[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5329-5344]
[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:

       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 Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Zika Virus

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to start by expressing my 
appreciation to all of my colleagues who are joining me on the floor 
today, and I thank them for all the work they do every day for women 
and their health care.
  As of last week, the CDC reported nearly 900 cases of Zika here in 
the United States and three U.S. territories, including actually two 
confirmed in my home State of Washington.
  A recent survey showed that 40 percent of adults in the United States 
see the Zika virus as the reason to delay starting a family. Like so 
many of my colleagues, I am hearing from women across my State who are 
very frightened about this virus. They want to know how to travel 
safely in light of Zika. They want to know whether they should wait to 
start their families. Tragically, I am hearing from expectant mothers 
who are concerned about what this virus could mean for the babies they 
have on the way.
  Women and families at home and abroad need Congress to take action 
against this virus, to help raise awareness about its impact, to expand 
access to contraception and family planning, to improve vector control, 
and to accelerate our efforts to find a vaccine. That is why for months 
Democrats have urged Republicans to come to the table and work with us 
on making sure we put the needed resources into this fight against 
Zika.
  The administration has put forward a strong proposal, but Republicans 
refused to even consider it. While some in the Republican Party 
indicated last week they wanted to work with us on emergency 
supplemental funding, it has become pretty clear that unfortunately 
they have been beaten back by the extreme rightwing who do not want to 
do anything at all. These extreme conservatives do not recognize that 
Zika is an emergency. They don't want to give the administration a 
penny more. As a result of that delay, we are behind the eight ball as 
mosquito season comes this summer.
  That is why we have come to the floor together today to send a very 
clear message to Republicans today: We need action now. Women simply 
cannot afford to wait, and they should not have to. Democrats are ready 
to get this done as soon as possible. And for families and communities 
who are looking to Congress for action, I hope Republicans join us now 
so that we can deliver what families are asking for in our country.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking Senator 
Heitkamp for pulling us in here today to talk about this emergency and 
Senator Murray for her strong voice on this and many others who will be 
speaking out today.
  In 2014 Ebola broke out in West Africa. As it advanced, the 
international community came together to combat the outbreak. Doctors 
from around the world traveled to West Africa to set up emergency 
hospital units to help the sick and to attempt to contain the virus. 
President Obama deployed thousands of troops to support the effort.
  With the media focused on the outbreak right in the middle of the 
2014 election, Republican Senators and Republican candidates across the 
country seized on this global health crisis. No, they didn't swoop in 
to rescue; in fact, Republicans did nothing to support the actual Ebola 
response before the elections. Instead, they terrified the American 
people with totally made-up stories of Ebola-infected immigrants coming 
across our southern border. They loudly trumpeted a number of dangerous 
and irresponsible solutions, such as travel bans that would actually 
make dealing with the problem more difficult.
  Ebola ravaged West Africa, but only four cases were ever diagnosed 
here in the United States. Republican politicians didn't care--they had 
found something to blame on President Obama and the Democrats, and they 
were happy to do it. They exploited the situation to help win an 
election. And it worked. Not all of the fearmongering candidates won, 
but most of them did, and they won in part because they promised to 
protect the American people from these horrible contagious diseases.
  Today, Republicans run the Senate, and we face a terrible threat 
right here in America--the rapidly spreading Zika virus. So I come to 
the floor to ask a simple question: Why haven't Republicans lifted a 
single finger to stop it?
  Unlike Ebola, Zika is not confined to one small region of the world; 
it has already spread through most of South America and through Mexico. 
Unlike Ebola, which can be transmitted only by direct contact with 
bodily fluids, Zika can spread rapidly across distances by transmission 
through mosquitoes. Unlike Ebola, our leaders at the NIH and CDC are 
raising the alarm that Zika is an imminent threat to Americans. Nearly 
900 cases of Zika have already been reported on American soil.
  Zika can be devastating. Most people who contract Zika show no 
symptoms or only very mild symptoms, but Zika infections can trigger 
Guillain-Barre syndrome, a condition in which the body attacks its own 
nervous system, which can cause permanent and severe damage, 
hospitalizing some people for weeks and killing others. In addition, 
babies born to mothers who were infected with Zika may suffer severe 
and permanent brain damage. The World Health Organization estimates 
that 4 million people could be infected with Zika by the end of the 
year.
  The threat is real, but where are the Republicans? For weeks Senate 
Democrats have called for emergency supplemental funding to support 
public health efforts both in research and prevention. Republicans have 
done nothing. For weeks the President has called for emergency 
supplemental funding to protect the American people. Republicans have 
done nothing. For weeks leaders at the WHO, NIH, and CDC have begged 
Congress for resources to fight this disease. Republicans have done 
nothing. The President has been forced to divert funds intended for 
work on Ebola over to work on Zika. That is a very short-term strategy. 
Ebola has dropped out of the news, but the threat has not ended. We 
need funding for work on both, but still the Republicans have done 
nothing.
  Now Senate Republicans are taking us on a week-long recess. Where is 
the Republican plan to fund the Zika response? Where is the Republican 
plan to replenish the Ebola funds? Apparently, when there is no 
immediate political benefit, the Republicans can't be bothered to act. 
Forget Ebola. Forget Zika. They want to go on vacation.
  Well, I have news for my Republican colleagues: That is not good 
enough. They won the election by telling Americans they would protect 
them from scenarios just like this. Republicans run the Senate now, so 
it is time to govern. There is a public health crisis bearing down on 
this country. Babies will be born permanently disabled, and families 
will be devastated if Republicans keep blocking funding to deal

[[Page 5330]]

with this problem. It is up to you to act.
  This is what government is for--to help protect the people of the 
United States from serious threats, from real threats. The Republicans 
are failing the people of the United States.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, lest anyone think that they are immune 
or that this is only about the tropics, I don't think a lot of people 
in the United States of America would call the State of North Dakota 
the tropics. Today I hold up the first noted case of a pregnant woman 
who has been infected by Zika. She was traveling, probably bitten by a 
mosquito, and somehow contracted the Zika virus. She will now live in 
fear that the baby she is carrying will suffer the birth defects we 
know are associated with this potential pandemic.
  Where is the answer for her? The answer that the North Dakota 
epidemiologist gave for her, which is good advice, is: Don't travel 
anywhere where we have Zika virus infections. I guess she is not 
leaving her house because the way this is spreading and the way this is 
moving, it will be everywhere in the United States of America.
  Once it migrates, and once it moves, what is going to stop it? Who is 
going to stand on the floor of the Senate and take responsibility for 
the lack of action, for the lack of responding to this public health 
crisis? That is why we are coming here today. This is not about 
politics. This is not about a public health emergency. We need 
resources. We need answers. We need tests. We don't need to rob from 
other potential pandemics like Ebola to get this done.
  There is not a citizen in the country who would not say this is an 
obligation of the government to protect their people. We anticipate in 
Puerto Rico, a territory of this country--a lot of people travel to and 
from Puerto Rico--one in five people in Puerto Rico will be infected by 
the Zika virus. Do they know it? Probably not. Frequently no symptoms 
come with the infection. So now we have to respond. Now we have to do 
what is right.
  People will say: We can take this in regular order. That is what I 
hear is happening over in the House. They want to take this in regular 
order. Well, if it is a regular problem, why has the State of Florida 
declared a state of emergency? In February--this is not new--it is 
estimated Florida will continue to be the next big place of infection 
as the Zika virus migrates.
  What does that mean to Florida? Not only does it mean you have 
created huge insecurity for the families--particularly young women the 
age of our children who are now thinking about having babies you have 
created huge insecurity. If the answer is don't have babies, how many 
generations do we have to go? We don't know. That is the problem. We 
don't know. There is no test. There is no way to verify at this point--
no rapid test.
  So when we look at this and we look at the effect it is having not 
only on our families and on family decisions but look at the effect it 
is having on tourism--we all know the Caribbean depends on tourism 
dollars to have stable governments. We all know Florida is heavily 
dependent on tourism. People in my office have already canceled plans 
for Caribbean vacations. People I know have already canceled plans to 
go to Florida because they are afraid.
  What happens when everybody is staying home because they are afraid? 
This is not something we can play politics with. This is something that 
should unite all of us. We should all be coming together. If you don't 
like the President's plan, tell us what is wrong with it. Tell us what 
you need to change. Tell us what your experts,--contrary to the experts 
at CDC who have arrived at this plan--tell us what your experts think 
needs to be changed and what level of accountability you need.
  I understand this morning the argument is not that we should spend 
the money, the argument is there is no accountability. Tell us what 
accountability. Come together. Let's solve this problem. Let's rise to 
the occasion in the Senate. When confronted with this virus, let's come 
together. Let's show the people we can respond.
  I don't think I am exaggerating the potential health care effects. 
The World Health Organization has declared it an emergency. A 
conservative Governor in Florida has declared it an emergency. 
Certainly for this young North Dakota woman, it is an emergency. She 
needs to know and her family needs to know exactly how this virus is 
transmitted and what she can expect going forward.
  She is just one of, I think, the first cases. My great friend the 
Senator from Washington--not exactly the tropics in the State of 
Washington as well--also has one case. We don't know how many more. We 
don't know how many more.
  So I am pleading, let's not wait. Let's treat this like the emergency 
it is. Let's do what we need to do to protect American families, 
particularly young women of child-bearing age who are going to be 
devastated if this happens in their families. So let's do the right 
thing. Let's come together. If there is a problem with the proposal, 
let's debate what that proposal should look like. Let's bring it to the 
floor. Offer amendments for accountability.
  Why are we waiting? Someone needs to answer that question, not just 
to me but to American families and to the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor to join my 
colleagues because I share their very real concerns about the impact of 
the Zika virus on families in New Hampshire--also not a tropical 
State--the impact on people across the country here in the United 
States, and also on people around the world.
  As has been pointed out, we have seen reports in regions with active 
mosquito-borne transmission of the virus, places such as Brazil, where 
they are about to host the Olympics. People will be traveling there 
from all over the United States, from all over the world. We have seen 
those stories of women who have had children with severe birth defects, 
with microcephaly, as a result of their exposure and contracting the 
virus during pregnancy.
  We have also seen impacts on adults. The connection that seems to be 
there, and I think we are still waiting on definitive research, but the 
connection in adults between Guillain-Barre syndrome and the Zika virus 
is also very real. While fortunately in America in most cases that can 
be treated, the reality is, in a lot of places around the world and for 
some people, it causes severe paralysis and sometimes even death. So 
this is not just something that affects pregnant women, but there are 
also concerns about who else might be affected by this virus.
  As we have heard from North Dakota, as we have heard from other 
States, as mosquito season arrives in this country, we can expect 
additional Zika cases, transmitted often by mosquitoes from tropical 
areas, that people contract when they are traveling. We know this 
mosquito is coming to America. In New Hampshire, where neither of the 
two known mosquito vectors currently live, we have already had three 
cases of Zika, with about 150 possible cases that are still being 
tested.
  Two of those cases were acquired as a result of traveling to Zika-
impacted regions, but the third was contracted because of sexual 
transmission of the disease from a partner who had been traveling. Last 
week I chaired a roundtable on Zika in Concord, NH, in our capital. We 
had representatives who are looking at what might happen with the virus 
and our planning for an outbreak, which we hope we can avoid.
  We had doctors from the State, we had the State epidemiologist, we 
had the director of the State lab, and we had people who are working on 
mosquito control. They talked about how over the last several months 
they have been getting more and more questions about Zika, particularly 
from women who are planning to have children in the near future, and 
for pregnant

