John Hoeven

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I will yield the floor to the good Senator from Michigan for a minute.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am willing to yield to the junior Senator from Michigan.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the University of North Dakota men's hockey team, which won a national championship last Saturday. Undoubtedly, like everybody else, the Presiding Officer was glued to his TV set watching the exciting game between the University of North Dakota men's hockey team and Quinnipiac. The UND hockey team prevailed 5 to 1 in an exciting game in front of about 20,000 fans. It was just fantastic.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Certainly.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to encourage support for the Hoeven-Tester air ambulance relief amendment, which is legislation of importance to people living in both rural and urban communities who need urgent and timely medical care. The need for this amendment arises from the fact that Federal law preempts States from regulating air ambulance services pursuant to the Airline Deregulation Act, which was passed in 1979. While some air ambulance providers enter into agreements with insurers, a growing number have decided to operate as out-of-network providers and practice what is known as balance billing. That means consumers, not the insurance companies, are responsible for the majority of the medical bill. In recent years, State insurance departments have been fielding consumer complaints related to large balances left to them from charges not covered by insurance providers for air ambulance services. Patients in need of lifesaving air medical services have been left with balances of more than $25,000 when an air medical provider opts out of agreements with insurance providers. Let me share a couple of examples of what I am talking about with my colleagues. In one case, a young couple had a premature child who was in need of intensive care at another hospital. The couple was insured and assumed that the 1-hour helicopter flight to the other hospital was covered by their insurance. The air ambulance company presented them with a bill for almost $40,000, but because the company had not entered into an agreement with the couples' insurance company, they were reimbursed only about $15,000 of that bill, leaving them $24,000 that they needed to pay when they thought they had insurance coverage for the bill. In another case, a woman suffered a snowmobiling accident and was airlifted off a mountain. The charge was $40,000. Her insurance paid about $15,000, and so she was responsible for the $25,000 balance to the company. Now, in that case she negotiated with the company and got it down to a balance of $13,000, but that $13,000 she then had to pay. In a third case, a father and his daughter were airlifted from the hospital where they were to another hospital because they needed additional care. The young person's condition was deteriorating and she needed specialized care so they had to airlift her to another hospital. They had a single pilot who took them on the flight. After they returned home by car, they got a check from the insurance company for $6,800, so the insurance company paid $6,800. That left them with the balance of a bill that was almost $70,000. Again, they thought they were covered under their insurance. So my colleagues can see that this is a real concern and a real issue. Many consumers with health insurance coverage assume these medical bills will be taken care of and don't think to ask if the air transportation company is a participating provider because obviously they are in an emergency situation. Unfortunately, as a result, after the patient has stabilized and is in recovery, they learn they will be faced with an expensive medical bill they hadn't anticipated. In the last session of our State legislature in our State, the State legislature made an effort to address this problem in State law. What essentially the State law said was that the hospitals would have a list of providers that accept insurance as payment in full and insurance companies that do this balance billing, so then the hospital and the patient can be informed and make their decision as to the air ambulance provider. The problem is the State law was struck down in Federal court because the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 took precedence, meaning it is a Federal issue, which we understand. Obviously, airplanes cross State lines, so we understand there is a Federal aspect to it. Our amendment would allow hospitals to provide information so patients could determine which air ambulance providers accept the insurance payment as payment in full and which ones don't. Then hospitals could have that information available and patients could make their decisions accordingly. It is a very simple, straightforward amendment that would allow State legislatures to make sure that information is available for patients in their State. There are a number of organizations that are supporting this commonsense amendment, including the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the American Health Insurance Plans, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, American Heart Association, American Stroke Association, Consumers Union, and Families USA. That is the legislation in a nutshell, and I have taken a minute to explain it. Now I wish to turn to my colleague from the State of Montana and ask him--as a cosponsor of this legislation I know he has run into this problem with his constituents. So I would ask him to comment both in terms of the situations he has run into in Montana and his thoughts on how we can best address it.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Tester and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy for the next approximately 15 minutes.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOEVEN. Again, I would like to thank the Senator from Montana for joining in this bipartisan legislation and just ask that our colleagues work with us to get a good commonsense solution to solve this very urgent need. