[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12199-12209]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2016

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 2848, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2848) to provide for the conservation and 
     development of water and related resources, to authorize the 
     Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for 
     improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       McConnell (for Inhofe) amendment No. 4979, in the nature of 
     a substitute.
       Inhofe amendment No. 4980 (to amendment No. 4979), to make 
     a technical correction.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.


                         Continuing Resolution

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, shortly the two leaders of this Chamber 
will be headed to the White House to update the President on 
discussions over keeping the government funded and up and running past 
the end of the fiscal year, which is September 30. I want to briefly 
remind our colleagues how we ended up in this situation, why it is we 
are talking about a short-term continuing resolution from this point 
until December 9 and then revisiting the issue beyond that by December 
9.
  It is pretty clear everybody understands that a CR, as we call it 
around here--a continuing resolution--is really a stop-gap spending 
bill to fund the government, and it is the result of our Democratic 
colleagues filibustering the regular appropriations process. As the 
Presiding Officer knows, there are 12 appropriations bills that need to 
be considered by each of the appropriations subcommittees, then they 
are voted on by the committee itself, and then they come to the floor 
of the U.S. Senate, where we take them up in a transparent and orderly 
sort of way--each of those 12 bills--or at least that is the plan. We 
brought up bill after bill to do just exactly that this year, and this 
is the first time since 2009 that all 12 bills have been voted out of 
the committee and are now available for us to act upon.
  That is the way the legislative process is supposed to work and that 
is the way that is transparent to the American people so they know 
exactly what we are doing, and they can call us and say: We don't like 
that or they can call us and say: Well, I do like that. The point is, 
this is far superior to short-term continuing resolutions or the 
dreaded omnibus bill that we had to deal with last year; again, as a 
result of our inability to get the appropriations process to work.
  This year, our Democratic colleagues stopped the regular orderly 
process of passing appropriations bills. One might ask: For what 
purpose? Well, it is pretty obvious their purpose was to make sure they 
had maximum leverage in order to force the Federal Government to spend 
more money--not just on national security matters, which would enjoy a 
lot of support on this side of the aisle, but to use any increase in 
national security spending to leverage more nondefense discretionary 
spending, breaking the caps that have been agreed upon in a bipartisan 
way previously.
  So this is the reason we find ourselves in this distasteful and 
unpleasant position--Democratic obstruction. Now we are forced to deal 
with a short-term stopgap bill, which is nobody's first solution. It is 
not my second or third, but it is something we must deal with, and we 
will.


               Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act

  Mr. President, separately, yesterday our country observed the 15th 
anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and at 
the Pentagon and in a field in Pennsylvania, where brave patriots 
brought down this plane rather than allow it to come to the Capitol and 
create or cause other damage and perhaps loss of life. We know that 
about 3,000 Americans died just in the attack on the World Trade 
Center.
  All of us remember where we were on that day. I certainly do. The 
only other time in my life that I can tie back to a historic and sad 
event like that was when John F. Kennedy was killed when I was in 
junior high school. I remember exactly where I was when President 
Kennedy was assassinated. So it is that I remember exactly where I was 
and what I was doing when those planes hit the World Trade Center and 
those 3,000 Americans lost their lives.
  It is important for us to send a message that evil shall not prevail. 
Americans from all backgrounds came together in a beautiful display of 
patriotism and fraternity following that terrible day of September 11, 
2001. Of course, following those attacks, the United States took 
military and diplomatic action to bring justice not only to those 
families but to demonstrate the consequences of attacking the American 
homeland, but the truth is, the victims and their families still don't 
have the ability to get justice from the people--including the 
governments--who helped fund those terrorist attacks. That is where the 
bill, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, comes into play 
because if this legislation is signed by the President, it will become 
the law of the land. It will amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 
in a way that will allow Americans to sue State sponsors of terrorism 
when the terrorist attack occurs on American soil. Believe it or not, 
under current law, that can't happen. So this law is one that is 
designed to make sure these families who are still grieving and still 
don't have closure will be able to seek justice in a court of law 
against the people who killed their loved ones on September 11.
  This is a bipartisan bill. My primary cosponsor in the Senate is 
Senator Schumer from New York. As a matter of fact, this is so 
bipartisan as to be nonpartisan. It passed the U.S. Senate by unanimous 
consent. Any individual Senator who wanted to, could stand up and say: 
I object, and it wouldn't have happened, but nobody did. So by 
unanimous consent, we passed this legislation in the U.S. Senate. Last 
Friday, in the U.S. House of Representatives, it passed without any 
objection. It passed unanimously. I know it is pretty hard for people 
to actually believe anything gets passed unanimously here in Washington 
in this polarized political environment, but this bill was passed 
unanimously.
  Now, just after the anniversary of these tragic attacks, the Justice 
Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act is headed to the President's desk, 
perhaps as early as today. This legislation will give victims of terror 
attacks and their families the opportunity to seek justice in a court 
of law from those who fund and facilitate terrorist attacks.
  I want to make clear that contrary to some of the reports, this 
legislation doesn't mention any foreign government at all. It is 
agnostic. What it says is, if you fund and facilitate a terrorist 
attack on American soil, you can be hauled into court to answer for 
your crimes, and the families can seek compensation as they would in 
any other personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit.
  This is a straightforward piece of legislation. It simply provides 
the mechanism to help victims of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil find 
the justice they need. The American people, through their elected 
representatives, have been clear in their support for this legislation.
  Unfortunately, President Obama has already threatened to veto it, and 
for what reason I simply am at a loss to say, but I want to point out 
that this veto threat isn't about a President and his soured 
relationships with Congress; it is about the victims of 9/11 who have 
made clear they deserve to have this avenue of justice made into law.
  Again, this legislation doesn't mention any particular country, and 
it doesn't decide the merits of any claim these family members may 
have. That is left to our justice system, as it should be.

[[Page 12200]]

