[Pages S6055-S6067]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

HIRE MORE HEROES ACT OF 2015--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, this Friday, July 31, the authorization
for the highway trust fund will expire and the fund itself will be
nearly out of money. That means that unless Congress acts, projects in
New Hampshire and across the country will grind to an abrupt halt. In
the face of this, the House has passed yet another short-term, stopgap
bill. The Senate is now debating and amending a long-term highway bill.
My clear preference is for a long-term bill. I think it would be a
terrible mistake to pass yet another short-term extension without at
the same time taking action on a long-term bill like the Senate is
currently doing. Only passing another short-term extension--which would
be the 34th since 2008--without taking steps toward a multiyear bill
would be kicking the can down the road, and in this case the road is
overwhelmed by traffic, badly in need of modernization, and filled with
patches and potholes. If you have driven around on the roads in the
District of Columbia, sometimes you wonder where you are because they
are so bad, so filled with potholes. For a country that seeks to remain
competitive in the 21st century, as we do in America, this is totally
dysfunctional and destructive.
There are few more basic and necessary functions of government than
providing for modernized highways, bridges, and other transportation
infrastructure. Yet in Congress we have been grossly neglecting this
responsibility. China spends about 9 percent of gross domestic product
on infrastructure. Brazil spends about 8 percent. Even in Europe they
are spending about 4 percent. But infrastructure spending in the United
States has fallen to just 2 percent of GDP.
Our highways and bridges face an $800 billion backlog of investment
needs, including nearly half a trillion dollars in critical repair
work. Americans spend a staggering 5.5 billion hours stuck in traffic
each year. Yet in early May we saw a budget pass out of this Congress
supported by the majority party that slashed Federal funding for
transportation by 40 percent over the next decade.
I am especially concerned about disrepair and decay among our
Nation's bridges. That is why I filed an amendment which is a bill I
have introduced in previous Congresses called the SAFE Bridges Act. The
Federal Highway Administration has identified more than 145,000--
145,000--structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges. That
is more than 20 percent of all the bridges in the United States. In New
Hampshire it is actually a higher percentage.
In May, I went with the mayor and city manager of Concord--New
Hampshire's State capital--to inspect the rusted-out and now-closed
Sewalls Falls Bridge, which is one of the three critical bridges in
Concord across the Merrimack River. I worked very hard with the city--
our office did--to get necessary approvals from the U.S. Department of
Transportation to replace this bridge. In fact, it is a replacement
project that started back in 1994. The city of Concord lined up all the
permits and approvals--and then nothing. Because of uncertainty about
Federal funding for the project, it was stopped dead in its tracks.
My amendment, the SAFE Bridges Act, would authorize an additional $2
billion annually for the next 3 years to enable States to repair and
replace their structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges.
States would get funding based on their share of deficient bridges
nationwide, and the additional funding is fully paid for by closing a
corporate tax loophole.
As the Senate continues to debate the Transportation bill, I hope we
do get an opportunity to vote on relevant amendments like my SAFE
Bridges Act.
The neglect of our transportation infrastructure is creating
congestion and gridlock on our roads. It is hurting our economy and our
global competitiveness. It is also killing jobs--especially in the
construction trades, where employment has yet to recover from the great
recession.
According to a Duke University study, providing Federal funding to
meet the U.S. Department of Transportation's infrastructure requests
would create nearly 2.5 million new jobs. So our investment in this
industry, which is one of the slowest recovering from the recession,
would create millions of new jobs.
Several months ago, I joined in a bipartisan group of eight Senators
who had previously served as Governors--Senators King, Rounds, Kaine,
Hoeven, Warner, Carper, Manchin, and myself. We sent a letter to our
Senate colleagues urging that we commit to fully funding national
infrastructure priorities and that we put a stop to the dysfunctional
short-term fixes that have become routine in recent years.

[[Page S6056]]

I know the Presiding Officer appreciates that it was a visionary
Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, who championed the Interstate
Highway System in this country. The National Interstate and Defense
Highways Act of 1956--I think it is critical to think about the title
of that bill which was not just about commerce, but it was also about
defense. It was about the security of our country. It ensured dedicated
Federal funding to build a network that today encompasses more than
46,000 miles of roadways. That system has transformed our economy and
created countless millions of jobs, but it is now six decades old. Its
dedicated funding mechanism, the highway trust fund, is chronically
underfunded and just days from becoming insolvent. It is time for
Congress to come together on a bipartisan basis to break the cycle of
patchwork fixes.

The bill before us is not perfect. There are a number of provisions
included that I don't agree with, if I had been writing the bill, but
it is a compromise measure, and it was ably negotiated by the
leadership of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator
Inhofe and Senator Boxer, along with numerous others in this body.
We have the opportunity to pass a 6-year authorization bill with 3
years of funding. Yet what is happening in the House today? The House
is passing another short-term extension. They are getting ready to
leave town. They are not even going to stay and take up the long-term
bill that is going to come out of the Senate. They are going to give us
another short-term bill that is going to leave States such as New
Hampshire up in the air, with thousands of people who are not sure if
they are going to have a job next week when the money runs out, who
aren't sure what the future is going to hold, companies that can't plan
because they don't know if we have a long-term highway funding bill.
It is now time for Congress to pass a fully funded, multiyear highway
bill that will allow governments at all levels to plan long-term
capital investment projects and to build a 21st-century transportation
system that meets the needs of our 21st-century economy.
I hope that we in the Senate will be able to pass this bill and that
our House colleagues will recognize they need to stay here and get this
work done.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HOEVEN. 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. HOEVEN. 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.

Keystone Pipeline and Oil Sanctions on Iran

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am here to speak about energy, both
lower cost energy and who is going to supply it.
One might say: Why today? Well, because sources tell me that after
almost 7 years, President Obama is going to turn down the Keystone
Pipeline project--7 years. This is an application that was filed by the
TransCanada company in September 2008. So here we are in year 6, and in
September it will be 7 years that the application has been pending. The
administration has still not made a decision--defeat through delay. So
the question is, Why then is he going to turn down the project now? It
is because he will wait until Congress is out of session in August.
Then he will turn down the project while Congress is not in session to
have less pushback, less criticism, of his decision if he makes it
under the radar. That timing is understandable because he is making a
political decision rather than a decision based on the merits.

As we know, Congress overwhelmingly supports the project. The House
overwhelmingly passed approval of the Keystone Pipeline project. In the
Senate, we had 62 votes in favor of the measure. We were actually
missing some of our Members or we would have had 63, but there was
strong overwhelming bipartisan support in both the House and the
Senate. We sent the bill to the President and he vetoed it, but he
still has not made a decision. He vetoed it saying it was up to him to
make a decision, not the Congress. Congress went on record
overwhelmingly in support of the project. Congress approved the
project, but he vetoed the bill.
It is the President's decision to make. Now we hear he is going to
make it and turn down the project, but the Congress overwhelmingly
supports it. The States on the Keystone Pipeline route overwhelmingly
support it. There are six States on the route and every single State
has approved the project: Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas,
Oklahoma, and Texas. They all approved the project. Congress supports
it, the States support it, but most importantly the American people
support it. In poll after poll, the American people have overwhelmingly
shown support for the project--65 to 70 percent--strong, overwhelming
support for the project.
Why do they support it? This is what it is all about: the merits of
the project. They support it on the merits because it means more energy
for this country that is produced in this country, in Canada, in my
home State of North Dakota, and in Montana. There are 830,000 barrels
of oil a day produced in Canada and the United States that can be
refined in our refineries and can be used right here, rather than
getting it from some other country such as OPEC, Russia, Venezuela, you
name it. It is energy we produce here at home. First and foremost,
Americans support it because they want our energy produced at home.
They want us to be energy secure. It is about jobs. It is about jobs.
This is a multibillion-dollar investment that creates good
construction jobs. It is about economic growth, growing our economy
here at home, working with our closest friend and ally, Canada. It is
also about national security through energy security--not having to
depend on the Middle East or OPEC for our energy. It doesn't cost the
Federal Government a penny--not a penny. This is, as I say, a
multibillion-dollar project that is completely built with private
investment that would generate hundreds of millions of dollars in
local, State, and Federal tax revenue. It would not cost the Federal
Government one penny, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in
cash revenues at the local, State, and Federal levels.
But maybe the greatest irony of all is this: At the same time the
President is making it harder to produce energy here at home in our
country and get energy from our closest friend and ally Canada, he
wants to make it easier to produce oil in Iran. Think about that. Right
now the President is pressing Congress to approve an agreement with
Iran that would remove the sanctions on oil production and exports in
Iran. Under the proposed agreement that the President has submitted to
this Congress, he includes releasing the U.S. sanctions put in place by
Congress that limit and restrict Iran's ability to produce and export
oil. These include energy sanctions that limit Iran's sale of crude
oil, which was specifically passed by Congress. Also, he wants to
remove the sanctions on investment in Iran's oil, gas, petrochemical,
and automotive sectors--again, sanctions passed by Congress. He wants
to remove sanctions on the energy sector equipment and gasoline
sanctions that were passed by Congress. In essence, what the President
is doing is allowing Iran to export its oil, he is allowing investment
to help them produce more oil, and he is allowing the export to Iran of
technology that will help them produce more oil and gas. At the same
time, by turning down Keystone, the President is making it harder for
us to produce and transport oil and gas in our country and work with
our strongest ally, Canada. So what is the net effect of that? The net
effect of that is it helps put OPEC back in the driver's seat.
If you don't believe me, let's just take a look at the numbers. The
numbers don't lie. Prior to 2012, before we put the Kirk-Menendez
congressional sanctions in place as part of the National Defense
Authorization Act at the end of 2011, during that year, at that time in
2011, Iran was producing 2.6 million barrels of oil a day. By 2013,

