[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5034-5042]
[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 senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page 5035]]

       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. Under the previous order, the time until 11 
a.m. will be equally divided between the two managers or their 
designees.
  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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Zika Virus

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, by now we have all seen reports of the 
neurological damage that is done by the Zika virus. We have seen the 
damage it can do to newborn infants. It has been clinically linked to 
serious birth defects in pregnant women who contract it.
  Since the start of the outbreak, nearly 900 Americans in 41 States, 
Washington, DC, and 3 U.S. territories--including over 80 pregnant 
women--have already contracted Zika. In my State of Illinois, 13 people 
have already tested positive, including at least two pregnant women.
  But because we have the best scientists and researchers in the world 
at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we know more today 
about the virus and prevention measures than we did when most of us 
first heard the word ``Zika'' a few months ago.
  We know that mosquitoes spread the disease. We know that the arrival 
of warm weather signals the start of mosquito season, but America is 
currently unprepared to deal with an outbreak of this dangerous virus. 
We must improve vector control. We must expand access to family 
planning, education, and contraception. We must accelerate efforts to 
develop a vaccine as quickly as humanly possible.
  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention desperately needs 
funding to deal with this crisis, and they need it now before the 
summer months, when mosquitoes spread north across the United States.
  Congress has failed to even consider President Obama's emergency Zika 
funding request. What on Earth is Congress waiting for?
  Last week Senate Democrats sent a letter to Senate Republican 
leadership calling for immediate action to pass the Zika supplemental 
request. I hope this call for action will be heard by all of my 
Republican colleagues, but I especially hope that it resonates with my 
colleagues from the Southern States. These are the States that are the 
most likely to be hit first and hardest by the Zika mosquito virus: 
Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, and the list 
goes on.
  In the absence of congressional action--immediate congressional 
action--the administration has been forced to divert funding and 
resources away from other important public health efforts in order to 
respond to Zika.
  This morning's Washington Post headline in a few words tells the 
story: ``Zika crisis costs states funds for emergency preparedness.'' 
What does that mean? The President asked for this supplemental request 
weeks ago. The refusal of the Republican-led Congress to respond to the 
President's request for emergency public health funds to fight Zika 
means that we are cutting back on public health preparedness in States 
all across the Nation. Frankly, we are endangering people whom we 
represent because the Republican majority in Congress refuses to give 
the President his supplemental request to deal with the Zika virus. For 
instance, the administration just had to divert $2 million in public 
health emergency preparedness grants away from Illinois in order to 
fight Zika in Southern States.
  Well, let me tell you, I want to help people everywhere, including 
those in Southern States who are likely to be hit first, but not at the 
expense of the public health of the people I represent.
  There is an answer. President Obama suggests it--an emergency public 
health supplemental for the Zika virus.
  The Republican majority in Congress has refused to act. Both the 
Illinois Department of Public Health and the Chicago Department of 
Public Health received grants to prepare for and to respond to all 
kinds of public outbreaks, such as Ebola, Zika, and Elizabethkingia, 
which I will talk about in a moment. These cuts, which are being 
proposed in order to have the administration have enough resources to 
respond, are unacceptable and unexplainable.
  They come at a time when Illinois, my State, is in the middle of the 
longest budget crisis in our State's history. This current Governor has 
been unable to reach an agreement on a budget for almost 11 months, 
making it difficult for Illinois families and State agencies in 
ordinary circumstances.
  But because congressional Republican leaders have failed to pass a 
Zika emergency public health supplemental requested by President Obama, 
the administration has had to divert money away from States such as 
Illinois to respond to the threat of the Zika virus in other States. Is 
this any way to govern a great Nation?
  Illinois should not have to lose precious funding to deal with public 
health threats because Republican congressional leaders--from Southern 
states, I might add--have refused to pass the necessary additional 
funding to deal with Zika, a virus that will likely impact their States 
first and hardest.
  We have to do both. We should pass the Zika supplemental so Illinois 
and other States can keep the funding they need to deal with current 
public health threats and receive additional funding to deal with Zika.
  Let me talk about why diverting $2 million from my State of Illinois 
to Southern States for Zika is a challenge.
  Last week the Illinois Department of Public Health and the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed 10 cases of a bacterial 
infection known as Elizabethkingia. It has resulted in six deaths in my 
State. This bacterial outbreak is separate from an outbreak in 
Wisconsin that resulted in over 60 cases of this infection. So in the 
middle of this outbreak, Illinois is losing 8 percent in core funding 
for public health contingencies because of the failure of Republican 
leaders in Congress to pass President Obama's emergency public health 
supplemental appropriation.
  This means that the Illinois State Department of health is not going 
to be as prepared as it should be to conduct the needed epidemiology, 
laboratory testing, and outbreak control. And four of our health 
experts say there will be major cuts that hurt our ability to respond 
to public health crises. What happens tomorrow if there is another 
outbreak?
  Last year our State dealt with unexpected serious outbreaks of 
Legionnaires' disease. Taking money from one State's public health 
defense effort to give it to another to deal with a public health 
threat makes no sense in a great nation, particularly when the 
President showed the appropriate leadership in asking for the $1.9 
billion emergency supplemental to deal with the Zika crisis, and the 
President asked over 2 months ago.
  I know many Republicans are in denial when it comes to climate 
change, but if they would have been in Springfield, IL, my home, last 
Sunday--just 2 days ago--sitting out on the deck in 80-degree weather 
in April, they might understand warm weather is coming sooner across 
the United States and with that warm weather, mosquitoes, and with 
those mosquitoes, the threat of the Zika virus.
  I don't come to raise an alarm that is unmerited and unwarranted. I 
believe

