Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am joining my colleague, Senator Klobuchar, to talk not just about these two positions of Ambassadors to Sweden and Norway but also about some of the other 27 nominees who deal with national security issues. As Senator Klobuchar said yesterday when we were on the floor, we said we were going to come down here every day. The Senate is not going to be in session every day, so we won't be here every day, but we will be back as often as possible to point out that we need to confirm these nominees. It is in the country's national security interests. The Presiding Officer serves with me on the Senate Armed Services Committee, so she understands just how critical it is that we have a team in place that can be part of the team that protects this Nation. As Senator Klobuchar said, Azita Raji has been waiting over a year since she was nominated. She went through the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously. Nobody objected. Sam Heins was nominated almost a year ago. He is nominated to be U.S. Ambassador to Norway. Again, this is not about just these two individuals; this is also about the message we are sending to two of our best partners and allies, Sweden and Norway. Both of these countries have been part of the anti-ISIL coalition fighting with us against the terrorists. Sweden has been on the frontlines of the refugee crisis, taking in thousands of refugees in Europe. As we think about the strains that the European Union is under right now, for us to have failed to put ambassadors in two of our most important allies is unforgiveable. Yesterday I said it was in 1914 that Norway had to scramble their F- 16 fighters. We know they didn't have F-16 fighters in 1914. It was 2014. So a little over a year ago, Norway, which is a NATO ally, scrambled its F-16 fighters 74 times to intercept Russian warplanes. As we think about the threats from Russian aggression, Sweden and Norway are right there. They are on the frontlines. Norway has committed to participate in NATO's missile defense system. So, again, it is very important as we are looking at our efforts to stop Russian aggression. Yesterday in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee we were talking about the strains on Europe. We had witnesses for both the majority and the minority who confirmed that our failure to move these nominees on the Senate floor is ``an enormous issue,'' a ``disastrous policy,'' and sends the message that Washington does not ``care about European security''--both minority and majority witnesses--even arguing that the United States does not have ``players on the field.'' Not only are there national security implications, but, as the Senator from Minnesota pointed out, vacancies in Sweden and Norway mean that some $11.3 billion in U.S. exports lack a strong champion in- country. I hope the Senator from Texas--who is out running for President--will come back or will lift his hold so we can send the message that we should be sending to our European allies about how important they are and how strongly we want to support what is happening in those countries. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to move two other national security nominees. The first is Ambassador Tom Shannon. He has been nominated to be Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. Again, he has been waiting 136 days since being nominated. He also went through the Foreign Relations Committee without any opposition. He would be responsible for working with Europeans on the implementation of the Iran agreement, on coordinating the G7 to combat Russian aggression, as well as providing daily oversight and direction to all the Department's regional bureaus. He is a career Foreign Service officer who has served in five administrations, two Democratic and three Republican. At this time I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: the nomination of Ambassador Tom Shannon to be Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Calendar No. 375; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Again, it is very disappointing that the objection has been made, this time on behalf of the Senator from Alabama, who is here, so it is disappointing that he is not on the floor to talk about what his objections to Adam Szubin are. I believe that refusing to move these nominations does a profound disservice not only to these Americans who have sacrificed to serve this country but to the national security of the United States. I call on the majority leader to schedule votes on these nominees and other pending national security nominees to let the Senate do its job at a time when the world is facing national security challenges on a number of fronts. When nations are looking to the United States for leadership, we cannot afford to sideline ourselves by failing to confirm these important nominees. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here to join my colleagues because I share the concerns they have expressed so eloquently about the failure of this body to act on the nominees whom they have been talking about. But the other nominees, particularly the 27 national security nominees who are pending on the floor of the Senate--these nominees are not being held up due to concerns about their qualifications or their experience. As my colleagues have said, they are being held up for political reasons--political reasons that are often wholly unrelated to the nominee, and in most cases they are being held up by just one Member of this body. I find it particularly ironic that, in many cases, they are being held up by a Member of this body who is out on the campaign trail, campaigning for President. He is not here dealing with the work of this country and not here fighting to address the national security of this country by making sure that we confirm these nominees. So I am disappointed that, once again, we see my colleague