  Just yesterday, the families of the 
9/11 victims sent a letter imploring President Obama to sign this bill. 
This is a powerful letter.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the 
letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The families speak openly in this letter about the grief they still 
feel not just on the anniversary of 9/11 but every single day. They 
talk about why justice is so important and how this legislation would 
help ensure that ``justice delayed for the 9/11 families will not 
become justice denied.'' And they are right. That justice may have been 
delayed, but it will not be denied under this bill.
  At the end of the letter, they plead with President Obama and ask him 
not to ``slam the door shut and abandon us. We need the Executive 
Branch to join Congress and protect us and all future victims of 
terrorism.''
  They say: ``Please sign JASTA.''
  These victims have certainly been through a lot and they certainly 
have the strength of their conviction. I admire the courage they 
display every single day to get up in the morning and go on about their 
lives in the aftermath of so much loss and so much tragedy. The least 
we can do is to make JASTA law so they and others in the future can 
have access to the courts and a path to justice.
  Again, this bill doesn't decide the case; that is left to the court 
of law. It doesn't target an individual country; it says that any 
country who sponsors and facilitates and funds terrorist activities on 
American soil can be called to answer for it in court.
  Frankly, I find it baffling that President Obama would rather make 
life easier for State sponsors of terrorism than he would lend support 
to the families of 9/11. He should sign this bill. It has an 
overwhelming display of support in Congress on behalf of the American 
people. I hope he reconsiders his previously threatened veto, but if 
President Obama does veto it, I hope he doesn't leave the American 
people and the victims of terrorism in limbo. If he is going to veto 
this legislation, he should not delay so Congress can quickly consider 
whether to override that veto and make the Justice Against Sponsors of 
Terrorism Act the law of the land. There is a way, if the President 
decided to play games with the victims of 9/11 and these families who 
have suffered so much, that he could make it hard, if not impossible, 
for Congress to vote to override the veto, but one thing he can do, out 
of respect for them and the memory of their lost loved ones, is to go 
ahead and veto it, if that is his determination, and then send it back 
here and then let Congress vote to override the veto, which I am 
confident we will.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               September 11, 2016.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are all mothers, fathers, wives, 
     husbands or children who lost loved ones in the cruel and 
     devastating attack on America fifteen years ago today.
       We miss them. And we grieve at what they have missed in 
     lives cut short by terrorists whose immediate targets were 
     innocents and whose ongoing target is everything America has 
     stood for, fought for and promised to protect and defend 
     since our union was formed. And we anguish especially as we 
     witness the spread of the poisonous ideology that is 
     determined to ensure that 9/11 was only the beginning.
       This is a hard day for all of us. But, as we are sure you 
     must know, they are all hard, not just the anniversaries. For 
     some of us, though, this day is harder than any since the 
     attack and we want you to understand why.
       We and so many other families have fought for years to know 
     all of the truth about 9/11. We have fought to ensure that 
     anyone and any entity that may have had a responsible role in 
     the murder of 3000 people in New York, at the Pentagon and 
     across a field in Pennsylvania is held to account for their 
     actions. And, we have struggled to make sure that our laws--
     and those who are sworn to uphold them--leave nothing undone 
     in our battle against terrorism.
       The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act addresses a 
     missing piece of America's antiterrorism campaign--a piece 
     that is missing because of grievously errant misconstructions 
     of earlier laws meant to ensure that the families of 
     Americans harmed or killed as a result of terrorist attacks 
     with respect to which foreign governments may be complicit 
     will be able to seek justice in our courts. That right is 
     important for our Nation, because it will help to deter 
     state-sponsored terrorism. It will help uncover truth--such 
     as the mysteries surrounding the ability of 19 hijackers--
     barely educated, not speaking much English and without 
     visible resources--to come to America, learn to fly, set up 
     camps in several cities and hijack four commercial airliners, 
     crashing them spectacularly into the heart of our Government 
     and the heart of our economy.
       You have had your differences with us about JASTA. And we 
     have been supportive of the reasonable efforts Congress has 
     made to address your misgivings. But, now, Congress is done, 
     and the result is legislation that both the United States 
     Senate and the House of Representatives passed without a 
     single dissenting voice.
       JASTA will be delivered to you soon, perhaps tomorrow. And, 
     here lies the reason this day is made even harder than past 
     anniversaries: we don't know what you will do. We are left to 
     wait, to hear remembrances and reassurances and regrets.
       Mr. President, we don't need your comfort. We have each 
     other. We don't need words--other than the words ``I will 
     sign JASTA into law when it reaches my desk.'' We need those 
     words and a simple action--the stroke of the only pen that 
     can give us and the American people the assurance they need 
     that your foreign policy and your defense of this great 
     Nation include a determination that truth be our guidepost, 
     that victims of terrorist attacks also have rights in our 
     courts and that the justice delayed for the 9/11 families 
     will not become justice denied.
       Please, Mr. President, don't slam the door shut and abandon 
     us. We need the Executive Branch to join Congress and protect 
     us and all future victims of terrorism. Please sign JASTA.
           Sincerely,
       Terry Strada, widow of Tom Strada, North Tower; Sylvia 
     Carver, sister of Sharon Carver, Pentagon; Veronica Carver, 
     sister of Sharon Carver, Pentagon; Bill Doyle, father of 
     Joseph Doyle, North Tower; Gordon Haberman, father of Andrea 
     Haberman, North Tower; Alice Hoagland, mother of Mark 
     Bingham, Flight 93; Emanuel Lipscomb, survivor, civilian 
     rescuer, NYC; Marge Mathers, widow of Charles W. Mathers, 
     North Tower; Ellen Saracini, widow of Capt. Victor Saracini, 
     pilot of Flight 175.
       Kristen Breitweiser, widow of Ronald Breitweiser, South 
     Tower; Curtis F. Brewer, widower of Carol K. Demitz, South 
     Tower; Gail Eagleson, widow of John B. Eagleson, South Tower; 
     Lisa Friedman, widow of Andrew Friedman from World Trade 
     Center; Tim Frolich, personal injury survivor, North Tower; 
     Monica Gabrielle, widow of Richard Gabrielle, South Tower; 
     John Jermayn, personal injury survivor FDNY; Mindy Kleinberg, 
     widow of Alan Kleinberg, North Tower; Kathy Owens, widow of 
     Peter J. Owens Jr, North Tower; Melissa Raggio Granato, 
     daughter of Eugen Raggio, South Tower; Charles G. Wolf, 
     widower of Katherine Wolf, North Tower.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The assistant minority leader.


           The Appropriations Process and Zika Virus Funding

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my friend and colleague from Texas came to 
the floor to describe the budget and appropriations process which we 
face in this session of Congress. Our fiscal year begins October 1, and 
it is only a few weeks away. Under the orderly course of business, we 
would pass 12 different appropriations bills and fund the government 
for the next fiscal year. To date, we have not passed any of those 
bills in the Senate.
  I would like to say a word in defense of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee on which I am honored to serve. This committee has had 
lengthy hearings and has produced 12 appropriations bills. I would say 
that these bills are good, bipartisan bills and with only a few 
exceptions are being brought forward in good faith in an effort to meet 
our constitutional obligation to fund the government.
  One of the earliest bills that were brought forward was the Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs bill. It is not considered to be a 
highly controversial bill, and it was understandable that it was one of 
the first appropriations bills brought to the floor. The Senators who 
prepared the bill--Republican Senator Kirk from Illinois, my home 
State, Democratic Senator Jon Tester--brought it to the floor. They 
added a provision in the bill that the President asked for to deal with 
the Zika crisis.
  Back in February, President Obama asked for $1.9 billion to deal with 
the public health crisis caused by this mosquito-borne disease, the 
Zika virus. We

[[Page 12201]]

have reports from around the world that pregnant women who are infected 
with this virus by a mosquito or by other means are giving birth to 
children with terrible birth defects. The President called on us in 
February to give him the resources to help fight the spread of this 
mosquito in Puerto Rico, one of the territories of the United States, 
and in the United States of America and also asked for the resources to 
help develop a vaccine, which all of us would be interested in seeing 
as quickly as possible, to protect innocent people from this mosquito-
borne disease.
  So we took the President's request, and after some debate, Senators 
Murray and Blunt, a Democrat and Republican, agreed on $1.1 billion of 
the $1.9 billion asked for by the President. They added it to the 
Military Construction spending bill. It made sense. When they called it 
for a vote here in the Senate, the vote was 89 Senators in favor of 
this Military Construction appropriation bill with the Zika money 
included. I felt pretty good about that.
  On a bipartisan basis, we had responded to the President in May of 
this year and passed the first appropriation bill to be sent to the 
House. What my friend from Texas, the Senate majority whip, failed to 
mention was what happened to that bill once it left the Senate. So 89 
Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, supported the bill and sent 
over what we considered to be a responsible, clean bill. What did the 
House do? Did it take up this measure and pass it with the emergency 
provisions to deal with the Zika crisis? No. Therein lies the problem 
with the appropriation process. The same House Republican majority that 
ran John Boehner of Ohio out of town as Speaker decided to flex their 
muscles on this bill. Do you know what they put in the bill? They took 
this bill that was a bipartisan clean bill and added the most 
objectionable political issues.
  Let me give an example. They added into this bill a question about 
whether Planned Parenthood would be funded to provide family planning, 
especially for women who were trying to avoid a pregnancy because of 
the threat of the Zika virus. They put a prohibition against the 
funding of Planned Parenthood. Last year, 2 million American women used 
Planned Parenthood. It is understandable that when they attack Planned 
Parenthood, it is a controversial issue. I stand in favor of what 
Planned Parenthood does when it comes to family planning. Others 
disagree. But why would you add that to a bill on a public health 
crisis about Zika? Why would you put it in a Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs bill that has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood's 
activities?
  Secondly, the House Republicans cut $500 million out of the Veterans' 
Administration that was being used to expedite the claims of veterans. 
We know the story back in Chicago and Illinois. A lot of our deserving 
veterans have been waiting in line for month after wary month for 
approval of their disability claims. We put in resources to speed that 
up. The House Republicans took the $500 million out of the Veterans' 
Administration. That is controversial, unnecessary, and unfair to 
veterans.
  Then, to add insult to injury, there was a third provision. They 
decided to suspend the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency 
when it came to the use of certain chemicals to fight the mosquitoes. 
Well, that carries controversy with it. Clean water is certainly 
something we all value, and we wouldn't want to compromise it. The 
House Republicans added that in.
  There was one more provision they added to make it clear that this 
was a political exercise from the House. Listen to this one. There was 
a ban on the display of Confederate flags at U.S. military cemeteries. 
The House Republicans removed that ban so that Confederate flags could 
be displayed at U.S. military cemeteries.
  So a bill we passed with 89 votes--a strong, bipartisan bill--a bill 
that included a bipartisan compromise to deal with the Zika virus in a 
timely fashion, was sent over to the House of Representatives and was 
freighted with the most political issues imaginable to be sent back 
home over here.
  If the Senator from Texas wonders why the appropriations process 
broke down, don't blame the Senate Appropriations Committee. For the 
most part, they have done their work. Don't even blame the Senate 
itself. When it came to voting on the Military Construction bill, we 
voted on a bipartisan basis to go forward. The process fell apart 
across the Rotunda with the House Republicans.
  So if we are going to get this done--and I hope we do--we need a 
short-term spending bill called a continuing resolution. It will take 
us through the month of October, a campaign month, through the month of 
November, when we return and face the Thanksgiving holidays, and into 
early December. That, to me, is a reasonable thing to do to give us 
time to finish the appropriations process, but in the meantime, we have 
to get back on track--and the President joins me in what I am about to 
say--to take out these controversial political provisions, particularly 
those originating in the House from the Republican leadership, and get 
down to the business of funding this government in a responsible 
fashion.
  I will take exception to one statement by the Senator from Texas. He 
said the Democrats were trying to spend more money. That didn't quite 
tell the whole story. We have an agreement which says that if we want 
to increase defense spending--I will vote for that--we have to increase 
nondefense spending in a similar fashion--same amount, equal amount. 
Why would we want to increase nondefense spending? Education, Pell 
grants, student loans, helping children in Head Start Programs, making 
sure hungry families across America have enough to eat, making certain 
the FBI is adequately funded--there are a lot of things when it comes 
to the nondefense side that are important for America's future and for 
our security. All we are asking for is fair treatment. Increase the 
Department of Defense, similar increase in nondefense spending--that is 
it.
  If we can get back on track, I think we can, incidentally, get this 
done. I hope the leadership on the Republican side--and they control 
the House and the Senate--will decide to give us this short-term CR 
until early December and put a clean Zika provision in, the same one 
that passed the Senate. That would be a way to resolve our differences 
and to address this public health crisis which has taken too many lives 
across the world and has certainly caused horrible outcomes when it 
comes to pregnancies of women who are infected.