[[Page 5331]]

women and their families or women and their partners who are beginning 
to think about starting a family.
  As Senator Heitkamp pointed out, the threat of Zika is very real. We 
had one of the doctors, an obstetrician, at that roundtable who 
reported that many of her family patients are canceling vacations they 
had planned and some of her patients whose husbands are in the military 
who are stationed in Zika-infected countries are concerned about how to 
protect themselves and what they need to do when they return.
  We heard from folks at our New Hampshire Department of Health and 
Human Services who talked about the importance of increased access to 
family planning and contraceptives and the Zika outbreak impact on the 
need for those services. It gives us a new lens on the importance of 
making sure women and families have access to this health care.
  We need to make sure all women at risk or diagnosed with Zika have 
access to comprehensive, patient-centered contraceptives and 
preconception counseling. We also heard from the folks involved with 
mosquito control. What they told us is, there are two mosquitoes that 
can spread the Zika virus, that we know of at this time. One of those 
is a mosquito that is only in the tropics, that we are never going to 
see in northern New Hampshire and in northern New England.
  The second mosquito, we have already found in Connecticut and 
Massachusetts. The mosquito control folks said that unlike the usual 
spraying for mosquitoes, which is in wetland areas and swampy areas in 
New Hampshire, this is a mosquito that, as Secretary Burwell has 
described it, ``can breed in as little as a capful of water.'' They are 
mosquitoes that bite people four times in order to get a meal, so they 
spread very fast.
  What we heard from the mosquito control folks who were at this 
meeting was that they are encouraging people to look at places in their 
yards where water might collect in small spaces, in wheelbarrows, in 
paint cans, in places we would not normally think about mosquitoes 
growing.
  They also encouraged people to think about protecting themselves. 
When you are going out, think about covering up, wearing long sleeves, 
wearing slacks, wearing socks when you are outside at a time when 
mosquitoes might be around.
  The other concern about the Zika mosquito is that it also is active 
during the day. It is not like most of the mosquitoes we see in New 
Hampshire, which are active at night. This is a mosquito that is also 
active during the day. So we need to be taking action now. I listened 
to the head of the State lab in New Hampshire talking about the 
challenge of getting results from the lab for people who had been 
tested for Zika.
  He said: Sometimes we have to send out to labs. We don't have the 
capacity in New Hampshire to do the analysis that is required. We are 
still looking for a test that can definitively determine if somebody 
has had Zika in the past. He said: Something as small as the ability to 
ferry the samples and the results back and forth to a lab is one of the 
things we need so we can get answers so we know how to act.
  The folks who are trying to get information out to the public talked 
about the need to have support so they could get information out, both 
to the medical community and to individuals, about the importance of 
what individuals need to do to take action.
  They said very directly to me, as I said that I appreciate this is 
something we need to work with you on in Washington, they said: We 
don't have the resources to respond to this in the way we need to in 
New Hampshire. For those people who would say: Don't worry. You are 
exaggerating. This is never going to come to New Hampshire, well, that 
is what they told us about the West Nile virus. That is what they told 
us about EEE. We have had deaths in New Hampshire in recent years from 
both of those viruses. So I think we need to act on this. I know there 
has been an agreement in the Appropriations Committee, among the 
appropriators on both sides of the aisle. It has been a bipartisan 
agreement to help get a supplemental funding bill to the floor to 
address this because in New Hampshire what I have heard is that we need 
help. We need Washington to help us. If we are concerned about the cost 
of this, just think about what our inaction will do? What if we have an 
outbreak and we have people who--we have thousands of women, as they do 
in Brazil, who have been infected and who have had babies with 
microcephaly. What are the health care costs to people who might have 
been infected by the Zika virus, with Guillain-Barre syndrome, with 
other birth defects as a result of being infected during pregnancy?
  So this is a bill we can't afford to wait on. We need to address 
this. If folks are not willing to do it because it is the right thing 
to do, they ought to be willing to do it because it is the cost-
effective thing to do. I hope we can come together. I know people on 
both sides of the aisle are concerned about this. We need to come 
together. We need to address this. It is a pending public health 
emergency. We have to respond.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I rise to join my colleagues in raising 
awareness about the Zika virus and the need to pass the President's 
emergency appropriations request to get ahead of this crisis in the 
making.
  Some question the need for this emergency appropriations request. 
Perhaps those who believe that funding the President's request is a 
waste feel that we are not at immediate risk, but you have heard my 
other colleagues talking about how this is an impending crisis. While 
Zika may not seem like a threat in the United States now because we 
have not hit peak mosquito season, this head-in-sand mentality is 
irresponsible. Zika is ravaging South America, which is having its 
summer right now. Zika is on the move. The mosquito that is the main 
Zika carrier is already in 13 States, and another mosquito also capable 
of spreading the Zika virus is in 30 States. As families travel this 
summer, they will be moving in and out of States and countries impacted 
by Zika.
  To my colleagues who aren't worried about the spread of Zika right 
now, it is time for all of us to wake up. With summer comes 
mosquitoes--including, of course, the mosquito that carries Zika. We 
must do all we can to ensure that Zika does not gain a foothold in the 
United States. Let's act, not react, to this Zika threat. This means 
funding the President's $1.9 billion request for Zika.
  Hawaii knows firsthand the impact of vector-borne diseases such as 
Zika and of the resources and effort it takes to contain an outbreak. 
Seven Hawaii residents have already been diagnosed with Zika. One 
infant born to a mother with Zika has been diagnosed with microcephaly, 
a devastating birth defect.
  On top of that, Hawaii has been dealing with an outbreak of dengue 
fever, which is spread by the same mosquito that carries Zika. The 
dengue outbreak in Hawaii began in September, and only yesterday were 
we able to go 30 days without a new dengue case.
  The unique location of Hawaii means it serves as transit location for 
many Pacific Island nations where Zika outbreaks have occurred in the 
recent past, places such as Yap and French Polynesia. We know that this 
disease can migrate and that it can migrate quickly. That is why we 
have to get ahead of it.
  Having the administration shift Ebola funding around is not the 
answer. That is akin to robbing Peter to pay Paul. What will we do if 
Ebola has a resurgence this summer--shift money back from Zika?
  The United States is in a strong position, compared to many other 
countries, to fight Zika. We have indevelopment vaccines, blood 
screenings, cleaning tools, and research that will be game changers.
  When the President sent his $1.9 billion request to Congress, he laid 
out how the funding would be spent or used. It would go toward vector 
control, public education campaigns, and

[[Page 5332]]

vaccine development. It would go toward the work of companies such as 
Hawaii Biotech, which is racing to complete work on a vaccine.
  We must fund the emergency request so Federal agencies that stand on 
the battle lines of combating disease can do their work. We must also 
strengthen vector control programs and emergency preparedness programs. 
It is imperative that we give our communities the tools they need to 
fight Zika. Time is still on our side right now, but time is running 
out and we must act quickly. Let's come together to ensure that Zika 
does not become a full-blown public health emergency in the United 
States. Let's fund the President's request.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today to discuss this urgent 
public health emergency. I am honored to be here with Senator Murray, 
Senator Mikulski, Senator Heitkamp, and Senator Hirono as we look at 
this serious crisis facing our Nation, and that is the Zika virus.
  The World Health Organization has declared that Zika is spreading 
explosively and will affect nearly all countries in North America and 
South America. The virus has already infected nearly 400 Americans who 
have traveled abroad from 40 States, including my home State of 
Minnesota. Over 500 people in Puerto Rico have the disease. Nearly all 
of them contracted the virus locally. These numbers will only continue 
to grow as the warmer months bring more mosquitoes that transmit this 
disease. In fact, researchers calculate that 60 percent of the people 
in our country live in an area that will likely be affected.
  Zika is a rapidly evolving mosquito-borne virus. Most infected 
patients develop mild flu-like symptoms that last for a week. However, 
the virus has devastating consequences for growing families. 
Researchers have now confirmed what many feared was true: A pregnant 
woman infected with Zika is at risk of giving birth to a child with 
microcephaly. This heartbreaking, lifelong condition results in 
newborns with abnormally small heads. These children will need 
increased access to health care and developmental services, such as 
speech therapy, occupational therapy, and physical therapy. There is no 
known cure for this disease or even standard treatment for this 
condition.
  It is crucial that physicians have the knowledge and tools essential 
to diagnose and care for pregnant women who may be infected with Zika. 
It is crucial that moms with Zika and children with microcephaly have 
access to the services they need. It is crucial that we take steps now 
to ensure that our health care system and all levels of government are 
prepared for the imminent spread of the Zika virus.
  We are here today to continue to stress the urgent need to ensure 
that our country is as prepared as possible to mitigate the spread of 
Zika and respond to outbreaks of this virus.
  The administration submitted a request for nearly $2 billion in 
emergency funds to provide immediate support. This is about research. 
This is about a vaccine. This is about therapeutics and diagnostics. 
This is about a medical health crisis that primarily--but not only--
affects women and children. That is why the women Democrats of the 
Senate have gathered on the floor today to speak out, to speak out and 
say this is a crisis that must be funded. This is a crisis that must be 
responded to.
  Simply because it mainly affects women and children right now--and we 
have no idea what other effects it will have--is no reason to shirk our 
duties in the Congress and not fund this. Our foremost duty is to 
protect the health and safety of Americans. Zika is a rapidly evolving 
disease with severe public health implications. I ask my colleagues to 
support this effort. We cannot afford to delay action.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to take the floor as the vice 
chair of the Appropriations Committee and urge that we adopt an urgent 
supplemental request to deal with the Zika threat.
  This is real. It has been 2 months since the administration sent to 
Congress an emergency supplemental. We can't wait any longer. The 
mosquitoes are here. They are actually here. They are here in the 
United States of America.
  I have said--first with wit and now with deep concern--that you can't 
build a wall to keep the mosquitoes out. The mosquitoes aren't going to 
pay for this. We need to act, and we need to act now.
  This is a compelling public health crisis, and we can do something 
about it. We take an oath to defend all Americans against enemies 
foreign and domestic. This is about to be a self-inflicted wound on our 
own people because of our failure to act.
  With no reliable, tested public health interventions on mosquito 
control--we have to take action to do this. Why? Because as of April 
20, there have been close to 900 cases confirmed in the United States 
of America. We already know they are in three States. The CDC knows it 
is going to come to at least 30 States in our own country, and it will 
have incredible consequences, particularly to women.
  Over the years, I have heard many eloquent, poignant, and even 
wrenching speeches about protecting the unborn. They have been deeply 
moving. We have always tried to find common ground on this. But if you 
are really for defending the unborn, you have to pass this 
supplemental.
  There are women all over the United States--particularly in these 
three vulnerable States--there are women in Puerto Rico who are 
wondering, if they are already pregnant, what their situation is. There 
are young women and not-so-young women who are concerned about getting 
pregnant and at the same time being bitten by a mosquito, and there are 
sparse resources to do mosquito control.
  We want to build fences to keep out illegal aliens. OK. We want to 
bomb the hell out of ISIS and terrorists. We should because we are 
worried that they are coming at us. But in many of those instances, 
those are problems that have been difficult to solve. This is not 
difficult to solve; this is about mosquito control.
  I am very concerned that we are just sitting around and that when all 
is said and done, more is getting said than gets done. We are talking 
about an emergency supplemental.
  The Appropriations Committee has a very clear set of criteria for 
what is an emergency. First, it has to be urgent. Well, the mosquito 
season is here. It has to be unforeseen. This was unforeseen and it is 
temporary. It is mosquito season. It is a confined season. We can do 
something about it, and we must do something about it. It will have a 
disproportionate impact on pregnant women and the unborn. There will be 
children born with the most horrendous, heartbreaking birth defects.
  I am of the generation that was the polio generation. My mother 
wouldn't let my sisters and me go swimming until after June 20 because, 
somehow or another, in our faith, it was St. John's Day and we thought 
the water would be warmer. Maybe the saint blessed the water. God bless 
the saints. God bless people like Dr. Salk, and God bless America that 
funded the Salk vaccine. I remember children in iron lungs to be kept 
alive, children in braces who then walked with very difficult canes. 
Those who survive bear this the rest of their lives.
  Look at what we are facing here, and we know it. This is not unknown, 
nor is it unmanageable. It will be a national disgrace if we don't act.
  In my own home State, I have a Republican Governor, Governor Larry 
Hogan. Guess what. Governor Hogan is acting. This isn't about Democrats 
and Republicans. Governor Hogan acted. He declared April 24 to 30 Zika 
Awareness Week. He ordered his health department to coordinate 
educational events with local health departments. They also spent 
$130,000 of State money to develop 10,000 transmission kits to begin to 
deal with this. My Republican Governor has taken action.