[[Page S6057]]

after the Kirk-Menendez sanctions had been in effect, Iran was down to
exporting only 1.1 million barrels a day. Iran had gone from 2.6
million barrels a day down to 1.1 million barrels a day of oil they
were producing, exporting, and getting paid for. We cut that by more
than half.
My State of North Dakota alone produces 1.2 million barrels a day.
That is more than Iran is exporting right now, but if all these
sanctions come off, Iran gets to go back up to that 2.6 million and
beyond. One million barrels at $50 a barrel is $50 million a day. One
can see this means hundreds of millions and billions of dollars to
Iran. This is certainly something to think about, going from 2.6
million barrels a day and having put sanctions in place, knocking it
down to 1.1 million barrels--and that is with exceptions the President
has allowed to the sanctions. That is without the sanctions being fully
implemented. It shows that the sanctions are very effective. It also
shows that if we release them, Iran will get incredible amounts of
money--not only dollars that have been held from them, but dollars they
are going to generate every day from increased oil production.
So the President wants us to relieve these sanctions at the same time
he, in essence, impedes our oil and our growth in energy development in
this country.
The simple question I have is, How does that make sense? How does
that make sense? How do we get into a situation where we are enabling
Iran to produce more oil, but the U.S. produces less? That makes no
sense, but that is the impact of the President's decision.
The President will make an argument that is based on environmental
factors. He will say he is making that decision for environmental
reasons. He doesn't want the oil produced in Canada. He usually just
doesn't talk about the light sweet crude that is produced in the Bakken
area of North Dakota and Montana, which is the lightest, sweetest crude
I know of. He tries to make the argument that he doesn't like oil that
is produced in Canada for environmental reasons.
Remember I said this has been pending now for almost 7 years. We are
in year 6. In the President's own Department of State, the
environmental impact statement says the Keystone will have no
significant environmental impact. It will be interesting to see when
Congress is out of session--in August when the President turns this
down, trying to get under the radar--what he has to say about how he is
going to address the State Department's clear environmental impact
statement, finding no significant environmental impact, but we will see
what it is. At the same time, the President will work to convince
Americans that all sanctions should be lifted from Iran so they can
produce more oil and bring more money into their country.
There is an old saying. Essentially it goes like this: Those who fail
to heed the lessons of history are destined to repeat them. President
Obama is not breaking our dependence on foreign oil, he is reinstating
it. The President is not strengthening our energy future, he is
weakening it, and I urge him to reconsider.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The clerk will call the roll.
The 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. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

ObamaCare

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, every day it seems as though Americans
are hearing more and more news about how badly ObamaCare is failing.
Some of the latest headlines have had to do with just how expensive
health insurance is going to be next year under the President's health
care law. The price increases that are being reported are truly
staggering. Insurance companies are planning to raise rates 20 percent,
30 percent, even 40 percent on some of their plans, and they say it is
because of the health care law.
The New York Times had an article just a couple of weeks ago. It
quoted one lead advocate in the State of Oregon saying specifically
that some people may ``start wondering if insurance is affordable, or
if it's worth the money.''
Well, a lot of Americans have been wondering if the entire health
care law is actually worth the money. Now, some Democrats have said
that these outrageous price increases will not affect everyone. Well,
they sure affect a lot of people. You know, my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle say that the increases will not be as large as they
are going to be, if you are willing to switch plans every year or if
you accept less access to doctors or even less access to medications.
Well, the argument makes the same mistake that President Obama made
from the beginning about the health care law, and it confuses coverage
with actual care. In Connecticut, some insurance companies say they
have come up with ways to slow down the increase in their premiums.
What they are doing is they are actually cutting access to care. One
company decided that it could save some money by reducing the use of
specialty drugs. So some people who have this insurance may not be
getting the drugs they used to get.
Another company in Connecticut decided that it could charge a little
less by limiting the number of doctors that the patients could see.
Instead of raising rates by 12.5 percent next year as they had planned,
they said the company will now just be raising rates 11.5 percent. That
is the kind of situation that hard-working families are facing--higher
premiums, less access to care.
These narrow networks of hospitals and doctors are not just hurting
people in Connecticut. They are turning up in ObamaCare plans all
across the country. There was a study that came out this month. It
found that plans offered through ObamaCare insurance exchanges across
the country covered 34 percent fewer doctors than the average plan sold
outside the exchanges.
Now, it is even worse for some specialists. According to the report,
exchange plans include 42 percent fewer oncology and cardiac
specialists. That is cancer doctors. That is heart doctors. So if you
have cancer or if you have a heart condition, there is a much lower
chance that your doctor is covered by your ObamaCare insurance.
People are paying outrageously high premiums, copays, and
deductibles, and they are left with insurance coverage that may not
cover their care. So a lot of people have decided they just cannot
afford the Affordable Care Act. They would rather pay a tax penalty to
the IRS than spend hard-earned money on this limited and expensive
ObamaCare insurance. According to the IRS, last year 7.5 million hard-
working taxpayers paid that tax penalty. That is 1 out of 17 taxpayers.
Another 12 million people could not afford ObamaCare insurance or did
not want it, and they filed a form saying they should not have to pay
the penalty at all because it was unaffordable. There were only 6
million people who actually signed up for ObamaCare exchange plans last
year. Almost 20 million people rejected ObamaCare because it was too
expensive and it was not right for them and their families.
Now, President Obama has said repeatedly that the health care law is
working--he said even better than he expected. Is this what he is
talking about--even better than he expected? More Americans are
rejecting ObamaCare than are signing up for it on the Federal exchange.
Is that better than the President expected? Does President Obama think
that the Federal insurance exchange is working better than he expected?
There were headlines about this recently as well and how Washington
has failed to protect taxpayer dollars. The Government Accountability
Office set up a test of healthcare.gov, the President's Web site, the
one that failed so miserably. What they did is they created 12
fraudulent applications in order to see if they could actually get
health insurance subsidies using fraudulent applications, and 11 of
those 12 phony applications were approved last year. Now, here we are a
year later. It turns out that the Washington bureaucrats--you cannot
believe it--reviewed these policies and renewed the taxpayer-funded
subsidies for all 11 of these phony applicants. Some of them even

[[Page S6058]]

got higher subsidies this year than they did last year.
So what does the Government Accountability Office say about it? Well,
the chief investigator looked at it. He said: There still appears to be
no system in place--no system in place--to catch missing or fabricated
documentation. It is incredible and it is disturbing, and it is no
surprise that taxpayers are offended.
Finally, we are also seeing more news about one of the taxes that the
Democrats included in their health care law. There was a headline in
the New York Times last Wednesday: ``Concern Grows on Health Tax.''
That was on Wednesday, July 22, first page of the business section.
``Concern Grows on Health Tax.'' Now, this is about the new 40-percent
tax on so-called Cadillac health insurance plans. These are the plans
that employers offer to their workers. These are the plans that
Washington says are too generous.
The article tells the story of Kurt Gallow, who works at a paper mill
in Longview, WA. When you follow over, it says: Concern grows over
excise tax's effect on health care plans. There are a number of people
working and talking at this location in Longview, WA. But the story of
Kurt is also about his wife, Brenda. She has diabetes. The article says
that Kurt and Brenda are ``worrying about his company's proposed new
health care plan, which would require workers to pay as much as $6,000
toward their family's medical bills.''
Now, that is a huge amount of money for anyone. But it is a huge
amount of money for some of these very hard-working families. Now,
these are changes that their employer has to make because of the
President's health care law. You know what. This is not even an
ObamaCare plan. This is not something they are buying through the
exchange. These are people who get their insurance through work. Now,
President Obama said that if you get your insurance through your job,
``nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the
coverage or the doctor you have.''
Well, millions of Americans across the country are finding out that
was just one more expensive broken promise made by the President.
ObamaCare continues to be a complicated and costly mess. Republicans
have offered good ideas about how to lower health care costs, how to
improve access, and how to help Americans lead healthier lives. We all
have ideas that will get rid of some of the ridiculous Washington-
imposed mandates that are driving up costs and forcing so many
Americans to go without insurance and certainly without care.
Six years ago, the American people were unhappy with health care in
this country. They did not think the solution was higher prices, less
access to care, and higher taxes as well. The American people are not
satisfied with these constant headlines about all of the problems with
the President's health care law.
Congress should not be satisfied with the current state of health
care in this country either or with the disastrous side effects of the
President's health care law. It is time for the President to admit the
health care law is causing pain and problems all across the country. It
is time to start anew, to give people the care they need from a doctor
they choose at lower costs.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we all know the Chamber is engaged in the
passage of a multiyear highway bill--not just highways, but this deals
with mass transit, transportation infrastructure in general. To me, the
most important thing about what we are doing is the fact we are not
going to do another temporary patch--which we have done, I am told, 33
times--but we actually are going to pass a 3-year highway bill.
To me, the best news, I would say to the Presiding Officer, is now it
looks as if we have the House thoroughly engaged, so it is not just a
question of this bill or nothing. Perhaps, if experience is any guide,
we can come up with something even better by collaborating with our
House colleagues.
I wanted to come to the floor and talk a little bit about the impact
of this bill on my State, the State of Texas, because we are a fast-
growing State. We have about 27 million people there now. People are
moving from around the country to Texas because our economy is growing.
Last year, our economy grew at the rate of 5.2 percent. To compare that
to the Nation, last year the Nation's economy grew at 2.2 percent. What
does that mean? That means there are a lot more jobs and a lot more
opportunities, so people are literally voting with their feet, leaving
the States where there are limited opportunities and coming to States
such as Texas where there are more opportunities. But that means more
congestion, more traffic, and more challenges when it comes to our
roadways, our rural freight routes, and it means challenges for our
economy.
Many States, of course, would be delighted to have the problems we
are having because, frankly, people are moving away from many States,
not to many States. I know the Presiding Officer's State of Oklahoma is
experiencing economic growth and job growth too because we share a
common interest and sector of our economy, the energy economy, which
the rest of the country would do well to learn from the examples in
Oklahoma and Texas as part of our economic success story.
As others have mentioned, one of the chief reasons this bill has so
much enthusiasm behind it is because it gives freedom and flexibility
to the States to plan for infrastructure needs in the future. It
perhaps should go without saying, but a 6-month patch, if we were to
kick this over until December, doesn't give anybody any certainty to
plan these long-term infrastructure projects which take literally not
months but years.
As I said, for a State such as Texas that is growing rapidly--by some
estimates 600 people a day are moving to the State--improving our
roadways and bridges is vitally important for the continued growth of
our economy and increased prosperity for our people, and we have the
practical challenge of handling a growing number of cars and trucks on
our roads. One way this bill gives added freedom and flexibility to the
States is through a provision that would help Texas and other border
States meet their growing infrastructure needs, particularly at the
southern border, with improvements that are not only necessary to get
us and goods from point A to point B, but to keep us safe as well.
Frequently, when we talk about the border, we talk about border
security. That is a very important consideration and, frankly, we have
not committed the Federal resources we should to border security to
make sure we know who is coming into the country and why they are here.
Of course, we know that recently, even in the news, people have
continued to penetrate our border, even those with criminal records,
causing havoc and, indeed, committing crimes against innocent people
such as occurred recently in the terrible incident that happened in San
Francisco.
Our border, border infrastructure, and border security are the front
lines of our defense, to keep our people safe, to regulate who comes
into the country, and to make sure that only legitimate people can
enter.
The question is--as one law professor recently testified before the
Senate Judiciary Committee, when it comes to immigration, there is
really only one question: Are you going to have controlled immigration
or uncontrolled immigration? It is basically that simple.
I am on the floor to talk about transportation and the importance of
this bill in terms of the border infrastructure when it comes to trade
and commerce, but as I mentioned, it also is an important frontline
when it comes to the safety and security of the American people.
We are fortunate in Texas to be the top exporting State in the
Nation. That is one of the reasons our economy has grown faster than
the rest of the country. The agricultural products that are grown
there, the livestock that is raised, and the manufactured goods that
are made are exported to markets all around the world, which creates
good jobs, well-paying jobs at home.