                          Affordable Care Act

  Mr. President, last week a number of my Republican colleagues came to 
the Senate floor to discuss the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as 
ObamaCare. They didn't come to offer the Republican alternative to the 
Affordable Care Act. They didn't come forward with proposals on how to 
improve the Affordable Care Act. They came here basically to say they 
were against it, period. That is no surprise.
  Considering that the Republicans have spent the last 6 years 
attacking the Affordable Care Act, I think it is time that America 
hears at least some part of the other side of the story. I would like 
to take a moment to talk about what has happened in this country since 
the passage of the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare.
  Since the Affordable Care Act became law, the uninsured rate has 
declined by 43 percent in America, from 16 percent uninsured in 2010 to 
9.1 percent in 2015. To put it another way, the number of uninsured 
people in the United States has declined from 49 million in 2010 to 29 
million in 2015. Stated another way, more than 20 million people have 
gained health insurance because of this law. For the first time ever, 
more than 9 out of 10 Americans have health insurance.
  Have you ever been in a position in your life when you didn't have 
health insurance? Have you ever been a father with a brandnew baby who 
needed the best medical care and you didn't have health insurance? Have 
you ever wondered how you would take care of your child and your family 
when you couldn't provide them with health insurance? I have. I went 
through it. It

[[Page 12202]]

scared me to death--a brandnew dad, so happy and proud, and then a 
medical challenge in my family occurred, and we had no health 
insurance. I went to a local hospital here with my wife and baby, sat 
in the chair in the ward, and waited for our number to be called. I was 
a law student and I didn't know what was going to happen next. Luckily, 
we had good medical care. We paid for it. The care that wasn't covered 
by insurance cost us quite a bit of money in those days, and it took us 
a long time to pay it off. But I never felt more inadequate as a father 
than sitting there without health insurance. Have you ever been there? 
If you have, you will never forget it. I have been there.
  For this country, 20 million people today have the peace of mind of 
health insurance who did not have it before ObamaCare. This represents 
the largest decline in the uninsured rate since we created Medicare and 
Medicaid in the 1960s.
  Since the Affordable Care Act became law, Americans no longer have to 
worry about a lot of discriminatory things that were being done to 
families before we passed the law. Health insurance companies can no 
longer refuse to provide you insurance because of a preexisting 
condition.
  Does anybody in your family have a preexisting condition? Certainly 
in our family, and most. It could be diabetes, a child who survived 
cancer--think of all the possibilities. In the old days before the 
Affordable Care Act, they could just say no in terms of covering your 
family or raise the rates to high heaven to make it impossible to pay 
for insurance. This provision alone on preexisting conditions protects 
129 million Americans, 19 million children. When the Republicans come 
to the floor to say they want to abolish the Affordable Care Act, what 
do they say about the 129 million Americans with preexisting 
conditions? What do they say about the 19 million children with 
preexisting conditions? Not one word.
  These insurance companies can no longer charge women more than men 
for the same insurance policies. That is right. There was blatant 
discrimination--charging women more than men for the same health 
insurance policies. Who is protected by that? Well, 157 million women 
in America. Did the Republicans suggest, when they abolish ObamaCare, 
what they are going to do to protect these women? Not a word.
  Insurance companies can no longer impose annual or lifetime caps on 
benefits. Remember those days? People get gravely ill, a diagnosis they 
hadn't expected, an accident, and then they find out they are in for a 
long period of care, which is very expensive, and they check and find 
that their health insurance plan has a cap on how much it will pay. The 
rest of it was on your shoulders, and for many people that meant a trip 
to bankruptcy court. This provision alone protects 105 million 
Americans--including 39.5 million women and 28 million children--who 
were previously subject to these arbitrary caps. What did these 
Republican Senators say about protecting these families if they 
abolished ObamaCare? Nothing.
  No longer, incidentally, under ObamaCare, can insurers spend large 
percentages of your premium dollars on advertising and the salaries of 
the fat cats who run the company. This has protected 5.5 million 
consumers who received nearly $470 million in rebates last year. Under 
ObamaCare, insurers can't impose copays on important preventive health 
services, such as immunizations, cancer screenings, and birth control.
  Because of the Affordable Care Act, because of ObamaCare, Medicare is 
better for the 55 million seniors who depend on it. There was the 
dreaded doughnut hole. Do you remember that one? That was when a senior 
on Medicare would have pharmacy bills. The original Medicare Program 
for pharmacy didn't cover all expenses. It is a strange thing to 
explain, but it would cover expenses on the front end of the year, and 
then they would have to go into their savings accounts. I would say to 
the Senator from Florida, who knows senior issues better than most, it 
was called the doughnut hole, and we changed it.
  So we changed it. We are filling the doughnut hole. We are closing it 
and phasing it out. That saves 10.7 million Medicare prescription drug 
beneficiaries an average of almost $2,000 each. What have we heard from 
Republicans about replacing that provision? Nothing.
  The Affordable Care Act also encourages health care providers to 
focus on quality of care, not just quantity. As a result, American 
lives are being saved. Because of the provisions in ObamaCare, 
hospital-acquired conditions have declined 17 percent in 6 years. 
Infections, adverse drug events that resulted in patients staying in 
hospitals longer and even dying have dramatically decreased. That has 
prevented 87,000 deaths over the last 4 years.
  In Illinois, we have seen the benefits as well. Between 2013 and 
2015, the rate of uninsured among 18- to 64-year-olds decreased from 
17.8 percent to 10.6 percent, a 7.2-percent drop, one of the largest in 
the Nation. Prior to ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, an estimated 
1.8 million Illinoisans were uninsured. Today, the number is below 
800,000.
  In terms of health insurance monthly premium costs, Illinois ranks 
15th as one of the most affordable nationwide. Now Republican Senators 
single out newspaper headlines talking about premium increases. They 
have claimed ObamaCare is the reason. I am troubled by certain aspects 
of these rate increases. I think it is important to take a close look 
at them.
  In recent years, there have been a lot of stories in the press about 
premium increases for some plans, in some cities, for some people. The 
Republicans have come to the floor to tell all of these stories that 
they can. It is important to note that premiums for employer coverage, 
Medicare spending, and health care prices have all grown more slowly 
under the Affordable Care Act than before.
  For employer premiums, the past 5 years included four of the five 
slowest growth rate years on record. Medicare spending is $473 billion 
less than was projected before the Affordable Care Act. Health care 
price growth since the Affordable Care Act became law has been the 
slowest in 50 years. You don't hear that in the speeches from the other 
side of the aisle.
  Where premium increases have been most prevalent is in the individual 
market. Out of 350 million Americans, 11 million are in this market. I 
am troubled by the increases in those markets. But it is important to 
remember that is a small portion of the overall market. Most people who 
get coverage through the insurance exchanges of ObamaCare--that is more 
than 80 percent of them--receive a tax credit to help them pay their 
premiums. Let's not forget that premium increases were around long 
before the Affordable Care Act.
  In 2005, 5 years before the Affordable Care Act, a Los Angeles Times 
headline read, ``Rising Premiums Threaten Job-Based Health Coverage.'' 
In 2006, 4 years before the Affordable Care Act, a New York Times 
headline read, ``Health Care Costs Rise Twice as Much as Inflation.'' 
In 2008, 2 years before we passed the law, the Washington Post headline 
read, ``Rising Health Costs Cut Into Wages.''
  Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act to combat these premium 
increases, which were devastating families, bankrupting individuals, 
and squeezing employers' budgets. Despite all the anti-ObamaCare 
rhetoric being peddled by my Republican colleagues, the major aspects 
of this law are working. More Americans are insured than ever before. 
We have ended the most discriminatory and dishonorable practices of the 
health insurance industry, and we have taken important steps to improve 
and strengthen Medicare.
  Is the law perfect? No. The only perfect law was carried down the 
side of a mountain on clay tablets by Senator Moses. All the rest of 
our efforts can use a little work. I think Senator Nelson from Florida 
and I would agree. We supported the bill, but we would sit down with 
the Republicans tomorrow to find ways to strengthen it, make it fairer, 
make it better. That is constructive, but that is not what we hear

