[Pages S1516-S1538]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2015

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the House message to accompany S. 764, which
the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

House message to accompany S. 764, a bill to reauthorize
and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for
other purposes.

Pending:

McConnell motion to concur in the House amendment to the
bill with McConnell (for Roberts) amendment No. 3450 (to the
House amendment to the bill), in the nature of a substitute.
McConnell motion to refer the bill to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:45
a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask
unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to express my disappointment that
we have not yet been able to come to an agreement on the issue of GMO
labeling. Senator Roberts and I have a long history of friendship and
of working together. We have both worked very hard to come to an
agreement on an extremely difficult and emotional issue. I thank him
for his continual work, and I am forever the optimist that we will get
there, even though we are not there yet. We have continued to work, and
my team and I have continued to work, to find common ground, all the
way until very late last night. If we at this point do not proceed but
can have some more time, I believe it is possible for us to come
together in a bipartisan solution.
While this debate has been difficult, there are some important areas
where Senator Roberts and I agree. For instance, Senator Roberts and I
agree that the science has shown us that biotechnology is safe.
In fact, leading health organizations like the American Medical
Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the FDA, and the World
Health Organization all say there is no evidence that GMOs aren't safe.
We agree that biotechnology is an important tool for farmers and
ranchers, particularly as we tackle the challenges of climate change--
which, by the way, science also tells us is real. I believe in science,
and I would love if we would all come together around the science on
both of these issues.
We have to tackle the need to feed a growing, hungry world. We agree
that a 50-State patchwork of labeling laws is not a workable long-term
solution. In fact, I don't know any Member on any side of this issue in
the Senate who doesn't agree with that, that we have to have a national
approach, not 50 different States. But we also know, as we have
frequently debated States' rights, the importance of States making
decisions, that when we preempt States, whether it is on fuel
efficiency standards for automobiles or whether it is on food labeling,
the approach has always been to go from 50 different States doing 50
different things to having a national standard and a national approach.
As it was with CAFE standards, in which I was very involved, it is
important that it work from an industry standpoint. I know it can be
done, and it is our job to get to that point.
We also recognize, though, that a growing number of American
consumers want to know more about the food they eat, and they have the
right to know. They have the right to know what is in their food.
I was very proud of the fact that we came together on the last farm
bill to recognize all parts of agriculture. The fastest growing part of
agriculture is the organic sector. We gave more opportunities to
support the organic sector, the local food movement.
People should have choices in deciding what food they eat, how it is
grown, how it is processed, and that is something we have said in
national policy that we support through our agricultural policies.
Unfortunately, the Senate is poised to vote on a bill that I do not
support, that does not fully answer this demand from consumers.
Consumers want information about the food they eat, it is as simple as
that. In fact, the bill continues the status quo on providing
information to consumers. It lists a number of things, many of which
are already being done, 1-800 numbers and so on. Look at the back of
the pack; it lists things, but they are things that are already being
done--not all but many, enough--and then says: We will keep the status
quo nationally, but we will preempt the States and citizens around the
country from taking individual action. I don't support that. That is
not good enough. It doesn't reflect what we do when we are talking
about Federal policy. That is one reason I think the approach put
forward in the bill is the wrong path.
Unfortunately, we have seen a lot of emotion around this issue on
both sides--a lot of emotion. Frankly, there is a lot of confusion
about GMOs and their safety, which is why I think this approach is the
wrong approach. We should be telling the story, as should farmers, of
biotechnology and the importance that it plays in our food production
and in food security. We should not be taking action that further
appears to stop consumers from getting the information they want and
feeds into the idea that there is something wrong, that there is a
reason to hide, because there is not. We should embrace this
opportunity to share with the public what is in our food, talk about
it, why we use these crops, why they are deemed safe.
That is why, during the last several months of negotiations with
Chairman Roberts, I offered several proposals that would shed light on
this issue and do it in a way that is eminently workable for those
involved in the food industry. While those proposals were not
ultimately accepted, I still believe we need and can achieve a policy
that creates a uniform national system of disclosure for the use of GMO
ingredients and do it in a way that has common sense and works for
everybody. The national disclosure system needs to provide real options
for disclosing information about GMOs that work for both consumers and
food companies.
I believe we must create a system that provides certainty as well to
our food companies and all of our companies--national, organic,
traditional companies. Everyone knows that a 50-State system with 50
different definitions, 50 different laws, and 50 different ways to do
packaging doesn't work, so we all have a need to come together and to
fix this. I also believe that a system must work for all companies--
very small companies, medium-sized companies, and large companies as
well.
I believe we must not harm the important work being done by our
organic producers. Again, we made great strides in the farm bill, and
we need to keep the choices that are in the marketplace now available
to consumers and not pass something that will infringe on any of the
choices consumers have.
I am disappointed that we have not yet been able to come to a clear
consensus on the issue of GMO labeling. I know this issue is
contentious. As I said, it is very emotional on all sides. As far as I
am concerned, it is time for us to come together on a thoughtful,
commonsense approach that is best for consumers, for farmers, for
families, and for our country.
We have the most successful agricultural system, food economy in the
world. We are the envy of the world. We want to make sure that whatever
we do, we maintain that position. But part of who we are in America is
a country that believes in people's right to know information and be
able to make their own individual choices. I believe there is a way to
do that, to make sure we continue to have the strongest, most vibrant,
most successful and robust agricultural economy and food economy in the
world--we are literally feeding the world--and at the same time be able
to provide basic information that American consumers are asking to have
provided.
I will not be supporting Senator Roberts' amendment. I think this may
be

[[Page S1517]]

the first time in the years we have worked together--both with me as
chair and now with him as chair--that we have not come to the floor
united. It is not for lack of trying. We have been working very hard,
and there are differences, but I believe that if we have the
opportunity to keep working, we will be able to get to that spot where
we can come together.
As I urge colleagues to oppose this proposal and moving forward on
cloture without having an agreement, I also commit to continue working
to get there because we have to take action to solve this problem and
it has to be done in a bipartisan way. That is how we get things done,
and I am committed to continuing to work with our chairman and with
Members on both sides of the aisle so we can do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this morning to discuss an issue
that is pretty near and dear to my heart and I think to the hearts of
many throughout the State of Alaska, and that is--I will call it an
aberration, an aberration in the fish world. What I am talking about is
genetically engineered salmon, GE salmon.
We just heard from the ranking member on the Senate Committee on
Agriculture. I appreciate the work she has done, along with the Senator
from Kansas, to try to forge a path forward as it relates to GMO, but
when we are talking about genetically engineered salmon, let me make it
very clear that we are talking about two very distinct and different
issues here. This is separate from the larger GMO debate.
Genetically engineered animals are not crops, and GE salmon is a
genetically engineered animal. This is something that is entirely new.
This is a new species. This is a new species that will potentially be
introduced into our markets, into our homes, and quite possibly,
contrary to what any environmental analysis claims, enters into our
ecosystem.
When we are talking about the GMO, the broader GMO debate here on the
floor, keep in mind that when I stand up, when the other Senator from
Alaska stands up, when Alaskans stand up to talk about genetically
engineered salmon, we are talking about an entirely different issue.
I get pretty wound up about this issue. I just came from a meeting of
about 20 young Alaskans from around the State.
I said: I am sorry, I have to leave because I have to go to the floor
to speak to this issue that is so important to us in Alaska. Do you all
know what genetically engineered salmon is?
They said: Yeah. It is kind of that fake fish.
It is Frankenfish, is what we call it because it is so unnatural. It
is so unnatural that it is something that, as Alaskans, we need to
stand up and defend against.
I grew up in the State of Alaska. I was born there. I know well that
escaping from pens occurs in hatcheries, and it can occur in facilities
where fish are grown. I also well know the immense value of our
fisheries and the potential for havoc that something like this
Frankenfish could wreak upon our wild sustainable stocks.
I am standing here this morning saying that I will not be supporting
cloture on this bill, as it is an issue which is too important to so
many and has not yet been adequately addressed. I have attempted to
work with the chairman and the committee to offer sensible and what we
believe are reasonable fixes, but there is no solution as of yet.
I am standing today demanding, asking that the voices of Alaskans,
who have stood with me in solidarity on this issue, be heard because we
will not accept that genetically engineered salmon or Frankenfish--
whatever it is you want to call it--we will not accept that it will be
allowed to be sold without clear labeling because I don't want to make
any mistakes; I don't want to find that what I have served my family is
a genetically engineered fish, and I use ``fish'' lightly.
We talk about Frankenfish and some people kind of snicker nervously,
but it is not a joke to Alaskans. This new species could pose a serious
threat to the livelihoods of Alaskan fishermen, and I will stand to
support the livelihood of Alaskan fishermen. Alaska's fisheries are
world-renowned for their high quality and for their sustainability. The
Alaska seafood industry supports more than 63,000 direct jobs and
contributes over $4.6 billion to the State's economy. Nearly one in
seven Alaskans is employed in the commercial seafood industry.
That is how my boys put themselves through college--working in the
commercial fishing industry. We know about fish. For generations, my
family has been involved in one way, shape, or form with the fishing
business.
Salmon is a major part of Alaska's seafood economy, and commercial
fishermen around the State harvested more than 265 million salmon this
past season, including chinook, sockeye, coho, chum, pinks--all wild.
As we all know, wild salmon is loaded with all of the good things in
it that God has placed there: tremendous health benefits, lean protein,
source of omega-3s, B-6, B-12, Niacin--everything good, all in that
natural wild package.
More than 1.5 million people wrote to the FDA opposing approval of
genetically engineered salmon. So you have a groundswell of support
around the country--this is not just from Alaskans weighing in. People
are saying: No, we don't think this should be approved.
The FDA went ahead anyway. Then you have a growing number of grocery
stores--Safeway, Kroger, Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, and Target--that
have all announced they are not going to sell this. They are not going
to sell this genetically engineered species in their stores.
Yet, despite this immense opposition, in November of last year, the
FDA approved AquaBounty Technologies' application for its genetically
engineered AquAdvantage salmon. So for those of you who are not fully
informed on what this genetically engineered fish is--how it comes
about--GE salmon start from a transgenic Atlantic salmon egg. This is
an ocean pout. It is a type of an eel. As you can see, it doesn't look
anything like a salmon, even if you don't know your salmon very well.
This is a bottom-dwelling ocean pout eel.
They take a slice of DNA from this, a slice of DNA from a magnificent
Chinook salmon, and splice it into an Atlantic salmon egg. That egg is
meant to produce a fish that will grow to full size twice as fast as a
normal Atlantic salmon. So this is the push here--to push Mother
Nature, which creates a perfectly beautiful fabulous salmon, and to
take a slice of DNA here and a slice of DNA there and put it in an
Atlantic salmon, which is a farmed fish, and grow it so that it grows
twice as fast as a normal fish, but growing it in penned condition,
theoretically, so that there is no way for escape. But are we
guaranteed that there is no way for escape? I don't know. Show me that.
But what we have here, I think, is a fair question as to whether or
not this GE salmon can even be called a salmon. So the FDA signed off
on this last November. But they made no mandatory labeling requirement.
Instead, they said: Labels can be voluntary. So, in other words, if you
want to say that this piece of fish that is in front of you in the
grocery store is genetically engineered--or not real--you can
voluntarily put that on your label. Nobody is going to do that. Nobody
is going to voluntarily say this is genetically engineered.
So what we have done--what I have done--is to fight to secure a
mandatory labeling requirement both before approval of AquaBounty's
application and since its approval. So we have been working hard on
this issue. We have made some significant headway. But what we are
dealing with on the floor right now--this legislation--would wipe that
work clean, instead of using legislative tools at our disposal to
effectively and precisely amend this legislation in order to address
the issue of GE salmon.
So what we did is that we got some language in the Omnibus
appropriations bill that requires the FDA not to allow the introduction
of any food that contains GE salmon until it publishes final labeling
guidelines that inform consumers of that content. So what this did is
that this kind of forced the FDA to issue an import alert, which
effectively bans all imports of genetically engineered salmon for 1
year.
But it also directs the FDA to spend funds--significant funds--of no
less than $150,000 to develop labeling guidelines and to implement a
program to

[[Page S1518]]

disclose to consumers whether salmon offered for sale to consumers is
genetically engineered.
Again, what we want to be able to do is to let consumers know whether
this fish is genetically engineered or not. So we thought that was a
pretty clear labeling mandate to the FDA. But the FDA then later came
back to us and said they felt that there was still clarifying
legislation that we needed to do. So I have worked with Senator
Sullivan, my colleague from Alaska, as well as Senators Cantwell,
Merkley, and Heinrich, and we introduced S. 738, which is the
Genetically Engineered Salmon Risk Reduction Act.
We also introduced a separate piece of legislation to respond to the
FDA's November approval. We introduced S. 2640, the Genetically
Engineered Salmon Labeling Act. What that bill would do is kind of to
build on last year's omnibus provisions and would require labeling of
genetically engineered salmon through language that I received through
technical assistance working with the FDA on this.
Additionally, we would mandate a third-party scientific review of the
FDA's environmental assessment of AquAdvantage salmon and the effects
that these GE salmon would have on wild stocks and ecosystems, which,
in my opinion--and I think, in the opinion of many others--were
insufficiently addressed during the FDA's environmental assessment.

So we have been working with the FDA on this, to develop this
language to mandate labeling. The FDA has been cooperative at this
point working on this issue. That really is a significant step forward.
But it required me to do something that maybe others are perhaps a
little more active on--to place a hold on a nominee. I placed a hold on
the FDA Commissioner, Dr. Robert Califf. This is not something that I
do lightly. I have not placed a hold on a nominee before. I don't take
this action lightly. But it was necessary. It was necessary to bring to
the attention of the FDA the significance of this issue and the
seriousness of what we were dealing with.
So we got FDA to the table. We have been working with them. They have
been listening. They have been helpful. We are so close to resolving
this. Now we are on the floor with GMO legislation. Again, as I said at
the outset, GMO is different than what we are dealing with in this
genetically engineered species, a new species designed for human
consumption here.
My concern is that with the GMO bill before us now, it really does
threaten the good progress we have made at this point in time. It is
not just the progress that the Alaska delegation made but really the
work of so many Alaskans, the bipartisan hard-working efforts of so
many around the country who share the same concerns.
I think we have offered some pretty sensible solutions. I will
continue to offer them. I will continue my efforts to work with the
chairman, for whom I have great respect. Know that, while it is not
opposition to the overall bill or its underpinnings, where my concern
remains is mistakenly allowing genetically engineered salmon into our
homes, mislabeled as salmon.
This is something that we will continue to raise awareness on and
raise the issue until we have finally and fully resolved it.

Iditarod Sled Dog Race

Mr. President, if I still have a few minutes more this morning, I
would like to switch topics and speak about the last great race--the
last great race in Alaska and really around the world, which is the
Iditarod sled dog race, a 1,049-mile race from south central Alaska to
Nome, AK, where man-and-dog teams are up against Mother Nature,
improbably one of the most incredible human and animal endeavors that
are out there.
Yesterday, we saw the conclusion. We greeted the front runner to the
44th Iditarod sled dog race. So for 44 years now, it is an amazing race
from Willow to Nome. Again, when you think about man and dog out on the
ice, out in the raw wilderness for 1,000 miles, this race has been
described as the equivalent of an attempt at Mount Everest.
When you think about all that is Alaska and the open spaces, the
independent people, and just man against nature or woman against
nature, it is really the Iditarod that epitomizes so much of it. It
demands not only the most out of our athletes but mental conditioning
as well. It requires exceptional endurance, courage, and sound judgment
as you navigate these amazing places. But it is not just the men or
women who are the physical athletes. It is not just their judgment that
guides this race. It is that of the teams--the dogs themselves.
When you think about the amazing teamwork that goes on between a
musher and his or her animals--the communication and the will to go
1,000-plus miles in extraordinary conditions--it really is something
that just stirs the greatest imagination. We have had Iditarods where
teams have literally buried into the wind coming at them at 50 miles an
hour and 30 below, in the dark, attacked by moose on the trail, losing
the trail, with accidents, disasters.
I was going to say it is like a reality TV show. Only it is not a
reality TV show. It is what Alaskans and many around the world engage
in. The mushers themselves are remarkable. I could stand here on the
floor and talk all morning about them, but I won't.
I will highlight just a few of them. DeeDee Jonrowe, is a longtime
friend of mine. She ran her 34th Iditarod this year--talk about bravery
and perseverance. This is a woman who the year before last lost her
father. This summer she and her husband lost everything they owned in a
wildfire out in Willow, AK. The only thing that was saved were her
dogs.
But she lost her sleds, her harnesses, her home, her everything.
Then, just shortly after, she lost her mother. Her comment to me was
this: I am going to go back on the trail so that I can just focus. That
is one tough woman.
Brent Sass is a guy who captured the lead for much of the race. He is
one of these guys who came to Alaska to be a homesteader, a wilderness
guy. He was champion of the Yukon Quest. He rescued mushers along the
way--an amazing guy. He was actually in front position last year and
was disqualified because he had an iPod and was listening to music.
Along the trail, there are no electronic devices. There are pretty
tough rules in the Iditarod. Can you imagine being out on a 1,000-mile
trail with nobody else, and no device, no electronics for you?
Jeff King is an amazing guy, whose grit and determination has been at
the forefront of this race and so many others--a multiple winner. But
he was involved with a horribly tragic accident when a snow machiner, a
drunk individual, literally attacked his team, killed one of his dogs
and injured a couple of others.
It was extraordinarily difficult to handle that challenge--the
emotion of losing a dog but also just the real tragedy and calamity of
an accident like that. Jeff has finished the race in the top 10, which
is remarkable.
Another remarkable feat, though, is Aly Zirkle, who finished third,
and was also subject to an extreme scare by this same snow machiner--a
horribly tragic side to this year's Iditarod. But there was the fact
that Aly, one tough lady, came in third and persevered all the way,
just getting her head into the game.
There are so many stories about these amazing men and women, but the
winner of this year's Iditarod is a young man named Dallas Seavey, 29
years old. He crossed the finish line into Nome at 9:30 p.m. last
night. Dallas finished in 8 days 11 hours 20 minutes 16 seconds. This
is his fourth overall win, and his third consecutive win. He is only
one victory away from matching the ``king'' of the Iditarod, five-time
champion Rick Swenson.
Guess who was No. 2 in the Iditarod, trailing Dallas by about 45
minutes. It was his dad. Father and son finished No. 1 and No. 2 in the
Iditarod. What other sport can you think of where you have a father and
son competing against one another and coming in first and second? You
have to go back a ways to come up with an answer to that. It was
absolutely an amazing story and Alaskans watched it play out.
I had an opportunity to visit with the father of Mitch Seavey and the
grandfather of Dallas Seavey. I asked: Dan, who do you predict is going
to win the Iditarod this year? His response was: I don't care as long
as it is a Seavey. He was right and certainly got his wish. Alaskans
are proud of the men and

