and with the approval of
the Atwater Village Neighborhood Council Board, the Atwater Village
Neighborhood Council River Committee applied for a National Park
Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program technical
service grant. As a result of the Committee's hard work and dedication,
Atwater Village was awarded the Atwater Village East Bank River Way
grant, which will help map the area and identify locations for possible
projects.
I ask all Members to join me today in honoring an exceptional woman
of California's 28th Congressional District, Karen Barnett, for her
extraordinary service to the community.
____________________
THE CONTINUING ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE VOTING RIGHTS MOVEMENT
______
HON. TERRI A. SEWELL
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, today, in honor of Restoration
Tuesday and March being Women's History month; I rise to acknowledge
the role of women in the continuing battle for protecting our
constitutional right to vote.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was only made possible because of the
brave men and women who marched,--and were willing to die for voting
equality as they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday.
Moreover, the narrative of the battle for voting rights in America is
incomplete without the story of the strong contributions of the women
who helped to advance these efforts. Nearly a decade has passed since
Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in July 2006. This
reauthorization not only continued to guarantee protections against
modern day voting barriers, it elevated three mothers of the civil
rights movement in its title: Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta
Scott King. Honoring these great women who fought for equality and
justice, this reauthorization stamped a day in time where both parties
[[Page 3264]]
were able to come together and show overwhelming support for the most
essential right on which this great democracy was founded, the right to
vote.
However, when the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 pre-clearance
and federal protection for vulnerable communities in 2013, a number of
states, including Alabama, passed restrictive laws designed to suppress
the vote. It is imperative that we remain ever vigilant in upholding
the legacy, not only of the historic women for which the
reauthorization of the Act was named, but of the three women who sat on
the Supreme Court bench and gave dissenting opinions following the
tragic Section 4 strike down.
Whether protesting from the streets or the Supreme Court bench, women
have long played a vital role in the movement for voting rights in
America's history. As we celebrate the rich history of women in
politics during Women's History Month, we honor the conviction and
determination of women like Susan B. Anthony and Amelia Boynton
Robinson who fought relentlessly for equality for the ultimate benefit
of our country as a whole. When women succeed, America succeeds and
Congress should honor the fight and sacrifice by passing the Voting
Rights Advancement Act of 2016.
Fannie Lou Hamer is famous for stating what so many were feeling then
and still feel now when she said--``I am sick and tired of being sick
and tired.'' Like the brave women of our past, we all need to be sick
and tired of injustice and inequality. On this Restoration Tuesday, we
honor the women who championed the cause of protection of our sacred
and fundamental right to the polls.
____________________
WELCOME HOME VIETNAM VETERANS DAY COMMEMORATION
______
HON. JOHN SHIMKUS
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's Vietnam War Commemoration
gives us the opportunity for all Americans to recognize, honor, and
thank our Vietnam Veterans and their families for their service and
sacrifices during the Vietnam War from November 1, 1955 through May 15,
1975.
Over 9,000 organizations across America have joined with the
Department of Defense as a Commemorative Partner to honor our Nation's
Vietnam Veterans, including Benjamin Mills Chapter, NSDAR; the Illinois
State Organization, NSDAR; and the National Society of the Daughters of
the American Revolution.
This year's commemoration includes nine million Americans,
approximately 7.2 million of them living today, and makes no
distinction as to who served in-country, in-theater, or was stationed
elsewhere during those 20 years--all answered the call of duty.
Veterans' Affairs Secretary Robert A. McDonald has designated March
29, 2016, the last day that U.S. troops were on the ground in Vietnam,
as a day to honor those who have ``borne the battle'', and to extend
gratitude and appreciation to them and their families.
Alan Gaffner, the Mayor of the City of Greenville, has also
proclaimed March 29, 2016 as: WELCOME HOME VIETNAM VETERANS DAY in
Greenville, Illinois. I stand with Major Gaffner and my constituents in
Greenville as we humbly thank our Vietnam Veterans for their service
and sacrifice.
____________________
CONGRATULATING LOGAN MORIARITY FOR HIS FIRST PLACE WIN IN THE 2016
MISSOURI STATE WRESTLING CHAMPIONSHIP
______
HON. BLAINE LUETKEMEYER
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to
join me in congratulating Logan Moriarity for his first place win in
the 2016 Class 4, 170 pound weight class, Missouri State Wrestling
Championship.
Logan and his coach should be commended for all of their hard work
throughout this past year and for bringing home the state championship
to Jefferson City High School and their local community.
I ask you to join me in recognizing Logan for a job well done.
____________________
CONGRATULATING MRS. PEGGY J. BOSMA-LaMASCUS ON A SUCCESSFUL 34-YEAR
CAREER AT PATRIOT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
______
HON. BILL SHUSTER
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mrs. Peggy J.
Bosma-LaMascus, the former President and CEO of Patriot Federal Credit
Union, on a distinguished career and a well-deserved retirement.
Mrs. Bosma-LaMascus began her career with Letterkenny Federal Credit
Union, the predecessor to Patriot Federal Credit Union, in 1982. Under
Peggy's subsequent leadership, the credit union grew from $26 million
in assets to over $520 million, which has put Patriot in the top 5
percent of all credit unions in the country in terms of assets. In
addition to implementing beneficial mortgage, lending, and wealth
management programs and processes, Peggy always made sure to keep the
credit union's focus on member service and convenience. What is
possibly even more impressive than her tremendous accomplishments is
the way she remained committed to having a positive impact on people's
lives and the lives of their families. I believe her trust in the
credit union philosophy ``Not for Profit, Not for Charity, But for
Service'' is truly worth highlighting and celebrating.
Additionally, many know that Peggy played a significant role in the
1990s to save jobs at the Letterkenny Army Depot, as the Department of
Defense pursued a Base Realignment and Closure. It was to acknowledge
the Letterkenny Army Depot's missile repair capabilities that Peggy
urged the credit union to change its name to Patriot Federal Credit
Union.
What's more, Peggy has also made time to serve several community
boards and organizations like the Downtown Chambersburg and
Chambersburg United Way, and the Greater Chambersburg Area Chamber of
Commerce. It was in 2006 that the Greater Chambersburg Area Chamber of
Commerce named her Businessperson of the Year. Peggy has additionally
played a notable role in advancing credit unions by serving many state
and federal level organizations.
On behalf of the Ninth District of Pennsylvania, I want to thank Mrs.
Peggy J. Bosma-LaMascus for her dedication to making our communities
not only stronger financially but also richer in personal service and
community spirit. Her leadership and dedication to Pennsylvanians is to
be commended, and her retirement is well-deserved.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL
AG DAY
______
HON. ROD BLUM
of iowa
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. BLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on March 15th, in honor of
National Ag Day and the hardworking farmers in the First District of
Iowa.
Iowa continues to make enormous contributions to the U.S. Our farmers
feed our nation, fuel our cars, and nourish our livestock.
With ninety percent of the available land used for agriculture, Iowa
is the number one producer of soy and corn in the country and continues
to rank high in the production of many more commodities, including beef
and pork, and trails behind only California in terms of total value for
agricultural production.
I commend and thank the hardworking farmers of Iowa who continue to
produce record crops and embrace new technologies and practices.
I encourage everyone to thank a farmer today for their contributions
to our nation and look forward to the advancement of agriculture across
the U.S.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THOMAS J. KEENEY, THE 2016 GREATER WILKES-BARRE
FRIENDLY SONS OF SAINT PATRICK MAN OF THE YEAR
______
HON. MATT CARTWRIGHT
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Thomas J. Keeney,
who was named 2016 Man of the Year from the Greater Wilkes-Barre
Friendly Sons of Saint Patrick. Tom received his award from the
Friendly Sons on Friday, March 11.
[[Page 3265]]
Born in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, Tom's family traveled a great
deal throughout his youth, as a result of Tom's father, Donald, serving
as a Major in the U.S. Army. In 1964, Tom graduated from Coughlin High
School and served in the U.S. Air Force from 1965 to 1969. While in the
Air Force, Tom was an aircraft mechanic and maintained the F100D/F
fighter aircraft. After leaving the service, Tom entered the Plumber
Apprentice training program offered by Plumbers Local 147 and began
working as a contractor in the construction industry. Tom also served
as a Reserve member of the U.S. Army, while working as a plumber,
pipefitter, and welder. He served a variety of units as a Combat Medic
91B. He remained in the Army serving for 27 years, achieving the rank
of Master Sergeant E8.
Today, Tom resides in Plains, Pennsylvania and is a retired master
plumbing and heating contractor. He is the father of two children,
Patrick and Maurita, and has three grandchildren. He is a member of the
Knights of Columbus Council 302 and served the organization in many
capacities, from Grand Knight to Faithful Navigator. He is also the
past Commander of Alhamar Caravan Number 4 Order of the Alhambra and is
an active member of Ancient Order of Hibernians, the American Legion,
the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and remains active in many other
community organizations.
It is an honor to recognize Thomas Keeney for receiving the Greater
Wilkes-Barre Friendly Sons Man of the Year Award for 2016. I am
grateful for his extensive service to our nation. I wish him the best
as he and the Friendly Sons celebrate his many civic achievements.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE RETIREMENT OF ROBERT J. HAND
______
HON. JIM COSTA
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate and recognize the
service of Mr. Robert J. Hand's thirty year career dedicated to public
service. Until his recent retirement, Mr. Hand served as the Executive
Director for Resources for Independence, Central Valley (RICV) for the
past ten years. RICV is a non-profit organization whose mission is to
``encourage people with disabilities to be in control of their lives
and to live more independently through a diverse range of choices and
opportunities.'' Bob dedicated his forty-year career to public service,
and his efforts will continue to impact the community and be felt by
all who have had the opportunity to work with him along the way.
Bob has been very active in many organizations and has held countless
leadership roles over the course of his career. Through his role with
RICV, Bob aided in the establishment of Inspiration Park, California's
first universally accessible public park. The eight-acre park features
several basketball courts, a fully accessible playground, a sensory
garden, fitness cluster, Dog Park, and so much more. While there are
many parks in California that feature some disabled friendly features,
Inspiration Park is the only one that serves these needs one hundred
percent. Additionally, since the park's recent opening in late 2015,
Bob and his team at RICV, along with their other partners, have
committed to providing funding for the general development along with
maintenance of the park.