from Utah here on his behalf to object to our efforts to move forward with these unanimous consent requests for Tom Shannon, John Estrada, Azita Raji, and Samuel Heins. As Senator Cardin noted, I want to begin with Ambassador Shannon, because Ambassador Shannon would fill one of the most senior positions at the State Department as the Under Secretary for Political Affairs. He would be responsible for working with the Europeans on implementation of the Iran agreement, on coordinating the G-7 to combat Russian aggression, as well as providing daily oversight and direction to all of the Department's regional bureaus. We had a hearing this morning before the Foreign Relations Committee, talking about the strains on the European Union and the implications for American foreign policy. One of the things our witnesses who were testifying on behalf of the majority and the minority discussed was the challenges we are facing from Russian aggression. I am sure we all appreciate that in this body. The fact that we are holding up Ambassador Shannon, who would be responsible for coordinating the G-7 response to Russian aggression, is just hard to fathom. I don't get it. I don't understand why anybody in this body would want to hold up the appointment of one of the key leaders of the team to fight Russian aggression. Ambassador Shannon is clearly qualified for the job. He is a career Foreign Service officer. He has served with distinction in five administrations--two Democratic and three Republican. He was nominated for this position in September. He had his confirmation hearing in October. He was unanimously approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and now he has been waiting 98 days for the full Senate to act on his nomination. There isn't much I can add to the outrage and eloquence of my colleagues from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken, who talked about their frustration at the holdup in confirming Azita Raji, who has been waiting 398 days--over a year--to be Ambassador to Sweden; Samuel Heins, who has been waiting 265 days to be Ambassador to Norway. Again, I would go back and point to the hearing we had this morning before the Foreign Relations Committee, where one of the issues that our witnesses testified to was the importance of working with our Scandinavian allies as we look to combat Russian aggression. Here we are. And I said: So, what does it mean to Sweden and Norway that we have been holding up the nominees to be Ambassadors to those two countries--one for over a year and one for almost a year? And they said: It sends a very bad message to Europe, at a time when Europe is challenged, that we don't care what is going on in Sweden and Norway. In 1914, Norway, a NATO ally, scrambled their F-16 fighters 74 times to intercept Russian warplanes. They are there on the frontlines helping to fight Russian aggression. Where are we in the Senate? We can't even confirm the Ambassador to Norway because we have one person in this body who doesn't care enough about the national security of this country to be here to help make sure this person gets confirmed. That is not acceptable. I also want to talk about two other nominees whose qualifications are unquestioned. Yet they remain unconfirmed. Brian Egan is the President's nominee to be a principal advisor to the State Department and the Secretary of State on all legal issues, domestic and international. This role includes assisting in the formulation and implementation of the foreign policies of the United States and promoting the development of law and institutions as elements of those policies. It is something that is very important, especially as we look at some of the countries that are being threatened now by Russian aggression--Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova. Mr. Egan's qualifications to hold this position are clear. He began his career as a civil servant and government lawyer in the office of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. He subsequently worked at Treasury, at the National Security Council, and as a Deputy Assistant to the President. He was nominated more than a year ago--384 days to be exact. He was unanimously approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June. Yet he is still in this ``hold'' position because of one or two individuals in this body for reasons unrelated to his qualifications. Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 204, Brian James Egan to be Legal Advisor of the Department of State; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Again, that is disappointing. Again, it is unfortunate that somebody who has served so honorably in both Republican and Democratic administrations is being held up for reasons totally unrelated to his qualifications and to the job he would do at the Department of State. Unanimous Consent Request--Presidential Nomination I know that many Republicans in this body are as outraged as we are about the holdup. I hope they will act with us to move these nominees. One of those people is still being held up, this time by the Banking Committee, which has refused to schedule a vote on the nomination of Adam Szubin to be the Treasury Department's Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes. This position leads to policy, enforcement, regulatory, and intelligence functions of the Treasury Department aimed at identifying and disrupting the lines of financial support to international terrorist organizations, proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, narcotics traffickers, and other actors who pose a threat to our national security or foreign policy. This position is critical, as we look at legislation that we are talking about taking up next week with respect to sanctions on North Korea, with respect to continued sanctions on Iran, on Russia, to other bad actors, to terrorists who are out there. Mr. Szubin is extremely well qualified