[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5007-5014]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2016

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2028, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2028) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Alexander/Feinstein amendment No. 3801, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Alexander amendment No. 3804 (to amendment No. 3801), to 
     modify provisions relating to Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
     fees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                               GAO Report

  Mr. COATS. Madam President, it is the beginning of the appropriations 
season here in Washington. I am glad we are doing that. We are a little 
bit ahead of schedule from past experiences, although we haven't been 
doing appropriations bills during my second term in the Senate. I am 
glad we are doing them because that is really what we are here for.
  For those listening, this is for when Congress determines how we 
spend taxpayer money. There are a number of people in the gallery 
today--they are all taxpayers--wondering: Where does this money that is 
sent to Washington go?
  When Hoosiers from Indiana send their hard-earned tax dollars to 
Washington to be spent by the Federal Government, they expect their 
elected leaders to be good stewards of their resources. After all, they 
worked hard to earn this money. Before they get their net paycheck, 
their taxes are deducted and sent to Washington. They have every right 
to expect us to be good stewards.
  It is no wonder taxpayers are furious with Washington when the 
Federal Government wastes the money they work so hard to make. When 
they hear about or read about some of the ludicrous ways we spend their 
money or the wasteful ways we spend their money, they have every reason 
to be concerned and to be angry.
  Clearly, there are essential functions the Federal Government has to 
undertake, but we can't continue to ignore the fact that our national 
debt has now passed $19 trillion. Borrowing money in order to pay for 
expenditures and then having obligations to pay that money back, along 
with interest rates, puts us in a very deep hole that we have talked 
about a lot, but we have not done what is necessary to address this 
continued plunge into debt.
  Seemingly every day, we see examples of mismanagement and wasteful 
spending in Washington, which is one of the reasons I give my weekly 
``Waste of the Week'' addresses. I have come to the floor now more than 
40 times in this Congress to talk about documented cases of waste, 
fraud, and abuse within the Federal Government. It is not something 
made up but documented abuses by, generally, the Government 
Accountability Office, whose job is to examine how we spend our money 
and to publicize how that money is spent.
  Now we have racked up nearly $160 billion of documented waste, fraud, 
and abuse. This has included the ridiculous, such as Federal grant 
spending on rabbit massages, as well as the serious, such as double-
dipping in the Social Security Disability Insurance funds.
  While many Americans struggle every day to pay their mortgage or to 
put food on the table, it is infuriating that the Federal Government is 
wasting money renting empty warehouses or funding a study to determine 
if being ``hangry'' is a real thing.
  I talked about the word ``hangry'' in one of my speeches several 
weeks ago. ``Hangry'' is a modification of the words hungry and angry. 
A considerable amount of taxpayer money was spent on a study to 
determine if a person gets angrier with their spouse when he or she is 
hungry and so they coined the word ``hangry.'' It refers to someone who 
is hungry, and because they are hungry, they get a little anxious or a 
little difficult to live with. This study determined and came to the 
conclusion that, yes, if you are hungry, you tend to be a little bit 
angry and you tend to take it out on the person nearest to you, who is 
usually your spouse.
  I think any of us could have come up with that conclusion without 
spending $400,000 or so in order to determine that that is the case. 
The word ``hangry'' has now been added to Webster's dictionary. You can 
look it up. How can we spend $400,000 of the taxpayer's money to do 
this study when people are having trouble paying their bills, their 
mortgage, or saving money so they can send their kids to school? This 
is the kind of thing that infuriates the American people. This is the 
kind of thing that has put our approval ratings in single digits. This 
is the kind of thing that causes people to say that Washington needs to 
be shaken up. Why do we keep taking the American people's hard-earned 
tax dollars and spending them on things like this?
  Many Americans struggle every day to put food on the table and pay 
their mortgage. It is infuriating to them that the Federal Government 
is wasting money doing these kind of things. Eliminating this wasteful 
spending can go a long way to restoring trust in Washington, and it 
needs to start now. That is why, as I said, the studies by the 
government's only watchdog agency, the Government Accountability 
Office, are so important to the work we do here.
  The GAO, or the Government Accountability Office, just released its 
``2016 Annual Report'' on additional opportunities to reduce 
fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. The GAO report presents 92 new 
actions we can take--either the Congress or the administration--to 
improve government efficiency and effectiveness to achieve cost 
savings. This report and some of its findings include programs I 
already talked about, such as the failed advanced technology vehicles 
program I highlighted last week. Unfortunately, in an amendment I 
offered here on the floor, we came up short with a vote of 48 to 49, 
but we raised the awareness of a program that is sitting on nearly $4 
billion of unspent money. Of the five proposals that were released--
money was released on these five proposals--two of the companies have 
already gone bankrupt. Instead of sitting on $4 billion worth of 
additional money that we had to award, we simply said: Look, we have 
wasted $500 million in this program. Why don't we take that $4 billion 
and use it for a better purpose,