In addition to his time at RICV, Bob also served as the former
Chairman of the Board of the California Foundation for Independent
Living Centers, California State Rehabilitation Council, and the City
of Fresno Disability Advisory Commission. He is also the founder and
facilitator of the Central Valley Coalition for Human Services. Bob
received his Master's Degree in Rehabilitation Counseling from
California State University, Fresno and later returned as an adjunct
instructor to teach leadership development for people suffering from
disabilities. He has shared countless presentations in California,
Kansas, South Carolina, and South Korea aimed to supplement the
``Leaders without Limits'' training manuals which he co-authored. While
Bob's career has been filled with many personal accomplishments, it is
without a doubt that his life's goal was not to improve upon his own
successes, but rather to improve the lives of others.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating a man who
has dedicated his entire career to public service. Bob's many
accomplishments within the community are a direct reflection of his
strong dedication and perseverance. Through these accomplishments, Bob
has improved the lives of many, and even upon his retirement, will
undeniably continue to do so for many years to come.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE EXTRAORDINARY LIFE OF MRS. INEZ POWELL DADE
______
HON. G. K. BUTTERFIELD
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the extraordinary
life of Mrs. Inez Powell Dade who was born in my hometown of Wilson,
North Carolina on November 7, 1912. Sadly, Mrs. Dade passed away on
Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at the age of 103.
Inez Powell was the fourth of seven children born to Mr. James Powell
and Mrs. Martha Hageans Powell. Inez and her siblings grew up on a farm
where they milked cows and picked cotton and tobacco. In 1937,
following her husband John Battle, Inez moved to Washington, DC. She
would remain in the Nation's Capital for more than 70 years. Later in
life, Inez married World War II veteran and federal government employee
Mr. James Dade.
Inez would go on to work for the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) where
she would spend 23 years. Assigned to the United States Senate, Inez
worked the overnight shift ensuring the Senate buildings and offices
were ready for the next day's business. She retired from the AOC in
1970.
After her retirement, Inez purchased the Tiny Tot Preschool and
Nursery, Inc. in Washington, DC which went on to become a well-known
child development center in the city. She understood the anxiety
parents felt when they had to leave their children in someone's care so
she made it her mission to provide the kind of environment where
parents could feel that their children were safe.
She committed herself to providing quality care at a reasonable cost
for more than 40 years. In May of 2012, Mrs. Dade retired for a second
time and ushered in the next generation of childcare providers.
On November 7, 2012 Inez celebrated her 100th birthday. Her family
and friends celebrated her life and accomplishments with a ``Centennial
Celebration'' on November 4, 2012 at the Washington Navy Yard,
Washington, DC. The celebration featured remarks from Congresswoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, then-DC Mayor Vincent Gray, and then-City
Councilwoman Muriel Bowser. She also received commendation from
President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama.
Sadly, Mrs. Inez Dade passed away on Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at the
age of 103. Mrs. Dade is survived by her four daughters, Helen, Peggy,
Rose Marie, and Shirley; her youngest sister, Vanilla Beane; and
grandchildren and great-grandchildren too numerous to name. Her
immediate family as well as her family from First Baptist Church of
Annapolis where she was a member for 49 years will cherish her memory.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing condolences
to Mrs. Dade's family, friends, and all those who were touched by her
amazing life.
____________________
CONGRATULATING JOSH McCLURE FOR HIS FIRST PLACE WIN IN THE 2016
MISSOURI STATE WRESTLING CHAMPIONSHIP
______
HON. BLAINE LUETKEMEYER
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to
join me in congratulating Josh McClure for his first place win in the
2016 Class 2, 145 pound weight class, Missouri State Wrestling
Championship.
Josh and his coach should be commended for all of their hard work
throughout this past year and for bringing home the state championship
to Fulton High School and their local community.
I ask you to join me in recognizing Josh for a job well done.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. LUIS V. GUTIERREZ
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House
chamber for votes on Monday, March 14, 2016. I would like to show that,
had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 111,
112, and 113.
[[Page 3266]]
____________________
ISIS IN THE WORLD
______
HON. PETE OLSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to interact with some of the
brightest students in the 22nd Congressional District who serve on my
Congressional Youth Advisory Council. I have gained much by listening
to the high school students who are the future of this great nation.
They provide important insight from across the political spectrum that
sheds a light on the concerns of our younger constituents. Giving voice
to their priorities will hopefully instill a better sense of the
importance of being an active participant in the political process.
Many of the students have written short essays on a variety of topics
and I am pleased to share them with my House colleagues.
Caleb Leachman attends Needville High School in Needville, Texas. The
essay topic is: ISIS in the world.
ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) has become a serious
issue for the entire world lately. The terrorist attack ISIS
performed on Paris, France, was a serious warning for the
United States. ISIS executed seven different terrorist
attacks all in Paris. The first attacks were launched almost
simultaneously, as two explosions went off around 9:20 p.m.
near Stade de France. Many men then shot up a restaurant in
Paris called Petit Cambodge and the Le Carillon bar. These
shooters killed fifteen innocent civilians. These same
shooters then drove five hundred yards to the Casa Nostra
Pizzeria and killed at least five people. These militants
then drove a mile southeast to attack La Belle Equipe. They
killed nineteen civilians at this location. Then the Bataclan
concert venue was attacked. This was the deadliest as eighty
nine people lost their lives. The last attack was set off at
9:50 p.m. as another bomb exploded near Stade de France.
Before these events happened, President Barack Obama believed
that the United States had already contained the Islamic
state. This attack shows that us as Americans can never
forget about the Islamic terrorists. The Paris attacks
increased the growing awareness of the terrorist group called
ISIS. Originally, ISIS was warning the world through videos
and social media. Their attack shows that they mean business
and that they will do anything they want until they are
stopped. The attack creates a sense of frightfulness to the
American public. This puts pressure on the government to do
something about ISIS and other terrorist groups. As an
American citizen, I know my family and I are extremely
worried about ISIS. My family is certainly not the only one
who feels this way. When they attacked Paris, most Americans
asked one question. What stops ISIS from attacking the United
States in this way? The answer is clear, nothing. This is a
major political issue for the next presidential race. This
attack in Paris can have an outcome on who the Americans
select as their next president. The way the candidates
respond to ISIS can decide who will be the next leader of our
great country. This attack put ISIS at the top of the list
for American issues and they will continue to be a focal
point for the American government for years to come.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ABBE LAND--28TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT WOMAN OF THE YEAR
______
HON. ADAM B. SCHIFF
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Women's History
Month. Each year, we pay special tribute to the contributions and
sacrifices made by our nation's women. It is an honor to pay homage to
outstanding women who are making a difference in my Congressional
District. I would like to recognize a remarkable woman, Abbe Land, of
West Hollywood, California.
Abbe arrived in California in the late 1970s and has since dedicated
her life to public service. Drawn into public life by possible
eviction, she joined the Coalition for Economic Survival, a tenants'
rights group to build the City of West Hollywood with LGBTQ activists,
renters, and immigrants. After her appointment to the city's very first
planning commission, Abbe was elected Councilmember for the City of
West Hollywood and served for 23 years including serving as Mayor five
times.
For much of her time on the council, she served as the sole woman,
and she was instrumental in the creation of the Women's Advisory Board,
Disabilities Advisory Board, and the city's domestic violence
prevention program for same-sex couples. For more than two decades, she
has influenced policy at the local, state, and federal levels. In 1993,
she led the effort for West Hollywood to declare itself the nation's
first ``pro-choice city.'' In 1996, she led her city in enacting an
important gun control ordinance which paved the way for the state of
California to ban the sale of certain handguns.
Abbe is currently the Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer
of the Trevor Project, a nationally recognized nonprofit providing
crisis intervention and suicide prevention to LGBTQ youth. Under her
leadership, the Trevor Project continues to save the lives of youth
around the country. Prior to the Trevor Project, Abbe served as Co-CEO
of the Saban Free Clinic, in Los Angeles, where she led the clinic's
growth from a budget of $6 million to one of $16 million.
From Abbe's work protecting our environment to fighting for civil and
reproductive rights, from her support for inclusionary housing to her
efforts to combat homelessness, the people of the 28th District have
benefited from her voice and steady leadership. Throughout her life's
work, Abbe has been an inspiration to all who fight injustice.
Abbe continues to live in West Hollywood with her husband, artist
Martin Gantman.
I ask all Members to join me in honoring an exceptional woman of
California's 28th Congressional District, Abbe Land, for her
extraordinary service to the community.
____________________
CELEBRATING COLUMBIA STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE'S 50TH YEAR
______
HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Columbia State
Community College's 50th year of excellence in education and ask my
colleagues to join with me in celebrating their success.
Columbia State is Tennessee's first community college. Their vision
has been to build on its heritage of excellence through innovation in
education and services that foster success and bring distinction and
recognition for the quality and effectiveness of the college. At the
college's convocation on September 26, 1966, former Tennessee Governor
Frank G. Clement said, ``Because of this school, young people who
otherwise would have to terminate their academic career at the high
school level will find a way into the world of higher education.''
Today, Columbia State has grown and expanded into five different
campus locations including Columbia, Franklin, Lawrenceburg, Lewisburg,
and Clifton. They also serve in nine of the Seventh District's
counties. The college is home to thousands of alumni who have gone on
to make an impact in all different sectors of society and industries.
I honor Columbia State Community College for serving and empowering
people for the last 50 years to achieve their educational aspirations
and go farther than they ever thought possible and I join with them in
their celebration of achievement.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. MICHAEL T. McCAUL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, on March 14, 2016, I missed a vote on S.
2426, directing the Secretary of State to develop a strategy to obtain
observer status for Taiwan in the international Criminal Police
Organization. However, I would like to reflect that had I been present
for this vote I would have voted ``yea''.
____________________
40TH ANNIVERSARY OF SAMTRANS
______
HON. JACKIE SPEIER
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor SamTrans, a core
provider of public transit and allied services in San Mateo County and
for all of Silicon Valley, upon its 40th Anniversary. This is the story
of a government agency that sees mountains as molehills, and that
believes that challenges are merely potholes to be filled.
In one of its many roles, SamTrans operates buses in San Mateo
County. In its second role, it administers Caltrain service linking
[[Page 3267]]
San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties--the heart of Silicon
Valley. Finally, the staff of SamTrans also manage the San Mateo County
Transportation Authority. This trifecta of public agencies--all
operated via SamTrans--have become the backbone of mobility across
three counties over the past forty years.
In 1976, SamTrans was formed through the consolidation of 11
municipal bus systems in San Mateo County. The following year, it began
what was to become a decades-long effort at inclusion of our entire
population in transit services with the commencement of Redi-Wheels
service. Redi-Wheels offers mobility to the disabled. My mother-in-law
regularly used Redi-Wheels, linking her to doctor's appointments, trips
to the grocery store, and bridge club gatherings throughout the
community. SamTrans is not simply a bus or train or road construction
organization. It offers all of our residents dignity through mobility,
an offer accepted by over 300,000 disabled residents in 2015 alone.