[[Page 12203]]

from the other side. The other side says: It must go away. That is no 
way to bargain.
  Instead of working, Republicans have, at every possible opportunity, 
tried to end the Affordable Care Act. They broke all records in the 
House of Representatives. We think they voted 60 times to abolish the 
Affordable Care Act. It almost became the regular vote before they went 
into recess: Oh, before we leave, let's vote to abolish it--knowing 
that that wasn't going to happen and shouldn't happen.
  What we know now is that we can make this law better. We should work 
to do it. We have to deal with some of the issues that are before us. 
If the Republicans would sit down, there are some steps we could take 
together. The marketplaces are working for the vast majority of 
Americans. Some 88 percent of enrollees live in a county with at least 
three choices for health care. There is still more we can do for those 
who have only one or two choices to face in their areas.
  When we debated the Affordable Care Act, many of us on the Democratic 
side, myself included, said: Why don't we have one Medicare-like public 
plan that is available across the United States? That could compete 
with private insurers and bring prices down. There was a lot of 
fearmongering. People stopped us from our efforts to include a 
universal Medicare plan as part of it. I would like to return to it.
  To help balance the risk pool and attract Americans in the 
marketplaces, particularly healthier younger people, we should expand 
financial assistance to help middle-class families better afford 
coverage. We must address one other issue that we all know is front and 
center--the price of pharmaceuticals, the price of drugs. This is the 
elephant in the room when it comes to this conversation. It is one 
which most Members of the Senate and House are running away from.
  When drug companies increase their prices or put new treatments on 
the market that are exceedingly expensive, insurance companies are 
forced to come up with the money to cover the cost, and often they pass 
the cost along in higher premiums. An Illinois insurer recently told me 
that drug expenses, the cost of pharmaceuticals, used to account for 
about 15 percent of this health insurance policy cost. The number now, 
a year later, is up to 25 percent, and there is no end in sight.
  We have asked doctors and hospitals and medical device companies and 
other medical professionals to bring us quality and lower costs, but we 
put no burden on the pharmaceutical companies. The most recent Medicare 
Part D data show that 46 percent of the most commonly prescribed drugs 
had a double-digit price increase in 2014. A recent Reuters report 
found that prices for 4 of our Nation's top 10 drugs have increased by 
more than 100 percent since 2011. Six others went up 50 percent. What 
did that mean for those who use the drugs?
  The price for the arthritis drug Humira went up 126 percent. The 
multiple sclerosis drug COPAXONE went up 118 percent. The asthma drug 
Advair went up 67 percent. Mylan Pharmaceuticals just increased the 
price of EpiPens. Did you read about that one? They increased the price 
of EpiPens from less than $100 for a pack of two in 2007 to more than 
$600 today. It is the same drug but a 550-percent increase in cost.
  This last Friday in Chicago, a young man came to see me. He has been 
battling diabetes for as long as he has been alive. It is a daily 
battle; it is an hourly battle to try to ensure that he doesn't succumb 
to this disease. His mom and dad were with him. He put in front of me a 
list of what it costs now for insulin and for the basics that diabetics 
need across America. The costs just keep going dramatically. It is not 
pinned to the original research cost of the drug at all. Many of these 
drugs were on the market for years at a reasonable cost, but now the 
pharmaceutical companies are kiting the costs. Let me be clear. We will 
not be able to get a handle on rising health care costs if we are 
unable or politically unwilling to address escalating drug prices.
  Something has to be done. I support a wide range of ideas, from 
requiring drug companies to disclose how they arrive at pricing, to 
allowing Medicare to negotiate for drug prices, from shortening the 
monopoly period that drug companies enjoy before generic competition, 
to ending the pay-for-delay arrangements that necessarily keep generic 
drugs and lower prices away from consumers. We should also explore 
imposing a tax on companies that arbitrarily raise their prescription 
drug prices significantly over the previous year.
  I will close. The bottom line is, the Affordable Care Act is working. 
Twenty million Americans now have health insurance. Being a woman is no 
longer considered a preexisting condition. Kids can stay on their 
parent's health care plans up to age 26. Insurers can no longer kick 
someone off insurance if they get sick or cost too much.
  Just as we had to make changes and improvements in Medicare over the 
years, the Affordable Care Act can work better if we set aside politics 
and sit down together and work on it. The Affordable Care Act is here 
to stay. So let's stop trying to repeal it and undermine it. Let's make 
it stronger and better for the future of America.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield through the 
Chair.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I want to say to the Senator from Illinois 
that that was an excellent recitation of what the Affordable Care Act 
has done to ensure health insurance and provide health care for the 
people of our country. This Senator just wants to underscore one 
statistic that the Senator from Illinois cited. The Senator cited that 
20 million people in the country have health insurance who did not have 
it before.
  If the Senator would recall, when we started this deliberation on 
cobbling together this new law, we were told that there were 
approximately 45 million people in the country who did not have health 
insurance. Now, when you break down that 45 million, 11 million of them 
are undocumented and, therefore, under the law are not eligible to have 
health insurance.
  So that leaves 34 million. When you take the 20 million that 
presently have health care that the Senator cited and add to that 4 
million more that will be covered by Medicaid expansion in the 16 
States that have refused to expand Medicaid to 138 percent of poverty, 
now we are talking about 24 million of an eligible population of 34 
million. That is two-thirds. That is extraordinary. That has happened 
just in the last few years.
  Would the Senator from Illinois believe that?
  Mr. DURBIN. In response through the Chair, the Senator from Florida 
knows this issue as well as or better than most. He understands the 
progress that has been made. I am sure he agrees with me that we can do 
better; we can improve this law. We can make it work better, but only 
if we do it in a constructive, bipartisan way. I listen carefully when 
my Republican colleagues come to the floor thinking they want to 
abolish the Affordable Care Act and replace it with--they never finish 
the sentence. They don't have a replacement.
  So what are we going to say to the 20 million Americans who now have 
health insurance because of this law? You are on your own again. Sorry, 
your family is not covered. That is no answer. I would agree with the 
Senator from Florida that we have come a long way. We can improve this 
law and make it better and stronger. I think our goal to bring more 
people under the protection of health insurance and to slow the rate of 
growth in health care costs has been achieved. But to make it go 
forward in the right way we need to work together.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.