[[Page 5008]]

like returning it to the taxpayer. If not that, we could have returned 
that money to the taxpayer or used the money to offset something 
essential, such as work that prolongs life and brings better health at 
NIH or perhaps put the money towards something else that is needed, 
such as infrastructure, but, unfortunately, we came up one vote short 
of a majority.
  I am looking forward to exploring ways in which we can use examples 
in our continued efforts through ``Waste of the Week.'' We are looking 
at several things. We know the IRS is paying billions in fraudulent 
refunds to criminals who steal people's IDs over the Internet, or 
whatever method they use, and then file for IRS returns. We are looking 
at consolidating programs that are scattered across 22 different 
Federal agencies and have all kinds of duplications or selling unused 
Federal property, which could save billions of dollars a year. The list 
doesn't end. It just continues.
  I will be coming down here week after week. I will have another 
``Waste of the Week'' later this week. Exposing the waste, fraud, and 
abuse is only the first step that the administration and Congress must 
take. According to this report, the actions Congress has already 
taken--and Congress ought to be commended for this--by using GAO's 
recommendations over the past 5 years has saved $56 billion. That is 
not small change.
  I have documented another $160 billion worth of savings in the last 
40 speeches--not million, billion. There is still plenty left to do.
  In 2010, I asked Hoosiers to send me to Washington to rein in the 
Federal Government's runaway spending. Whether it is through my 
continued ``Waste of the Week'' speeches, legislation, or highlighting 
reports like the GAO report, as I am doing today, I will continue to 
pour every ounce of effort I have into doing as much as I can to reduce 
wasteful government spending.
  We will be back later this week with speech No. 41 of ``Waste of the 
Week.'' Hopefully, we can continue to alert this Congress and this 
government to the hard-earned money that is being wasted and could be 
used for much better purposes.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am here to join Senator Merkley in 
offering amendment No. 3812 regarding funding for wind energy research.
  This is a straightforward amendment. It simply restores funding for 
wind energy research to the amount provided for just last year--$95.4 
million.
  The underlying bill provides $80 million, so the Merkley-Grassley 
amendment will increase funding by just $15.4 million. These additional 
funds will come from within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
Program, so we can see there is no cost to this amendment from the 
bottom line of the bill. It does not raise overall spending levels. It 
simply redirects $15 million from other renewable and efficiency 
programs to wind energy research.
  This funding will allow the Department of Energy to continue the 
advancement of wind technologies and innovations. These advances have 
greatly increased the competitiveness of wind and facilitated rapid 
growth in wind energy across the country.
  In Iowa, wind energy now accounts for more than 30 percent of the 
State's total electricity supply. Wind supported 88,000 jobs in 2015, 
an increase of 20 percent from the previous year. Wind was also the No. 
1 source of new generating capacity in 2015--greater than natural gas 
and solar.
  Some of my colleagues oppose wind energy and Federal policies that 
support this clean and renewable energy. They argue we shouldn't pick 
winners or that wind is a mature industry. Don't kid yourself. Wind, 
while nearly mature, is just an infant compared to the Federal dollars 
and incentives provided for fossil and nuclear energy.
  It is quite amusing to me that some of the strongest opponents of 
wind energy in this body are the biggest proponents of other much more 
costly programs for mature, traditional energy sources. For example, 
the 100-year-old oil and gas industry continues to benefit from tax 
preferences that benefit only their industry that result in the loss of 
more than $4 billion annually in tax revenue.
  Nuclear energy is another great example. The first nuclear powerplant 
came online in the United States in 1958. That was 58 years ago. 
Nuclear received special tax treatment, including--would you believe 
it--a production tax credit. Nuclear also benefits from Price-Anderson 
Federal liability insurance that Congress provided as a temporary 
measure way back in 1958. This temporary measure--can you believe it--
has been renewed through 2025. Nuclear energy has also received more 
than $74 billion in Federal research and development dollars since 
1950. This bill includes over $1 billion for nuclear research. This is 
an increase of $71 million, or 7.3 percent, over fiscal year 2016 for 
wind energy research. We are just asking for the same amount of money 
appropriated for next year as this year.
  Fossil energy research and development is another one I can point 
out, which is allocated $632 million in this bill, equal to the 2016 
levels. Even prominent conservative advocacy groups have called for the 
nuclear and fossil fuel energy funds to be cut or eliminated 
altogether.
  Again, this amendment will simply provide level funding for wind 
energy research by providing an additional $15 million. This is not new 
money, so there is no score by the CBO. I urge my colleagues to support 
the Merkley-Grassley amendment.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes on 
another subject as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    State of Our Political Discourse

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I recently gave a speech to the 
Midwest Political Science Undergraduate Research Conference, which was 
held at Wartburg College in Waverly, IA. It dealt with the current 
state of our political discourse and what we should all do as Americans 
to try and elevate that political discourse.
  The election-year rhetoric is already heating up in the Senate, so I 
think it is appropriate to share with the Senate what I told these 
political science students and their professors.
  This is an election year, so there is a lot of talk about how 
Americans have voted and will vote, as well as which Americans will 
vote and which ones will not vote. There is something that is evident 
in this election season, and it is also something I have seen increase 
steadily since I have served in elected office, and that happens to be 
cynicism. Americans are increasingly cynical about their system of 
government and those who serve in that government. Candidates of all 
political stripes are tapping into this cynicism by railing against so-
called elites. Sometimes it is the notion of elites within a political 
party, elites in Washington generally, or elites even in the private 
sector. Regardless, there is a perception that elites of some kind or 
another have an undue influence over decisionmaking and ordinary 
citizens are being ignored.
  I am not saying that such concerns are all illegitimate, but I think 
the cynicism is made worse by a lack of understanding when it comes to 
how our government works and, more importantly, why it works the way it 
does. It seems to me there has been a decline in interest in teaching 
American students about our constitutional system and especially the 
principles on which it was founded. You cannot understand how our 
government works and how it is supposed to work without understanding 
the Constitution. I would add that the best guide to the Constitution 
is the Federalist Papers.
  You also cannot understand the Constitution without understanding the