The success of SamTrans is evident in its expanding scope of
operations during these past four decades. From operating bus service
starting in 1976, SamTrans was made the managing agency of our local
transportation authority--the body that funds roads--in 1988. While the
board of the transportation authority sets priorities, the SamTrans
staff plans and carries out those directives.
This spirit of flexibility and frugalness was recognized as
invaluable when, in 1992, SamTrans was made the managing partner of the
newly-created Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. While the Board of
Directors of the joint powers board oversees Caltrain service, the
staff of SamTrans makes important contributions to the planning and
operating backbone of Caltrain. Baby Bullet Caltrain service, launched
in 2004 and promising to cut travel times between San Francisco and San
Jose by up to 50 percent, sparked a renaissance in Caltrain ridership
which today is over 60,000 passengers every weekday. SamTrans and
Caltrain have since worked together so that trains, buses and shuttles
support these commuters throughout the week and throughout San Mateo
County.
In 1992, the SamTrans board also provided 25 percent of the
construction costs of the Colma BART station, bringing BART service
further into northern San Mateo County. Eventually, BART arrived at San
Francisco International Airport, bus service was modified to account
for emerging travel patterns, and roadways were constructed, all with
the participation of SamTrans staff and its board.
Mr. Speaker, you might ask why voters repeatedly approved sales tax
measures to create this web of mobility. Approval arises from the
confidence that voters have in the staff of SamTrans in its multiple
roles serving bus riders, train travelers and motorists. Unlike some
transportation agencies, there is no drama at SamTrans, only reliable
delivery--of bus service, train service or road construction.
Today, the bus service that is at the core of the operations of
SamTrans continues to evolve. Service has been consolidated along the
El Camino corridor and increased in frequency to once every fifteen
minutes. Bus service on weekends has been extended south into Santa
Clara County and northward to Devil's Slide to serve weekend visitors
to our new county park. Over the years, SamTrans set records for miles
travelled between major repairs, miles driven without accidents,
courtesy towards customers, participation in community events, and as a
great place to work. In fiscal year 2015, 13.1 million rides were taken
on SamTrans buses, and 2016 is destined to be an even greater year.
Mr. Speaker, this is an agency that struggles to keep up with the
expectations of the public, but this is the opposite of the image of
some government agencies which are, sadly, viewed as unresponsive to
public needs. SamTrans, with a board that welcomes challenges and a
staff which multi-tasks across three counties and tens of millions of
dollars of annual obligations, has a bright future. Forty years ago, no
one could foresee that the consolidation of several bus lines would
lead to serving over 13 million bus riders annually. No one could
foresee the multiple roles that this organization would come to play.
However, at 40 years and thriving, SamTrans has become the mobility
master of Silicon Valley. We honor its past, welcome its future, and
celebrate its spirit. Thank you, SamTrans, for all of your roles and
activities. SamTrans moves Silicon Valley.
____________________
POLICE BRUTALITY EVENTS
______
HON. PETE OLSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to interact with some of the
brightest students in the 22nd Congressional District who serve on my
Congressional Youth Advisory Council. I have gained much by listening
to the high school students who are the future of this great nation.
They provide important insight from across the political spectrum that
sheds a light on the concerns of our younger constituents. Giving voice
to their priorities will hopefully instill a better sense of the
importance of being an active participant in the political process.
Many of the students have written short essays on a variety of topics
and I am pleased to share them with my House colleagues.
Alexa Keller attends Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. The
essay topic is: Select an important event that has occurred in the past
year and explain how that event has changed/shaped our country.
Several well-publicized police brutality events near the
end of 2014 created a new wave of race discrimination
discussions across America. After the shooting of Michael
Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, protestors held up signs
exclaiming, ``Hands up, don't shoot'', and after the choking
death of Eric Garner in New York City, the cry of ``I can't
breathe'' by protestors demonstrated their outrage. Social
media furthered the causes, and during the 2015 presidential
debates, most candidates took a stance on whether ``Black
Lives Matter'' or ``All Lives Matter.'' Specifically, the
death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Maryland, in April of
2015, and the consequences of his death will shape the future
of America with respect to race relations and law
enforcement.
In April, 25-year-old Freddie Gray died while in police
custody, which led to weeks of protests and unrest. Stores
were looted and a CVS pharmacy was burned to ground, after
thieves took off with all the prescription drugs they could
get their hands on. Baltimore found itself in a predicament
because it was unprepared for this kind of mass protest, and
law enforcement certainly didn't expect it to go on for
weeks.
Once the rioting was finished, the city of Baltimore was
left in a state of flux. There was an ``Us vs. Them''
relationship between police and citizens. To make matters
worse, the number of homicides in Baltimore in 2015 hit 344,
the highest total since 1993 when Baltimore had 100,000 more
people living in it (Baltimore Sun). In addition, there were
more than 900 shootings in Baltimore last year, which was up
75% over the prior year. During the weeks of unrest in April
and May, over 150 police officers were injured. The general
feeling of unease between officers and citizens is assumed to
be the main reason that now the police force in Baltimore is
down by 200 officers.
The city of Baltimore needs to make significant progress
toward fixing the situation, but at what cost? Recently, over
$2 million was spent on new civil disturbance equipment which
includes protective gear, shields, and helmets.
(www.nytimes.com) The Maryland State Assembly is working
toward a new law enforcement bill of rights to provide police
with extra legal protection that is not afforded to the
general public. But, will these measures fix the anti-cop
rhetoric which likely makes it difficult for police officers
to do their jobs correctly and effectively? The fact that the
``Black Lives Matter'' leader DeRay Mckesson is planning to
run for mayor of Baltimore is proof that relations are still
dicey. Baltimore will likely prove to be a microcosm for the
rest of the country, and how it handled the events that
occurred in 2015 has and has the potential to impact the
United States as a whole.
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE OF DR. DANA LOUISE RAPHAEL
______
HON. JIM COSTA
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of
Dr. Dana Louise Raphael, who passed away on February 2, 2016, at the
age of 90. Dr. Raphael will be remembered as someone who lived her life
with dedication to her community, family, and to her career in the
field of medical anthropology.
Dr. Raphael was born on January 5, 1926, in New Britain, Connecticut,
to Louis Raphael and Naomi Kaplan. From a very young age, education was
of great importance to Dr. Raphael. She attended Columbia University,
where she earned both her bachelor's and doctorate degrees. While at
Columbia University, Dr. Raphael was a protegee of cultural
anthropologist, Margaret Mead and became one of the first scientists
that challenged milk formula manufacturers.
In 1953, Dr. Raphael married the love of her life, Howard Boone
Jacobson, and as a newlywed, completed her initial field work in India.
Dr. Raphael soon became a respected medical anthropologist, writer, and
lecturer. She is
[[Page 3268]]
well-known for her global work in supporting breast feeding and is
credited for launching the Doula movement in the United States. Dr.
Raphael first used the term doula in her 1969 anthropological study to
describe women caregivers during labor and childbirth whose function
was associated with the success of breastfeeding.
In 1975, Dr. Raphael and Margaret Mead co-founded the Human Lactation
Center (HLC). The HLC researches lactation patterns around the world
and is also an NGO with consultative status with the Economic and
Social Council of the United Nations. Her advocacy allowed her to take
on companies like Nestle in the 1980s pushing them to become more aware
of the role producers of formula played in infant mortality in
developing countries. Dr. Raphael's contributions to these projects
resulted in the implementation of education programs for young mothers
to prevent unnecessary deaths of newborns. Her willingness to help
people was conveyed in her book Tender Gift: Breastfeeding, which was
published in 1973. The book was a product of Dr. Raphael's own sadness
of not being able to breastfeed her son and outlined a number of tools
for women to assist with successful breastfeeding. The book went on to
be known as the breastfeeding bible by many in the midwife and doula
community.
During the last 20 years of her life, Dr. Raphael served on the U.S.
Board of the Club of Rome where she committed herself to educating
world leaders on the impacts of climate change.
She also served as an Adjunct Professor at Yale University, was an
invited lecturer in the U.S., China, India, and Japan, and was a
recipient of two Fulbright awards. Throughout her career, Dr. Raphael
recognized the importance of serving her community and expressed a
profound love for it. Her contributions to women around the world will
be her legacy. She is survived by her sons, Seth Jacobson and Brett
Raphael, daughter, Jessa Murnin, and her six grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect that I ask my colleagues in the
U.S. House of Representatives to join me in honoring the life of Dr.
Dana Louise Raphael. Dr. Raphael touched and aided many people
throughout her life. Her advocacy, deep commitment, and positive
attitude will be greatly missed by all who knew her.
____________________
CONGRATULATING DAVID PRINGLE
______
HON. LYNN A. WESTMORELAND
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of admiration
that we congratulate Mr. David Pringle, Senior Vice President of Aflac,
on his retirement on behalf of the citizens of our districts.
As you know, Aflac is one of Georgia's most renowned and respected
companies. The company has repeatedly found its name on prestigious
lists such as Fortune's 100 Best Companies to Work For and Ethisphere's
list of World's Most Ethical Companies. In addition, Aflac has
generously provided the opportunity for more than 5,000 skilled
individuals to demonstrate the spirit that has made the company a
household name and has helped make Georgia a highly desirable place to
live and raise a family.
What makes a company like Aflac so successful are the employees and
leaders, like David, who work tirelessly behind the scenes. As Senior
Vice President, David serves as a role model, as his career is a
veritable road map for young ambitious people to follow and emulate.
However, his recent decision to retire from Aflac and departure from
Washington certainly will be a source of sadness among members of
Congress and staff so accustomed to reaching out to David whenever in
need of counsel. It is not only the institutional knowledge of the
insurance industry's most complex issues that will be missed, but the
friendship David has provided to us over the years.
We wish David and Linell all the best in their next chapter, and hope
that it includes the rewards and the leisure he has so richly earned.
____________________
CONGRATULATING JARRETT JACQUES FOR HIS FIRST PLACE WIN IN THE 2016
MISSOURI STATE WRESTLING CHAMPIONSHIP
______
HON. BLAINE LUETKEMEYER
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to
join me in congratulating Jarrett Jacques for his first place win in
the 2016 Class 2, 138 pound weight class, Missouri State Wrestling
Championship.
Jarrett and his coach should be commended for all of their hard work
throughout this past year and for bringing home the state championship
to Owensville High school and their local community.
I ask you to join me in recognizing Jarrett for a job well done.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF JAMES McNULTY, 26TH MAYOR OF SCRANTON
______
HON. MATT CARTWRIGHT
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Jim
McNulty, former Mayor of Scranton, who passed away on March 2, 2016
after battling cancer and heart problems. Jim was a champion for the
Electric City and will be remembered for his service to his community.