[[Page S6059]]

It also takes good infrastructure to move more than $100 billion in
exported goods from Texas to Mexico each year, supporting hundreds of
thousands of jobs in Texas alone. It is estimated, when you look at the
Nation as a whole, that binational trade between Mexico and the United
States supports as many as 6 million American jobs. That is something
we frequently overlook when we talk about our relationship with our
neighbor south of the border and immigration, and that is there are
many benefits to legal trade, traffic, controlled legal immigration,
and, indeed, as I mentioned, $100 billion of exported goods from Texas
to Mexico each year supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs.
In this bill, by allowing Texas and other border States more
flexibility in long-term planning of border projects, consumers and
workers can benefit as goods are shipped more efficiently back and
forth. Our border infrastructure is essential to moving massive amounts
of trade, which travel through our ports of entry every day. For Texas
and the United States to remain competitive, the border region must
have the quality infrastructure to truck, train, and ship billions of
dollars' worth of goods efficiently and safely.
Doing nothing to invest in transportation at the border is not a
viable option. A recent report from the Texas State Legislature found
that $116 million in U.S. economic output is lost or forfeited every
single minute. The trucks sit idle at the border with Mexico. They are
literally frozen in place because they are bottlenecked because of
archaic, antiquated infrastructure and lack of appropriate staffing at
the border.
Infrastructure on the border also plays another important role,
preventing things such as illicit drugs and merchandise from entering
the country. In many respects, as I said, our border crossings, the
technology employed there, and the professionals who work there--they
are the first line of defense against bad actors who want to get into
the country illegally or get contraband goods through our ports.
In Texas, better roads and bridges at the border region mean better
economic opportunity and quality of life for our growing border
communities. Fortunately, the border infrastructure provision in this
highway bill would give the Governor in Texas and all other border
States the freedom to assess the biggest transportation problems facing
those States and would also provide essential tools to address them.
By dedicating funds to invest in border infrastructure projects at
the discretion of State Governors, we can make sure our States have the
resources they need to enhance trade and travel and to keep us safe at
the same time.
This is not, of course, a new notion. Throughout my time in the
Senate, I have worked with folks in Texas and elsewhere, people on both
sides of the aisle and on both ends of the Capitol, to try to find ways
to facilitate greater levels of legitimate commerce and travel at our
Nation's ports of entry and throughout the border region.
I am thankful for making this progress in this legislation. I commend
my Texas colleagues--Congressmen Will Hurd and Henry Cuellar, among
others--for working with us and for introducing similar legislation on
border infrastructure in their Chamber. Hopefully, as we now move from
a Senate bill to a House bill that can then be reconciled in a
conference committee, these important improvements will be retained and
be part of a conference report.
The bottom line is that quality infrastructure and making sure our
border is safe and effective is a bipartisan, bicameral issue, and one
that clearly unites people in my State and across the border region of
our southern States.
I am thankful to see this provision included, and I hope it gets
passed soon to give our States the opportunity to dedicate even more
necessary resources to the border.
This provision is an important example of the overall theme of this
bill, giving the States a reliable way forward to plan for their long-
term infrastructure needs. More than anything else, I believe this
legislation is an investment in our future and the next generation.
I thank all of our colleagues for working with us to get this bill
moving forward. We have an important vote tomorrow morning, and then we
have another final passage vote, I believe, on Thursday. In the
meantime, the House is going to send us a 3-month bill, which will give
us the necessary time for the House then to consider their own
transportation bill and then to get us to a conference where we can
reconcile the differences.
As the Presiding Officer and I have discussed before in the past, if
that is any indication, that will give us even greater ability to
influence the ultimate outcome in a way that improves this product in a
bicameral and bipartisan sort of way.
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. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Planned Parenthood

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, in recent weeks, the American people have
learned the shocking story of the barbaric practices Planned Parenthood
uses to terminate life and to harvest organs of innocent human life. In
a video released earlier this month that has gone viral--as it should
have--the senior director of medical research at Planned Parenthood
explained the process by which she harvests aborted body parts to be
provided for medical research. I quote her:

We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because
we know that, so I'm not gonna crush that part, I'm gonna
basically crush below, I'm gonna crush above, and I'm gonna
to see if I can get it all intact.

Additional videos have been released--I am told more are to come--
with Planned Parenthood officials discussing the organ harvesting of
fetuses. Unborn children. Beating hearts on the sonogram, on the
screen. Human beings.
Despite the stunning impact and outrage of millions of Americans,
Planned Parenthood's response to the release of these videos is this:
Blame the messenger or the videographer, but let's not address the
practice of harvesting aborted body parts.
Ross Douthat writes for the New York Times. I urge every Senator to
read his July 25, 2015, column, entitled ``Looking Away From
Abortion.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, July 25, 2015]

Looking Away From Abortion

(By Ross Douthat)

In an essay in his 1976 collection, ``Mortal Lessons,'' the
physician Richard Selzer describes a strange suburban scene.
People go outside in the morning in his neighborhood, after
the garbage trucks have passed, and find ``a foreignness upon
the pavement,'' a softness underfoot.
Looking down, Selzer first thinks he sees oversize baby
birds, then rubber baby dolls, until the realization comes
that the street is littered with the tiny, naked, all-too-
human bodies of aborted fetuses.
Later, the local hospital director speaks to Selzer, trying
to impose order on the grisly scene. It was an accident, of
course: The tiny corpses were accidentally ``mixed up with
the other debris'' instead of being incinerated or interred.
``It is not an everyday occurrence. Once in a lifetime, he
says.''
And Selzer tries to nod along: ``Now you see. It is
orderly. It is sensible. The world is not mad. This is still
a civilized society . . .
``But just this once, you know it isn't. You saw, and you
know.''
Resolute abortion rights supporters would dismiss that
claim of knowledge. Death and viscera are never pretty, they
would say, but something can be disgusting without being
barbaric. Just because it's awful to discover fetuses
underfoot doesn't mean the unborn have a right to life.
And it's precisely this argument that's been marshaled
lately in response to a new reminder of the fleshly realities
of abortion: The conversations, videotaped covertly by pro-
life activists posing as fetal organ buyers, in which
officials from Planned Parenthood cheerfully discuss the
procedures for extracting those organs intact during an
abortion and the prices they command.
It may be disturbing to hear those procedures described:
``. . . we've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver,
because we know that, so I'm not gonna crush that part, I'm
gonna basically crush below, I'm gonna crush above, and I'm
gonna see if I can get it all intact.''