[[Page 5333]]

  Also, in Anne Arundel County--the county that is the home of the 
State capital, again headed up by a Republican county executive--they 
received 850 kits. They are going to have townhall meetings to talk 
with the agricultural officials about prevention and mosquito control. 
We have a Republican Governor and a Republican county executive who are 
acting.
  Then there is Howard County, where the health department is planning 
to distribute 450 kits to obstetric and gynecological practices to 
protect pregnant women. Again, a Republican county executive working 
with his administration is taking action, spending local money when 
this is a national problem.
  I am saying this because my own Governor and the county executives 
are acting.
  In Baltimore City, which has a Democratic mayor--she listened to the 
warnings coming from the World Health Organization, the CDC, and the 
Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore and is taking action. 
Baltimore is now spraying, taking mosquito control action, and so on. 
They are spending over $500,000 of local money, of which we don't have 
a lot.
  So, hello, Maryland is acting. We need to act. And I say this because 
we are spending local money to deal with a national and international 
problem. So please, let's now--whatever differences we have on other 
bills, please let's take up this urgent supplemental.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, as I see the majority leader is 
here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:45 
p.m. today, the Senate agree to the motion to proceed to the motion to 
reconsider the cloture vote on amendment No. 3801, the motion to 
reconsider the cloture vote on amendment No. 3801, and the Senate then 
vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Alexander substitute 
amendment No. 3801, upon reconsideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida.


                               Zika Virus

  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I have two topics I want to talk about 
today--actually, three--but I want to begin with the Zika virus.
  A few weeks ago I went back to Florida on a Friday and I sat down and 
met with officials from the Department of Health from Florida. I met 
with leaders from Puerto Rico in the health sector. I met with doctors 
who live in Miami-Dade County and also officials in Miami-Dade County. 
They are freaked out about the Zika thing. I don't know any other term 
to use. If they are freaked out, then I am very concerned about it as 
well. That is why I do support fully and immediately funding this 
situation, and I have asked our colleagues to do so as quickly as 
possible.
  I want to speak briefly about the Florida experience with this. There 
are two things that are deeply concerning, and then I will speak to 
some of the things we should be doing.
  First, the summer months are upon us. Anyone who has been in Florida, 
in the summer particularly, knows summer has basically already started 
in Florida if you go outside. The spread of mosquitoes as a threat 
virtually everywhere in the State is just massive. It is just a way of 
life. This very deadly disease is something we are still learning 
about, by the way. A few weeks ago, they said: Well, Zika impacts only 
a small population of people--a very significant population of people. 
We are learning this disease impacts whoever it touches. First of all, 
you don't have to be symptomatic to spread it. In Florida alone, we 
have had at least two cases of transmission sexually transmitted.
  By the way, it is just a matter of time before someone in Florida 
gets bit by a mosquito. I am telling you, it is just a matter of days, 
weeks, hours before you will open up a newspaper or turn on the news 
and it will say that someone in the continental United States was 
bitten by a mosquito and they contracted Zika. When that happens, then 
everyone is going to be freaked out, not just me and not just the 
people who work for the health department in Florida. This is going to 
happen. There are just way too many mosquitoes to avoid it.
  The second thing is that Miami-Dade County, in particular, but a lot 
of Florida, is a transit point for all of Latin America. So, for 
example, one of the places most impacted by Zika is Brazil. Well, this 
summer the Olympics are being held in Brazil, and there will be 
hundreds of thousands of people who cross through Florida to get to 
Brazil and back, on top of the normal number of travelers. It is just a 
matter of time. It is not a question of if, it is a question of when.
  So I look at this from a Senate perspective and say: We are going to 
fund this. We are going to spend money on Zika in Washington, DC, No. 
1, because we should. It is the obligation of the Federal Government to 
keep our people safe, and this is an imminent and real threat to the 
public safety and security of our Nation and our people. So the money 
is going to be spent. The question is: Do we do it now, before this has 
become a crisis or do we wait for it to become a crisis? Maybe that 
crisis happens in August, when everyone is back home doing their 
campaign stuff or maybe it happens on Monday, when everyone is back 
home doing whatever they do on recess. Then everyone will get pulled 
back to deal with this immediately, and I want to know what Members 
will say to those who say: Hey, this Zika thing has been in the news 
for months. Now there is a case.
  It can be in any State in the country--any State in the country. You 
may hear: Oh, it is only in certain States that are warm. That is not 
true. It can be in any State in the country. I want to know what people 
are going to say when they are asked: What did you do about it? Are you 
going to say: Well, I had real problems. I wanted to make sure about 
this and that.
  This is a serious thing. People's lives are at stake here. And by the 
way, this is now spreading into all sorts of other threats. Guillain-
Barre was mentioned earlier. We know about the birth defects that are 
very significant. Do my colleagues realize what the cost will be of 
dealing with all of that? Are people aware of what Guillain-Barre is? 
It is a debilitating, often fatal, disease. The cost of treating 
someone that has it is extraordinary.
  What about where the money is going to be spent? Look, it is possible 
at the end of the day that $1.9 billion will not even be enough. We 
don't know. But we have to start.
  No. 1, we don't have a commercially available plan to test for Zika. 
You can't just go to Quest Diagnostics and get a Zika test. It doesn't 
exist. In Florida, if you want to get a Zika test, you have to go 
through the State department of health.
  No. 2, a lot of people aren't being tested because they are not a 
pregnant woman so they do not think they have to be tested. False. If 
you have traveled anywhere at this point--I don't care who you are, how 
old you are, male or female--where there are mosquitoes in significant 
amounts, you probably should be tested. If you have traveled abroad 
into these danger zones, you can transmit this disease. You can be 
carrying it and not see manifestations of it for a while.
  There is no commercially available plan. They talk about mosquito 
control. They have only been trying that for thousands of years, and 
mosquitoes have outlasted everything. It is important. It has to be a 
part of it. But one of the two mosquito species that spreads Zika is 
resistant to pesticides. It has become resistant to the pesticide, and 
that is why new technologies need to be developed.
  There are some innovative ways out there to cut down on the mosquito 
population. There is an innovative program now, trying to start a pilot 
program in the Keys. That should be a part of this conversation. 
Researchers are pretty confident they can find a vaccine for this kind 
of disease, given its pathology. Maybe not next week, but they can find 
a vaccine for it. The government has a role to play in basic research 
that allows the private sector to commercialize that and make that 
possible.

[[Page 5334]]

  I understand we want accountability for how this money will be spent. 
I believe that. I do. I think the administration should come forward 
and say: Here is our plan. Here is where every penny is going to be 
spent, and here is how we are going to spend it. We should hold them 
accountable, and if there are ways to improve on that, we should. But I 
think there should be a sense of urgency when dealing with this issue.
  I honestly believe--I don't believe; I know--it is just a matter of 
time before there is a mosquito-borne transmission. By the way, does it 
really matter how you got it, whether it was from a mosquito or it was 
sexually transmitted? You have Zika. It acts the very same way once you 
have it. It is just a matter of time before there is a mosquito-borne 
transmission in the continental United States.
  I also have heard--not that anyone here has said it--but I have heard 
others say there are no cases of Zika transmitted from a mosquito yet 
in the United States. That is false. Puerto Rico is in the United 
States. Puerto Ricans are American citizens. By the way, they travel in 
huge numbers to and from the United States. Many are moving here. Many 
work here during the week and travel back on the weekends. This is a 
catastrophe right now in Puerto Rico, which is a United States 
territory, and its people are American citizens. They are facing a 
catastrophe right now on this issue.
  So I hope there is real urgency about dealing with this. I understand 
this is not a political issue. There is no such thing as a Republican 
position on Zika or a Democrat position on this issue because these 
mosquitoes bite everyone. They are not going to ask you what your party 
affiliation is or who you plan to vote for in November. This is a real 
threat, and it is not just in the tropical States. They may feel it 
first, but so can any State that has any significant travel, which is 
basically all 50 States in the Union. In a country where people travel 
extensively across the country and around the world, we are going to 
face a Zika problem in this country this summer and fall.
  My advice to my colleagues is that we are going to deal with this, so 
I hope we deal with it at the front end. Not only is that better for 
our people, but that will be better for my colleagues. Otherwise, we 
will have to explain why it is that we sat around for weeks and did 
nothing on something of this magnitude.
  The second topic I want to--
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, will the Senator yield for just one 
moment before he goes into his second topic?
  Mr. RUBIO. I will yield to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I just want to thank the Senator from 
Florida for joining the women of the Senate here today to bring 
attention to such a critical issue and to extend our hands. We want to 
work with the Senator. We believe this is an emergency, and we want to 
deal with it quickly. We appreciate his comments and his support this 
morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I appreciate the advocacy of the Senator 
from Washington, and I do look forward to working with the Senator on 
this as well. Hopefully, we can get a result on this.
  There is going to be a recess now, and that means for 10 days people 
will be going back to their home States. So I hope when we come back a 
week from Monday, we will hear that we have a plan that we are going to 
be able to vote on and vote on it quickly.


           Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and FDA Advisory Panel

  Madam President, on a separate topic, I want to call attention to a 
remarkable group of advocates who are bound together, not by a common 
race or religion or political ideology but by the common hope of one 
day ridding the world of a rare disease named Duchenne muscular 
dystrophy.
  Duchenne is one of multiple different forms of muscular dystrophy. It 
affects mostly boys, almost exclusively, at the rate of 1 per 3,600 
individuals. Its primary symptom is the steady deterioration of muscle 
mass beginning early in childhood. By the age of 12, most boys with 
Duchenne have lost the ability to walk and eventually become paralyzed 
from the neck down. I am sad to say there is currently no cure for 
Duchenne, and the average life expectancy is around 25 years.
  I am personally the parent of four children, including two boys, and 
I can only imagine--perhaps I can't imagine; that is how difficult it 
is--what it must be like to have a child receive this diagnosis. Few 
are called to do more for their child and to show greater courage in 
the face of the adversity that MD poses than a parent helping their 
child battle Duchenne.
  I was recently inspired and humbled a few weeks ago to meet a young 
man struggling against this disease. His name is Austin, and his dad 
Joe is a hero in more ways than one. Joe helps Austin combat Duchenne, 
and he does it alone, as a single father. By the way, he also serves as 
an Active-Duty member of the United States Air Force.
  Austin is 12 years old, and I was immediately impressed when I met 
him. I knew how difficult it must have been for him to travel all the 
way to Washington from his home in Tampa. This is the embodiment of 
courage that people living with this disease show every day.
  Joe shared with me a few of the struggles they face. He told me how 
Austin is unable to attend school full time because he needs hours of 
daily physical therapy to stimulate his muscles. He told me how Austin 
is quickly losing the ability to walk and how he now needs help getting 
in and out of his wheelchair and other daily tasks. He needs help with 
eating.
  Joe told me he spends hundreds of dollars each month on over-the-
counter drugs that are not covered by insurance, and he spends hours 
every Friday attending doctors' appointments.
  Joe shared the dreams he once had when Austin was born--dreams of 
being that proud father in the bleachers at little league games or 
cheering loudly and waving a big foam finger. With Duchenne, he tells 
me he has even more reasons to proudly cheer Austin on, though the 
reasons are different. He cheers when Austin is able to get out of bed 
without help or to walk to the restroom. These are moments of great 
pride for Joe, when he sees how resilient Austin is in the face of this 
disease.
  Joe and Austin traveled to Washington as part of a coordinated effort 
to witness and participate in FDA action related to Duchenne. As 
advancements in medical science continue, targeted therapies to treat 
Duchenne are being developed and tested, and each one--even the ones 
that fail--is providing us greater insight into the way the disease 
operates and how it might ultimately be defeated.
  The last couple of weeks in particular have brought about a display 
of extraordinary strength from Joe and Austin, and thousands of other 
parents, children, family, and friends who engage in activism on behalf 
of those with Duchenne. This Monday, scores of advocates from around 
the country attended a hearing of the FDA advisory committee, which 
welcomed them and spent almost an entire day listening to their 
testimony. What this committee was listening to was the result of a 
clinical study on a small group. Admittedly, this is a small group of 
people who have this disease, so any clinical trial will have a small 
number of people. It is not the same as you would have for another more 
common disease. So this FDA advisory panel was meeting to decide 
whether they were going to allow this testing to expand and this drug 
to be more available.
  The panel should have reviewed this in the context of a law that was 
passed in 2012 called the Food and Drug Administration Safety and 
Innovation Act; call it FDASIA for short. This act gave the FDA the 
authority to consider the perspectives of patients when evaluating 
whether to approve a drug. In essence, it gave the FDA the authority to 
listen to people who are taking the drug and decide whether it works or 
not--not just to look at the clinical study.