Born in Scranton on February 27, 1945 to Henry and Eloise McNulty, he
was the eldest of six siblings. Jim graduated from the University of
Scranton in 1966, with a degree in Political Science. In 1981, Jim
entered his name in Scranton's mayoral election, and his campaign was
centered on reviving Scranton's economy. The rose became an iconic
image of Jim's candidacy, as he handed out thousands to voters and wore
one on his lapel.
Jim assumed office in 1982. During his time as mayor, he took on
several projects that revitalized city's infrastructure, attracted
tourism, and reclaimed pride in Scranton's history as a railroad hub.
Jim worked with the National Park Service to establish Steamtown
National Historic Site. Through Jim's efforts, Scranton was also able
to rehabilitate the historic Erie-Lackawanna train station on Jefferson
Avenue and convert it into hotel. His administration committed the
funding needed to finish Montage Mountain Road, which allowed for the
development of Montage Mountain Ski Resort. He also attracted a
heavyweight championship fight between Larry Holmes and Lucien
Rodriguez.
After his term ended in 1986, Jim went on to become a local media
personality. He hosted a radio talk show on WARM, billed as ``the Mayor
of WARMland.'' He also covered politics on WYOU-TV's ``Sunday Live with
Jim McNulty.'' Outside of the media, Jim worked as a political
consultant to other candidates and campaigns. In 1991, Jim married Evie
Rafalko, and the couple recently celebrated their 25th anniversary.
It is an honor to recognize the life of this talented public servant.
Jim's legacy will not be soon forgotten by the Electric City. His
passing is deeply saddening, and he will be greatly missed by the
people of Scranton.
____________________
REMEMBERING BEATRICE ``BEA'' JAIVEN HEINE
______
HON. MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the life of
Beatrice ``Bea'' Jaiven Heine who passed away peacefully at her home on
March 1, 2016 at the age of 94.
The daughter of Russian immigrants, Mrs. Heine grew up in Connecticut
where she graduated from Stamford High School. She went on to receive a
Bachelor's degree at Southern Connecticut State Teachers College and
later a Masters degree from Columbia University followed by her
Doctoral degree in education from Temple University. She is best known
professionally for decades as an educator in elementary school
primarily for Haddon Township's fifth grade and later at the college
level for teacher education with a focus on mathematics. Long before
the importance of math education was widely acknowledged, Mrs. Heine
creatively engaged students and future teachers to learn math with
logic and showed that ``Math can be fun.''
She was an avid traveler and met her husband, the late Joseph Heine,
on a cruise. They were blessed with two daughters and shared nearly 34
years of happy marriage.
While her list of educational, career and personal accomplishments
are no doubt impressive, her family notes that she was modest about her
successes. It is fitting that March is
[[Page 3269]]
designated as Women's History Month--a time to recognize and celebrate
the accomplishments of women, like Mrs. Heine, both in our nation and
in our communities, who have made a positive impact.
Remembered for her sparkling eyes, winning dimples, auburn hair,
radiant smile, and warm laugh, Mrs. Heine formed rewarding
relationships with family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues. To those
who knew her, there is little doubt that the world is a better place
because of Bea.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, on March 14, I missed a series
of Roll Call votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``YEA'' on
Numbers 111, 112, and 113.
____________________
HONORING CARL JUNCTION HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL DAVID PYLE ON BEING NAMED
THE MISSOURI ASSOCIATION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS' 2016 PRINCIPAL
OF THE YEAR
______
HON. BILLY LONG
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. LONG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Carl Junction High
School Principal David Pyle on being named the Missouri Association of
Secondary School Principals' 2016 Principal of the year.
As Principal of Carl Junction High School, Pyle has worked diligently
to ensure that students receive a high-value education and expand their
learning opportunities. Going beyond the call of duty, he also takes
time to familiarize himself with students by name and interacts with
them on a personal level.
Namely, Principal Pyle was awarded this decoration based on his
positive impact in the areas of collaborative leadership; curriculum,
instruction and assessment; and his personalization of this learning
environment.
Mr. Speaker, David Pyle's committed leadership in Carl Junction,
Missouri, has set an essential example of how to maintain a standard of
academic excellence for students. I am honored to congratulate him on
his achievements as Principal of Carl Junction High School, and know
that--with people like Principal Pyle in place--its students will be
well prepared to achieve their future goals and achieve the American
Dream.
____________________
HONORING THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ROTARY CLUB OF FRESNO
______
HON. JIM COSTA
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100th
anniversary of the historic Rotary Club of Fresno, California--an
institution that has brought families and communities together since
its establishment.
The Rotary Club of Fresno was first organized as provisional Rotary
Club on December 13, 1915, and three months later, a group of 23 Fresno
business leaders chartered the organization on March 1, 1916. At the
time, the Fresno Rotary Club was the first rotary club in Central
California, the ninth in the State of California and the 203rd club in
the world. The Fresno club held its first meeting in Downtown Fresno in
the Hotel Fresno Ballroom, and held its first District Conference in
Rotary by 1916. In 1919, the club implemented their first community
project, firmly establishing their organization in Fresno by the act of
planting 1,000 olive trees along Golden State Highway, otherwise known
as State Highway 99.
Since its establishment, the Fresno Rotary Club has supported
hundreds of community projects and organizations in the local
community, including: the water tower in downtown Fresno, building the
3,500 seat Rotary Amphitheater at Woodward Park, contributing to the
construction of Playland at Roeding Park, providing mentorship programs
through the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, donating to the Salvation
Army, Schools, and our local hospitals.
The Rotary Club of Fresno has been dedicated to numerous causes that
have contributed over $3.7 million throughout its existence to many
local and international projects which support local issues and
international humanitarian efforts. The club's Wheelchair project has
delivered over 4,200 wheelchairs to Central American and African
nations since 2003. Project Nino has provided medical services and
treatment to children over the last 30 years in the small village of
Santiago de Tautla, Mexico, and has treated over 100,000 patients since
1985. The ``WAPI'' Water Purification project has delivered countless
solar cookers and water treatment devices throughout the world. The
Rotary Club of Fresno has also contributed over $1.2 million to the
Rotary International Foundation in support of its worldwide
humanitarian efforts to eradicate polio, and improve people's lives.
Members of the Fresno Rotary continue to dedicate themselves to
community development and involvement. Whether it's organizing a city
wide Boy Scout Council, or holding an annual Christmas party at the
senior citizens home, or providing scholarships for students to pay for
college. The Fresno Rotary has made a strong impact in our community,
and has enriched the quality of life for many residents throughout the
Central Valley.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect that I ask my colleagues in the
House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the Rotary Club of
Fresno as they celebrate its 100th anniversary and prepare to continue
to provide outstanding leadership through the Central Valley, the State
of California, and our Nation.
____________________
THE RISE OF ISIS
______
HON. PETE OLSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to interact with some of the
brightest students in the 22nd Congressional District who serve on my
Congressional Youth Advisory Council. I have gained much by listening
to the high school students who are the future of this great nation.
They provide important insight from across the political spectrum that
sheds a light on the concerns of our younger constituents. Giving voice
to their priorities will hopefully instill a better sense of the
importance of being an active participant in the political process.
Many of the students have written short essays on a variety of topics
and I am pleased to share them with my House colleagues.
Cameron Kallina attends Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. The
essay topic is: The rise of ISIS.
The rise of ISIS in the past year has taken a toll on the
perception of the terroristic group from a blatant ``JV
team'', the words of our Commander in Chief, to a threat even
greater than Al Qaeda. They have demonstrated time and time
again that they are serious and are here to stay. From Paris
to the shooting down of a Russian commercial airline, the
actions of these attacks have shaken sense of security of
everyday normal life.
ISIS is a terrorist militant group, disowned by Al Qaeda in
early 2014 due to their brutal tactics, which has risen to
power through the massive land they have conquered from
Northern Syria to Central Iraq. They are the richest terror
group in the world due to owning over half of Syria's oil
assets and those profits from the oil help independently fund
their regime.
Their actions have had an impact on not only the United
States, but abroad as well. ISIS has become a focus of the
2016 Presidential election. Where prior to the attacks of
late 2015 the focus of the debates centered on the economy,
there has been a shift to national security, especially how
to implement measures and how to maintain it. According to a
Gallup poll which was published on December 14, 2015, 16% of
Americans think terrorism is now the number one issue in the
election, up from 3% in early November. (http://
www.gallup.com/poll/187655/americans-name-terrorism-
noproblem.aspx) The candidates differ on how to handle the
rising situation. The candidates all have their theory on how
to defeat this group. One idea from Hillary Clinton states we
should shut down every terrorist account on social media,
Donald Trump has made statements that we should ban all
Muslims from entering the country, Ted Cruz says we must
stand with our Allies against the terror threat, and there
are many other ideas from other candidates that have their
own strategy for facing ISIS.
Our sense of security has also been shaken. The ruthless
terrorist attacks on Paris, France left the world in a
shocked state of disbelief. 130 people were massacred and 368
[[Page 3270]]
were wounded that night at Stade de France, cafes,
restaurants, and a concert hall. It left a scar on France
they'll never forget. It seemed nowhere was safe; any place
could now be a target. And citizens around the world were
aware of this, tensions were high as everyone waited with the
anticipation of another attack happening. Cities in Europe
and the United States were on a heightened alert in the days
and weeks following.
These acts of violence has shown the true colors and
motivation of this radical regime. They show no intentions of
letting up and have become a threat, not just to the U.S.A.,
but to all of the Western Civilized world. America must lead
the fight against these monsters with the help of our Allies
to secure victory and peace worldwide.
____________________
CONGRATULATING JACKSON BERCK FOR HIS FIRST PLACE WIN IN THE 2016
MISSOURI STATE WRESTLING CHAMPIONSHIP
______
HON. BLAINE LUETKEMEYER
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to
join me in congratulating Jackson Berck for his first place win in the
2016 Class 4, 195 pound weight class, Missouri State Wrestling
Championship.
Jackson and his coach should be commended for all of their hard work
throughout this past year and for bringing home the state championship
to Francis Howell Central High School and their local community.
I ask you to join me in recognizing Jackson for a job well done.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. BRAD R. WENSTRUP
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Speaker, I missed three votes on March 14. If I
were present, I would have voted on the following:
Rollcall No. 111: On Passage of S. 2426, ``yea.''
Rollcall No. 112: On Passage of H. Con. Res. 75, ``yea.''
Rollcall No. 113: On Passage of H. Con. Res. 121, ``yea.''