[[Page 5036]]

this is a serious public health challenge, so serious we should not 
leave Congress this week and take a recess without passing the 
President's emergency budget supplemental for public health and the 
Zika virus. The mosquitoes are not going to be on recess next week, 
they are going to be working, and sadly they are going to be infecting 
people across the South and across the United States while 
congressional leaders dither.
  The supplemental request would provide more than $1.8 billion in 
emergency funding to improve CDC vector control to control the 
mosquitoes that threaten us. It would accelerate efforts at the 
National Institutes of Health to develop a vaccine. I have heard 
testimony, so I know it takes time to develop a vaccine. Let's do it in 
an expeditious, safe, thoughtful, and professional way, but let us not 
shortchange NIH or any other agency that is facing this crisis.
  We need to expand education. We need to expand access to women's 
health planning services. The administration provided a comprehensive 
plan. It cannot be implemented successfully without resources, and we 
should act on it this week--get it done before we leave.
  I joined my colleagues Senator Nelson, Leader Reid, Senator Schumer, 
and Senator Hirono in introducing a bill to fully fund the 
administration's request. I am pleased to hear my Republican colleagues 
on the Committee on Appropriations are interested in working with 
Democrats to reach a deal. I see Senator Alexander on the floor. I know 
he is sensitive to this, and I hope he will join in calling for 
leadership on both sides of the Rotunda to move on this issue before we 
take our recess.
  Let us not delay this any longer. We need to ensure we aren't 
diverting necessary Ebola money to be used for the Zika virus. It is 
naive to believe the Ebola threat is gone and we can ignore the 
possibility of its reemergence. In my State and others, we know all too 
well what happens when you divert money from one public health fund to 
another.
  This brings to mind the Biblical story of Noah and the great flood. 
Noah built the arc before the rain, not after it started. It is 
reckless, it is dangerous to delay. The cases of Zika are continuing to 
grow, and inaction and further delay put many families, pregnant women, 
and children in jeopardy.
  We have seen the Zika threat coming for many months. We have had the 
President's request for over 2 months. I urge my colleagues this week, 
before we go home, to take this appropriate action to begin to protect 
Americans in every State.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, at 11 a.m. we will have three votes on 
the Merkley, Flake, and Reid amendments. That will bring to a total of 
17 the number of amendments we will have disposed of on the floor.
  Senator Feinstein and I have worked with Members on both sides of the 
aisle to include many of their policy suggestions and requests in our 
basic bill. The last count I saw said 77 Members of the Senate had at 
least part of their requests or policy suggestions in our basic bill. 
So we are doing very well. Cloture has been filed. There are only a few 
amendments remaining that are in question. We hope to conclude that 
quickly and bring the bill to a conclusion.
  My hope is that when a Senator has a germane amendment, we can have a 
vote. Sometimes, if they are controversial, they will be at 60. We have 
done pretty well with that so far--giving Senators a chance to have a 
say and to have a vote.
  I would like to spend about 4 or 5 minutes on an amendment we will be 
voting on at 11, when we will have limited time to talk--unless Senator 
Feinstein has something she would like to say before I do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, as I understand it, the filing deadline for first-
degree amendments is this afternoon at either 1:30 p.m. or 2:30 p.m. So 
everybody should get their amendments in.