[[Page 5009]]

Declaration of Independence, but you cannot understand the Declaration 
of Independence without understanding the natural rights philosophy. 
You also cannot separate the study of history from political science.
  To understand our current political debate, it is important to 
understand how we got where we are today. For instance, the debate 
between anti-Federalists and Federalists sheds a great deal of light on 
what our founding generation agreed upon and what they disagreed upon. 
Subsequent events such as the Civil War, the progressive movement, and 
the civil rights movement all drew upon earlier American political 
ideas, either borrowing from or rejecting them. Our political discourse 
today is inevitably influenced by this heritage, but it also seems 
disconnected from it.
  From cable news shows to the local diner, people with different views 
shout past each other without comprehending the opposing arguments. In 
recent years, there has been a realignment of political parties that 
follows more closely along philosophical lines. That has led to more 
party-line votes, but you would think that would make our debate more 
about principles instead of pure partisanship, but it hasn't.
  There has been a lot written about how Americans are increasingly 
sorting themselves into groups--where they live and work with people 
who think like they do and only consume like-minded media. As a result, 
when people do encounter a view they don't agree with, there is a 
tendency to think there must be something wrong with the person who 
holds that view. Moreover, if a policy you disagree with gets enacted 
but almost no one you know supports it, naturally you feel there must 
be something amiss. That leads to anger, resentment, and cynicism, and 
that makes for fertile ground for demagogues.
  There are real differences of philosophy reflected in the two major 
political parties, so I am not arguing there shouldn't be vigorous 
debate. In fact, the clash of ideas is an essential part of our 
representative system of government, but you cannot effectively 
challenge an opponent's philosophy if you don't understand that 
philosophy, and you cannot understand your opponent's philosophy unless 
you understand what you believe and why you believe it. That is why it 
is so important Americans study American history and civics.
  Thomas Jefferson said:

       If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of 
     civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. If 
     we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the 
     responsibility of every American to be informed.

  In an election year, we talk a lot about voting being a civic duty, 
but that is incomplete. Our civic duty goes well beyond the simple act 
of voting. We have a responsibility to understand what we believe and 
why before we go into the voting booth.
  Representative government doesn't work very well if citizens are only 
engaged in the month or two before an election. Our system of 
government relies on an informed and active citizenry. We need more 
Americans to write their Members of Congress and to ask their 
positions, attend town meetings, and seek to understand both sides of 
an issue. Still, we have to come to terms with the fact that we are a 
closely divided nation. Better understanding of each other's principles 
will elevate the debate, which is good for representative government, 
but it will not eliminate and shouldn't eliminate political 
differences.
  The next step is to respect other people's right to live according to 
their principles. I believe that calls for a renewed commitment to 
federalism. The Father of our Constitution, James Madison, designed a 
system for what he called an extended republic. The classical 
understanding of a republic as small, unitary, and homogeneous did not 
apply to the new United States and it certainly doesn't now. In fact, 
Madison argued that our large, diverse country could better prevent a 
majority faction from forming and trampling on the rights of others. 
However, it also required decentralizing power and allowing different 
States and communities to do things their own way.
  Whenever a government takes an action, there will almost certainly be 
some people unhappy with it. That is why the presumption should be to 
let individual Americans live their lives as they see fit. When 
government action is warranted, the decision should be made as close as 
possible to those it affects. In my view, the extent to which the 
Federal Government now makes a great many decisions that affect the 
lives of Americans beyond the limited role envisioned in the 
Constitution leads to a great deal of unnecessary conflict.
  Since our government is so closely divided, a great many decisions 
will upset almost half of the American people. That is not a 
sustainable situation. So my preferred solution--which, of course, is 
based upon my political philosophy--is to let States and communities 
make more of their own decisions when it comes to issues such as health 
care and education. Of course, others may disagree and do disagree, and 
we should have that debate, but it should be an honest and respectful 
debate based upon very basic principles.
  That was the end of my substantive remarks to those students at 
Wartburg College. I then commended the students for their interest in 
exploring political issues. I also said to the students that the fact 
that they are interested and that they are engaged and many of their 
peers are not gives these students a very special calling.
  I ended my speech with a challenge. I said: I would challenge you to 
continue developing your understanding of your political beliefs and 
those of others with whom you may disagree and then do your part to 
elevate the political dialogue. I would issue the same challenge to my 
colleagues here in the Senate.
  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. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I want to thank the distinguished 
Senator from Iowa for his remarks and also his chairmanship of the 
Judiciary Committee. I found his remarks very interesting.
  I note that the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Subcommittee is now on the floor. I have been very 
fortunate to serve as his ranking member, and I think that we have put 
a very good bill together and that his leadership has been very strong.
  Last week Senator Alexander brought to the floor a chart, and on that 
chart there were red and blue lines, and they depicted a lot about the 
spending patterns of this Nation, which absolutely is relevant, 
considering we are talking about spending. Well, I wanted to put my 
rendition before us since no one on the floor is asking to speak at 
this time.
  Since 2006 I have asked my staff to put together some charts on 
spending, which I share every week at my constituent breakfast with the 
constituency from California.
  I want to tell you a little bit about this chart. The source of this 
chart is the Congressional Budget Office, and it is the budget and 
economic outlook part of that. Going back to 2006, we looked at budget 
numbers, but the actual way to look at it is really outlays. What does 
the Federal Government spend every year? That is the number which 
creates the debt and creates interest on the debt.
  In 2006 the Federal Government spent $2.654 trillion in total. Here 
is how it was spent: This big red part is what are called entitlements. 
These are mandatory payments to programs to which an individual is 
entitled. If you are entitled to it, you get it regardless of what 
impact it has on the budget. They were 53 percent of what the Federal 
Government spent in 2006, and interest on the debt was 8 percent. So if 
we add 53 percent and 8 percent, that was about 61 percent of 
everything that was spent