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF HOPE WENG, THE PRUDENTIAL SPIRIT OF COMMUNITY AWARDS
PROGRAM 2016 HONOREE
______
HON. KYRSTEN SINEMA
of arizona
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Hope Weng, a young
student from my district who is one of two students to receive national
recognition for exemplary volunteer service in her community. Ms. Weng
of Tempe has just been named the 2016 Middle Level State Honoree by The
Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor
conferred on the most impressive student volunteers in each state and
the District of Columbia.
Ms. Weng, an eighth-grade student at Tempe Preparatory Academy,
delivered 100 care packages containing cookies, thank-you cards and
self-penned essays to residents of a veterans home to honor their
service. After writing an essay about veterans and having met with a
veteran at a local VFW post, Ms. Weng was inspired to initiate a
project that would honor and show appreciation to our veterans. Ms.
Weng achieved her goal by creating a budget and then raising the funds
through the sale of Girl Scout cookies, hosting a garage sale, winning
a writing contest, saving her Chinese New Year gift money and
soliciting donations. She engaged the community by having individuals
write messages of gratitude in her thank-you cards.
Thanks to Ms. Weng's dedication to service, 100 Arizona veterans
received thoughtful care packages. Members, please join me in
congratulating Ms. Weng for being named one of the top honorees in
Arizona by The 2016 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program. Ms.
Weng, congratulations on all of your accomplishments and thank you for
recognizing and honoring our veterans.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. ALAN GRAYSON
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, during Roll Call vote number 111, 112 and
113 on S. 2426, H. Con. Res. 75, H. Con. Res. 121, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted yea. My flight,
JetBlue 2224, was delayed by 1 hour and 20 minutes.
____________________
CHALLENGES WITHIN THE POLITICAL PROCESS
______
HON. PETE OLSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to interact with some of the
brightest students in the 22nd Congressional District who serve on my
Congressional Youth Advisory Council. I have gained much by listening
to the high school students who are the future of this great nation.
They provide important insight from across the political spectrum that
sheds a light on the concerns of our younger constituents. Giving voice
to their priorities will hopefully instill a better sense of the
importance of being an active participant in the political process.
Many of the students have written short essays on a variety of topics
and I am pleased to share them with my House colleagues.
Arjun Luthra attends Clear Springs High School in League City, Texas.
The essay topic is: Challenges within the political process.
Within the US political system, there is an iron triangle
which defines the spheres of influence and relationship
between the United States Congress, the bureaucracy and the
interest groups. Along with these groups, the executive
branch influences the appointments of justices and
bureaucratic officials. Concerns regarding public policy are
placed on the shoulders of numerous institutions. What makes
the political process so challenging is to ensure there is
reconciliation of the political interests of these numerous
institutions like Congress, which represents individual
districts and states, and the President, which represents the
overall nation.
The President, Office of Management and Budget, the
Congressional Budget Office, agencies and interest groups are
all involved in the budgeting process. The President bears
responsibility of presenting the Budget to Congress while the
Congressional Budget Office advises Congress of potential
consequences of budget decisions. Within the process, the
agencies provide projection of budgetary needs. The
complexity of the process and shared roles among the
institution often require adaptation or reconciliation. For
example, in 1973, President Nixon refused to disburse
appropriated funds of Congress. This lead to the Budget
Impoundment Act which transferred power of President to
Congress. This particular historical example not only
demonstrates a check and balance system, but also exemplifies
the challenges in the political process.
In addition to budget, legislation becomes difficult to
enact either due to political gridlock due to divided
government or party polarization. This gridlock has led to a
restricted number of bills that pass through the
congressional committees. Only 4 percent of bills introduced
to Congress become law and only about 6 percent of bills
reach floor debate. Furthermore, discussion of bill is
restricted by the closed rule in the House, which places time
limit for debate and restricts amendments. While in the
Senate, senators can request for a filibuster, which extends
time of debate. This allows members of the Senate to push
their interests forward and often prevent discussion of other
legislation proposed.
In essence, the political process is challenging especially
in creating the political agenda and reaching specific goals
set by the numerous governmental institutions. Today, hot
topics in the political agenda include gun control, education
and immigration policies. Although pushing for funds and
legislation that yields long-term benefits for the
constituents is challenging, the political process requires
purposeful rather than reckless action that is advantageous
to the United States. The political process ensures
recognition of the Constitution as a governing document and
also ensures a check on the abuse of political power.
____________________
OUR UNCONSCIONABLE NATIONAL DEBT
______
HON. MIKE COFFMAN
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on January 20, 2009, the day President
Obama took office, the national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08.
[[Page 3271]]
Today, it is $19,124,286,688,944.60. We've added
$8,497,409,640,031.52 to our debt in 6 years. This is over $7.5
trillion in debt our nation, our economy, and our children could have
avoided with a balanced budget amendment.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DR. FRIEDA JORDAN--28TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT WOMAN OF THE
YEAR
______
HON. ADAM B. SCHIFF
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Women's History
Month. Each year, we pay special tribute to the contributions and
sacrifices made by our nation's women. It is an honor to pay homage to
outstanding women who are making a difference in my Congressional
District. I would like to recognize a remarkable woman, Dr. Frieda
Jordan, of Glendale, California.
After graduating from high school in Tehran, Iran, Frieda Jordan
moved to England, where she received a BSc and a PhD in Biochemistry
from King's College London. She also became a Certified
Histocompatibility Specialist with the American Board of
Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics. Dr. Jordan is currently the
Director of DNA Molecular Typing at Foundation Laboratory, and is a
laboratory inspector with the European Federation for Immunogenetics
representing Armenia. Prior to her work at Foundation Laboratory, Dr.
Jordan was Associate Director of the Human Leukocyte Antigen and
Immunogenetics Laboratory at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los
Angeles.
Dr. Jordan has dedicated an extraordinary amount of time and energy
in serving her community through her medical and scientific expertise.
She is co-founder and president of the Armenian Bone Marrow Donor
Registry (ABMDR), as well as chair of its ``Support Group'' for
patients and their family members. ABMDR, which was founded in 1999,
recruits and provides matched unrelated donors for stem cell or bone
marrow transplantation to patients who are facing life-threatening
blood disorders. ABMDR has identified more than 3531 potential matches
for patients all around the world, and has facilitated 26 stem cell
transplants. This organization has also brought new medical technology
to Armenia, where it established a Stem Cell Harvesting Center in 2009.
Dr. Jordan is an active member and participant of various medical
organizations including the Armenian Medical Association, the World
Marrow Donor Association, the National Marrow Donor Program, and the
European Federation for Immunogenetics. An accomplished speaker, Dr.
Jordan has given presentations at numerous conferences and workshops in
the United States and around the world.
I ask all Members to join me today in honoring an exceptional woman
of California's 28th Congressional District, Dr. Frieda Jordan, for her
extraordinary service to the community.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF JOSEPH HEFFERS, THE 2016 GREATER PITTSTON FRIENDLY
SONS OF SAINT PATRICK MAN OF THE YEAR
______
HON. MATT CARTWRIGHT
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Joseph Heffers,
who was named Man of the Year by the Greater Pittston Friendly Sons of
Saint Patrick for the year 2016.
Joseph is the son of the late John Heffers and Mary Golden Heffers.
He was born and raised in Pittston, Pennsylvania, and graduated from
Pittston High School. He attended Wilkes-Barre Business College and
earned a degree in Business and Accounting. He served in the Army from
1964 to 1967 in the Special Troops United at Fort Dix, New Jersey and
was named Soldier of the Month during 1966. He worked at Eberhard Faber
in Mountain Top, Pennsylvania as Project Manager for 21 years,
receiving the President's Award from Eberhard Faber in 1986. He later
worked at Cooper Industries in Weatherly as a Production Specialist and
retired from InterMetro Industries in Wilkes-Barre. Joseph then managed
the Metro Wire Federal Credit Union in Plains from 2001-2010.
He is a former President of the Greater Pittston Friendly Sons of
Saint Patrick and received the Achievement Award in 2010. He was the
historical speaker at the 100th anniversary banquet at the Friendly
Sons in 2015. He is on the Advisory Board of the Salvation Army in West
Pittston. And, finally, Mr. Heffers is a former financial secretary of
President John F. Kennedy Council Number 372 Knights of Columbus,
council Choir and Trustee of the 4th Degree Assembly.
Mr. Heffers coached several youth teams: Stoners Soccer, Jenkins
Township and girls' softball and girls' Varsity Basketball at St.
Mary's Assumption in Pittston. He is a member of St. John the
Evangelist Church where he also serves as a Senior Altar Server.
Mr. Heffers resides in Port Griffith with his wife of 44 years, the
former Mary Catherine Shea. They are the parents of two children,
Joseph and Mary Elizabeth Gregor. Joseph and Mary Heffers have two
grandchildren, Maxwell Wallace Gregor and Declan Joseph Gregor.
It is an honor to recognize Joseph for all of his accomplishments,
and I am grateful for his lifetime of service to our community and
country.
____________________
CONGRATULATING JARED RENNICK FOR HIS FIRST PLACE WIN IN THE 2016
MISSOURI STATE WRESTLING CHAMPIONSHIP
______
HON. BLAINE LUETKEMEYER
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to
join me in congratulating Jared Rennick for his first place win in the
2016 Class 3, 195 pound weight class, Missouri State Wrestling
Championship.
Jared and his coach should be commended for all of their hard work
throughout this past year and for bringing home the state championship
to Washington High School and their local community.
I ask you to join me in recognizing Jared for a job well done.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. ADAM B. SCHIFF
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, during Roll Call vote numbers 111, 112 and
113 on S. 2426, H. Con. Res. 75, H. Con. Res. 121, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted aye.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO C. MARSHALL KIBLER
______
HON. JOE WILSON
of south carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, sadly, South Carolina has
lost a native son, C. Marshall Kibler, who was one of our state's most
respected and admired business leaders. He fulfilled a rewarding life
as a Southern Gentleman. He co-founded one of South Carolina's leading
commercial real estate firms with Jeremy Wilson, now associated with
Newmark Grubb. I especially appreciate his ability to select and mentor
young professionals to achieve success.
The following obituary is from The State of Columbia, S.C. on March
15, 2016:
Columbia.--C. Marshall Kibler passed away unexpectedly,
Sunday, March 13, 2016, after a brief illness. He was
predeceased by his parents, Clarence Marshall Kibler and
Eleanor VanBenthuysen Roman Kibler.