                           Zika Virus Funding

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I want to speak about health care, and it 
is a health care crisis that is upon us right now. It is the Zika 
crisis. Happily, if my voice will hold out, I am here to share with the 
Senate that I think we have finally found a path forward to

[[Page 12204]]

fund the fight against Zika. The specifics are still being worked out, 
but it seems that there will be a deal, and we will soon be able to 
move forward on doing what we tried to do last summer, which is to fund 
the crisis that we know as the Zika crisis.
  Let me just briefly describe it. Populations outside of the 
continental United States, such as Brazil, are highly infected 
populations because of the presence of this type of mosquito, the Aedes 
aegypti mosquito. It is not like a normal mosquito. Normal mosquitoes 
come out at night. They fly all around in the countryside. When this 
Florida boy grew up, I was bitten by so many mosquitoes I was almost 
immune. But this aegypti mosquito lurks in the dark corners of your 
house. She lays her eggs, her larva, in stagnant water--but not a pool, 
not a pond like normal mosquitoes; they can lay their larva in a still 
surface of water as small as a bottle cap that has caught water. As a 
result, this mosquito transmitting the virus feeds not on one person at 
a feeding but four people. Thus, an infected mosquito has now 
transmitted the virus to four people who, in turn, can now transmit it 
to others by sexual contact or another uninfected mosquito bites the 
infected person. Now that mosquito is infected and it goes go on. You 
see how it can expand.
  In Florida, there are 756 cases of the virus that we know of, and 
that includes 84 pregnant women. Why do I say pregnant women? Because 
if you get the virus, it is just like a mild flu, but if you are 
pregnant and you get the virus in the first trimester of pregnancy, 
there is a 2-percent to 11-percent chance that your baby is going to be 
deformed. The virus attacks the developing fetus in the brain stem and 
causes the brain and the head to shrink. That is what we are dealing 
with.
  When we left in the summer, early July, to some Senators it was ``out 
of sight, out of mind,'' but we have seen the increasing numbers of 
cases, thousands now nationwide, 756 in Florida alone. By the way, that 
is just what we know of. The CDC is estimating that there are four 
people walking around with the virus for every one that we know of, so 
you see the problem.
  To bring this back to politics, I can tell you that the people in 
Florida are very agitated. I have been there the last two weekends, and 
I can tell you it is the No. 1 issue on their minds. The fact that some 
of our Republican colleagues--particularly in the House of 
Representatives--are willing to put ridiculous riders on the Zika 
funding bill and insist on that for three votes--let me take you back. 
Remember, we had an overwhelming, bipartisan vote in this Senate for 
$1.1 billion to get at it. To do what? Local mosquito control, health 
care assistance, and continued research on the vaccine. We are another 
1 year or 2 years away from the vaccine, but the Food and Drug 
Administration is ready to go with the first trial. It takes money. 
They have run out of money. We need to do it. The Senate recognized 
that.
  We passed it months ago, I think by 89 votes out of the 100 Senators. 
We sent it to the House, and the House decided to play politics. They 
add something to do with the Confederate flag. They add something to do 
with defunding Planned Parenthood. They add something that has to do 
with cutting Medicaid money going to Puerto Rico. Why is that 
particularly onerous? The CDC estimates that 25 percent of the 
population of Puerto Rico is infected, that a quarter of the people are 
infected. Of all places, an island territory with American citizens--a 
territory of the United States--is where we ought to be helping with 
health care for a very poor population. We shouldn't be cutting 
additional funds for Puerto Rico. Yet that is what we have been faced 
with.
  I am of a mind of new optimism now because I think common sense is 
beginning to break out.
  In this Florida situation of 756 cases, we have seen newspaper 
reports that the State of Florida government hasn't been transparent 
about the spread of the virus in our State. Over the weekend, the Miami 
Herald reported that ``the information issued by the governor and state 
agencies has not been timely or accurate--cases announced as `new' are 
often several weeks old, because of a time lag in diagnosis--and 
excludes details that public health experts say would allow people to 
make informed decisions and provide a complete picture of Zika's 
foothold in Florida.''
  As we have said many times on this floor, this is not the time for 
political games. Those games should be over, and we should do it. The 
wonderful news that a deal is being struck is welcome news to this 
Senator.
  The threat that this country faces from the spread of this virus is 
real. The virus-carrying mosquito, the Aedes aegypti, is in the State 
of the Senator from Iowa--a State you wouldn't normally think of as 
having mosquitoes. We are in the midst of a public health crisis, and 
it should be treated like the emergency it is.
  So as we await the final details of this possible deal, it is 
important to remember that no one agency, State, or leader is going to 
solve this crisis alone. Those who saw this virus as a political 
opportunity are the ones who got us into this mess of delay, month 
after month. The virus is not a political opportunity; it is a public 
health emergency. To stop the spread of the virus, we are going to have 
to do what we did months ago--come together in a bipartisan fashion.
  As Congress comes together to finally act, we are going to need 
leaders across the country to act prudently and expeditiously to put 
these funds to use as quickly as possible.
  Members of Congress, pass the Zika bill. We need it now.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.


            FBI's Release of Clinton Investigation Material

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record at the end of my speech articles from the Boston Globe on 
September 6, 2016, and the New York Times on September 8, 2016.
  Mr. President, today I wish to discuss my very serious concerns about 
the FBI's selective release of Clinton investigation material and 
especially how the Senate is handling the unclassified but not yet 
public information provided by the FBI.
  On the Friday before a holiday weekend, the FBI chose to release to 
the public only two of the dozens of unclassified documents it provided 
to the Congress.
  Director Comey said: ``The American people deserve the details in a 
case of intense public interest'' and ``unusual transparency is in 
order.'' He is right. The people have a right to know, but actions 
speak louder than words. Right now the public has only a very narrow 
slice of the facts gathered by the FBI.
  The FBI has released only its summary of the investigation and the 
report of the interview with Secretary Clinton. However, its summary is 
misleading or inaccurate in some key details and leaves out other 
important facts altogether. There are dozens of unclassified reports 
describing what other witnesses said, but those reports are still 
hidden away from the public. They are even being hidden from most 
congressional staff, including some who have been conducting oversight 
of the FBI on these issues. Why? Because the FBI improperly bundled 
these unclassified reports with a very small amount of classified 
information and told the Senate to treat it all as if it were 
classified.
  This is certainly not the ``unusual transparency'' Director Comey 
said he would provide. In fact, it is just the opposite: unusual 
secrecy. Normally, when an agency sends unclassified information to the 
Office of Senate Security, the office that handles and controls 
classified information, there is a very simple solution. The executive 
order and regulations governing classified information require that 
information be properly marked so that the recipient knows what is and 
is not classified.
  In the past, when the Judiciary Committee, which I chair, needed to 
separate classified information from unclassified information, the 
Office of Senate Security very simply looked at

[[Page 12205]]

the markings on the paper and provided copies of the unclassified 
information without any restrictions, but that has not been done in 
this specific case. Why not? Because the FBI has instructed the Senate 
office that handles classified information not to separate the 
unclassified information which could then be made public. Think about 
that. The FBI, part of the executive branch of government, is 
instructing a Senate office about how to handle unclassified 
information.
  Our Constitution creates a carefully balanced system of separation of 
powers--executive, judicial, legislative. The executive branch cannot 
instruct a legislative branch office to keep information from the 
public unless the legislative branch agrees or there is a legal basis 
for keeping the information secret.
  There are laws governing the handling of classified information, but 
those laws cannot and should not be used to shield unclassified FBI 
documents from public scrutiny and vigorous constitutional, 
congressional oversight. But even setting aside the constitutional 
concerns, what is happening now is totally inconsistent with the 
executive branch's own rules and regulations regarding classified 
information. This is what Executive Order No. 13526 says:

       The classification authority shall, whenever practicable, 
     use a classified addendum whenever classified information 
     constitutes a small portion of an otherwise unclassified 
     document or prepare a product to allow for the dissemination 
     at the lowest level of classification or in unclassified 
     form.