  I thank Senator Alexander again for the cooperative spirit with which 
he is working on this bill. It is very much appreciated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I want to speak to the amendment from 
the Senator from Oregon, which would increase the funding for the wind 
energy program by $15.4 million. This is in addition to the $30 million 
that our subcommittee has recommended at the request of Senator Gardner 
of Colorado for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the $50 
million Senator Collins of Maine has recommended for offshore wind 
research. Within the priorities in the bill, we have already put $80 
million, and this would add $15 million more.
  That may not seem like much, but here is my question: I wonder if the 
American taxpayers wouldn't think that $23 billion is enough to spend 
on giant windmills--$23 billion. That is the amount the Congressional 
Research Service has said Congress has spent of taxpayer money to 
subsidize wealthy people so they can build giant wind turbines across 
America. That money has been spent from 1992 through 2016 this year. It 
started out as an effort to help wind turbines get started in 1992, and 
it has been renewed 10 times. You would think this is a mature 
industry. In fact, the previous Energy Secretary said it was.
  What do we get for this $23 billion? Four percent of our electricity 
is produced by wind turbines in the United States. This is a country 
that uses 25 percent of all the electricity in the world, and we spend 
$23 billion for 4 percent of our electricity. Thirty-seven percent of 
all the subsidies, all the spending we have for different forms of 
energy produces 4 percent of the electricity.
  The President of the United States and a number of private people in 
the United States, such as Bill Gates, have announced they would like 
to double energy research. I support that. The Senator from Illinois, 
Mr. Durbin, and I introduced legislation that would authorize increased 
funding at the level of 7 percent for energy research this year so we 
can move more rapidly toward the goal of doubling research for energy.
  We spend $5 billion a year for energy research for the U.S. 
Government. We spend nearly $5 billion a year on subsidizing wealthy 
people so they can build giant wind turbines. We spend as much 
subsidizing windmills as we spend on all our energy research. If we 
stop the subsidies, we could double the research, which is what we 
should be doing.
  What are we getting for this? We are getting energy--electricity--
that is true, but it mostly blows at night, when we don't need it. It 
can't be stored for use when we do need it. So it is unreliable. The 
wind only blows about one-third of the time. In Tennessee it is 18 
percent of the time. It can't be stored and we don't need it. We don't 
need it. At the same time, it destroys the landscape.
  I am astonished at the environmental groups that would support 
putting these huge giant turbines in the most beautiful part of our 
country and then building transmission lines across the country through 
everybody's backyard.
  If we replace the 100 nuclear reactors in this country that produce 
60 percent of the carbon-free electricity we have--60 percent of the 
carbon-free electricity--it would take enough windmills to cover a 
State the size of West Virginia, and I think you would have to have 
about 17,000 miles, 19,000 miles of new transmission lines.
  The Presiding Officer is the Senator from Arkansas. In Arkansas, a 
windmill company is building 700 miles of transmission lines across 
Arkansas that the State doesn't want and has objected to. Yet the 
administration is allowing the wind mill company to use Federal 
preemption for the first time to build transmission lines where people 
don't want them.
  Not only is this a wasteful amount of money, not only is it a kind of 
energy that a country this big cannot rely on,