[[Page S6060]]

It may be unseemly to hear a Planned Parenthood official
haggle over pricing for those organs: ``Let me just figure
out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark,
then it's fine, if it's still low, then we can bump it up. I
want a Lamborghini.''
But in the end, Planned Parenthood's defenders insist,
listening to an abortionist discuss manipulating the
``calvarium'' (that is, the dying fetus's skull) so that it
emerges research-ready from the womb is fundamentally no
different than listening to a doctor discuss heart surgery or
organ transplants. It's unsettling, yes, but just because
it's gross doesn't prove it's wrong.
Which is true, but in this case not really true enough.
Because real knowledge isn't purely theoretical; it's the
fruit of experience, recognition, imagination, life itself.
And the problem these videos create for Planned Parenthood
isn't just a generalized queasiness at surgery and blood.
It's a very specific disgust, informed by reason and
experience--the reasoning that notes that it's precisely a
fetus's humanity that makes its organs valuable, and the
experience of recognizing one's own children, on the
ultrasound monitor and after, as something more than just
``products of conception'' or tissue for the knife.
That's why Planned Parenthood's apologists have fallen back
on complaints about ``deceptive editing'' (though full videos
were released in both cases), or else simply asked people to
look away. And it's why many of my colleagues in the press
seem uncomfortable reporting on the actual content of the
videos.
Because dwelling on that content gets you uncomfortably
close to Selzer's tipping point--that moment when you start
pondering the possibility that an institution at the heart of
respectable liberal society is dedicated to a practice that
deserves to be called barbarism.
That's a hard thing to accept. It's part of why so many
people hover in the conflicted borderlands of the pro-choice
side. They don't like abortion, they think its critics have a
point . . . but to actively join our side would require
passing too comprehensive a judgment on their coalition,
their country, their friends, their very selves.
This reluctance is a human universal. It's why white
Southerners long preferred Lost Cause mythology to
slaveholding realities. It's why patriotic Americans rarely
want to dwell too long on My Lai or Manzanar or Nagasaki.
It's why, like many conservatives, I was loath to engage with
the reality of torture in Bush-era interrogation programs.
But the reluctance to look closely doesn't change the truth
of what there is to see. Those were dead human beings on
Richard Selzer's street 40 years ago, and these are dead
human beings being discussed on video today: Human beings
that the nice, idealistic medical personnel at Planned
Parenthood have spent their careers crushing, evacuating, and
carving up for parts.
The pro-life sting was sweeping; there are reportedly 10
videos to go. You can turn away. But there will be plenty of
chances to look, to see, to know.
Mr. COATS. I will share a couple of excerpts from his piece.
Writing in the New York Times, Ross Douthat says:

And the problem these videos create for Planned Parenthood
isn't just a generalized queasiness at surgery and blood.
It's a very specific disgust, informed by reason and
experience--the reasoning that notes that it's precisely a
fetus's humanity that makes its organs valuable, and the
experience of recognizing one's own children, on the
ultrasound monitor and after, as something more than just
``products of conception'' or tissue for the knife.

For those who defend the role of Planned Parenthood, Douthat writes
that reflecting on the content of these videos ``gets you uncomfortably
close to . . . that moment when you start pondering the possibility
that an institution at the heart of respectable liberal society is
dedicated to a practice that deserves to be called barbarism.''
I wish to repeat that again. He writes about the barbarity of what
has taken place here and the videos of the response of Planned
Parenthood--the description of what actually is happening to a child on
the way to birth, seen in the ultrasound, hearing the beating of the
heart, and then talking about the methods used so that certain parts of
that body are not crushed and so that other parts of the body can be
harvested for other purposes and sold--sold for money. That this is
part of what Planned Parenthood is all about is just stunning.
Douthat said that even though people want to ignore it, even though
they want to talk about it and blame the videographer--that he took
things out of context--how can you take what is said and happened out
of context and provide any rationale or justification for what is being
done?
He said: But surely that is the moment when you start to ponder the
possibility that an institution at the heart of respectable liberal
society is actually dedicated to a practice that deserves to be called
barbarism. That is a hard thing to accept, he said.
But, as difficult as that is, Douthat states that we must acknowledge
that what is being discussed in these videos is human beings, and the
nice, idealistic medical personnel at Planned Parenthood have spent
their careers crushing, evacuating, and carving up that human life for
parts to be sold on the market.
It is important that this body let Planned Parenthood know the
American people do not support these inhumane practices. Congress
should debate this issue. It should vote. It should vote soon. It
should not leave here for our August recess until we send a clear
message to Planned Parenthood that this is totally unacceptable, that
the taxpayers of America will not fund with 1 cent of their tax dollars
this barbaric practice, provided through an agency that pretends to be
offering sound health care advice to pregnant mothers. Every Senator
should have the opportunity to affirm that life is sacred and a
precious gift, and it must be protected.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Supreme Court Decisions

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to give my analysis
of the last year of Supreme Court decisions. There is a misconception
that our Supreme Court is conservative, but in the term that just
ended, the Supreme Court upheld a key provision of ObamaCare. It read
the plain language of that ObamaCare statute that provided that health
insurance subsidies apply only to exchanges established by the States
and said that they are available on exchanges created by the Federal
Government.
It ruled that fair housing discrimination cases can be brought even
where there is no intent to discriminate. A harmful impact, then, is
enough to bring a case.
It found that same-sex marriages are constitutionally required.
It expanded the reach of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and made it
easier to win cases under that law.
The Court decided that racial gerrymandering cases under section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act must consider the effect on individual districts
regardless of minority voting in the State as a whole. The Court said
as well that in those cases, courts must look beyond the numbers when
deciding whether minority voters have been packed into districts to
dilute their influence on elections.
In fact, the Court reflected a very liberal bent in the last term.
More worrisome, its liberalism derives not from the Constitution but
the policy preferences of the Justices. Application of longstanding
political science models shows that this year's Supreme Court rulings
were the most liberal since the Warren Court years of the 1960s. As a
UCLA professor stated, ``Shockingly, the Supreme Court may have been
more liberal than the Obama Administration this term.''
The liberal Justices and the conservative Justices on the Supreme
Court judge differently, and that is what I want to show to my
colleagues. The conservative Justices acted as umpires, for the most
part. They considered the facts and the law and decided the cases as
they understood the Constitution. The liberal Justices prevailed so
frequently because Justice Kennedy, Chief Justice Roberts, and--at
least one time--Justice Thomas each voted with the liberals in at least
two close, significant cases. As a University of Michigan professor
commented, ``The chief justice really does take restraint seriously. At
times, that is going to put a justice in contraposition to what his
ideological preferences might be.''
By contrast, looking at the other end of the spectrum, there are no
close cases in which even a single liberal Justice voted with
conservative Justices to make a majority. Only two of the major cases
were decided 5 to 4 in a conservative direction.
The New York Times identified the 10 most important cases of the
term. The Washington Post selected 13 cases.

[[Page S6061]]

Whichever list is consulted, liberal results predominated. In each of
the cases, the four liberal Justices voted as a bloc for a--as you
might expect--liberal result. I want to show why this isn't a
coincidence. The liberal Justices act like players on the same team.
Liberal Justices have actually admitted that they strategize in advance
to vote as a bloc in support of liberal outcomes. Justice Ginsburg
stated this last year: ``We have made a concerted effort to speak with
one voice in important cases.'' I fear that this attitude and the votes
of these Justices give rise to an appearance that their loyalties are
to each other and to their preferred principles and policies rather
than to the Constitution. Certainly, it is easier to make cases come
out the way you want than to carefully consider the facts, precedent,
text, and the arguments of the parties before reaching a decision that
might run counter to your preferred outcome. And for those Justices, it
is easier to do so if you know you have four votes in your pocket
before you begin the task.
We accept the important role the Supreme Court plays in our
constitutional system. The Constitution trumps the inconsistent policy
choices of the American people enacted through their elected
representatives. That is what we call the rule of law. But when
Justices strike down laws based not on the Constitution but on their
own policy preferences, that is the rule of judges. The Court in that
instance acts as a superlegislature. Those rulings should, therefore,
be questioned. At my town meeting Saturday in Iowa, they were being
questioned. The Justices' personal policy views are entitled to no more
respect than the policy views of the American people.
When Supreme Court nominees come before the Judiciary Committee for
confirmation, they know better than to say they will enforce their own
views. They don't say the Constitution is a living document with a
meaning that changes over time. They know they wouldn't be confirmed if
that is what they said. Instead, they say the text controls or if the
text is unclear, the structure and the original intent of the Founders
govern. They say constitutional interpretation is not about politics or
good policy; they tell us it is ``law all the way down.'' But when they
get on the bench, all bets seem to be off.
For instance, the text of the Constitution allows the government to
deprive people of life if due process of law is provided. It makes
references to capital--or death penalty--cases. It is therefore clear
that the death penalty is constitutional. There may be some valid
questions on when the death penalty would be legal. Nonetheless, last
month Justice Breyer and another Justice wrote that they think it is
very likely that the death penalty is unconstitutional in all cases--in
other words, just throw out the words of the Constitution. That ought
to be extremely disturbing to all of us. It is essentially a revival of
the Warren Court, where the Justices' personal views trump the
Constitution.
The Court also ruled this year on same-sex marriage. I support
traditional marriage, as a sizable percentage of the American people
still do. However, I do respect people of different views. The
Constitution says nothing about whether same-sex marriage is required.
That is for the people to decide through the democratic process. When
the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, that prompted a significant portion
of the populace to believe that the Justices were reading their own
view into the Constitution. The decision was based on a doctrine called
``substantive due process.'' Substantive due process is really nothing
more than an open invitation to Justices to read their own policy views
into the Constitution.
This year, the Court ruled that the word ``liberty'' includes the
right to define and express identity, individual autonomy, and dignity.
Where do you find those words in the Constitution? In the past, the
Court had narrowly construed substantive due process to protect only
those rights established in light of objective history and their deep
roots in society. The majority effectively then overturned those rules.