for this position. He has served in both Republican and Democratic administrations. He was nominated 294 days ago. Yet even Banking Committee Chairman Shelby called Szubin ``eminently qualified'' during his September confirmation hearing. The fact that the committee has not held a vote and the Senate has not confirmed him lessens his ability to influence our allies and to undermine our enemies around the world, which is what we want to happen. If we are worried about our ability to enforce sanctions, if we are worried about the national security of this country and one of the weapons that we have to use to protect this country, then we ought to be confirming Adam Szubin. It is very disappointing that my Republican colleagues continue to object and that my colleague from Utah is here on behalf of Senator Cruz from Texas, objecting to moving forward. Even though I understand that he is going to object, I am going to put forward another unanimous consent motion because I think we need to come back here every day from now until the end of this session and ask unanimous consent to move forward on these nominees because it is unacceptable that we are still here at this time without confirming these people. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of PN371, the nomination of Adam J. Szubin to be Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes; that the Senate proceed to its consideration and vote without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am delighted to be on the floor today, again, with my good friend from Ohio, Senator Portman, to discuss our energy efficiency bill, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, which is almost entirely now a part of the broad Energy Policy Modernization Act that is on the floor today. The Energy Policy Modernization Act is a broad bipartisan approach to improve our Nation's energy policies on efficiency, infrastructure, supply, and accountability. I wish to thank the chair of the energy committee, Senator Murkowski, and Ranking Member Cantwell for the good work they have done to put together this bipartisan piece of legislation that is going to address a number of our energy challenges and also permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Now, as I said, a fundamental component of this bill started out as Shaheen-Portman. Now we call it Portman-Shaheen. But as my colleagues know, Senator Portman and I have been working on this energy efficiency legislation since we first introduced it in 2011. I am a proponent of energy efficiency because it is the easiest, cheapest way to reduce energy costs, to combat climate change, and to create private sector jobs. In addition to being affordable, energy efficiency benefits aren't confined to a certain fuel source or to a particular region of the country. You can like efficiency if you are a supporter of fossil fuels or if you are a supporter of new alternative energies. Our piece of this comprehensive bill represents nearly 5 years of meetings, negotiations, compromise, and broad stakeholder outreach. The end result is an affordable, bipartisan approach to boost the use of energy efficiency technologies in manufacturing, in buildings, and across the Federal Government. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, when fully implemented, our efficiency bill will create nearly 200,000 jobs, reduce carbon emissions by the equivalent of taking 22 million cars off the road, and save consumers $16 billion a year. And it does this with absolutely no mandates. Critical to the negotiation of this legislation has been the joint effort between Senator Portman and myself, and between our staffs, to work out with stakeholder groups the concerns they had in the energy efficiency legislation and to come up with compromises that we all thought not only helped build support for the legislation but that actually make it a better bill. So on buildings, which use about 40 percent of our energy in this country, the proposals in our legislation would improve energy savings by strengthening outdated model building codes to make new homes and commercial buildings more energy efficient. Again, I point out that it does that without any mandates. It is a carefully crafted agreement that has been negotiated with everyone, from the home builders to the realtors to a number of our friends in labor. So I think this is a compromise, and the language in the bill is a compromise for which there is broad support. The bill also encourages energy efficiency in the industrial sector, which consumes more energy than any other sector of our economy. Again, the provisions in the legislation would encourage the private sector to develop innovative energy efficient technologies for industrial applications and to invest in a workforce that is trained to deploy energy efficiency practices to manufacturers, and they would encourage the Department of Energy to work more closely with stakeholders on commercialization of new technologies. Finally, the energy efficiency piece of this legislation would encourage the Federal Government, the Nation's largest energy consumer, to adopt more efficient building standards and technologies, such as smart meters. With stronger efficiency standards for Federal facilities, we can save taxpayers millions of dollars. Senator Portman and I have introduced our bill three times. Each time, this legislation has received broad bipartisan support from our Senate colleagues, broad bipartisan support in the energy committee, and it has received strong support from a diverse group of stakeholders--everyone from trade associations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the National Association of Manufacturers, labor organizations, and the environmental community--all, I think, because efficiency is something that we can all agree on. At long last, I am excited to see that the full Senate is again taking up this legislation