[[Page 5037]]

the size of the subsidies create preposterous results. For example, in 
some cases the subsidy is so large the windmill-producing companies pay 
the utilities to take their power and they still make a profit. They 
can pay the utilities to take their power and still make a profit 
because the taxpayers have spent $23 billion subsidizing wealthy people 
so they can build windmills.
  These aren't your grandma's windmills. You can see them for 20 miles 
away--the flashing lights. They are twice as tall as the football 
stadium at the University of Tennessee, and only one of these would fit 
within the football stadium at the University of Tennessee.
  It would take four nuclear reactors, each taking about 1 square mile, 
to produce enough electricity to equal the same amount of electricity 
produced by wind if you strung 45-foot windmill towers along the entire 
2,178-mile stretch of the Appalachian Trail. You may say that is a 
stretch, that will not happen, except that is exactly where the wind 
towers would be most likely to go--on our scenic mountain tops where 
more wind blows, and then the transmission lines come down the mountain 
tops through your backyard.
  My objection is a very simple one. I think $23 billion is enough to 
spend on windmills. I have other objections to wind. I think we should 
focus on nuclear power instead of unreliable wind power. I believe 
trying to use wind turbines to power a country that uses 25 percent of 
all the electricity in the world is the energy equivalent of going to 
war in sailboats when the nuclear navy is available, but I certainly 
think there is no need at all for Senators to say yes to an amendment 
that spends more money for wind than our subcommittee recommended. We 
are already spending $23 billion. The taxpayers have been bamboozled 
into allowing that to happen, and I don't think they would want us to 
spend more.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of Flake 
amendment No. 3820, which would lower the construction appropriation 
for the U.S. Corps of Engineers by just under $69 million and eliminate 
funding for environmental infrastructure projects.
  Ostensibly, the Corps of Engineers uses these funds to build water 
supply, water treatment, and wastewater projects. I am not here to 
argue against the need for environmental infrastructure projects. There 
are a great many municipalities that consider these projects essential 
and have made an effort to fund them on their own. That is usually done 
through a combination of utility bills and municipal bonds. Typically, 
the users pay for this.
  However, despite the fact that these projects have traditionally been 
funded by State and local governments, Federal support is actually 
duplicative. The Federal Government already offers resources for 
similar projects through the EPA. Specifically, the Clean Water State 
Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs 
provide States with low-interest loans based on the merits of these 
projects and the needs of the communities.
  Taxpayers deserve better than to be expected to provide the U.S. 
Corps of Engineers $69 million it never asked for to fund projects they 
already support in a program that has been described by many as a slush 
fund for parochial interests. That is certainly how the program started 
years ago. Frankly, it has never seemed clear that the Corps of 
Engineers understands how these projects fit into its mission. Because 
of a years-old congressional carve-out, these environmental 
undertakings are not subject to the environmental studies, economic 
analyses, and cost-effectiveness standards that are required for more 
traditional Corps projects. As far as I can tell, there is really no 
rhyme or reason as to how one project gets funding over another.
  With a national debt of over $19 trillion, it is time that we get a 
little more serious about putting our fiscal house in order. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment and eliminate this duplicative 
funding.
  Mr. President, I wish to say a couple words about Reid-Heller 
amendment No. 3805.
  I support the Colorado River System Conservation Program. Voluntary 
efforts like these in Arizona are estimated to have kept Lake Mead at 
about 3 feet higher than it would have been otherwise. Not 
coincidentally, last week the Bureau of Reclamation announced that at 
the end of this year, Lake Mead is predicted to be 3 feet above the 
level that would trigger a shortage declaration. What I want to make 
sure happens is that any conserved water actually stays in Lake Mead 
and keeps these levels up above the shortage declaration area.
  I note that this amendment simply authorizes funds to go to the 
conservation program. I hope that before this money is actually spent, 
we can develop assurances that the water will go to its intended 
purpose. The Lower Colorado River Basin States have developed such 
language, and I look forward to ensuring that our Federal dollars are 
well spent in this area.


                Amendment No. 3820 to Amendment No. 3801

  Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3820 and ask unanimous 
consent that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendment by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Flake] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3820 to amendment No. 3801.

  The amendment is as follows:

      (Purpose: To withhold certain funds for the construction of 
                     environmental infrastructure)

       On page 3, line 11, strike ``$1,813,649,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,744,699,000''.

  Mr. FLAKE. I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                Amendment No. 3812 to Amendment No. 3801

           (Purpose: To provide for funding for wind energy)

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3812.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Merkley] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3812 to amendment No. 3801.

       On page 23, line 15, strike the period at the end and 
     insert the following: ``:  Provided further, That of such 
     amount, $95,400,000 shall be available for wind energy.''.

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I wish to add a few remarks about this, 
as we are preparing shortly to consider a number of amendments.
  This particular amendment is a bipartisan amendment, which I am 
pleased to sponsor with my partner from Iowa, stating that wind energy 
is particularly important. This amendment would restore funding for 
wind energy research to fiscal year 2016 levels of $95.4 million. 
Otherwise, research in wind energy would suffer a substantial 
reduction.
  This program is indispensable to the success of wind energy in the 
United States. The wind energy program works to advance innovations in 
the grid integration, manufacturing, and deployment that are key to 
reducing the cost of wind energy. For example, the Wind Program helps 
to address market barriers through including wind-forecasting tools in 
power system operations, which helps utilities and regulators better 
integrate large amounts of wind energy into the grid. The Wind Program 
provides research, development, and technical support to manufacturers 
and distributors of wind technologies that are still emerging. This 
enhances small wind manufacturing, supports offshore demonstration 
projects, and will improve the economic viability of distributed wind.
  Currently, eight National Laboratories across our Nation conduct 
research or testing related to wind energy. The proposed fiscal year 
2017 funding level is only $80 million, which is over $15 million less 
than last year's funding--thwarting our ability to realize the true 
potential for wind energy.
  During debates, we have sometimes heard that wind is a mature 
industry and that is why the funding for research should be revoked or 
lowered.