[[Page S1519]]

women who take on these extraordinary challenges, capture the attention
and the fascination of the world with their feats of physical and
mental endurance. The men and women of the 44th Iditarod race are to be
commended and congratulated.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to express my opposition
to the legislation introduced by Senator Roberts to preempt State
labeling laws for genetically modified organisms, also known as GMOs.
The Mellman Group released a poll last year that found that 89
percent of Americans support mandatory labeling of GMOs. The calls and
letters I receive from California constituents confirm widespread
support for this policy. Since 2015, I have received more than 90,000
letters and emails from constituents who want a mandatory labeling
standard. Since the beginning of this year, my office has received
nearly 2,000 calls in favor of mandatory labeling.
Clearly, the public wants their food to be labeled in a consistent
and transparent manner. However, Senator Roberts' proposal would
preempt voter-passed mandatory GMO labeling laws in Connecticut, Maine,
and Vermont. Overriding these State laws would be a step backward for
consumer knowledge.
I recognize that the food industry cannot comply with 50 different
State labeling laws. That is why I have cosponsored legislation
introduced by Senator Jeff Merkley to create a consistent, transparent
Federal standard on how to label foods that contain GMO ingredients.
This legislation would require food producers to add a statement or
symbol after the ingredient list to state that the product contains GMO
ingredients. Companies would be given four options to meet the
requirement.
In contrast, Senator Roberts' bill makes it more difficult for
consumers to find out what is in their food. It requires the Department
of Agriculture to create new, voluntary labeling guidance, despite the
fact that the Food and Drug Administration already created voluntary
guidance.
Furthermore, Senator Roberts' bill allows a confusing array of
options for disclosure beyond labeling. This includes 1-800 numbers,
Web sites, smartphone applications, and social media posts.
In my view, the only fair and consistent way to label food is on the
package in a clear, straightforward, and consistent manner. Consumers
do not have time to scan barcodes on food packages or to call 1-800
numbers. Consumers want the information they need to make the best
choices for them and their families readily available on packaging. And
I believe they deserve to have that information.
I want to make it clear that I recognize that the Federal Government
and scientists agree that GMO products are safe. I also realize that
California farmers may need to rely on genetic engineering to address
challenges such as climate change and disease. But I do not understand
why industry is so opposed to informing consumers of how their food was
produced. The industry says it should only be required to label foods
when there is a human health reason to do so.
However, the Federal Government has always had labeling requirements
for food that aren't due to a human health reason. These requirements
exist because they allow consumers to make informed choices in the
marketplace. For example, the Federal Government requires juice that
was made from concentrate to be labeled ``made from concentrate.'' The
Federal Government requires foods processed with irradiation to be
labeled as such. The Federal Government has a specific labeling
requirement for what constitutes ground beef based on what parts of a
cow is used, the fat content, and how it is processed.
During this election season, many Americans have expressed a view
that Washington is out of touch with the rest of the country. So I want
to ask, does Washington really want to overrule consumers who want GMO
labeling? Does Congress know better than the majority of American
consumers?
In my view, we should trust consumers and make sure they have the
information they want on the food they buy. As such, I urge my
colleagues to oppose Senator Roberts' preemption legislation. Instead,
I ask my colleagues to engage in a meaningful discussion for how we can
create a mandatory standard that is flexible for industry but gives
consumers the information they want.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I wish to start off my remarks with
regard to the bill that is before us. There is an article from The Hill
newspaper, and it is quoting Julie Borlaug, who is the granddaughter of
Norman Borlaug, a University of Minnesota graduate who helped to spark
the green revolution in agriculture technology that is credited with
saving more than 1 billion people from dying of hunger.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from The Hill
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From The Hill, Mar. 16, 2016]

Safe, Proven Biotechnology Deserves Non-Stigmatizing National Labeling
Standard

(By Julie Borlaug)

Global hunger is one of the most pressing challenges of the
21st century and the problem will only get worse if the U.S.
Senate fails to take action and prevent a costly state-by-
state patchwork of labeling mandates for food containing
genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
In a Senate Agriculture Committee mark-up last week, Sen.
Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) correctly noted that ``science is an
essential piece of the puzzle in addressing food
insecurity.'' The senator also praised the legacy of my
grandfather, Dr. Norman Borlaug, a University of Minnesota
graduate who helped spark the green revolution in
agricultural technology that is credited with saving more
than 1 billion people from dying of hunger.
I am glad to see my grandfather's work praised. And, as an
associate director for the Borlaug Institute for
International Agriculture, I want to see his work, and the
work of his fellow agricultural scientists, protected. That
means ensuring that innovations in agricultural biotechnology
aren't sent to the dustbin of history, leaving future
generations asking why good solutions were abandoned.
It really comes down to a simple label. In July, Vermont is
set to become the first state to begin enforcing a GMO
labeling mandate. The impacts will be felt on store shelves
and in science labs around this country. Make no mistake--
these state labeling efforts are not about a so-called `right
to know' but are about enabling activists to drive GMOs out
of the marketplace. Leaders in the labeling movement
acknowledge this, with one saying ``If we have it labeled,
then we can organize people not to buy it.''
These dangerous efforts undermine the critical importance
of biotechnology and the role it plays in feeding the world.
With the help of modern science and GMOs, farmers now have
the ability to produce crops that better withstand droughts
and require fewer pesticides. They can adapt genetic codes to
acclimate to new environments, and ensure that crops grow
well despite inhospitable climates.
You cannot be anti-hunger and be anti-GMO. GMOs not only
make farming more sustainable, they directly impact national
and global food security at a time when warming temperatures
and rising populations mean that those living in poverty will
face increasingly unstable supplies of food.
The safety of GMOs is as clear as their benefits. Every
major scientific organization that has examined this issue
has concluded that they are safe as any other food. Those
denying their safety are denying the science.
By allowing state-mandated on package labeling of GMO
foods, Congress would be turning its back on decades of
advancements in biotechnology and allowing a small group of
activists to deny millions of people the tools that will
prevent starvation and death. We cannot allow that to happen.
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.)
has put forward a bipartisan proposal that would establish
national standards for food made with genetically-engineered
ingredients. The Biotech Labeling Solutions Act would prevent
a costly state-by-state patchwork of labeling mandates. It
would also help ensure that providing greater information
could go hand-in-hand with providing greater education at a
national level about the safety and importance of GMO crops.
The Senate Agriculture Committee supported moving his bill to
the full Senate by a 14-6 bipartisan vote.
Now, we need senators of both parties to come together to
support this common-sense approach.
Sixteen years ago, my grandfather wrote that the world
would soon have the agricultural technologies available to
feed the 8.3 billion people anticipated in the next quarter
of a century. The more pertinent question is whether farmers
and ranchers will be permitted to use these technologies.
The members of the Senate will decide that very question in
their votes on the Biotech Labeling Solutions Act. For the
sake of science and the world, the answer needs to be yes.

[[Page S1520]]

Mr. ROBERTS. Quoting from the article, Ms. Borlaug said:

I am glad to see my grandfather's work praised. . . .
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts . . . has
put forward a bipartisan proposal that would establish
national standards for food made with genetically-engineered
ingredients. The Biotech Labeling Solutions Act would prevent
a costly state-by-state patchwork of labeling mandates. It
would also help ensure that providing greater information
could go hand-in-hand with providing greater education at a
national level about the safety and importance of GMO crops.
. . . Sixteen years ago, my grandfather wrote that the world
would soon have the agriculture technologies available to
feed the 8.3 billion people anticipated in the next quarter
of a century. The more pertinent question is whether farmers
and ranchers will be permitted to use these technologies.

I rise again to discuss my amendment numbered 3450 on biotechnology
labeling solutions. There has been a lot of discussion about this
amendment and this topic in general. That is a good thing. We should be
talking about our food, we should be talking about our farmers and
producers, and we should be talking about our consumers as well. It is
important--extremely important--to have an honest discussion and an
open exchange with dialogue. After all, that is what we do in the
Senate or at least that is what we are supposed to do. We are here to
discuss difficult issues, craft compromised solutions, and finally vote
in the best interest of our constituents. That is what we are doing
here today: exercising our responsibility to cast a vote for what is in
the best interest of those who sent us here.
Let's start with discussing difficult issues. The basic issue at hand
is agriculture biotechnology labeling. If you have heard any of my
previous remarks, you have heard me say time and time and time again
that biotechnology products are safe, but you don't have to take my
word for it. The Agriculture Committee held a hearing late last year
where all three agencies in charge of reviewing biotechnology testified
before our members. Over and over again the EPA, the FDA, and the USDA
told us that these products are safe--safe for the environment, safe
for other plants, and safe for our food supply. This is the gold
standard on what is safe with regard to agriculture biotechnology. Not
only are these products safe, but they also provide benefits to the
entire value chain from producer to consumer. Through biotechnology,
our farmers are able to grow more on less land using less water, less
fuel, and less fertilizer, but the difficult issue we are debating
today is about more than recognizing the fact that biotechnology is
safe. No, today our decision is about whether to prevent a wrecking
ball from hitting our entire food supply chain. The difficult issue for
us to address is what to do about the patchwork of biotechnology
labeling laws that will soon wreak havoc on the flow of interstate
commerce, agriculture, and food products in every supermarket and every
grocery store up and down Main Street of every community in America.
That is what this is about. It is not about safety, it is not about
health, and it is not about nutrition. It is all about marketing.
What we face today is a handful of States that have chosen to enact
labeling requirements on information that has nothing to do with
health, safety, or nutrition. Unfortunately, the impact of these
decisions will be felt all across the country. Those decisions impact
the farmers in the fields who would be pressured to grow less efficient
crops so manufacturers could avoid these demonizing labels. Those
labeling laws will impact distributors who have to spend more money to
sort different labels for different States. Those labeling laws will
ultimately impact consumers who will suffer from higher priced food. It
will cost $1,050 per year for an average family of four. That is right.
If we do nothing, it is not manufacturers that will pay the ultimate
price, it is the consumer.
A study released this year found that changes in the production or
labeling of most of the Nation's food supply for a single State would
impact citizens in each of our home States. The total annual increased
cost of doing nothing today, such as not voting for cloture, could be
as much as $82 billion every year. That is a pretty costly cloture
vote. That is 1,050 bucks tacked onto each family's grocery bill, and
that is a direct hit to their pocketbooks. Let me repeat that. If we
fail to act today--if we do not have cloture and get to this compromise
bill--the cost to consumers would total as much as $82 billion a year
or 1,050 bucks for hard-working American families. I don't think that
is what my colleagues want. I don't think they want to be responsible
for that: a cloture vote with an $82 billion price tag? Come on.
This is the difficult issue we must address and the question is, How
do we fix it? That is why we have crafted a compromise solution and put
it on the floor for debate and action. The amendment before us today
stops this wrecking ball before any more damage can be done.

Two weeks ago, the Agriculture Committee passed a bill with a
bipartisan vote of 14 to 6. I am very proud of that legislation. It
stopped the State-by-State patchwork and provided a national voluntary
standard for biotechnology food products. For the first time, the
Federal Government would set a science-based standard allowing
consumers to demand the marketplace provide more information. Consumers
are growing more and more interested in their food, and that is a good
thing. We, as consumers, should learn more about where our food comes
from and what it takes to keep our food supply the safest, the most
abundant, and the most affordable in the world. However, the role of
government in this space is to ensure that information regarding
safety, health, and nutritional value are expressed directly to
consumers, but the information in question today has nothing to do with
safety or health or nutrition, so the responsibility and opportunity to
inform the consumers falls on the marketplace. If consumers want more
information, they demand it by voting with their pocketbooks in the
aisles of the grocery store.
As our bipartisan bill has come to the floor, I have heard concerns
that this voluntary standard is not enough for our consumers. Yet again
we worked with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The
legislation before us goes further than the committee-passed bill. This
legislation addresses concerns with a voluntary-only approach by
providing an incentive for the marketplace to provide consumers with
more information.
To my friends on this side of the aisle, this legislation allows the
market to work. To my friends on that side of the aisle, if the
marketplace does not live up to their commitments, if information is
not made available to consumers, then this legislation holds the
markets accountable by instituting a mandatory standard. It is not just
any mandatory standard, it is a standard that provides the same options
and mechanisms for compliance as outlined and stated publicly by our
Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack.
Simply put, the legislation before us provides us an immediate and
comprehensive solution to the unworkable State-by-State patchwork
labeling laws. As chairman of the sometimes powerful Senate Agriculture
Committee, I believe this is a true compromise. Like any bill, it is
not perfect, and I know that, but to those who criticize this
legislation in one breath and say they want a compromise in the next
breath, I ask: Where is your plan? Where is your solution? We have
heard the distinguished Senator from Oregon many times on this floor--
not a stranger to this floor--criticizing this compromise. I
appreciate, and I am sure we all appreciate, his passion. I disagree
with his views, but I appreciate that he did put his plan into a bill
and put it out for public debate. What I don't understand is why he
doesn't want to vote on it. Why would you put a bill out there and
decide not to vote on it? Why would you not vote for cloture so you can
get to a vote on your bill? We could have voted on his legislation
today. Yet when he was presented with the option to take a vote, he
declined. I have read the press release where he described the
compromise as maintaining the status quo.
If the truth be known, this compromise achieves just the opposite. In
fact, voting no today is the only way that maintains the status quo.
Voting no today does nothing to stop the wrecking ball. Voting no today
ensures that the instability in the marketplace continues. Voting no
today puts farmers and all of agriculture at risk. Voting no today
negatively impacts the

[[Page S1521]]

daily lives of everybody in the food chain from the farmer who will be
forced to plant fence row to fence row of a crop that is less efficient
to the grain elevator that will have to adjust storage options to
separate the types of grain, to the manufacturer that will need
different labels for different States, to the distributor that will
need expanded storage for sorting, and to the retailer who may be
unable to afford offering low-cost, private-label products, and,
finally, to the consumer who will be forced to pay for all this
additional cost to the tune of $82 billion.