The Court now thinks the meaning of the clause does not turn on the
text or the intentions of the Framers. Rather, the Court ruled that the
meaning of due process changes as ``we''--the Justices--apply, as they
would say, ``new insight'' that derives from, in their words, a
``better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives
define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.''
In the view of the slim majority, the role of the Court is to make,
in their words, ``new dimensions of freedom . . . apparent to new
generations.''
This is the language of the doctrine of the living Constitution. It
is the Justices, then, amending the Constitution without Congress and
the States voting to do so. It is another Earl Warren deciding cases by
asking what is just and what is fair, and that is in his mind and not
what the Constitution and the laws require.
It is not law at all, never mind ``law all the way down.''
While the decision permits those who hold the traditional view of
marriage to discuss their views, it said nothing about the real
constitutional right to freely exercise religion--with the emphasis
upon ``exercise.''
Another of the Court's liberal decisions gave short shrift to another
right protected by the Constitution: free speech. That decision treated
as government speech what is actually private speech. It is an
important distinction in the real world. Government must treat private
speech neutrally. It cannot play favorites, but the government can
discriminate against viewpoints it does not like when the speech is the
government's speech. It can fund speech that discourages use of illegal
drugs, for instance, without funding speech that encourages drug use.
As a result of the First Amendment ruling, the government may be able
to deny many kinds of government benefits to those who dare to express
views with which the government disagrees. This then would be an
ominous development for everyone.
Specifically, the government may be able to deny tax exemptions and
charitable deductions based on the free expression of the groups
involved. That would make a scandal such as the IRS's denial of tax-
exempt status to organizations based on their presumptive conservative
policy stands constitutionally permissible.
Substantive due process has been used for the last 50 years only to
invent new liberal constitutional rights. Conservatives have not used
substantive due process to invent new conservative constitutional
rights. In creating new such rights, liberal Justices never are
hesitant to overturn conservative precedents, but those same Justices
consider the liberal substantive due process precedents to be
sacrosanct under stare decisis. In other words, they are effectively
saying ``what is mine is mine and what is yours is negotiable.''
Conservatives issue legal rulings that produce liberal policy
effects, but liberal Justices will not issue legal rulings that are
conservative. So as I am trying to show to my colleagues, each side
plays by different rules.
Is it any wonder that so many people in this country think the game
is not on the level? A recent CNN poll--a media organization that no
one would say is rightwing--found that 37 percent of those surveyed
think the Court is too liberal. Only 20 percent characterized it as
being too conservative. I am concerned about how that backlash could
manifest itself.
Even if Justices abuse their power of judicial review by substituting
their policy views for the Constitution, we need judicial independence
to safeguard the actual Constitution. We should not do anything to
undermine judicial independence, but if the Court does not give the
public the confidence that the meaning of ``liberty'' in the due
process clause means something other than the policy preferences of
five Justices, the consequences could be serious for our constitutional
order.
The Supreme Court, similar to a river flooding its banks, is not
staying within its proper channel. I strongly encourage all Justices of
the Court to exercise the self-restraint the Constitution demands and
that its Framers anticipated.
Ultimately, that will be the only way the courts will retain their
necessary powers to preserve the Constitution.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S6062]]

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, while I would normally be coming down at
this time to talk about the Transportation reauthorization bill, which
is one of the most significant bills we will be considering--there are
problems right now in getting it done before the House leaves, but we
are going to make every effort to have it done by the end of this week.
I think that is very important because, for all of the reasons we
talked about, we can't continue to do part-time extensions that don't
allow us to get to any of the real problems we have. However, that is
not why I came to the floor this afternoon. I am here this afternoon to
speak on a different topic.
(The remarks of Mr. Inhofe pertaining to the introduction of S. 1877
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
McCain and Rounds be added as cosponsors to the S. 1877.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, right now we are in kind of a waiting
period. We have made a request. It seems that request is being denied
because it takes unanimous consent to come up with language that will
allow us to waive time.
The time that is pending right now on the Inhofe amendment will not
expire for 30 hours. Precloture will not expire until 5 a.m. tomorrow,
so it looks like that will make it too late to get our bill passed
prior to the time the House goes home.
This could always change. I think a lot of people are taking this
position because they didn't think we would be able to pass the bill. I
think we are going to pass it. I think we can pass it very likely on
Thursday, and so even if the House is gone, we will be preparing to go
in and handle that bill when we all come back after the recess.
I just want to mention this because I think it is very important for
people to understand that we are going to be using this. We have gone
through a lot of work on the bill.
The highway reauthorization bill was passed unanimously out of the
committee I chaired, the Environment and Public Works Committee. Every
Republican and Democrat voted for it. So it is one of the few
bipartisan efforts to take place in a body that is often criticized for
not getting anything done. This will be a major bill. It will become a
reality.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, thank you. To the chair of the
committee, congratulations, Mr. Inhofe, on the progress made so far
with regard to the highway bill, indicating that we will pass something
on Thursday and send it over to the House. It is important we address
this issue. It is important we put people back to work. We have
crumbling roads and bridges.
I hope everybody in this Chamber agrees that we need a highway bill
and, specifically, we need one as long-term as possible in order to
give people predictability and certainty to be able to plan projects
and to be able to deal with what is an increasing problem in our
country, which is a lack of funds in infrastructure.
I hear it back home in Ohio. What I am hearing is: Give us certainty.
Let us know what the plan is. Congress, in doing these short-term
extensions, is not creating a plan.
If we end up with a short-term extension because the House and Senate
can't agree, then I hope we will make a commitment when we do that to
say: OK. After whatever that short-term period is--I have heard the
rumor of 3 months--that at that point we will come up with a long-term
proposal together.
I happen to think one way we could find a longer term proposal is to
have international tax reform. We should do it anyway. We should do it
whether or not the highway trust fund is connected to it. There are
ways to reform the Tax Code so companies that are overseas, that have
revenues overseas, that won't bring them back now because our tax rates
are so high might be willing to bring them back at a lower rate. If
they bring those funds back and are taxed on those funds, there might
be an opportunity to provide some funding for long-term solutions to
the highway trust fund, perhaps in conjunction with some of the other
pay-fors that are part of the bill we are talking about. International
tax reform is necessary in and of itself. I didn't come to the floor to
talk about that, although tomorrow we do have a hearing in the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on this very issue.
I will tell my colleagues and those who are listening, if we do not
reform our Tax Code, update our currently noncompetitive Tax Code, we
are going to see more and more jobs and investment going overseas. It
is that simple.
We already see it. Last year, in dollar terms, there were twice as
many foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies than there were the year
before. Think about that. These are big companies with big names. One
name you might know is Burger King, another is Budweiser. Another one
that is thinking about it is Monsanto. These are big companies.
A lot of companies have already decided they are not going to stay in
the United States because our Tax Code is so bad. It puts them at such
a disadvantage vis-a-vis their competitors around the world that they
can't survive. They have to become foreign entities in order to be
competitive. We have to fix that. It is Washington that is creating the
problem. Many criticize these companies. I say if there is any blame to
show, it is right here in Washington, DC, by allowing the Tax Code that
was written in the 1960s to continue when every other one of our
competitors around the world has reformed their tax codes and lowered
their rates. This is something we can and should do. There is
bipartisan consensus around this--maybe not in the details but in a
framework.
Senator Schumer, on the other side of the aisle, and I put together a
report on this recently. We spent 3 or 4 months working on this, but it
is a combination of a lot of different hearings and projects that have
been undertaken over the last several years on this. We know what we
have to do. We know we have to go to a competitive international system
that allows us to be able to say to our workers in America: We are
going to give you the tools to compete and win. We are not going to
allow you to continue to have to compete with one hand tied behind your
back, which is what is happening right now. The beneficiaries of this
would be the American economy but specifically the American worker.
The folks in the boardrooms are going to be fine one way or the
other. When you have these foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies or
you have these so-called inversions where companies go overseas, the
major executives in the company do just fine. The stock usually goes
up. What happens is you lose workforce, you lose jobs here in America,
salaries don't go up--they stay flat--and that is who is taking the
brunt of this. So we have to fix that system, and I think we can do it
perhaps in the next few months as part of this highway trust fund. That
would be, I hope, an incentive to do it. Again, we should do it anyway,
even if there is no highway trust fund need for us to find additional
sources of funding.
In the meantime, I applaud the chairman and others who included in
the highway trust fund legislation we are currently looking at. This is
the legislation the chairman says we are likely to vote on Thursday.
Included in that are a couple of other provisions that are quite
helpful.
The one I want to talk about is with regard to regulations and
permitting. When you think about it, we are struggling to find enough
money to put into the highway trust fund to extend it as long as
possible, right? Everybody is concerned about the fact that we have
roads and bridges and can't put enough people back to work. One
solution to this is to go to the taxpayers and say: We need more
funding from the Federal tax base to go into this. That is what is
happening, frankly. Another one is to say is there a better way to
build these roads and bridges to save money so every tax dollar goes
further, so we are telling the American people we are not only funding
infrastructure, but we are

[[Page S6063]]

doing it in the most cost-effective, efficient way. That is not
happening now. One reason it is not happening now is because it is so
darn hard to permit something, so hard to get the green light to go
ahead and start construction on something.
I hear this all the time back home. I hear it with regard to
commercial buildings, I hear it with regard to energy projects, and I
hear it with regard to roads and bridges. You have so many hoops you
have to go through, many of which are Federal, some of which are local,
some of which are State--many of which are Federal, that it adds costs
to the project. It adds delay to the project, and it makes it so you
are always worried about a litigation risk because people can go back
years after the project is completed and say: Aha. I am going to file a
lawsuit because you didn't follow all of these Federal regulations and
rules quite the way you should have. That adds cost that we should not
be incurring.