[[Page 5038]]

But in fact, as wind is emerging, we are seeing continuous innovations 
resulting in different designs and different strategies for integrating 
intermittent wind energy into the grid. As that wind component becomes 
substantially larger, we need to understand the details of how we 
accommodate it effectively. If we were to talk about mature industries, 
then we wouldn't be doing studies for the fossil fuel industry, which 
is about as mature as an industry can get. Clearly, this is an evolving 
industry with great potential to assist us with clean energy and, 
moreover, a program that can affect the economy of rural America.
  In 2015 wind energy supplied about 5 percent of the total electricity 
generated in the United States. So it is no longer just a fraction of a 
percent; it has grown enormously in the last few years. But the 
Department of Energy estimates that wind could provide as much as 35 
percent--or more than one-third--of the electricity generated in our 
country by the year 2050.
  As my colleague and partner on this bill, the Senator from Iowa, 
knows, wind energy can be a huge boon to a State's economy. Iowa is 
already getting over 30 percent of its electricity from wind. And 
because wind energy is less expensive in the forecast of potential 
other sources, it could result in billions of dollars of savings to 
energy consumers in that State.
  In my home State of Oregon, we already have over 10 percent of our 
electricity being generated from wind energy. The savings for our State 
down the road could be enormous, but we can only reach these goals if 
we support wind energy research.
  With the development of wind energy comes hundreds of thousands of 
jobs in manufacturing, in installation, in maintenance, and in 
supporting services. The estimate is around 600,000 jobs--generally 
good-paying jobs--by the year 2015.
  I do a lot of townhalls back home in Oregon, one in every county 
every year. Much of Oregon is very rural. I hear about the impact 
property taxes on these wind installations have on our rural counties, 
enabling them to do things--for example, to build libraries or assist 
in the development of their local schools. There is no question that 
this is a boon to the rural economy.
  It is our job in Congress to look at what policies will be the most 
successful and give the most bang for the buck in terms of creating 
jobs now and in the future. We should be supporting programs that spur 
economic development and support families in rural areas. That is what 
this amendment calls for. When we create jobs, local communities 
benefit, certainly the energy industry benefits, and our environment 
benefits. All of this depends upon robust research, and we are simply 
asking that research continue at the same level it did in fiscal year 
2016.
  Let's back red, white, and blue, American-made wind energy and 
support this bipartisan amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  There are now 2 minutes equally divided on amendment No. 3812.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we will be voting on amendment No. 3812, 
which my colleague from Iowa and I have put together to restore 
research on wind development to the level it was last year. When you 
see these wind turbines, what you should see is economic development in 
highly deserving rural communities, putting clean electrons onto the 
grid, putting jobs into the community, and putting money into the 
property tax coffers in local communities to do good work.
  I wish to reserve the rest of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Does the Senator from Tennessee wish to use his time on the 
amendment?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I do, but I will wait until the end.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If no one uses time, time will be charged 
equally to both sides.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, can I not reserve the rest of my time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not at this point.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, don't you think $23 billion is enough 
to spend on windmills? That is what we have spent since 1992--$23 
billion for 4 percent of America's electricity. This is electricity 
that is unreliable. The windmills blow about one-third of the time, 
often at night, and it can't be stored. We will spend $5 billion this 
year and $4.4 billion next year. We could double our energy research 
spending if we would stop subsidizing wealthy people to build giant 
wind turbines. Sixty percent of our carbon-free electricity comes from 
nuclear reactors. Relying on giant wind turbines and new transmission 
lines to power a country that uses 25 percent of all the electricity in 
the world is like going to war in sailboats when the nuclear Navy is 
available.
  We already have $80 million going to research, which Senator Gardner 
and Senator Collins have asked us to include in the legislation. It is 
in the bill. We don't need to spend more.
  We have already spent $23 billion since 1992. Spending $4 or $5 
billion a year is more than enough to spend on giant wind turbines.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Merkley amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, these subsidies are a tiny dot compared 
to the $52 billion spent annually on fossil fuel subsidies and the 
massive subsidies spent on nuclear. Yet these subsidies are creating 
jobs in rural America, and that matters. These communities need these 
jobs. These are clean electrons, these are terrific middle-class jobs, 
and this is an industry that is still on a curve where research is 
truly beneficial in making it a success.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  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) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 61 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tillis
     Vitter
     Wicker

[[Page 5039]]



                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cruz
     Sanders
     Toomey
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 3812) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                Amendment No. 3805 to Amendment No. 3801

  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Reid, I call up the 
Reid-Heller amendment No. 3805 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 Nevada [Mr. Heller], for Mr. Reid, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3805 to amendment No. 3801.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To make funding for water management improvement subject to a 
                               condition)

