Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in speaking out against what I believe is the misleading and dangerous campaign of some in the fossil fuel industry to undermine this Nation's efforts to combat global climate change. The science on climate change is beyond rational dispute. Climate change is real. It is a clear and present threat to our planet, and it must be addressed robustly and urgently. Scientists have proven unequivocally that CO2 and other greenhouse gases we release into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels act to trap heat and form an invisible blanket to warm the planet. Over the last century, the Earth's average temperature has continued to rise, with 9 of the 10 warmest years on record occurring since the year 2000. True to form, 2015 was the Earth's warmest year on record. Rising global temperatures have led to extreme changes in weather events and in our environment. No country is insulated and no State is insulated from the escalating effects of climate change. In the United States, we are seeing it in this every region of the country, and we are witnessing its effects very dramatically in my State of New Hampshire. Rising temperatures are affecting our tourism, our outdoor recreation, and our agriculture industries. We are experiencing an onset of negative health impacts and increases of insect-borne diseases--Lyme disease is one--all of which can be tied to the effects of climate change. In the United States and throughout the world, people acknowledge that global warming is an existential threat that requires immediate action to slow its pace and mitigate its effects, even while those climate deniers are still out there, making noise. According to the Pew Research Center, two-thirds of all Americans acknowledge that climate change is real and that action must be taken to address it. But there are some, an extreme but influential minority, who argue that climate change is a hoax; that it lacks scientific consensus; that the changes we observe are not due to CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, but they are due instead to variations in the sun or cosmic rays; and that policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions will ruin our economy. Not surprisingly, these climate deniers are not scientists, though they may pretend to be. They are front groups funded by the fossil fuel industry, generally, and the Koch brothers, in particular. These front groups are paid to spin a web of denial wrapped in ideology with the aim of purposely deceiving the public about the dangers of climate change. This is deceitful and it is wrong, and we are here on the floor this afternoon to call out these groups by name so that the public knows what to watch for and there is some transparency about what is being said. One of those groups is the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or CEI, based in Washington, DC. This group describes itself as ``a public policy organization committed to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government.'' But if we look more closely, we find that CEI is not an independent organization. It is funded by powerful corporations designed to spread untruths and disinformation on behalf of its corporate sponsors. In recent years, CEI has taken up the issue of climate change. It has been outspoken in disputing scientific evidence that human-produced greenhouse gas emissions are driving global warming. Some may recognize CEI not for its work on climate denial but for its prominent role in misleading the public about the scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and heart disease. Legal documents from major tobacco companies exposed the fact that CEI received more than $800,000 from Philip Morris to launch coordinated media campaigns to attack the Food and Drug Administration's efforts to regulate tobacco. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a series of these documents be printed in the Record.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. CEI lobbied politicians, conducted symposia, and published policy papers and op-eds with titles such as ``Safety Is a Relative Thing for Cars: Why Not for Cigarettes?'' CEI's then-policy analyst, Alexander Volokh, even went so far as to describe the act of smoking as a civic duty. As the documents that we have just submitted for the record detail, CEI's mission was to portray the FDA as ``an agency out of control and one failing to live up to its congressional mandate.'' For a time, CEI was successful. Congress took a closer look at FDA's appropriations requests, and lawmakers slashed agency funding and passed language to restrict FDA's authority to regulate tobacco. In fact, at one oversight hearing, Members of Congress even questioned whether the FDA was acting legally and responsibly in pursuing a course that would lead to tobacco regulation. If this sounds like deja vu, that is because it is. CEI and other front groups are using the same playbook, the same tactics to deny climate change that they used to deny a link between tobacco use and fatal disease. CEI is now on a new mission to confuse and mislead the public on climate change. It is financing and directing ad hoc groups like the so-called Cooler Heads Coalition, which claims that global warming is a myth and that many scientists are skeptical of climate change. CEI has also produced two television ads that allege that the polar ice caps are thickening, not shrinking, and that CO2 emissions are good for the environment. CEI's ads sound more like something that Saturday Night Live might come up with. For instance, this is their tagline about CO2: They call it pollution. We call it life. Of course, we all know that CO2 is necessary for plant growth. But what that ad fails to mention is that too much CO2 in the atmosphere can cause global temperatures to rise, and that there is more of it in the atmosphere today than at any time during the last 420,000 years. So there is more carbon, more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time during the last 420,000 years. Just as in the case of Big Tobacco, one need only to look at who funds CEI to see how they determine their messaging. We have a chart here to show where their funding comes from. I would just point out that this is data all compiled from publicly available records. We see ExxonMobil Foundation. Then we see the Koch family and their foundation. Then we see Philip Morris. So there is significant funding from people who have an agenda about climate change. My staff has determined that between 1985 and 2015, CEI has received almost $15 million from rightwing organizations like the Donors Trust and the Dunn's Foundation for the Advancement of Right Thinking. CEI has also received more than $2 million, as we see here, from ExxonMobil, and more than $1 million from the Koch foundations and the Koch brothers personally. The strong ties between CEI's message denying climate change and the interests of coal, oil, and gas companies are clear and obvious. So it seems that while CEI has changed its client, it is still in the exact same business of selling lies and selling out the health and the future of ordinary Americans. Another industry front group I wanted to talk about this afternoon has been exceptionally loud in denying climate change. It is the so- called Energy & Environment Legal Institute, or E&E Legal. E&E Legal has several different aliases--the American Tradition Institute, George Mason Environmental Law Clinic, and Free Market Environmental Law Clinic--but its MO is one and the same. Like CEI, E&E Legal has a core mission of discrediting climate science and dismantling regulations that protect the environment. However, instead of rolling out ad campaigns, E&E Legal has a different approach. Its specialty is harassing individual climate scientists and researchers with the aim of persuading the public that human-caused global warming is a scientific fraud. Of course, the group's lawsuits are frivolous and baseless. But this doesn't matter because the entire point of the lawsuits is to disrupt important academic research that may help us anticipate, avoid, or mitigate the impacts of global warming. Once again, if we look at the funding behind E&E Legal, we understand exactly why this group is attacking climate scientists and their work. E&E Legal does not publicly disclose its donors. We