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I would like to speak in support of several amendments that I am offering to the FAA reauthorization bill. You may recall that in 2011 some of my colleagues and I offered a bipartisan amendment to a section of the bill that called for the FAA to develop a process to integrate unmanned aerial systems, UAVs or unmanned aerial vehicles, into the NAS, the National Airspace System. That legislation included drafting a plan to develop air traffic requirements for all unmanned aerial systems at test sites; certification and flight standards at nonmilitary UAS test sites, as well as the National Airspace System; and making sure that the U.S. integration plan is incorporated in NextGen, the administration's project to modernize the American air traffic control system. Importantly, it also called for the agency to designate six test sites to help accelerate the NAS integration plan. These test sites were established in December of 2013, following a competitive process that encouraged some of the very best in the fledgling field of unmanned aerial systems to apply and compete for the test sites. I am proud to say that Grand Forks in my home State of North Dakota made the cut and is one of the premier test sites and hubs for UAS research and development in America. The work they have done there and at the other five sites across the Nation has been nothing less than remarkable, which is why I am here today to make the case for some additional amendments to help them maintain their momentum. The first is Hoeven amendment No. 3500, which extends authorization for the six test sites for another 5 years. The previous FAA bill from 2012 authorized the test sites for 5 years, and the legislation before us extends that just an additional few months, through September 30, 2017. Our amendment would extend this authorization by an additional 5 years, through September 30, 2022. The Northern Plains UAS Test Site in North Dakota has some important achievements to point to: supporting NASA's UAS-related research; research and testing at up to 1,200 feet across the entire State of North Dakota, far above the limits for commercial small unmanned aerial systems; nighttime UAS operations; and approval to fly multiple types of UAS in the same airspace. Nevertheless, there is plenty of work left to do in support of integrating UAS into the national airspace, and that will require investment and support from industry partners. They will be much more likely to use the FAA test sites if they can be sure those test sites will be operational beyond the end of next year. My second amendment is Hoeven amendment No. 3538, the private aircraft exemption, which will help to expedite testing of private industry aircraft by not requiring them to lease their aircraft to the test site in order to fly. The six UAS test sites are intended to work with the UAS industry to perform research necessary to integrate the UAS, unmanned aircraft, into the national airspace. What are we trying to achieve here? We are trying to achieve concurrent use of the NAS, national airspace. Right now we obviously have manned aircraft flying all over the United States, but where we are going is we will have manned and unmanned aircraft flying at the same time, concurrently in the national airspace. We have to make sure that is done safely. We have to make sure that we address the privacy issues. There is a whole gamut of issues that have to be addressed to do this safely and well. That is what the test sites are developing so that we can move to that new paradigm. It is vitally important. We fly unmanned aircraft all over the world through our military, but we have to figure out how to do that safely and well in our airspace with civilian aircraft. That involves a lot of things--commercial aviation, general aviation, and unmanned aircraft for a whole myriad of uses. This is not an easy proposition, so we have to figure it out. If we don't do this, we will pay a huge price because right now the United States is the aviation technology leader in the world. The United States leads aviation technology globally, but if we don't figure out how to do this, somebody else will, and we can't afford to forfeit our leadership in aviation technology. We can't afford it from a military standpoint, and we can't afford it from a civilian standpoint if we are going to continue to lead in technology, job growth, the jobs of the future, and the strongest, most innovative, dynamic economy both now and in the future. We are working on the test sites to make this happen, but currently you have to lease your aircraft to the test site. You can't just come to the test site and get approval to fly. That is what we need to change. Currently, as I say, any private industry partner seeking to fly at a test site must first lease their unmanned aerial system--their plane or drone or whatever you want to call it, RPA, remotely piloted aircraft-- they have to lease that to the test site. As a public entity, it can then clear the aircraft to operate as a public aircraft while at that test site. The problem is that the UAS industry is understandably reluctant to release their UAS aircraft to the test site for research work and has particular concerns about losing proprietary information through the leasing process. Remember, this is the latest, greatest new technology. Companies are investing hundreds of millions and billions of dollars in this new technology. They want to keep it proprietary. They don't want to disclose it to all of their competitors. At our test site right now, we have not only Northrup Grumman but General Atomics--manufacturers of Global Hawk, Predator, and Reaper--doing this kind of research and development. They need to protect those proprietary technology developments. Obviously this is an important issue for them as they are working to develop the aircraft of the future. My amendment would provide an exemption for the test sites to fly civil aircraft subject to whatever terms and conditions the FAA