[[Page 5335]]

  This also provides real flexibility when evaluating drugs for life-
threatening illnesses, such as Duchenne. It included multiple 
provisions to address the challenges of the rare disease patient 
community, which is by definition small--meaning clinical trials have a 
more difficult time finding enough participants to meet the FDA's usual 
requirements. Usually, when it is a drug for cancer or something like 
that, you have tens of thousands of people you can do a trial for. When 
it is a rare disease, you have a harder time finding enough people to 
test it on the way you would for a normal drug. And on top of that--on 
top of the perspective of a lesser number of people--it is also a 
disease that is fatal. In the end, all of these cases with Duchenne end 
the same way, with death, in a very predictable pattern.
  They had a chance to meet this week and review this in the committee. 
In the words of someone who was there, who has a lot of experience in 
interacting with government agencies and bureaucracies, the word they 
used was ``jarring.'' They said it was jarring. This is from someone 
who has a lot of experience interacting with government agencies and 
bureaucracies. They said it was jarring how it went.
  I want to paint the picture of what that place looked like on Monday. 
There was an entire community of parents whose kids have Duchenne, who 
are taking this experimental drug, who are seeing their kids improve. 
They are seeing it. They know these kids better than any scientist, any 
doctor, or any panelist at the FDA, and they see these kids are doing 
better. They see this. They are begging the FDA panel: Please allow us 
to continue to give these kids medicine. And, by the way, make it 
available to other kids because, No. 1, there has not been a single 
documented case of harm; no one using this experimental medicine has 
been harmed by it. No. 2, we, the parents, are telling you it works 
because we see it in our kids. And, No. 3, if you take it away, we are 
desperate; there is nothing left. They are going to die. It is very 
predictable.
  The committee ignored them. The committee ruled against them, and it 
did so because they basically applied the same standard to this drug as 
they did to a normal one: Oh, you didn't have enough people in the 
clinical trial. No, there aren't enough people to do a clinical trial 
with. It is a rare disease. The result is they had this ruling, and I 
think the vote was 7 to 3.
  What is interesting is that one of the board members was quoted as 
saying: Based on all I heard, the drug definitely works, but the 
question was framed differently. What that means is the way the FDA 
posed the question to this committee was not just whether the drug 
worked, but the question was the process: Did this clinical trial have 
enough people? Was it conducted the normal way--the way other drug 
tests are conducted? Of course not, because it is not treating a normal 
condition. It is one with a very small population.
  The committee spent almost the entire time focused on how the 
clinical study was designed and not on whether it works. By the way, 
had the FDA followed FDASIA, the law passed a few years ago, and taken 
that into account--the small patient population and likewise--they 
might have reached a different result. Instead, what is happening now 
is these patients and families are on the verge of losing not just 
access to the drug but to other families as well.
  Put yourself in the position of one of these patients. Your son has 
Duchenne, your son is taking this experimental drug, and you see how he 
is improving--because you do not improve with Duchenne. It is not one 
of these things where you get better, worse, better, worse. You get 
worse and then worse and then worse. It is a steady, predictable 
decline. So imagine your child is one of those impacted by this 
disease. You know what the outcome is. It is a predictable, guaranteed 
outcome. They are taking an experimental drug, and you know it is 
working because they are not declining. In fact, in many cases they are 
improving. You are begging the FDA: Please, allow us to continue to 
give our children this drug. They say: No, we reject it because the 
clinical trial was not conducted the way it is for normal drugs. Then 
you would understand the desperation of these parents.
  There is one last chance. The senior leadership of the FDA has the 
ability to override this decision and allow this to move forward. I 
personally hope that is what they will do. In the end, the only thing 
to lose here is to do nothing.
  The sad story here would be for these parents, who are already seeing 
the benefits, to lose access to this drug that they know is having an 
impact on their children. No one has been able to prove there is any 
threat that this drug poses to these children. This has been 
documented. CBS has done a report. Other entities have reported on it.
  FDA senior leadership has the chance to overrule this committee, 
which didn't knock it down for purposes of safety or anything of that 
nature. They just said the clinical trials didn't meet their standard--
and say these kids are going to die anyway if we don't do something.
  Here is a drug that is showing improvement, and families who are 
using it are begging them to allow them to use it. Thousands of people 
do not fly in from around the country or watch online for something 
that isn't working. If this weren't working, these parents would not be 
so adamant about it. They see it is working. They know people it is 
working for. They are desperate to keep it or to reach it. Listen to 
them. They know what they are talking about. They know. They are the 
primary caregivers for their children, and they know improvement when 
they see it.
  I hope the FDA will consider moving in a different direction. These 
parents deserve better.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  (The remarks of Mr. Tillis pertaining to the introduction of S. 2885 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. TILLIS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                       Pension Accountability Act

  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I rise today to talk about an issue 
that affects not only retirees in Ohio, but retirees all around the 
country.
  Let me start by saying that if hundreds of thousands of retirees were 
getting the Social Security benefits they had worked for cut by as much 
as 70 percent, there would be a national uproar. People would consider 
it totally unacceptable. It would be the top news story every night. 
People would say: These retirees played by the rules; they did 
everything right. Yet they are seeing these big cuts. How could this 
happen?
  Yet that is exactly what is happening to about 400,000 members of the 
Central States Pension Fund who are facing cuts of up to 70 percent as 
soon as July 1 of this year. Again, these are people who worked hard 
all their lives, put money into the pension system assuming it would be 
there, made their financial plans based on that, and now they are 
suddenly finding massive cuts--some 20 percent, some 40 percent, some 
as high as 70 percent. It is time for the Senate to address this 
potential crisis and to come up with a fair solution.
  The Central States Pension Fund consists mostly of union truck 
drivers. They have seen its pension fund severely decline. That is why 
we are in this situation. The pension suffered big investment declines 
during the great recession, as did other pension funds. One difference 
is that they missed the market rebound because they had a large 
population of new retirees, and they had to withdraw large sums from 
their pension for those payouts.
  One of the largest pension funds in America is in trouble. It is 
projected to go bankrupt in about a decade. That bankruptcy could be so 
large that it would have a very negative impact on the larger Pension 
Benefit Guaranty Corporation that insures the fund. We don't want that 
to happen because that could, of course, leave hundreds of thousands of 
retirees with severely reduced or no pensions.

[[Page 5336]]

  Something has to be done. Math is math. I understand that and, by the 
way, Central States retirees understand that. They know there is a 
problem. But the way Congress and the President have dealt with this is 
totally unacceptable. The House of Representatives worked on a 
proposal. It was crafted in the House, not in the Senate. It allowed 
the pension to possibly avert bankruptcy--and I say ``possibly'' 
because, as I will talk about later, even this proposal doesn't mean 
they are going to avert bankruptcy. But they did so by cutting the 
benefits of current retirees substantially, severely in some cases, 
again by as much as 70 percent.
  They then took this proposal called the Multiemployer Pension Reform 
Act, or MPRA, and buried it inside a $1 trillion spending bill, which, 
frankly, nobody read. It was one of those last-minute bills, an end-of-
the-year omnibus spending package, as they call it, and they sent it to 
the U.S. Senate. Members of the Senate were told: This is an up-or-down 
vote. There were no hearings in the Senate. There was no transparent 
process.
  I remember when this happened about a year and a half ago, we were 
told that if the Senate didn't quickly pass these unprecedented 
reforms, with no hearings and no opportunities for amendments on the 
floor of the Senate, the spending bill would fail.
  This is Washington at its worst: Bury something in a spending bill 
that has nothing to do with a spending bill--in this case, a pension 
cut--and then basically try to blackmail lawmakers to vote for it, 
saying: If you don't vote for this, the whole bill goes down.
  I voted against it, as did other Members here in the Senate, but it 
passed. Of course, President Obama quickly signed it into law. 
Suddenly, these retirees were sent notices saying they have this big 
cut in their pension.
  I agree that the status quo is not acceptable. I think over time it 
would lead to pension bankruptcy, and something has to be done. 
Difficult decisions are necessary. But the MPRA was an unfair remedy 
because it did not go through a fair and open and transparent process. 
Also, it didn't give the workers or retirees a sufficient voice in 
their own futures. They did not have a voice in crafting the reforms 
because of the way it was structured.
  We probably have 47,000, 48,000 Ohioans affected by this. After 
months of meetings with Ohio workers, retirees, and stakeholders, 
including the administration, I introduced what is called the Pension 
Accountability Act. Basically, it gives workers and retirees a voice in 
this process. Right now, MPRA does allow there to be a vote by workers 
and retirees, but for these large plans, the vote is nonbinding. So 
there is a vote, but it doesn't count. Even if the participants vote 
100 percent against the reforms, it wouldn't stop the cuts from going 
forward. That is crazy. That is certainly not democratic.
  Additionally, the vote is designed unfairly. Here is how it works: If 
a retiree or a worker chooses not to take out a ballot and vote, it is 
automatically counted as a ``yes'' vote for the plan. Imagine how that 
would work in U.S. Presidential elections or other democratic 
processes. But that is not how this works. If you submit a ballot, it 
should be counted. If you don't submit a ballot, it shouldn't be 
counted.
  So the Pension Accountability Act fixes these two problems: First, it 
makes the retiree and the worker vote binding. This will give workers 
and retirees a seat at the table, and a majority vote would be required 
for any pension cuts to go forward. Second, it makes the vote fair by 
counting the ballots as they should be counted, not returning the 
ballots as an automatic ``yes'' vote.
  These commonsense reforms give the workers and the retirees more 
leverage. It gives them a fair say in the process because their vote is 
going to be heeded to implement changes. They are going to have a seat 
at the table to find the right balance.
  Again, we know these pensions are in trouble, and some changes are 
necessary to prevent bankruptcy, which could leave some families with 
nothing. So let the process play out. If the businesses, unions, 
workers, and retirees can craft a solution to win a majority vote, more 
power to them. But let's give everyone a seat at the table, and let 
these retirees have a vote.
  The goal should not be to stop all pension reforms. If Central States 
continues on its road to bankruptcy, then, everybody loses. But the 
goal should be to give those affected a say in how these reforms are 
designed. It brings accountability. It opens the lines of communication 
on both sides of the bargaining table to come up with a fair solution.
  There are some other proposals. I think the Pension Accountability 
Act has a much more realistic chance of enactment because I do not 
believe a massive tax increase is viable. It is the only reform 
proposal with bipartisan support. In fact, between my bill and the 
House companion legislation, we have nine Democrats and nine 
Republicans.
  In the meantime, for the reasons I have discussed, the Department of 
the Treasury should not accept Central States' application. They should 
reject this proposal to cut benefits up to 70 percent for some of the 
retirees, as we have talked about. By the way, even if all the 
application's positive market assumptions play out, there is still a 
50-percent chance the pension goes bankrupt anyway. This doesn't 
exactly inspire confidence in this plan. I think they should go back to 
the drawing board.
  By the way, I am openminded to other solutions that would provide 
funding from inside the multiemployer pension system. There are 
different ideas out there, and we should talk about them.
  Let me finish with a story about a guy I got to know through this 
process. His name was Butch Lewis, from Westchester, OH. Butch was a 
star baseball player in high school. He was drafted out of high school 
by the Pittsburgh Pirates. But instead of going on to a career in 
baseball, he heard the call of duty and he volunteered to join the U.S. 
Army and to serve in Vietnam. He became an Army Ranger. He was 
seriously injured while rescuing fellow soldiers. He was sent home with 
a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart.
  When he came home, Butch reunited with his high school sweetheart 
Rita. He started a family, and he started working, despite his 
injuries. He spent 40 years as a truckdriver. The lack of shock 
absorbers in those old trucks hurt his knees a lot. His knees had been 
injured in Vietnam in battle. Ultimately, it required 37 surgeries. But 
he kept working and never complained. He sacrificed for his family and 
for their pension--to the point of foregoing pay raises, vacations, and 
other benefits in order to guarantee that he had a sufficient pension 
for retirement. They planned on it, like you would or anybody would.
  Finally retired, a year ago Butch was surprised when he received a 
letter in the mail saying his pension would be cut by 40 percent--the 
pension that he was depending on. So after all those years of work and 
sacrifice, his pension would be deeply slashed. Butch felt betrayed, 
and I think that is understandable. He organized with his fellow 
retirees an effort to try to defend those pensions, and that is how I 
came to know him. He came to Washington, DC, to meet with me here. I 
also met with him in Ohio. I listened to his story. I listened to his 
wife Rita, who is very articulate, and we addressed different ways to 
try to save his pension. He is one of the reasons we came up with this 
legislation.
  This past New Year's Eve, feeling the stress, Butch became ill, and 
he died of a massive heart attack. He was 64 years old. His wife Rita 
is left to pick up the pieces. She has now lost her husband. Her own 
dad is battling Stage IV cancer. She is looking at a 40-percent cut to 
her survivor's benefit. She is preparing to sell the house that she and 
her husband Butch saved a lifetime for. She is wondering what her 
future is going to be. She is a very strong woman. She worked 
tirelessly to save for these pensions. Now she is fighting to make sure 
all the hard work her husband put in was not in vain.
  This is who we are fighting for. Think about Butch Lewis when we

