Gary Peters

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam President, I wish to talk about an issue my colleague Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and I have been working on for 2 months. It is an issue that is sad and has been absolutely catastrophic for people who live in our State, in the city of Flint. In fact, today we had hundreds of folks from Flint come to Washington, DC, to attend a House hearing that was held to talk about what had happened in Flint and to get answers from the EPA Administrator, as well as the Governor of Michigan. The folks came to make sure their voices were heard in this tragedy, to make sure people would see them as human beings who are being afflicted by this horrible tragedy. They are in a situation where they can't turn on their tapwater and have clean water, water free from lead. I think many folks are aware of what happened. We had a situation where an unelected emergency manager was appointed by the Governor to save dollars, to save money, and in the process contaminated a water system. The decision was made to move away from clean Detroit water from the Detroit water system--water that comes from Lake Huron in the Great Lakes--and move on a temporary basis until a new system could be put up and running that drew water from the Flint River. The Flint River was known to be water that was very corrosive. In fact, General Motors had an engine plant along the Flint River and used Flint River water in their manufacturing process but found that the water was so corrosive that it was damaging engine blocks. So they stopped using this water because of the damage it was doing to the manufacturing process, but, unfortunately, the unelected emergency manager and the State government decided to use that water for the people of Flint as a source of drinking water, and they did not put in the proper corrosion control chemicals that may have mitigated this disaster. As a result, this highly corrosive water was going through the pipes, damaging the pipes, and released very large amounts of lead that has led to the contamination of an entire water system. This should have never happened. This is a disaster that was clearly manmade. It was a result of negligence on the part of those folks who were given the trust to run the system properly. Now we are left with an absolute catastrophe in the city. Although every resident is hurt, there is no question that it is primarily the children of Flint who have been impacted as a result. That is what is so insidious about lead poisoning. Even though it will eventually be flushed out of your body, if you are ingesting this when you are young while your brain is still developing, it can have permanent brain damage. That damage can be mitigated, but it is going to require the use of wraparound education services. It is going to make sure those children have proper nutrition and make sure they have health coverage, but certainly this is every resident in Flint, not just children but also the elderly and everybody who is a resident of that city. What has been so frustrating about this effort is that certainly we know this is the State's responsibility. The State broke it. They need to fix it. The State needs to put substantial resources in place. The Governor was here today talking about some of those efforts. He needs to do a whole lot more. Everybody agrees the State has to do a whole lot more, and taking responsibility means making sure the resources are there to provide the services that are going to be necessary--not just now but for what will likely be many decades in the future. What I am concerned about, what the residents of the city of Flint are concerned about, is that although right now this issue has received national attention and the eyes of the country are focused on Flint, they know that sooner or later the TV cameras will go, that the lights will not be shining on Flint, and people may forget what happened in Flint. However, the people of Flint will be left dealing with this problem for decades to come. We cannot let that happen. These people cannot be forgotten. Certainly Senator Stabenow and I have been working aggressively to hopefully force the Governor to create a future fund that will provide resources for years to come for the people who have been impacted by this horrible crisis. Even though this is a State responsibility and the State needs to step up and do more, there is also a role for the Federal Government. Wherever there has been a disaster anywhere in the country, the Federal Government has stepped up and helped those folks who have been the victims of disaster. Some argue this is a manmade disaster, the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in it, and we only deal with natural disasters, but I would just say ask the people of Flint: Does it matter who actually caused this problem? Can we be there to help folks? They don't care. They don't really care where it came from. They just know their children have been poisoned. They have ingested lead. They know they can't use the water. Even now, although they have filters, a lot of them can't use the water. They are living on bottled water. Today I had a woman named Gladys who came up to me. She traveled to Washington to tell her story. She brought a bag with hair in it. She is losing her hair as a result of using some of this water. She can't use her home. She was in tears as she talked about the lost value of her home, her entire life's savings in this house. Now she doesn't know what that house is worth because she is not sure whether the water is safe to drink. Folks in Flint don't care who caused this problem, they just need help. In the past, the Federal Government and this body, the Senate, have always stepped up to help those in need. That is the right thing to do. That is what the American people expect us to do. The American people look to make sure that they are always in a position to help those in need. It is our values. It is who we are as a country. It is who we are as a people. Yet it has been extremely difficult to get that help out of this body. I am pleased to say that in the last 2 months we have made some progress. Senator Murkowski of Alaska and Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma have been great in working with Senator Stabenow and me. We have been able to build a list of cosponsors who are also helping us in this effort: Senator Burr, Senator Capito, Senator Kirk, and Senator Portman. A number of Senators have come together on both sides of the aisle to say: Here is a solution we can get behind. The proposal Senator Stabenow and I have worked on will provide money through the Safe Drinking Water Fund. It will provide grants for any community that has an emergency. Any community, not just Flint, that finds itself in an emergency of this kind could reaccess these resources. Although Flint is the only community right now that would qualify, we believe there are other communities that will likely qualify in the future. In fact, there may be some in a relatively short period of time. It also creates a loan fund of potentially up to $700 million-- perhaps even more--that every single community can access. This is an issue every community in our country may potentially face. With aging infrastructure, we know there are incredible infrastructure needs that have to be met, and the legislation we have worked on helps every community of every single State deal with this very important issue. It also addresses some of the health issues I mentioned earlier in my talk--issues that help the children and the residents who have been poisoned by lead--by plussing up public health programs for lead abatement and helping the CDC do its great work to help folks. This is a commonsense proposal that addresses some of the pressing needs in the city of Flint, while also addressing some of the pressing needs we face as a country to make sure we are investing in water infrastructure so that a citizen, no matter where they live or who they are, can turn on their tap and have clean drinking water come out of it. We have also worked hard to address some of the concerns we heard from the other side of the aisle, in addition to the fact that this is open to all communities, not just Flint. We also heard that folks wanted it paid for, and certainly Senator Stabenow and I believe that as well. So we are fiscally responsible. We found a pay-for in a program that deals with vehicle technology but one we thought was important to use to help the people of Flint and help water infrastructure projects across the country. The important thing about this, in addition to dealing with the problem and in addition to its being completely paid for, is that it also reduces the deficit. It will actually generate more money than is necessary to pay for this bill and will reduce the deficit. In the past, when we have had a national disaster such as the one we have seen in Flint, normally we see emergency funds being used, as we have done with bridge collapses and oil refinery fires and water main breaks. Even though that is probably the best source to fund this--if you treat the people of Flint like we treat other folks all around the country, we would use emergency funds--we went the extra distance to take a fund and make sure it would completely pay for this program, while at the same time reducing the deficit. We have done backflips and have worked with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and have built support, and I believe if this bill went to the floor, it would pass. I think it would pass by a good margin. We believe we have very strong support for it. Yet here we are today, about ready to break for 2 weeks, and we are going to break without addressing this issue that has such strong bipartisan support. This has been a work in progress for over 2 months. It is ready to be voted on, yet we are going to leave without that vote. We are going to leave because there is basically one Senator out there who doesn't want to see it move forward--one Senator who doesn't really like this proposal. I am not going to speak for that individual, but they have their issues and they continually want more and more. The folks who are suffering right now are the people of Flint. I wish that one Senator who has the hold would have met with the people I met with this morning and that Senator Stabenow and some of our other colleagues met with this morning. I wish that Senator would have heard their stories, heard their anguish, and saw the tears in their eyes as they talked about what they are dealing with. Yet this Senator continues to have a hold. Now, I understand the Senator may have a problem with a particular piece of legislation. That happens. We are not going to agree on everything. I would just ask that we allow this legislation to come to the floor and the one Senator who has the hold--if he doesn't like the legislation, that is fine--can vote no if he likes. That is certainly his prerogative as an elected Member of this body--to vote no. But please let the other 99 Senators in this body have a say. That is all we are asking for. Put it on the floor and let this body make the final decision as to whether or not this is an appropriate response to an absolutely catastrophic disaster that has hit a community in this country of ours. I don't think that is asking a lot. Now, I am a new Member here. I am new, but I cannot imagine that folks here in the Senate will not allow legislation that is so important for people who have been impacted in such an extreme way to come to the Senate Floor. What would our Founding Fathers think if they were to look upon the Senate? They were concerned about factions and political parties and a body that would be paralyzed to really work on the tough issues that our country was going to face. I can't imagine looking in the eyes of our Founders and saying: The Senate--the deliberative body, the body that is supposed to take up the really tough issues facing us as a country--refuses to act and refuses to even put it on the floor so it can be debated and voted upon. So I will close and pass this on to my colleague, the senior Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, and let her continue. I am certainly disappointed, and I would ask all of my colleagues to please join with us to work to get this to the floor so we can have a vote. The people of Flint cannot wait any longer. The rest of the country is looking at the Senate and they are shaking their heads wondering why the Senate is incapable of putting this issue on the floor and having a simple up-or- down vote. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, our Nation's Founders fought the British Empire to create an independent nation governed by laws. They fought so their children could be freed from the callous fiats of a monarchy on the other side of the ocean. Our Founders learned from the excesses and mistakes of European powers and came together to design a new system of government, a carefully balanced system, one of distributed powers and responsibilities, checks and balances. American schoolchildren learn about the three coequal branches of government and the unique roles they play in maintaining that carefully crafted balance of power. A strong, independent, and fully functioning judiciary is inseparable from a healthy American democracy. Our Founders wisely reached consensus to create a system wherein the President designates judicial nominees and the Senate provides advice and consent. This prevents undue influence or control by either the White House or the Congress over the Supreme Court. Simply put, the Senate has a constitutional duty to provide timely consideration of any President's Supreme Court nominees. Today, I would like to focus on three distinct and complementary reasons why we must fulfill this obligation. First, we should examine the ample historical records available to determine the intent of our Nation's Founders. Second, we should look at the actual text of the Constitution and the plain meaning of the words in the document we all agree represents the highest law in the land. Finally, we can look at the Senate's track record and traditions when it comes to considering Supreme Court nominees. As Senators, we raise our hand and take a solemn oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and faithfully discharge the duties of our office. One of the core constitutionally mandated duties of serving as a Senator is to advise and consent on Supreme Court nominees, and it is not one we can take lightly. We are fortunate that many of our Nation's forefathers were prolific writers who left us reams of documents that now help us understand the debates and the discussions that led to our current system of government. Our Nation's fourth President and the youngest member of the Constitutional Convention, James Madison, kept a record of the debates that occurred during those formative months of our Nation in the summer of 1787. I urge my colleagues to revisit this record as they consider how to proceed with our Nation's next Supreme Court nominee. On June 4, 1787, James Wilson of Pennsylvania--a signatory of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the Continental Congress-- argued that justices should be appointed by the executive branch alone and strongly opposed appointments made by the Federal legislature. Madison disliked the appointment of judges by the legislature but also wasn't satisfied with a unilateral Executive appointment. He ultimately suggested that judicial appointments should be made by the Senate. This issue of judicial appointments was debated vigorously and continued over multiple sessions as delegates traded proposals. Charles Pinckney of South Carolina and Roger Sherman of Connecticut opposed Wilson and pushed for the legislative appointment of Justices. Madison, however, moved us closer to our present system by suggesting that only the Senate should have the power to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court and not the House of Representatives. Nathaniel Gorham, a delegate from Massachusetts, first introduced the concept of appointment by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. This balanced approach resolved the concerns of delegates who believed unilateral Presidential appointments bordered on monarchy, while also addressing the concern that legislative appointments were simply too vulnerable to the fleeting parochial interests that may dominate the discussion on any given day. Months later, on September 7, 1787, the delegates unanimously agreed on the final language that governs the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court Justices to this day. Our Founders' focus on the appointment and confirmation of the Supreme Court Justices was not an academic exercise, nor was it an intergovernmental turf war. It was an iterative, deliberative process with a clear goal: a strong and independent judiciary. Alexander Hamilton, probably the most prolific of our Founders when it comes to the written word, directly addressed the independence of the judiciary in The Federalist Papers. He argued: ``Liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments.'' Hamilton was concerned that a Supreme Court too heavily influenced by Congress or the White House would not adequately protect the rights and freedoms of the American people. He wrote that an independent judiciary ``will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.'' Tying the hands of the Supreme Court by keeping an empty seat on the nine-member bench amounts to the union between the departments that Hamilton warned us about. Refusing to even consider a Supreme Court nominee strengthens the Senate to the detriment of the executive and judicial branches, throws off a carefully crafted balance of power, and contravenes our Founders' intent. Some legal scholars, Senators, and members of the judiciary argue that intent is irrelevant and that we should strictly construe the words on the page. Let's look at the plain meaning of the constitutional text. Article 3, section 1, states that ``The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.'' While lower courts could be established by Congress, the Supreme Court resolves issues between and among the States. It is the highest Court in the land, a Court of finality. The Constitution specifically addresses the appointment of Justices to the Supreme Court. Article 2, section 2, states the President ``shall nominate''--and I repeat ``shall nominate''--``and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall''--and I repeat ``shall''--``appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court.'' ``Shall'' is not a word that is considered ambiguous. Its meaning hasn't evolved over time. It is not open for interpretation. It is not permissive in nature. It is instructive, and it is clear. There are many modern-day issues we face that our Founders could have never imagined. We will grapple with novel constitutional questions for as long as this Nation exists. But the question of how Supreme Court Justices are appointed is something our Founders debated, decided, and they enshrined in the Constitution. The President is required to nominate a Justice, and the Senate has the job of confirming or rejecting that appointment. If the Senate attempts to undermine the President's constitutional responsibility to nominate a Justice and this body fails to provide advice and consent on that nomination--well, we then have abdicated one of the Senate's most important and sacred constitutional obligations. The Senate has a longstanding tradition of swiftly considering and confirming judicial nominees. Presidents and the Senate have historically taken their responsibility to fill the Supreme Court very seriously, even when they were at odds over who that nominee may have been. I am surprised and also disappointed that so many of my colleagues seem to be ignoring their constitutional obligations in a stark departure from the history of the U.S. Senate. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, since the Judiciary Committee's creation 200 years ago, they have typically reported Supreme Court nominations that were opposed by a committee majority to allow the full Senate to make the final decision on whether the nominee should be confirmed. Let me repeat this very important fact. Even if a nominee was opposed in committee, their nomination was still brought to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Let's also consider recent history. Since 1975, the time from a President's formal nomination to hearing has averaged 42 days. The time from a nomination to committee vote has averaged 57 days. The time from a nomination to floor vote has averaged 70 days. The current vacancy we are dealing with occurred 269 days before the 2016 election and with 342 days remaining in President Obama's term in office. Without doing a whole lot of math, it is safe to say that there is more than enough time to nominate, consider, and confirm a Supreme Court Justice before the November election if we move at a deliberate, average pace, on par with what has existed for over four decades. If the Senate waits for a new administration before even considering a nominee, we will be approaching a full year with an empty seat on the highest Court in the land. Not since the American Civil War has the Senate taken longer than a year to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. There is a reason that Presidents and the Senate work together and historically do not drag out Supreme Court nominations: An eight-member Supreme Court simply cannot fully do its job. The cases in which the Supreme Court relies on having all nine Justices to break a deadlock are often those that are most contested. They involve timely, novel legal issues and resolve splits between Federal circuit courts. Legal scholar Justin Pidot recently cited Chief Justice William Rehnquist regarding situations where the court of appeals had arrived at different conclusions about the resolution of legal issues. Rehnquist said: ``Affirmance of each of such conflicting results by an equally divided Court would lay down `one rule in Athens, and another in Rome,' with a vengeance.'' Over 30 constitutional law scholars recently echoed that sentiment, writing: ``A vacancy on the Court for a year and a half likely would mean many instances where the Court could not resolve a split among the circuits. There would be the very undesirable result that the same federal law would differ in meaning in various parts of the country.'' Federal law is just that: It is Federal. We cannot have one interpretation of Federal law in Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky and a whole different interpretation of law in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana. Previous Presidents have weighed in on the importance of a fully operational Court. President Reagan said: ``Every day that passes