Now we come to our final task as elected officials of this body
taking a vote. But before we do, we should all know that never before--
never before in my experience as chairman of the House Agriculture
Committee and chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee and all the
years I have had the privilege to serve on both committees--we have
never seen a bill in the Agricultural Committee with so much support,
never. Over 800 organizations all across the food and agriculture
perspective have a stake in this bill. It is at the national and State
and local levels. They all support the bill. The bill has the support
of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the
American Farm Bureau, and many, many more.
Virtually every farm group is in town. I just talked to the American
Soybean Association this past week. One farmer said: Hey, if I cannot
have agriculture biological crops with regard to increasing the yield
that I plant, what am I going to do? Am I going to plant fence row to
fence row? Am I going to lose in this situation when farming income is
declining and farm credit is getting tighter?
The fundamental role of the Agriculture Committee is to protect
American farmers and ranchers who provide a safe, abundant, and
affordable food supply to a very troubled and hungry world. So I will
be voting yes to do just that, and I encourage my colleagues to do the
same. Voting no today means telling your constituents next week that
you are raising their grocery bill by over $1,000. Good luck with that.
It is a pretty simple vote. You are either for agriculture or you are
not.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, later this morning we continue to work
on whether to consider a food labeling bill here in the Senate. As a
dad, I know this bill is about much more than just words or symbols or
a label. It is about the confidence we have in the food we eat and the
food we feed our children. As a Hoosier, I also know this bill is about
preserving confidence in a long and proud Indiana tradition of growing
the food that feeds our communities and provides a safe and reliable
food supply for the world. Whether you are a parent or a farmer, a
Republican or a Democrat, our objectives in this debate should be the
same: to provide consumers with access to accurate information about
the food we eat and to do so in a way that does not mislead consumers
into falsely thinking their food is unsafe.
I believe strongly that consumers, our families, our kids, moms and
dads, brothers and sisters deserve to feel confident in the food we
feed our families. I want to know how much sugar is in my ice cream and
how many calories are in that roast beef sandwich that I love so much.
It is clear from this debate that many Americans want to know even more
about where and how our food is produced. I believe we should have that
information, and it should be easy to find.
It is also common sense. This information should be delivered in a
way that is fair, that is objective, and that is based in sound
science. I have heard from many Hoosier farmers who are very concerned
that some labels or symbols on packages would amount, in consumers'
minds, to warning labels and could send a misleading message that the
safe and healthy products our farmers grow--think of sweet corn in our
fields--are somehow unhealthy or even dangerous.
This morning, my good friend, Senator Tom Carper from Delaware, and I
filed an amendment that builds off the framework of the proposal before
us today. A framework I first suggested in the Agriculture Committee
markup of this very bill. It creates a national voluntary bioengineered
food labeling standard. It stipulates that if food companies fail to
make sufficient information available, then a national food labeling
standard for bioengineering becomes mandatory.
Our amendment works for farmers, it works for manufacturers, and it
works for our families. It establishes ambitious goals for the
availability of information related to bioengineering by requiring that
after 3 years, 80 percent of the food products covered by the
legislation would provide direct access to information. If the food
industry does not meet this threshold, then the labeling requirement
becomes mandatory.
Our amendment also requires clear and direct access to information on
bioengineering. This could include explicit disclosures, such as
organic or GMO-free, or voluntarily disclosing bioengineering on the
box. Or companies choosing to participate in the voluntary program
could use various electronic methods of disclosure, such as a Web site
or a QR code in conjunction with a phone number that clearly indicates
to consumers--to our families--where they can find more information and
provides direct access to that information. This is important because
our shared goal is to provide direct access to information about the
contents of our food to everyone, whether you have access to the
Internet or a smartphone or a regular phone. So let me repeat: Our
amendment allows for electronic disclosure to be used only in
conjunction with a phone number, and both methods would have to provide
direct access to information on the product's contents.
Finally, our amendment preserves State consumer protection laws and
remedies. States write laws to protect our citizens from mislabeled
products and to provide for remedies in case of false or misleading
statements. Our amendment preserves those laws.
Consumers, our families, farmers, and food producers are looking to
the Senate for leadership. After months of discussion, we have been
unable to agree yet on a proposal that gives consumers the information
they want in a responsible way, but the issue remains. This will be
another week of uncertainty for producers, for manufacturers, for our
families who do not have the information they want, and for the
producers and manufacturers I mentioned who don't know what is
expected.
I am going to continue to work on this issue with Senator Roberts and
Senator Stabenow. I strongly encourage all my colleagues to consider
the ideas that Senator Carper and I have put forward and to try to work
with us to find a solution that works for America.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I am rising to speak to this issue from a simple American citizen
point of view. The American citizen wants the right to know what is in
their food. They want to know how many calories; they want to know what
the minerals and the vitamins are and what the ingredients are. It is a
simple standard because it is important to an individual to know what
you are putting in your mouth, what you are putting on the table for
your families and your children.
This is a principle that we have honored time and again on our
packages. We proceeded to put on our packages whether fish is farm
raised or wild caught because citizens wanted to know. It makes a
difference to them. It is their choice. It is their judgment. We put on
our packages whether juice is from concentrate or is fresh because
citizens wanted to know. It is important to them. It is their right to
know.
We put the list of ingredients on the package in a simple format, not
so that someone can spend an hour trying to research what is in it. No,
we have a simple 1-second test. You pick up the food off the counter,
you turn it over, you look at the list of ingredients and you say, this
has the vitamin C I wanted; this has the calories I wanted--the 1-
second test.
That is what is at stake because the bill that is before us right now
kills the 1-second test. It kills immediate access to information for
consumers. It says

[[Page S1522]]

we are going to eviscerate States' rights to respond to this desire of
citizens to know what is in their food. This is a desire that stretches
all across the United States, all genders, all ages, all parties. In
fact, 9 out of 10 Americans say they want this simple information on
the package to meet this 1-second test just like calories.
Now here we are in this deeply divided Nation, this Nation in which
we see in this Presidential campaign extremes to the left and the right
and everything in between, and we wonder what is happening. Isn't there
anything we can agree on?
Well, the fascinating thing is that here is something we can agree
on: 80-plus percent in every category--Republicans, Democrats,
Independents--almost all of them near the 9-out-of-10 factor, women
over 80 percent, men over 80 percent, young over 80 percent, old over
80 percent. In other words, all of those are between 80 and 90 percent
no matter who you are, where you are, what your gender is, or how old
you are. Nine out of ten Americans want to know what is in their food,
and they want it easily accessible on the package.
My colleague talked about direct access to information. In this case,
``direct access'' is somewhat of a term subject to interpretation
because to the consumer, direct access is the 1-second test. I pick up
the package, I flip it over, 390 calories, thank you very much. Done.
But the term today is being used for indirect access.
Let's look at these different hall-of-mirrors proposals that are
being put forward. OK. Sham No. 1 is the 800 number, an 800 number on
the package. What is the purpose of that 800 number? The package
doesn't say. There are 800 numbers on all kinds of packages. You call
up the company and complain because there is contamination in your
frozen peas. What is the purpose of it? Is it so you can call the
company and ask about new products coming out? Without any information
around it, it is just a number. And citizens don't just go to a product
and call a number. Why? Because they are busy. They are going down the
grocery store aisle. They have a supermarket cart. They have a child in
there. They want the 1-second test. They don't want to be told they
have to call a call center and get in a phone tree and press a bunch of
buttons, and then a message comes on and says: I am sorry, due to high
call volume, we will get to you in maybe 20 minutes, but stay on the
line and we will play sweet music for you. And maybe--if you stay on
the line long enough--maybe it is not 20 minutes; maybe it is an hour.
You get someone in a call center overseas who is saying things in an
accent you can't understand. Citizens hate that. And they hate pretend,
false solutions. This does not mean direct access to information. This
is direct: It is in my hand, 1 second. I see it. That is direct.
Now there is another idea. It is called a QR code, or quick response
code--quick response, computer code. Why is this on the package? No
explanation. So is putting something with no explanation on a package
helpful to consumers? No. Is it there so you can scan it when you check
out to see what the price is? Is it there to find out about new
products that are coming out from this company? Is it there because you
might possibly find out information about discounts? You have no idea.
There is no explanation. And when you use that code, you give up
personal information. So you have to have a phone. You have to have a
smartphone. You have to have a data plan. You have to give up your
privacy. And there is no explanation why you would even bother to go to
it. That is completely misleading. That is why I call it the hall of
mirrors. It is like you are at a circus. We have an 800 number, we have
a QR code, no real information, no direct access to information.

Let's be honest with the American public. Nine out of ten Americans
want this information presented in a simple format. A nationwide poll
that was done in November did a followup question: Would you prefer for
it to be simply stated on the package or have a QR code? Again, 9 out
of 10 said they wanted a direct statement on the package.
Look how much room this takes up. Isn't it a lot simpler just to put
a little symbol on there? That is all people want. They are not asking
for anything that takes up room or costs anything, just like it doesn't
cost anything to put another ingredient on your package if you add it
to your ingredient list. Labels are changed all the time.
I met with industry, and they said: Here are our top three
priorities.
Priority No. 1 is, we want a single national standard so we don't
have conflicting State standards.
OK. That is understandable. We are on the verge of having that. In
July we would have one State with a standard. There is nothing on the
horizon for two States. There are several States that have said: If a
whole bunch of States sign up, we will do something collectively. But
certainly we are not at risk in the months ahead of more than one State
standard, so there is no emergency here. But I agree with the
underlying principle that, indeed, when it comes to labels, a warehouse
shouldn't have to worry about whether it is shipping product to one
subdivision of the State or another subdivision of the State or one
State versus another State. So one standard is reasonable.
The second thing they said is, we don't want anything on the front of
the package because that might imply there is something wrong with the
food.
OK. Fair enough.
The third thing they said is, we don't want anything pejorative.
Fair enough. Have the FDA select a symbol to put on the package.
We could solve this whole debate immediately for those who want to
put on a QR code and just say: Scan this code for GE ingredients in
this product. OK. Now the consumer gets the 1-second test. They look at
it and see there are GE ingredients, and that is all they want to know.
They don't want to scan it and give up their privacy, and they don't
want to have to go to the Web site and look up the product, where
information would probably be misleading anyway. So that is fair
enough.
Now, there is a third idea that has been put forward, a third thing
that is supposed to count as answering customer inquiries, and that is
in this bill--to put information on social media. This triples the size
of the house of mirrors. A consumer goes to look at the product to see
if it has a code. No. Does it have an 800 number? No. Oh, there is this
social media thing. Well, we all know there are over 100 companies
doing different types of social media. We know the famous ones. We know
Facebook and Instagram and Twitter. So where on their social media did
this company put that information? Well, now you really have to be a
detective. You could spend hundreds of hours trying to figure out the
answer to that.
So the 800 number is phony, the QR code is a scam, and this whole
social media thing is a sham.
All citizens want is for us to be honest with them about the
ingredients. That is all they are asking for. It is not very much.
Scientific studies point to the benefits of some genetic engineering,
and they point to problems that have arisen from some genetic
engineering. It should be up to the citizen. The citizen has the right
to know.
In this age where we are so divided, we have one thing in common, and
that is that 90 percent of our citizens--whether from the Presiding
Officer's State or any of the States represented by Senators in this
distinguished Hall, 90 percent of the citizens want a simple indication
on the package. So why today are so many Senators coming to this floor
saying they don't care about what their citizens feel? They don't care
about their citizens' rights, and they don't care about States' rights.
I have heard so many colleagues who are planning to vote for this
sham and scam today come to this floor and talk about the beauty of
States as a laboratory for ideas. Well, now, here is Vermont. Vermont
has said: We will step up. We will be the laboratory. We will be the
first standard and experiment in putting simple information on the
package.
Before we make any decision, the rest of the Nation gets the
advantage to observe that State laboratory and then to say: Is it
working or is it not working? Are there problems being created? How can
it be improved? Do we want this as a model for the Nation for a single
standard, or do we say that we absolutely don't want it as a model for
the Nation?
Well, many of my colleagues here plan to crush the State laboratory.
They have given fancy speeches about

[[Page S1523]]

States' rights, but they are coming down today to vote to crush States'
rights to respond to a fundamental concern of their citizens.
I must say I like the idea of the State laboratory and to see what
one State does, but I also understand the underlying concern that in
short order there might be multiple States and conflicting standards,
and that is not a functioning situation for interstate commerce.
So if we take away the right for a State to give the 1-second test
for direct information--1 second--turn over the package; there are 880
calories. That is the test. Turn over the package. GE ingredients are
present. Thank you. That is the 1-second test. If we are going to crush
the ability of a State to respond to a fundamental concern of its
citizens, then we need to provide the same basic provision not in a
scary fashion and not in a fashion that takes up space on the package,
not on the front of the package; one standard for the entire United
States, but it has to meet that test. That is all. It is a simple, fair
exchange.
So today I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture because this
bill is among the worst bills I have ever seen on the floor of the
Senate. It is without good justification, without resolving the issue
at hand, crushing States' rights, taking away citizens' right to know,
and putting out three phony scam, sham alternatives. That is a very sad
state of affairs.
Another sad state of affairs is that this bill is on this floor
having not gone through committee. We have heard a lot of pontificating
about good process in the Senate and how we were going to have good
process, but here is a bill written entirely outside the halls of the
committee, never considered in the committee, and here it is on the
floor. Such an important issue would merit substantial debate. Such an
important issue would merit a full and free amendment process.
But two things happened immediately after this bill was introduced.
The first is that the majority leader immediately filed cloture; that
is, to close debate. So before one word--not one word had been said on
this bill because no one was able to speak between the bill being put
on the floor and cloture. Oh, hey, I just filed the bill, and I am
closing debate. That is not a fair and open process. Then the tree was
filled, so no one can put an amendment forward. On such an important
issue, that is not a situation that is acceptable.
Furthermore, this was deftly timed to occur simultaneously with the
five big primaries yesterday. So this is a moment where the American
people are paying attention to Florida, they are paying attention to
Illinois, and they want to know what happened in Missouri. They want to
know what occurred in these five States. The press is paying attention
to that. That is the one day of debate allowed before this cloture
motion is voted on.
So let's take this bill and put it in committee and actually have a
committee process to consider it. Then bring it back to the floor with
whatever changes the committee makes, and hopefully the committee would
honor the fundamental right to know by consumers. Bring the bill back
to the floor and have a full and open amendment process on something so
important to citizens. But do not crush States' rights. Do not steal
consumers' right to know and try to do it in the dark of night while
the Nation is distracted by major primaries. It is wrong on policy, it
is wrong on process, and it is an injustice to every citizen in our
Nation.
Here is the situation: The Nation is very cynical about this body.
This body here, they say, isn't responding to the concerns of the
American citizens. Is there any single bill that has been more an
example to justify that cynicism than this bill which is before us
right now? When 9 out of 10 Americans say this is important to them,
the majority of this body says: We don't care. When 9 out of 10--or
roughly that number--Democrats and Republicans and Independents all
agree on something, this body says: We don't care. Isn't the cynicism
of the American citizens justified?
Here is the thing: Our Nation was founded on a simple principle. That
principle is embodied by three beautiful words in the beginning of our
Constitution: ``We the People.'' Well, we the people want simple
information on the package. So if we are here to honor that principle,
why is this bill before us, I ask my colleagues. Why a bill that says
the interests of a few titans in crushing a State laboratory is more
important than the views of 90 percent of Americans? And when those
Americans are asked, more than 7 out of 10 say this is very important
to them, so this isn't one of those casual issues. Why is it so
important? Because this is food they put in their mouths and on their
table, and even if they have no concerns about the GE product itself,
they feel they have a right to know.
So let's return to the principles on which this Nation was founded.
Let's quit feeding the cynicism of citizens across this Nation who see
these powerful special interests doing the opposite of what citizens
ask for. Let's be a Chamber that honors our relationship with our
constituents, not one that tries to stomp out their rights. Let's not
allow debate to close on this bill. Let's send it back to committee.
Let's have a committee process. Let's have a floor debate in the
future, with full and free amendments, on an issue so important to our
States and so important to our citizens.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am going to proceed on my leader
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the next Justice could fundamentally
alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on
our country, so of course--of course the American people should have a
say in the Court's direction.
It is a President's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court
Justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check
on a President and withhold its consent.
As Chairman Grassley and I declared weeks ago and reiterated
personally to President Obama, the Senate will continue to observe the
Biden rule so that the American people have a voice in this momentous
decision. The American people may well elect a President who decides to
nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next President may
also nominate somebody very different. Either way, our view is this:
Give the people a voice in filling this vacancy.
Let me remind colleagues of what Vice President Biden said when he
was chairman of the Judiciary Committee here in the Senate. Here is
what he said:

It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the
political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme
Court nomination must be put off until after the election
campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is
central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me . . . we
will be in deep trouble as an institution.

Chairman Biden went on.

Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court
with only eight members for some time, but as I see it . . .
the cost of such a result--the need to reargue three or four
cases that will divide the Justices four to four--are quite
minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the
Senate, and the Nation would have to pay for what would
assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is
nominated by the President.

That was Chairman Joe Biden.
Consider that last part. Then-Senator Biden said that the cost to the
Nation would be too great no matter who the President nominates.
President Obama and his allies may now try to pretend this disagreement
is about a person, but as I just noted, his own Vice President made
clear it is not. The Biden rule reminds us that the decision the Senate
announced weeks ago remains about a principle and not a person--about a
principle and not a person.
It seems clear that President Obama made this nomination not with the
intent of seeing the nominee confirmed but in order to politicize it
for purposes of the election--which is the type of thing then-Senate
Judiciary Committee Chairman Biden was concerned about. It is the exact
same thing Chairman Biden was concerned about. The Biden rule
underlines that what the President has done with this nomination would
be unfair to any nominee, and, more importantly, the rule warns of the
great costs the President's action could carry for our Nation.

[[Page S1524]]

Americans are certain to hear a lot of rhetoric from the other side
in the coming days, but here are the facts they should keep in mind.
The current Democratic leader said the Senate is not a rubberstamp, and
he noted that the Constitution does not require the Senate to give
Presidential nominees a vote. That is the current Democratic leader.
The incoming Democratic leader did not even wait until the final year
of George W. Bush's term to essentially tell the Senate not to consider
any Supreme Court nominee the President sent. The Biden rule supports
what the Senate is doing today, underlining that what we are talking
about is a principle and not a person.
So here is our view. Instead of spending more time debating an issue
where we can't agree, let's keep working to address the issues where we
can. We just passed critical bipartisan legislation to help address the
heroin and prescription opioid crisis in our country. Let's build on
that success. Let's keep working together to get our economy moving
again and to make our country safer, rather than endlessly debating an
issue where we don't agree. As we continue working on issues like
these, the American people are perfectly capable of having their say on
this issue. So let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people
decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it
considers the qualifications of the nominee the next President
nominates, whoever that might be.
I yield the floor.

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 legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
concur in the House amendment with an amendment to S. 764, a
bill to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College
Program Act, and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Mike Rounds, John Barrasso, Deb Fischer,
Tom Cotton, Roger F. Wicker, Mike Crapo, Johnny
Isakson, John Cornyn, Pat Roberts, Orrin G. Hatch,
Richard Burr, James M. Inhofe, Jeff Flake, Tim Scott,
Cory Gardner, Shelley Moore Capito.

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 the
motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 764, with amendment No.
3450, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, shall be
brought to a close?
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 Florida (Mr. Rubio).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Are there any Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 37 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Carper
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
McCain
Moran
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--49

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Casey
Collins
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heller
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Peters
Reed
Reid
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--3

Cruz
Rubio
Sanders
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are
49.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider the
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
The Senator from Texas.

Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as the world now knows, this morning
President Obama nominated his choice to fill the vacant seat created by
the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. In doing so, the President
exercised his unquestioned authority under the Constitution to nominate
somebody to this vacancy, but that same Constitution reserves to the
U.S. Senate--and the U.S. Senate alone--the right to either grant or
withhold consent to that nominee. It is the same Constitution. They
can't argue that the President somehow has an unquestioned right to see
his nominee rubberstamped by the Senate and still show fidelity and
honor to the same Constitution that gives him that authority to make
that nomination.
At this time, I reaffirm my commitment to share with other members of
our conference that the President--this President--will not fill this
vacancy. The Senate will not confirm this nominee to this vacancy. In
so doing, we will follow the same rule book that Democrats have
advocated for in the past. It can't be that one set of rules apply to a
Democratic President and a second set of rules apply when there is a
Republican President. This isn't just about speculating what Democrats
might do were the shoe on the other foot and we had a Republican
President because they have told us what they would do--they have done
this since 1992--and in many ways they have kept their promise.
There is a lot at stake. Justice Scalia served for 30 years on the
U.S. Supreme Court. The next Justice could well change the ideological
makeup and the balance of the Supreme Court for a generation to come
and fundamentally reshape America as we know it.
At this critical juncture in our Nation's history, and particularly
with regard to the judiciary and the highest Court in the land, the
American people deserve a chance to have a say in the selection of the
next lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, and the only way to
empower the American people and ensure they have that voice is for the
next President to fill the nomination created by this vacancy.
I have heard some people say that we had that election in 2012, when
President Obama was elected, but I would say that you are half right.
We also had another election in 2014, where the American people gave
Republicans a majority in the U.S. Senate because they saw what
happened when this President didn't have any checks and balances. We
saw this during the beginning of his term of office when ObamaCare was
passed by a purely partisan vote. We saw it when Dodd-Frank was
passed--again, by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. So, in 2014, the
American people said to President Obama: We want an effective check on
Presidential power--and that is what the American people got.
We can't just look at the one side of the equation--the President's
authority under the Constitution--and the fact that the President was
reelected in 2012. We have to look at what happened in 2014 and the
constitutional prerogative of the U.S. Senate either to grant or to
withhold the confirmation.

Our National Debt

Madam President, later today the Judiciary Committee will be holding
a hearing addressing America's impending fiscal crisis, including some
potential solutions to help reverse the unsustainable course we are on.
I know we don't hear very much about it here in Washington. This seems
to be ``people walking by the graveyard,'' so to speak, regarding the
fact that our national debt hit $19 trillion for the first time ever.
This means our debt climbed more than $1 trillion in a little over a
year. In fact, this is a shocking statistic that we will not read about
in most of the mainstream media. The national debt has roughly
doubled--

[[Page S1525]]

roughly doubled--since President Obama took office a little over 7
years ago.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that for the fiscal year
2016, spending will reach $3.9 trillion, an increase of $232 billion
from the previous year. I know that when we are talking about trillions
and billions of dollars, it boggles the imagination. Most of us can't
even conceive of numbers that large, but the fact is, when you borrow
money, you have to pay it back at some point. Frankly, what I worry
most about is that my generation is not going to be the one to repay
the money we borrow. It is going to be the next generation. I know a
lot of parents and grandparents worry about whether the American dream
will still be alive and available to the next generation and beyond.
This is a huge moral lapse on the part of the current generation, to
not pay our own debts and to not come up with a system or a framework
by which to begin that process.
Rather than addressing this problem head on, government spending is
set to remain high over the coming decade, even with the discretionary
spending caps and sequester put in place by the Budget Control Act.
Inside the beltway, people talk a lot about sequester and the Budget
Control Act, but that is only 30 percent of Federal spending. Seventy
percent of Federal spending is on autopilot, growing in some cases by a
rate of 70 percent or more a year. Not addressing this is
irresponsible, it is dangerous, and it also limits the choices
available were our country to become embroiled in another fiscal crisis
like we saw in 2008.
If we ask our national security experts--former Chairman of the Joint
Chief of Staff ADM Mike Mullen said the No. 1 security threat to the
United States was the debt. That shocked me a little bit when I heard
him say that, but what he meant--and I know it to be true--is that more
and more of the tax dollars the Federal Government receives are going
to be paid to the bondholders who own that debt--the Chinese and other
people around the world. We have to pay the interest on the debt if we
are going to borrow the money, but more and more the spending decisions
will be taken out of the hands of the elected representatives of the
American people and simply be left up to the accountants who say: OK.
You have accrued this much debt. Here is the interest that needs to be
paid on that debt to the bondholders, and there is not going to be
enough money left over to protect the national security of the United
States of America.
We have already seen our military on a dangerous trajectory
potentially leading to the smallest Army since World War II. We tried
to deal with some of that just last fall to begin to reverse some of
this because frankly this was no longer a matter of just cutting
superficial cuts. These were into the muscle and the bone of what makes
up our national security structure, and we know what happened too. Our
friends on the other side said: If you want to spend more money to
protect this country with national security spending, then we are going
to demand dollar-for-dollar more spending on nondefense, discretionary
spending. That is why we ended up with the deal we ended up with.
I have found it very frustrating in my time in the Senate how many of
our colleagues will talk about this issue, but I have to be honest, the
ones who frustrate me the most are the ones who will not talk about it
at all, to even acknowledge the fact. We need to have a conversation,
and more than that we need to have a commitment and we need to have a
goal when it comes to dealing with this national debt and runaway
spending.
Our Democratic friends apparently share the same philosophy as the
current President to create a tax-and-spend agenda without considering
the long-term ramifications to job creation, the economy, not to
mention our children and grandchildren. I am glad to say this side of
the aisle has tried to do what I described earlier, which is to take a
responsible position on embracing a policy which would help us to pay
down the debt, deal with this in a fiscally responsible way, and allow
us to get our books back in good order.
We are going to take up this matter before the Senate Judiciary
Committee today. We will be discussing reining in spending and making
progress on the debt, including an amendment to the United States
Constitution that would require a balanced budget.
I can hear it now--because I have heard it before--some of our
colleagues across the aisle saying: Heaven forbid. We can't amend the
Constitution. Well, we have done it 27 times. Now, we don't do it
willy-nilly. We don't do it for small things, but for something like
this, it may well be required. Frankly, this is one of the most
important lessons of economics that all of us who have children have
tried to teach our children, which is you don't spend money that you
don't have--well, I guess, unless you are the Federal Government and
you can print it or you can borrow it, but at some point the birds come
home to roost.
Of course, our commitment to commonsense spending goes far beyond
today's hearing on the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
Many will recall that folks on this side of the aisle highlighted
gimmicks in the discretionary budget process that only hide the real
cost and don't actually reduce spending. There are a lot of shell games
that go on here in Washington, DC. I am glad our budget amendment last
year focused on bringing stunts like those to an end and placed a limit
on their use in the appropriations process.
Most recently, we used reconciliation through the budget process to
keep our promise to vote to repeal ObamaCare--a law that has been
burdening American families and businesses with higher taxes and
mandates, while failing to contain premiums and financial losses on the
exchanges. But instead of offering solutions to our growing debt, many
of our Democratic colleagues are content to sit back and criticize
those of us who are trying to come up with a solution to address this
problem: how to safeguard our Nation's fiscal health. They argue that a
balanced budget amendment isn't feasible or that certain government
programs are so essential that we have to up their funding at the
expense of the taxpayer, or they act as if the debt isn't a problem, or
if it is a problem, that all they will do is raise taxes enough to try
to balance the budget. You can't do that. You cannot raise taxes high
enough on the American people to pay off $19 trillion in debt. Those
aren't solutions; those are talking points. They don't help the
American people make ends meet, and they don't help the U.S. Government
live within its means.
So I would like to ask, what are the Democratic solutions to our
national debt? We are going to ask that question this afternoon. We are
going to have some expert witnesses offer a number of suggestions. Then
we are going to ask our friends across the aisle, what is your
solution? I hope we hear more than just crickets or criticism that what
we are proposing simply will not work.
I know my colleagues and I would welcome constructive input and
serious, good-faith proposals to stem the burgeoning national debt, but
until then, our friends across the aisle need to do more than sit on
their hands or just whistle past the graveyard of this impending
national disaster.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of my
distinguished colleague from Texas. As usual, he is right on and one of
the great leaders on trying to balance the budget through a
constitutional amendment. I personally appreciate his efforts and his
expertise in doing that.

Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

Madam President, on a different subject, I rise today to speak about
the need for the Senate to do its job regarding the Supreme Court
vacancy created by the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
The Constitution gives to the President the power to nominate Supreme
Court Justices, and President Obama has exercised that power by
nominating Judge Merrick Garland. The Constitution gives to the Senate
the power of advice and consent, and it is time for the Senate to do
its job.
The sound bite ``do your job'' is catchy, quotable, and short enough
to fit in very large letters on a large chart that Democratic Senators
bring to this floor. Rarely, however, have so few words been so
misleading for so many.

[[Page S1526]]

This cliche begs but does not answer the most important question: What
is the Senate's job regarding the Scalia vacancy? When Democrats and
their liberal allies say ``Do your job,'' they really mean ``Do as we
say now, not as we did then.'' Saying that would be more honest, but
then no one else would be persuaded by it. So they say that the
Constitution provides the Senate's job description, requiring a prompt
Judiciary Committee hearing and a timely floor vote. There may be a
constitution somewhere that says such a thing, but it is certainly not
in our Constitution--the Constitution of the United States--that each
of us has sworn an oath to support and defend.
In a way, I am not surprised that liberals would use a made-up,
fictional constitution to pursue their political goal. After all, they
favor judges who do the same thing. From the time he was a Senator
serving in this body, President Obama has said that judges decide cases
based on their personal empathy, core concerns, and vision of how the
world works. My goodness. If that were the case, any philosopher could
be a Supreme Court Justice. He has nominated men and women who believe
that judges may change the Constitution's meaning based on things such
as cultural understandings and evolving social norms. Give me a break.
The kinds of judges liberals favor see unwritten things in our
written Constitution. They discover things between the lines of our
written charter that come not from those who drafted and ratified the
Constitution, not from the American people, but from the judges' own
imaginations.
If the Constitution we have--the one our fellow citizens can read--
suits them, then activist judges will use it. If not, then activist
judges will make up a new constitution that is more useful to their
purposes. America's Founders fashioned a system of government with
built-in limits, including a defined role for unelected judges. The
Supreme Court observed in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison that
the Constitution is written down so that these limits will be neither
mistaken nor forgotten and is intended to govern courts as much as
legislatures. The activist judges whom liberals favor reject those
limits. They look at written law such as the Constitution and statutes
merely as a starting point, as words without any real meaning. Their
oath to support and defend the Constitution is really an oath to
support and defend themselves, since in the long run their constitution
is one of their own making.
So I am hardly surprised that today Democrats and their leftwing
allies turn to a fictional constitution when telling the Senate to do
its job. That constitution, however, simply does not exist. The real
Constitution leaves to the President and to the Senate the decision
about how to exercise their respective powers in the appointment
process.
What is the Senate's job regarding the Scalia vacancy? The Senate's
job is to determine the best way to exercise its advice and consent
power under the circumstances we face today. Thankfully, we are not
without guidance in deciding the best way to exercise our advice and
consent power regarding the Scalia vacancy. We can, for example, look
at precedent.
It hardly takes a law degree to know that a precedent is more
legitimate if it is more similar to the situation before us. Comparing
apples and apples is more helpful than, say, comparing apples and
rocks. That is just a matter of common sense.
Candidly, the fictional claims offered in recent days suggest that
some of the lawyers among us could benefit from even more common sense.
Over the years, the Senate has considered nominations in different ways
at different times, depending on the circumstances. Consider these
precedents with great bearing on the current circumstances: The Senate
has never confirmed a nominee to a Supreme Court vacancy that opened up
this late in a term-limited President's time in office. This is only
the third vacancy in nearly a century to occur after the American
people had already started voting in a Presidential election, and in
the previous two instances--in 1956 and 1968--the Senate did not
confirm a nominee until the following year. And the only time the
Senate has ever confirmed a nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy
created after voting began in a Presidential election year was in 1916,
and that vacancy arose only because Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes
resigned his seat on the Court to run against incumbent President
Woodrow Wilson.
There is also another precedent that has received little attention
but is worth considering. President John Quincy Adams nominated John
Crittenden to the Supreme Court in December 1828, after Andrew Jackson
won the Presidential election. The Senate, by voice vote, rejected an
amendment to a resolution regarding the Crittenden nomination that
asserted it is the duty of the Senate to confirm or reject a
President's nominees. In one of its reports on the confirmation
process, the Congressional Research Service discussed this vote and
concluded: ``By this action, the early Senate declined to endorse the
principle that proper practice required it to consider and proceed to a
final vote on every nomination.''
I believe the precedents, such as they are, support the principle
that the Senate must decide for itself how to exercise its power of
advice and consent in each situation.
We have another source of guidance for how to exercise the advice and
consent power in the particular circumstances of the Scalia vacancy. In
1992--another Presidential election year during divided government--
then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, now our Vice President,
addressed this very issue. Senator Biden recommended that if a Supreme
Court vacancy occurred that year, the entire appointment process--both
nomination and confirmation--should be deferred until the election
season was over. Here is what he said in a lengthy interview with the
Washington Post:

If someone steps down, I would highly recommend the
president not name someone, not send a name up. If [the
president] did send someone up, I would ask the Senate to
seriously consider not having a hearing on that nominee.

Chairman Biden also explained the reasons for this recommendation. He
said, for example, that an election-year nominee would be caught up in
a ``power struggle'' over control of the Supreme Court.
He was prescient.
In that interview, Chairman Biden also said:

Can you imagine dropping a nominee, after the . . .
decisions that are about to be made by the Supreme Court,
into that fight, into that cauldron in the middle of a
presidential year? . . . The environment within which such a
hearing would be held would be so supercharged and so prone
to be able to be distorted.

A week later, Chairman Biden addressed the Senate about the
confirmation process and further explained his recommendation for
deferring the appointment process should a Supreme Court vacancy occur.
He repeated his recommendation regarding how to handle a Supreme Court
nomination occurring that year. Let me refer to this chart and read it:

President Bush should consider following the practice of a
majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee
until after the November election is completed. . . . [I]f
the President . . . presses an election-year nomination, the
Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not
scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until
after the political campaign season is over.

Chairman Biden again explained the reasons for this recommendation.
The confirmation process had degraded in the wake of controversial
nominations, and the Presidential campaign that year looked to be
particularly bitter. As a result, he said, partisan bickering and
political posturing would overwhelm the serious evaluation required. In
addition, the Presidential election season was already well underway,
and different parties controlled the nomination and confirmation phases
of the appointment process.
Chairman Biden could have been talking about 2016 instead of 1992. In
fact, each of the factors leading to his recommendation for deferring
the appointment process in 1992 exists in the same or greater measure
today.
Not a single Democrat objected to Chairman Biden's recommendation to
defer the appointment process. Not one. Not one Democrat. If what
Democrats say today is true--that the Constitution requires a prompt
hearing and a timely floor vote for every nomination--surely someone,
anyone would

[[Page S1527]]

have said so in 1992. Not so. My colleagues will search the 1992
Congressional Record in vain for the slogan ``do your job.'' It appears
that a different Constitution was in force in 1992 because no
Democratic Senator or leftist organization insisted that the
Constitution required a prompt hearing and timely floor vote. No one
claimed that the Senate would be shirking its constitutional duty by
following Chairman Biden's recommendation.
The first step in exercising our power of advice and consent
regarding the Scalia vacancy then is to decide how best to do so in the
circumstances we face today. Precedent generally, and guidance from
past Senate leaders specifically, counsel strongly in favor of
deferring the confirmation process until after the Presidential
election season is over. That is clearly the best course for the
Senate, the judiciary, and, of course, the Nation. That conclusion is
reinforced by another important factor: Elections have consequences.
Democrats and their leftwing allies also use that axiom but want people
to believe that 2012 was the only election relevant to the Scalia
vacancy. They want people to believe that because President Obama was
reelected in 2012, he should be able to appoint whomever, whenever, and
however he likes. That idea must appear in another provision of the
Democrats' fictional constitution because, once again, the real one
says no such thing.
The 2012 election did give the President the power to nominate, and
he can exercise that power however he chooses until his final minutes
in office next January, and I will uphold that right. He has exercised
that power by nominating Judge Merrick Garland.
The 2012 election, however, was not the only one with consequences.
The 2014 election, for example, had tremendous significance for the
Senate's power of advice and consent. The American people gave control
of the Senate, and therefore control of the confirmation process, to
Republicans. Here, too, we may find some guidance from our friends on
the left in addressing this circumstance. President Ronald Reagan
nominated Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987. This was 3
years after his reelection and a year after the Senate majority changed
hands.
Here is how the New York Times addressed the argument that elections
have consequences:

The President's supporters insist vehemently that, having
won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change
the Court's direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986
election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have
every right to resist.