A lifelong resident of Columbia, Marshall was a graduate of
A.C. Flora High School, where he played football and was a
member of the Dark Horseman Club. Mr. Kibler was a graduate
of The University of South Carolina. He was cofounder and
president of Wilson Kibler, Inc., a statewide commercial real
estate firm with offices in Columbia, Charleston, Myrtle
Beach and Greenville. Mr. Kibler was a founding member of The
Capital Rotary Club, where he served as President and was a
Paul Harris Fellow. His real estate designations include the
Society of Industrial and Office Realtor (SIOR) and Certified
Commercial Investment Member (CCIM). He was also actively
involved with the Executives' Association of Greater Columbia
(EAGC). Marshall served as president of The Palmetto Little
League in 1992, the year the Wilson Kibler team was the
league champions. He also served on the board of Cooperative
Ministry. Mr. Kibler was a member of Forest Lake Club, the
Pine Tree Hunt Club, the Columbia Cotillion Club, the
Centurion Society, the Quadrille Club, the Flamenco Club and
the Palmetto Club. He had an interest in history and was a
member of the Sons of the American Revolution.
[[Page 3272]]
He is survived by his beloved best friend and wife of 40
years, Anna Belle Heyward Kibler; his children, Heyward
Haskell Kibler (Rula), Sarah Rhett Kibler Brewer (Brooks),
and Anna Belle ``Boo'' Kibler Moca (Steven). He was
affectionately known as ``Kib'' by his seven adoring
grandchildren, Jones Emile Kibler, Heyward Julian Kibler,
Sarah Taylor Rhett Brewer, Townes Brooks Brewer, Anna Belle
Heyward Brewer, Henry Marshall Moca, and William Rhett Moca.
Also surviving are his sister, Eleanor Kibler ``Cis'' Ellison
(Hagood) and brother, E. Robertson ``Bud'' Kibler (Beth).
Marshall enjoyed his second home in Little Switzerland, NC
where he loved time with his grandchildren, relaxing and
otherwise doing very little.
A Mass of Christian Burial will be held 11 o'clock,
Thursday, March 17th, at St. Joseph Catholic Church, 3600
Devine Street, Columbia, with The Rev. Msgr. Richard D.
Harris officiating. Final Commendation and Farewell Prayers
will follow at Elmwood Cemetery. The family will receive
friends at the home, 8 Ashley Court, Columbia, from 4 until 6
o'clock, Wednesday evening. Shives Funeral Home, Trenholm
Road Chapel, is assisting the family. In lieu of flowers, for
the benefit of St. Joseph Catholic School, memorials may be
made to The Central Carolina Community Foundation, Kibler
Scholarship Fund, 2711 Middleburg Drive, Suite 213, Columbia,
SC 29204.
In temper he was frank, manly and sincere, an elegant
gentleman. In deportment, dignified and courteous, and in all
the domestic relations of life, exemplary and irreproachable.
Memories and condolences may be shared at
ShivesFuneralHome.com.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE TUSKEGEE AIRMEN FOUNDATION 75TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. MIKE ROGERS
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the House's attention
to recognize the 75th Anniversary of the activation of the U.S. Army
Air Corps 99th Pursuit Squadron. The first black combat aviation unit
comprised of pilots and support personnel trained at Tuskegee Army Air
Field.
Tuskegee Airman Foundation is a national non-profit organization
whose mission is to continue to build on the successes of the past,
highlight the role models of today and develop the workforce of
tomorrow.
In 1940, the military selected Tuskegee Institute to train pilots
because of its commitment to aeronautical training; its facilities,
engineering and technical instructors as well as a suitable climate for
year-round flying.
In May of 1940, the first Civilian Pilot Training Program students
completed their training. ``The Tuskegee Experience'' later grew to
become a center for African-American aviation during World War II.
These brave airmen overcame segregation and prejudice to become one
of the most respected fighter groups of WWII paving the way for full
integration of the U.S. military. These men and women of the Tuskegee
Airmen exemplify the State of Alabama's priority of Public Service
Excellence.
This commemoration of their legacy comes directly from the efforts
and determination of over 16,000 courageous men and women and
recognizes the fortitude of these individuals to stand strong in the
face of adversity.
Their accomplishments gave way to the continuation on a grand scale
through the introduction of American youth to the world of aviation,
technology, engineering and math through local and national programs
and activities.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing today, March 22, 2016, as
Tuskegee Airmen Foundation Day in honor of the Tuskegee Airmen
Foundation 75th Anniversary.
____________________
RELIGION, RIGHTS, AND REFUGE
______
HON. PETE OLSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to interact with some of the
brightest students in the 22nd Congressional District who serve on my
Congressional Youth Advisory Council. I have gained much by listening
to the high school students who are the future of this great nation.
They provide important insight from across the political spectrum that
sheds a light on the concerns of our younger constituents. Giving voice
to their priorities will hopefully instill a better sense of the
importance of being an active participant in the political process.
Many of the students have written short essays on a variety of topics
and I am pleased to share them with my House colleagues.
Bushra Hamid attends Manvel High School in Manvel, Texas. The essay
topic is: Select an important event that has occurred in the past year
and explain how that event has changed/shaped our country.
Religion, rights, refuge--this past year has shaped our
country like no other. From Pope Francis's historic visit to
the United States, to the Supreme Court's new ruling on
marriage equality, 2015 has marked, no doubt, a memorable
year that has been etched in history. And yet, one of the
most unfortunate highlights of 2015 was the refugee crisis
that has taken the world by storm. The worst humanitarian
crisis of the year has roiled this country, causing doubt and
confusion for leaders across the nation.
The failure of the President's administration to stand
behind its so called ``red lines'' that were imposed upon the
Assad regime during the years of the Syrian Civil War quickly
allowed the cruel Syrian dictator to gain comfort as he
continued carrying out his brutal atrocities against innocent
civilians. Our shortcomings undoubtedly contributed to the
refugee crisis. Although our influence in the region did not
lead to the instability of the nation, as the strongest and
leading democratic nation of the world, we needed--but
failed--to take required actions and stand ground by the
promising words that we first declared, thus unfortunately
giving Bashar Al-Assad a leeway.
Eventually, conflicting messages faced our country. As
Russia began to heavily intervene in the troubling Arab
nation, our country began to scramble for a settled
negotiation. In the mean time, lives were still being lost,
homes were still being destroyed, and futures were still
being gambled with. Yet, there remained a big elephant
questioning his stance in the room: what shall be done with
the millions of citizens-turned-refugees who had no where
else to go? Thus, the issue of whether or not to accept
Syrian refugees swiftly took America by storm. History began
to repeat itself as state governors sought to ban refugees
from their lands, striking a similar response to that of
Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration, when, in the time of
World War II, refused to let Jewish refugees in America. It
was evident that we needed to take measures to help the lives
of those who were forced to flee from Syria to foreign lands
with nothing left, while at the same time, to not risk
minimizing our national security.
Logistics aside, it is clear that the Syrian refugee crisis
has been a sad burden that, as a leading nation, we needed to
face head-on. Failure to unite and stand strong with any
decisions that we as a nation decide upon unfortunately leads
to a disruption of tranquility. We must unite as a country
and come to decisive actions in our future international
encounters.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, March 14, I was
unavoidably detained. As a result, I missed three recorded votes:
On rollcall Number 113, passage of House Concurrent Resolution 121.
As a strong supporter, had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''
On rollcall Number 112, passage of House Concurrent Resolution 175.
As a cosponsor, had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''
On rollcall Number 111, passage of S. 2426, had I been present I
would have voted ``yes.''
____________________
CONGRATULATING ALEC HAGAN FOR HIS FIRST PLACE WIN IN THE 2016 MISSOURI
STATE WRESTLING CHAMPIONSHIP
______
HON. BLAINE LUETKEMEYER
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to
join me in congratulating Alec Hagan for his first place win in the
2016 Class 4, 138 pound weight class, Missouri State Wrestling
Championship.
Alec and his coach should be commended for all of their hard work
throughout this past year and for bringing home the state championship
to Eureka High School and their local community.
I ask you to join me in recognizing Alec for a job well done.
[[Page 3273]]
____________________
HONORING RON JIBSON
______
HON. JASON CHAFFETZ
of utah
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ron Jibson who, on
April 12, 2016, will be honored as the 37th ``Giant in our City.'' This
award honors those individuals with exceptional and distinguished
service and extraordinary professional achievement. Ron is an
incredibly deserving recipient.
Ron's contributions to the Utah business community have been
transformative, and his work to solve important issues has transformed
our state. Ron currently serves as President and CEO of Questar
Corporation, a natural gas and energy company. Not only is Ron an
industry leader, he has contributed countless hours of service to our
community. He currently serves as a trustee for Utah State University
and serves on the boards of the Utah Symphony/Opera and the Women's
Leadership Institute. Countless Utahns have, and continue to be,
impacted by Ron's work.
I am honored to recognize Ron Jibson as a true ``giant'' in Utah's
community today. I thank him for his commitment to bettering Utah, and
his influence in effecting change.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF BILL BURKE, RECIPIENT OF THE GREATER PITTSTON
FRIENDLY SONS OF SAINT PATRICK SWINGLE AWARD
______
HON. MATT CARTWRIGHT
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Bill Burke, who on
March 17, 2016 will receive the Swingle Award from the Greater Pittston
Friendly Sons of Saint Patrick. For nearly three decades, Bill's
dedication and service to the community has produced many ambitious
pupils and hardworking students.
Born in Pittston, Pennsylvania and son of William P. Burke and Nora
Barrett Burke, Bill is married to the former Maripat Seitzinger of
Scranton. They have four children: William, Jack, Peter, and Maeve.
Bill is a graduate of Scranton Preparatory School, the University of
Scranton, and the University of Notre Dame. He has been employed as a
history teacher at Scranton Prep since 1990. In recognition of his
contributions in teaching, he received The Rochelle Olifson Teacher of
Impact Award from the University of Southern California, the Rose Kelly
Award from the University of Scranton, and has been a finalist for the
Disney Teacher of the Year. He has also served Scranton Prep as
Director of Admissions and Assistant Director of the Richmond Summer
Service Program.
Under Bill's direction, the Scranton Prep cross-country team has won
four PIAA State championships and twelve PIAA District II
Championships. In his sixteen years at the helm of both cross-country
and track, Prep has produced 18 all-state athletes and three state
champions, and three athletes have garnered regional and national
honors.
As an all-state performer himself, Bill was elected to Scranton
Prep's Athletic Honor Roll. He is also a member of the University of
Scranton's Wall of Fame, and was elected to the Pennsylvania Sports
Hall of Fame, North Eastern Pennsylvania Division, in 2008. Bill was
included in the Scranton Times Tribune's Top 25 Coaches of All Time
list in 2005.