with a Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body.'' I know many of my colleagues in the Senate revere President Reagan, and I wish to repeat his important words that have so much relevance to what we are debating here today. He said: ``Every day that passes with a Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body.'' In fact, President Reagan was able to make a Supreme Court appointment in his final year in office. The Senate fulfilled its duties by providing timely consideration of that nominee, Justice Anthony Kennedy. Forcing lower courts to serve as the courts of last resort empowers congressionally created courts and weakens the Supreme Court in a way that was never intended by the Framers of the United States Constitution. I wish to remind my colleagues that the Constitution allows Congress to decide how to organize the lower courts. But the Constitution requires--it requires--the advice and consent of the Senate for confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. We must do our job so that the Supreme Court can do theirs. The American people have elected President Obama to office twice, and he has a constitutional obligation and clear authority to nominate a candidate to succeed Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. The Senate has previously confirmed six Supreme Court nominees in Presidential election years, including most recently under President Reagan. There is no reason we should not consider any nominee put forward by the President with a fair hearing and a vote. Each and every Member of this body has the responsibility to thoroughly scrutinize and decide whether or not to confirm the President's nominee. I ran for the U.S. Senate because of my desire to serve the people of the State of Michigan. I took an oath, as did every Member of this body, swearing to defend the Constitution and faithfully discharge the duties of our office. The Senate must honor the thoughtfulness of our country's forefathers and respect the independence of each of the branches of our Nation's government. We must also respect the United States Constitution. The role of the Supreme Court is simply too important to our democracy for the Senate to ignore the Constitution and wait nearly a year to do its job. Members of this body must fulfill their obligations. The Members of this body must honor their duty and uphold their constitutional oath. And the Members of this body must fully consider and evaluate the qualifications of any nominee the President submits. I look forward to doing my own thorough review of the President's nominee and working with my colleagues to fulfill our essential constitutional duties. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons, for his leadership on this very important topic. I could not agree with him more that we need to fund the IAEA, that we need to confirm Adam Szubin for the position of Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, and that our European allies must join us in sanctions against Mahan Air. The JCPOA is focused upon one clear goal: preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The fact that an agreement like this was able to be achieved at the negotiating table is a testament to the strong economic sanctions that were imposed on Iran in direct response to Iran's past illicit nuclear activities. The JCPOA required Iran to complete key nuclear-related steps, verified by the IAEA, before any sanctions were removed. Iran has shipped out 25,000 pounds of low-enriched uranium, thereby tripling its breakout time. Iran has removed the core of the Arak heavy water plutonium reactor and has rendered it unusable. Iran is also limited to 300 kilograms of uranium enriched to only 3.67 percent, which is below weapons grade. These are positive steps toward preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. But they came at a time when the world community possessed the most leverage, and Iran had the most to lose by not complying with the deal. Now, in the aftermath of implementation day and with certain sanctions relief provided to Iran, we must remain increasingly vigilant in our efforts to counter the Iranian regime's support for terrorism and violations of human rights of their own people. The Iranian regime must understand that there will be consequences for violations, however minor, of the JCPOA. If Iran seeks a nuclear weapon, the world community, led by the United States, is ready to implement the snapback of sanctions in response. And if Iran attempts to test our resolve through small but persistent violations of the JCPOA, they need to be punished swiftly. I recently traveled to Vienna, along with Senator Coons and several of my colleagues, to meet directly with the U.S. Mission to the International Organization in Vienna, including the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA. The IAEA is the world's ``nuclear watchdog'' and the organization that, under the terms of the JCPOA, is responsible for verifying Iran's compliance with the terms of the deal. We must ensure that the IAEA, which serves as our eyes and ears on the ground in Iran, with direct access and 24/7 online monitoring capabilities of nuclear sites, has the resources necessary to execute its critical mission. It is incredibly important that we continue to ensure strict compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The terms of the JCPOA do not change, regardless of progress or setbacks in Iran's politics, and our resolve to vigorously enforce the deal will not waver. We will judge Iran's leadership by its actions and not words. Last week, Iran conducted some elections. But let's be clear: Many of the Iranian candidates being touted as so-called moderates are labeled that way simply because of their support for, or connections to, Iranian President Rouhani. But it is important to remember that, according to the United Nations, Iran continues to ``execute more individuals per capita than any other country in the world.'' Executions peaked at 753 in 2014, during President Rouhani's second year in office, including those conducted in public, along with executions of women and at least one juvenile. Amnesty International has reported on continued crackdowns against artists and activists who were tortured into confessions to crimes such as ``spreading propaganda against the system'' and ``insulting Islamic sanctities.'' And we know that Iran remains a leading state sponsor of terrorism. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the election results in Iran are in any way transformational. I agree with my colleague's assessment that Iran's elections are neither free nor fair. The Guardian Council, a top clerical body of the Iranian regime, disqualified thousands of candidates from standing for election. We cannot reasonably expect a transformational shift in Iran's foreign policy, human rights record or support for terrorism when the hardline regime elements that promote these disturbing policies are allowed to prescreen and disqualify candidates for office. Iran's support for terrorism and the ability to foster instability in the region has serious consequences for our European allies and for our own homeland security. I served in the U.S. Navy Reserve, including time in the Persian Gulf, where I saw firsthand the Strait of Hormuz and the strategic chokepoint that exists there. Last year Iran seized a commercial vessel in the States, requiring the U.S. Navy to accompany vessels and provide security when moving in and out of the Persian Gulf. The Iranian regime is a threat not just to the Middle East but to the security and stability of the entire world. In closing, I want to reiterate the need to confirm highly qualified nominees like Alan Szubin, who will oversee Treasury Department sanctions against Iran and the front companies used to support illicit activities, and we need to urge our allies to join us in imposing these sanctions. We need to ensure that we provide the IAEA with the resources required to do its job and conduct rigorous daily oversight of the JCPOA. Most importantly, we must continue to provide strict oversight of the JCPOA and ensure compliance with its terms. We cannot let up or be distracted by perceived improvements or setbacks in Iran's politics. We made a commitment to the American people that Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. This is a commitment we must uphold and be focused on each and every day. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of amendment No. 3391 to the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2015. I am proud to join Senator Daines in filing this important amendment. The Daines-Peters amendment would make it possible for certain dishonorably discharged veterans to be eligible for veterans treatment courts. Specifically, the amendment would allow the Attorney General to determine veterans treatment court eligibility on a case-by-case basis for dishonorably discharged veterans who have been diagnosed with service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder, military sexual trauma, or traumatic brain injuries. Currently, veterans treatment courts are open to any veteran with a discharge other than dishonorable or a dishonorable discharge that can be attributed to substance abuse. However, studies have shown a direct connection to PTSD, TBI, and MST are a leading cause of substance abuse disorder. In general, drug courts reduce correctional costs, protect community safety, and improve public welfare. Veterans treatment courts take the work of drug courts one step further. According to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, veterans treatment courts bring the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care networks, the Veterans Benefits Administration, the State departments of veterans affairs, volunteer veteran mentors and veterans family support organizations together in one place in order to provide support for veterans. These are resources that speak to the unique needs of this Nation's veterans. In my home State of Michigan, Judge Michelle Friedman Appel's veterans treatment court in Oak Park is the site of weekly accountability, encouragement, and rehabilitation, and I commend her work. Our veterans treatment court judges are committed to the well-being of this Nation's veterans, connecting them to services they need to reach their full potential. Servicemembers suffering from the invisible wounds of war who are discharged, regardless of the characterization of that discharge, truly need the assistance provided by veterans treatment courts. That is why the Daines-Peters amendment is so important. Former servicemembers, particularly those suffering from PTSD, TBI, and MST should have access to veterans treatment centers and courts. I urge my colleagues to support the Daines-Peters amendment No. 3391. Fairness For Veterans Act Mr. President, I wish to stay on the subject of veterans for a moment longer. Behavioral changes are often seen in individuals suffering from mental traumas, such as PTSD and traumatic brain injury, or TBI. Unfortunately, those individuals will often receive a less-than- honorable discharge, also known as a bad paper discharge rather than an honorable discharge. This discharge status makes veterans ineligible for certain benefits, including GI benefits and VA home loans. This is simply unacceptable, and we need to make a change. Our Nation's heroes who honorably serve their country deserve access to the care and benefits they