  That is the quote from Executive Order No. 13526. The binder the FBI 
delivered containing interview reports is, very largely, unclassified. 
The vast majority of these reports are unclassified in full and the 
rest have only a few classified paragraphs in each one.
  According to the executive order I just quoted, the FBI--part of the 
executive branch of government--should have provided a separate set 
containing primarily classified material that could not be separated 
from an unclassified portion.
  Further, that same executive order states--and I want everybody to 
get this quote: ``In no case shall information be classified, continued 
to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to: 
prevent or delay the release of information that does not require 
protection in the interest of national security.''
  That is an executive order that ought to bind the FBI. Unclassified 
material is, by definition, information that does not require 
protection in the interest of national security. Yet contrary to this 
executive order, it is being locked away from the public and even most 
congressional staff and maintained as if it were classified.
  Americans deserve accountability from their government. There will 
not be any accountability if the Federal Government is not transparent. 
The American people deserve to know the truth. I want to be clear with 
the American people about what is going on here. If the FBI wants to 
provide unclassified information to Congress but also keep it hidden 
from the public, then it should discuss the issue with the committee 
and negotiate any restrictions beforehand. It should not be allowed to 
unilaterally impose its will on its oversight committee by delivering 
documents with all kinds of restrictions that prevent the committee 
from using those documents. The selective releases of some of the 
documents deprives Congress and the public of the full context. It is 
not fair to the public, to the Congress, or to Secretary Clinton. That 
is why, using common sense, even Secretary Clinton has called for 
information to be released in full. I agree with her 100 percent.
  The FBI says it sent these documents to the Hill in keeping with our 
oversight responsibilities. Well, oversight and investigation mean more 
than just receiving whatever information the FBI provides. Independent 
oversight means double-checking the facts, it means contacting 
witnesses, and it means asking followup questions. We can't use these 
documents to help us perform these three steps if they are locked away 
in the basement of this building. In order to do its job, the committee 
will have to refer to these documents in the course of speaking to 
other witnesses and writing oversight letters. This is principles of 
investigation 101--very elementary.
  The FBI is still trying to have it both ways. At the same time the 
FBI talks about ``unprecedented transparency,'' it is placing 
unprecedented hurdles in the way of congressional oversight of 
unclassified law enforcement matters. It turns over documents but with 
strings attached. It unilaterally instructed the Senate to keep them 
secret, even though they are unclassified. They want to keep the 
information locked up. If we honor that instruction, we cannot do our 
constitutional duty of acting as an independent check on the executive 
branch and, in this case, the FBI.
  At least the FBI has publicly released small portions of this 
unclassified material I am talking about. However, that selective 
release has contributed to inaccuracies in the public discussion of 
this issue. That is why I agree with Secretary Clinton that it should 
all be released as soon as possible.
  Here is why: On Tuesday, the Boston Globe article wrote about 
evidence from the publicly released FBI summary that suggests an 
engineer for an IT company managing the server may have intentionally 
deleted emails, even though that engineer knew they were the subject of 
a congressional investigation subpoena.
  That is the article I asked for and received permission to put into 
the Congressional Record.
  The timeline of that deletion the Boston Globe is talking about 
occurred around the conference call with that engineer, Cheryl Mills, 
and David Kendall--Hillary Clinton's lawyers. Relying on the publicly 
available information, some have claimed the engineer deleted the 
emails on his own volition.
  Whether he did so on his own or at the instruction of somebody else 
is of course a very key question, and there is key information related 
to that issue that is still being kept secret, even though--it is being 
kept secret--even though it is unclassified. If I honor the FBI's 
instructions not to disclose the unclassified information it provided 
to Congress, I cannot explain why.
  Meanwhile, the New York Times has reported that a second computer 
expert that worked on Secretary Clinton's servers for a contractor was 
also given immunity by the Department of Justice. The Department of 
Justice didn't inform Congress about the immunity deal. The Department 
of Justice is briefing the New York Times anonymously while refusing to 
answer questions from its oversight committee about the immunity deals.
  Why is it the New York Times gets information for investigation, but 
the Committee of Commerce doesn't get that same information? At the 
same time, the FBI is putting a stranglehold on unclassified documents 
that describe what these witnesses said to the FBI. This is the 
opposite of the transparency which we are told by the FBI is so 
important because this is a high-profile case.
  The other witness granted immunity--Bryan Pagliano--pled the Fifth to 
Congress. Congress has a right to question these individuals. They have 
reportedly received some sort of immunity for their cooperation with 
the FBI. The public ought to know what information they provided in 
exchange for a get-out-of-jail-free card.
  The American people deserve the whole truth. The public's business 
ought to be public, and if it is not classified, then all the facts 
should be part of the public discussion.
  Inaccuracies are spreading because of the FBI's selective release. 
For example, the FBI's recently released summary memo may be 
contradicted by other unclassified interview summaries that are being 
kept locked away from the public. Unfortunately, the public can't know 
without disclosure of information, that the FBI has instructed the 
Senate not to disclose.
  I have objected to those restrictions. I have written to the Office 
of Senate Security twice, noting that the Judiciary Committee did not 
agree to those restrictions. I have asked the FBI to provide the 
unclassified material directly to the committee. That letter has not 
been answered.

[[Page 12206]]

  These kinds of restrictions and document controls on unclassified 
information have no legal basis and there is no authority for them. 
They are unprecedented and out of bounds. They violate the executive 
order I quoted--the executive order on classified information--and they 
intrude on Congress's constitutional authority of oversight.
  This is not only an issue for the Judiciary Committee, this isn't 
only an issue in regard to what the FBI investigated or didn't 
investigate in regard to Secretary Clinton, this is an issue for every 
Senator--all 100 Members of the Senate--and every Senate committee to 
give deep consideration to because Senators need to consider the 
consequences of allowing the executive branch to unilaterally impose 
restrictions on unclassified information like this and tell a separate 
branch of government what we can do under the Constitution.
  Every Senator should realize, if this is allowed to stand, that other 
agencies will be able to abuse the system to undermine transparency, 
and we need transparency in government to have accountability in 
government. The Senate should not allow its controls on classified 
material to be manipulated to hide embarrassing material from public 
scrutiny, even when that material is unclassified.
  The FBI ought to do what it should have done from the very beginning: 
release all the unclassified information to the public.
  When Director Comey told me that he was going to bring these binders 
to the Hill and cooperate with Congress, giving us this information, I 
raised this very question with him in that telephone conversation.
  Now more than ever, the public has a right to know the whole picture 
and all the facts gathered by the FBI. Let the people see all of the 
evidence, and let the people judge for themselves. That would be true 
transparency.
  As a constitutionally elected official, I have an obligation to my 
constituents to represent them, be honest with them, assist them to the 
best of my abilities, and to make sure that what is the public's 
business actually is public. I cannot in good conscience do that when 
the FBI attempts to assert a vise grip on unclassified information that 
would be helpful in answering the calls and letters from my 
constituents. How can I look Americans in the eye and tell them that I 
have answers but can't share those answers because the FBI says so, 
even though the answers come from unclassified information?
  So to my fellow Americans but most importantly to my colleagues here 
in the Senate, in times like these, I cannot help but think about a 
quote from Thomas Jefferson: ``It is the people, to whom all authority 
belongs.'' It is the Federal Government that works for us; we do not 
work for the Federal Government. Facts and information gathered by 
public officials that are relevant to the debate over a public 
controversy belong to the public. I urge my colleagues to discuss and 
resolve this issue together.
  I will continue to do everything in my power to ensure that the full 
set of facts is brought to light.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From The Boston Globe, Sept. 6, 2016]

 House Republicans Seek Inquiry on Whether Clinton Obstructed Justice 
                              Over E-Mails

                        (By Michael S. Schmidt)