Bill is a member of the John F. Kennedy Council Number 372 Knights of
Columbus, Greater Pittston Friendly Sons of Saint Patrick, and the AOH
Wolf Tone Division Pittston. He has been a coaching instructor for
Special Olympics. He is a founding member of the Diocese of Scranton
Cross-Country League and is on the staff of the North Pocono football
team as the speed and conditioning coach. He is currently the cross-
country coach at the University of Scranton.
It is an honor to recognize Bill for all of his community
contributions, and I congratulate him for receiving the Swingle Award.
I am grateful for his efforts to develop young people into leaders.
____________________
WHAT MAKES THE POLITICAL PROCESS IN CONGRESS SO CHALLENGING?
______
HON. PETE OLSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to interact with some of the
brightest students in the 22nd Congressional District who serve on my
Congressional Youth Advisory Council. I have gained much by listening
to the high school students who are the future of this great nation.
They provide important insight from across the political spectrum that
sheds a light on the concerns of our younger constituents. Giving voice
to their priorities will hopefully instill a better sense of the
importance of being an active participant in the political process.
Many of the students have written short essays on a variety of topics
and I am pleased to share them with my House colleagues.
Ann Johnson attends Kempner High School in Sugar Land, Texas. The
essay topic is: In your opinion, what makes the political process in
Congress so challenging?
I used to think that Congress was largely ineffective.
However, after taking a semester of AP Government, I realized
that the legislative body was supposed to be that way.
Congress isn't supposed to react quickly, rather, it is
supposed to take its time and deliberate over the best course
of action. The large number of political checkpoints a bill
must pass naturally complicates the process. These
checkpoints ensure that the bill is the best version it can
be and brings the greatest good to the greatest number of
people.
However, there are many extraneous factors that make the
political process more challenging. One is the very apparent
political divide in Congress. When Democrats only support
bills created by Democrats and vice versa, the political
process becomes nearly impossible to maneuver. Many great
ideas and proposals for our country get lost in the partisan
struggle or passed bills, heavy with compromises, never
amount to any real change. Too often, politicians are more
concerned with party approval instead of the needs of the
American people. The deep divide in Congress and
unwillingness to engage in across the aisle collaboration
makes the political process extremely challenging.
Another factor in the political process is the influence of
wealthier Americans in the decision-making process. In recent
times, Americans of higher socioeconomic have been able to
contribute heavily to elections and legislation. After the
Citizens United vs FEC ruling, corporations and unions were
able to spend unlimited sums of money on campaigns. This
allows wealthier Americans to yield more power in the
election and legislative fronts. They are able to influence
lawmakers to vote their way, instead of voting for the
benefit of all Americans. When lawmakers are forced to vote
for their own personal benefit or for the benefit of their
financial contributors, it makes the political process
incredibly challenging.
Lastly, lack of interest in the political process by the
public is a challenge. As Americans, we have been blessed
with the right to participate in our democratic process. From
voting for candidates to speaking out about different laws,
Americans are able to influence the political process in many
ways. However, too few Americans take advantage of these
privileges. When all Americans unite for a cause, true change
is certainly possible. Leading America in the right direction
requires the participation of all Americans and politicians
working together hand in hand.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE 2016 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FLYNN SCHOLARSHIP
FUND
______
HON. WILLIAM R. KEATING
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 2016 State
Representative David Flynn Scholarship Fund and to honor the man for
whom it was named: David Flynn, loving husband, father, grandfather,
great-grandfather, friend, neighbor, and former Dean of the
Massachusetts State House.
The 2016 State Representative David Flynn Scholarship Fund, awarded
to one student from the Plymouth campus at Quincy College this year,
will make higher education more accessible to the most deserving
student. This Scholarship Fund was established to honor David's
dedication to Plymouth County residents and his lifelong passion for
education.
Still a student at Bridgewater State College, David Flynn began his
first political step as Bridgewater Parks Commissioner in 1957. He
would go on to never lose a campaign in his political career, which
included serving as the Representative of the 8th Plymouth District in
the Massachusetts State House. In addition to his tenure in the State
House and as an advisor in the Dukakis and King Administrations, David
is remembered for his instrumental work in the expansion and success of
Bridgewater State University in the decades after his graduation. He
was crucial in securing funding for every campus building built since
1965 and
[[Page 3274]]
played a decisive role in changing the name of the institution.
After retiring from political life in 2010, David returned to his
home in Bridgewater to spend time with his wife Barbara, nine children,
thirty grandchildren and four great-grandchildren. On December 10, 2015
at the age of 82, surrounded by his loving family and friends, David
peacefully left this world--but his memory and legacy will live on in
the lives of the thousands of Massachusetts students and residents who
directly benefited from his commitment and dedication to public
service.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring the life of
an extraordinary public servant. David Flynn epitomized the meaning of
civic responsibility, and I celebrate the great work that the
scholarship fund in his name will continue to do.
____________________
HONORING FLORIDA'S TEACHERS
______
HON. VERN BUCHANAN
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of outstanding
public school teachers in Florida's 16th Congressional District.
I was once told that children are 25 percent of the population, but
they are 100 percent of the future.
And it's true. The education of a child is an investment, not only in
that student, but in the future of our country.
Therefore, I established the Congressional Teacher Awards to honor
educators for their ability to teach and inspire students.
An independent panel has chosen the following teachers for Florida's
16th District 2016 Congressional Teacher Award for their
accomplishments as educators:
Mr. Lorenzo Browner, for his accomplishments as an ESE teacher at
Florine Abel Elementary School in Sarasota.
Ms. Charlotte Latham, for her accomplishments as a fifth grade
teacher at BD Gullett Elementary School in Bradenton.
Mr. Todd Brown, for his accomplishments as a civics teacher at
Sarasota Military Academy Prep in Sarasota.
Dr. Jennifer Jaso, for her accomplishments as a social studies
teacher at Sarasota Middle School in Sarasota.
Ms. Judith Black, for her accomplishments as a French teacher at Pine
View School in Osprey.
Ms. Stacie Cratty for her accomplishments as a dance teacher at
Manatee School for the Arts in Palmetto.
On behalf of the people of Florida's 16th District I congratulate
each of these outstanding teachers and offer my sincere appreciation
for their service and dedication.
____________________
RECOGNIZING DR. CHRISTOPHER L. MARKWOOD
______
HON. LYNN A. WESTMORELAND
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, in a world riddled with self-service
and promotion, true public servants are hard to come by. But in
Georgia's higher education system, we are fortunate to have selfless
and strong men and women to inspire our next generation. It is in the
defense of hard work and promotion of academic excellence that
Georgia's students recognize a true leader. And with great honor, I
would like to recognize a new leader in Georgia and my friend, Dr.
Christopher L. Markwood.
On March 31, 2016, President Markwood will be formally inaugurated as
the fifth president of Columbus State University. His confirmation
comes without doubt, as his roles at Texas A&M University-Corpus
Christi and the University of Wisconsin-Superior proved his ability to
lead.
President Markwood has already made a strong impact on both Columbus
State University and the Columbus community. Since President Markwood
was hired in June of 2015, Columbus State University has seen a spike
in enrollment, and now serves 8,440 students from across the state and
nation. The university recorded one of its largest fundraising years
ever, bringing them close to their $106 million comprehensive goal.
Columbus State University is now the home of the ``TSYS Center for
Cybersecurity'', which trains our students in the growing and in-demand
field of computer science and network security. Much of this would not
have been possible without President Markwood's passion for the
university's success.
It has been a privilege to work with President Markwood during my
last term in Congress and I look forward to watching Columbus State
University continue to excel under his leadership. I wish President
Markwood, his wife Bridget, and their daughter all the best as they
continue to serve Cougar Nation.
____________________
RECOGNIZING WILLIAM KIRKMAN FOR BEING AWARDED THE SPRINGFIELD AREA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE'S 2016 SPRINGFIELDIAN AWARD
______
HON. BILLY LONG
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. LONG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize business leader
William Kirkman for recently being named winner of the 2016
Springfieldian Award at the Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce's
annual meeting.
As the Springfield Chamber of Commerce's most acclaimed decoration
for more than 50 years, the annual Springfieldian Award honors an
individual who has demonstrated outstanding leadership and dedication
to the Springfield, Missouri, community.
As the first in his family to attend college, Kirkman graduated from
Missouri State University in 1969. He was hired by Baird, Kurtz &
Dobson (BKD) accounting firm out of college and rose through their
ranks; He climbed from associate to partner and eventually became the
firm's Chief Operating Officer in 2004.
Described as a man with a heart of gold, Kirkman was admired and
respected by his peers. He demonstrated a passion for helping those who
worked under him to blossom professionally, and is considered to have
been an early pioneer in helping women to break into the accounting
profession.
In addition to his impressive professional career, Kirkman has served
in numerous leadership roles for Springfield area organizations.
Currently, he holds the Chair position of the Board of Directors of
City Utilities of Springfield but, in the past, he served at the Chair
positions of the Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce board of
directors, the Springfield/Branson National Airport board of directors,
and Springfield's Center City Development Corporation. He also served
as President of the Springfield Business Development Corporation in
1995, and received the Outstanding Alumni Award from Missouri State
University in 2004. Lastly though, and certainly not the least of his
accomplishments, Kirkman also achieved the rank of Captain while
serving in the Marine Corps.
Mr. Speaker, William Kirkman--who I consider a personal friend--is
not only a pillar of the Springfield community, but has been a mentor
and inspiration for countless individuals that he has interacted with
along his storied career. I urge my colleagues to join me as I extend
my appreciation for his service to Missouri's Seventh Congressional
District.
____________________
WOMEN ONCE AGAIN MADE HISTORY IN 2015
______
HON. PETE OLSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to interact with some of the
brightest students in the 22nd Congressional District who serve on my
Congressional Youth Advisory Council. I have gained much by listening
to the high school students who are the future of this great nation.
They provide important insight from across the political spectrum that
sheds a light on the concerns of our younger constituents. Giving voice
to their priorities will hopefully instill a better sense of the
importance of being an active participant in the political process.
Many of the students have written short essays on a variety of topics
and I am pleased to share them with my House colleagues.
Alesondra Cruz attends George Ranch High School in Richmond, Texas.
The essay topic is: Women Once Again Made History in 2015.
Capt. Kristen Griest and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver became the
first women to graduate from the Army Ranger School in August
2015, the first year it was open to women. The course is a
notoriously difficult feat in
[[Page 3275]]
army training and has proven impossible to copious soldiers
in the past. It results in strong leaders, pushing soldiers
to not only their physical, but mental threshold. The sixty-
one day long course includes brutal obstacles and a 12 mile
march to be completed in three hours. Ninety-four men and 2
women beat the grueling course.