Instead, as we pass this highway bill, we are going to pass something
that is called permitting reform. The Federal permitting system is
being reformed in this underlying bill. My colleagues ought to know
about that. I am going to make a plea that regardless of what happens,
whether it is a 6-year bill, which I think would be great, again adding
predictability and certainty, or whether it is 3 years, which maybe we
are going to pass on Thursday, or whether it is 3 months, which is what
some are saying--the rumor is perhaps the House will send it back to
the Senate--whatever the extension period is, let's include this
legislation to make it easier to green-light a project to have America
get back into the business of building things, not just roads and
bridges--although it will help on this bill--but also other projects:
energy projects, construction projects, commercial buildings, and so
on.
Let me give you a really frightening statistic. There is a group that
does an international assessment every year of all the countries in the
world. It asks: How easy is it to do business in various countries?
They compare the countries. One of the countries of course in the mix
is us, the United States of America. You would hope we would be at the
top of the list--the best place to invest--that we would be the
country, since we are a capitalist free enterprise country where we
value ingenuity and want to move forward with projects and get things
done, that we would be at the top of the list. We are not. We are now
No. 41 in the world in terms of the ease to get a construction permit
to build something--No. 41 in the world.
Capital is global these days. It moves around the world, and
certainly around the country, but around the world. So you go to a big
city overseas, let's say London. You see all sorts of cranes. Why?
Because actually in that city it is easier to build something than it
is here in the United States. That is crazy. We should have a system
here in the United States where you have to go for the proper
regulations, you have to be sure you are building something that is
safe and environmentally sound, but that it is easy to do it. You can
do it quickly. We are now 41st in the world.
This drives investment out of the United States and puts that
investment in other countries. This is why this legislation is so
important. Again, for the roads and bridges it is important, but also
in general to put people back to work.
Here is something interesting about this legislation. We have worked
on this for almost 4 years--about 3.5 years now. My cosponsor is Claire
McCaskill, who is a Democrat, so we have a Republican and a Democrat
doing this together. Over time we have been able to build support,
slowly but surely, to the point that we now have a good group of
bipartisan cosponsors, pretty evenly balanced between Republicans and
Democrats, but we also have some support from the outside that is
unusually balanced.
We have the Chamber of Commerce supporting this in the business
community. That might be expected. A lot of them are interested in how
to build something and build it more quickly, but we also have the AFL-
CIO building trades council strongly in support of this. I appreciate
that. Because they get it. This is about work and specifically about
construction jobs. A lot of those jobs went away during the financial
crisis of 2007, 2008, and 2009. They have been slow to come back.
Unemployment is still relatively high among construction workers.
Frankly, a lot of them have moved on to something else because they
have not had jobs.
The AFL-CIO building trades council and the business community are
together on this. They are working with us together to ensure that we
can get this done in the highway bill and to move forward with not just
something that will help on roads and bridges, but it will help on all
kinds of projects.
I heard about this in the context of energy. When I first got
elected, a company came to me. It is called American Municipal Power,
AMP. AMP does small energy projects all over our State and some other
States. They came to me and said: You know, Rob, we have been trying to
put a powerplant on the Ohio River. Now, you might think that normally
would be a coal plant or a gas plant, or even a nuclear plant--there
are all those along the Ohio River. They said: No, we are actually
trying to put a hydro plant. The Ohio River is not a particularly
natural place for hydro, you would not think, but it turns out there is
a nice flow in the Ohio River. It is a big river.
They had this great idea at the locks of the Ohio River to add a
municipal powerplant, hydroplant, but they said: We cannot get through
all of these Federal hoops. There are up to 35 different Federal
licenses and permits you now have to get to do an energy project. Think
about that. You have to get 35 different Federal licenses and permits
in order to start construction and to move forward with an energy
project.
That is what they found in the Ohio River. They came to me and said:
What can you do to help? We started to look at it and figured out: My
gosh. The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. You have
so many agencies involved, so many different interests involved,
whether it is the Army Corps of Engineers, the USGS, whether it is EPA,
whether it is again State and local regulations. I am just talking
about the Federal side when I talk about the 35 permits and
regulations.
What American Municipal Power wanted was to be able to get something
done in a predictable way and have somebody be accountable. We liked
that idea, so we moved forward with this legislation providing more
accountability.
We also heard from Baard Energy. Baard had plans to build a $6
billion synthetic fuels plant in Wellsville, OH. This was a coal-to-
liquid plant that would not only convert coal into clean diesel and jet
fuel, it would also have created, we were told, up to 2,500 jobs. This
is in a part of Eastern Ohio where these jobs are so valuable, so
precious.
They couldn't do it at the end of the day because the permitting
delays and the lawsuits they got so interfered with the project that
their capital left. It wasn't patient enough to wait around for all the
delays, all the potential lawsuits, all the problems. So, again, from
them we learned: Well, let's have accountability, one agency
responsible, but also let's look at this issue of not just lack of
accountability, but the fact that these lawsuits continue to slow these
projects down and make it more difficult to move forward.
Our legislation addresses all of these issues. It does so in a very
thoughtful and, I think, reasonable way, in a way that is common sense.
We have got support on both sides of the aisle. First of all, it
strengthens coordination and deadline setting. We talked about having
some accountability. One agency is now accountable, so instead of
agencies being able to go: Well, you know, we are fine, but how about
this other agency? Not our fault, their fault, pointing fingers. Now
you have got one agency that is in charge.
Deadline setting. This creates an interagency council to best
identify what the best practices are, but also set deadlines for
reviews. Right now with no deadlines, the things often go on and on and
on, in approvals of important infrastructure projects.
It also strengthens cooperation between the State and local
permitting authorities, another problem. As I said earlier, there are
local and State issues as well, and we try to avoid duplication and the
delay that comes from that.
Second, the legislation facilitates greater transparency and greater
public participation in the permitting

[[Page S6064]]

process. It creates what we call an online dashboard where you can look
at the dashboard--whether you are a company that is involved in this or
whether you are a member of the public who is interested in this--you
can look on that dashboard and see this is where the permit is. OK. It
is at that agency. Well, why? You can see whether it has completed its
review. And where are we on this?
It encourages not just the ability to track agency progress, which I
think will have a very important effect--sunlight is the best
disinfectant sometimes in bringing this out; making the transparency
better is a good idea, but it also brings more input from stakeholders.
We also require in our legislation that the agencies accept comments
from stakeholders early in the approval process. Why? Because another
problem we found was that often the concerns come very late in the
process, so you have an investment, you have workers working on this.
All of a sudden a concern comes in, it stops everything, slows it down,
and makes it very inefficient.
Instead we are saying: OK. Comments, they are very important, but
let's accept those comments earlier in the process. Let's identify
these important public concerns from the very start. Then finally, it
institutes a set of litigation reforms that I think is very important.
One I will mention, which I think is probably going to be surprising to
a lot of people: Right now there is a statute of limitations on
lawsuits that runs 6 years. This is after the environmental review, the
NEPA review--6 years. Think about that. We limit that 6 years to 2
years. I would have liked to limit it even further to be frank.
In our original legislation we tried to limit it even further, but
this again is a consensus-building project. We want to be sure we kept
the bipartisan support, we kept support on the outside, including from
groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council that have worked with
us on this.
So we have accountability, transparency, litigation reforms, with the
whole goal of saying: Let's take, in the case of these construction
projects, the roads and bridges, the Federal dollars, and let's let
them work in a more efficient way so every dollar goes further, so we
can get these roads and bridges going, so we are not paying so much for
delays and redtape, so we are not paying so much more for lawsuits, so
we can actually get this thing moving. That is in this legislation.
I hope my colleagues who, like me, go back home and hear about
regulatory reform and the need for us to streamline the process will
strongly support this part of the legislation, even if they cannot
support all of the legislation. I hope they will continue to push this
Senate and the House of Representatives to pass this permitting reform
legislation.
If we do that and it lands on the President's desk, I believe he will
sign it. I believe that because we have worked with him closely and
because frankly it will have such strong bipartisan support. It is the
right thing to do. It enables us to say to the people we represent: You
know what. We are not just asking for some more money for roads and
bridges, which is important and will create more jobs and make our
economy more efficient--we need to do that. The crumbling
infrastructure is real.
It is also an opportunity for us to do it in a more efficient way.
The President's job council, at the end of 2011, issued a report. You
might remember that. President Obama selected Jeffrey Immelt, who is a
very widely respected executive--GE CEO--to chair the jobs council. He
came up with a bunch of recommendations, many of which I think were
very constructive.
One was about this very issue. This is what they said. They said we
ought to reform the permitting process because we should, as the
President said, ``do everything we can to make it easier for folks to
bring products to market, and to start and expand new businesses, and
to grow and hire new workers.'' That was the President.
Sean McGarvey is the president of the North America's Building Trades
Union. We talked about the AFL-CIO building trades union. This is what
Sean McGarvey has said: ``If there was ever an issue that could be
considered a no-brainer for Congress, the Federal Permitting
Improvement Act is it.''
I agree with Sean. This is a no-brainer. Let's get it done as part of
the legislation we are going to pass this week. I believe we will pass
it. If we do not pass the highway bill this week, let's ensure that we
include the permitting reforms in whatever we do pass.
Again, whether it is a 3-month extension or a 6-year extension, we
should be sure that we are removing unnecessary delays, bureaucratic
hurdles, so that more Americans who are looking for a job can find a
job, and so that tax dollars can go further. I want to thank Claire
McCaskill, the Senator from Missouri, who has been the cosponsor of
this over the last few years. Sometimes it has not been easy working
through this. She has taken some arrows, but it is the right thing to
do. It is meaningful legislation that will actually help move our
economy in the right direction and help us to be able to repair more of
these roads and bridges because we will be doing it more efficiently.
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. CORKER. 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. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the highway
bill. I understand there will be a cloture vote tomorrow and then
potentially, if that is achieved, final passage the day after. I want
to say again that I appreciate the efforts of so many in various areas,
that my comments today are not intended to be directed at any
individual or either side of the aisle.
I was elected in 2006 and I came in during 2007, so I have been here
roughly 8\1/2\ years. One of the reasons I ran for office was to deal
with our Nation's fiscal issues. I was so concerned about the direction
in which our country was going. As you know, just about every military
leader we have will tell you that the greatest threat to our Nation's
national security is us, those of us here in Congress, and the way we
deal with our fiscal issues.
The simplest fiscal issue I know of to solve is the highway bill
because it is simple math. It is not like Medicare, where all these
actuarial issues have to be dealt with and you have to make assumptions
about the impact on care and all those kinds of things. The highway
bill is just simple math. It is so easy. There is money that comes in
and there is money that goes out.
I think everybody in this body knows the highway bill was set up
based on a user fee program where people who are using the highways pay
for that through user fees and then the money would be there in a trust
fund--a real trust fund--where, in fact, the money would go out. So we
would have a system in our country where we would pay for our highways
and other infrastructure in that regard. As a matter of fact, the State
of Tennessee has zero road debt because that is exactly the way they
handle their State portion.
I know a lot has been said about this Presidential race and what is
driving some of the interesting anomalies that are occurring right now.
People are saying: Well, certain candidates are receiving a lot of
attention because of the anger people in America have toward
Washington. I would just say that this bill--this is an outline of it--
should be exhibit A as to why people in America are angry at
Washington. Both sides of the aisle, both ends of the Capitol, this is
exhibit A.
Again, I understand this was a combined effort with lots of people,
but let me point out a few things.
No. 1, we have had five general fund transfers--in other words,
taking money out of our general fund and sending it over to the highway
trust fund. That has totaled $60 billion since 2008.
We have these wonderful young interns who come up here to learn about
Washington. They come up here to experience Washington. They have read
in their history books and other places--in civics--about this being
the greatest deliberative body in the world. I would think that in most
cases they probably look up to people here on the floor. Some of them
may aspire to