Administrator deems appropriate for public safety and subject to the terms of the certificate of authorization already granted to the test sites. Remember, the test sites have to get approval from the FAA to fly all of these different aircraft at the test site, so the FAA has already provided that prior authority. We don't need to have the additional work of in essence making these test aircraft public aircraft. These terms govern the airspace and conditions under which the test sites can operate with unmanned aerial systems. This amendment is common sense. Current procedures block the test sites from assisting industry in developing technology that integrates into the national airspace. This amendment would enable the test sites to perform as originally intended; that is, as a bridge between industry and the FAA to develop concurrent airspace use for unmanned aircraft, which is a key part of the future of aviation. Test sites will have the same responsibilities for safely managing the operation of UAS under their certificate of authorization as they do today. So this is about doing things in a more efficient way without any effect on public safety. In addition, the FAA already grants numerous exemptions on a case-by- case basis to industry partners, known as section 333 exemptions. This amendment effectively serves as a test site 333 exemption, which should help decrease demand for the FAA to press the other exemption requests, again streamlining the process, making it work. Finally, I filed Hoeven 3543, which leverages test site and center of excellence participation in the unmanned traffic management pilot program. The underlying FAA legislation establishes an FAA-led pilot program to develop an unmanned traffic management system, which will be essential to the final goal of integrating the UAS into the national airspace. This is how we manage traffic--manned and unmanned aircraft-- in the same airspace. How do we manage that safely and well? The amendment would require the FAA Administrator to leverage to the maximum extent possible the capabilities of the FAA's UAS center of excellence and the six UAS test sites when developing and carrying out the pilot program. So we are saying to the FAA: Work with the test sites and the national center of excellence, which we have developed for unmanned aerial systems to move this technology forward. Right now, the FAA is behind the curve. The technology is racing forward, and we have to maximize our use of these resources to make sure that we are developing UAS the right way, in a way that the public feels is safe, that respects privacy rights, and that addresses all of the different potential concerns. Again, it is about doing things right and well with this new technology. Again, this is a commonsense amendment. The FAA should use the capabilities Congress has put at its disposal, along with its interagency and industry partners, to advance development of unmanned traffic management systems. My amendments give our UAS test sites the tools they need to stay up front, which will ultimately yield research benefits on behalf of our country. We have all seen and read in the media about how these remarkable new aircraft are playing a big military role in the security of our Nation. They achieve military objectives without putting our men and women in uniform in harm's way. We are also seeing how they play an important role in border protection and other security operations. Less well known is their use in precision agriculture, disaster mitigation, traffic safety, building inspections, energy infrastructure monitoring, and many uses that have yet to be imagined. The UAS industry is anxiously awaiting the approval of rules to begin operating small UAS at low altitudes. This is an important step, but it is just one step. It is limited, which is why we need the test sites for the research and development necessary to move forward. The UAS test sites and the center of excellence are in a position to stay ahead of the curve. Doing the research will enable the next phase in UAS integration from flying at night and beyond line of sight to flying higher and farther using larger aircraft. These amendments are important for the success of an exciting and rapidly growing segment of aviation in our country. The goal is to make UAS a fully working component of not only America's larger aviation system but also of our economy. As I said, we are the world's leader in aviation technology. We must continue to forge ahead to maintain that leadership. I will close by saying that almost all of us now have an iPhone or Android--some type of phone in our pocket. It is so much more, isn't it? It is a full-blown computer. Think back 10 years. We had no idea that we would all have these cell phones or that they would have all of these amazing capabilities. But look at how much we use it every day in our lives. Well, I make that analogy with unmanned aircraft. What is it going to look like 10 years from now? What is it going to be like? Well, we don't know yet. We don't know what all these applications and what all these uses are going to be. But what we do know is that the United States needs to be the leader in aviation technology development. That is what we are talking about with these test sites-- making sure that we can do it safely and well and that we can maintain that global leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I would respond to the good Senator from Montana that I think we have both described the importance in terms of the costs that people may face, particularly in a time when they are in an emergency or crisis situation. It is very difficult for them already. So, look, we need to do everything we can to make sure they can get quality medical care and that they are as informed as possible in making those decisions and trying to make those decisions easier for them, particularly at a time when they are faced with a life-threatening situation or crisis situation. The good Senator from Montana really put his finger on it when he said that we are not asking for a Federal one-size-fits-all solution. Instead, we