The same circumstances obviously exist today. By the way, no one
should waste time wondering if the New York Times has applied the same
principle today. It, of course, hasn't.
In addition to 2012 and 2014, the 2016 election will have tremendous
consequences for the American people and the courts. It will give the
American people a unique opportunity to express their opinion about the
direction of the courts by electing the President who nominates and the
Senate that gives advice and consent. Republicans and Democrats,
conservatives and liberals, have very different views about the kind of
judge that America needs. Justice Scalia represented a defined, modest
approach to judging while, as I mentioned earlier, President Obama has
advocated an expansive and activist approach.
I have served on the Judiciary Committee longer than all but one
Senator since the committee was created 200 years ago. One thing is
clear to me: The conflict over judicial appointments is a conflict over
judicial power. The two models of judicial power or judicial job
descriptions that I have described have radically different
consequences and implications for our Nation and our liberty.
The American people have expressed increasing concern about the
Supreme Court's direction since President Obama was elected. Most
Americans, for example, believe that Supreme Court Justices decide
cases based on their personal views and object to their doing so. With
Justice Scalia's untimely passing, the American people now have a
unique opportunity to have a voice in charting a path forward.
I cannot conclude today without addressing what is widely understood
to be part of the President's strategy in nominating Judge Garland to
the Scalia vacancy. The Senate confirmed Judge Garland to the U.S.
Court of Appeals by a vote of 76 to 23 in 1997. This, I take it, is
supposed to suggest that the Senate should do likewise regarding Judge
Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court.
So there is no mistake, I will say this as clearly as I can: The
confirmation process regarding the Scalia vacancy will be deferred
until after the election season is over for the reasons I have
explained. That decision has nothing whatsoever to do with the identity
of the nominee, and Republicans made our decision known weeks ago,
before the President had chosen anyone.
I think highly of Judge Garland. But his nomination doesn't in any
way change current circumstances. I remain convinced that the best way
for the Senate to do its job is to conduct the confirmation process
after this toxic Presidential election season is over. Doing so is the
only way to ensure fairness to the nominee and preserve the integrity
of the Supreme Court.
I also want to emphasize that the considerations relevant to an
individual's nomination to one position do not necessarily lead to the
same conclusion regarding his nomination to another position,
especially the Supreme Court. Here, too, I want my colleagues to be
aware of guidance we can draw on from the past.
In 1990, then-Chairman Joseph Biden presided over the hearing on the
nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit. He said: ``[T]here is a fundamental distinction between what
is required of and should be sought of a circuit court judge and a
district court judge and a Supreme Court Justice.'' He was right then,
and he is right today.
Democratic Senators made the same point in 2005 when they sought to
distinguish their earlier support for John Roberts' appeals court
nomination from their intention to oppose his Supreme Court nomination.
Mr. Schumer, our distinguished Senator from New York, for example,
called it a whole new ball game. He said, ``you've got to start from
scratch.'' Senator Leahy agreed, saying that the Supreme Court is
different from the lower courts. I couldn't agree more. Add this to the
list of standards that my Democratic colleagues have reversed now that
the partisan shoe is on the other foot. Senate Republicans have
explained repeatedly and in detail why the best way to exercise our
advice-and-consent power in this situation is to defer the confirmation
process. That conclusion is completely unrelated to whether the
President chooses a nominee, or if he does so, who that nominee is.
President Obama could have followed Vice President Biden's 1992
advice and deferred a nomination to fill the Scalia vacancy. He chose
not to do so. For the reasons I have discussed--precedent, past
guidance, and the consequences of elections--the Senate should follow
that advice and defer the confirmation process for the good of the
Senate, the Judiciary, and the American people.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the vacancy on the
U.S. Supreme Court in light of President Obama's announcement that he
has nominated Chief Judge Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia.
Replacing Justice Antonin Scalia, who was one of our Nation's
strongest defenders of our Constitution, will be difficult. For almost
30 years, with his brilliant legal mind and animated character, he
fiercely fought against judicial activism from the bench. He will be
greatly missed by not only his family and loved ones but by all
Americans who shared his core conservative values and beliefs.
Under the Constitution, the President shall nominate a replacement,
as he did today, and the Senate has a constitutional role of advice and
consent.

[[Page S1528]]

This is a constitutional responsibility that I take very seriously.
The decisions the Supreme Court makes often have long-lasting
ramifications that--with one-vote margins--can dramatically alter the
course of our country. At a time when the current administration has
stretched the limits of the law and attempted to circumvent Congress
and the Federal court system, choosing the right candidate with the
aptitude for this lifetime appointment is as important as ever.
I have determined that my benchmark for the next Supreme Court
Justice will be Justice Scalia himself. Scalia's strict interpretation
of the Constitution and deference to States' rights set a gold standard
by which his replacement should be measured.
As we all know, every Republican member of the Senate Judiciary
Committee sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
expressing their firm belief that the people of the United States
deserve to have a voice in determining the next Supreme Court Justice.
In their letter, they wrote:

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution is clear. The
President may nominate judges of the Supreme Court. But the
power to grant--or withhold--consent to such nominees rests
exclusively with the United States Senate.

As a result, the committee does not plan on holding any hearings
related to this issue until after a new President has taken office.
This decision will allow the American people to have a voice in the
next Supreme Court Justice based upon who they elect as the President
this November.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued that the
American people did have a voice when they elected President Obama in
2012, but that election was nearly 3\1/2\ years ago. Since that time, a
lot has changed in our country, signaling a shift in America's views of
our President and his philosophy of government. We don't need to look
any further than the 2014 elections for proof. In the 2014 elections,
the Senate switched from Democratic-controlled to Republican-
controlled. In fact, I am one of those Republican Senators who replaced
a Democrat in the last election. Many of us who ran were not supporting
the President's policies. In fact, we ran because we wanted to change
the direction the President was moving our country.
At the State level, in 2012, the last time President Obama was
elected, there were 29 Republican Governors and 20 Democratic
Governors. In 2014, the number of Republican Governors rose from 29 to
31, while the number of Democratic Governors decreased from 20 to 18.
We saw similar results in State legislative races across the country.
In 2012, Republicans held a majority in both chambers of 26 State
legislatures. In 2014, that number rose to 30. And if we take into
account the conservative-leaning but officially nonpartisan legislature
of Nebraska, that number jumps even higher--to 31.
In 2012, Democrats held the majority of both chambers in 15 States.
In 2014, that number was reduced to 11.
So in the years since the President's last election, Republicans not
only held a strong majority in the House of Representatives, but they
took back control of the Senate and increased their numbers at the
State level as well.
There is no doubt that there has been a clear shift in the minds of
the American people since President Obama's last election.
I believe, just as many of my colleagues do, that the Republican
victories of 2014 should be taken into consideration and, therefore, we
should wait to confirm the next Supreme Court Justice until after a new
President takes office. Overwhelmingly, South Dakotans who have
contacted my office agree with this decision.
One gentleman from Lemmon, SD, wrote to me saying: ``Our country
hangs in the balance as to what the future of this great country will
look like. . . . This decision is too crucial and the next Supreme
Court nominee should be nominated by the next President of the United
States.''
Another South Dakotan from Brandon noted: ``This is a rare
opportunity for the American voter to actually have a voice in how the
Court will be structured for many years to come. Please help preserve
that opportunity for us all.''
In another example, a woman from Estelline wrote saying: ``Hearing of
the passing of Justice Scalia was heartbreaking news. I ask that you do
your part to allow the people to have a say in who the next Justice of
the Supreme Court will be.''
These are just a few examples of the numerous South Dakotans who have
contacted my office who agree that the American people have a voice in
the direction our country will take in the decades to come. As much as
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to see the
Senate confirm a nominee from our current President, the reality is
that when the tables are turned, they agree with our position. In fact,
it was Vice President Joe Biden who, when he served as the chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on this very floor in 1992: ``It
is my view that if a President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and
Johnson and presses for an election-year nomination, the Senate
Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling
confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political
campaign season is over.''
It was minority leader Harry Reid who said in 2005: ``The duties of
the United States Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the
United States. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a
duty to give presidential nominees a vote.''
And the Senate Democrats' next leader, Senator Schumer, said in 2007,
close to 2 years before President Bush's term ended: ``We should not
confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary
circumstances.''
Whoever is confirmed to fill the open seat on the Supreme Court will
be serving a lifetime appointment. Keeping in mind the current
political makeup of the Court, the man or woman who will replace
Justice Scalia has the potential to hold incredible influence over the
ideological direction of the Court for a generation to come.
It is critically important that the next Justice be committed to
upholding the principles of the Constitution. We owe it to Justice
Scalia, our judicial system, and the Constitution to uphold the highest
standards when determining our next Supreme Court Justice. We also owe
it to the American people to make certain that their voice is heard in
this election.
For these reasons, I agree with my colleagues on the Judiciary
Committee and in the Senate leadership that we should not hold hearings
on a Supreme Court nominee until after our new President takes office.
Mr. President, 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. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Wasteful Spending

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am once again on the floor for my 37th
edition of ``Waste of the Week'' speech, where I disclose wasteful
spending, fraud, and abuse of taxpayers' dollars. It seems it is never
ending because after 37 weeks I feel as if I am just scratching the
surface.
Last week, as some will remember, I talked about how the National
Science Foundation spent $331,000 of hard-earned tax dollars by giving
a grant to researchers to study whether or not being ``hangry'' is a
real thing. Most people have not heard about the word ``hangry.'' Last
week I suppose people ran to the dictionary to see what the description
was. ``Hangry''--I think among the younger people--means that you are
both hungry and angry, and you are angrier than you normally would be
in a situation because you are hungry.
I wasn't hungry last week when I was talking about ``hangry,'' but I
was angry. I was angry over the fact that $331,000 of taxpayers' money
was being used to offer a grant from the National Science Foundation to
study whether this exists. They came up with this crazy situation of
giving voodoo dolls to husbands and wives. Every time a husband was
angry with his wife, he would take a pin and stick it into the voodoo
doll or if she was angry with him, she would take a pin and stick it

[[Page S1529]]

into the voodoo doll. I don't know who ended up with the most pins.
Probably the wife had more pins in the voodoo doll than the husband
did. Nonetheless, then a glucose test was taken to see if they were
actually a little short on glucose in the bloodstream, meaning they
were hungry. Well, the conclusion was that, yes, if you were hungry,
you tended to be a little more on edge, a little more testy.

That might have been a fun study to be engaged in just for laughs,
but this was paid for with taxpayer dollars. This was a grant issued by
the National Science Foundation. We tell people about the National
Science Foundation, and they must think, oh, that is probably one of
the better government agencies.
So that was last week, and I wasn't sure that anything could top last
week. Because I was quoted as saying--who could make up stuff like
this? Do people sit around and say: Let's see if we can get a grant to
do some kind of research project that is nothing but crazy? The amazing
thing is someone over at the National Science Foundation looked at this
study and thought: Hey, this is a good idea. Let's give them a $331,000
grant. And so we added it to the chart.
Now we are here this week, and I want to talk about something that is
maybe even scarier than sticking pins in voodoo dolls, and it is called
the Master Death File. This is not the name of a new novel on the New
York Time's best seller list. This is not the name of a new movie
coming out. The Master Death File is something, folks, you don't want
to be on.
The Federal Government, by law--the Social Security Administration--
has to maintain the Master Death File. Obviously, those of us on Social
Security or who are of Social Security age don't want to see our name
on that list. If your name is on that list, you are no longer eligible
for Social Security payments because it is a death list; you have died.
So as sinister as it sounds, it is probably necessary that we do
this--that we have at least some list that lets the Social Security
Administration know that it is time to stop sending Social Security
checks to dead people. The beneficiary or the recipient has died, and,
therefore, procedures are made so that the next check doesn't keep
rolling out and rolling out and rolling out.
A lot of us here in the Senate get on different kinds of lists--voter
records, awards for standing up for certain issues and policies that
people respect--and I have found myself on a number of those. One list
I don't want to be on, but know that as a human being I am sort of
careening toward, is the Master Death File. So we thought, well, let's
dig into this and see how it works. So we went to the Government
Accountability Office and said: What about this Master Death File?
So we did some investigation on that. Out of that investigation came
an example of one agency the General Accountability Office had
examined, and it is the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Department
of Agriculture sends out checks--payments for conservation, disaster
relief and crop subsidies. Well, we found that between 2008 and 2012,
$27.6 million in payments for conservation, disaster relief, and crop
subsidies were made to people who had died. What is more disturbing is
that many of those recipients had been dead for more than 2 years.
This is just one department out of all the hundreds of Federal
agencies that issue checks for all kinds of different purposes. So it
is important to have a Master Death File because what we want these
agencies to do--in fact, they are obligated to do under the law--is to
check the master death list to make sure the checks aren't going to
people who are on that list.
Obviously, with this one agency--the Department of Agriculture--one
of two things happened: Either names did not get on that list, or names
were on the list, but they didn't check it. Either way, there is a
responsibility here for the Federal Government in handling taxpayer
dollars to make sure that for those who are deceased, their names get
on the Master Death File--as scary as that is--and/or, if they are on
the list, they do not receive the payments.
In this digital age, it shouldn't be too hard to keep that Master
Death File updated. Every State has records that have to be kept--sent
by the coroner or authorized by the hospital or whatever. There are a
number of sources of finding out. Particularly in the digital age, it
is pretty easy to enter a name when you get the certificate of death.
You enter the name, it goes onto the master death list, and it ought to
be relatively easy for agencies sending out checks to coordinate with
that by either pushing a button or going into an app or whatever and
finding out that John Jones or Bill Smith still qualifies for his
Social Security payments. That check ought to be pretty automatic.
Unfortunately, it isn't, particularly when you find people have been
receiving these checks even 2 years after they have died. So something
is amiss here. It is not like in the old days, where you probably had
to call Farmer Bob out in rural America and say: Do you know if Farmer
Joe down the road is still living? Have you seen him in town lately?
What is happening? Did you go to the funeral? We don't have to do all
that anymore. This stuff is all digitized and all very accessible.
So here we are with the Social Security Administration needing to do
what it needs to do to make sure that list is kept up-to-date. And, as
I say, none of us are anxious to get on that list. I see all the young
pages down here thinking: I have a long time to go. They are looking at
this aging Senator thinking: You are a lot closer to that list than we
are. I hope they are not thinking that. Some of them are smiling.
Nonetheless, the agencies that are issuing the checks also have to do
their job because, in a serious way, this is taking money from hard-
working taxpayers. It is hard-earned money taken from those who have to
pay the bills at the end of the week, who have to cover their mortgage
and provide for the education of their children and who have to buy
food at the grocery store and gas at the gas pump. People are scraping
by, and when they see this kind of thing or hear about this kind of
thing, they are outraged.
We are seeing this being played out in the nomination process on both
sides--the Republicans and the Democrats. People are frustrated with
the inefficiency and the ineffectiveness of the Federal Government in
the use of their tax dollars. So I am here to illustrate that--not to
spur continued anger and outrage but to get people seriously focused on
the fact their dollars are not being wisely spent. They need to call
their Congressmen and Senators, and they need to say: You need to do a
better job of managing our money we are sending you to protect this
Nation, to provide for roads, bridges, health care, and so forth.
There are some essential things government needs to do, but surely it
doesn't need to put out $331,000 for a ``hanger'' study with voodoo
dolls, and it doesn't need to waste $27.6 million of checks going to
people who are deceased and who are no longer eligible for receiving
that.
So we continue to add money to our total--another $27.6 million to
our $157,619,142,953. These numbers get up there. So we are at
$157,619,142,953, and we will be back next week with the next edition
of ``Waste of the Week.''
I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Methane Emissions

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last week the Prime Minister of Canada
came for a visit. President Obama used that opportunity to take yet
another cheap shot at American energy producers. The administration has
made a deal with Canada to cut methane emissions from oil and gas
production facilities.
They want tough new restrictions to cut emissions almost in half over
the next decade. The very same day, the Environmental Protection Agency
said that it plans to come up with more regulations for methane.