[[Page S6065]]

someday actually serve in the Senate. But what they are going to be
witnessing should this bill become law is 100 folks in this room--not
all of them but a number of people in this room--voting to basically
steal money from them.
They are stealing money from you so that all of us can look good to
our constituents and pass a highway bill. So we are going to steal
money from you so that we don't have to deal with this issue. It is
called generational theft.
So to the pages and to the people you have been working with for so
long, just know--and I don't know any other way to describe this. Let
me explain. This is a 3-year bill we are going to pay for over 10
years. One hundred percent of the spending, in other words, takes place
between the years 2016 and 2018--100 percent of the spending--but 69
percent of the offsets, the money coming in, actually comes in--you
heard me say 2016 to 2018--between 2022 and 2025. So that would be like
your mother or father going to the grocery store and buying groceries
and saying: Well, I am not going to pay for this today; I will pay for
this in 7 or 8 or 9 years down the road. Every time they went to the
grocery store, they did that. You can imagine how your household
finances would operate if that is what they did. If this bill becomes
law, that is what the people in this body will be doing to you. It is
generational theft.
We use these tricky accounting rules around here where if we pay for
something over 10 years even though we spend the money in 1 year, we
count that, believe it or not, as paid for.
It is even worse on something like a highway trust bill. See, this is
something where money is supposed to come in at the same rate money is
going out. You can expect some aberrations on when money comes in and
when money goes out on other kinds of programs--you can expect that--
but not on the highway trust fund.
This is the kind of math, by the way, each of you probably knew about
in the third or fourth grade, where you could figure out how much money
is coming in and how much money is going out. But on both sides of the
Capitol and on both sides of the aisle, since 2008, instead of dealing
with this issue--which, by the way, means you have to make some tough
choices. You could spend less money in the trust fund. That would be a
way to make it add up. You could devolve some of the responsibilities
back to States. By the way, so many roads are now becoming roads the
Federal system pays for, there might be a good argument for that. There
is a good argument for that. Or you could just increase revenues and
make sure those who are driving on the roads in our country today pay
more to do it. But that is not what is going to happen. We are going to
pull a trick on the American people. And here I get back to that anger
issue and the reason so many people are upset with Washington. Again,
this is exhibit A.
As a matter of fact, only 9 percent of the money coming in over this
10-year period comes in during the period of time we are spending on
the highway bill. Can you believe that? Yet we say it is paid for.
Let me tell you what else we are doing. This is fascinating to me.
Congress, in its brilliance, has created a system where only Fannie and
Freddie--remember the two behemoths that had $5 trillion in housing
mortgages in our country, the big giants that failed back in 2008? What
we have done in this bill--I am not going to do it, but if people vote
for this bill, what they will be agreeing to do is to extend the
guarantee fee on mortgages out, by the way, the last couple of years of
this bill, so, again, money comes in way beyond the time we spend it.
So let's say you guys go to college. I know many of you will. When
you get out, you decide to buy a home. Let me tell you how we, in our
wisdom, have decided to pay for our highways. We are going to make you
pay more for your mortgage. You are not going to know that, by the way;
we are going to hide it in your mortgage.
See, we want to make sure the American people don't really know how
we are paying for these things. We try to hide these things from folks
so that when we run for reelection, we don't create any ire amongst the
public.
This one is hard for me to believe. Now, I can understand some people
in this body supporting this, those who support Fannie and Freddie
continuing on forever, because what we are really doing is now the
Federal Government, in order to pay for our roads, is relying on Fannie
and Freddie. So how could you do away with them? Think about it.
We have had so many people in this body talk big about winding down
Fannie and Freddie and about how they are a threat to our Nation. I
have actually written a bill to try to deal with that and had a lot of
support from people on both sides of the aisle. We all talk big, but
let me tell you what we are going to do. To pay for the highways, we
are going to continue the policy of making sure that every time
somebody gets a mortgage, they pay a little more for that mortgage--the
entire time, by the way, that mortgage is in place. That generates
about $2 billion. Of course, the American people won't know or see
that, and so that, of course, makes it very popular.
Let me talk about another one. This is fascinating to me. The Federal
Reserve System has been paying a dividend to member banks that invest
in their regional Feds. Since 1930, that dividend rate has been 6
percent. I don't know if that is the right number.
By the way, some people are confusing this with a monetary policy
issue, which is the amount that is being paid on the reserve. That is
not what this is. This is something which has been in place since the
1930s. We never had a hearing on it, by the way, and I have no idea
what we should be paying, OK? I have no idea. But just out of the blue,
to generate $17 billion--without a hearing; never been a hearing; as a
matter of fact, I would say most people in this body have never heard
of this issue--to pay for our roads and again make sure we stay in
great stead with our constituents back home so we don't have to make
any tough choices, we are going to change that from 6 to 1.5
percent. That generates $17 billion. But, again, it keeps us from
having to deal with this issue head on. By the way, a lot of that money
comes in way beyond the period of time we are spending the money on the
roadways.

This is the one that gets me. I love this one. I love this one. We
are going to sell 101 million barrels of oil from something called the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve from 2018 to 2025. We have a big Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, which is in our national security interests. As a
matter of fact, I would say that if President Obama were to propose
this particular pay-for, most everyone on our side of the aisle would
just raise unbelievable--I need to choose my words--would be very
upset. It would be dead on arrival because what it does is it weakens
our national security.
We have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In a time of crisis, we want
to make sure the people in America have access to this Strategic
Petroleum Reserve.
This is so grave. We are generating $9 billion, by the way, in the
years 2018 through 2025--again, beyond the time of even paying for this
highway measure. So again, it is generational theft--selling assets
down the road to pay for things today. It generates $9 billion, and
half of the sales occur in 2024 and 2025. So it is kicking the can down
the road.
For America, please, please, be upset about this. Please, please, be
angry about this.
Let me tell you what we are doing. We all make investments and pay
attention to the markets a little bit. We hope we can save some money.
Oil is selling today at under $50 a barrel. But let me tell you at what
we have decided we are going to sell this oil. We are just going to
make it up--at $89 a barrel. Think about that.
Congress in its wisdom has decided we are going to sell 101 million
barrels of oil. We are so bright and we can anticipate the future so
well that we know, by golly, that when we sell this oil between 2018
and 2025, it is going to be at $89 a barrel, even though it is under
$50 a barrel today. But we know that because we represent America. We
have been elected to the Senate.
So that is how we are generating it. By the way, if during that
period of time oil happens to be selling at $74 a barrel, we break
even. If it sells for anything under that, it is less. But by the way,
there is $9 billion of made-up money just because we have decided

[[Page S6066]]

that is what the price of oil is going to be at that time.
I just have to say that this is one of the most irresponsible pieces
of legislation I have seen come this far in the Senate. Let me say this
one more time. This has to be one of the most irresponsible pieces of
legislation that I have seen make it this far in the Senate.
I am very disappointed with where we are. I am not directing that at
anybody. People on both sides of the aisle are involved in getting it
where it is today. People on both sides of the building have used these
types of gimmicks and tricks to basically involve ourselves in abject
generational theft, keeping us from making tough decisions today. They
are not even tough, to be honest--just using our God-given common
sense, the same thing that most Americans get up every day and have to
deal with.
I have been so uplifted in my home State and by my home town of
Chattanooga to watch how ordinary citizens with huge patriotism and
large amounts of common sense have dealt with the tremendous tragedy in
our hometown. I have just been overwhelmed by it. I wish all of America
could see the response of people who wake up every day carrying out
their ordinary duties, husbands and wives and sons and daughters. They
care about our Nation. They care about its future. They care about our
military. They care about people who protect us. I wish that somehow
people could see that. I know people see it in all of their hometowns
around the country. I know people see this greatness. Yet in this bill,
I don't see any common sense. How could we pay for our highways
utilizing this type of pay-for?
So I rise to say that I don't support this piece of legislation. I
think that has been made clear. I hope that as people analyze the pay-
fors--which, again, in my opinion could not be more ridiculous on
something like a highway bill--this bill will go down, and we will
figure out a way to deal with this in a more productive way. Again, the
right way to deal with this, if you have a trust fund, is to have fees
that come in and the same amount that go out.
I think in this minor conversation here, these pages probably get
that. I think America gets that. I hope, again, this bill does not
pass. I hope it does not become law, and I hope we can gather and
figure out another way of dealing with this in a responsible way that
doesn't use gimmicks, as this certainly uses.
I don't know how anybody could say: By the way, the Senate has
assumed that in the years 2024 and 2025, oil will sell at $89 a barrel.
Now, if the Senate was that good at giving financial advice--certainly,
if we look at our balance sheets and the deficits we have been running,
people would know that is anything but the truth.
The fact is that this bill should not become law and should not be
supported. I intend to vote against it. I intend to encourage others to
vote against it. I hope that at some point in my tenure here we will
actually begin to deal with our fiscal issues head on, in a direct way
that solves them for the long term and really doesn't sweep them under
the rug for this generation, unfortunately, to have to clean up our
mess.
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. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Climate Change