have earned, and that is why I introduced the Fairness for Veterans Act, which will help these veterans. The Fairness for Veterans Act will create a presumption in favor of the veteran with a bad paper discharge when petitioning the Secretary of Defense for an upgrade in discharge status based on hard medical evidence that is certified by the VA or appropriate medical professional. This bill has the support of both parties in both Chambers. I introduced the Fairness for Veterans Act with my Republican colleagues, Steve Daines from Montana and Thom Tillis from North Carolina. I appreciate the many Senators who have cosponsored the bill since its introduction, particularly Senator Gillibrand, who has been a champion for the bill on the Armed Services Committee. Today, in the House of Representatives, Mike Coffman, a Republican from Colorado; Tim Walz, a Democrat from Minnesota; Lee Zeldin, a Republican from New York; and Kathleen Rice, a Democrat from New York, led a number of Members introducing the bipartisan bill. This legislation is also supported by a number of veterans groups, including Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled Veterans of America, Military Officers Association of America, the American Legion, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, the Veterans Health Council, United Soldiers and Sailors of America, and the Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc. Improperly discharged servicemembers should not lose access to the benefits they have earned through their service. That is why we must ensure they are getting the fairness they deserve when petitioning for an upgraded discharge status. This is a nonpartisan issue, and I am committed to fighting on behalf of our Nation's veterans. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

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

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, we need to do that as well. We have pay- fors for the disaster fund. We identified and came forward with a pay- for that would end a tax loophole--a tax benefit--for golf courses where wealthy individuals can give an easement to a golf course and donate land. If we eliminate that--in fact, some Republicans have argued for the very elimination of this tax deduction--it will help to pay for the infrastructure and it will help to pay for the children of Flint. I know some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to protect those wealthy donors and their golf courses, but I believe the children of Flint are more important. I believe the people of Flint are more important. The fact that they have been poisoned by lead-- something that creates irreparable damage to their brains--is something that will impact their lives forever. How can you look into the face of the children of Flint knowing they have this brain damage as a result of this catastrophic situation and yet say no to a disaster fund to pay for it, say no to closing a tax break for wealthy folks who are giving land to golf courses? How can you put golf course easements ahead of the children of Flint? We need to stand up as a body and understand that this is a crisis of unimaginable proportions, and we can do better. The United States can do better. The Congress can do better. The fact that we are not coming together to do this is why people have such disdain for this body--the Senate and the House--because they think that in times of crisis, we pick and choose whom we help. Let's not pick and choose whom we help. Let's help everybody. Let's help the people of Flint. Let's help the children of Flint and show that we are a compassionate country and that we do not pick and choose. Everybody should get our support. I hope we can come together and compromise. We need to take some of these pay-fors and do what is necessary to address this issue.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Pesident, I wish to thank Senator Stabenow for her leadership on this issue and I share her frustration. We have been together, standing up, fighting to bring resources to Flint to deal with this absolutely catastrophic situation in Flint, MI. We have reached out to our Republican colleagues. We have had some very positive conversations, but as we have those positive conversations, as the Senator said in her comments, it seems as if it unravels right when we are very close to making it a reality. As a new Member of this body, I am completely at a loss for understanding why that is. Why is it that Members of the Senate can't step up for all Americans who are suffering? As you mentioned in the disaster fund, we have a disaster fund that is designed specifically for events like we have seen in Flint. You mentioned the West Texas explosion. We have had water main breaks in Massachusetts, a Caribbean oil corporation refinery explosion in Puerto Rico, a bridge collapse in Minneapolis, a chemical spill in West Virginia. The list goes on and on. When we have had some sort of tragedy around this country, the U.S. Senate steps up and says: We are compassionate. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This is about the American people.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation currently before the Senate to crack down on the North Korean regime's repeated nuclear provocations. I would certainly like to thank my colleague Senator Gardner for his leadership on this issue as well. Four days ago, on February 6, the world watched North Korea launch a rocket into space, in what was clearly an effort to test its advanced ballistic missile technology. The North Korean satellite is now tumbling in orbit and incapable of functioning in any useful way. Last month, the regime announced it had successfully detonated a nuclear device as part of its rogue nuclear program, the fourth test we have detected in North Korea since 2006. This combination of incompetence, aggression, and defiance of the international community is dangerous and simply cannot stand. Just yesterday, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, testified it is likely North Korea has restarted the plutonium reactor that has been shuttered since 2007 and could begin to recover fissile material within weeks. These defiant acts fly in the face of existing international sanctions and must be met with a strong and unified response from the world community. It is a step in the right direction that the U.N. Security Council has strongly condemned North Korea's actions and vowed to adopt significant new punitive measures against the regime. However, the dangerous path North Korea continues down poses a direct threat to the United States and our allies, particularly South Korea and Japan. We must go further and take action to punish the North Korean regime and those who aid and abet in its provocative actions. The legislation before us today would significantly enhance our ability to curb the North Korean nuclear program. The bill requires the President to sanction anyone who knowingly supports the North Korean regime, whether by furnishing materials for North Korean weapons programs or by selling luxury goods to corrupt government officials while so many North Koreans live in poverty. The bill also provides exemptions for humanitarian organizations that work to relieve the suffering of millions of North Koreans. We must continue to let the people under the rule of this brutal regime know that we stand with them in their democratic aspirations, even as their government continues to threaten the international community. I commend the efforts of the Foreign Relations Committee and particularly Senators Menendez and Gardner for their work on this important legislation. The United States has long led the world in working to curb the threat of nuclear proliferation. We lead through sustained commitments to securing fissile material, such as spearheading the effort to secure loose nukes after the fall of the Soviet Union. We lead through precedence set in the bilateral 123 agreements, agreeing to share civilian nuclear technology so partner countries can diversify their energy mix while explicitly preventing them from enriching uranium on their own soil. In the years to come, our leadership is necessary to raise this global standard even higher for every country regarding the enrichment of uranium. We do not aim to deny peaceful nuclear energy to nations that seek it, but we must make clear that there is no universal right to enrichment. The United States has moral authority on this issue because we have led by example, committing to reductions in our own nuclear arsenal in the interest of a safer world. We must continue to work with unity of purpose and act to stem the spread of nuclear materials to rogue states and terrorist organizations. Nowhere is American leadership more necessary than in the case of the Iranian nuclear program. I was proud to cosponsor the initial effort to pass sanctions against Iran in 2009 and help pass additional sanctions in the years since. I firmly believe crippling sanctions are what brought Iran to the negotiating table and the threat of additional sanctions enhanced our bargaining position during the painstaking negotiations that led to the JCPOA. Our work to unite world powers behind this effort led to an agreement that curbs Iran's nuclear program in the short term, but in the longer term we need to stand ready to act swiftly and decisively against any Iranian violations of the JCPOA, large or small. The JCPOA is not the end of our multilateral efforts against Iran and its illicit behavior, just as the legislation before us today is not the end of our multilateral efforts against the North Korean regime and its repeated affronts to international security. We will continue to punish regimes that support terrorism, violate human rights, and illegally seek nuclear weapons. Surely our response to the North Korean provocations will be watched closely by the Iranian regime, which is why we must respond swiftly and why we must respond strongly. The sanctions bill before us today is not a Democratic issue, it is not a Republican issue. The goal of preventing nuclear proliferation has been a uniting principle of the American foreign policy for decades, and it must continue to be so. We must come together today to pass this bill quickly and without opposition to demonstrate in no uncertain terms our unity of purpose in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. I yield the floor.