[[Page 5337]]

think about what we should do. Think about Rita and 400,000 other 
members of the Central States Pension Fund. These are people who played 
by the rules. They worked hard, and yet, in their retirement years, 
they face possible financial ruin through no fault of their own.
  This is why we need to pass the Pension Accountability Act. We have 
attempted to offer it as amendments in previous legislation here over 
the last couple of months. We are going to continue to do that. We are 
not going to give up. I would hope the Senate and the House would see 
that by giving people a voice, it gives them leverage, and we can come 
up with a better and a more fair solution for everybody.
  I yield back my time.
  I yield to the Senator from North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from North Carolina.


                 Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act

  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, April is Genocide Awareness and Prevention 
Month. As we remember all those who have lost their lives in the wave 
of terrorist violence sweeping the world, I call on my Senate 
colleagues to join the effort to make real the words ``never again'' by 
cosponsoring S. 2551, the Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act.
  Islamic extremists are waging religious war so severe that the Pope 
of the Catholic Church and the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church 
came together, stating:

       Whole families, villages and cities of our brothers and 
     sisters in Christ are being completely exterminated. Their 
     churches are being barbarously ravaged and looted, their 
     sacred objects profaned, their monuments destroyed. It is 
     with pain that we call to mind the situation in Syria, Iraq 
     and other countries of the Middle East, and the massive 
     exodus of Christians from the land in which our faith was 
     first disseminated and in which they have lived together with 
     other religious communities since the time of the Apostles. 
     We call upon the international community to act urgently in 
     order to prevent the further expulsion of Christians from the 
     Middle East. In raising our voice in defense of persecuted 
     Christians, we wish to express our compassion for the 
     suffering experienced by the faithful of other religious 
     traditions who have also become victims of civil war, chaos, 
     and terrorist violence.

  On February 4, a nearly unanimous European Parliament passed a 
resolution declaring that ISIS ``is committing genocide against 
Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities.'' Sadly, the 
United States, in keeping with the President's desire to lead from 
behind, only recently decided to call it genocide in the face of the 
religious cleansing taking place in the heart of the Middle East. ISIS 
vows that they will break our crosses and enslave our women--they are 
speaking of Christians--and they will place a black flag at the top of 
St. Peter's Basilica. At the other end of the Middle East, we have 
Iran. Iran is launching test missiles with the words ``Death to 
Israel'' on the tips of the ballistic missiles, in Hebrew.
  We would do well to remember the words of an Israeli Prime Minister 
who said: ``When someone tells you he wants to kill you, believe him.'' 
If you think it is a problem that is over there, think again. Terrorism 
reaches our shores. It has devastated some of the great cities of the 
world like London, Paris, Brussels, Madrid, and Bali. As a result of 
conflict, there are now a record 60 million displaced persons--men, 
women, and children. That is more than at the height of the 
displacement of World War II.
  Responding to the dire needs of those fleeing violence has driven a 
600-percent increase in global humanitarian aid over the past 10 years, 
from $3.5 billion in 2004 to $20 billion in 2015. I have actually seen 
the human cost in refugee camps along the Turkish-Syrian border. I was 
there a couple of weeks ago, less than 30 miles away from the Syrian 
border in Turkey. These were Muslims fleeing ISIS and a bloodthirsty 
dictator who unleashed chemical weapons on his own citizens.
  In the 1980s, then-Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick 
took up the cause of preventing genocide. With the memory of Chairman 
Mao's killing of 100 million still fresh in her mind, her attention was 
turned to Africa, where she saw the first stirrings of the genocide on 
the continent, and then to Cambodia, where Pol Pot murdered over one-
third of his nation. She urged President Reagan to sign the convention 
on genocide, and President Reagan did just that.
  President Reagan said:

       We gather today to bear witness to the past and learn from 
     its awful example, and to make sure that we're not condemned 
     to relive its crimes. . . . the genocide convention [is a] 
     howl of anguish and an effort to prevent and punish future 
     acts of genocide.

  I believe Congress has an important leadership role to play here. We 
can help ensure that America has the tools to combat genocide and 
atrocities and combat violent conflict. That is why I joined Senator 
Cardin in introducing the Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act.
  As does the Senator from North Carolina, I also have a special reason 
for supporting this legislation that has the potential to fuse 
diplomacy, intelligence, and foreign aid, and in turn, prioritize 
government action to prevent future atrocities by working together.
  It is important to me because my State, as I said earlier today, is 
at the tip of the sphere. When diplomacy fails, it is the 82nd Airborne 
and Special Forces from Fort Bragg or the U.S. Marines from Camp 
Lejeune who are going to go resolve the conflict. We want to avoid 
those conflicts. We owe it to them to do better by putting partisanship 
aside and by taking up proactive steps to avoid sending our 
servicemembers into harm's way to confront a conflict that may be able 
to be prevented without firing a single shot.
  Silence is the greatest enemy of freedom. Silence led to the 
devastation of Jews in Europe. But from the ashes of the Holocaust came 
the State of Israel and the vow ``never again.'' The first President 
Bush reminded us: ``The words `never again' do not refer to the past; 
they refer to the future.''
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon with 
great regret, having to raise the issue of the pending nomination of 
the Secretary of the Army. Mr. Eric Fanning has been nominated to be 
the Secretary of the Army. We have held hearings in the Armed Services 
Committee, and his name has been on the calendar for confirmation. My 
friend from Kansas, who is on the floor with me--and he is my dear 
friend of many years, despite the branch in which he chose to serve in 
the military--has been objecting to the confirmation of Mr. Eric 
Fanning as the Secretary of the Army, which is his right.
  Mr. Fanning had a distinguished career. He served as Special 
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense and White House Liaison. He 
served as Deputy Undersecretary of the Navy and Deputy Chief Management 
Officer of the Navy. The Senate confirmed him, and he served as Under 
Secretary of the Air Force, including 6 months as Acting Secretary of 
the Air Force. He served as Chief of Staff to the Secretary of Defense, 
Dr. Ash Carter. Later, he served as Acting Under Secretary and Acting 
Secretary of the Army. In 2016, he served as the Special Assistant to 
the Secretary of Defense.
  He comes from a military family. He has two uncles who graduated from 
West Point and were career Army officers. He has another uncle who is a 
career Air Force officer. He has a cousin who flew helicopters in the 
Marine Corps and another cousin who was an Army Ranger.
  He has senior executive leadership experience in all three military 
departments and has pursued efficiencies and transformation in every 
part of the Department of Defense. His most recent experience as Acting 
Under Secretary and Secretary of the Army has given him a solid 
understanding of the challenges currently facing the Army and the need 
to sustain a ready Army that will, as he said at his confirmation 
hearing, deter enemies, assure allies, build partner capacity, and be 
ready to respond when the Nation calls.

[[Page 5338]]