[[Page 5010]]

during that year. Nondefense discretionary was 19 percent and defense 
was 20 percent. So the green and the blue were the discretionary 
programs, the yellow was interest on the debt, and the rest were 
entitlements.
  This year the total outlay is $3.919 trillion. Entitlements have gone 
up to 63 percent of what the Federal Government will pay out this year. 
Interest on the debt has dropped 2 percent to 6.5 percent, largely 
because interest rates are low. Defense discretionary is 15 percent, 
and nondefense discretionary is 15.5 percent. So if we put these two 
things together, which we are now passing appropriations bills on, they 
comprise only about 30.5 percent of what the Federal Government will 
spend this year. The rest is entitlements and interest on the debt.
  If you are entitled to Social Security, you get it. If you are 
entitled to Medicare, you get it. If you are entitled to Medicaid; 
disabled; women, infants, and children; and a whole host of very good 
programs because they help people--but they are expensive and they 
cost. This isn't often talked about, and I think it is not talked about 
because individuals don't want to worry people. But it is a problem, 
and it is a problem that needs some solutions.
  If you project these numbers 10 years forward to 2026, we go from 
total outlays, total government payments in 2016 of $3.9 trillion, to 
$6.401 trillion, and entitlements are then 65 percent of what the 
government will spend in the year 2026. Interest on the debt will 
double from what it is today to 13 percent because it is estimated that 
interest rates will go up. So, adding the two together, you see that we 
are well over 70 percent in spending. If we look at discretionary 
spending, defense discretionary and nondefense discretionary, we will 
see they are both 11 percent. That is the economic outlook.
  So only 22 percent of the budget will be what the Appropriations 
Committee will be doing in 10 years from now because the rest of it 
will not be able to be controlled. So we have a constantly escalating 
picture.
  In my own view, those things like the Army Corps of Engineers, which 
in a sense is the only infrastructure program this country really has 
outside of the highway program, will be compressed more, and everything 
we spend to make this a better country will be compressed more because 
of the growth in entitlements and interest on the debt.
  Well, I believe the time has come for Members on both sides of the 
aisle to sit down and see what we can do to work out solutions to this 
ever-growing problem. Is it additional taxes? Are there ways we can 
change these programs so that they become more efficient to cover 
people and pay for them in a better way than putting them on the debt, 
which is effectively what we are doing?
  So I want to state to our distinguished chairman, who is now here, 
last week we had his red and blue lines, so this week I brought my 
charts that I have been using since 2006, and I believe the numbers are 
correct, and I believe they are also astonishing and they need our 
concern.
  I would like to work with the chairman in the future, and perhaps we 
could bring together Republicans and Democrats to sit down and consider 
some remedies that will not be punishing for people but will bring this 
huge red mark and thereby the interest mark into better control than 
today.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I congratulate the Senator from 
California. With her usual precision, she has identified the big 
problem, and she approached it as she usually does--in a very direct 
way. The picture she presents is not one we can tolerate in the United 
States of America. The good news is, we have done a good job on 
discretionary spending. That is what we are working on in these bills.
  The chart I showed last week, which shows about the same things in a 
little different way than hers, points out that the spending in 12 
appropriations bills has been flat and will be flat for the next 10 
years. In other words, if the work the Appropriations Committee is 
doing on $1 trillion were all that there was to the Federal budget, we 
would not have a Federal debt problem. That blue line is Federal 
spending under control. We set priorities. We have oversight. Senator 
Feinstein and I have eliminated programs. We do that every year. We are 
getting control of this budget of big cost overruns that persistently 
happened on large construction projects. So I am proud of that blue 
line. I am not proud of the red one. That is the one Senator Feinstein 
is talking about. This is $1 trillion, but on top of that is $3 
trillion. That is the automatic spending.
  There has been very little courage shown on the Republican side of 
the aisle or on the Democratic side of the aisle. We make big speeches 
sometimes about the blue line, which isn't a problem, but very few 
speeches about the red line that are as straightforward as Senator 
Feinstein's remarks today.
  We have a responsibility to taxpayers, to ourselves, and to the next 
generation to deal with this line because that is the line which is 
causing the Joint Chiefs of Staff to say that our Federal debt is our 
biggest national security problem, which is quite a thing to say in a 
world as unsafe as we have today.
  I thank the Senator from California. Her prestige in the Chamber 
makes her remarks today even more important. I look forward to working 
with her to gradually bring this red line under control while we still 
can.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 3813 to Amendment No. 3801

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Murray, I call up 
Murray amendment No. 3813 and ask unanimous consent that it be reported 
by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendment by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for Mrs. 
     Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 3813 to amendment No. 
     3801.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To add a provision relating to certain requirements in the 
       acquisition of welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain)

       At the end of title I, add the following:
       Sec. 1__.  None of the funds made available by this title 
     may be used for any acquisition that is not consistent with 
     section 225.7007 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, is it appropriate for me to speak on 
the Murray amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I say to the body that I support this 
amendment. The Murray amendment would reinforce ``Buy American'' 
provisions that have been in place for decades. These provisions say 
that when American tax dollars are being spent, the preference should 
be to buy American products.
  Despite current Federal regulations, there are concerns that the 
Corps of Engineers is circumventing these ``Buy American'' provisions 
and acquiring welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain manufactured by 
foreign sources. The Murray amendment simply reiterates current 
requirements to support American-made products, echoing language from 
our colleagues in the House and the 2016 appropriations bill.
  The amendment is good for families and workers across the country, 
and I urge this body to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, Murray amendment No. 3813 simply 
restates an existing regulation, so I have no objection to it. I am 
going to vote for it.
  I yield back all time.