have seen that before. However, bankruptcy proceedings have identified that the group is funded by Arch Coal and Peabody Energy, and that E&E's senior lawyer has received funds directly from Alpha Natural Resources. These are some of the largest coal producers in the United States. It is shameful and dishonorable that these coal companies are funding the harassment and intimidation of scientists. They are putting profits ahead of people, and their disinformation threatens the scientific inquiry and transparency we need in order to make smart climate policy decisions to protect our Earth. In conclusion, big corporations are using organizations that claim to be independent to spread misleading messages to the American people, knowing that people would be quick to discount these messages if they actually knew they were coming directly from coal companies and from Koch Industries. This campaign of disinformation and propaganda endangers the health, environment, and economic well-being of people in the United States and across the world. That is why Senators who acknowledge the science of climate change, Senators who understand the urgency of action to combat climate change are speaking up this afternoon and for many days to come. By coming to the floor, we want to expose groups like CEI and E&E Legal for what they are--front groups whose role is to spin a web of denial. By championing clean energy policies, we want to ensure that the United States reduces its dependence on fossil fuels while creating millions of jobs to support our economy in alternative energy and green energy sources. By supporting our country's leadership in negotiating the international climate agreement concluded last year in Paris, we are doing our part to slow global warming and help poorer nations most affected by it. This is just the beginning. We will continue to come to the floor to advocate for policies to reduce carbon emissions, to strengthen our economy, and to protect our environment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, as we approach the Fourth of July, I want to salute the Pease Greeters for their very special brand of patriotism--a patriotism of deeds, not words. Since 2005, they have gathered at Pease International Airport in Portsmouth, NH, to give a warm send-off or welcome home to servicemembers in transit to or from conflict zones in the Middle East and elsewhere. This past Sunday, the Greeters reached a remarkable milestone by gathering at Pease to meet their 1,000th flight. The welcoming ceremony concluded with words that have become the group's signature greeting: ``We the old warriors salute you the young warriors.'' For tens of thousands of uniformed servicemembers, many of them en route to or from combat zones in Iraq or Afghanistan, Pease airport is the last place they set foot on U.S. soil when they depart and the first place they set foot when they return. Prior to 2005, troops encountered a mostly empty and unwelcoming airport terminal. That year, airport officials contacted Charles Cove, a Vietnam war veteran and asked if he would gather a group of Granite Staters to greet a unit of 135 servicemembers heading to combat duty in Iraq. Mr. Cove gathered some fellow veterans and others, and they met the Iraq-bound soldiers with coffee, doughnuts, and warm words of support and appreciation. Following that impromptu event, Mr. Cove and co-founder Edmund Johnson, a decorated Marine veteran of the Korean war, joined with fellow veterans and other Seacoast residents to form the Pease Greeters. Many in the group are old enough to remember that servicemembers returning from the Vietnam war were greeted with indifference or even hostility. Mr. Cove, who earned two Purple Hearts in Vietnam, said he made a promise to himself and his country that he would not allow this to happen to future servicemembers and veterans. Since 2005, the Pease Greeters have not missed a single flight, ensuring that every departing and returning servicemember is given a hero's greeting and warm words of appreciation. Several thousand volunteers, ranging in age from retired veterans to young children, have joined in this mission. They have transformed the airport terminal at Pease into a ``Heroes' Walk,'' with framed group photos of all the military units that have passed through the airport since 2005. Typically, 100 or more Pease Greeters will be on hand for a ceremony, forming a celebratory gauntlet to cheer and welcome servicemembers as they disembark from a troop transport plane. In addition to refreshments and gifts, each servicemember is given a cut-out embroidered star from a retired American flag. On one occasion, the group was informed at 10 p.m. that a Marine unit bound for Afghanistan would be flying out of Pease just six hours later, at 4 a.m. The Greeters scrambled to meet the challenge and were present with refreshments and a cheering crowd for the pre-dawn send-off. In addition to meeting flights, the Pease Greeters organize efforts to support veterans, Active-Duty servicemembers, and their families. They also send care packages to servicemembers on duty overseas. Since 2008, the Greeters have sent more than 75,000 pounds of care package items to those serving in conflict zones. I salute the Pease Greeters for their dedication to supporting and thanking our brave men and women in uniform, one flight at a time. Across 1,000 flights, they have delivered to our servicemembers an important message, eloquently expressed by Mr. Cove: ``The road to freedom is a toll road. We thank you for paying our way.'' We join with the Greeters in thanking the men and women of our Armed Forces. In addition, I want to express my deep appreciation to the Pease Greeters for their own generous service to our Nation.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, the opioid crisis is a national public health emergency, and it is long past time that Congress treat it like one. It is shattering families and communities, especially in New Hampshire but also all across this country. In New Hampshire, we are losing a person a day to drug overdoses. The CARA bill is a good bill. I cosponsored it. I think it is important. But without real dollars, it is the equivalent of offering a life preserver with no air in it. I urge all of my colleagues to support this motion to instruct and support real funding in this bill. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I have a motion to instruct the conferees at the desk, which I ask the clerk to report.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut. I am here, like everyone else on the floor, in the wake of horrific mass shootings, from Sandy to Orlando. Americans have come together united as a family to grieve for the dead and comfort those left behind. But we haven't come together to do anything to stop the next shooting, prevent the next series of funerals, and prevent future devastation. That is why I want to thank Senators Murphy and Blumenthal, the Senators from Connecticut, and Senator Booker from New Jersey, for leading us here today to demand action. Let's be clear. Tears are not enough and expressions of outrage are not enough. After Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino, and so many shootings that have happened with numbing regulatory, moments of silence and expressions of sympathy are just not enough. This Senate, this Congress, needs to pass commonsense gun safety legislation--legislation supported by 9 out of 10 Americans. It is inconceivable that Congress would fail to act in the wake of the Orlando tragedy. To do nothing would be an affront to all of those Americans who have lost loved ones to senseless gun violence. The distinguished Senators from Connecticut and the distinguished Senator from New Jersey have been outspoken advocates of commonsense gun safety legislation. Senators Murphy and Blumenthal have wept with the families of the 20 schoolchildren massacred at Sandy Hook Elementary. In the subsequent 3\1/2\ years, working with the Sandy Hook families, they have advocated for legislation to address the menace of widely available automatic assault weapons--weapons that have only one purpose, and that purpose is to kill large numbers of people. We are here today to demand action on commonsense measures to address gun violence. The first would be to deny guns to people on the FBI's no-fly list. Those people who are on the no-fly