       In section 204, strike ``and inserting `$400,000,000''' and 
     insert ``and inserting `$450,000,000, on the condition that 
     of that amount, $50,000,000 is used to carry out section 206 
     of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2015 (43 U.S.C. 620 note; Public Law 113-
     235)'''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, the Colorado River is the lifeblood of the 
West. It supplies many of our communities with the majority of its 
water. The ongoing drought is threatening shortages, reviving the old 
Mark Twain saying that ``whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting 
over.''
  In response, the West has teamed up to establish the Colorado River 
System Conservation Pilot Program, an innovative effort to improve 
levels in our reservoirs. It is very clear the program is working well. 
Nineteen agreements have come together, saving 80,000 acre-feet, enough 
western water for 160,000 households. Increasing our region's water 
security is essential to Western States.
  Without water, we cannot grow. I would urge this body to support this 
extremely important western initiative.
  I yield the floor.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this amendment does not increase 
funding in the bill and the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, 
and I intend to vote for it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. 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 bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 23, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 62 Leg.]

                                YEAS--73

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--23

     Coats
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Ernst
     Hoeven
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Tillis

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cruz
     Sanders
     Toomey
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 3805) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3820

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 
3820, offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Flake.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, this amendment would simply cut $69 million 
in unrequested funding for Corps of Engineers projects. This is kind of 
the outgrowth of the bad old days when we had earmarks, when all of 
this funding came about. We now have an earmark ban, but some of the 
funding still goes to some projects that have not even been requested.
  If we have a debt of $19 trillion and a deficit of $500 billion, it 
is time that we actually make some cuts somewhere. I would submit that 
this is a place ripe for cutting.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am going to oppose the Flake 
amendment. The Army Corps of Engineers rebuilds locks and dams, dredges 
our rivers and harbors, works to prevent floods and storm damage, and 
builds environmental restoration projects. There is not a funding line 
in the budget that more Senators seek for their States.
  Our spending is under control on the discretionary side. It is the 
mandatory spending, the entitlement spending, that is out of control.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I also strongly oppose this amendment. 
This would eliminate funding for our environmental infrastructure 
projects of the Army Corps of Engineers. Funding for these projects 
enables communities to solve local problems in a way that protects the 
environment.
  Problems are being solved, such as upgrading wastewater treatment 
facilities, so that our drinking water and marine resources are 
protected, and replacing deteriorated distribution systems with 
efficient systems that help conserve water.
  I hope we will vote this amendment down.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3820.
  Mr. FLAKE. 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) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 12, nays 84, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 63 Leg.]

                                YEAS--12

     Barrasso
     Coats
     Enzi
     Flake
     Gardner
     Heller
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     Moran
     Sasse

                                NAYS--84

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven

[[Page 5040]]