[[Page 5011]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3813.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Graham), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), and the Senator from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 60 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--38

     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Coats
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Boxer
     Cruz
     Graham
     Merkley
     Sanders
     Toomey
     Vitter
  The amendment (No. 3813) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


Amendments Nos. 3841; 3842; 3851; 3843; 3844; 3808; 3869, as modified; 
                     and 3870 to Amendment No. 3801

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from 
California and myself, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number: Reed, No. 3841; 
Feinstein, No. 3842; Warner, No. 3851; McCain, No. 3843; Rounds, No. 
3844; Murkowski, No. 3808; McCain, No. 3869, as modified; and Carper, 
No. 3870.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Alexander], for others, 
     proposes amendments numbered 3841; 3842; 3851; 3843; 3844; 
     3808; 3869, as modified; and 3870 en bloc to amendment No. 
     3801.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3841

(Purpose: To transfer funding to the Weatherization Assistance Program 
            account from the Building Technologies account)

       On page 23, line 15, before the period at the end, insert 
     the following: ``: Provided further, That of such amount 
     $220,600,000 shall be available for the Weatherization 
     Assistance Program, of which $6,000,000 shall be derived by 
     transfer from the amount otherwise available for Building 
     Technologies.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3842

 (Purpose: To modify the deadline for the completion of a feasibility 
  study relating to the Sites Reservoir in Colusa County, California)

       At the end of title II, add the following:
       Sec. 2__.  Section 205 of the Energy and Water Development 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 
     114-113;129 Stat. 2242), is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``feasibility studies described in clauses 
     (i)(II) and (ii)(I)'' and inserting ``feasibility study 
     described in clause (i)(II)''; and
       (B) by striking ``such studies'' and inserting ``such 
     study'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (4) and (5), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) not later than November 30, 2017, complete and submit 
     to the appropriate committees of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate the feasibility study described in section 
     103(d)(1)(A)(ii)(I) of the Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization Act 
     (Public Law 108-361; 118 Stat. 1684);''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3851

  (Purpose: To ensure that certain amounts are used to implement the 
                     requirements of the DATA Act)

       On page 56, line 13, strike the period at the end and 
     insert the following: ``: Provided further, That of the 
     amounts appropriated under this heading, not less than 
     $543,000 shall be used to implement the requirements of the 
     Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (Public 
     Law 113-101; 128 Stat. 1146).''


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3843

(Purpose: To require the Western Area Power Administration to prepare a 
      report on the use of certain provisions in power contracts)

       At the end of title III, add the following:
       Sec. 3___. (a) Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Western Area 
     Power Administration shall submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a report that--
       (1) examines the use of a provision described in subsection 
     (b) in any power contracts of the Western Area Power 
     Administration that were executed before or on the date of 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (2) explains the circumstances for not including a 
     provision described in subsection (b) in power contracts of 
     the Western Area Power Administration executed before or on 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) A provision referred to in subsection (a) is a 
     termination clause described in section 11 of the general 
     power contract provisions of the Western Power 
     Administration, effective September 1, 2007.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3844

  (Purpose: To make certain funds available for Upper Missouri River 
                  Basin flood and drought monitoring)

       At the end of title I, add the following:
       Sec. 1__.  Of the amounts made available under this title 
     for operation and maintenance, $2,000,000 shall be available 
     for Upper Missouri River Basin flood and drought monitoring 
     under section 4003(a) of the Water Resources Reform and 
     Development Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-121; 128 Stat. 1310).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3808

   (Purpose: To improve a program relating to remote and subsistence 
                                harbors)

       At the end of title I, add the following:
       Sec. 1__.  Section 2006 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2242) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting ``in which the 
     project is located or of a community that is located in the 
     region that is served by the project and that will rely on 
     the project'' after ``community''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or of a community that 
     is located in the region to be served by the project and that 
     will rely on the project'' after ``community'';
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``local population'' and 
     inserting ``regional population to be served by the 
     project''; and
       (C) in paragraph (5), by striking ``community'' and 
     inserting ``local community or to a community that is located 
     in the region to be served by the project and that will rely 
     on the project''.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 3869, as modified

 (Purpose: To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study 
       and develop a plan for the removal of invasive salt cedar)

       At the end of title II, add the following:
       Sec. 2__. (a) The Secretary of the Interior, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, may enter into an agreement with the National 
     Academy of Sciences under which the National Academy of 
     Sciences shall conduct a comprehensive study, to be completed 
     not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, on the effectiveness and environmental impact of salt 
     cedar control efforts (including biological control) in 
     increasing water supplies, restoring riparian habitat, and 
     improving flood management.
       (b) Not later than 1 year after the date of completion of 
     the study under subsection (a), the Secretary of the 
     Interior, in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     may prepare a plan for the removal of salt cedar from all 
     Federal land in the Lower Colorado River basin based on the 
     findings and recommendations of the study conducted by the 
     National Academy of Sciences that includes--
       (1) provisions for revegetating Federal land with native 
     vegetation;
       (2) provisions for adapting to the increasing presence of 
     biological control in the Lower Colorado River basin;