[[Page S1530]]

The Obama administration is already trying to limit the methane that
gets released from new oil and gas wells as they get put into
production. Now the administration wants to go back and impose those
limits on existing wells--ones that were built to actually comply with
the current rules on the books.
Here is what I find most interesting about this. This was an official
state visit by a foreign leader to the United States. It was the first
trip for the new Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau. So President
Obama decided that the most important thing the two countries could
talk about was methane--not Syria, not trying to stop radical Islamist
terrorists, not dealing with ISIS, not the hostile regimes of North
Korea, Iran, or Russia, not what we could do to actually help our
economies grow--no. Instead, President Obama chose to focus on methane.
Why is President Obama so fixated on this? Let me tell you. The
President is bitter--bitter that the Supreme Court is blocking his
Clean Power Plan. He is pouting and he is pandering. He has gone after
coal, he has gone after oil, and now he is going after natural gas. It
is a vendetta against American energy producers.
The President and other Democrats are pandering to radical
environmental extremists and to their billionaire donors.
We all want to make sure that we have a clean environment. My goal is
to make American energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, and to
do it in ways that don't raise costs for American families. That is why
the people I talk with in Wyoming believe that this new regulation is
the wrong approach.
My local newspaper, the Casper Star Tribune, had a front-page article
about it on Friday. The headline was this: ``Cuts to methane emissions
proposed.'' The article quotes John Robitaille. He is from the
Petroleum Association of Wyoming. He says the Environmental Protection
Agency ``has failed to recognize the economic burden placed on
replacing equipment on existing wells as opposed to new wells''--ones
that are still to be built.
John Robitaille may say ``failed to recognize.'' I say the
administration deliberately refuses to recognize--refuses. For
Washington to come in and demand expensive new equipment for all of
these oil and gas wells would be a huge cost. It would drive up prices
for consumers, and it would mean that some of these wells wouldn't be
economically worthwhile anymore. The oil and gas would stay in the
ground where it does nothing to help power our economy or power our
country.
States are already doing their part. States are trying to limit
methane leaks where they find a problem. Colorado has a leak detection
and repair program that will help keep ozone and methane from escaping.
Wyoming, my home State, is looking for ways to get more up-to-date
equipment on new wells as they get going.
So the States are already taking the lead, and they are already
coming up with solutions where they are needed. This is not a one-size-
fits-all regulation coming from unelected, unaccountable Washington
bureaucrats. But that is what we are having to deal with now in this
administration.
What we prefer are State solutions. What I just described are State
solutions that strike a commonsense balance between a strong economy
and a very healthy environment. It is not just the States that are
taking action. Oil and gas producers also want to reduce how much
methane escapes from these wells.
When you think about it, producers would prefer to capture that gas
and then to sell it so it can be used. That is why the industry reduced
methane emissions by 13 percent between 2008 and 2013. Over the same
years, U.S. shale gas production grew by 400 percent. So the industry
actually cut emissions even while gas production went way up. This
happened because of the action that the producers in the States have
already been taking, not because of more regulations coming out of
Washington, DC. Energy producers need the flexibility to tackle these
emissions when and how it makes sense.
There are already too many rules on the books. The Bureau of Land
Management has another methane rule in the works. More duplicative
regulations will just raise costs for Americans at a time when our
economy is weak and emissions actually are already dropping.
This new redtape could add hundreds of millions of dollars every year
onto the cost of producing American red, white, and blue energy. If the
Obama administration really wants to reduce emissions from oil and gas
wells, it should help the industry to capture this gas and to use it.
This was the subject of bipartisan legislation that Senator Heidi
Heitkamp of North Dakota and I offered last month. It was an amendment
to the energy legislation. Our bipartisan amendment would have
expedited the permit process for natural gas gathering lines--the lines
that gather this gas on the Federal land, on Indian land and then help
take it to market.
Gas gathering lines are essentially pipelines that collect
unprocessed gas from oil and gas wells and then ship it to a processing
plant. At the plant, different kinds of gases--methane, propane--are
separated from one another. They are then shipped out again to
locations where they can be sold and used by people.
That is what the producers want to do. The problem is that we don't
have enough of these pipelines now to gather up the gas and to send it
to the processing plants. A lot of times there is only one option if
you don't have the gathering lines, and that is to flare or vent the
excess natural gas at the well. If there were more gathering lines, we
would have a lot less waste of energy. We would have a lot less of
these methane emissions that President Obama claims to be so worried
about. So Senator Heitkamp and I offered a better way to deal with the
problem, and 43 Democrats here in the Senate blocked our amendment.
At a hearing of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last
month, I actually asked Interior Secretary Jewell about the idea. Even
she had to concede that speeding up the permits was something that they
should be looking into.
This doesn't have to be a fight. We all agree there is too much of
this gas that has been vented or burned off at the oil and gas wells.
Republicans know it. Democrats know it. Energy producers know it. So
why can't we agree to let the industry build the gathering lines to
help them capture the gas where it makes sense and how it makes sense?
Why do we need more Washington regulations that impose higher costs?
America's energy producers have increased production while reducing
emissions. They have provided what may be the only bright spot in our
economy over the past 7 years. We should be doing all that we can to
help and to encourage them. We should be looking for voluntary, cost-
effective ways to make sure that we can make American energy as clean
as we can and as fast as we can without raising costs on American
families. The Obama administration is going in the wrong direction.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Tribute to Kyle Ruckert

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor my longest serving
staff member, my chief of staff, campaign manager, and close friend
Kyle Ruckert, who is departing the Senate at the end of this week to
start an exciting new career. Kyle was one of my very first hires when
I was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1999. He
started as my legislative director in the House under the wonderful
tutelage of my first chief of staff, Marty Driesler. And I know Kyle
and I are both indebted to Marty, who is now unfortunately deceased,
for getting us started on a wonderful footing in Congress. Then Kyle
became my chief of staff upon Marty's retirement in 2002.
I guess I would sum up the bottom line in a very simple but important
way: There has not been one moment during these 17 years when I have
regretted placing my complete trust in

[[Page S1531]]

Kyle to lead our office and serve the people of Louisiana--not one.
From day one, Kyle set the office standard of service to constituents
and set it as a top priority. He established offices throughout the
State. One of his most memorable decisions instituted a mobile office
on wheels so that we could reach out to those hit hard by Hurricanes
Gustav and Ike in 2008--folks who could not otherwise reach our
permanent offices. I say ``memorable'' because for the staffers who
actually had to man and woman that vehicle, it was an adventurous ride.
Of course, Kyle's leadership style and commitment to service comes
from his wonderful parents, and I take a moment to thank his parents,
John and Ellen Ruckert, who are with us in the Gallery and whom I have
also come to know and respect.
I also think a big part of Kyle's commitment to serve others comes
from his time at Jesuit High School in New Orleans, where the motto is
``Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam''--``For the Greater Glory of God''--and where
all students are expected to accept the challenge of becoming a ``man
for others'' as part of the Ignatius tradition. Kyle is probably one of
the best ambassadors for Jesuits, and he even played a role in my son
Jack going there. Go, Blue Jays.
In 2004, Kyle moved down to Louisiana to manage my first Senate
campaign. He quickly earned the respect of national political
prognosticators on the campaign side who quite frankly belittled our
chances from the beginning. Kyle reacted to the conventional wisdom
that we couldn't win a runoff against our so-called moderate Democratic
opponent in a pretty straightforward way: He simply made sure we got
more than 50 percent of the vote in the open primary, so we never went
to a runoff. Problem solved. Kyle's discipline and strategic thinking
are largely to thank for that win, and after that he immediately
returned to manage our Senate office as chief of staff. Unfortunately,
our first major test in the Senate was a tragic one. In 2005, Hurricane
Katrina devastated Louisiana and was followed very shortly by Hurricane
Rita. Constituent service, always a top priority, took on an even
greater urgency and seriousness, and Kyle led our team to help,
console, and serve all ``For the Greater Glory of God,'' acting as a
``man for others.''

Kyle led our staff managing an effective operation, first and
foremost, assisting constituents on the ground, and in Congress,
helping to put together emergency assistance legislation, making sure
people in real need received what they absolutely needed. This was one
of the most chaotic times for all of us from Louisiana, but Kyle was
always calm and methodical, always steering the ship with a steady
hand.
Kyle's leadership is contagious. His expectations are very high--be
at work, get it over 100 percent, and get the job done. If that means
working at night and on weekends, he would expect that out of everyone
on the team and, unlike some other so-called leaders, he would be right
there leading the way in that regard. Our staff has become stronger
because of that leadership by example and that contagious work ethic.
Besides his calm, disciplined, methodical leadership style, Kyle's
strongest attribute is his loyalty and trust he places in those he
works with. He always encourages staff to take chances, to be bold in
pushing new reforms, in negotiating amendment votes, in pushing
important stories with the press. When staff would run ideas by him and
ask him what he thought, he would say: If you think it is the right
thing to do, go for it. Just don't--bleep--it up.
His leadership was tested again on the campaign side in our 2010
reelection race, where again the political commentators largely bet
against us, and again Kyle made sure they were wrong in a big way. We
won that race by 19 points. Since then I have had the real fortune of
serving in leadership positions in the Senate, as the ranking
Republican in the EPW Committee in 2013 and 2014 and currently as chair
of the Small Business Committee.
Aside from our many legislative accomplishments under Kyle's
leadership, what I am perhaps most proud of is the close-knit team we
built together. We call it Team Vitter, and those are more than just
words in our office. We both look at our staff as an extension of our
immediate families. Certainly my wife Wendy and our kids and I
definitely think of Kyle and his family as part of ours.
Kyle sets a gold standard for thinking of staff as family--for
treating them that way. Perhaps, in part, because he married another
one of my former staffers, Lynnel. Lynnel started working in my office
on the House side early on in 2002. She worked there until 2004 and
also joined that first winning Senate campaign. It is interesting, Kyle
and Lynnel started dating secretly, not telling anyone in the office--
certainly not me. I think they were first discovered when my first
chief of staff, Marty Driesler, got a call from her daughter who had
witnessed them being weekend tourists in Philadelphia together. Of
course, I was still kept in the dark for months after that, even though
Marty discovered their courtship.
Lynnel, too, always stressed constituent service and is a brilliant
political strategist. They truly were meant for each other in all sorts
of ways. Lynnel has continued her extremely successful career, most
recently serving as chief of staff to House majority whip Steve
Scalise.
In 2005, Kyle and Lynnel got married, and since then our office has
had three other couples from Team Vitter get married. Perhaps there is
more to those late work nights than I had imagined originally.
Kyle and Lynnel and their two kids, Jack, who is now 9, and Mary
Kyle, who is now 6, are getting settled in Baton Rouge as part of a
new, exciting chapter of their lives. It is going to be fun. We are
going to miss them, but it is going to be fun to see this new chapter
for Kyle and Lynnel and their family develop, especially when we get to
see Kyle, as a New Orleans native and an avid Tulane Green Wave alumn,
having to start wearing purple and gold around Baton Rouge at the
urging of their son Jack.
Who knows, maybe he will even develop a superstition before LSU
games. Something a lot of folks don't know about Kyle is he is
incredibly superstitious--knock on wood. He will detour his Monday
morning drive in New Orleans to pass by the Superdome if the Saints won
on Sunday. He will sip the same type of bourbon for good luck or wear
his lucky green polo if we need a win in sports, politically, or
anything in between.
I will tell a quick story related to that about his green polo. On
election day in 2004, Kyle was wearing a campaign T-shirt, but he
wasn't going to be able to go to the polls that way to vote and do some
poll watching, so he asked around the office if he could borrow a
different shirt. Mac Abrams, who is now Dean Heller's chief of staff--
and who was a key staff member in my office in my campaign at the
time--loaned him his green polo. Well, we won that race big, and Kyle
hasn't returned the green polo yet. He wears it every election day,
although we are not sure if it is superstition or also because he is so
darn cheap.
While Kyle will now be living in Louisiana, his impact will remain
strong in our work and our office and our culture. He will be able to
see it in legislation which helps Louisiana and the country, in
thousands and thousands of constituents whom he and our team
effectively reached out to, and in the great example he set for so many
staffers and interns and others on our team.
So let me end really where I began, by paying him the highest
compliment possible, repeating that there hasn't been one moment in
these great 17 years where I regretted placing my complete trust in
Kyle Ruckert to lead our team, to lead our office, to help lead us in
serving the people of Louisiana--not one.
Kyle, thank you for your service to Louisiana, for the countless
hours you have spent helping me, for the fun memories and laughs we
have shared, and most importantly for your friendship. You truly are
part of my family. I have the greatest confidence that you will
continue on ``Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam''--``For the Greater Glory of
God''--truly a ``man for others.''
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S1532]]

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may address
the Senate as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona

Imprisonment of Nadiya Savchenko

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it has been 2 years since Nadiya
Savchenko, the first female military pilot in post-Soviet Ukraine and
an Iraq war veteran, was abducted from Ukrainian territory by pro-
Russian separatists and smuggled across the border to Russia where she
faces false charges and illegal imprisonment.
She is accused by Russia of having directed artillery fire that
killed two Russian state television journalists in Eastern Ukraine in
June of 2014 and then illegally crossing into Russian territory without
proper paperwork. This is despite clear evidence provided by her
lawyers that she was captured by separatists before this incident
occurred and then hauled across the border in handcuffs with a sack
over her head.
Following her capture, Nadiya has reportedly endured interrogations,
solitary confinement, and was subjected to a psychiatric evaluation at
the infamous Russian Serbsky Institute, where Soviet authorities were
once known to torture political dissidents. Further media reports
suggest that she is gravely ill and near death.
There are international laws that govern treatment of prisoners of
war, but Russia continues to deny it is fighting a war in Ukraine and
is therefore treating Nadiya as a common criminal. While there are also
international laws that govern the treatment of common criminals,
Russia has shown as much regard for those laws as for Ukraine's
sovereignty or the rights of Russians such as Boris Nemtsov.
This is a picture of Nadiya standing trial in a cage. From her prison
cell in Russia, Nadiya said:

If I am found guilty, I will not appeal. I want the entire
democratic world to understand that Russia is a Third World
country with a totalitarian regime and a petty tyrant for a
dictator and it spits on international law and human rights.

In her last appearance in court, Ms. Savchenko said:

The trial proves the guilt of Russian authorities; they are
to blame for seizing Ukrainian lands, capturing Crimea and
starting a war in the Donbass region. They are to blame for
trying to establish--through their foul undeclared wars all
over the world--a totalitarian regime dominated by Russia.

She ended her court appearance by saying:

Russia will return me to Ukraine yet. Whether I am dead or
alive, it will return me.

Nadiya's captivity represents just the latest example of Russia's
brazen aggression and disregard for the independence and territorial
integrity of Ukraine.
Last summer another brave Ukrainian and film director from Crimea,
Oleg Sentsov, faced a similar fate. A Russian court sentenced Mr.
Sentsov to 20 years in prison based on charges that he was planning a
terrorist attack against Russian forces after the peninsula was annexed
by Russia. Despite strong evidence that Mr. Sentsov was innocent and
despite international condemnation of his case, he remains in a Russian
prison serving out his 20-year sentence. As Mr. Sentsov said in remarks
following his sentence: ``A court of occupiers can never be just.''
Nadiya is just one of President Putin's countless victims. Her show
trial--a throwback to the Stalinist Soviet era--is intended not to
establish innocence or guilt, but to punish dissent, evoke fear, and
remind citizens of what happens to people who dare defy the former KGB
officer, Vladimir Putin.
Her trial illustrates just how far President Putin is willing to go
to humiliate Ukraine for its pursuit of freedom and punish Ukrainians
for refusing to accept its illegal occupation. It is just one more way
that Putin is trying to bully free peoples and free nations into
submission. He is sending the message that anyone who dares to
challenge him will end up in a cage just like her--or worse.
Putin's efforts are failing. The Ukrainian people have shown that
they will not be intimidated, they will not be silenced, and they will
not give into fear. They have shown that they will continue to fight
for a free and democratic future for Ukraine with or without the
international support they need and deserve.
One of the more shameful chapters in American history will be the
fact that we still refuse to give Ukrainians defensive weapons with
which to defend themselves. This President has made a lot of grievous
errors, but it is outrageous, as we watch Ukrainians slaughtered by
Russian tanks, that we will not even give them the weapons to defend
themselves.
The Ukrainian Government has urged Moscow to release Nadiya in
accordance with the Minsk II agreement that provides for the release of
all illegally held persons. International leaders have echoed this
call, but her illegal imprisonment continues. It is time to move past
meaningless condemnations and expressions of concern and respond to
Putin's shameful and blatant breach of international law by
sanctioning--I emphasize sanctioning--those responsible for the
kidnapping and illegal, unjust imprisonment of Ms. Savchenko, as well
as the officials involved in the fabrication of false charges against
her.
A clear message must be sent to Moscow: Release Nadiya or face
sanctions. Release her or face sanctions.
The United States has a critical role to play in the preservation of
freedom and democracy throughout the world, and it is a role that we
suppress at our own peril. I know this is not a popular cause in the
United States right now, but nothing will relieve us of the
responsibility to stand up for those whose fundamental human rights are
being violated and to defend the values that America and our allies
have sacrificed so much to preserve.
How we respond to each and every attempt by Putin to suppress
democracy and freedom will have far-reaching repercussions. The United
States and the entire international community must respond to this
latest outrage in a way that demonstrates the inevitability of the
values which Nadiya so clearly represents. Nadiya's fight--and that of
all Ukrainians who rose up peacefully against tyranny in their quest
for freedom--must also be the world's fight. We must continue to show
Putin that he cannot halt the march to freedom and democracy. The
Ukrainian people--and the Russian people, too--deserve no less.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Cuba

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as the President prepares to go to Cuba,
I rise in memory of all of those Cuban dissidents who have given their
lives in the hope that Cuba one day would be free from the yoke of the
Castro regime. It is that freedom I had hoped President Obama was
referencing when he said:

What I've said to the Cuban government is--if we're seeing
more progress in the liberty and freedom and possibilities of
ordinary Cubans, I'd love to use a visit as a way of
highlighting that progress. . . . If we're going backwards,
then there's not much reason for me to be there.

But that is obviously not the case, which is why the Boston Globe's
headline on February 25 says it all: ``Obama Breaks Pledge, Will Visit
Cuba Despite Worsening Human Rights.'' Instead of having the free
world's leader honor Latin America's only dictatorship with a visit, he
could have visited one of 150 countries that he has not visited,
including several in Latin America that are democracies.
The President has negotiated a deal with the Castros--and I
understand his desire to make this his legacy issue--but there is still
a fundamental issue of freedom and democracy at stake that goes to the
underlying atmosphere in Cuba and whether or not the Cuban people will
still be repressed and still be imprisoned or will they benefit from
the President's legacy or will it be the Castro regime that reaps those
benefits?