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose the upcoming cloture vote on the Energy Policy Modernization Act. This is not because I think this is a bad bill. In fact, I know this bill is the result of months of hard work on both sides of the aisle, and it contains many provisions that will move our economy forward. I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell, including their willingness to include bipartisan legislation that I offered with Senators Alexander and Stabenow to support the development of next-generation clean vehicle technologies. While I sincerely hope that we are able to advance this bill out of the Senate, it is simply too soon to cut off debate and invoke cloture. Senator Stabenow, Senator Cantwell, and I have been negotiating with our Republican colleagues to secure critical assistance for the city of Flint, MI, whose residents are continuing to suffer from a manmade disaster. Nearly 2 years ago, an unelected emergency manager appointed by Michigan's Governor changed the city of Flint's water to a source of the Flint River in an attempt to save money while the city prepared to transition to a new regional water authority. After switching away from clean water sourced from the Detroit water department, Flint residents began to receive improperly treated Flint River water, long known to be contaminated and potentially very corrosive. Brown or yellow water poured from Flint faucets that tasted and smelled terrible. This water wasn't just disgusting, it turned out to be poisonous. This corrosive water leached lead from aging but previously stable infrastructure. A generation of children in Flint are now at risk for the severe effects of lead exposure, which can cause long-term development problems, nervous system damage, and decreased bone and muscle growth. Even though Flint is no longer pulling its water from the contaminated river and is back to drawing safe Lake Huron water, the recently damaged pipes and infrastructure contaminate the water before it pours from the tap. Flint residents are unable to use their showers and need to wash themselves with baby wipes. Some walk as far as 2 miles to pick up bottled water to drink--the same bottled water they use to cook and to brush their teeth. This is simply not sustainable. Flint needs the support of all levels of government to overhaul its damaged water infrastructure and help the children of Flint, who will be dealing with the health effects of lead exposure for decades to come. What makes America so exceptional is its resiliency and the unity of our people in the face of a tragedy or a crisis. While Flint has faced decades of economic hardship, it is now facing a full-blown crisis, and now is the time for all of us to pull together. On Monday, I heard from a woman who was on the verge of tears as she discussed her fears of the health conditions that her children face. Yesterday I met another mom from Flint who brought a baby bottle filled with brown water that she poured from her tap--and brought it to Washington--to show my colleagues and Congress just how immediate a public health threat this public crisis is. This image that appeared on the cover of Time magazine is clearly a haunting cry for help. I ask my colleagues to look into those eyes and to hear that cry, to see that cry for help. I believe that if any of my colleagues saw this tragedy such as we are seeing in our home State--Senator Stabenow and I--they would be standing here doing everything in their power to deliver assistance. Whether the crisis is natural or manmade, it simply doesn't matter. This is a crisis. It is also important to know that this crisis has raised questions about the safety of our Nation's infrastructure. It is possible that other communities could be affected. While other communities may not suffer a crisis like Flint, across the country communities are learning about the vulnerabilities of their own water supply and what may happen in the future. I should also reiterate that the proposal Senator Stabenow and I have been negotiating would provide funding for any State that has had an emergency declaration related to lead or other contamination in public drinking water systems. So it is not just about Flint. This is about any community that is suffering from contamination of their drinking water. While we often talk about crumbling roads or bridges, hundreds, if not thousands of American cities, towns, and villages have aging water infrastructure and lead pipes. Should one of our colleague's communities experience a similar crisis in in the coming months, this funding we are fighting for today will be available to them as well. Now is the time for action and to help the families of Flint. I hope that we can reach a resolution on our negotiations with our Republican colleagues, but we are not quite there yet. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose cloture on this bill until we have a deal. Whether in Flint or elsewhere in America, we have a responsibility to care for our children. We must repair the trust Flint residents have lost in the ability of government officials to protect them and provide the most basic of all services. I strongly urge my colleagues to join us in our efforts to help Flint recover from this unnecessary, manmade disaster. Standing up for the children of this country is not a Republican or a Democratic issue, and I hope that today we show the American people that we can come together at times of crisis. This is common ground on which we can stand together and stand up for the people and children of Flint. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PETERS

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

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together as we continue to seek a bipartisan path forward to help the people and the children living in the city of Flint, MI. Nearly 2 years ago, an unelected emergency manager appointed by Michigan's Governor changed the city of Flint's water source to the Flint River in an attempt to save money while the city prepared to transition to a new regional water authority. After switching away from clean water sourced from the Detroit Water Authority, Flint residents began to receive improperly treated Flint River water, long known to be contaminated and potentially very corrosive. The result of the State government's actions was and continues to be absolutely catastrophic. Flint families were exposed to lead and other toxins that will have lasting effects for generations. The ultimate cost of this misguided, dangerous decision will not be known for decades, but we now have a chance to begin to make it right. Last week, Senator Stabenow and I introduced an amendment that would, one, provide water infrastructure funding for Flint; two, create a Center of Excellence to address the long-term public health ramifications of lead exposure; three, forgive Flint's outstanding loans that were used for water infrastructure that has now been damaged by the State's actions; and four, require the EPA to directly notify consumers instead of going through State and local regulators if their drinking water is contaminated with lead. We have spent the last week working with Senator Murkowski and Senator Cantwell to find common ground and a path forward to provide some relief to the people of Flint as we consider this bipartisan energy legislation. These discussions are ongoing. They are happening as we speak now. But now is not the time to use procedural roadblocks to justify inaction. Throughout the United States history, when a natural or manmade disaster strikes, the Federal Government has stepped in to help those in need. Hurricanes, superstorms, earthquakes, flooding, and a fertilizer plant explosion--those types of activities or incidents all across the Nation have received Federal assistance as communities come together to rebuild. While the cause of this crisis and the ultimate responsibility to fix it lies with the State Government, we need to bring resources from all levels of government to bear to address the unprecedented emergency that we face. This is why I urge my colleagues to work with us as we continue efforts to make a down payment on the years of rebuilding and healing that Flint needs. I was in Flint earlier this week, and while volunteering with the Red Cross to deliver bottled water from house to house, I heard directly from impacted residents. Months after the public became aware of the depth of this crisis, families still have questions: Can I use my shower? When will the water be safe? Will the pipes ever get replaced? My question for this body is very straightforward. Who will stand up for the children of Flint? These children have been impacted the most by this crisis and through no fault of their own. I know we all have priorities that we care about in this Energy bill, but I simply cannot agree to move forward on action on this bill until we deal with Flint and help Flint rebuild to provide safe, clean drinking water. This should not be a Republican or a Democratic issue. Clean water is, quite simply, a basic human right. Let's together show the American people that when a crisis hits any city in this country, we will stand with them. America is a great country, and it is great because at times of difficulty, we all stand together as one people. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Stabenow-Peters amendment package that will provide much needed assistance to Flint, MI. For decades Flint was known as the birthplace of General Motors and for playing a key role in the formation of the United Auto Workers. Now national attention is trained on Flint not for its role in the creation of America's middle class but for the utter abandonment by the State government of a city where 40 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. Nearly 2 years ago, an unelected emergency manager appointed by Michigan's Governor changed the city of Flint's water source to the Flint River in an attempt to save money while the city prepared to transition to a new regional water authority. The ultimate cost of this misguided, dangerous decision will not be known for decades. After switching away from clean water sourced from the Detroit Water Authority, Flint residents began to receive improperly treated Flint River water, long known to be contaminated and potentially very corrosive. Water poured from Flint faucets and tasted and smelled terrible. It was discolored--brown or yellow in many cases. In fact, General Motors stopped using this water source for their Flint engine operations because the high chloride levels were corroding parts used during the manufacturing process. The result of the State government decision was--and continues to be--catastrophic. Flint families were exposed to lead and other toxins that will have a lasting effect for generations. The water crisis in Flint is an immense failure on the part of Michigan's State government to ensure the health and safety of the people of Flint and to provide the basic human right of clean water for drinking, bathing, and cooking. It is a failure that will cause Flint's children to suffer from the adverse health effects of lead exposure for years to come--a failure that has created the enormous challenge of fixing a water system that has had corrosive water flowing through its pipes for months. Even after Flint has transitioned back to distributing water from Detroit that should be safe, unfortunately the potentially irreversible damage to the waterlines will still require the use of filters. This ongoing crisis has left the city of 100,000 people drinking bottled water donated from across the Nation. In light of the State government's failure, I am disappointed State government still has not sufficiently stepped up to provide the necessary resources to deal with the short and long term effects of water contamination in Flint. While the cause of this crisis and the ultimate responsibility to fix it lies with State government, we need to bring resources from all levels of government to bear to address this unprecedented emergency. Along with my Michigan colleagues Senator Stabenow and Representative Kildee, I have been working tirelessly to leverage all available resources for the people of Flint. The effects of lead exposure on children are insidious, causing long- term developmental problems, nervous system damage, and decreased bone and muscle growth. There is no cure, but we can mitigate these problems with a commitment to delivering