It has long been established that women can play an
efficacious role in the military. The extent of that role,
however, is still debated. In November 2012, the American
Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of
four service women and the Service Women's Action Network.
They stated that plaintiff, Maj. Mary Jennings Hegar, an Air
National Guard helicopter pilot, served her country with the
utmost strength and honor, yet was unable to obtain a
leadership position. In 2013, then-Defense Secretary Leon
Panetta announced that the army would lift its ban on women
serving in combat roles. This announcement was strongly
pushed by the armed service chiefs themselves and led to
evaluation by the armed forces. When the two women completed
the course, the 75th Ranger Regiment had not opened its doors
to women or changed its policy. Consequently, Griest and
Haver could not enter the 75th Ranger Regiment with their
fellow graduates. However, their completion of the course and
inability to serve with their peers sparked discussion over
whether women should serve at this level or solely have the
pride of wearing their well-earned Ranger Tabs. This
discussion may have been a factor in Defense Secretary Ash
Carter's recent announcement that all combat jobs are now
open to women.
Whether a person believes that women should be fully
integrated or not, this accomplishment has opened
conversation in an unprecedented way. Many people defend
their stance on integrating women due to women's perceived
physical limitation; however, Griest and Haver have proven
just as capable as their male counterparts. As an eighteen
year old, my thoughts immediately go to the Selective Service
Act and what role integration of women may have on it. If
women are fully active in the military, will we be asked to
register? Regardless of the final decision for the Ranger
Regiment or Selective Service Act, there is no doubt that
this event has left an imprint on how Americans see the role
of women in our military.
When asked about her accomplishment, Griest said, ``We felt
like we were contributing as much as the men, and we felt
that they felt that way, too.'' There is no doubt that these
women have a desire to serve our country with pride and
strength. Their dedication to America has inspired women and
men alike, and positions women to serve their country for
many years to come.
____________________
IN CELEBRATION OF MABELLE M. SELLAND'S 90TH BIRTHDAY
______
HON. JIM COSTA
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 90th birthday
of Ms. Mabelle M. Selland, a wonderful friend and loving community
member.
Mabelle Maasen Selland was born on March 7, 1926, in Chicago,
Illinois, and lived there until the first grade when her family moved
to Omaha, Nebraska. Mabelle graduated from Bensen High School in 1944,
and later moved to California with her mother where she settled in
Pasadena. Mabelle then moved to the Bay Area at the age of 19 to become
a keypunch operator. Mabelle later came to Fresno at the invitation of
friends to work as an operator for Pacific Gas and Electric and saved
enough money to enroll at Fresno State College. It was at Fresno State
where Mabelle met Harold ``Bud'' Selland. Mabelle and Bud fell in love
and were married in 1951. They raised three children, Julie, Eric, and
Bethany and were married for 55 years until Bud's passing in 2006.
Mabelle was an accomplished young lady who always displayed a strong
passion for preserving, and improving her community, and that passion
has continued throughout her life. She has dedicated her entire life to
involving herself in various community activities. She worked as a
Social Worker for Fresno County from 1950-1955, served as the People to
People president, and as chairwoman for the Fresno Moulmein, Burma
Sister City, where she received two awards for outstanding service from
the National Sister City Conference in Washington D.C.
In 1972, Mabelle received her Master's Degree in Asian History from
Fresno State, and continued her work in the community. From 1973 to
1979, Mabelle served as the Executive Director for the Fresno City and
County Historical Society. She worked diligently to successfully enter
Kearney Mansion on the National Register of Historic Places. She
received a state Historic Preservation Grant to restore Kearney
Mansion, and created seven ethnic history exhibits, restored costume
collection and exhibited over 200 pieces.
In 1973, Mabelle became an instrumental force behind starting a
movement to save the Old Administration building on the campus of
Fresno City College. Mabelle and her friend, Ephraim Smith, saved the
building from the planned demolition. After 38 years from her initial
suggestion that the community should save the landmark, the building
was finally restored and re-opened in 2011.
In the 1980's, Mabelle served as the Cultural Arts Manager for the
City of Fresno Cultural Arts office, where she eventually retired from
in 1994. After her retirement from the City of Fresno, Mabelle traveled
the world with her family and friends and continued to serve on the
County Historic Records and Landmarks Commission. She wrote about
Southeast Asian history and coordinated performances and village
festivals at the Southeast Asian Business Conference.
Furthermore, Mabelle founded the Heritage Fresno, a historic
preservation organization in 2003, and served on the County Tourism
Committee in 2004.
It goes without saying that Mabelle continues to be a force to be
reckoned with, even at the young age of 90. Throughout the many roads
she has traveled, we thank Mabelle for the many lives that she has
touched along the way. It is for these reasons that we join Mabelle
Selland's family and friends in wishing her a blessed 90th birthday.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating a woman
who has dedicated her life to public service. Mabelle's many
accomplishments within the community are a direct reflection of her
strong dedication and perseverance. We wish her continued health and
happiness in the years to come.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THOMAS F. QUINNAN, RECIPIENT OF THE 2016 GREATER
PITTSTON FRIENDLY SONS OF SAINT PATRICK ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
______
HON. MATT CARTWRIGHT
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Thomas F. Quinnan,
who will receive the 2016 Greater Pittston Friendly Sons of Saint
Patrick Achievement Award on March 17. Thomas has had a diverse career
that has stretched over several decades, while still finding time to
participate in the community.
Thomas F. Quinnan was born in Pittston, Pennsylvania and is the son
of the late Edward and Clare Gunning Quinnan. Tom received his early
education at St. Mary's Assumption School and graduated from St. John
the Evangelist's High School, Pittston, and Penn State University,
Wilkes-Barre. He later received training in Air Navigation Systems and
Equipment at The FAA Academy, and management training at the Management
Training School and the Center for Management Development. He attended
the Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York, majoring in
Electrical Engineering Technology.
Mr. Quinnan was employed by the Federal Aviation Administration for
over 33 years and retired as the Field Office Manager, Wilkes-Barre/
Scranton sector. His career started at the New York International
Airport, and he advanced to a Navigational Aid Specialist assigned to
the Newark, New Jersey sector office. During his time in Newark, he was
assigned to most of the facilities in the state of New Jersey including
the Teterboro, Newark, Trenton, Morristown, and Atlantic City airports.
In 1975, Tom was selected to be Chief of Navaids And Communications
Unit at the Rochester International Airport, where he served until his
selection as manager at Wilkes-Barre/Scranton. During his career, Tom
obtained FAA Certification credentials on Instrument Landing Systems,
Vhf Omnirange, Tactical Air Navigation, Air Traffic Control Towers, and
several other air traffic control systems.
Quinnan was a member of the Manville, New Jersey Volunteer Fire
Company No. 3 serving as Recording Secretary and was a Fire Inspector
for the Borough of Manville. He is a former President of the Ancient
Order of Hibernians, Neil McLaughlin Division, Avoca, Pennsylvania and
a former President of the Airport Management Association. Tom is a
member of the Queen of Apostles Parish in Avoca, and a long-standing
member of the Friendly Sons.
Tom resides in Avoca with his wife, the former Barbara Ann Grace.
They are the parents of three sons: Thomas, Shawn, and Robert, with
daughters-in-law, Ann, Denise, and
[[Page 3276]]
Kara. Tom and Barbara also have six grandchildren: Melissa, Kaleigh,
Patrick, Brady, Collin, and Ryan.
It is an honor to recognize Thomas F. Quinnan for his service in the
community and his extraordinary career.
____________________
IMMIGRATION
______
HON. PETE OLSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to interact with some of the
brightest students in the 22nd Congressional District who serve on my
Congressional Youth Advisory Council. I have gained much by listening
to the high school students who are the future of this great nation.
They provide important insight from across the political spectrum that
sheds a light on the concerns of our younger constituents. Giving voice
to their priorities will hopefully instill a better sense of the
importance of being an active participant in the political process.
Many of the students have written short essays on a variety of topics
and I am pleased to share them with my House colleagues.
Ann Marie Ramas attends Ridge Point High School in Missouri City,
Texas. The essay topic is: Select an important event that has occurred
in the past year and explain how that event has changed/shaped our
country.
In the past year, immigration has become a prevalent and
controversial topic in social and political discussions.
President Obama made some changes to immigration policies,
prompting the case United States v. Texas (2015) where a
Texas judge blocked President Obama's executive action on
immigration known as Deferred Actions for Parents of
Americans (DAPA). This executive order, along with the Catch
and Release Act, epitomizes President Obama's position on
immigrants. He believes that implementing lenient rules on
illegal immigrants is fair, that we should not deport illegal
immigrants under certain circumstances--if they have children
who are American citizens or legal residents, if they pass a
criminal background check, or if they are willing to pay
their fair share of taxes.
Like most things nowadays, this has sparked some
controversy. In addition to the rising notoriety and
outrageous deeds of ISIS, the Syrian refugees seeking
protection, and the increasing frequency of terrorists'
attacks all over the world, United States v. Texas not only
exemplifies but also enlarges the heated issue of
immigration.
America is a compassionate nation, but it is a
compassionate and fearful nation. We know that it is morally
right to help those in need, especially considering the fact
that Americans have all traveled to this great nation in
search for a better life. However, the terrorist attacks and
ISIS have embedded fear in Americans eliciting questions and
doubts like whether to choose ethics over their own security.
President Obama justifies his stance stating that, ``We are
born of immigrants. Immigration is our origin story . . . our
oldest tradition. Immigrants and refugees revitalize and
renew America''. Advocates agree and applaud this statement
while the opposing side wonders whether this is still true at
the cost of our safety. However, one thing that both sides
can agree on is the fact that the American immigration system
is broken. So how do we fix it? That is the debate.
The United States v. Texas case and the whole immigration
matter distinctly divide the American people. Depending how
far we are from the first of our family to move to the United
States or how compassionate or cautious we are, we view this
concern from different perspectives. This issue has changed
and shaped our nation in that nowadays, the word
``immigrant'' has a negative connotation. It is used as an
insult to imply that ``you don't belong here''. Illegal
immigration has also demeaned our country and opening
ourselves up to help refugees has allowed us to be vulnerable
to ISIS, eager to use our generosity as a chance to
infiltrate us. The American public now has an impaired
opinion of immigrants, forgetting that they are of
immigration descent as well. As President Obama said, the
United States is a country of immigrants. Immigration molded
this nation. It is the foundation of our people. People from
all over the world immigrated to America to escape hardships
and oppression. Therefore, it is quite ironic that centuries
after its establishment, America is being divided by
immigration.