[[Page S1533]]

Unless the Castros are compelled to change their dictatorship--the
way they govern the island and the way they exploit its people--the
answer to this won't be much different than the last 50-some-odd years.
The Castro regime will be the beneficiary.
At the very least, the President's first stops should be meetings
with internationally recognized dissidents: U.S. Presidential Medal of
Freedom winner Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet and the European Union's Sakharov
prize recipients Guillermo Farinas and Rosa Maria Paya, in respect for
her murdered father, Oswaldo Paya, who was leading the Varela Project,
advocating for civil liberties, and collecting thousands of signatures
petitioning the Castro regime for democratic change--as permitted, by
the way, under the Cuban Constitution. So threatening was his peaceful
petition drive that he was assassinated by Castro security agents.
The President should meet with Berta Soler at her home, in her
neighborhood, with the Ladies in White, and with dissidents and
democracy advocates in Havana. That should be the front-page photograph
we see next week. Only then will the message that the United States
will not give in or give up on our commitment to a free and democratic
Cuba be clear to the world and to the Cuban people.
To leave a truly honorable mark in history would mean the President
leaving Castro's cordoned-off tourist zone and seeking Berta Soler and
her Ladies in White at their headquarters in the Lawton neighborhood of
Havana, where poverty, Castro-style--not opportunity, not freedom, not
democracy but poverty created by a Stalinist state--is the umbrella
under which they live.
The President should witness their bravery, listen to their stories,
feel their despair, see the fear under which they live, and stand up
with them and for them. If he did, he could learn of the story of
Aliuska Gomez, one of the Ladies in White, who was arrested this past
Sunday for marching peacefully.
Basically, the Ladies in White dress in white as a form of a symbol.
They march with a gladiolus to church every Sunday in protest for their
sons and husbands who are arrested simply for their political dissent,
and they are beaten savagely--savagely.
The President could learn of the story of Aliuska Gomez, one of the
Ladies in White, who was arrested this past Sunday for marching
peacefully. I am reading from an article in Diario de Cuba where she
told her story:

``We were subjected to a lot of violence today,'' said
Aliuska Gomez. ``Many of us were dragged and beaten,'' she
added, pointing out that this has taken place only one week
before President Obama's visit. Aliuska related how she was
taken to a police station in Marianao where she was forcibly
undressed by several uniformed officers in plain view of some
males. . . . ''After they had taken away all of my
belongings,'' she said, ``they told me to strip naked, and I
refused, so they threw me down on the floor and took off all
of my clothing, right in front of two men, and they dragged
me completely naked into a jail cell.'' Aliuska was then
handcuffed and thrown on the cell's floor naked and left
alone.

Or how about the young Cuban dissident who met with Ben Rhodes and
was arrested in Havana. This is from a report dated March 14:

Yesterday the Castro regime arrested Carlos Amel Oliva,
head of the youth wing of the Cuban Patriotic Union, a major
dissident organization. He is being accused of antisocial
behavior. On Friday, Amel Oliva had participated in a meeting
in Miami with Ben Rhodes, President Obama's Deputy National
Security Advisor. He returned to Havana on Sunday.

I guess that is what Raul Castro thinks and does to those who meet
with the President's Deputy National Security Advisor.
Notwithstanding their true stories and the stories of thousands like
them, the President first announced sweeping changes to America's
strategic approach to the Castro regime in December 2014. In broad
strokes, we learned of the forthcoming reestablishment of diplomatic
relations--an exchange of symbols, with the American flag flying over a
U.S. Embassy in Havana and the Cuban flag flying over a Cuban Embassy
in Washington. We learned about the process by which Cuba's designation
as a state sponsor of terrorism would be lifted. We learned about the
forthcoming transformative effects of a unilateral easing of sanctions
to increase travel, commerce, and currency.
But for those of us who understand this regime, we cautioned for
nuance and urged against those broad strokes. We asked that the
administration at least require the Castros to reciprocate with certain
concessions of their own, which would be as good for U.S. national
interests as for the Cuban people and for U.S.-Cuba relations.
For example, before the President ever traveled to Burma--a country
with notorious human rights abuses and with which this administration
began to engage--the United States first demanded and received action
by the Burmese to address their human rights record. To be sure, the
Burmese Government agreed to meet nearly a dozen benchmarks--a dozen
benchmarks--as a part of this action-for-action engagement, including
granting the Red Cross access to prisons, establishing a U.N. High
Commissioner for Human Rights office, release of political prisoners,
conclusion of a cease-fire in Kachin State, and ensuring international
access to conflict areas.
We asked, as the President's Cuban policy unfolded, that they push
for changes that put Cubans in control of their own future, their
political process, economic opportunities, civil society, and
governance. We didn't get a single one.
We asked for changes that would honor America's legacy as a champion
for human rights. We didn't get those either.
We suggested changes that would ultimately bring Cuba into the
community of nations, contributing to, rather than detracting from, the
overall prosperity of the hemisphere. And there were none.
Most importantly, we asked that they remember that it is a lack of
resources, not a change of heart, that slowed the Castros' adventurism
and instability-inducing support for those who would pose threats to
our national interests within the Western Hemisphere.
In essence, we were thinking strategically. Instead, we traded
strategy for tactics. Leading Cuban human rights and democracy
activists have criticized U.S. policies--those languishing inside of
Cuba who risk their lives and their liberty every day.
The simple truth is that deals with the Devil require the Devil to
deal. Opening channels of communications controlled by the regime means
nothing unless we are going to communicate our values. It means nothing
if we do not champion the material changes the Cuban people seek. It
means nothing if we do not speak the language the Castros understand--
that the Communist revolution has failed miserably and it is time to
let the Cuban people decide their future.
The Castros know it, but it is the antiquated hallmark of the
revolution and the iron-fisted rule that came from it that keeps them
in power. We talk about being in the past. Well, that is in the past,
but no one challenges that past. Until that power is truly challenged,
we can expect to witness the further weakening of our leverage on
behalf of democracy and human rights.
In the meantime, the regime is already moving forward, already
breathing new life into its existing repressive state systems. Cubans
are being beaten, arrested, and otherwise muzzled at higher rates--
higher rates--than ever before. The Cuban Commission for Human Rights,
which is within Cuba, has documented 1,141 political arrests by the
Castro regime in Cuba during the short month of February 2016. In
January 2016 the commission documented 1,447 political arrests. As
such, these 2,588 political arrests in the first 2\1/2\ months of this
year represent the highest tally to begin a year in decades. This is
what happens when President Obama first announces he will not visit
Cuba until there are tangible improvements in the respect for human
rights, and then he crosses his own red lines--nearly 2,600 arrests in
2\1/2\ months, and these are only political arrests that have been
thoroughly documented. Many more are suspected.

U.S. fugitives and members of foreign terrorist organizations, such
as Joanne Chesimard, the convicted killer of New Jersey State Trooper
Werner Foerster, or Charlie Hill, who killed New Mexico State Trooper
Robert Rosenbloom, still enjoy safe harbor on the island. Not a penny
of the $6 billion in outstanding

[[Page S1534]]

claims by American citizens and businesses for properties confiscated
by the Castros has been repaid.
Unrelenting censorship and oppression of Cuban journalists continues
unscathed, and the Cuban path to liberty doesn't even include the U.S.
Embassy.
So what do we learn? We learn that, despite the Obama
administration's engagement with the Castro dictatorship and increased
travel to the island, repression on the island is rising exponentially.
Why? Because the Castro regime, one of the most astute observers of the
American political system, is rushing to take advantage of the
permissive environment created by the President's hunger for legacy and
the relaxation of restrictions. But legacy is not more important than
lives.
For years we have heard how an improvement in U.S.-Cuba relations, an
easing of sanctions, and an increase in travel to the island would
benefit the Cuban people--a benefit not realized despite the visits and
investments of millions of Europeans, Canadians, Mexicans, and South
Americans. There is not one iota of better life or greater democracy
for the Cuban people. These assumptions are wrong. And since December
17, 2014, the President has engaged the regime, offering unilateral
concessions that the Castros are more than happy to accept. If that is
not enough for us to at least question our Cuba policy, we are now
facing an unfolding Cuban migration crisis.
The United States is faced with the largest migration of Cuban
immigrants since the rafters of 1994. The number of Cubans entering the
United States in 2015 was nearly twice that of 2014--some 51,000--and
tens of thousands more are desperately trying to make the journey via
South and Central America. I ask: Why would Cubans flee if the promise
of a better life in Cuba is just on the horizon? When President Obama
took office, those numbers were less than 7,000 annually--51,000.
We hear that ``self-employment,'' such as it is in Cuba, is growing.
But the number of ``self-employed'' workers in Cuba has actually
decreased. The Cuban government today is licensing 10,000 fewer ``self-
employed'' workers than it did in 2014. In contrast, Castro's military
monopolies are expanding at record pace. Even the limited spaces in
which ``self-employed'' workers previously operated are being squeezed
as the Cuban military expands its control of the island's travel,
retail, and financial sectors of the economy.
While speaking recently to a business gathering in Washington, here
in the Nation's Capital, President Obama argued how he believes this
new policy is ``creating the environment in which a generational change
and transition will take place in [Cuba].'' But the key question is, A
``generational change and transition'' toward what and by whom?
Cuban democracy leader, Antonio Rodiles, has concisely expressed this
concern. He said ``legitimizing the [Castro] regime is the path
contrary to a transition.''
CNN has revealed that the Cuban delegation in the secret talks that
began in mid-2013 with U.S. officials in Ottawa, Toronto, and Rome, and
which led to the December 17 policy announcement, were headed by
Colonel Alejandro Castro Espin. Colonel Castro Espin is the 49-year-old
son of Cuban dictator Raul Castro.
In both face-to-face meetings between President Obama and Raul Castro
this year--first at April's Summit of the Americas in Panama City and
just recently at the United Nation's General Assembly in New York--
Alejandro was seated, with a wide grin, next to his father. Alejandro
holds the rank of colonel in Cuba's Ministry of the Interior, with his
hand on the pulse and trigger of the island's intelligence services and
repressive ordinances. It is no secret that Raul Castro is grooming
Alejandro for a position of power.
Sadly, his role as interlocutor with the Obama administration seeks
to further their goal of an intrafamily generational transition within
the Castro clan, similar to the Assads in Syria and the Kims in North
Korea. And we know how well those have worked out.
To give an idea of how Colonel Alejandro Castro views the United
States, he has described its leaders as ``those who seek to subjugate
humanity to satisfy their interests and hegemonic goals.'' This is who
is being readied to be the next leader of Cuba, with whom we have been
negotiating.
Of course, it also takes money to run a totalitarian dictatorship,
which is why Raul Castro named his son-in-law, General Luis Alberto
Rodriguez Lopez Callejas, as head of GAESA, which stands for Grupo de
Administracion Empresarial S.A., or translated, Business Administrative
Group.
GAESA is the holding company of Cuba's Ministry of the Revolutionary
Armed Forces, Cuba's military. It is the dominant driving force of the
island's economy. Established in the 1990s by Raul Castro, it controls
tourism companies, ranging from the very profitable Gaviota S.A., which
runs Cuba's hotels, restaurants, car rentals, and nightclubs, to TRD
Caribe S.A., which runs the island's retail stores. GAESA controls
virtually all economic transactions in Cuba.
According to Hotels Magazine, a leading industry publication, GAESA--
through its subsidiaries--is by far the largest regional hotel
conglomerate in Latin America. It controls more hotel rooms than the
Walt Disney Company.
As McClatchy News explained a few years back:

Tourists who sleep in some of Cuba's hotels, drive rental
cars, fill up their gas tanks, and even those riding in taxis
have something in common: They are contributing to the
[Cuban] Revolutionary Armed Forces' bottom line.

In essence, Cuba's military and its repressive system.
GAESA became this business powerhouse, thanks to the millions of
Canadians and European tourists that have and continue to visit Cuba
each year. The Cuban military-owned tourism company, Gaviota Tourism
Group S.A., averaged 12 percent growth in 2015 and expects to double
its hotel business this year.
These tourists have done absolutely nothing to promote freedom and
democracy in Cuba. To the contrary, they have directly financed a
system of control and repression over the Cuban people, all while
enjoying cigars by Cuban workers paid in worthless pesos and having a
Cuba Libre, which is an oxymoron, on the beaches Varadero. Yet, despite
the clear evidence, President Obama wants American tourists to now
double GAESA's bonanza and, through GAESA, strengthen the regime.
An insightful report by Bloomberg Business also explained:

[Raul's son-in-law, General Rodriguez] is the gatekeeper
for most foreign investors, requiring them to do business
with his organization if they wish to set up shop on the
island. If and when the U.S. finally removes its half-century
embargo on Cuba, it will be this man who decides which
investors get the best deals.

Again, he is part of the Cuban military. So this is not about people
to people. This is about us helping the very entities that help fund
the Cuban military and security agencies. In other words, all of the
talking points about how lifting the embargo and tourism restrictions
would somehow benefit the Cuban people are empty and misleading
rhetoric.
In addition, Internet ``connectivity ranking'' has dropped in Cuba.
The International Telecommunication Union's ``Measuring the Information
Society Report'' for 2015, the most reliable source of data and
analysis on global access to information and communication, dropped
Cuba's ranking to 129, down from 119. Cuba fares much worse than some
of the world's most infamous suppressors, including Syria, Iran, China,
and Venezuela--worse.
In Cuba, religious freedom violations have also increased. According
to the London-based NGO, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, last year,
2,000 churches in Cuba were declared illegal and 100 were designated
for demolition by the Castro regime. Altogether, they documented 2,300
separate violations of religious freedom in 2015, compared to 220 in
2014--2,300 versus 220. So religious oppression is on the rise. And if
that is not enough, Castro reneged on the release of political
prisoners and visits by international monitors. Most of the 53
political prisoners released in the months prior and after the
President's December 2014 announcement have since been rearrested on
multiple occasions. Five have been handed new long-term prison
sentences. Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch noted in its new 2016 report
that ``Cuba has yet to allow visits to the island by the International
Committee of the Red Cross or by the United Nations human

[[Page S1535]]

rights monitors, as stipulated in the December 2014 agreement with the
United States.''
These were the conditions that prompted Congress, over the course of
our long history with Cuba, to pass successive laws to build on--not
detract from--Executive orders that created the embargo. So I stand
with thousands of Cuba's civil society leaders, dissidents, journalists
and everyday men and women who long for the day when the freedom we
enjoy in our great country extends to theirs. As long as I have a
voice, they will have an ally to speak truth to power against this
dictatorship and against any effort to legitimize it or reward it.
We must realize the nature of the Castro regime will not be altered
by capitulating on our demands for basic human and civil rights. If the
United States is to give away its leverage, it should be in exchange
for one thing, and one thing only: a true transition in Cuba.
Finally, as for the latest announcements from the administration, I
stand against any rollback of the statutory provisions that codify Cuba
sanctions. We learned this week that the administration has cleared the
way for individual travel to Cuba outside the auspices of a group or
organization, and that is tourism, plain and simple.
We learned this week that the administration has cleared the way for
Cubans--athletes, artists, performers, and others--to earn salaries in
the United States, which, in and of itself would be a good thing,
except that, unfortunately, much if not all of those salaries will go
back to the regime, as they must pay the regime most of what they make
abroad.
We learned that Americans may purchase Cuban-origin products and
services in third countries--cigars, alcohol, and basic products
produced by a system of slave labor that funnels proceeds to one place:
the regime's pockets.
When it comes to banking and financial services, we will now permit
the U.S. financial system to facilitate the flow of these and other
proceeds directly to the regime. The administration will allow the
Cuban Government, which profits from the sale of intelligence--as when
they had our Hellfire missile--to export Cuban-origin software to the
United States. Never mind that the Cuban Government aggressively
monitors the Internet activity of Cuban dissidents and sensors users on
the island. And then we are going to permit direct shipping by Cuban
vessels. These ``significant amendments'' to the Cuban Assets Control
Regulations and the Export Administration Regulations, cornerstones of
implementation of United States sanctions against the Castro regime
announced on Tuesday, create new opportunities for abuse of permitted
travel. They authorize trade and commerce with Castro monopolies and
permit the regime to use U.S. dollars to conduct its business. They are
unilateral concessions, requiring no changes from the Castro regime to
the political and economic system under which the Castros exploit lives
and labor of Cuban nationals.
In a meeting late last week, I warned officials at the Department of
Treasury that these changes ``come up to the line and in some cases
cross it,'' with respect to statutory authority. Their actions are
inconsistent with existing statutes and incompatible with the intent of
Congress as expressed through those statutes. I should know, as I was
one of the authors of the Libertad Act when I served in the House of
Representatives.
In my view, at the end of the day, this is a unilateral transfer of
the little remaining leverage that the administration hadn't given away
prior to this week's announcement. With these steps, I believe Commerce
and Treasury have set the stage for legal action against the
administration. Congress has authorized categories of travel to Cuba,
but none of these categories were tourism or commerce for commerce's
sake with the regime. The President has said his Cuba policy ``helps
promote the people's independence from Cuban authorities,'' but it is
clear that it does not. Yet, this week, in what would seem to
contravene not only the letter but the spirit of the law, the
administration will reportedly allow the regime to use U.S. dollars in
international financial transactions and a U.S. hotel company to
partner with a Cuban military conglomerate run by the Castro family.