     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cruz
     Sanders
     Toomey
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 3820) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: 
Calendar Nos. 307, 357, 358, 359, 362, 363, 364, 459, 460, 461, and 
508; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or 
debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to 
the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; 
that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and 
the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I 
understand our Democratic friends are going to propound a number of 
different unanimous consent requests here with regard, I assume, to the 
judiciary. The core question here is whether President Obama has been 
treated fairly, and I think it is noteworthy that at this point in 
President Bush's 8 years, 303 of his judicial nominees had been 
confirmed. At this point in President Obama's term, the number is 324. 
That is 21 more judges the current President has gotten at this point 
than President Bush.
  Clearly, President Obama has been treated fairly and, therefore, I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I am very disappointed the Republicans are 
blocking dozens of qualified nominees--nominees who have been reported 
to the Senate floor on a bipartisan basis. This is certainly, in my 
view, not about whether the President is being treated fairly, but it 
is about the Senate doing its job. The Senate is on track to confirm 
the lowest number of judicial nominees in our history.
  Let me mention a nominee from Hawaii: Clare Connors. She was 
confirmed or voted on unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last 
month, a statement to her qualifications. Her wide-ranging experience 
includes district and appellate venues, criminal and civil arenas, and 
litigation on issues ranging from tax law to tough cases such as crimes 
against children.
  Clare and the other nominees before us today will be kept from 
serving on the Federal bench because of Republican inaction. My 
Republican colleagues intend to stop all judicial nominations in July, 
although there are 79 vacancies pending, 28 of which are considered 
emergencies. If Ms. Connors is not confirmed, the Hawaii district court 
seat will be left vacant for over a year.
  Our judiciary should be composed of the full complement of judges 
accorded to each district court. One of the fundamental jobs of the 
Senate to engage in is its advice and consent function with regard to 
these judicial nominees, and we are not doing that.
  I call upon my colleagues, my Republican friends, to enable all of us 
to do our jobs and begin again the advice and consent process which we 
are, under the Constitution, required to do.
  I see some other colleagues on the floor, so I yield to my good 
friend from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will have a unanimous consent request 
after I make a few brief remarks. I thank my friends, the Senators from 
Hawaii and Maryland, for joining me here today.
  We all know it is the job of the Senate to keep up with the need to 
confirm judges, but our friends on the other side of the aisle aren't 
holding up their end of the bargain. The judicial confirmation process 
has been at a crawl for years. Now it has come to a functional 
standstill, as noncontroversial nominations--some of which were 
approved out of committee by overwhelming votes, the majority of 
Republicans and the majority of Democrats--languish on the Executive 
Calendar.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle did their best to slow 
the pace of confirmations when the Senate was under Democratic 
leadership, and now they are sluggishly moving nominations under a 
Senate they control. That has culminated in an irresponsible partisan 
blockade of President Obama's Supreme Court pick.
  Let's talk about some real numbers. More than 1 year into this new 
Congress, the Republican leadership has allowed only 17 judges to be 
confirmed. How many months do we have here? We had 12 in the last year 
of this Congress, and we are now at the end of April, so that is 4. So 
that is 16--1 a month.
  Let me show the contrast. I say to my dear friend, our majority 
leader, this is the number that counts because the analogy was the last 
2 years of the Bush administration when there was a Democratic 
majority. Then, a Republican President and a Democratic majority; now, 
a Democratic President and a Republican majority. They confirmed 17 and 
we confirmed 68. This has consequences--real consequences.
  The number of vacancies has risen from 43 to 79 since the Republicans 
took over the majority. That didn't happen when President Bush was 
President and made nominations. Twenty-eight judicial emergencies. For 
people seeking justice--they can't get it very speedily because of the 
obstruction of judges.
  There are 20 noncontroversial judges on the Executive Calendar. We 
are urging our colleagues to let these noncontroversial judges go 
through. Very simply, we are urging our colleagues to do their job.
  I know the leader wants to have the Senate move along, and we have 
tried to go along whenever it is possible. But this is a glaring 
example where it is easy to do your job, where it is easy to move 
things forward, and all we face is obstruction and for no voiced 
reason.
  I would like to know why the judges who I will ask for unanimous 
consent--it is a smaller list than my colleague from Hawaii has asked 
to go forward with. I would love to know a single reason why any of 
them shouldn't be sitting on the bench.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session 
to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 307, 357, 358, 
359, 362, and 363; further, that the Senate proceed to vote without 
intervening action or debate on the nominations; that if confirmed, the 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would 
say to my Democratic friends that no effort to redefine what this is 
about will be successful.
  The issue before the Senate is, has President Obama been treated 
fairly with regard to the confirmation of judges during his tenure in 
office? We are to a point where we know that so far during the Obama 
years, he has gotten 23 more judges than President Bush got to this 
point. That is the fundamental question. Has President Obama been 
treated in some way differently from President Bush? The answer, of 
course, is no. Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Maryland.


             Unanimous Consent Requests--Executive Calendar

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I will continue to try here, and I thank 
the

[[Page 5041]]