are saying: Let's empower the States to do what they can in terms of helping people when they are faced with this kind of emergency situation. So if one really looks at this amendment--and we have done a fair amount of work on it with health care providers, talking to the ambulance association and others, and we will continue to work on it. But essentially we are saying: Make sure people have that information readily available so that when they are in an emergency or crisis situation, they can make a quick and good decision that fits their needs, and let the providers compete for the business. This goes to empowering people in terms of choice and deciding what kind of care they want, and then they can make an informed decision about what they want. If they are in a situation where health insurance has to cover it, then they make that decision accordingly. If they want some other service in a particular circumstance and they are willing to pay out of pocket, then they can make that choice too. This really is about making sure that people have the information, particularly at a critical time when they really need it, so they get the health care they need and they also have some of those--what costs they are going to face. That is what it is all about. That is true in our States, which are more rural States, but it is true in the urban States as well.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I come to the floor today in support of the biotechnology labeling solutions bill. This legislation will avoid a patchwork of State labeling regulations and in so doing will save families thousands of dollars a year to protect American jobs and provide consumers with accurate, transparent information about their food. First of all, I wish to thank Chairman Pat Roberts for his leadership on the issue of bioengineered food and for bringing forward his chairman's mark. Specifically, the biotechnology labeling solutions bill does three things. It immediately ends the problem of having a patchwork of inconsistent State GMO labeling programs. Second, it creates a voluntary bioengineered labeling program within 1 year. So USDA would set up a voluntary program within a year, and then within 3 years, it requires the Department of Agriculture to create a mandatory bioengineering labeling program if there is insufficient information available on products' bioengineered content. So it makes sure that we don't have a patchwork of 50 State labeling laws. It sets up a voluntary program within 1 year. Then, if the information isn't out there sufficient for consumers, it makes sure that USDA follows up and ensures that the information is provided and that it is provided in a variety of ways that work for consumers but also work for our farmers and ranchers and for the food industry so that we don't raise costs for our consumers. This bill will ensure that the Vermont GE labeling law, which goes into effect on July 1 of this year, does not end up costing American families billions of dollars when they fill up their grocery carts. If we don't act soon, food companies will have one of three options for complying with the Vermont law. No. 1, they can order new packaging for products going to each individual State with a labeling law; No. 2, they could reformulate products so that no labeling is required; or No. 3, they can stop selling to States with mandatory labeling laws. Of course, all of these options or any of these options would not only increase the cost of food to consumers but could result in job losses in our ag communities. For millions of Americans, the GMO or bioengineered food labeling issue will impact the affordability of their food. Testimony provided by the USDA, FDA, and the EPA to the Senate Agriculture Committee last fall made clear that foods produced with the benefit of biotechnology are safe. Nobody is disputing that the food is safe. The real risk is if we don't address the Vermont GMO law, real families will have a tougher time making ends meet, they will face higher costs, and they are going to have more challenges getting the foods they want. In fact, if food companies have to apply Vermont's standards to all products nationwide, it will result in an estimated increase of over $1,050 per year per household. For families having a tough time paying bills, this is in essence a regressive tax. It will hurt people of low incomes more than it will hurt people with substantial means. From a jobs perspective, the story is also concerning. It has been calculated that if Vermont's law is applied nationwide, it will cost over $80 billion a year to switch products over to non-GMO supplies. Those billions of dollars a year in additional costs will hurt our ag and food industry that creates more than 17 million jobs nationwide. In my home State of North Dakota alone, 94,000 jobs or 38 percent of our State's economy rely on the ag and food industry. This is a bad time to make it more expensive to do business in the ag sector. Recently, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City testified that net farm income in 2015 is more than 50 percent less than it was in 2013, and it is expected to go down again in 2016. So this is an issue that affects our family farms directly across the country. If Vermont's law goes forward, many farmers who rely on biotech crops to increase productivity will be deprived of that critical tool. This Senator knows how hard our farmers work and how much they put on the line every year when they have to take out an operating loan for crops that may or may not materialize. We shouldn't ask them to feed the Nation with one hand tied behind their backs by taking away biotechnology. More than just overcoming the problems associated with having a patchwork of State regulations, I think it is important for Americans to know this legislation ensures that consumers have consistent, accurate information about the bioengineered content of their food. The biotechnology labeling solutions bill creates greater transparency for consumers by putting in place, within 1 year, a new voluntary bioengineered food labeling