as part of a bigger, more comprehensive bill. Before I turn it over to Senator Portman, who is here, I would also point out that two other provisions I have been working on are included in this comprehensive bill. One is smart manufacturing legislation, which uses technology to integrate all aspects of manufacturing so that businesses can manufacture more while using less energy. The other provision deals with grid integration, because, as we know, this is one of the issues that the committee took up as part of this bill: How do we address our aging transmission and distribution infrastructure? The grid integration bill will ensure the broader deployment of clean and efficient technologies, such as solar, combined heat and power, and energy storage. I think that is important to strengthen this Nation's energy security. Finally, I will close by saying that the Senate is working this week on a comprehensive energy bill for the first time since 2007, if it becomes law. Since then, we have seen a dramatic change in our economy, and we have seen a dramatic change in the world economy with respect to energy. The United States has greatly reduced our energy imports. We are now the world's top producer of oil and natural gas. In many places around the world, electricity generated by renewable sources, such as wind and solar, is cheap enough to compete effectively with electricity generated by fossil fuels. Just at the end of the year, we saw more than 180 countries come together to form a global plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change. So we are truly experiencing a revolution in energy production and energy technology. It is way past time for our energy policies in America to catch up with that revolution. I, again, thank the chair and ranking member and the entire energy committee, and, again, my colleague Senator Portman for the great work he has done and that we have done together to bring this portion of the bill to the floor. I yield to Senator Portman.

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I wish to salute the memory of the seven brave crewmembers of Space Shuttle Challenger, who perished on a mission of exploration and discovery 30 years ago today, on January 28, 1986. I honor the memory of all seven Challenger crewmembers: Gregory Jarvis, Judith Resnik, Francis Scobee, Ronald McNair, Michael Smith, Ellison Onizuka, and Christa McAuliffe. Indeed, Congress permanently honors the Challenger crew with a painted lunette medallion of the crew prominently placed in the Brumidi Corridor of the Capitol Building, one floor below this Chamber. In that painting, six of the crewmembers are depicted holding their helmets in their arms, but one crewmember, Christa McAuliffe, is holding in her arms not her helmet but a globe. For Granite Staters and for teachers and educators all across America and the world, there is a very special place in our hearts for Christa McAuliffe, a social studies teacher at Concord High School who was selected from more than 11,000 applicants to become the first NASA teacher in space. During a year of extensive training at NASA before the mission, Christa created science lessons that she planned to teach from space while on board Challenger, broadcasting her lessons and observations to students all across Earth. As a former teacher, I witnessed the impact that Christa's participation had on students and teachers. The Challenger was integrated into the classroom curriculum, allowing students to discover a passion for science. We continue to see the contributions of the Challenger's crew in the students who pursue careers in the sciences and in the success of recent NASA missions. I am especially pleased to witness Christa McAuliffe's continuing impact in advancing education in the STEM fields--science, technology, engineering, and math--and encouraging young people--especially young women--to pursue careers in STEM fields. A few months after the accident, the families of the Challenger's crew created the first Challenger Center for Space Science Education, a nonprofit that engages students and teachers in hands-on education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Since then, 40 Challenger learning centers have opened their doors in the U.S. and other countries, and they are expanding opportunities for innovative programs and activities in STEM . We all appreciate that this is a very difficult day for the many outstanding professionals at NASA. On that day, they lost seven wonderful colleagues. Our heart goes out to the NASA family and the families of all seven crewmembers on this day of remembrance. As an astronaut, Christa McAuliffe was on a mission to outer space. But, as a teacher, she was also on a personal mission to educate and enlighten. She opened the eyes of young people around the world to the wonders of our planet and universe. Today, we remember and honor her bravery, her passion for teaching, and her tremendous legacy.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. It is my understanding that Adam Szubin has been held up and we have never heard a reason why he is being held up in that committee. Is that the Senator's understanding as well?