  One of the obligations--in some respects--that we as Senators have is 
the role of advice and consent, and that is an important role. As 
Senators, we also understand that elections have consequences, and 
therefore--although it is not written down anywhere--when a President 
is selected by the American people, then that President should be given 
the benefit of the doubt as to the person or persons the President 
wants on his or her team. I believe it is then our job to make the 
decision on whether to confirm or deny confirmation based on our view 
of the qualifications but with the presumption that we would confirm 
someone rather than the presumption that we wouldn't confirm someone. 
When the American people choose their leader--the President of the 
United States--then it seems to me it is our obligation, unless there 
is a reason not to do so, to ensure that the President has a team 
around him he has selected.
  I am stating the obvious, and Mr. Fanning is clearly qualified. He 
has performed well in the hearing before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. My friend from Kansas has objected to Mr. Fanning being 
confirmed by the Senate, and I will let him describe his reasons for 
objecting to the nomination, but as I understand it, the Senator from 
Kansas does not want the detainees from Guantanamo transferred to the 
State of Kansas.
  I have assured my dear friend from Kansas that the Armed Services 
Committee will not approve the transfer of detainees to the United 
States of America unless there is a plan that will assure the American 
people the circumstances surrounding that transfer, if it should ever 
take place, will be appropriate. The administration, after 7\1/2\ years 
that I have been dealing with them, has no plan. I can assure the 
Senator from Kansas that the Defense authorization bill, which I assume 
will be made into law, will again prohibit the transfer of detainees 
from Guantanamo to the United States of America until there is a plan 
that is approved by the Congress of the United States. That is our 
obligation and our role. Now, add to that that Mr. Fanning has no role 
to play. He has no role to play in this decisionmaking as to whether we 
transfer detainees from Guantanamo to the United States of America.
  When we consider nominations, we should be considering the role, 
mission, and responsibilities of that nominee, and, frankly, I say to 
my dear friend from Kansas, he has no role to play in the whole 
scenario I described.
  I urge my friend, in the strongest possible way I can, to work 
together with me, as we have over the last 7\1/2\ years on this issue 
of Guantanamo, and give the benefit of the Senator's expertise as we 
bring the Defense authorization bill to the floor during the last week 
in May, which is when it is scheduled, and talk about Guantanamo. I am 
totally confident and can assure the Senator from Kansas that the 
overwhelming majority of the Armed Services Committee and I am sure a 
majority in the Senate--I am totally confident that the Defense 
authorization bill will have a prohibition on the transfer of detainees 
to the United States of America unless there is a plan that is approved 
by the Congress of the United States.
  Finally, I understand that the Senator from Kansas is very concerned 
about this issue and has been for a long time. No one understands 
better than he. He was a former member of the U.S. Marine Corps and is 
aware of the obligations to preserve the safety and security of this 
Nation.
  All I can say is that the U.S. Army needs this man, Mr. Eric 
Fanning's leadership. It is not fair to the men and women of the U.S. 
Army to be without the leadership of a Secretary of the Army. Mr. 
Fanning is eminently qualified to assume the role of Secretary of the 
Army.
  I urge my friend and colleague to not object to the unanimous consent 
request I am about to propound.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider Calendar No. 477, the nomination of Eric 
Fanning to be Secretary of the Army; that the nomination be confirmed, 
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; 
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 Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I want to 
make certain that my colleagues understand my position on this matter. 
My hold on Eric Fanning's nomination is not in relation to his 
capabilities, expertise, or character, and it is certainly not intended 
to bring undue stress to our U.S. Army. Rather, my hold on the nominee 
is to protect the security of the United States and especially the 
people of Kansas.
  I will be more than happy to vote for Mr. Fanning once the White 
House addresses my concerns regarding the President's efforts to move 
Guantanamo Bay terrorist detainees to the mainland, with Fort 
Leavenworth, KS, the intellectual center of the Army, very high on the 
list.
  I have been clear, honest, and flexible with the White House. I am 
simply asking that they communicate to me what all those who have 
reviewed Fort Leavenworth already know; that Fort Leavenworth is not a 
suitable replacement for the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay. 
The White House has not reciprocated.
  I have prepared lengthier remarks on my position in this matter. At 
this time, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Arizona, our 
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee and my friend, 
has made a very impassioned plea for me to remove my hold on Eric 
Fanning to be Secretary of the U.S. Army. I want to be very clear that 
as a veteran and marine, I support the nominee for this post.
  Kansas is the proud home to two Army posts, Fort Leavenworth, the 
intellectual center of the Army where the commandant staff school is 
located, and Fort Riley, home of the Big Red One--two proud posts with 
very rich histories.
  I want the Army to have a highly qualified Secretary just as much as 
the distinguished Senator from Arizona, but it is due to my deep 
respect and concern for the men and women in uniform at Fort 
Leavenworth, and those who live and work in the region, that I am 
compelled to issue my hold on the President's nominee in the first 
place.
  As I have publicly stated from the beginning, and personally to Mr. 
Fanning, former Army Secretary John McHugh, and Defense Secretary Ash 
Carter, my quarrel is not with the nominee but with the President.
  President Obama continues to insist that he will close the Guantanamo 
Bay detention facility before he leaves office, transferring the 
remaining detainees to the U.S. mainland, with Fort Leavenworth under 
serious consideration. Quite frankly, this is a legacy item for the 
President. After much study and review, I can name countless reasons 
why this plan is wrong and it is also illegal. The President's own 
Cabinet has acknowledged this, and the Secretary of Defense and the 
Attorney General have publicly stated that current law prohibits the 
transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the mainland. Yet the President 
is undeterred. He continues to insist it will be done, even if he has 
to resort to Executive power in defiance of the law and the will of the 
Congress. As a result, I have been left with very little choice other 
than to do what I can as an individual Senator to block the transfer of 
detainees to Fort Leavenworth.
  I understand and share the concerns of the distinguished Senator, but 
if there is any anger, concerns, or frustrations, it should be directed 
at a White House that intends to ignore laws written and introduced by 
the Senator from Arizona himself. We should be speaking today, not 
about my attempts to protect the people of my State and Fort 
Leavenworth, we should be speaking about a White

[[Page 5339]]

House that ignores the National Defense Authorization Act and every 
appropriations bill passed in this Chamber since 2009. We should be 
angry at a White House that wants to bring this terrorist threat to our 
shores without so much as an intelligence assessment as to the risk and 
benefits of such an action to our citizens at home or to our men and 
women in uniform. An intelligence assessment regarding these concerns 
does not exist.
  The administration is responsible for refusing to come forward with a 
real plan to relocate prisoners, instead of a weak and veiled attempt 
to honor a campaign promise, which is the only way to characterize the 
actions to date.
  Just days ago, I received the most classified report from the 
Department of Defense on moving the detainees from Gitmo. This report--
far from clearing up any reports--made it even more apparent to me that 
it is virtually impossible to safely relocate terrorists at Fort 
Leavenworth.
  The assessment is there. All I am asking is for the White House to 
assure me that Fort Leavenworth is not a viable alternative. Cities and 
towns across America are holding their collective breath while we await 
the White House's judgment as to where to house these detainees.
  For those of us in the crosshairs, we are left with very few options 
to fight a President who is willing to break the law. With this hold, I 
have used one of the tools--perhaps the only tool other than a 
filibuster--afforded to me as a U.S. Senator, and I will continue to do 
everything in my power to fulfill the obligations of the security of 
the United States. It is what Kansans expect and have demanded of me.
  If the White House calls and assures me that terrorists held at 
Guantanamo will not come to Fort Leavenworth, I will gradually release 
this hold immediately. As a matter of fact, we just had a conversation 
with the White House this morning in the hopes that this could be 
worked out, but the White House simply would not give me that 
assurance.
  Make no mistake, I remain adamantly opposed to placing detainees 
anywhere on the mainland. The distinguished Senator from Arizona knows 
that, and I think he shares those views. However, if the plans and 
studies from the administration rule out Fort Leavenworth as an option, 
all they have to do is tell me.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request by the 
Senator from Arizona?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, Mr. Fanning has nothing to do with the 
issue. We are shooting a hostage that has nothing to do with the 
decisionmaking process. If we inaugurate a practice here of holding 
nominees over an issue that is not related to those nominees, we are 
abusing our power and authority as U.S. Senators.
  Secondly, the Senator from Kansas knows he cannot have the President 
call him. If he did that, he would then have to call 99 other Senators 
who would then hold up nominees because they have not been assured that 
detainees will not be relocated to their States according to any plan 
that the President may come up with.
  What we are doing is telling a nominee who is totally and eminently 
qualified for the job that that person cannot fulfill those 
responsibilities and take on that very important leadership post 
because of an unrelated issue that has nothing to do with Mr. Fanning. 
That is not the appropriate use of senatorial privilege. What if we set 
this precedent and every Senator--100 Senators--adopts the practice of 
saying: I don't want the President to pursue a certain course of 
action, therefore I will hold his or her nominees hostage until they 
take a certain course of action. That is not the role of advice and 
consent. That is a distortion of advice and consent.
  Let me say, I will be coming back to the floor on Mr. Fanning's 
nomination. It is not fair to him. He is an American citizen. He has 
served for years in the service of his country, at least since 2009 
that I can see. He shouldn't be held hostage to a policy decision 
that--the full Senate will act to prevent that action.
  I tell my colleague that the full Senate, as we have the last several 
years, will prohibit the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay 
until the President of the United States comes forward with a plan that 
is approved by the Senate. So if a plan came forward that contained 
movement of the detainees to Fort Leavenworth, as the Senator from 
Kansas is worried about, then the Senate would say no. We would say no.
  So, unfortunately, we have seen the Senator from Kansas take a 
nominee who is fully qualified in every aspect--he passed through the 
Senate Armed Services Committee by voice vote--and hold him hostage to 
an action that the nominee has no ability to take, has no ability to 
determine, nor is it in his area of responsibility as Secretary of the 
Army to determine a policy on Guantanamo.
  So if we are going to set a precedent here, I say to my friend from 
Kansas, that if we don't like a certain policy or anticipated action by 
the President of the United States in some area, we will therefore hold 
up a nominee for an office which they are not in any way related to--
that is not the way the Senate should behave.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Will my friend from Arizona yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. Sure. I will be glad to yield to my friend.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Well, if this is a bad precedent and all that the 
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee has said it is 
with regard to my actions, I will remind him that there has been a 
precedent before this time. The year was 2009, and this issue came up. 
Obviously, it was a campaign promise by the President. There was a lot 
of concern, a lot of frustration, a lot of anger. I asked myself at 
that particular time what on Earth I could do to stop this effort to 
move detainees to Fort Leavenworth. Again, I would stress that it is 
the intellectual center of the Army. The commander staff school is 
there--think Pershing, think Eisenhower, think MacArthur, think 
Petraeus. Bad fit. Sixteen thousand people at Leavenworth have signed a 
petition saying no to the detainees.
  Back then, in 2009, John McHugh--a wonderful Congressman, a great 
friend to me, and a great Secretary of the Army--was being nominated. I 
took the very same action, I would tell the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona, and put a hold on John.
  I called him up. I said: John, I have some bad news and some good 
news.
  He said: Well, give me the bad news.
  I said: Somebody here in the Senate has put a hold on you.
  He said: Who on Earth would do that?
  I said: It is me.
  He was a little stunned--I think a lot--and would probably make the 
same statement and speech the Senator from Arizona has given.
  I said: Not to worry. All that has to happen is for the 
administration to give me assurance--it could be vocal; I don't expect 
him to write it down--that the detainees will not be moved to Fort 
Leavenworth.
  John went to work to try to carry that message to the administration. 
I am not saying that Eric Fanning should do that, but John McHugh did. 
And it wasn't very long after that that the legal counsel from the 
White House--and I won't get into names here--called me and assured me 
that would be the case. I immediately lifted the hold.
  So there is a precedent in 2009, and it worked.
  Again, I really regret--my hold on Eric Fanning's nomination is not 
in relation to his capabilities, his expertise, his character, and 
certainly not intended to bring undue stress to the U.S. Army. I 
understand that. But when we are faced with a situation like this, and 
the situation could be further explained by a call that I just received 
prior to the distinguished Senator coming to the floor--the White House 
knows this--we had a very frank conversation. The conversation pretty 
well

[[Page 5340]]