list because of suspected ties to extremist organizations or ideologies should not be allowed to fly and they should not be allowed to buy a gun. It doesn't get more common sense than that. If a person is considered too dangerous to board an airplane, then that person is too dangerous to purchase a military-style assault weapon. Second, ensure universal background checks for gun buyers so we can keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people. At least 9 out of 10 Americans support these measures. It is a no-brainer. Enough is enough. It is time for us to say enough is enough. We get a second chance to vote on this legislation, and this time we must come together on a bipartisan basis to pass commonsense gun safety legislation to end the violence. As we contemplate this legislation, let's remember the photographs. We have all seen them on television and in the newspapers. These are photographs of so many wonderful young people--this time from Orlando-- who were killed by gun violence. The Orlando shooting was both a crime of terror and a crime of hate, and now it is time for us to honor those who died, honor our friends in the LGBT community who are hurting, honor our friends in the Latino community, and honor all of those Americans whom we lost to senseless gun violence. To my friend from Connecticut, I ask, isn't the best way to honor all of those people we lost to gun violence to act now to prevent future tragedies?

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I say thank you to Senator McCain. Thank you for your leadership and thanks to Senator Jack Reed for his leadership on this issue. As the Senator points out, there are real lives at stake. If we are not able to continue the Special Immigrant Visa Program for those Afghans who have helped us during the conflict in Afghanistan, then--we know the Taliban has already murdered a number of them, their family members. As the Senator points out, to have someone object to going forward with this amendment--not related to the program at all but because people have other personal issues they want to address--it would be unfortunate and not in this country's interest. What we are actually hoping we can vote on today is a carefully crafted amendment. It addresses the legitimate concerns that people have raised about this program. We spent hours over the last few days and last night trying to come to some agreement to address those issues, and I think the legislation before us does that. The concern, as I understand, isn't about this program and about what is in this program; it is about individuals who have their own issues unrelated to this program that they want to see addressed. I understand that. We all have our issues, but that is not what we ought to be voting on at this point. The Senator pointed out that Ryan Crocker, who served both in Afghanistan and Iraq, has talked about the importance of this program, as have so many of our generals and those who have served. I want to quote from an op-ed piece he wrote last month about the importance of Congress addressing this program. He said: In an era of partisan rancor, this has been an area where Republicans and Democrats have acted together. Congress has continued to support policies aimed at protecting our wartime allies by renewing the Afghanistan SIV program annually-- demonstrating a shared understanding that taking care of those who took care of us is not just an act of basic decency; it is also in our national interest. American credibility matters. Abandoning these allies would tarnish our reputation and endanger those we are today asking to serve alongside U.S. forces and diplomats. As we all know, this country owes a great debt to the Afghans who provided essential assistance to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. Thousands of brave men and women put themselves and their families at risk to help our soldiers and diplomats accomplish their mission and return home safely. We must not turn our back on these individuals. We must not imperil our ability to secure this kind of assistance in the future, and a ``no'' vote today would do exactly that. I urge this body to move forward to allow a vote on a compromise that has been supported by everybody who was raising concerns about this program. I would like to yield to my colleague from South Carolina.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Sorry. Senator Moran.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I join Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed in the very eloquent remarks they have provided in support of the Special Immigrant Visa Program for Afghans who have assisted our men and women on the ground serving in Afghanistan. Chairman McCain mentioned the letter from GEN Stanley McChrystal. I would like to read a few sentences from this letter that was sent to all the Members of Congress. General McChrystal says: The U.S. military presence in Afghanistan relies on allies who serve as translators, security personnel, and in a multitude of other functions. All of these actors are vital to the U.S. mission, whether [they] work directly or indirectly with U.S. forces. Afghans who served the United States in non-military capacities or in support of the Department of State face serious threats as a result of their service. He goes on to say: If this program falls far short of the need, it will have serious national security implications. We have received similar letters from GEN John Campbell, who was head of the forces in Afghanistan, and from General Nicholson, who is currently the general and commander of resolute support of United States Forces-Afghanistan. Ryan Crocker, a former Ambassador in Afghanistan, has been very eloquent in the need to continue to support this program and make sure those Afghans who have stood with our American soldiers can come to the United States. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these letters and this article from Ryan Crocker.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, will my colleague from South Carolina yield for a question?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, as Senator Reed said, the amendment we have offered has been very carefully crafted. It has been a compromise among those who have had concerns about the program and those of us who believe it is critical we continue to support it. This is something all of those who have been watching this program have now agreed to, and I hope the objection we are hearing from some, that I think is unrelated to this issue, can be addressed. I close with a story that says to me how important this program is. Senator McCain and I had the opportunity 2 years ago to sit down with a former Army captain, a man named Matt Zeller, and his interpreter, an Afghan named Janis Shinwari, who had just been allowed into the United States. When I asked Matt Zeller how he met Janis and about the help he had provided him, his response was that they had met basically when he and his unit were under attack from the Taliban and he was knocked out in that attack. When he woke up, it wasn't he and fellow unit members of the military who were dead, it was the Taliban, and they were dead because Janis Shinwari was there and had protected Matt and the fellow members of his unit. I think that says so much about how important these interpreters and those who have provided support to our men and women on the ground in Afghanistan have been. What will we say the next time we want somebody to help, when we need help in a country where our men and women are fighting, if they can look back and say: You didn't keep your word, United States, so why should we help you now? This is our opportunity to continue to keep our word, to continue to make sure those people who helped us in Afghanistan, who protected our men and women on the ground there, are able to come to the United States when they are threatened, when their families are threatened, and be safe. I certainly hope we can work out the objection we are hearing from some Members and that we can support this very carefully crafted compromise to make sure we protect those who have helped protect us. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, the Senator from South Carolina talked about the fight against ISIL and how that is spreading across the Middle East. What kind of message does it send to the Taliban, ISIL, and other terrorist groups, should they hear that we are defeating this program that was designed to help those people who helped us?