[[Page 5012]]

       (3) provisions for removing salt cedar from Federal land 
     during post-wildfire recovery activities;
       (4) strategies for developing partnerships with State, 
     tribal, and local governmental entities in the eradication of 
     salt cedar; and
       (5) budget estimates and completion timelines for the 
     implementation of plan elements.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3870

(Purpose: To allow certain funds for shore protection to be prioritized 
                         for certain projects)

       On page 3, line 21, before the period at the end, insert 
     the following: ``: Provided, That funds made available under 
     this heading for shore protection may be prioritized for 
     projects in areas that have suffered severe beach erosion 
     requiring additional sand placement outside of the normal 
     beach renourishment cycle or in which the normal beach 
     renourishment cycle has been delayed''.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now vote on these amendments en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on these 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 3841; 3842; 3851; 3843; 3844; 3808; 3869, as 
modified; and 3870) were agreed to.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader, Senator 
McConnell, the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, and my colleague, 
Senator Feinstein.
  What we have done is approved eight more amendments by Senators with 
a voice vote, and we have already agreed to have three more votes at 11 
a.m. tomorrow. We are making good progress. We hope to continue to do 
that and wrap up the bill soon.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to support two crucial 
programs important to Utah and the West in the Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill pending before us.
  The bill includes $10 million for the Central Utah Project in the 
Department of the Interior. This funding makes great strides in 
supporting rural water infrastructure. Over the decades-long life of 
this project, I have always advocated for appropriate funding levels to 
ensure timely completion of this project.
  This vital program was authorized in the 1956 Colorado River Storage 
Project Act and allows the State of Utah to develop its share of the 
Colorado River for irrigation and water supply. This program also 
reaches into five other States and provides for construction of water 
delivery infrastructure.
  Over the past few years, the Obama administration has constantly 
tried to underfund the Central Utah Project, but Senator Alexander and 
Senator Feinstein have been able to restore funding to levels that 
enable construction to move forward.
  Continuing funding for this project is important to taxpayers. Once 
the project is built and begins to deliver water, the people of Utah 
will start to repay their share of the costs to the Treasury.
  This funding also allows mitigation work to continue, which restores 
and protects lands that are important to fish and wildlife that have 
been impacted by Federal water development for this project.
  While we all wish additional funding were available for the important 
projects in our State, I believe that Senator Alexander and Senator 
Feinstein have done a good job in balancing priorities, and I 
appreciate them including funding to continue this vital program.
  Another important program funded in this bill is the section 595 
environmental infrastructure program in the Corps of Engineers.
  Section 595 is a program that provides funding to rural areas in 
Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming for water 
construction projects.
  The bill includes $10 million for this program, which the Corps of 
Engineers will allocate competitively among the eligible States.
  Section 595 funding is particularly important for projects in rural 
areas surrounded by Federal lands. Often, local sponsors can't meet the 
general 50/50 cost share required for construction projects, but 
section 595 reduces the non-Federal cost-share.
  An example of where this program made a big difference in my State is 
in the small town of Escalante, where section 595 funds were used to 
rehabilitate and enlarge the Wide Hollow Reservoir.
  Before the project began, irrigation water that was held in the 
reservoir only lasted until mid-July, leaving most farmers with wilted 
crops during the heat of the summer.
  The Corps of Engineers provided $5.5 million under the section 595 
program, which was matched with nearly $8 million in State grants and 
loans.
  Today, because of Section 595, Escalante farmers can expect to 
receive water throughout the growing season, which allows them to 
harvest hay and other critical crops that, in the past, they would have 
had to purchase.
  There are projects just like Wide Hollow Reservoir throughout the 
State of Utah--in fact, all throughout the West--and taxpayers can be 
assured that the $10 million provided in the Energy and Water bill will 
be put to good use.
  I appreciate Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein working with me 
to include these critical funds, especially given the tight budgets 
that we face this year and the competing priorities they had to 
consider.
  To conclude, Mr. President, I believe that the Energy and Water bill 
that Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein have before the Senate is 
a balanced, prioritized bill that includes important priorities not 
only for my State of Utah, but also for the Nation and I urge its 
passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


      Honoring Nebraska's Soldiers Who Lost Their Lives In Combat

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to continue my tribute to 
Nebraska's heroes and the current generation of men and women who lost 
their lives defending our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Each of these Nebraskans has a special story to tell. Throughout this 
year and beyond, I will continue to honor their memory here on the 
Senate floor.