Senate majority leader for his patience.
  This is really not a matter of fairness to the President but fairness 
to the American people. As my colleague Senator Hirono pointed out, 
this is a matter of justice delayed is justice denied. We have judicial 
emergencies--many on our list--that have not been filled.
  As Senator Schumer pointed out, this is about comparing what has been 
done on the workload of this Congress to any previous Congress on the 
confirmation of judges, and we are dead last as far as action that has 
been taken.
  I think the critical number is the number of vacancies. Compare the 
number of vacancies. When the Republicans took the majority, there were 
43 vacancies in our courts. That number has almost doubled to 79 
vacancies.
  When we take a look at the pace of confirmation--because we could say 
maybe there were a lot that had to be taken up over a President's term. 
But, as Senator Schumer pointed out, there have been only 17 judges 
confirmed to date. That is one of the lowest numbers in the modern 
history of our country. In the last year of President Bush's 
administration, in the same period of time of that 2-year cycle, 68 
judges had been confirmed by a Democratically controlled Senate.
  What makes matters more difficult for the American people to 
understand is that 20 judicial nominations have currently passed the 
Senate Judiciary Committee. I believe every one has been passed by 
unanimous voice vote, so they are not controversial. It is just a 
matter of getting them up for confirmation--20 of them that have yet to 
be acted on the floor of the Senate.
  I will make two unanimous consent requests that will deal with 4 of 
these 20 currently pending. All passed the Judiciary Committee by 
unanimous voice votes. Two are from States that have Democratic 
Senators and two are from States that have Republican Senators.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session 
to consider the following nominations: Calendar No. 307, Xinis of 
Maryland; Calendar No. 357, Martinotti of New Jersey; Calendar No. 358, 
Rossiter of Nebraska; and Calendar No. 359, Stanton of Tennessee; that 
the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the 
nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or 
debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that 
any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume 
legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, for the reasons previously expressed by 
the majority leader, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I want to make one further request in the 
series with Senator Hirono and Senator Schumer, and that is to deal 
with the next nominee who would be up, considering the length of time 
she has been on the calendar. It is the nomination of Paula Xinis of 
Maryland made in March 2015--over 1 year ago--by President Obama. She 
was recommended by Senator Mikulski and me after an exhaustive vetting 
process that we go through before making recommendations to the 
President of the United States. She was nominated over 1 year ago. She 
had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee in July of 2015. As I said 
earlier, she was reported out of the committee by unanimous voice vote 
in September of last year, and she has been waiting all this time for 
action on the Senate floor.
  We need this vacancy filled. We now have two vacancies in the 
Maryland District. The chief judge has related to us several times that 
this position is critical for the administration of justice for the 
people of Maryland and our Nation. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nomination: Calendar No. 307, Xinis of Maryland; that the Senate 
proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; 
that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be 
in order to the nomination; that any related statements be printed in 
the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's 
action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, for reasons previously given, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to inject a few comments in this 
discussion too. This isn't all about Republicans. This isn't all about 
Democrats.
  I had a nominee from Wyoming. Incidentally, he wasn't nominated by 
me; he was nominated by our Democratic Governor. It took me about 9 
months to get a hearing in committee. This was for a district judge. 
This wasn't for the Supreme Court. This wasn't for a circuit court. 
This was for a district court. It took me about 9 months to get a 
hearing for him. At the end of 2 years, he had not gotten a vote in 
committee. His life was in suspense for 2 years. That is not right. 
Neither party should do that. But as long as the other side is saying 
that we are holding things up, I have to point out that it is not just 
a one-sided thing.
  I hope some of the criticism can end and some of the work can be 
done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I just want to share in the frustration of 
my colleague from Wyoming. This should not be a partisan issue. I 
agree, it is wrong to hold people's lives in abeyance. We are trying to 
get the very best people to serve on our courts. If they have to put 
their lives on hold for a year or two, will they come forward and seek 
to serve as a judge?
  We know that for the ones we are trying to get on the bench, it is 
going to be a financial sacrifice. They can make more money in the 
private sector. We want the very best on our courts. If someone is put 
on hold for 2 years or for 1 year, it compromises their ability if they 
are in the private practice of law, and it is not the right thing to 
do--whether it is a Democrat or a Republican in the White House. We 
have to act on these appointments a lot faster.
  The point I raised is that during this term of Congress, during this 
year and a half, we have seen the number of judicial vacancies go up 
from 43 to 79. At this particular moment, there are 20 nominees on the 
Executive Calendar who have cleared the committee by voice vote and who 
are not controversial. Some have been waiting over a year since their 
nomination.
  We can do something about it right now, and we should do something 
about it right now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I wish to say a few more things regarding 
our request for action on these judicial nominations.
  The group of nominations on which I requested action includes 
nominees from Maryland, New Jersey, Nebraska, Tennessee, New York, 
California, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Hawaii. They are all 
waiting.
  I have just one comment about the Supreme Court vacancy. The last 
time the Senate refused to deal with a Supreme Court vacancy was during 
the Civil War. They so objected to dealing with the President's 
nomination that the Congress actually changed the number of Justices on 
the Supreme Court. The number of Justices is set by law, so the 
Congress changed the law and changed the number of Justices from 10 to 
7 so that they would not have to deal with the President's nominee to 
the Supreme Court vacancy. The President vetoed that bill, the Congress 
overrode that veto, and so they changed the makeup and number of

[[Page 5042]]

Justices on the Supreme Court. Certainly that is not what I am 
suggesting Republicans should do. In fact, we have had a nine-member 
Supreme Court for almost 150 years.
  I agree with my friend, the Senator from Wyoming, that this should 
not be a partisan issue. Certainly, I agree with my friend from 
Maryland that we should get on with it. We should get on with these 
judicial nominations. We should do our advice and consent role, and 
clearly with regard to the Supreme Court vacancy, where, with this 
inaction, we are going to leave that Court with eight members for a 
year. That is not acceptable to the people of our country. We need to 
do our job.
  I ask my Senate colleagues, my Republican friends, to enable the 
Senate to do our advice and consent role and do our job as set forth in 
the U.S. Constitution.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________