       Washington.--House Republicans asked the Justice Department 
     on Tuesday to investigate whether Hillary Clinton, her 
     lawyers, and the company that housed her e-mail account 
     obstructed justice when e-mails were deleted from her 
     personal server.
       It was the second time in two months that Republicans urged 
     authorities to open an inquiry related to Clinton.
       Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, chairman of the 
     House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the e-
     mails should not have been deleted because there were orders 
     in place at the time from two congressional committees to 
     preserve messages on the account.
       ``The department should investigate and determine whether 
     Secretary Clinton or her employees and contractors violated 
     statutes that prohibit destruction of records, obstruction of 
     congressional inquiries, and concealment or coverup of 
     evidence material to a congressional investigation,'' 
     Chaffetz said in a letter to the US attorney's office for the 
     District of Columbia.
       Chaffetz also sent a letter to the Denver-based company 
     that housed the account, Platte River Networks, with a 
     request for documents and information related to the account 
     and the deletions.
       Since FBI Director James B. Comey announced July 5 that the 
     bureau would recommend that Clinton not be charged in 
     connection with her use of the account, Republicans have 
     pushed the Justice Department to continue investigating her.
       Just five days after Comey's announcement, they asked the 
     department to open an inquiry into whether Clinton had lied 
     in October when she testified before the committee 
     investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
       Clinton dismissed Chaffetz's request when asked about it by 
     reporters on her campaign plane in Tampa, Fla. ``The FBI 
     resolved all of this,'' she said. ``Their report answered all 
     the questions; the findings included debunking the latest 
     conspiracy theories.''
       Representative Elijah E. Cummings, the top Democrat on the 
     Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the request 
     for another investigation was ``just the latest misguided 
     attempt to use taxpayer funds to help the Republican nominee, 
     Donald Trump, and to essentially redo what the FBI has 
     already investigated because Republicans disagree with the 
     outcome for political reasons.''
       The Republicans' request has been met with silence from the 
     Justice Department and the FBI, and prosecutors have shown no 
     indication that they are willing to open another 
     investigation. Legal analysts have said making a perjury case 
     against Clinton would be hard.
       The FBI released 58 pages of investigative documents Friday 
     related to its inquiry into Clinton's e-mail practices and 
     whether she and her aides mishandled classified information. 
     The documents included a summary of an interview agents 
     conducted with her and a memorandum about the case.
       According to the documents, a top aide to Clinton told 
     Platte River Networks in December 2014 to delete an archive 
     of e-mails from her account. But Platte River apparently 
     never followed those instructions.
       Roughly three weeks after the existence of the account was 
     revealed in March 2015, a Platte River employee deleted e-
     mails using a program called BleachBit. By that time, both 
     Chaffetz's committee and the special committee investigating 
     the Benghazi attacks had called for the e-mails to be 
     preserved, according to Chaffetz.
       ``This timeline of events raises questions as to whether 
     the PRN engineer violated federal statutes that prohibit 
     destruction of evidence and obstruction of a congressional 
     investigation, among others, when the engineer erased 
     Secretary Clinton's e-mail contrary to congressional 
     preservation orders and a subpoena,'' Chaffetz said in the 
     letter to Platte River.
       Chaffetz said a series of events in the days leading up to 
     the deletions, including a conference call with Clinton's 
     lawyers and the creation of a work ticket, ``raises questions 
     about whether Secretary Clinton, acting through her 
     attorneys, instructed PRN to destroy records relevant to the 
     then-ongoing congressional investigations.''
       Democrats said Chaffetz's facts were wrong. The FBI's memo 
     shows that the Platte River employee who deleted the 
     documents ``did so on his own volition and before the 
     conference call with Clinton's attorneys,'' said Jennifer 
     Werner, a Cummings spokeswoman.
       The FBI said it was later able to find some of the e-mails, 
     but it did not say how many had been deleted or whether they 
     were included in the 60,000 e-mails that Clinton said she had 
     sent and received as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.
                                  ____


                [From The New York Times, Sept. 8, 2016]

   Justice Dept. Granted Immunity to Specialist Who Deleted Hillary 
                            Clinton's Emails

                (By Adam Goldman and Michael S. Schmidt)

       Washington.--A computer specialist who deleted Hillary 
     Clinton's emails despite orders from Congress to preserve 
     them was given immunity by the Justice Department during its 
     investigation into her personal email account, according to a 
     law enforcement official and others briefed on the 
     investigation.
       Republicans have called for the department to investigate 
     the deletions, but the immunity deal with the specialist, 
     Paul Combetta, makes it unlikely that the request will go 
     far. Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, the top 
     Republican on the House oversight committee, asked the 
     Justice Department on Tuesday to investigate whether Mrs. 
     Clinton, her lawyers or the specialist obstructed justice 
     when the emails were deleted in March 2015.
       Mr. Combetta is one of at least two people who were given 
     immunity by the Justice Department as part of the 
     investigation. The other was Bryan Pagliano, a former 
     campaign staff member for Mrs. Clinton's 2008 presidential 
     campaign, who was granted immunity in exchange for answering 
     questions about how he set up a server in Mrs. Clinton's home 
     in Chappaqua, N.Y., around the time she became secretary of 
     state in 2009.

[[Page 12207]]

       The F.B.I. described the deletions by Mr. Combetta in a 
     summary of its investigation into Mrs. Clinton's account that 
     was released last Friday. The documents blacked out the 
     specialist's name, but the law enforcement official and 
     others familiar with the case identified the employee as Mr. 
     Combetta. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because 
     they did not want to be identified discussing matters that 
     were supposed to remain confidential.
       Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton's presidential 
     campaign, said that the deletions by the specialist, who 
     worked for a Colorado company called Platte River Networks, 
     had already been ``thoroughly examined by the F.B.I. prior to 
     its decision to close out this case.''
       ``As the F.B.I.'s report notes,'' Mr. Fallon said, 
     ``neither Hillary Clinton nor her attorneys had knowledge of 
     the Platte River Network employee's actions. It appears he 
     acted on his own and against guidance given by both Clinton's 
     and Platte River's attorneys to retain all data in compliance 
     with a congressional preservation request.''
       A lawyer for Mr. Combetta and a spokesman for the Justice 
     Department declined to comment.
       In July, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, announced 
     that the bureau would not recommend that Mrs. Clinton and her 
     aides be charged with a crime for their handling of 
     classified information on the account.
       Five days later, Mr. Chaffetz--who has led the charge in 
     raising questions about the F.B.I.'s decision--asked 
     prosecutors to investigate whether Mrs. Clinton had lied to 
     Congress about her email account in testimony in October 
     before the special committee investigating the 2012 attacks 
     in Benghazi, Libya. That request has been met with silence 
     from the Justice Department.
       The House oversight committee has asked officials from 
     Platte River Networks, Mr. Combetta and others to appear at a 
     hearing before his committee on Tuesday about how the email 
     account was set up and how the messages were deleted.
       According to the F.B.I. documents, Mr. Combetta told the 
     bureau in February that he did not recall deleting the 
     emails. But in May, he told a different story.
       In the days after Mrs. Clinton's staffers called Platte 
     River Networks in March 2015, Mr. Combetta said realized that 
     he had not followed a December 2014 order from Mrs. Clinton's 
     lawyers to have the emails deleted. Mr. Combetta then used a 
     program called BleachBit to delete the messages, the bureau 
     said.
       In Mr. Combetta's first interview with the F.B.I. in 
     February, he said he did not recall seeing the preservation 
     order from the Benghazi committee, which Mrs. Clinton's 
     lawyer, Cheryl D. Mills, had sent to Platte River. But in his 
     May interview, he said that at the time he made the deletions 
     ``he was aware of the existence of the preservation request 
     and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's 
     email data'' on the Platte River server.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we are going to have a vote here shortly, 
and it is going to be one of the major, significant votes.
  First of all, I know the occupier of the Chair is very aware of the 
things we have been doing in the committee called Environment and 
Public Works. Most of the stuff we have been doing is very meaningful, 
including the highway bill, the chemical bill, and now the WRDA bill. 
These are all things that have to be done.
  Last week I talked about the WRDA bill and why it is important to 
pass it now. Just to take a look at some of the major news stories from 
the past few months, earlier this summer we saw algae wash up on the 
beaches of Florida. This is a problem that will have significant impact 
on the health of Floridians, as well as negatively impacting Florida's 
biggest industry--tourism.
  The WRDA bill 2016 has a solution to the problem. We have a project 
that will fix Lake Okeechobee to prevent this problem in the future.
  I know a little bit about this because a lot of people are not aware 
that in my State of Oklahoma we have more miles of freshwater shoreline 
than any of the 50 States. That is because most of them are manmade 
lakes. They have a dam down here with lots of shoreline going around 
them, but, nonetheless, I had a personal experience with what they call 
blue-green algae. You think you are on your deathbed when you are 
there.
  This chart behind me shows a plume in St. Lucie, FL. It is a picture 
of an algae plume caused by deteriorating water conditions. Not only 
are these plumes environmentally hazardous, but they also are 
economically debilitating to communities living along South Florida's 
working coastline. Communities along the coast depend on clean, 
freshwater flows to drive tourism.
  Just weeks ago, we saw historic flooding in Baton Rouge, LA, and we 
have seen communities destroyed and lives turned upside down. In this 
WRDA bill, there are two ongoing Corps projects that will prevent the 
damages we saw. WRDA 2016 directs the Corps to expedite the completion 
of these projects.
  The second chart shows the flooding in Baton Rouge, LA. We can no 
longer use a fix-as-it-fails approach as it concerns America's flood 
control. There is just too much on the line. We are not just talking 
about economic loss but devastating floods. We have all seen that, 
experienced that, and we are talking about loss of human life. So this 
is not an option.
  Last year there were several collisions in the Houston Ship Channel. 
Due to a design deficiency, the channel is too narrow and the Coast 
Guard has declared it to be a precautionary zone. The Houston Ship 
Channel collision in 2015 was a serious one, and without this bill, the 
navigation safety project to correct this problem will not move 
forward.
  Last week I spoke about what we will lose if we don't pass this 
important legislation. There are 29 navigation flood control and 
environmental restoration projects that will not happen. There will be 
no new Corps reforms to let local sponsors improve infrastructure at 
their own expense. I am talking about this for a minute because this is 
significant. They are willing to spend their own money and yet it is 
not legal for them to do. We correct that.
  There will be no FEMA assistance to States to rehabilitate unsafe 
dams.
  There will be no reforms to help communities address clean water and 
safe drinking water infrastructure mandates. This is something that 
those of us from rural States--in my State of Oklahoma, we have a lot 
of small communities, and there is nothing that horrifies them more 
when they have an unfunded mandate. They say we are going to have to 
treat the water and it is going to cost $14 million. They don't have 
any access to that kind of money. I suggested last week that there are 
a lot of similar problems. So this goes a long way to correcting these 
unfunded mandates. When I was mayor of Tulsa, the biggest problem we 
had was unfunded mandates.
  Without this bill, there will be no new assistance for innovative 
approaches to clean water and drinking water needs, and there will be 
no protection for coal utilities from runaway coal ash lawsuits. We 
will be addressing this and recognizing that there is a great value to 
coal ash if properly used.
  These are not State problems or even regional problems, but what we 
have is a bill that addresses problems faced by our Nation as a whole.
  To reiterate how important this bill is, I want to give a few more 
real examples to show how the problems we are facing now are affecting 
our citizens, the people who sent us here, and in Washington, this is 
what we are supposed to be doing.
  The water resources of this bill expand our economy and protect 
infrastructure and lives by authorizing new navigation, flood control, 
and ecosystem restoration projects, all based on a recommendation from 
the Corps of Engineers and a determination that the projects will 
provide significant national benefits.
  The Corps has built 14,700 miles of levees that protect billions of 
dollars' worth of infrastructure and homes. These are referred to as 
high-hazard dams or high-hazard levees, and that definition means that 
if something happens to one, people will die. It is