                  Master Sergeant Linda Tarango-Griess

  Mr. President, today, I wish to highlight the life of MSG Linda 
Tarango-Griess of Sutton, NE.
  Linda was known to everyone as one proud soldier. From an early age, 
she was disciplined and focused on the future. Her Aunt Marie remembers 
this future soldier as ``a great kid'' who was always helping others. 
Marie would know because she raised Linda from the age of 11.
  Linda attended Kearney High School, where she enjoyed playing 
softball and volleyball. She was also active in the Big Brothers Big 
Sisters program.
  Linda's willingness to serve as a role model and mentor for others 
came as no surprise to those who knew her. As one of her high school 
classmates recalled, Linda was ``someone who always had a smile and a 
positive attitude.''
  After graduating from Kearney High School in 1989, Linda was 
determined to go to college, but she struggled to find a way to pay for 
it. She learned about tuition assistance opportunities offered by the 
National Guard and she decided to enlist.
  Through the National Guard, Linda discovered her passion for being a 
soldier in the U.S. military. It also allowed her to complete her 
college education.
  Linda graduated from the University of Nebraska in Kearney with a 
degree in criminal justice.
  As part of her service, Linda was required to train one weekend a 
month in York, NE. It was there that Linda met her soulmate, Doug 
Griess. After dating for a few years, they were married in 1994.
  For the next several years, the young couple formed a new bond and 
they began planning for the future while continuing their service in 
the National Guard.

[[Page 5013]]

  Less than a decade after they were married, their roles in the 
military would bring them both to the frontlines of a new war a world 
away from home in Iraq. Linda and Doug wondered which of them would be 
called up first. Then the news came for Linda to deploy with the 267th 
Ordnance Company.
  After deployment training, the 267th arrived at Camp Speicher near 
Tikrit, Iraq, in February of 2004. As one of the unit's senior 
sergeants, Linda's helpful nature and her insistence on doing every job 
well quickly stood out. Her professionalism and caring nature boosted 
the morale of her platoon.
  An officer from a nearby unit said Linda ``was always a true 
professional--not only a mentor but also a friend. She served her 
country honorably.''
  The summer of 2004 was shaping up to be a complicated period. Doug 
was at annual training back home, and rumors were flying about his unit 
deploying. At the same time, Linda was planning to return home on leave 
to be with Doug and her family for a short time.
  On July 10, Doug's unit received deployment orders. The following 
day, on July 11, 2004, the unthinkable happened. Linda was driving in a 
convoy through a high-threat area in Samarra, Iraq. The convoy was 
attacked by Al Qaeda insurgents, and Linda's vehicle took a direct hit 
from an improvised explosive device. Linda and another soldier were 
killed.
  She was only 2 weeks from returning to Nebraska.
  Doug was at home with his friends discussing their upcoming 
deployment. Suddenly, a car pulled up with three soldiers dressed in 
Class A uniforms, and Doug knew why they were there.
  Linda was buried in Sutton, NE, and over 1,000 mourners traveled to 
this small town in Central Nebraska to honor this brave soldier. A 
month later, Doug deployed to Iraq with his unit. His grief over the 
loss of Linda was held at bay for a year as he focused on his mission 
and his fellow soldiers. Linda would have wanted it that way. Doug's 
commitment to fulfilling his oath and serving his Nation would have 
made her proud.
  MSG Linda Tarango-Griess was the first woman to lose her life in 
combat while serving in the Nebraska National Guard. She earned the 
Purple Heart, the Bronze Star, and was promoted posthumously to Master 
Sergeant.
  Doug would later remarry, and he is now the proud father of three 
wonderful children. Linda's Aunt Marie lives in Lincoln, where she is 
active in Yellow Ribbon activities for troops serving abroad. Linda's 
sister Vicki lives in North Platte with her three children, not far 
from her brother Augie and her father Augustin.
  To this day, one of Linda's cousins keeps an email from Linda that 
was sent before she departed on her final mission. In the email, Linda 
proudly describes how her platoon competed in a 5-mile run which the 
267th nicknamed the ``Desert Dash.'' Linda said: ``None of us won the 
race, but in our hearts we are winners, our reward is the self-
satisfaction for just finishing the race.''
  I hope all Nebraskans remember her as an example of what it means to 
serve our Nation with bravery, compassion, and joy.
  MSG Linda Tarango-Griess is a hero. She embodied the grit and 
determination of an American soldier, and I am honored to tell her 
story.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Nomination of Jessica Rosenworcel