program to ensure products labeled as having been produced with biotechnology meet a uniform national standard. As I mentioned, food produced with the aid of bioengineering are, according to the FDA, EPA, and USDA, safe. However, many consumers want to know if the food they are buying is produced using biotechnology, which is why this legislation's national voluntary bioengineering standard makes so much sense. The voluntary program in this legislation will ensure that a consumer who buys a food product with a bioengineering smart label in North Dakota is purchasing a product that is held at the same disclosure standards as food sold in New York, California, or North Carolina. This voluntary program will let the marketplace respond to consumer demand for information. You can look at the USDA organic food program, a voluntary label many consumers look for in our grocery stores. Yet this bill goes further to create a mandatory bioengineered food disclosure program if the Secretary of Agriculture finds that there is insufficient consumer access to information about bioengineered foods. We need a solution, and this bill helps keep our Nation's food affordable, it supports jobs, and it provides consumers consistent information about bioengineered foods. I urge my colleagues to work together to support this bipartisan measure. National Agriculture Day Madam President, I would like to take just a minute to acknowledge, recognize, and thank our Nation's farmers on National Agriculture Day. Today on National Agriculture Day, I want to celebrate and thank America's ag producers. That includes those in my home State of North Dakota who provide us with the lowest cost, highest quality food supply not just in the world but in the history of the world. America's grocery stores abound with fresh fruits, vegetables, and meats. Our dinner tables are able to offer our families a greater variety of nutritious, flavorful foods than ever before. They are a testament to the hard work, commitment, and innovation of our Nation's agricultural producers. Agriculture and ag-related industries is also an important part of the American economy, contributing $835 billion to our Gross Domestic Problem in 2014. Further, our America's food and ag sector provides jobs for 16 million people and contributes billions of dollars to the national economy. Agriculture also has a positive balance of trade and produces a financial surplus for our country. I especially want to thank the men and women of North Dakota who farm and ranch. They made agriculture North Dakota's largest industry with nearly $11 billion in sales last year. I am proud to say North Dakota leads the Nation in the production of 9 important commodities and is first or second in 15. This includes half of all the duram and spring wheat, more than 90 percent of the Nation's flax, and more than 85 percent of the Nation's canola. America's farmers and ranchers work through drought and floods, crop disease, hail, and other challenges year in and year out. Yet they still get up every morning, put on their boots, and go out in the field and pastures for our country. Our farmers and ranchers built America, and today they sustain it. On National Agriculture Day, we acknowledge the enormous debt of gratitude we owe them. Thank you, Madam President, and with that I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss two amendments I am submitting to S. 524, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. Across the country, including in my home State of North Dakota, families are experiencing the devastating effects of opioid and heroin addiction. In fact, in 2014, 61 percent of all overdose deaths in the United States were related to opioids. In North Dakota alone, overdose deaths have tripled in the past decade. It is no mystery why. In 2014, the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation seized 1,549 dosage units of opioids. In 2015, they seized 5,593. That is a 3\1/2\-fold increase in just 1 year, so an increase of more than three times in just 1 year. Similarly, law enforcement seizures of heroin from Canada have grown exponentially. But our data about cross-border drug smuggling is limited. To battle drug abuse effectively, we need to know not just how much but how those drugs are getting into our country. The amendments I am proposing today will strengthen the overall bill by providing law enforcement with additional resources to address security vulnerabilities at the northern border that could be exploited by drug traffickers. My first amendment allows State law enforcement to use grant funds to partner with local and Federal law enforcement agencies. In the underlying bill, the Attorney General may make grants to State law enforcement agencies to investigate the distribution of heroin and prescription opioids. My amendment allows States to use those grants to partner with local agencies, as well as the Drug Enforcement Administration--the DEA--and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In North Dakota, our law enforcement has faced increased challenges in combatting the flow of illegal drugs, including prescription opioids and heroin; however, our State has had a successful track record of partnering with local, State and Federal law enforcement to investigate and prevent criminal activities, specifically drug-related offenses. One successful example of these partnerships is the Bakken Organized Crime Strike Force. This task force was created in part by North Dakota's attorney general, Wayne Stenehjem, along with the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force, to address the increased drug activity in the Bakken oil-producing region in western North Dakota. My amendment will give States greater opportunities to partner with local and Federal agencies to investigate the trafficking of heroin, opioids, and other illicit drugs, as we have done successfully by creating these task forces in North Dakota. My next amendment also addresses drug smuggling. It requires a study of drug trafficking in States along the northern border. While there is much attention and energy