ended up: I can't give you that assurance, but we won't surprise you; 
i.e., if we have an Executive order and we are moving detainees into 
Fort Leavenworth, we will certainly tell you.
  So I can't release this hold, as I did in 2009. I don't think the 
statute of limitations is here with regard to the previous assurance I 
got from the White House. If there is, maybe it is because that is--
when the legal counsel left, all of a sudden we were back to where we 
are.
  So the ball is in the court of the White House. All they have to do 
is give me another call and indicate that things will be fine. I am not 
telling them what language to use or anything else.
  I might add that there are two other Senators who are very concerned 
about this--Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and the distinguished 
Senator from Colorado, Cory Gardner.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, just quickly, facts are stubborn things, I 
say to my friend from Kansas. The reason there hasn't been movement of 
the detainees is because the action of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee in the authorization bill prohibited such a thing from 
happening. It has nothing to do with any hold or no hold that the 
Senator from Kansas has. Let's be very clear about that. And whether 
Eric Fanning is confirmed or not, it does not change the situation one 
iota--not one iota.
  I have assured the Senator from Kansas that the Senate Armed Services 
Committee--I know enough about my own committee to know that they will 
be passing again, as we have for the last several years, a prohibition 
on the movement of detainees until there is a plan. And in 2009 or 
whenever it was, I am sure they had no plan at that time because they 
came to see me and I told them to come up with a plan.
  So the Senator's actions have nothing to do with whether or not the 
President closes Guantanamo and transfers them, and the Senator's 
action right now has nothing to do with whether or not the President of 
the United States will decide to close Guantanamo by Executive order 
and move them to Leavenworth. There is nothing he is doing by 
withholding this nomination that would in any way inhibit the President 
from acting. The only thing that will inhibit the President from acting 
is the aye vote of Senator from Kansas on the Defense authorization 
bill which will be on the floor at the end of May and which will have a 
prohibition for the transfer of those detainees.
  So I would hope my dear friend from Kansas would understand that what 
we need to do is get a defense authorization to the floor, get it in 
conference with the House, and get it to the President's desk. That is 
the best way he can keep any movement of detainees to Kansas and to 
Fort Leavenworth. And at the same time, the President of the United 
States, despite your hold on Mr. Fanning, may act by Executive order. 
Nothing you are doing by prohibiting Mr. Fanning from being confirmed 
to a post he is well qualified for--to lead the U.S. Army--will have 
any effect whatsoever on an Executive order by the President of the 
United States.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield again for one last comment?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, every Senator listening to this--every 
person listening to this--should understand, with the summation the 
Senator has just given, what an outstanding chairman of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee he has been and what a stalwart he has been 
for our men and women in uniform. I cannot think of a chairman--and 
there have been a lot of very great chairmen in the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, but none so well qualified as the Senator from 
Arizona. His remarks are right on point with regard to his point of 
view. His remarks sing, if you will, in behalf of our national defense. 
He is a great friend. He is a personal friend. I respect him more than 
he knows, and I appreciate him. I think he mentioned Eric Fanning to be 
Secretary of the Navy. That might be an alternative. But at any rate, I 
want to thank him for his remarks.
  But if this has no bearing on anything, why did the White House call 
me just before we came down here trying to work it out? And saying that 
in 2009--OK, they did let me know that Fort Leavenworth was not being 
considered. As I say again, there is no statute of limitations, I don't 
think, except just ``Oh well, by the way, we are going to change our 
mind'' and a couple of little campaign assurances by the President 
saying ``Well, we can always use an Executive order''--not to mention 
his Press Secretary. So if there is nothing to bear here--this doesn't 
have any relationship to the issue at hand--why did the White House 
call and say ``Well, we will make a decision down the road, but we 
won't surprise you''?
  I shouldn't even be talking about this with regard to the 
communications this morning. So I just disagree with my good friend. I 
thank him for his leadership, and I thank him for his position. Were I 
in his position, I probably would be saying the same thing.
  Mr. McCAIN. May I just say, Mr. President, that I hope my dear friend 
from Kansas--we are about to go into a week-long recess--would do as he 
always does, and that is contemplate and communicate, as he does with 
the people of Kansas, who have honored him for so much time here in the 
Congress of the United States. Maybe hopefully we could work this out 
with the certain knowledge and my assurance that I am 100 percent 
confident that the Senate Armed Services Committee will report a bill 
that will become law that prohibits the transfer of the detainees from 
Guantanamo to anywhere in the United States of America until there is a 
plan that is approved by Congress, and I want to give him that 
confidence.
  His passion that he has displayed here is ample evidence for why the 
people of Kansas hold him with such affection and respect. He is 
fighting for what he believes is in the best interests of the people 
whom he represents so well and honorably.
  I hope he will have the opportunity, as we go into recess next week, 
to talk with his constituents and think about this and think about my 
assurance that we will not--we will not--approve of a transfer of 
detainees from Guantanamo Bay unless it is in compliance with the law 
that we will pass.
  I thank my colleague.
  I know the Senator from Tennessee is waiting.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, within a few minutes we will be voting 
on whether to cut off debate on the Energy and Water appropriations 
bill and move to finish the bill. I hope my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle will vote yes.
  This is a bill the Senator from California and I have worked on 
carefully with Members on both sides of the aisle. More than 80 
Senators have made contributions to the bill. We considered 18 
amendments on the floor. This is a bill which is about half national 
defense and about half essential services. These include dredging 
harbors and building locks and dams. These include our 17 National 
Laboratories and keeping us first in the world in supercomputing. It is 
within the Budget Control Act, and it is the part of the budget that is 
flat. In other words, it is a part of the budget that is reasonably 
under control, not the part that is not.
  It is also the first time since 2009 that this Energy and Water 
appropriations bill has had the opportunity to go across the floor in 
the regular order. It is the earliest appropriations bill that has been 
considered by the Senate since 1974. Senator McConnell and Senator Reid 
picked this bill because they thought Senator Feinstein and I could 
work with Members of the Senate to establish a model for how to deal 
with the remainder of the appropriations process, and we hope that 
proves to be true.
  We have run into one issue, and that is an amendment by the Senator 
from Arkansas regarding Iran. That is a provocative amendment--I 
understand

[[Page 5341]]

that--on both sides of the aisle, and the President cares about it as 
well. But I have worked hard to get Senators a right to offer germane 
amendments. Some Senators have chosen to withdraw their amendments in 
order to keep the bill moving along, but Senator Cotton has a right to 
offer his amendment on the bill, and I support him in doing that. He 
has been eminently reasonable. He has offered to modify it. He has 
offered to do it at another time. He has offered to vote it at 60 votes 
or to vote it by voice vote. So far, we have not had any agreement.
  If we do not succeed, I am going to keep working with Senator 
Feinstein, the Democratic and Republican leaders, and with Senator 
Cotton in the hopes that when we come back next Monday, we will have a 
suitable solution and we will vote still again on finishing the Energy 
and Water appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Over the last year and 5 months the White House has 
threatened 87 vetoes. That is about one every week and a half. If we 
shut down the Senate and stopped our work every time the President 
threatened a veto, we would be here about 3 or 4 hours every Monday 
afternoon.
  When we say to the President: Your budget is dead on arrival, he 
sends us his budget anyway.
  The way to handle a veto threat is the way we did it with the 
national defense act, which is to say: All right, Mr. President, if you 
want to veto it, you may. We sent it to him, and he did. It came back, 
and the offending provision was taken out. A better way to do it might 
be that the President says: I will veto the education bill. We worked 
with him, and we sent him a version that he could sign.
  My plea with my friends on the Democratic side, as well as on the 
Republican side, is let's not let the White House lead us around by the 
nose and tell us we can't consider a bill just because there is a veto 
threat. We should consider the bill. We are a coequal branch of 
government. We should do what we think we ought to do--defeat it or 
pass it. Then, if the President chooses to veto it, that is his 
constitutional prerogative, and most of the time, if we know that is 
going to happen, the offending provision comes out.
  I ask for a ``yes'' vote. I hope that it succeeds. If it doesn't, we 
will be having the same exact vote a week from next Monday when we come 
back, and I will do my best to help that succeed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
proceed to the motion to reconsider the cloture vote on amendment No. 
3801 is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is agreed to.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The bill 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 3801, offered by the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. 
Alexander, as amended, to H.R. 2028, shall be brought to a close, upon 
reconsideration?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Johnson).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), and the Senator from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 65 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--43

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Booker
     Boxer
     Cruz
     Johnson
     Sanders
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 
43.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, upon reconsideration, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.


                             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 bill 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, Tim Scott, Marco Rubio, Michael B. Enzi, 
           Daniel Coats, Cory Gardner, Roy Blunt, John Cornyn, 
           Mike Rounds, James Lankford, Roger F. Wicker, Thad 
           Cochran, Lamar Alexander, Johnny Isakson, David Vitter, 
           Patrick J. Toomey, Rand Paul.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum call be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are a lot of divisions on Capitol 
Hill, and the press spends a lot of time reporting differences between 
Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate. I think that is 
one of the reasons the press conference I just left is noteworthy, 
because at this press conference, we had equal numbers of Democratic 
Senators and Republican Senators talking about a bill that we hope to 
move forward on the floor of the Senate. The bill relates to criminal 
justice reform.
  I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation with Senator Chuck 
Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We 
are proud to

[[Page 5342]]

have the support as well of Senator Leahy and Senator Mike Lee of Utah, 
who was one of the original authors of this bill 3 years ago when we 
both introduced it. We also have the support of the Republican whip, 
John Cornyn of Texas; Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island; and many 
others who have joined this effort.
  What is it about this bill that could bring people together who are 
so different--liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans? It is a 
common belief that we bring to this that at this moment in history, we 
need to take an honest look at the incarceration policy in America.
  The United States of America has 5 percent of the world's population 
and 25 percent of the world's prisoners. Over the last 35 years, we 
have increased the number of Federal prisoners by anywhere from 800 
percent to 900 percent. We are building Federal prisons as fast as you 
can imagine, and they are dramatically overcrowded.
  It raises the obvious question: Are we safer? If we spend $30,000 a 
year to incarcerate a person, take them off the streets and away from 
their family, are we safer because of it? In some cases, we clearly 
are. Our first obligation is public safety. If someone is a 
threatening, deadly, violent criminal, they ought to be taken off the 
streets as long as they are a menace or a danger to society. But the 
largest increase in the Federal prison population during the period I 
just described is for nonviolent offenders, people who have sold drugs 
in America.
  The problem is made worse because we decided 25 or 30 years ago to 
create mandatory minimum sentences. What it meant was that when the 
judge sentenced someone, there was an absolute floor they couldn't go 
below regardless of the circumstances. Needless to say, that resulted 
in the miscarriage of justice in many cases.
  Sadly, it isn't just a matter of longer sentences. We have seen some 
disparities and injustice that we have to be very honest about, as 
painful as it is to describe them. For instance, the majority of 
illegal drug users and drug dealers in America are White. Three-
quarters of all the people incarcerated for drug offenses are African 
American and Latino, and the large majority of those who are being 
sentenced under mandatory minimum sentences are African American and 
Latino.
  Let's be very honest about this. In my State of Illinois, I have to 
be because in the city of Chicago and other communities, we are going 
through a very candid and painful discussion about the issues of race 
and justice. We have to be honest. We are incarcerating minorities in 
this country at dramatically higher percentages than we should. The 
reason I say that goes back to the original point: The majority of 
illegal drug users and sellers in America are White; three-quarters of 
those in prison are not.
  As a result of mandatory minimums, the families of nonviolent 
offenders are separated for years on end, and a disproportionate number 
of them are people of color. This is destroying communities, damaging 
and destroying families, and, sadly, eroding faith in our criminal 
justice system.
  In 2010 I worked with Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. He is a very 
conservative Republican but one of my colleagues and friends on the 
Senate Judiciary Committee. We passed the Fair Sentencing Act. You see, 
we had a disparity in sentencing so that those who were found guilty of 
selling and using crack cocaine were sentenced at 100 times the 
standard of powder cocaine. There was a reason for it, but it turned 
out not to be valid. Yet for years this was the standard. We were 
filling our prisons primarily with African Americans on crack offenses, 
and if they were repeat offenders--three times and you are out, three 
strikes and you are out--they could be sentenced for long periods of 
time.
  Senator Sessions and I decided to change it. We reduced the disparity 
between crack and powder, and we have seen a dramatic downturn not only 
in those serving times for crack cocaine offenses and selling them but 
also the arrests that are being made today.
  This bill we just announced in a press conference--the latest version 
and I think a good version--is another step forward. It will give 
judges more discretion in sentencing below the mandatory minimum on an 
individual case-by-case basis.
  A young man whom I have come to know is Alton Mills. Alton is from 
Chicago, IL. In the year 1994 at the age of 24, Alton Mills was given a 
mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole for a low-level, 
nonviolent drug offense. This man had never served 1 day in prison in 
his life, and at age 24 he received a life sentence. I appealed to 
President Obama to use his Executive authority to give Alton Mills 
another chance. Just before Christmas last year, the President commuted 
his sentence, and Alton Mills was released after 22 years in Federal 
prison.
  He was there today in a meeting we had with his mom. She never gave 
up on him. She was the one who appealed to me initially to take a look 
at her son's case. His attorney, a dynamic African-American woman named 
MiAngel Cody, really closed the deal as she described this case in 
detail and how unfortunate it was that a 24-year-old man would receive 
a life sentence for low-level, nonviolent drug offenses.
  He is not alone. There are hundreds more just like him serving 
mandatory life sentences for third-strike sentences. The Sentencing 
Reform and Corrections Act, which Senator Grassley and I have 
introduced, would eliminate this mandatory life sentence. This change 
alone would change the sentencing for many who are currently serving in 
Federal prisons.
  The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in its original 
form by a vote of 15 to 5--a good, strong vote. We have picked up an 
additional number of Republican sponsors since we have made some other 
changes in the bill. I thank Senator Lee for joining me in initially 
introducing this bill.
  There are so many people who are counting on this legislation, not 
just those families who have someone serving time in prison but many 
people across the board--Black, White, and Brown--who want to see us 
restore faith in the system of criminal justice.
  We had an amazing endorsement of our bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the letter of endorsement.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 National District