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we have a great opportunity in the 
Senate to recognize and reconfirm an extraordinarily distinguished and 
dedicated public servant who happens to be from West Hartford, CT, 
Jessica Rosenworcel of the Federal Communications Commission.
  I understand there was an agreement as part of the approval of 
Commissioner O'Rielly and that Michael O'Rielly, in fact, was 
reconfirmed as part of a very unusual request that there be that 
agreement. The President renominated Ms. Rosenworcel for a new 5-year 
term in 2015, and she was easily and unanimously confirmed by the 
Commerce Committee. I think we ought to keep that agreement in the 
Senate, that anyone a party to that agreement when the Democratic 
leader, Senator Reid, agreed to reconfirm Republican FCC Commissioner 
Michael O'Rielly--that we ought to move forward. But apart from the 
politics and the internal agreements that may have been reached--and 
they deserve to be honored--Commissioner Rosenworcel is supremely well 
qualified, and she is needed on the Commission, which is sorely in need 
of her expertise and experience in specific areas.
  Let me give just a few examples. No. 1, as an example of her 
leadership, she led the effort to provide for writing rules that will 
enable enforcement of the 9/11 locating standards for all 9/11 services 
across the country. The GPS location services require those rules. She 
has written standards and will enable those standards to become the 
guiding light for all 9/11 services. That is important in cases of 
emergency. It is important in cases of physical and emotional trauma or 
crashes--an accident. It is important in cases of opioid or heroin 
overdoses, which are becoming increasingly prevalent across the 
country. In fact, in Connecticut and, my guess, Oklahoma and all across 
the country, there is an epidemic of opioid and heroin addiction 
tragically taking a toll in deaths and financial costs. When there are 
overdoses, the administration of Narcan or naloxone within a limited 
period of time may be the difference between life and death and, in 
fact, can bring people back from the brink of death.
  Those types of location standards will help emergency responders go 
to the places they are needed. The standards applied to the 9/11 
services that enable the first responders to go to those places are a 
result of the work that Commissioner Rosenworcel has done on the FCC. 
That is only one example of the kind of work she has done.
  She has been outspoken on the cruel struggle faced by students left 
out of the broadband revolution, as countless are in areas that have no 
Internet access at home and face obstacles, literally, to complete 
homework they are given at school and to apply for scholarships they 
need financially. Today, roughly 7 in 10 teachers assign homework that 
requires access to broadband, but the data from the FCC suggests that 
almost 1 in 3 households lacks subscriptions to broadband services. 
They simply do not subscribe to those services at any speed with any 
server due to lack of affordability and, frankly, lack of interest.
  Ms. Rosenworcel has made this ``homework gap''--a term, by the way, 
that she coined--one of her top priorities and has pushed all of us to 
think creatively to provide all students with the connectivity they 
need for a fair chance to succeed. That is really the American dream--a 
fair chance to succeed, closing the gap that results from this lack of 
access to the Internet, which in turn creates a homework gap and a 
scholarship gap and generally deprives those students of a fair chance.
  As Commissioner, Ms. Rosenworcel has visited schools across the 
country in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, and many more and witnessed how 
the Internet can support greater learning opportunities and also how 
limited broadband capacity prevents students from developing the skills 
essential for them to compete in the global, digital economy. Drawing 
from these experiences and her experience in the Senate working on this 
program, she called for an E-Rate 2.0 to ensure that the E-Rate Program 
is reinvigorated to meet the future connectivity needs for libraries 
and schools through stronger broadband capacity standards and robust 
funding. That robust funding is an investment this Nation needs to 
make.
  She is continuing the legacy of Senator Rockefeller to fight for 
strong public safety, not only on the FCC 9/11

[[Page 5014]]

rules, which keep communities safe and provide emergency responders the 
ability they need to go to places where there are overdoses or other 
health emergencies, but she has also worked on a bipartisan policy, a 
spectrum policy leading the FCC to raise recordbreaking amounts in the 
last year's wireless spectrum auction and ensuring that there is more 
than enough to fully fund FirstNet, the nationwide interoperability 
network for public safety officials to communicate during emergencies.
  She has taken her own time--and she has a young family--on multiple 
occasions when she is back home in Connecticut to join me in helping to 
educate wireless customers and consumers on what they can do to avoid 
cramming--those are the charges on phone bills that consumers never 
consent to and never know about in many instances--and where they can 
go to seek refunds when they are victims of these kinds of cramming 
scams. She has been a champion of consumer interest on cramming 
refunds, on preventing cramming, and on helping to reach wise and 
prudent settlements with the carriers.
  She has joined me to call on telephone companies to offer consumers 
new tools to block robocalls. What I find--and it is a relevant point 
during the campaign season in which we find ourselves--is that voters, 
consumers, residents, people from all walks of life in both parties, 
and a lot with no party at all, deeply resent the robocalling we see so 
often. Those robocalls come from commercial interests and sometimes 
from political interests. I approve banning robocalls. Whether or not 
we agree to ban them, consumers ought to have the ability to block them 
if they choose to. That is the cause she has championed with me.
  I deeply respect her commitment to consumer interests. She is widely 
acknowledged for her keen judgment and insight on all these issues, 
advancing smart telecommunications policy for the public benefit.
  She is a graduate of Wesleyan University and New York University Law 
School. Her career has been about telecommunications law, which 
included time as senior communications counsel for the Senate Commerce 
Committee under the leadership of both Senator Rockefeller and Senator 
Inouye.
  In her time on the Commission, she has been a champion of consumers, 
students, emergency responders, of everyday working men and women who 
deserve the best system and protection of their interests when it comes 
to telecommunications.
  There was an agreement that ought to be respected, but as important 
or even more important than an agreement, she deserves and the country 
needs for her to serve as a Commissioner.
  I urge my colleagues to reconfirm her swiftly and overwhelmingly so 
that she can continue to do this vital and important work she has been 
doing.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for 
the Alexander substitute amendment No. 3801.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Senate amendment 
     No. 3801 to Calendar No. 96, H.R. 2028, an act making 
     appropriations for energy and water development and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and 
     for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Lamar Alexander, Jerry Moran, John 
           Boozman, Steve Daines, Richard Burr, Roy Blunt, Orrin 
           G. Hatch, John Hoeven, John Thune, Thad Cochran, Roger 
           F. Wicker, Mark Kirk, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, 
           Johnny Isakson, Pat Roberts.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for 
the underlying bill, H.R. 2028.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 96, 
     H.R. 2028, an act making appropriations for energy and water 
     development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Lamar Alexander, Jerry Moran, John 
           Boozman, Steve Daines, Richard Burr, Roy Blunt, Orrin 
           G. Hatch, John Hoeven, John Thune, Thad Cochran, Roger 
           F. Wicker, Mark Kirk, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, 
           Johnny Isakson, Pat Roberts.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum calls with respect to the cloture motions be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the filing deadline for 
all first-degree amendments to both the Alexander substitute amendment 
No. 3801 and the underlying bill, H.R. 2028, be at 2:30 p.m., Tuesday, 
April 26.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________