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, in poll after poll, the American
people have told this Congress that it is time to wake up to the ever-
growing threat from carbon pollution. Two-thirds of Americans support
the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan to cut emissions
from powerplants and invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Even a majority of Republicans support action to reduce carbon
pollution. But we do nothing.
So here I am again, for the 108th time, for a speech of which the
Presiding Officer has become something of a frequent flyer, to urge
that we listen to our constituents and do the job that we were sent
here to do.
Sadly, Congress is stuck in the grip of the big polluters and their
unlimited, unreported campaign spending. After the dreadful Citizens
United Supreme Court decision of 2010, two things happened. One,
corporate political spending poured into secretive unaccountable groups
that now wield untold influence in our elections. Two, Republicans--
particularly Republican voices in Congress--fell silent on carbon
pollution and climate change. It was a stopper.
So despite the wishes of the American people and despite an
overwhelming scientific consensus, the majority in the Senate has no
plan whatsoever to address the catastrophic changes we see in our
oceans and our atmosphere, in our farms and our forests.
Many of the Republican candidates for President, for fear of
offending their fossil fuel billionaire donors, ignore not only the
clear tide of public opinion and not only the warnings of our
scientific and national security officials but ignore the climate
disruptions in their own home States. They ignore the homegrown climate
research of their own State's scientists and universities.
Earlier this year I came to the floor with my colleague and friend,
Senator Baldwin of Wisconsin, to consider the effects of carbon
pollution in her Badger State. Senator Baldwin is a fierce defender of
Wisconsin families and businesses and is fighting to protect
Wisconsin's climate, from the Great Lakes to the legendary dairy farms.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, on the other hand, has gone another
way. He has gone right down the fossil fuel industry rabbit hole. He
pulled the plug on scientific and environmental functions in State
government and he attacks environmental programs in the Federal
Government.
Let's look at the facts in Wisconsin. According to the scientists at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison, weather stations around Wisconsin
measure that average temperatures in Wisconsin increased by about 1.1
degrees Fahrenheit between 1950 and 2006. During the same period,
Wisconsin got wetter as well as warmer. Annual average precipitation in
Wisconsin increased by almost 3 inches--again, measured.
As more and more carbon pollution piles up in the atmosphere,
researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison estimate and project
that by midcentury Wisconsin could warm by 4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit.
By the end of the century, the climate in Wisconsin may look more like
that of present-day Missouri or Oklahoma, raising the prospect of
dramatic shifts in the Wisconsin economy and way of life.
These changes would not be kind to Wisconsin's iconic badger. The
Upper Midwest and Great Lakes Landscape Conservation Cooperative lists
the Wisconsin badger as one of the region's species at risk from
climate change. It has no apparent effect on Governor Walker, however.
There was the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts. The
Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts was formed in 2007 by
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the University of
Wisconsin Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. The scientists
and public officials in this program are studying how climate change
will affect Wisconsin's wildlife, water resources, and public health,
and important Wisconsin industries such as forestry, agriculture, and
shipping and tourism on the Great Lakes.
Climate change threatens pillars of the Wisconsin economy. The
initiative's agricultural working group reports that higher summer
temperatures and increasing drought will create significant stress on
livestock, even touching Wisconsin's famed cheese industry. Victor
Cabrera, an assistant professor in the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Dairy Science Department, says that this heat stress interferes with
both fertility and milk production. Dairy cows could give as much as 10
percent less milk. Professor Cabrera in Wisconsin is not alone. He is
not alone. The U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts that by 2030
climate change will cost the U.S. dairy sector between $79 million and
$199 million per year in lost production. Does Governor Walker care?
Apparently not, but

[[Page S6067]]

the University of Wisconsin does. So it is leading a USDA-funded effort
to identify practices that minimize greenhouse gases from milk
production and make dairies more resilient to Wisconsin's changing
climate. Some Wisconsin dairy farmers, for instance, are burning excess
methane in enormous manure digesters to generate their own renewable
electricity.
It is not just the farmers. Wisconsin has sportsmen. Wisconsin's
sportsmen treasure Wisconsin's 10,000 miles of trout streams--some of
the best trout fishing in the country. Trout Unlimited found that
fishing in the Driftless Area of southwest Wisconsin and parts of
Illinois, Minnesota, and Iowa adds over $1 billion per year to the
surrounding economy. But the cold-water fish such as the brook trout
are highly sensitive to temperature increases in streams.
Under the worst cases analyzed by the researchers at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
``brook trout are projected to be completely lost from Wisconsin
streams.'' Even the best case scenarios see losses of as much as 44
percent of the Wisconsin brookies' current range by midcentury. That is
Wisconsin's own Department of Natural Resources. Other cold water
species such as the brown trout are not much better off than the
brookies.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is not alone. It is not
alone. The American Fly Fishing Trade Association said this in a recent
public statement:

Climate change is no longer a potential threat; it demands
our attention now. . . . We call on our elected officials to
put partisan politics aside and work quickly to enact federal
policy to address the threats presented by global climate
change.

On to Wisconsin's loggers, Wisconsin has a significant logging
industry, and the loggers are having trouble getting to the timber when
hard, frozen winter ground becomes too thawed and too soggy to hold up
logging equipment. According to a study out of the University of
Wisconsin, that frozen period for loggers to work has decreased by 2 to
3 weeks since 1948, shortening the working window for loggers before
their gear bogs down.
In every corner of the State, Wisconsin's own scientists are seeing
dramatic climate changes. Wisconsin's businesses and communities are
already taking a hard hit. How does their Governor respond? You can
probably see this coming: ``I am not a scientist''--the classic denier
dodge.
Governor Walker, we know you are not a scientist, but it is OK
because you have some of the top scientists right there at your own
University of Wisconsin. You have teams of scientists working for you
at your State agencies right in Wisconsin.
But do we expect that Scott Walker will listen to a scientist? No.
No. He has a different plan--to eliminate more than 60 positions at the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, including dozens of
scientific staff. That is one way to not have to listen to them.
Whom does Scott Walker listen to? Well, the Koch Brothers political
network has said it plans on spending $900 million in the 2016 election
cycle--$900 million. The President of one of the biggest Koch Brothers-
backed organizations, Tim Phillips of a group called Americans for
Prosperity, has threatened publicly that any Republican candidate in
the 2016 Presidential campaign who supported climate action ``would be
at a severe disadvantage in the Republican nomination process.'' So
they are going to throw $900 million at the election, and they have a
``severe disadvantage'' threat floating around. Nice little campaign
you got here; be a shame if it was severely disadvantaged.
Well, it did not take Governor Walker long to sign that same
Americans for Prosperity organization's no climate tax pledge--what do
you know--vowing to oppose any legislation on climate change without an
equivalent amount of tax cuts. It is amazing what waving around $900
million will do.
Whom else does Scott Walker listen to? Well, the majority leader
recently called on all Governors to rebel against the EPA's Clean Power
Plan. So far, only six took up the majority leader's call. One of them
is--guess who--Scott Walker. In December he wrote to the EPA that their
plan would be ``a blow to Wisconsin residents and business owners.'' In
January he announced that he was planning to sue the Agency instead.
Maybe Governor Walker would think differently if he listened to
Wisconsin's business owners. Lori Compas, executive director of the
Wisconsin Business Alliance, endorsed the EPA's Clean Power Plan
proposal as a boon, a benefit to the Wisconsin economy. Here is what
she said:

Encouraging renewable energy development will result in
business growth, job creation, cleaner air, and a quicker
path to energy independence.

That is what she wrote.
I will continue. She said:

Our society does not have to decide whether our policies
should favor jobs or the environment. We should look for
opportunities for us to promote jobs and the environment and
the Clean Power Plan is a great way to do that.

That is the Wisconsin Business Alliance speaking. Those Wisconsin
businesses are not alone. They are not alone. Yesterday 13 of the
largest corporations in America joined in President Obama's American
Business Act on Climate Pledge, committing to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, invest in renewable energy sources, and promote sustainable
practices across their respective markets and up their supply chains.
These are some pretty big-time nameplate Americans companies: Alcoa,
Apple, Bank of America, Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Cargill, Coca-Cola,
General Motors, Goldman Sachs, Google, Microsoft, PepsiCo, UPS, and
Walmart. That is a pretty broad spectrum of America's corporate
hierarchy. Is it the Republican majority's position that they are all
also in on the hoax?
The Republican majority has accused NASA's scientists, whose just
flew a craft by Pluto and who are driving a rover around on the surface
of Mars, of being in on a hoax; that climate change is a hoax and that
NASA scientists are in on it. Is Walmart in on the hoax too? Do the
Senators from Arkansas want to go home and tell the Walmart executives
that they are in on a hoax? Do the Senators from Georgia want to go
home and tell the CEO of Coca-Cola that they are in on a hoax? I don't
think so. It is an untenable argument.
We have to move on. These leaders of American commerce declare, in a
voice that Republicans should listen to:

We recognize that delaying action on climate change will be
costly in economic and human terms, while accelerating the
transition to a low-carbon economy will produce multiple
benefits with regard to sustainable economic growth, public
health, resilience to natural disasters and the health of the
global environment.

That is quite a crowd who signed off on that statement. More will
come because other companies, such as VF Industries and Mars and
Unilever, agree with them.
Our good Earth is sending us a clear message. The message our good
Earth is sending us is that carbon pollution is driving unprecedented
change. It is showing the change happening in the Earth around us.
Voters too are sending us a clear message. They are speaking up to say
that climate change is a problem and they want their leaders to take
action and that it is time we got our heads out of the sand.
Unfortunately, there is a problem. The big polluters have a powerful
political megaphone. They do not hesitate to use it. They back it up
with big, dark money campaign spending that is distorting our democracy
in disgraceful ways.
The result is that, like so many Republican candidates for the
Presidency, Scott Walker of Wisconsin has no plan, will not listen to
his home State scientists at his home State university, and ignores
what his loggers and trout fishermen and businesses are all seeing and
saying. But, oh my, does he listen to the big polluters.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________