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here this morning to urge my colleagues to support an amendment that I have offered to the National Defense Authorization Act to extend the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program, also known as the SIV Program. The SIV Program gives Afghans who supported the U.S. mission in Afghanistan and now face grave threats because of their willingness to help our service men and women on the ground in Afghanistan the ability to come to the United States. To be eligible, new applicants must demonstrate at least 2 years of faithful and valuable service. To receive a visa, they must also clear a rigorous screening process that includes an independent verification of their service and then an intensive interagency security review. People may ask: Who are these Afghans? Let me give a few examples of the extraordinary service they have provided. The first person I will talk about--and I can't use his name for privacy and security reasons--worked as an interpreter for U.S. Special Operations Command, SOCOM, from 2005 to 2016--11 years. He originally applied for a special immigrant visa in 2012 and continued to work for SOCOM during the interim. One of the applicant's direct supervisors, the commander of 1st Battalion, Third Special Forces Group, stated that the applicant's brother was murdered by extremists--probably Taliban-- due to the applicant's work for the U.S. Government, and the applicant himself has been wounded several times while serving. A second individual worked as the head interpreter for a provincial reconstruction team, or PRT team, for years. Because of his service, his children can't go to school and the lives of his family members are in danger. The applicant's PRT commander was one of multiple direct Defense Department supervisors to submit letters of recommendations on his behalf testifying to his loyal and valued service. A third interpreter served the Defense Department from 2008 to 2015. He left work in December following an IED attack which robbed him of one eye and his vision in the other. He applied for his special immigrant visa after being wounded and is in the beginning stages of the extensive interagency vetting process. Clearly, the service of these individuals has been critical to our successes in Afghanistan, and in at least a handful of other cases, SIV recipients' commitment to the U.S. mission was so strong that they found ways to contribute even after they arrived in the United States. One promptly enlisted in the Armed Forces and later worked as a cultural adviser to the U.S. military. Another graduated from Indiana University and Georgetown and has worked as an instructor at the Defense Language Institute. A third, who worked as a senior adviser at the U.S. Embassy, now serves on the board of a nonprofit, working to promote a safe and stable Afghanistan. These contributions in Afghanistan and beyond help explain why senior U.S. military officers and diplomats are so supportive of the Afghan SIV Program. Here is what the current commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, General Nicholson, wrote recently about the need to reauthorize the SIV Program: These men and women who have risked their lives and have sacrificed much for the betterment of Afghanistan deserve our continued commitment. Failure to adequately demonstrate a shared understanding of their sacrifices and honor our commitment to any Afghan who supports the International Security Assistance Force and Resolute Support missions could have grave consequences for these individuals and bolster the propaganda of our enemies. . . . Continuing our promise of the American dream is more than in our national interest, it is a testament to our decency and the long-standing tradition of honoring our allies. Last year, General Nicholson's predecessor, General Campbell, wrote a similar letter affirming his strongest support for the SIV Program and urging Congress to ``ensure that the continuation of the SIV program remains a prominent part of any future legislation on our efforts in Afghanistan,'' adding that the program ``is crucial to our ability to protect those who have helped us so much.'' Their view is shared by senior diplomats as well. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who served in Afghanistan from 2011 to 2012, recently wrote that ``taking care of those who took care of us is not just an act of basic decency, it is also in our national interest. American credibility matters. Abandoning these allies would tarnish our reputation and endanger those we are today asking to serve alongside U.S. forces and diplomats. I see that my colleague Senator McCain is on the floor. I know my colleague remembers, as I do, watching all of those Vietnamese holding on to those helicopters that were leaving when America pulled out of Vietnam because they knew what their fate was going to be once America left that country. That is not something we can allow to happen in future conflicts. When we make a promise to those people who helped us on the ground, we need to abide by that promise. We need to make sure those people who helped our service men and women are able to get to this country and are not killed by the Taliban and other enemies of the United States and Afghanistan. Yet, despite these compelling cases and despite the persuasive arguments of our senior military and civilian leaders, the Senate NDAA does not currently reauthorize and extend the SIV Program or allow for additional visas because of the objections of some few in this body. This is particularly problematic because we are going to issue all of those unallocated SIVs by the end of this year even while there are thousands of Afghans at some stage in the application process and new applicants still beginning. In effect, this means that without congressional action, the SIV Program will sunset around December and thousands of Afghans who have stood alongside our military and other government personnel are at severe risk. I hope this body will decide that this is unacceptable and that we have to make sure we support those people who have supported our men and women on the ground and who have, in fact, died to support our men and women on the ground. I am happy to join Senator McCain and Senator Jack Reed, the chair and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, in trying to pass this amendment and make sure we support those people who supported us. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time in a quorum call be charged equally to both sides.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise to support this Congressional Review Act resolution to block the USDA catfish inspection program. Despite what my colleague from Mississippi has said, there is no evidence that the catfish program provides any additional food safety benefit. It was designed to create a trade barrier. I appreciate the opposition of my colleague from Mississippi. He is working for his catfish farmers in Mississippi. I know I like Mississippi catfish, but I like all kinds of catfish. In fact, the USDA, FDA, CDC, and the GAO have all confirmed that catfish, both domestic and imported, is already safe under FDA's jurisdiction. In fact, you are more likely to get hit by lightning than to get sick from imported or domestic catfish. Let's not lose sight of what we are talking about. The FDA inspects hundreds of species of domestic and imported seafood. There is nothing particularly dangerous about catfish that merits setting up a whole separate inspection program under the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The fact is, the FDA is responsible for the safety of most--about 80 to 90 percent--of all U.S. domestic and imported foods, and it has years of successful expertise in the unique area of seafood safety. The FDA system has worked for both domestic and imported seafood, and it has done so for years. Let's talk about how we got to this point. Before 2008, the Food and Drug Administration was responsible for inspecting all foreign and domestic fish products. The Department of Agriculture inspected livestock, such as beef, pork, and poultry. However, a provision was added to the 2008 farm bill that transferred the inspection of