nutrition, education, health care, and other wrap-around services that a generation of Flint children now need more than ever. My colleagues and I have requested that the U.S. Department of Agriculture allow existing programs to provide ready-to-feed infant formula that does not need to be mixed with water to all infants in Flint. We have urged the Department of Health and Human Services to make Head Start available for every eligible child in the city of Flint. We are working to make sure every Flint resident has access to affordable health care and are encouraging residents to purchase coverage through the open enrollment at healthcare.gov before the January 31 deadline or sign up for Medicaid if they are eligible. I will continue to work with Congress, the administration, and leaders on the ground in Flint to secure any Federal support possible for Flint families and small businesses that have been harmed. As part of our efforts to support the people of Flint, Senator Stabenow and I are offering an amendment that will help begin the process to make Flint whole with substantial investments in fixing this problem in both the short and long term. Our amendment will assist the city of Flint in four ways. First, the amendment would include my bill, the Improving Notification for Clean and Safe Drinking Water Act, or the INCASE Act, which would require the EPA to directly notify the public of dangerously high lead levels in drinking water if the local and State governments fail to do so within 15 days. The EPA repeatedly made recommendations to the State government, urging them to take steps to improve the water and protect the people. Unfortunately, the State of Michigan failed to take action and failed to properly notify Flint residents of the health risks in the water system for months. The primary responsibility for notifying residents lies with the State government, but when you have a situation like Flint where the State was sitting on critical information, there has to be another level of accountability. Second, our amendment will authorize EPA to issue direct grants to the State of Michigan and the city of Flint to hire new personnel, provide technical assistance, and, most importantly, replace and repair water service lines--the only long-term solution. These aging service lines were certainly a concern before the crisis, but now there is an urgent need to repair and to replace them. For nearly 2 years corrosive water flowed through the pipes leaching lead and other toxins. This provision will fund the repairs for the service lines that were severely and potentially permanently damaged as a result. Third, our amendment includes a technical fix that will allow current Drinking Water State Revolving Funds to be used for loan forgiveness. This will provide upwards of $20 million in relief to Flint and allow them to direct new funds for investment in water infrastructure and not interest payments. Earlier this year the EPA acknowledged that the State did not have the authority to forgive these loans. That is why this amendment includes a temporary technical fix to allow States to use the EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund resources for loan forgiveness and debt relief on debt incurred before the current fiscal year. Finally, our amendment will direct the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to establish a Center Of Excellence on lead exposure in Flint, which will bring together local universities, hospitals, medical professionals, and the State and county public health departments in an effort to address the short and long-term health effects of lead exposure in the city. Mr. President, it is important to remember that the children of Flint have been impacted the most by this crisis through no fault of their own. Whether in Flint or elsewhere in America, we have a responsibility to care for our children. We must repair the trust Flint residents have lost in the ability of government officials to protect them and to provide the most basic services. I strongly urge my colleagues to join us in our effort to help Flint recover from this unnecessary manmade disaster. Standing up for children is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. I hope we all come together. This is common ground on which we can stand together and stand up for the people and the children of Flint. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Anne Woiwode of Okemos, MI, as she ends 35 years of service with the Sierra Club's Michigan chapter. Through her leadership, the organization's work has been critical in preserving numerous wilderness areas, tracking and curtailing pollution, and leading the fight for clean energy in the beautiful State of Michigan. I am honored to acknowledge Ms. Woiwode's career-long commitment to safeguarding the flourishing habitats and environmental wonders Michigan has to offer. Ms. Woiwode began her involvement with the Sierra Club as a young mother after moving to Michigan with her husband, Tom, in 1980. Her impact was felt immediately, and the environmental community grew quickly. In 1983, Anne became the chapter chair, and in 1985 she became its first executive director. Knowing the power of collaboration in changing policy, she helped form the Michigan Environmental Council, MEC, in 1980, serving in many leadership roles over the years. Thanks to her direction, the MEC is a fully independent organization with over 70 member groups, and it continues to provide policy expertise to the environmental community. Breathtaking wildernesses like the Nordhouse Dunes and Sturgeon River Gorge exist due in part to Ms. Woiwode's dedication. She was instrumental in the establishment of 90,000 acres of protected wilderness under the Michigan Wilderness Heritage Act of 1987. Today countless species of plants and animals flourish in these protected ecosystems. In addition to working to preserve Michigan's diverse ecosystems, Ms. Woiwode also dedicated over a decade of work to reducing pollution from concentrated animal feeding operations, CAFOs, or animal factories. Ms. Woiwode came to listen when rural residents and small family farms reached out for help, even though they were too intimidated by their CAFO neighbors to provide names. Countless stories and evidence of animal waste carried into Michigan's waterways, toxic fumes from millions of gallons of raw sewage spread on massive farm fields, and sickness were responded to in attempts to reduce CAFO pollution. While it's still a problem in Michigan, thanks to Ms. Woiwode, the Sierra Club's Michigan chapter is recognized as the national expert in tracking CAFO pollution. While her commitment to protecting Michigan's ecosystems and tracking pollution are worth acknowledging alone, Ms. Woiwode's leadership in turning Michigan toward a clean energy future is perhaps the most important step in preserving Michigan's environment. Through the Clean Energy NOW Coalition, she organized environmental and citizens groups to protest the construction of eight proposed coal power plants in Michigan without additional review by the Governor. The coalition's emphasis on citizen pressure and legal avenues led to a Governor's executive directive requiring further review of the proposed plants and eventually a complete stop in construction. I am honored to ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Ms. Anne Woiwode's service to the Sierra Club's Michigan Chapter. While her passion and leadership will be dearly missed, I know she has inspired future generations to continue fighting for the natural wonders and beautiful, vibrant ecosystems of Michigan.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam President, last week I was proud to host Hassan Jabber as my guest at the State of the Union Address. He is the director of the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services, founded in 1971 in Dearborn, MI. ACCESS is the largest Arab American human services nonprofit in the United States, providing health and wellness, education, employment, and youth services in its local communities, including support for refugees settling in America. Hassan is a community leader and just one example of the many individuals who make up Michigan's vibrant Arab American community, including some of the most patriotic people I know whose contributions to our culture and economy are invaluable. That is why I am so concerned about the legislation we will be debating later today, which would impose significant barriers on our efforts to assist refugees fleeing violence and persecution in Iraq and Syria. I am a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Last November we held a hearing on refugee resettlement. We heard about the strict security checks involved in the Refugee Admissions Program, which could take 18 to 24 months. The Refugee Admissions Program subjects refugees to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler coming into the United States. They are screened by the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense, as well as other agencies. Refugees considered for resettlement to the United States are subjected to biometric and biographic checks, as well as a lengthy in-person interview, all of which are conducted while the refugees are overseas, outside of the United States. Refugees are even required to repay loans to the International Organization for Migration to cover the cost of transportation and medical screening. At the same hearing last November, we also heard how the Refugee Admissions Program prioritizes the most vulnerable refugees, including widows with children, victims of torture and trauma, persecuted religious minorities, and those who face death threats if they return home. These cases are our country's top priority for resettlement. I saw this for myself at the end of last year when I had an opportunity to travel to the Middle East with Senator Murphy and meet members of this vulnerable population. Visiting the Zaatari Refugee Camp in Jordan, I saw the scale of the crisis that the world faces. Talking to just some of the over 80,000 refugees at that camp, who are only a small fraction of the 11.6 million people who have been displaced from their homes over the past 4\1/2\ years during the brutal civil war in Syria, it was clear that none of those refugees were there by choice. Before anything else, they just wanted to return home. In the end, however, returning home is not something that is going to happen. They are not going to be able to return to the life they had before. They certainly did not want to have the very dangerous journey to escape violence and security by going far away. Unfortunately, the possibility of their safe return is unlikely at any time in the near future. They struggle to survive every day, and they persevere. Many have been vetted by the United Nations as people who are qualified to resettle as refugees in countries like ours because they simply can't return home. The refugees I met are struggling to live on 50 cents a day to buy food and have only one propane bottle to provide cooking fuel for an entire month. Unfortunately, most of that aid is slated to end in the next couple of months. The people in the camps live on the edge of having nothing, and they rely on humanitarian aid to get by on a day- to-day basis. They are thankful, but in the end they are living in limbo, waiting and hoping for an interview with a U.S. official. Today, at the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing we focused on ISIS's goals and ideology. We heard from experts that the United States should continue to welcome refugees. Proposals to block refugees based on their religious beliefs plays into the narrative that the United States and Muslims across the globe are in direct conflict. We heard that those who have left ISIS territory describe it as ``a living hell,'' and if we do not accept refugees, it harms our standing in the world and actually will weaken our national security. The safety and security of the American people is always my top priority, but policies which alienate and divide, targeted at victims of terror and violence, do not support that mission. I am hopeful that this body will focus our efforts on the very real threat posed by terrorism and extremism, not on imposing unnecessary barriers that will prevent us from assisting the victims fleeing violence. I hope that we can stay true to the American values that make our country great. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the remarkable achievements of George Heartwell who, after 20 years of service to the city of Grand Rapids, 12 of them as mayor, won the city international acclaim for environmental sustainability and artistic creativity. Mayor Heartwell, an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, has served the citizens of Michigan's second largest city with honor and distinction. A graduate of Michigan's Albion College, Mayor Heartwell served the public in a variety of roles prior to his city hall service. Mayor Heartwell helped Grand Rapidians achieve the American dream through his work as president of Heartwell Mortgage Corporation. Mayor Heartwell led Heartside Ministry, helping the homeless of Grand Rapids, and was also president and CEO of Pilgrim Manor Retirement Community. Mayor Heartwell entered Grand Rapids City Hall in 1992, serving the first of four terms as a city commissioner representing Grand Rapids' Third Ward. He took office as mayor in January of 2004. Under his leadership, the city of Grand Rapids withstood the economic storms rattling the State of Michigan, finding methods to deliver city services in sustainable ways. It is Mayor Heartwell's environmental sustainability efforts which have won the city international awards. During his tenure, city government implemented a variety of environmental measures, including purchase of renewable resource energy, use of alternative fuels in city vehicles, continued attention to water quality in the Grand River, and widespread implementation of energy conservation measures. In January 2007, the United Nations recognized Grand Rapids as a Regional Center of Expertise in Education for Sustainable Development. Thanks to Mayor Heartwell's leadership, Grand Rapids is widely recognized as one of the most sustainable cities in America. In 2010, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce gave Grand Rapids the Nation's Most Sustainable City award, and in 2012, Mayor Heartwell was given the first place Climate Protection Award by the U.S. Conference of Mayors. More recently, Mayor Heartwell was one of only 20 individuals chosen to serve on President Obama's Task Force for Climate Preparedness and Resilience. Mayor Heartwell has also focused on making Grand Rapids a more socially equitable city. Concurrently, the city has enjoyed a decrease in crime rates and an increase in its economic strength. Grand Rapids is widely recognized for its support of the arts and was recently named as number 20 of the 52 Places to Go in the World in 2016 by the New York Times. It is my great pleasure to congratulate Mayor George Heartwell on the lasting impact he has made throughout his service to his hometown, the city of Grand Rapids.

Mr. PETERS

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

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam President, 8 months ago, as I delivered my maiden speech in the Senate, I discussed how honored I am to have succeeded Senator Carl Levin, a mentor to me and a man who defined what it meant to be a Senator from Michigan--a feeling that has only deepened during the past year that I have served in this body. During his 36 years of service, Senator Levin personally met tens of thousands of Michiganders. He remains beloved by many, including those who might never have had the opportunity to shake his hand or sit down next to him. This is due in no small part to his tireless commitment and accessibility in responding to questions and comments from his constituents, whether those issues arose in person, over the phone, in a letter, or--during the latter half of Senator Levin's tenure--email. Michiganders reaching out to his office knew that they would be heard and that they could expect a thoughtful, honest response about their Senator's positions. These responses--hundreds of thousands a year and millions over the course of Senator Levin's career--were made possible by his correspondence manager, Rick Carter. Rick worked for Senator Levin for almost two decades, and I have had the privilege to have him on my team since early last year. While I have known him for only a year, this has been more than enough time to learn that Rick is a model public servant and a role model for generations of congressional staffers. Rick is humble, thoughtful, and fiercely committed to working behind the scenes to help other staff succeed and to grow. He has been instrumental in establishing my Senate office, and I will be eternally grateful for this honorary Michigander's efforts. Rick grew up in DC. Perhaps his future career was foreshadowed by growing up in the Michigan Park neighborhood. He was a standout student at DeMatha Catholic High School and earned a scholarship at George Washington University, where he studied sociology. During his time at GW, he interned for Congressman John Conyers, a legend of the civil rights movement, current Dean of the House of Representatives, and a man I am honored to call my friend and a Michigan colleague. Graduating from GW in 1995, Rick began what would be a 19-year career with Senator Levin. He worked his way up from the front office and mastered a number of different positions before deciding that managing the correspondence team best allowed him to balance engaging on matters of policy, serving the people of Michigan, and mentoring junior staffers. While Rick has many skills and qualities you might expect from a seasoned staffer, including being an excellent writer, editor, and consummate professional, it is his extraordinary commitment to developing young minds that I wish to focus on for a moment. Rick has helped dozens and perhaps hundreds of young graduates, former interns, and junior staffers find jobs in public service. Along with refining writing skills and polishing resumes, Rick has taught a generation of staffers things they did not learn in college: how to be a professional, how to show up on time, and how to simultaneously function independently as well as part of a team. His former interns are legislative directors, chiefs of staff, and chief counsels. The list of favors he is owed is extensive, but he never asks for anything in return. He might ask you to run with him, though. As a charity marathon coach, he has helped raise money to fight AIDS. As a year-round positive influence--and not just during a New Year's resolution season--he is always looking for current and past colleagues to run with him. I will not even begin to speculate on the cumulative pounds lost due to his inspiration. Rick has been a surrogate big brother and father figure for so many staffers. It is especially meaningful that Rick has started his own family with his wife Nakia. Their son Mason and new baby Ryan are lucky to have such a loving, dedicated dad. I wish their entire family the best as Rick starts his own small business to pursue real estate development in the DC area. It is said that the only constant in life is change. While Rick Carter has been a constant in the Michigan delegation for more than two decades and I will miss having him in my office, I deeply appreciate his two decades of service and respect his desire to take on new challenges. Rick Carter will always be a part of both Team Levin and Team Peters. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Henry Ford Health System as it celebrates delivering a century of high- quality and innovative health care services to the metropolitan Detroit community. In 1909, Henry Ford, David Whitney, and a few other leading Detroit- area businessmen recognized the need for a major health care center in Detroit and set out to open Detroit General Hospital. After experiencing several years of delays, Henry Ford took over the entire project and renamed the facility ``Henry Ford Hospital'', which opened its doors to the public on October 1, 1915. From the outset, Henry Ford was focused upon adapting the insights and innovations he pioneered in the automotive industry for use in the delivery of health care services. Among his innovations were a first- in-the-Nation center for treating chemical dependency and an accountability system for promoting shorter patient waiting times. Over the years, Henry Ford Health System's commitment to innovation saw breakthroughs in the administration of electrocardiograms, improvements in the design of hospital beds, and advancements in medication regiments for treating bacterial infections. Throughout its history, Henry Ford Health System has been committed to meet the evolving needs of the metro Detroit region. Recognizing the need for access to low-cost health care services, Henry Ford Hospital partnered with the State of Michigan in 1970 to create the Community Health and Social Services, CHASS, clinic in southwest Detroit. Around the same time, Henry Ford Health System also began partnering with the Detroit public schools to provide in-school health services to students. With the growing population in Detroit's suburbs, Henry Ford Health System began to expand, opening new medical centers in Troy, Dearborn, and West Bloomfield. Today Henry Ford Health System has grown from a single facility with 48 beds into a regional health care provider which admits around 89,000 patients each year and delivers approximately 3.5 million clinic visits. The staff has also grown to more than 23,000 employees, making Henry Ford Health System the fifth largest employer in the Metro Detroit region. In recognition of its outstanding commitment to delivering world- class health care services in a novel and effective manner, Henry Ford Health System is the only organization to receive all five major health care quality awards: the Foster G. McGaw Prize in 2004, the Joint Commission's Ernest Amory Codman and John M. Eisenberg Awards in 2006 and 2011, the American Hospital Association's McKesson Quest for Quality Prize in 2010, and the Malcolm Baldrige Award in 2011. As a recipient of the Baldrige Award, Henry Ford Health System joins an elite group of organizations who have been recognized for outstanding innovations in their respective fields. I am honored to ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Henry Ford Health System's 100th anniversary. This significant milestone is a great opportunity to reflect upon its century-long record of fostering innovations in the development and delivery of health care services, its commitment to providing the best possible outcomes for its patients, and the transformative effect it continues to make, both in the health care field and metro Detroit. Henry Ford Health System has made a remarkable impact in southeast Michigan over the last century, and I wish its leadership, medical professionals, and staff well in continuing to fulfill its mission in the years and decades ahead.