[[Page 12208]]

not saying people will be hurt; people are going to die. We have many 
examples of that so the Corps projects nearly $50 billion a year in 
damages. Many of these levees were built a long time ago and some have 
failed just recently.
  Chart 4 is the Iowa River levee breach. If that doesn't tell the 
story, the significance of this--this is a levee in Iowa that was 
overtopped and eventually breached by disastrous floodwaters. In many 
cases, levees like this one were constructed by the Army Corps of 
Engineers decades ago but no longer meet the Corps' post-Katrina 
engineering and design guidelines. WRDA 2016 will end the bureaucratic 
nightmare local levee districts face by allowing them to increase the 
level of flood protection most of the time at their own expense when 
the Corps is rebuilding after a flood--something they can't do now.
  Let's look at the economic benefits of investing in our Nation's port 
and inland waterway system. We need to invest in our ports and inland 
waterway system to keep the cost of goods low. If we don't do that, 
costs will go up, and of course we want to keep creating good-paying 
jobs.
  WRDA 2016 has a number of provisions that will ensure we grow the 
economy, increase our competitiveness in the global marketplace, and 
promote long-term prosperity. These provisions include important 
harbor-deepening projects, such as those in Charleston, SC; Port 
Everglades, FL; and Brownsville, TX.
  Take Charleston as an example. They have a 45-foot harbor. Now that 
they have expanded the Panama Canal and we have the boats called 
Panamax vessels going through--those are the great big vessels, and 
this poster gives you an idea of what can be carried on those. The 
problem with the Panamax vessels is that they take up 50 to 51 feet in 
the harbor. What happens to Charleston, SC, if they have the big 
vessels coming through the Panama Canal, coming up to come into our 
harbors in the United States, they have to instead go into one of the 
harbors in the Caribbean and divide up the containers. It is very 
expensive. That is just one of several of the harbors we are working 
on.
  Everyone knows the Corps' maintenance budget is stretched thin, but 
WRDA 2016 comes up with a solution. This is a solution that we have in 
the bill we will be voting on, and we will have the major vote tonight. 
In the WRDA bill, we will let local sponsors, such as ports, either 
give money to the Corps to carry out the maintenance or get in and 
start maintaining using their own dollars. That is something you would 
think they could do now, but they can't. That is in this bill. That was 
the major thing the ports were pushing for in this bill.
  What about in communities? I mentioned that in my State of Oklahoma, 
we have a lot of rural towns that don't really have the resources to do 
a lot of these things in the form of mandates. The bill provides 
Federal assistance to communities facing unaffordable EPA safe water 
and clean water mandates. WRDA 2016 targets these Federal dollars to 
those who need it the most. I know that years ago when I was the mayor 
of Tulsa, that was the biggest concern we had, and it is even more of a 
concern in these small communities. So we do it by having assistance 
for smaller, disadvantaged communities, with priority for underserved 
communities that lack basic water infrastructure; assistance for lead 
service line replacement, with a priority for disadvantaged 
communities; and assistance to address the very costly sewer overflow 
system.
  It is worth noting that all the money in this bill is either subject 
to the Budget Control Act caps that govern the annual appropriations 
bills or is fully offset.
  This is an introduction to economics. By passing this legislation and 
securing the appropriate funding, we can improve economic opportunities 
for all Americans. This is a critical moment. We must get back to 
regular order, passing WRDA every 2 years. We went through a period in 
2007--we didn't have a WRDA bill following that until 2014. The year 
2014 was the last time we did it. We decided then that if we are 
supposed to do it every 2 years, then starting in 2014, we are going to 
do it. The best evidence of that is that we are going to do it tonight.
  So we will have a 2016 budget. Doing this will help us modernize the 
water transportation infrastructure through flood protection and 
environmental restoration around the country. The process we follow in 
this is very open. I think one of the reasons we have been successful 
in our committee doing the Transportation bill, the chemical bill, and 
now this bill, is because everybody knows what is going on and they 
have time to determine what is the best thing for their State.
  Way back on December 9, we sent this bill from the committee to all 
Members of the Senate saying: We are going to do the WRDA bill, so go 
ahead and start working on amendments. They did that, and then, of 
course, for the last few weeks, we have been talking about getting 
amendments down to the floor, and we have done that. We brought a 
substitute amendment that was a result of that work to the full Senate 
on September 8. That amendment included over 40 provisions that were 
added after the committee markup.
  Finally, last week I came to the floor and let all of you know that 
Senator Boxer and I needed to see your amendments by noon on Friday for 
the managers' package. By noon on Friday, we had amendments in. We 
considered some 35 provisions, and we have addressed most of these--I 
think to some degree all of them. Now those provisions are in the 
Inhofe-Boxer amendment that we filed today and hope to get consent to 
adopt shortly after the cloture vote tonight.
  This has been a very open and collegial process, and all Members have 
had their concerns and priorities heard. We have done our best to 
address Members' priorities. After cloture this evening, we will 
continue to do our best to clear germane amendments until final passage 
this week.
  I am very excited that we are going to be able to get this done. A 
lot of people sit back and say that nothing ever gets done in 
Washington. I have to say that in our committee we get things done, and 
we are going to get this done tonight.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The assistant 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. 4979.
          Mitch McConnell, James M. Inhofe, John Cornyn, Orrin G. 
           Hatch, Shelley Moore Capito, Thom Tillis, Dan Sullivan, 
           Mike Rounds, Marco Rubio, Cory Gardner, Dean Heller, 
           Pat Roberts, David Vitter, Roy Blunt, John Barrasso, 
           Roger F. Wicker, Steve Daines.

  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. 4979, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. 
McConnell, to S. 2848, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), 
the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Alaska 
(Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue), and the Senator 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey) would have voted ``yea.''

[[Page 12209]]


  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), 
the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Virginia (Mr. Kaine) would vote ``yea.''
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 90, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 138 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Lee
       

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Coats
     Flake
     Graham
     Kaine
     Murkowski
     Perdue
     Reid
     Sanders
     Toomey
       
       
       
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 90, the 
nays are 1.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.

                          ____________________