catfish--not all imported seafood, just catfish--to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, requiring that agency to set up a new, separate program to inspect just catfish alone. Again, inspection of all other noncatfish seafood remains at the Food and Drug Administration, and it still does today. This means that seafood businesses across this country that handle catfish are now subject to two different sets of regulations from two completely separate Federal agencies. I have heard from businesses in New Hampshire and across the country that are being hit by these burdensome new regulations. They are affecting their ability to grow and create jobs. There is no scientific or food safety benefit gained from this new program. There is no evidence that transferring catfish inspection to the USDA will improve consumer safety. I appreciate that there have been a couple of examples given in the last few weeks of imported catfish. I think we ought to address that and do it very quickly, in the same way we address domestic problems with our food system and do it very quickly. Officials from the FDA and USDA have explicitly stated that catfish is a low-risk food. The USDA acknowledges in its own risk assessment that no one has gotten sick from eating domestic or foreign catfish for more than 20 years. The USDA catfish inspection program is a classic example of wasteful and duplicative government regulation that is hurting our economy, and it is expensive. The FDA has been inspecting catfish up until now for less than $1 million a year. The USDA, by comparison, has spent more than $20 million to set up the program without inspecting a single catfish during that time. Going forward, estimates are that the program could cost as much as $15 million to operate per year. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, has recommended eliminating this program 10 separate times. If there is no food safety benefit, costing millions and actively hurting jobs across the country, why was this program created in the first place? This program, as I said earlier, is a thinly disguised illegal trade barrier against foreign catfish. This kind of a barrier leaves us vulnerable on other American products, such as beef, soy, poultry, and grain, to a wide variety of objections from any WTO nation. Since there is no scientific basis for what we are doing, any WTO nation that currently exports catfish to the United States could challenge it and secure WTO sanction trade retaliation against a wide range of U.S. exports, as I said, things like beef, soy, poultry, grain, fruit, and cotton, to name a few. Again, it is important to go back and note how this policy change was created. It was not included in either version of the 2008 farm bill that passed the House and Senate, and it was never voted on or debated in either Chamber before it was enacted. It was secretly included in the final version of the farm bill by the conference committee in 2008. The only other time the Senate has voted on this issue was in 2012, and we voted to repeal it in a strong bipartisan voice vote. The resolution we are talking about today has strong bipartisan support. A discharge petition was signed by 16 Democrats and 17 Republicans in order to initiate floor action and, most importantly, this resolution actually has the chance to become enacted into law. This is not a program this administration ever wanted to have to implement. In fact, it delayed implementing a final program for 8 years, I think in hopes that we in Congress would finally be able to get a vote that repealed the program. Unfortunately, this is an expensive and harmful special interest program--something some might call an earmark--and it is already having severe impacts on some businesses. I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important resolution to block the USDA catfish inspection program once and for all. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I rise to discuss the Sexual Assault Survivors' Rights Act. I am very pleased this legislation has been incorporated into the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act that is before us this afternoon. I thank the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senators Grassley and Leahy, for their help and support in moving this important legislation forward. The Sexual Assault Survivors' Rights Act builds on the legacy of the Crime Victims' Rights Act by establishing our Nation's first set of codified, court-enforceable rights to address unique issues faced by sexual assault survivors. These rights, coupled with renewed efforts to educate survivors about available options and resources, will help empower survivors already in the justice system. In addition, this bill will send a powerful message to survivors all across the country: You do have rights. We do care about you. If you choose to come forward, we are going to be there for you, and we are going to ensure a justice system that treats you with dignity and fairness. As many of our colleagues know, sexual assault remains one of the most pervasive and complex challenges in our justice system. It affects every segment and demographic of our society, young and old, rich and poor, rural and urban. The immediate physical harm of an attack can result in a lifetime of emotional scars and lingering stigma. Sexual assault is also one of the most difficult crimes to prosecute. For starters, it is the most underreported crime in our country. The Department of Justice estimates that nearly 70 percent of attacks go unreported and only a small percentage of perpetrators go to prison. When we ask survivors why other victims don't come forward and press charges, they tell us our justice system seems to be working against them, not for them. They even say the trauma of an attack can be compounded by the disappointment they feel when our legal system puts so many needless obstacles in the path of justice. For survivors, it is too often a grueling and bewildering process. Many feel intimidated and ultimately choose not to go forward. Some who may initially file charges give up before their case is resolved or they simply slip through the cracks. In many States, sexual assault survivors risk having their untested rape kits destroyed, sometimes without their knowledge. This issue came to the attention of my office when a 24-year-old young woman, Amanda Nguyen, came to my office and told me about her experience with this very issue. She had the tragic circumstance of having been raped in Massachusetts, and despite the State's 20-year statute of limitations for sexual assault, Amanda has had to return to the same police station every 6 months just to make sure her rape kit evidence is not destroyed. That means that every 6 months she has to relive the crime that was committed against her. She has to meet with a different person, reexplain her situation, and hope her evidence is not destroyed. What is worse, if Amanda had not been proactive in figuring out all the relevant policies, her evidence could have been destroyed without her even being notified. Fortunately, Amanda didn't give up. She decided this was wrong and she was going to do something about it. She visited a number of offices across Capitol Hill, and when she got to ours, we said: You are right. This is wrong. We need to do something about it, and we worked with her and with an organization she started called Rise to put together legislation that could serve as a model for the rest of the country. Fortunately, the Senate has an opportunity to respond to the issues Amanda raised and so many people have faced across this country. This bill will establish in the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act the first set of court-enforceable rights for survivors of sexual assault codified in the U.S. Criminal Code. These rights are specifically designed to address many of the unique challenges faced by survivors of sexual assault. They include commonsense changes, such as ensuring that survivors are not charged for the rape kits, requiring that the relevant evidence be kept for the entire statute of limitations period, the right to be informed of the medical results of a rape forensic examination, and the right to have written notice before a rape kit containing critical evidence is destroyed. It is important to note that the rights contained in this bill would only apply at the Federal level. However, they are drawn from best practices developed by many States, and we are hopeful they will serve as a model and a catalyst for each of the 50 States to enact or improve their own survivor bill of rights. Already we have heard from several State legislators who intend to introduce bills mirroring the Federal standards in this legislation. We know the status quo is not acceptable. Currently, inadequate laws work against survivors, against law enforcement, and against prosecutors--serving only the perpetrators who too often remain at large. It is past time for a reform process that ends the silence surrounding sexual assault, brings it out of the shadows, and gives survivors a fair shot at justice. This is exactly what the Sexual Assault Survivors' Rights Act will do. I am so pleased it has been included in the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act that is before us today. Again, I thank the Judiciary Committee. I thank Amanda Nguyen and Rise. They have been so critical to getting this legislation included in the Adam Walsh Act, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill when it comes to the floor. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, the town of Stratham in New Hampshire is celebrating its 300th anniversary this year. Today Stratham is a classic New England community, proud of its family- friendly quality of life and looking forward to its annual town fair in June. The culmination of this year's fair will be the 300th anniversary dinner dance at Stratham Hill Park on June 25, celebrating the establishment of the township of Stratham in 1716. Of course, the human history of what is now Stratham, located between the Great Bay and Exeter in southeastern New Hampshire, goes back many centuries prior to the arrival of the first English explorers and settlers. The land was originally inhabited by the Pennacook Tribe, Algonquian-speaking Native Americans, who were among the first to encounter European colonists in what is today New England. In 1640, an Englishman named Thomas Wiggin established the first settlement in what was then called Squamscott Patent, and through the remainder of the 1600s, people continued to arrive in the settlement. By the early 1700s, residents petitioned George Vaughn, Lieutenant Governor of the Province of New Hampshire, to incorporate a new town. On March 20, 1716, he granted their request and ordered that ``Squamscott Patent land be a township by the name of Stratham, and that there be a meeting house built for public worship of God with all convenient speed.'' The town was given authority under King George I to elect selectmen, hold town meetings, collect taxes, build a meeting house and hire a ``learned and orthodox minister.'' At the initial gathering of town leaders, they appointed a committee of five to take care of building a meeting house, which would be used both for church services and meetings of the selectmen. Stratham Community Church now stands on the site of that original meeting house. As a resident of the Seacoast, I regularly visit Stratham. It is hometown and headquarters to corporate giants Lindt chocolate and Timberland footwear, whose products include the Stratham Heights line of women's high-fashion boots. The town also takes pride in its smaller stores, cafes, and restaurants, places where people know your name and where the small businessowners are right there every day. But Stratham's greatest assets are its citizens, who are unfailingly gracious and friendly. Of course, the big event in Stratham is its annual town fair, one of the oldest in the Granite State. The fair got its start in 1966, when Stratham held a giant party to celebrate its 250th anniversary. A half century later, that party has evolved into a sprawling fair that draws visitors from across southeastern New Hampshire, nearly tripling Stratham's usual population of 7,250. This year, as I said, the fair's gala dinner dance at Stratham Hill Park will be the culmination of the town's 300th anniversary celebrations. Stratham's motto is ``inspired by the past, committed to the future.'' The town does indeed have a long and rich history, and it has entered the 21st century as a forward-thinking community with a vibrant economy. Even as Stratham grows, it has preserved its small town charm, hospitality, and lifestyle. I congratulate all the folks in Stratham on this landmark 300th anniversary. I wish everyone a wonderful celebration in June.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, today the Senate invoked cloture on an amendment to provide more than $1 billion in emergency spending to help combat the Zika virus. I support this effort. I think it is a good amendment, and I commend our leaders in the Appropriations Committee for reaching this bipartisan agreement. However, I join my colleague from Maine, my colleague from West Virginia, and all of those who are disappointed that the opioid epidemic is not being treated with the same degree of urgency. Some Senators on the other side of the aisle have said it is their preference to deal with the opioid epidemic through the regular appropriations process. Let me say that I am not encouraged by the results so far. With all due respect to my colleagues, an extra $1 million here and there for a few programs, which is what we are seeing in the appropriations process, is not going to address the nationwide crisis that Senator King has said is going to kill tens of thousands of Americans this year. While the HHS appropriations bill is still being drafted, because of the tight budget caps that are in place for this fiscal year, I am not optimistic that it will include the type of game-changing funding that we need to stem the tide of this crisis. Unfortunately, we saw that the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill included only minor increases to programs to address the heroin and opioid epidemic. That is why we need emergency funding, and we need it now. In March, the Senate had an opportunity to provide $600 million in emergency funding to address this crisis, but despite strong bipartisan support, that amendment was defeated on a point of order. Congress needs to rise to this challenge, just as it has done during previous public health emergencies and just as we are doing right now to address the Zika virus. Just last year Congress approved $5.4 billion to combat the Ebola outbreak, which killed one American, but in 2014, 47,000 Americans died from drug overdoses. Each day we wait, another 120 people die of drug overdoses. We are losing one person a day in New Hampshire. Now is the time to act. I urge my colleagues to reconsider. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor to join my colleagues because I share their very real concerns about the impact of the Zika virus on families in New Hampshire--also not a tropical State--the impact on people across the country here in the United States, and also on people around the world. As has been pointed out, we have seen reports in regions with active mosquito-borne transmission of the virus, places such as Brazil, where they are about to host the Olympics. People will be traveling there from all over the United States, from all over the world. We have seen those stories of women who have had children with severe birth defects, with microcephaly, as a result of their exposure and contracting the virus during pregnancy. We have also seen impacts on adults. The connection that seems to be there, and I think we are still waiting on definitive research, but the connection in adults between Guillain-Barre syndrome and the Zika virus is also very real. While fortunately in America in most cases that can be treated, the reality is, in a lot of places around the world and for some people, it causes severe paralysis and sometimes even death. So this is not just something that affects pregnant women, but there are also concerns about who else might be affected by this virus. As we have heard from North Dakota, as we have heard from other States, as mosquito season arrives in this country, we can expect additional Zika cases, transmitted often by mosquitoes from tropical areas, that people contract when they are traveling. We know this mosquito is coming to America. In New Hampshire, where neither of the two known mosquito vectors currently live, we have already had three cases of Zika, with about 150 