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank Senator Coons. As we know, one of the challenges is having people in place in the various agencies who can enforce this agreement and hold Iran accountable. That is where I think we have a real challenge because we have a number of nominees who need to be approved, but there are three who stand out as particularly important. First is Tom Shannon, who was nominated to be the State Department's Under Secretary for Political Affairs. Second is Laura Holgate, who is nominated to be the U.S. Ambassador to U.N. offices in Vienna. Included in those offices is the IAEA. The third and maybe even the most important as we think about future sanctions on Iran is Adam Szubin, who has been nominated as the Treasury Department's Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes. Shannon was nominated on September 18. This nomination is currently on the floor. Holgate was nominated on August 5. Her nomination is pending in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Szubin was nominated on April 16, and his nomination has been held up in the Banking Committee despite the support he has from the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I know a number of my other colleagues are going to speak to these nominees, but I would like to point out that last week we had a hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee on the implementation of the JCPOA, and one of the witnesses who had not been a supporter of the agreement--Michael Singh--was a witness at that committee hearing. I asked him about Adam Szubin. He described him as a ``good guy who had done great work for the country'' and as someone whose nomination should go forward because it would allow us to continue to look at the sanctions regime and what we need to do. The reality is--and I am sorry to say this because I think it contributes to what the American public is concerned about when they look at us in Washington and what we are doing. I think these nominations are being held up for purely political reasons. It has nothing to do with the background of these candidates, with their expertise, or with what they would do on the job; this is about individuals within this body who are trying to hold up these people for their own political gain. I think this delay is harming the national security interests of the United States. It is something every one of us ought to be concerned about, and we ought to be yelling about this because it is long past time that we confirm these individuals, let them do their jobs, and continue to do everything we can to protect this Nation's national security. I thank Senator Coons for organizing all of us to come to the floor today to talk about what we need to do as we are implementing the joint plan of action.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am delighted to be able to be here to join my colleague from Delaware to talk about what is happening with enforcement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. If we want this to succeed, one of the things we need to do is to make sure we support the IAEA, the international agency that is charged with monitoring and verifying Iran's compliance with the agreement. I want to address that first, and then I wish to talk about some national security nominees who are also critical as we think about how we enforce this deal. First, we all know that the IAEA is absolutely critical to the international nonproliferation system and to the enforcement of the JCPOA. Their employees are working day in and day out to verify critical aspects of the implementation of the agreement that prevents Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. For example, on December 28, Iran shipped more than 12 tons of low- enriched uranium to Russia, where the fuel is stored in a facility that is guarded by the IAEA. The IAEA has increased the number of its inspectors on the ground in Iran. They have deployed modern technologies to monitor Iran's nuclear facilities, and they have set up a comprehensive oversight program of Iran's nuclear facilities. The IAEA is constantly enhancing and improving its efforts. For example, earlier this month they installed the online enrichment monitor, or OLEM, to verify that Iran keeps its level of uranium enrichment at up to 3.67 percent, as they committed to under the JCPOA to keep it at that 3.67-percent level. This prevents Iran from enriching uranium to a point where it could conceivably be used in a nuclear weapon. This is new technology. It was developed by the IAEA with significant support from American scientists at our Department of Energy national labs. As a result of the JCPOA, this new system can be used in Iran. The IAEA resources devoted to verification and monitoring are also increasing considerably with personnel devoted to monitoring Iran's nuclear program increasing by 120 percent and the number of days monitors spend in the field by 100 percent. If we want the IAEA to be successful in making sure this agreement is successful, we need to provide robust financial support so that they can deploy the best scientists in the world for inspections and so that they can deploy the best equipment to monitor Iran's compliance. IAEA Director General Amano has called on member states to provide long-term funding for the IAEA's additional activities in Iran that are estimated at approximately $10 million a year. If we think about this cost, that is a very good investment for America as we prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. I have other colleagues on the floor who wish to speak. So I can wait and talk about nominees after they have had a chance to speak, if that makes sense.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Will my colleague yield for a question?