focused on the trafficking of drugs through our southern border, there are vulnerabilities that exist on our northern border as well. My amendment directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Attorney General, to conduct a study on the trafficking of narcotics, specifically opioids and heroin, in States along the northern border. The Secretary of DHS and the Attorney General must submit a report on those findings to Congress. Those findings will give Congress greater insight into the security needs at our northern border to prevent the trafficking of illegal drugs into the United States. Opioid and heroin addiction is a scourge that ruins lives and crushes the spirit. S. 524 is a potent weapon in the fight against them. I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill, as well as my amendments, which seek to make the legislation even stronger by increasing collaboration among law enforcement and addressing the security needs of our northern border. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m., Monday, February 29; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 5 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that at 5 p.m., the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 524, with the time until 5:30 p.m. equally divided between the two managers or their designees; finally, that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 524 at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I join my colleague from North Dakota to honor a brave young man, Jason David Moszer, who made the ultimate sacrifice for his community. Jason Moszer was an officer since 2009 with the Fargo Police Department. He died in the line of duty 2 weeks ago today while responding to a domestic violence report in Fargo, ND. It is a tragedy that he was torn from his family and friends and torn from his life while protecting the lives of others. He dedicated himself to serving our State, and we are all grateful for his commitment to devoting his energy and talents to serve as a member of the Fargo Police Department. While at his funeral earlier this week, I appreciated the opportunity to learn more about the person Jason was and the life he lived. From his youth, he led a life of continuous service--service with the National Guard as a combat medic for 8 years, service in Bosnia, service in Iraq, and, until his passing, service to the people of Fargo as a policeman. In 2012 he and fellow officer Matthew Sliders were awarded the Department's Silver Star Medal for pulling two children from an apartment fire. Even in death he served by donating his organs to others in need. In dying, his organs and tissue helped save the lives of at least five other people. Clearly, Officer Moszer was a man committed to doing things for others and, consequently, he was respected and admired by everyone who came into contact with him. Hearing stories about the pranks he pulled, the friends he brought together, his love of camping and cooking all round out the picture of a man who touched the lives of so many, a man who was loved by so many. We owe him and those who love him a tremendous debt for their sacrifice because his family and friends paid a high price. We in North Dakota pride ourselves on being a safe State, but incidents like this remind us we are not immune to violent crime. They also remind us of the enormous debt we owe to Officer Moszer and to all the men and women in law enforcement who leave home every day and go to work to protect us and help make ours the wonderful State North Dakotans are so proud of. Mikey and I extend our heartfelt condolences to Officer Moszer's wife Rachel and their children, Dillan and Jolee. It is difficult to lose a loved one, and, more so, to lose one so young and under such circumstances. During this difficult time, we pray that the Moszers are able to find comfort in the love of their family and friends, the support of their community, and the warm memories they have of Jason, which they will carry for the rest of their lives. Please know that you will continue to be in our thoughts and prayers. One final note. Senator Heitkamp and I were at the funeral. I think there were about 6,000 people at the funeral, which is a testament to Officer Moszer and his life. He truly epitomizes sacrifice and service to others. May God bless him and his family. Mr. President, I turn the floor back to my colleague, Senator Heitkamp.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending legislation to sanction the regime of North Korea for its belligerent behavior toward the United States and its neighbors. Today the Senate takes up a bill to increase sanctions on North Korea. Most Americans would be surprised, I think, to learn it is still possible to increase and strengthen sanctions on North Korea. In fact, while we have had certain sanctions on North Korea in place for many years, these sanctions have never been as strong as they could be and should be, and that is why we are here today. We are now dealing with a third generation of dictators in Kim Jong Un, who is proving to be as disastrous as his infamous father and grandfather, Kim Il-sung, the founder of the Kim regime. The Kim family has done whatever it thought necessary to stay in power, including use of criminal enterprise to raise revenues and engage in systematic human rights abuses against its own people. The legislation before us today requires the President to sanction anyone contributing to North Korea's weapons program, money laundering activities, and human rights abuses. It also requires sanctions on anyone helping North Korea raise hard currency through the sale of minerals and precious metals. Additionally, the bill requires sanctions on anyone engaging in activities that would threaten cyber security. Perhaps most importantly, the legislation urges the administration to designate North Korea as a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern--a step that would block links between North Korea and the U.S. banking system. This is a very powerful sanction. If someone is doing business with the Kim regime, they should