possible cases that are still being tested. Two of those cases were acquired as a result of traveling to Zika- impacted regions, but the third was contracted because of sexual transmission of the disease from a partner who had been traveling. Last week I chaired a roundtable on Zika in Concord, NH, in our capital. We had representatives who are looking at what might happen with the virus and our planning for an outbreak, which we hope we can avoid. We had doctors from the State, we had the State epidemiologist, we had the director of the State lab, and we had people who are working on mosquito control. They talked about how over the last several months they have been getting more and more questions about Zika, particularly from women who are planning to have children in the near future, and for pregnant women and their families or women and their partners who are beginning to think about starting a family. As Senator Heitkamp pointed out, the threat of Zika is very real. We had one of the doctors, an obstetrician, at that roundtable who reported that many of her family patients are canceling vacations they had planned and some of her patients whose husbands are in the military who are stationed in Zika-infected countries are concerned about how to protect themselves and what they need to do when they return. We heard from folks at our New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services who talked about the importance of increased access to family planning and contraceptives and the Zika outbreak impact on the need for those services. It gives us a new lens on the importance of making sure women and families have access to this health care. We need to make sure all women at risk or diagnosed with Zika have access to comprehensive, patient-centered contraceptives and preconception counseling. We also heard from the folks involved with mosquito control. What they told us is, there are two mosquitoes that can spread the Zika virus, that we know of at this time. One of those is a mosquito that is only in the tropics, that we are never going to see in northern New Hampshire and in northern New England. The second mosquito, we have already found in Connecticut and Massachusetts. The mosquito control folks said that unlike the usual spraying for mosquitoes, which is in wetland areas and swampy areas in New Hampshire, this is a mosquito that, as Secretary Burwell has described it, ``can breed in as little as a capful of water.'' They are mosquitoes that bite people four times in order to get a meal, so they spread very fast. What we heard from the mosquito control folks who were at this meeting was that they are encouraging people to look at places in their yards where water might collect in small spaces, in wheelbarrows, in paint cans, in places we would not normally think about mosquitoes growing. They also encouraged people to think about protecting themselves. When you are going out, think about covering up, wearing long sleeves, wearing slacks, wearing socks when you are outside at a time when mosquitoes might be around. The other concern about the Zika mosquito is that it also is active during the day. It is not like most of the mosquitoes we see in New Hampshire, which are active at night. This is a mosquito that is also active during the day. So we need to be taking action now. I listened to the head of the State lab in New Hampshire talking about the challenge of getting results from the lab for people who had been tested for Zika. He said: Sometimes we have to send out to labs. We don't have the capacity in New Hampshire to do the analysis that is required. We are still looking for a test that can definitively determine if somebody has had Zika in the past. He said: Something as small as the ability to ferry the samples and the results back and forth to a lab is one of the things we need so we can get answers so we know how to act. The folks who are trying to get information out to the public talked about the need to have support so they could get information out, both to the medical community and to individuals, about the importance of what individuals need to do to take action. They said very directly to me, as I said that I appreciate this is something we need to work with you on in Washington, they said: We don't have the resources to respond to this in the way we need to in New Hampshire. For those people who would say: Don't worry. You are exaggerating. This is never going to come to New Hampshire, well, that is what they told us about the West Nile virus. That is what they told us about EEE. We have had deaths in New Hampshire in recent years from both of those viruses. So I think we need to act on this. I know there has been an agreement in the Appropriations Committee, among the appropriators on both sides of the aisle. It has been a bipartisan agreement to help get a supplemental funding bill to the floor to address this because in New Hampshire what I have heard is that we need help. We need Washington to help us. If we are concerned about the cost of this, just think about what our inaction will do? What if we have an outbreak and we have people who--we have thousands of women, as they do in Brazil, who have been infected and who have had babies with microcephaly. What are the health care costs to people who might have been infected by the Zika virus, with Guillain-Barre syndrome, with other birth defects as a result of being infected during pregnancy? So this is a bill we can't afford to wait on. We need to address this. If folks are not willing to do it because it is the right thing to do, they ought to be willing to do it because it is the cost- effective thing to do. I hope we can come together. I know people on both sides of the aisle are concerned about this. We need to come together. We need to address this. It is a pending public health emergency. We have to respond. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I wish to speak in strong support of the United Nations' Paris climate change agreement and the President's decision for the United States to be among the first nations to sign the agreement. Last Friday, April 22, the United States and more than 170 nations came together in New York to sign the international climate agreement negotiated last year that would slow global warming and help poorer nations most affected by it. I find it very symbolic that April 22, the first day that nations could officially sign the agreement, was also Earth Day. Earth Day is a reminder of our obligation to preserve and protect our environment for our children and future generations to come. Last year, I joined nine of my Senate colleagues in Paris to attend the 21st United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as COP 21, where the climate agreement was negotiated. What we witnessed at COP 21 was monumental: 195 countries, representing more than 95 percent of global carbon emissions, came together to adopt the first universal climate agreement that calls for international cooperation on addressing the causes of global warming and helping poorer nations most affected by it. I am proud to say that the United States was a big part of that effort. President Obama's leadership was key in encouraging China, the world's largest emitter, to submit an aggressive climate action plan, and helping countries to find consensus necessary to make such a landmark agreement. The Paris agreement establishes a long-term, durable global framework for countries to work together to reduce carbon emissions and keep the global temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius in order to avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change. For the first time, countries have committed to putting forward ambitious, nationally determined climate targets and reporting on their progress towards those targets using a standardized process of review. The Paris agreement encourages transparency, accountability, and collaboration among nations not only to meet their climate targets, but to encourage innovation while doing so. No country is insulated from the increasingly present and escalating effects of climate change. In the United States, we are seeing it throughout the country, and we are certainly feeling its effects in New Hampshire. Rising temperatures are shortening our fall foliage season, which is so important to our State's tourism economy. Milder winters