                                        Attorneys Association,

                             Alexandria, Virginia, April 26, 2016.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader McConnell and Democratic Leader Reid: 
     On behalf of the National District Attorneys Association 
     (NDAA), the largest prosecutor organization representing 2500 
     elected and appointed District Attorneys across the United 
     States as well as 30,000 assistant district attorneys, I 
     write in support of S. 2123, the Sentencing Reform and 
     Corrections Act of 2015. As a result of months of changes and 
     good faith negotiations, our organization feels the latest 
     version of the bill strikes the appropriate balance between 
     targeting the highest level drug traffickers plaguing our 
     communities, while simultaneously decreasing crime rates and 
     addressing the burgeoning prison population.
       America's federal, state, local and tribal prosecutors have 
     as their primary responsibility the administration of 
     justice. Everyday, prosecutors have to make tough judgment 
     calls. Sometimes, that judgment call involves locking up 
     individuals for a long period of time for a heinous crime 
     that damaged a community. More often, we work hard to provide 
     second chances and concerted efforts are made to rehabilitate 
     an individual with the goal of reducing the chance that he or 
     she will reoffend back into the system.
       As we have seen from the cost curve published by the 
     National Academy of Sciences, the current prison population 
     is simply unsustainable and continues to have a greater and 
     greater impact on broader funding and programming at the 
     Department of Justice. Budget aside, communities across this 
     country have shifted to embrace rehabilitation and the 
     opinion that certain individuals in our federal prison system 
     are serving sentences that are too long compared to the crime 
     they committed. This legislation aims to strike the 
     appropriate balance of time served and the relevant crime by 
     modifying the three strikes rule for drug felonies, with

[[Page 5343]]

     a third strike now carrying a 25-year penalty as opposed to 
     life, and second strike carrying a 15-year sentence instead 
     of 20 years. Appropriately so, the bill expands the three 
     strikes rule to apply to serious violent felonies, ensuring 
     that we use prison for those we are afraid of, not those whom 
     we are mad at based on their behavior.
       One previous concern our members highlighted was the 
     retroactive nature of many provisions in the original bill. 
     The new version takes into account that concern by limiting 
     the retroactivity where applicable if an individual's record 
     contains any serious violent felony. We feel this filters out 
     the truly dangerous individuals who should stay out of the 
     community, while allowing lower level offenders a chance for 
     redemption.
       Our members also realize that as we see the same offenders 
     reenter the criminal justice system time and time again, we 
     must be creative and come up with innovative programs to 
     reduce recidivism, including job training skills, addiction 
     counseling and other productive activities. According to a 
     report primarily authored by the National Center for State 
     Courts, ``properly designed and operated recidivism-reduction 
     programs can significantly reduce offender recidivism. Such 
     programs are more effective, and more cost-effective, than 
     incarceration in reducing crime rates.''
       As part of the broader legislation, the Corrections Act 
     requires the development of a risk assessment tool that will 
     categorize inmates based on their risk of recidivism and 
     subsequently determine which types of programming are most 
     tailored to that individual's needs and risks. This is an 
     important step in targeting at risk populations and providing 
     the necessary resources to rehabilitate those individuals 
     with the eventual goal of returning to our communities as 
     productive citizens. At the same time, appropriate parameters 
     are set for who is eligible to earn good time credit for 
     completion of the recidivism reduction programming in order 
     to keep the most dangerous and high-risk individuals from 
     being eligible for early release to community supervision and 
     off the streets.
       We are especially appreciative of the provision in the 
     legislation requiring an annual report by the Attorney 
     General outlining how savings accrued from modifications to 
     federal sentencing will be reinvested into efforts by 
     federal, state and local prosecutors and law enforcement to 
     go after drug traffickers and gangs, as well as provide the 
     necessary training and tools needed to carry out 
     investigations, keep officers safe, and ensure successful 
     programming and initiatives are duplicated across communities 
     in the form of best practices. Unfortunately, as the Bureau 
     of Prison's (BOP) budget has continued to rise, funding for 
     state and local law enforcement grants has been slashed to 
     the bone negatively impacting innovative work in the field 
     including diversion programs, updating of information sharing 
     systems, and hot spot policing. This language is an 
     acknowledgement that vital funding streams to prosecutors and 
     law enforcement must be restored to protect the communities 
     we serve.
       The members of NDAA are acutely aware that our federal 
     partners need to have the ability to allocate resources to 
     state prosecutors to help combat human trafficking, domestic 
     violence, the scourge of prescription drug addiction, and so 
     many other ills that plague our communities. Absent 
     meaningful sentencing reform, where the truly dangerous are 
     locked up for an appropriate period of time and those with 
     addiction or mental health issues have the chance for 
     treatment and rehabilitation, those needed resources will not 
     exist.
       We applaud the bipartisan leadership of the Senators and 
     staff who have spent considerable time working on this 
     compromise legislation. Their tireless efforts have included 
     open and transparent communication with our organization and 
     members, which has not gone unnoticed. We look forward to 
     working with both of you and other Senators and staff in the 
     weeks ahead to move this bipartisan legislation forward.
           Respectfully,

                                          William Fitzpatrick,

                            President, National District Attorneys
                                                      Association.

  Mr. DURBIN. The National District Attorneys Association, which is the 
largest group of criminal prosecutors in America, has endorsed our 
criminal justice reform bill. We have brought together an incredible 
coalition. I am proud to have not only the civil rights community, but 
we also have others from the conservative side, such as Michael 
Mukasey, former Attorney General. Everyone knows him to be a tough 
prosecutor. He endorses our bill. Others have come forward. They 
understand that it is time to step back and take an honest look at 
where we are today.
  This criminal justice reform bill will bring some sanity to our 
corrections system, and it will save us money. Roughly one-fourth of 
the Department of Justice appropriations now goes into prisons. By the 
year 2030, it will be 30 percent. As Senator Lee said, we are spending 
more money on prisons than we are spending in the Department of Justice 
on the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration combined.
  What if we could reduce that prison population in a responsible, 
sensible way that doesn't endanger public safety but gives us resources 
that could be used by the Department of Justice for law enforcement, 
for dealing with the heroin epidemic across America and making our 
neighborhoods truly safe? What if we could take part of that and invest 
it in the lives of young people before they turn to gangs, before they 
turn to drugs, and before they turn to guns? That could literally 
change the face of a great city such as Chicago and the great Nation we 
live in.
  This is a historic bill--not just because Democrats and Republicans 
have come to support it; it is historic because we are tackling one of 
the toughest issues of our time. We are doing it in a thoughtful, 
careful, bipartisan, and respectful manner. I happen to believe that is 
what the Senate should be all about.
  I look forward to encouraging my colleagues who have not signed on as 
cosponsors to do so as quickly as possible.
  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.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today as the cochair of the Rare 
Disease Congressional Caucus in recognition of patients with Duchenne 
muscular dystrophy and the loved ones who care for them.
  Duchenne is a devastating, rare disease that primarily affects boys 
and young men. There is no cure. It is 100 percent fatal. There are no 
approved disease-modifying treatments at this time, but we want to give 
them hope. In 1999, there were no human clinical trials for Duchenne. 
Today, there are 22 observational trials currently underway. Life 
expectancy rates have increased by about 10 years in just the past 
decade. The FDA has more tools in its toolbox than ever to accelerate 
approvals of safe and effective Duchenne therapies, but we would like 
more therapies to be approved in the future.
  Duchenne muscular dystrophy is the most common fatal genetic disorder 
diagnosed in childhood, affecting approximately 1 in every 3,500 male 
children. The disease results in the gradual loss of muscle strength, 
usually beginning before age 5. The progressive muscle weakness leads 
to serious medical problems, particularly issues related to the hearts 
and lungs. By age 14, over 80 percent of these boys are using 
wheelchairs.
  My work on Duchenne muscular dystrophy began when I was elected to 
the Senate. It was an issue my dear friend and former Minnesota 
Senator, Paul Wellstone, championed. Paul was instrumental in getting 
the Muscular Dystrophy Community Assistance Research and Education 
Act--or as it is known, the MD-CARE Act--signed into law back in 2001.
  The bill dramatically increased investment at the National Institutes 
of Health for muscular dystrophy research and included funding for the 
creation of six centers of excellence. In recognition of his work, all 
of the centers share Senator Paul Wellstone's name. The bill also 
supported public health policies designed to improve quality of life 
and boost life expectancy of children and adults diagnosed with 
muscular dystrophy.
  Since passage of the MD-CARE Act, $500 million has been leveraged for 
muscular dystrophy research and education programs, half of which is 
Duchenne-specific. I then led the reauthorization of the MD-CARE Act in 
2008, and it passed the Senate by unanimous consent. In 2014, Senator 
Roger Wicker and I led the MD-CARE Amendments of 2014, which built upon

[[Page 5344]]

the progress by ensuring that efforts are focused on the most critical 
needs of doctors, patients, and researchers. These are important 
accomplishments, but more needs to be done.
  The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012 
gave the FDA increased flexibility to grant accelerated approval for 
rare disease treatments that have proven to be beneficial. The bill 
also directed the FDA to use patient-focused drug development tools 
during the drug approval process. The idea is simple: Patient 
experience should be a factor when the FDA considers a drug for 
approval. This gives the FDA the opportunity to hear directly from 
patients, their families, and caregivers about the symptoms that matter 
most to them, the impact the disease has on patients' daily lives, and 
their experiences with treatments.
  To build upon that progress, Senator Wicker and I introduced the 
Patient-Focused Impact Assessment Act. The bill would help advocates 
understand how the FDA uses patient-focused drug development tools and 
how it engages patients, including those with rare diseases, such as 
Duchenne, as it reviews drugs and therapies. Last month this bipartisan 
bill unanimously passed the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee, bringing us one step closer to ensuring strong 
patient engagement throughout the FDA review process.
  At an FDA meeting on Monday, there was one example of patient 
involvement in the drug approval process. It was a meeting that broke 
records. According to advocates, it was the largest gathering of 
Duchenne families in history. More than 900 members of their community 
were there. In fact, turnout was so large the FDA changed the meeting 
location to accommodate everyone.
  Many stories were shared during the daylong meeting--stories of hope, 
stories of progress. Even seemingly small improvements--such as the 
ability to open a bottle of water on their own or lift their arm a 
little higher--make a huge difference in the quality of these boys' 
lives. These small victories have a ripple effect across a lifetime.
  Monday's historic event shows the strength of the Duchenne community, 
the passion of the families, and the hope that treatments are on the 
horizon. This particular treatment was not approved that day, but we 
continue to hold hope that change will be on the horizon.
  The fight against muscular dystrophy will not be won overnight, but 
we have already seen incredible progress in the last few years. I am 
confident that by working together--by bringing families to the table 
with policymakers and health care experts--we can accomplish some truly 
remarkable things.
  One of the reasons Senator Wicker and I fought so hard to have the 
FDA officials listen directly to the families is that when you know 
your child has a disease that is 100 percent fatal, you might take 
different risks. You might see different improvements in a different 
way than a medical professional who does not have this experience. We 
hope going forward this kind of experience and testimony and 
information will make for better decisions by the FDA.
  We need to continue to ensure the FDA has the tools and flexibility 
it needs to increase the number of safe, effective, and affordable 
treatments that are available for people with rare diseases. I also 
thank Senator Hatch, who has done a lot of work with me on the rare 
disease issue, and we will continue to push for cures for people who 
have so little hope.
  I thank the Chair, 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.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________