not be doing business with the United States banking system. We need to pass this bill and push the administration to leverage the power of the Treasury Department to cut North Korea from the international banking system. As I have said, this is a very strong and powerful sanction. It needs to be put in place and then fully enforced by the administration. The imposition of sanctions, however, cannot be the end of our North Korea policy. As we have seen over the past few months, the Kim regime is intent upon disrupting the East Asian security environment, threatening both the United States and our allies with ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. Sanctions can work, but they must be enforced and they will take time. In addition, we need to augment these sanctions with other steps to limit the North Korean threat. First, we should accelerate efforts to develop missile defenses both in East Asia and in the United States. Sanctions can curtail progress in North Korea's nuclear and missile programs; however, we must deal with the capabilities North Korea already has. We must ensure we are prepared for any further advancements North Korea might make before the sanctions take hold. Second, we need to ensure that we have a credible and reliable nuclear force available to deter North Korea and reassure our South Korean and Japanese allies. In 2014, and again earlier this year, a nuclear-capable B-52 flew over the Korean Peninsula to perform this vital deterrence and assurance mission. But to maintain strategic credibility, we must modernize our bomber fleet and our nuclear cruise missiles. To bring the Nation's bombers up to date, the Air Force is embarking on plans to develop a new Long Range Strike Bomber capable of penetrating advanced enemy air defenses. North Korea's increasingly provocative behavior underscores our need for a bomber that can fly over any North Korean target. Now is the time to get to work on the Long Range Strike Bomber program. Similarly, we need to upgrade the nuclear cruise missile carried on the B-52 bomber. Cruise missiles fired from a distance allow us the option of threatening North Korean targets without flying over North Korean airspace. This standoff capability is tremendously important, but the existing nuclear cruise missile is based on 1970's technology and is well beyond its intended service life. We need to ensure that the Air Force has the resources necessary to develop a new cruise missile that can defeat modern air defense systems for decades to come. We also need to ensure that the National Nuclear Security Administration has the resources it needs to refurbish the warhead that flies on the cruise missile. Letting our bomber and cruise missile capabilities become obsolete would send a disastrous signal to the Kim regime that its nuclear program has yielded strategic benefits. On the other hand, modernizing our forces shows Mr. Kim that he will never get a nuclear upper hand in East Asia. The bottom line is that we need a holistic approach to North Korea. We need the sanctions that we are considering here today in the Senate. We need a strong, strategic deterrent, as I have described. I urge my colleagues to support the sanctions in front of us to put pressure on North Korea financially. This needs to be a comprehensive, ongoing, sustained effort. We have to stand strong against our adversaries and stand strong with our allies, we have to do it consistently, we have to do it over time, and we have to be steadfast. That is the type of foreign policy that can be effective. That is the kind of foreign policy we need to undertake. That is what we are trying to accomplish with this legislation. I commend the sponsors of this legislation who are here on the floor today. I further hope that my colleagues will support not only this legislation but critical investments in our nuclear bombers and cruise missile forces when we consider the annual Defense bills later this year. I am very familiar with these systems as the B-52s are based on Minot Air Force Base in my State. They provide a tremendous deterrent and a very important part of the nuclear triad, but we have to continue to invest in that nuclear triad--in the bombers, in the ICBM missiles, and in our submarine fleet. I believe that both sanctions and a strong military are critical to our national security and that of our allies, as well as maintaining stability in this potentially volatile part of the world. As we have said before, the United States is the world's best hope for freedom, for peace, and for security. Thank you, Mr. President. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letter be printed in the Record in recognition of the service of Edward Johnson, chief financial officer of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, upon his retirement from the Federal Government.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. If the EPA finds a State permit program deficient, then the EPA can take direct control over the State's permit program in that State. If a State doesn't want to have its own permit program, the EPA runs the permit program for the State. Mr. President, our amendment is about responsible regulation. It is about certainty for recyclers and for the American public, who will know that State and Federal regulators are actually working with energy producers to ensure safe disposal of coal ash. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, bipartisan approach by voting for the Hoeven-Manchin amendment. I do have another amendment to speak on, but at this time, due to time constraints, I will defer to the Senator from Massachusetts, and I thank him for his courtesy. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, this morning I discussed two amendments that I have submitted in regard to the current energy legislation, the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015. I would like to talk about a third amendment that I submitted as well. The amendment actually follows legislation that I introduced earlier entitled the ``empower States amendment.'' Essentially what the ``empower States'' legislation does is it ensures that States retain the right to manage oil and gas production in their respective State. It gives them the ability to develop hydraulic fracturing rules and to respond first to any violation that might occur, rather than having a Federal one-size-fits-all approach. This is very important, because how we produce oil and gas in States such as North Dakota is very different than how we might produce oil and gas in a State like Louisiana, for example, or some other State. So States have to have the flexibility to respond to their industry to provide regulatory certainty and to empower that investment that will help us produce more energy and do it with good environmental stewardship. This amendment also allows States to regulate oil and gas development on Bureau of Land Management lands if the State has laws and regulations in place to protect both public health and the environment. As I said, it takes a States-first approach because individual States are the first and best responders to oil and gas issues. They know their land, their geology, their water resources, and they have a primary stake in protecting their environment and their citizens. States such as North Dakota have been successful in developing oil and gas production with good environmental stewardship. Right now our State produces about 1.2 million barrels of oil a day, second only to the State of Texas. With that growth in development, our industry has had to work very closely with the State of North Dakota on a whole gamut of issues that are vitally important--not only, as I said a minute ago, in terms of producing more energy but doing it with good environmental stewardship. So that is what this legislation is all about. At the same time, this amendment provides a safety net that allows the Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA, to step in if there is a danger to health or the environment. Again, it is about making sure that States have the primary role, but it still recognizes the EPA's role as well in terms of protecting the environment and good stewardship. States would still be subject to the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act. These Federal laws have minimum standards for all States, and those minimum standards ensure consistent protection between and among the States for both the public and the environment. Surface water is protected under the EPA's Clean Water Act surface water quality standards. Drinking water is protected by the Safe Drinking Water Act, which allows the EPA to act if a contaminant is present or likely will enter an underground drinking water source. Hydraulic fracturing wastewater is regulated by the EPA's underground injection program, which is designated to the States to implement and enforce. That is what we are talking about, again--the State having the primary role in regulation of hydraulic fracturing. The EPA requires a State to have a minimum requirement in terms of protecting underground injection from endangering drinking water sources. This concludes inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. None of those requirements would change under this amendment. Instead, this amendment gives the States and tribes more certainty about under what circumstances the EPA may withdraw or amend a State's regulation. Again, it is about making sure we have the regulatory certainty out there that actually empowers the very investment that helps us produce more energy and do it with good environmental stewardship. It ensures that if the EPA does decide to intervene, it must show that its action is necessary and that the decision takes into account factors such as job loss and energy supplies. It will help States retain the right to regulate hydraulic fracturing within their borders. That makes sense, as I say, because States are the first and best responders to oil and gas issues and have been successful in developing oil and gas production regulations. It would also allow a State to regulate hydraulic fracturing on Federal lands, such as BLM lands, as I mentioned earlier. In addition, though, the amendment would prohibit new burdensome Federal rules if a State or tribe already has those rules in place. Again, the effort here is to make sure that we are empowering States to work with their industry and then, in turn, empowering those industries, through regulatory certainty, to help develop our energy future in this country and do it with good, consistent, commonsense regulation that empowers the kind of investment that we want to see for job creation and economic growth. Finally, the amendment allows for judicial review. It allows a State or tribe to seek redress for an agency's actions in a Federal court located within the State or the District of Columbia. Judicial review is very important in case there is a dispute in terms of what the EPA may require, what the State may require or what the industry feels is fair treatment. In conclusion, the legislation recognizes that States have a long record of effectively regulating oil and gas development, including hydraulic fracturing, with good environmental stewardship. The measure works to ensure that the rules for hydraulic fracturing are certain, fair, effective, and environmentally sound. These are qualities we expect in good regulation. As I said at the outset this morning in introducing a number of these amendments, to build the kind of energy plan for the future that we need we have to reduce the regulatory burden and at the same time empower the investment that will help us build the energy infrastructure we need to move energy safely and cost-effectively from where it is produced to where it is consumed in this country. With that, I look forward to working with both the chairman of our Energy and Natural Resources Committee, who is bringing this legislation forward, and the ranking member in offering these amendments, voting on these and other amendments, and trying to get to the best product we can in terms of strengthening the energy plan for this country. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.