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Every Student Succeeds Act. I am pleased that the Senate was able to come together on a bipartisan basis to pass meaningful education reform, and I commend Senator Murray and Senator Alexander for their leadership on this bill. I would like to speak about three things this bill does that I strongly support and that I believe are of particular importance. First, the bill supports financial literacy programming. Family financial literacy programming can ensure that our Nation's parents and children have the skills necessary to properly utilize credit, finance an education, manage a household budget, and plan for retirement. I believe that we must do all we can to help our Nation's parents and students succeed in every aspect of their lives. Second, the Every Student Succeeds Act addresses the lack of data on dual status youth--children who come into contact with both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Many at-risk children lack stable home lives, and they are frequently funneled through the school-to- prison pipeline. I was happy to work with the chairman and ranking member to include language in the bill that will help us identify and assist our most vulnerable youth. Finally, I was happy to join Senator Gardner in introducing language that will begin to help schools address the dual enrollment availability gap by enabling high schools to expand access to such programs using title I funding. I applaud the bill's focus on dual enrollment and early/middle college programs. At a time when student debt is crushing young Americans' economic prospects, dual enrollment and early/middle college programs allow high school students to begin earning college credit by taking college-level courses either at their school, online or through a local higher education institution. These models improve access to college while reducing degree completion time and tuition costs. Findings from the ACT's most recent ``Condition of College and Career Readiness'' report suggest that many students are ready for dual enrollment programs. Forty-two percent of the most recent cohort of high school graduates who took the ACT test were ready for college- level mathematics. Nearly 30 percent were college ready in all four subject areas: English, reading, mathematics, and science. Unfortunately, hurdles to assessing dual enrollment are particularly pronounced for low-income students who also face the greatest obstacles to college completion. After participating in these programs, many students who may not have planned on attending college realize their potential and go on to attain higher levels of education. A recent study found that dual and concurrent enrollment participation increases the probability of a student completing a degree by 6 percent. In addition to a Gardner-Peters amendment, the Every Student Succeeds Act includes several other provisions that support dual enrollment and early/middle college programs. The bill supports professional development for teachers, principals, and other school leaders, focused on building their capacity to deliver dual or concurrent enrollment opportunities. Additionally, States and school districts will be able to use resources provided through the student support and academic enrichment grants to improve students' access to dual enrollment programs, either online or in person. These policy improvements will make an incredible difference for the Nation's students. There are a number of Senators who support dual enrollment and early/ middle college programs, and I plan on introducing legislation to support dual enrollment and early/middle college programs in the near future. My legislation would amend the Higher Education Act to expand access to dual and concurrent enrollment programs as well as early/middle college programs that enable students to earn college credit while in high school. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming months to expand access to these programs. Again, I applaud the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the tremendous work that has been done over the course of this year to pass a bipartisan, 5-year, $305 billion highway bill, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, known as the FAST Act. Transportation infrastructure is an essential part of the U.S. economy. It serves as the foundation to support our country's economic global competitiveness and connects communities, people, and markets. Federal investment in transportation and other infrastructure has, unfortunately, lagged in recent decades, with public expenditures on infrastructure as a percentage of GDP steadily declining to its lowest levels in 20 years. I have consistently called for a highway bill that ensures steady and reliable funding for States so they can make long- term plans for improving our crumbling infrastructure. For too long, stopgap measures to prop up the highway trust fund for just a few months at a time have failed to provide the stability necessary to grow our economy. The FAST Act comes at a critical time. This legislation will improve our Nation's infrastructure, make our Federal surface transportation programs work better for States, and address our Nation's infrastructure priorities by focusing on critical commerce corridors and emerging freight corridors as well. The FAST Act also makes key investments in something I am very passionate about, and that is the future of mobility in the United States. Today, the auto industry is working hand in hand with tech, telecom, and software companies and their partners in academia and Federal agencies to collaborate and contribute to the transportation system of the future. This future will be dominated by connected and autonomous vehicles--on-demand services such as ride-sharing and car- sharing--and innovations in vehicle-to-infrastructure communications. Vehicle-to-infrastructure communications technologies--known as V2I-- have the potential to deliver incredible safety, mobility, environmental, and operational benefits to the driving public. For example, V2I technologies will allow bridges that are icing up to be able to communicate directly with an automobile before it gets to the bridge and, as a result, will prevent an accident before it even occurs. Today, stakeholders are working to develop and test V2I technologies, and widespread deployment is expected in the coming years. We have to make sure the States are making plans for their future in V2I technologies. That is why I introduced legislation earlier this year with Senators Stabenow and Blunt that promotes investment in vehicle-to-infrastructure technology by authorizing States to use existing surface and highway transportation funding to invest in V2I projects as they upgrade their highway infrastructure. It is called the Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Safety Technology Investment Flexibility Act of 2015, and today I am proud to say this legislation passed as part of the FAST Act. My vehicle-to-infrastructure provision and the broader bill's other major investments in research and development represent the type of forward-thinking policymaking on which Congress should be focused. By committing now to help usher in the future of mobility and by providing the funding and time to execute these programs, we have the ability to transform our society for the better. The FAST Act also contains several provisions to improve rail safety in the United States. I am pleased that legislation I authored, in the wake of the devastating Amtrak No. 188 crash earlier this year in Philadelphia that unfortunately took the lives of 8 people and injured over 200, was included in the FAST Act. My provision requires the Department of Transportation, Amtrak, and the National Transportation Safety Board to conduct a post-accident assessment of the Amtrak No. 188 crash to determine if Amtrak followed its emergency preparedness and family assistance response plans and to determine if and how these plans can be improved for the future. Finally, the FAST Act reauthorizes the Export-Import Bank. Since the beginning of July, the jobs supported by the Ex-Im Bank have been unnecessarily jeopardized. The Ex-Im Bank helps level the playing field for American companies in a tough global market. Last year it supported more than $27.4 billion in U.S. exports and 164,000 jobs. More than $10 billion of that total--nearly 40 percent--represented exports by small businesses, and 90 percent of its overall transactions directly supported small businesses, including many that serve as suppliers for large companies. In Michigan, for example, the Ex-Im Bank has supported 229 exporter businesses selling $11 billion worth of goods to places such as Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Canada. This support is particularly important for our manufacturing industry, and the majority of Michigan exporters using Ex-Im Bank are manufacturers of motor vehicles and parts, machinery and chemicals--basically the backbone of Michigan's economy. I am proud to see that with the FAST Act's passage, we can get back to the business of doing what makes sense for the economy and for jobs in America. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PETERS

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

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam President, I rise to recognize the heroic efforts of Amy Jishi, a Michigander who serves as a transportation security inspector at Detroit Metropolitan International Airport. I just spoke to her a few moments ago on the phone and thanked her for her brave actions. Recently, while leaving work at the airport Amy observed an accident at a traffic light. She noticed that one of the cars was leaking gasoline and a fire had started underneath it. Without hesitation, Amy selflessly placed herself in harm's way to offer assistance and to warn others about the fire, and she worked to free the driver from the vehicle, despite a stuck door, and was able to free him shortly before the car burst into flames. Afterwards, Amy told a reporter, ``When I saw the accident, the only thought that went through my mind was to help them.'' Amy is a lifelong resident of Dearborn Heights and has worked with the Transportation Security Administration in Detroit for 8 years. She and her TSA colleagues across the Nation work to keep the American people and the traveling public safe each and every day. As a member of the Senate Homeland Security committee, it is a privilege to hear the stories of the men and women at the Department of Homeland Security who work around the clock and around the world to keep our country safe. These individuals are dedicated to public service and are willing to put Americans' safety and well-being above their own, and they deserve the recognition, as well as the resources and policies that will continue to position them for success in the mission they take so seriously and personally. I would like to recognize Amy's selfless action, quick thinking, and dedication to her fellow Americans. Because of her actions, a young driver was able to walk away from what would have been a terrible tragedy. I yield the floor.

Mr. PETERS

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