Let's be clear. It is not the Cuban people who are eager and willing
to shuffle dollars through BNP Paribas, INB Group, or HSBC Bank; only
the regime is willing and eager to do so.
As for the reports that Starwood-Marriott is looking for an
arrangement with the regime, with the blessing of the administration,
it would be an agreement with a subsidiary of GAESA, the Cuban military
conglomerate run by Raul Castro's son-in-law, General Luis Alberto
Rodriguez Lopez-Callejas. So how does that help the Cuban people when
you are working and helping the regime? It would be an agreement to
manage a hotel for the Cuban military. Among those considered is
Havana's swanky hotel Saratoga, which has been confiscated twice by the
Castro regime--an agreement by which employees are also hired by the
regime's state employment agency instead of directly by a company, in
violation of international labor laws.
So I ask, how does allowing U.S. companies to do business with the
regime, let alone the Castro family itself, ``promote the Cuban
people's independence from the authorities,'' as the President has
said?
This breathes new life into the Castro's repressive state systems,
and that new life means one thing: The repressive system will continue
without changes.
Next week, when we anticipate we will see a photograph of the
President of the United States laughing and shaking hands with the only
dictator in the Western Hemisphere, I will be thinking of Berta Soler
of the Ladies in White and her fellow human rights and democracy
advocates. She testified before Congress last year and said: ``Our
demands are quite concrete; freedom for political prisoners,
recognition of civil society, the elimination of criminal dispositions
that penalize freedom of expression and association and the right of
the Cuban people to choose their future through free, multiparty
elections.'' It is not an overwhelming ask. What American would be
willing to not have those basic fundamental freedoms?
What are we willing to do to impose on another country--to say: We
will deal with you even though you repress your people and deny them
those freedoms.
Those are the words of freedom Berta Soler spoke on her behalf and
all of those who risk their lives and liberty every day inside of Cuba
to create that possibility. That is the legacy we should work toward
until the Cuban people are finally freed.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

Nomination of Merrick Garland

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, early this morning I got a telephone call
from a White House staffer who told me that the President was going to
announce his choice to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court
occasioned by the passing of Antonin Scalia. This morning I was invited
to the Rose Garden to witness that ceremony, and I thought it was one
of the President's best deliveries of a message to the American people
about a critically important issue.
I applaud President Obama for his nomination of Chief Judge Merrick
Garland to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. No one questions that Judge
Garland is an outstanding attorney and has been an exceptional judge
during his 19 years on the DC Circuit Court. No one questions his
qualifications and experience to serve with distinction on the Supreme
Court. I congratulate him, his wife Lynn, whom I just met, and his
daughters, Becky and Jessie, on this nomination.
Judge Garland is a proud son of Illinois. He is the grandson of
immigrants who fled anti-Semitic persecution. He was born in Chicago to
parents who ran a small business and volunteered in their community. He
graduated at the top of his class from Niles West High School, received
his undergraduate law degree from Harvard, and clerked for the
legendary Judge Henry Friendly of the Second Circuit and Justice
William Brennan of the U.S. Supreme Court. He has an incredible legal
resume. He served in the Justice Department and worked in private
practice before he was nominated to the DC Circuit Court.
Today President Obama told the story of how Merrick Garland in the

[[Page S1536]]

U.S. Department of Justice was sent down after the Oklahoma City
bombing to handle the prosecution and how he carefully, deftly, and
professionally handled that prosecution in a way that it would stick
and it wouldn't be overturned because of legal mistakes. He personally
felt an attachment and obligation to the victims and their families,
and he carried with him the memorial service bulletin that was given
out with the names of each one of the victims. He brought it with him
to the courtroom each day. He is that kind of person--a prosecutor but
with empathy to the victims and a determination to make sure he
followed the law. He did.
President Obama has fulfilled his constitutional responsibility, and
now the Senate must do the same. Article II, section 2, of the
Constitution provides the requirement that the President shall appoint
a nominee to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, and the
President did that today.
That same section of the Constitution goes on to say that it is the
responsibility of the Senate--this Senate--to advise and consent to
that nominee. There is no requirement that we approve the President's
nominee. He wants us to. I hope we do. But what it says is we have a
responsibility under the Constitution--the same Constitution we swore
to uphold and defend.
So the President is using his authority and constitutional
responsibility by naming Merrick Garland. Now what will happen? The
Republican leadership in the Senate has said: End of story; we are not
going to do anything. Some Senators have gone so far as to say they
will not even meet with this man, will not even meet with the
President's nominee for the Supreme Court. In the history of the United
States of America, there has never--underline ``never''--been a
situation where the President sent a nominee to the Supreme Court to
the Senate and there was not a hearing. Never. And now the Republican
majority here has said: Ignore history. Ignore the Constitution. We are
not going to let this President fill this vacancy.
Their argument is this: Let the American people decide. There is an
election coming. It will be in November. Let them pick a President, who
will then choose that Supreme Court nominee.
Well, that is an interesting approach. It might make some sense had
President Barack Obama been reelected in 2012 to a term of 3 years and
2 months. He was reelected to a 4-year term by a 5 million-vote
plurality. He is the President. And to argue that in his last year in
office, he should have no authority or power in the Constitution to
exercise what is required of him is to ignore the obvious.
By what right do we, in the closing year of a Senator's term, vote on
the floor of the Senate if we are disqualified from making important
decisions in our last year in office in each term? It is a ludicrous
position, a ridiculous position. It is a position which I find
offensive.
This system of government gives to the American people the last word
about who the President will be. There have been times when I have
applauded that decision and times when I didn't. But if you are
respectful of this Constitution and this government, then you follow
the will of the people of this great Nation, and they made a decision
by a plurality of 5 million votes that Barack Obama would have this
power for 4 years, until January of 2017. So the President has sent
this name, and now it is up to the Senate.
The Judiciary Committee plays an important role in this decision, and
I am honored to serve on it. In 2001, then-chairman of the committee
Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, joined with Ranking Republican
Member Orrin Hatch of Utah and they sent a letter to the Senate about
this issue of filling Supreme Court vacancies--a bipartisan letter,
Leahy and Hatch. Here is what it said: We both recognize and have every
intention of following the practices and precedents of the committee
and the Senate when considering Supreme Court nominees.
We should hold a hearing without delay. If this letter was the case
15 years ago and Senator Hatch, who was then the ranking Republican,
joined with Senator Leahy, the Democratic chairman, what has changed?
The only thing that has changed is we have a President named Barack
Obama.
You see, in 1987 there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Ronald
Reagan was President. In 1988 he sent the name Anthony Kennedy to this
Chamber to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The Senate at that time
was under the control of the Democrats. Ronald Reagan, a Republican
President, sent his nominee to the Democratic Senate, and what
happened? Did they announce: We are not going to fill this; we will
wait until after the election. No, no. The Democratic-controlled Senate
held a hearing for Anthony Kennedy, brought him up for a vote, and
passed him unanimously to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Now look at
what we are facing--Republican colleagues who refuse to do their job
under the Constitution. For what reason? Obviously for political
reasons.
My Republican colleagues say they are standing behind a principle
that the President should not get to name the Supreme Court Justice in
his final year. That principle has no history, no precedent, and is
virtually impossible to defend.
I would suggest a different principle to my Republican colleagues.
Since Judge Merrick Garland is unquestionably qualified and you clearly
would vote to confirm him under the next President, why wait? Why not
vote to confirm him under this President? Failing to fill this vacancy
on the Supreme Court means there will be over 1 year from the death of
Justice Antonin Scalia until a successor is chosen. The only time in
history when the Senate left a vacancy on the Supreme Court for that
period of time--1 year or more--was during the Civil War when we were
literally at war with one another in the United States. If that is the
only time that ever happened, there is no excuse for us to let it
happen again at this moment in our history.
To my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, do your job. Fill
this vacancy. Meet your constitutional responsibility.

For-Profit Colleges and Universities

Mr. President, on Friday the Department of Education released its
latest proposals for new regulations on borrower relief when a school
engages in unfair, deceptive, or abusive conduct. The proposals will be
debated this week at the third negotiated rulemaking session as part of
the formal rulemaking process.
I want to speak about one of the issues addressed in the latest
proposal from the Department of Education--the use of mandatory
arbitration in enrollment contracts by institutions of higher
education. These clauses, which for-profit colleges and universities
often bury in fine print, prevent students from bringing suit against a
school in court as an individual and often as part of a class action.
It means, for example, that if a student applying to a school is
deceived and misled by that school as to the degree they will receive
or the job they will qualify for, they can't bring a legal action in
court against the school. Instead, the student is forced into a secret
proceeding where the deck is stacked against him. It allows schools to
avoid accountability for their misconduct and prevents misconduct from
coming to the attention of Federal regulators.
While nearly unheard of in not-for-profit institutions--think about
public universities and private, not-for-profit colleges--mandatory
arbitration has now become virtually standard in for-profit colleges
and is used by all of the majors, such as the University of Phoenix,
ITT Tech, and DeVry University, just to name a few. It was also used by
Corinthian. Corinthian, another for-profit college, made sure that if
their students signed up for a contract with the school, they signed
this arbitration clause which eliminated the student's day in court.
I was pleased when the Department, in its latest proposal for current
rulemaking, included an option for banning the use of mandatory
arbitration by all institutions receiving Federal title IV dollars. I
thank the Department for including it in its proposal.

I also want to take a moment to discuss ITT Tech. ITT Tech is another
for-profit college that is under scrutiny by Federal and State
regulators. Last year the Department of Education found that the
company, ITT, failed to meet its fiduciary duty to the Department and
failed to meet the standards

[[Page S1537]]

of administrative capability required of institutions under title IV,
and they placed restrictions on ITT. The Department then required ITT
Tech to pay nearly $80 million to be kept in escrow to guard against
the potential collapse of this for-profit school. The company is under
investigation by 18 State attorneys general related to deceptive
marketing. This is deceptive marketing of college students who are
being misled into signing expensive tuition contracts with this school.
The New Mexico attorney general found that ITT Tech placed students
into loans without the knowledge of the students, falsely stated the
number of credits a student had to take in order to push them into more
debt, failed to issue refunds of tuition and fees in compliance with
Federal law, and a variety of other deceptive practices. If that wasn't
enough, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is also suing the
company for predatory lending.
This is the exploitation of college students. This is piling up debt.
We have to frequently remind ourselves of the basics. Ten percent of
the students in college are in for-profit colleges and universities.
Among those are the University of Phoenix, DeVry, Kaplan, and ITT Tech.
Out of that 10 percent, 40 percent of all student loan defaults are
from students in the for-profit colleges and universities.
How is it that 10 percent of the students in for-profit schools
account for 40 percent of all student loan defaults?
First, the students go too deep in debt. These for-profit schools are
way too expensive. Second, when the students can't keep up with the
debt they are accumulating, they drop out, and when they drop out, it
is the worst of both worlds. They don't even have a diploma from the
for-profit school, and they still have a debt. Third, if they hang
around long enough and finish and get a diploma from these for-profit
schools, they find out many times they are worthless. Forty percent of
the loan defaults are from students who attended for-profit colleges
and universities. These schools are coercing students into high-cost
loans with interest rates as high as 16 percent and more, and they
misrepresent future job prospects to them.
Finally, the Securities and Exchange Commission is suing the company,
ITT, and two of its executives, Kevin Modany, its CEO, and Daniel
Fitzpatrick, its CFO, personally for concealing the poor performance of
private institutional student loans from investors.
Behind all of this scrutiny by Federal and State regulators are
students who have been harmed irreparably. According to a recent
Brookings study, ITT Tech students cumulatively owe more than $4.6
billion in Federal student loans.
How much is being paid back on this cumulative debt? According to the
study, negative 1 percent of the balance has been repaid in 2014. What
does it mean? How can it be a negative number? Simple--the interest on
this accumulative debt is occurring faster than it can be paid off by
the students. Individual students often have no chance of paying back
this personal debt when they have taken out a loan and end up with a
worthless degree from ITT Tech.
What responsibility do we have as a government when it comes to these
schools that are deceiving students, dragging them into debt, and then
watching as they default? We have a major responsibility. For-profit
colleges and universities are the most heavily subsidized private
businesses in America today. We have all heard the term ``crony
capitalism.'' It couldn't apply more aptly to for-profit colleges and
universities. Most of their revenues don't come from students and
families--only indirectly. Most of their revenue comes through the
Federal Treasury in the form of government loans that end up in the
pockets of the owners of these for-profit colleges and universities.
More than half the students who left ITT in 2009 are in default on
their student loans 5 years later--half.
One former student of ITT Tech is Marcus Willis from Illinois. He was
aggressively recruited by ITT Tech with multiple phone calls each day.
He finally signed up for classes. He graduated in 2003 from ITT Tech
and spent months unable to find a job. When talking about his debt,
Marcus said:

It's too much to even keep track of. I will never, ever be
able to pay it back.

He said that he ``wouldn't wish ITT Tech on his worst enemy.''
Despite all the lawsuits, the scandal, and students like Marcus,
January was a big month for ITT Tech executives Kevin Modany and Daniel
Fitzpatrick. They both got big bonus checks. Modany received $515,000
and Fitzpatrick received $112,000. They can expect more. In 2014, Mr.
Modany was paid more than $3 million. These are the same two who the
SEC says violated numerous Federal securities laws in a fraudulent
scheme to hide information from investors. But ITT Tech's board looks
the other way. Instead of penalizing or dismissing them, they give them
a bonus. ITT Tech investors have a right to be outraged.
Current and former ITT Tech students are also outraged. The Federal
taxpayers should be outraged too. You see, ITT Tech receives 80 percent
of its revenue from Federal student aid funds. Nearly $1 billion a year
comes from the Federal Treasury, and even more than that when you count
the money they take in from VA, GI bills, and the Department of Defense
tuition assistance funding.
Recently, I sent a letter to ITT Tech's accreditor, the Accrediting
Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, asking them what steps
they were going to take to respond to this company's misconduct and
shaky financial situation. They responded last week that they have
required ITT Tech to submit teach-out plans to ensure that students can
continue their education at other institutions should the company fail.
Incidentally, the other institutions are probably going to be more for-
profit schools. So they transfer the kids from one failing for-profit
to another questionable for-profit college.
They also told me that they will assess ITT Tech's financial
stability, education quality, and program integrity when they get
together in April.
I encourage the council which accredited Corinthian, which is now out
of business, to make sure they take a hard look at ITT Tech. The
writing is on the wall. There are reports that the University of Akron
may be interested in buying this questionable college. I will be
watching this development carefully to ensure that any potential
transaction is in the best interest of students, their families, and
taxpayers.

Mental Health on Campus Improvement Act

Mr. President, mental health conditions affect one out of five
American adults. Yet this disease continues to be stigmatized,
undertreated, and reduced to second-class status when it comes to
certain health care benefits. Just like any other physical health
disease, mental health conditions require a dedicated treatment plan
and support for full recovery.
I still remember years ago, when Paul Wellstone, who used to sit
right back there, and Pete Domenici, who sat over there, were in the
Senate. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, was a Democrat, and Pete Domenici
of New Mexico was a Republican--what an unlikely pair. They came
together because each of them had family experiences with mental
health. What they tried to do--and successfully did--was to include in
all of our health insurance plans coverage for mental health counseling
as well as substance abuse treatment. It became standard. When we
passed ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, it was built into health
insurance policies. I have heard Members stand here and say: I am
getting rid of ObamaCare. We are going to vote against it and make that
go away. When they say that, we need to ask them: Will the coverage for
mental health conditions go away too? How about the coverage for
substance abuse treatment, will that coverage go away too?
This change made a big difference. It was a huge step in the right
direction to expand access to mental counseling. We have to further
eliminate barriers to treatment.
Last week, the Senate passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery
Act, authorizing several important programs to help people deal with
mental health and substance abuse issues. I supported it because it was
a step in the right direction. We know that approximately 44 million
Americans experience some sort of brain health or mental illness issue
during the year,

[[Page S1538]]

and millions don't receive treatment or support. This need for mental
health services is especially dire with one group of Americans.
How often in your life experience have you noticed a young man or
woman go off to college and for the first time ever manifest some
serious mental health issues? I have seen it with frequency, and I know
that many schools struggle with it.
Studies have shown that one-half of all chronic mental illness begins
by age 14 and three-fourths by age 24. College students can face stress
in new academic surroundings and new social environments. Many of them
are away from home for the first time, and mental health concerns start
to manifest. Despite this, colleges and universities have limited
resources to deal with it. The ratio of counselors to students far
exceeds recommended levels, preventing colleges and universities from
identifying the most at-risk students.
Right now, we are seeing a huge disparity between reported mental
health needs and services being provided. In one nationwide study, 57
percent of students reported having felt overwhelming anxiety, 35
percent felt so depressed it was difficult to function, and 48 percent
felt hopeless. Now, I remember some bad nights and bad mornings when
facing a tough test, but we are talking about young people who have
gone beyond that. They are facing some serious personal challenges.
Only 10 percent of enrolled students seek any kind of counseling.
This means that too many are slipping through the cracks and too many
are not receiving treatment for mental illness. This can have tragic
results.
While millions of Americans suffer from serious mental illness, a
very small statistical group engages in violence against themselves or
others. We have examples of what happens when someone dealing with
mental illness becomes violent. There was a horrific tragedy in 2008 on
the campus of Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. Six people died
in a school shooting as a result of someone suffering from mental
illness. Their families were changed forever, and so was the campus.
Not all mental health emergencies grab national headlines. Suicide is
the second leading cause of death among Americans aged 15 to 34. We
can't ignore the silent suffering of millions of Americans, including
many young people. That is why I have joined with Senator Susan
Collins, a Republican of Maine, and Senator Michael Bennet, a Democrat
of Colorado, to introduce bipartisan legislation to improve mental
health services on college campuses, expanding outreach and counseling
and tackling the mental health illness stigma. I am happy to partner
with Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of Illinois in introducing this
legislation.
Our bill, the Mental Health on Campus Improvement Act, will support
colleges and universities by giving them resources to better support
the mental health needs of their students. It establishes a grant
program to provide direct mental health services and outreach. Our bill
will also increase awareness and treatment by promoting peer support
training and engagement with campus groups. It launches a national
education campaign to reduce the stigma, encourage identification of
risk, and enhance the conversation about mental health and seeking
help.
This bill is sponsored by the American Foundation for Suicide
Prevention, the American Psychology Association, the National Alliance
on Mental Illness of Chicago, and the American College Health
Association, among others.
This morning this legislation was adopted by a voice vote as an
amendment to the Cassidy-Murphy Mental Health Reform Act in the HELP
Committee.
I thank Senators Collins and Bennet for their efforts to advance the
bill. I also thank Senators Cassidy, Murphy, Murray, and Alexander for
working with us to ensure this important provision was included in the
larger bill.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this bipartisan
measure. I also know there is a lot of interest in addressing barriers
to treatment in Medicaid, known as the IMD exclusion, which is under
the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. I will continue to push a bill
that I cosponsored with Senator King of Maine, the Medicaid Care Act,
which expands access to treatment and coverage.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________