have led to increases of insect-borne diseases that endanger our wildlife. In New Hampshire, we have already seen a 40 percent decline in our moose population. The changing climate is also putting more stress on sugar maples, and this is already affecting syrup production. Investments to improve the resiliency of our communities at all levels is critically important to our ability to mitigate the impacts of climate change. And that is what we are doing in New Hampshire. At the grassroots and statewide, Granite Staters recognize the urgency of addressing climate change and are leading the way by reducing pollution and transitioning to a more efficient, clean energy economy. For example, last month in Durham, the New Hampshire Climate Action Coalition joined with the University of New Hampshire to host a pancake breakfast and discuss the negative impact of climate change on the maple syrup industry. The event featured a panel of local maple syrup producers, scientists, and others who understand the impacts that climate change is having on forests and maple trees. Over 80 people came together to enjoy maple syrup, hear the speakers, and take action to protect our environment. New Hampshire is also a part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI--the Nation's first regional cap-and-trade program designed to reduce harmful carbon emissions from the power sector. Through our participation in RGGI, New Hampshire has reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the power sector by nearly 50 percent since 2008 and is on track to meet the administration's Clean Power Plan's carbon- reduction goals 10 years ahead of schedule. The events happening in New Hampshire show that there truly is broad momentum in the fight against climate change. But in order to achieve our goals, State and local actions must be accompanied by national and international involvement. This is why the international climate change agreement is so essential. Under the Paris agreement, the United States has made a commitment to reduce carbon emissions by at least 26 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. While this goal is indeed ambitious, it is something that we can achieve. By implementing administrative policies like the administration's Clean Power Plan, which will reduce pollution from our Nation's dirtiest power plants, and by doing what this Chamber did last week, which was to take up and pass a comprehensive energy bill that will encourage energy efficiency and improve our Nation's energy policies, we can meet our commitments. The United States must also be responsive to climate change's impact on our friends in the world's least developed and most vulnerable countries. As one of the world's largest emitters of carbon emissions, we have a responsibility to the world on climate change. Climate change represents an enormous challenge, but the solutions are within reach if we put into place policies that allow for swift action. The world must work together to ensure that the goals of the Paris agreement are realized. We have a responsibility to help protect our children and grandchildren from the most severe consequences of global warming by reducing emissions now.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am thrilled to join my partner in efficiency, Senator Portman, in addressing the energy efficiency provisions of the Energy Policy Modernization Act. Before I get to those, I congratulate Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell for everything they have done to move this Energy bill forward. At a time when I think most of us thought this Energy bill was gone for this Congress--again, for the third time--they have been able to rally to bring people together to get consensus to move a bill that not only deals with the energy efficiency provisions that Senator Portman and I have championed but also improves a broad array of energy policies for this country, and it would permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I congratulate them on giving us yet a third opportunity--hopefully--to vote on this bill and to finally be able to pass it. As Senator Portman said, the third time is a charm, hopefully. For 5 years, he and I have worked to advance the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, or what was known initially as Shaheen-Portman, which has now become Portman-Shaheen in this Congress. Many of the provisions in that original legislation are in this Energy Policy Modernization Act. While over the last 5 years we have been able to get some of the original provisions in the legislation through, the fact is, most of the significant provisions are in this current bill. I thank Senator Portman for being such a great partner on energy efficiency and for helping to advance this legislation in a way that gives us another chance to hopefully vote successfully on the bill. I have been a huge fan of energy efficiency since my years as Governor of New Hampshire because I believe that energy efficiency is the cheapest, fastest way to reduce our energy use. Energy savings techniques and technologies reduce carbon pollution. They lead to substantial energy savings that allow for businesses to expand, for us to create jobs, and for our economy to grow. In a Congress that is too often divided along partisan lines on so many issues, energy efficiency is one priority that can bring us together on a bipartisan, bicameral basis because energy efficiency is beneficial to everyone, regardless of what part of the country they live in and regardless of their energy source. We can all benefit from energy efficiency. And those are the provisions that are in this legislation. I will try not to repeat too much of what has already been said by Senator Portman, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Cantwell about the bill, but I did want to go through a couple of the energy efficiency provisions that are in the legislation because it reduces the barriers to efficiency in a number of ways. First, in buildings, it would strengthen outdated, voluntary national model building codes to make new homes and commercial buildings, which account for more than 40 percent of U.S. energy consumption. These provisions are especially important in this legislation because much of the savings in efficiency come from these national model building code provisions. Again, as Senator Portman has said, these are not done through mandates, they are done through incentives, through our encouraging States to adopt these model building codes. The energy efficiency provisions also deal with industrial efficiency. They assist the industrial manufacturing sector, which consumes more energy than any other sector of the U.S. economy. They help that sector implement efficient production technologies and would encourage the private sector to develop innovative energy-efficient technologies for industrial applications, to invest in a workforce that is trained to deploy energy efficiency practices to manufactures. Finally, the other major section of the efficiency provisions from Portman-Shaheen deals with the Federal Government. We encourage the Federal Government--which is the Nation's largest energy consumer--to adopt more efficient building standards, to adopt smart metering technology, and to look at our data centers and see how we can reduce costs and energy use. Through doing that, not only can we save energy, but we can save taxpayers millions of dollars. Just the energy efficiency provisions from Portman-Shaheen in the legislation would create nearly 200,000 jobs by 2030--a significant job creator in the bill. It would reduce carbon emissions by the equivalent of taking over 20 million cars off the road, and it would save consumers over $16 billion a year. There are significant benefits to this energy efficiency. Again, as Senator Portman has said, these are provisions that have brought together a very diverse group of stakeholders, everyone from the American Chemistry Council, to the National Wildlife Federation, as Senator Portman said, the NRDC, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This is a broad group of trade associations, labor organizations, and environmental groups who have come together because energy efficiency is something on which we can all agree. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of letters that have been sent by many of these organizations.