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Coons and others on the floor today, especially those of you who had a chance to travel to the Middle East. I didn't get a chance to go with you on this trip. But, like Senator Kaine, I do serve on both the Armed Services and the Foreign Relations Committees, and I supported the nuclear deal with Iran because I was convinced and continue to be convinced that it is the best available option for preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. As my colleagues have already spoken to, to some extent, we already see the effects of this nuclear deal in Iran's actions. On December 28, Iran shipped over 25,000 pounds of low-enriched uranium to Russia, including the removal of all of Iran's nuclear material enriched to 20 percent that was not already fabricated into reactive fuel. We know this was one path for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. They have removed this low-enriched uranium. It is in Russia. The IAEA has increased the number of its inspectors on the ground in Iran. They are deploying modern technologies to monitor Iran's nuclear facilities, and they have set up a comprehensive oversight program of Iran's nuclear facilities. The IAEA is now inspecting all of Iran's declared nuclear facilities 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and they will have access not just to the facilities where we know Iran was trying to build a weapon but also to the uranium mines and mills, which will give the IAEA and the rest of the world complete access to the entire nuclear fuel cycle. The Iraq reactor, which has been spoken to already, will be completely disabled. Its core is being filled with concrete. Once the IAEA verifies that Iran has completed the steps related to the Arak reactor, Iran's plutonium pathway to a bomb will have effectively been blocked. Iran has been dismantling its uranium enrichment infrastructure, including the removal of thousands of centrifuges. Again, taken together, these and other steps will effectively cut off Iran's four pathways to a nuclear weapon, and they will push its breakout time to at least a year for the next 10 years. What should Congress be doing? My colleague from New Jersey, Senator Booker, was very eloquent in talking about some of the actions that we need to take, both Congress and the administration, to continue to address Iran's terrorist activities throughout the region. But I think one of the other things we ought to be doing as a Congress is confirming key Obama administration foreign policy and national security nominees because many of these nominees are critical as we look at the implementation of the Iran agreement. They are critical as we think about what we need to protect this country, to protect our national security. I would ask my colleague on the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Murphy, what does it mean that we have failed to confirm Adam Szubin as the Treasury Department's Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes? I was a cosponsor, with Senator Rubio, of the Hezbollah sanctions bill, the additional sanctions we can put on Hezbollah to limit their activities, and yet we are still missing one of the key players in making that work at the Treasury Department. What does that mean, I ask Senator Murphy, the fact that Congress has failed to confirm these nominees?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Would my colleague yield for another question briefly? I didn't give the date that Adam Szubin was nominated, and he has been before the banking committee. Does the Senator have that information to share with everybody?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank all three of my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee. I will close and yield back to Senator Coons with saying that I would hope that one of the things we would all agree to, as Senator Murphy has said, is that regardless of where we stood on the Iran nuclear agreement, the goal now is to make sure that is implemented in a way that makes sure that at least 10 years from now we have at least a year's breakout before Iran--if they decided to do that--could go back and have a nuclear weapon. I would hope that we all share that as our most important priority with respect to Iran. I yield back to my colleague Senator Coons.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to honor the service and sacrifice of Army CPL Andrew Aimesbury, who died last week from wounds sustained during squad live-fire training at Fort Stewart, GA. He was a proud son of New Hampshire, and I join with other Granite Staters in extending my deep condolences to his father, Carl Aimesbury, of Somersworth; his mother, Karen Kelsey, of Dover; and his sister, Abigail Aimesbury, also of Dover. Corporal Aimesbury served courageously in Afghanistan and was highly respected as a warrior and team leader with an elite Ranger unit. His battalion commander praised his ``caring nature'' and called him ``an exceptional Ranger leader and an extraordinary man.'' It is deeply moving to read a post on Facebook by his father, Carl Aimesbury. Mr. Aimesbury wrote: ``Wednesday December 9th the world lost the best son, brother, cousin, grandson, person that I was so privileged to call my son. He was an Army Ranger and so proud to serve his country. My heart is broken but I am so thankful for the time I had with him. I love you Andrew.'' As we honor Andrew, let us remember that it is not only our warriors who serve and sacrifice but also their family members and loved ones. Corporal Aimesbury represented the very best in our Nation. After graduation from Dover High School in Dover, NH, he enlisted in the Army and trained as an infantryman at Fort Benning, GA. He went on to complete the Ranger Assessment and Selection Program as well as the highly demanding Army Ranger Course and was assigned to Company D, 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment. Soldiers typically flinch from the term ``hero.'' But make no mistake, Andrew Aimesbury answered the call of duty, served our Nation in time of war, and was prepared to--and did--make the ultimate sacrifice. If that is not heroism, I don't know what is. There is an inscription at Arlington National Cemetery that pretty much says it all: ``Not for fame or reward, nor lured by ambition or goaded by necessity, but in simple obedience to duty.'' I join with people in New Hampshire and across the United States in honoring the ``simple obedience to duty'' of this brave fallen soldier, CPL Andrew Aimesbury.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here on the floor with my colleagues--those of us who went to Paris, led by Senator Cardin, for this climate summit. At the conference in Paris, more than 180 countries accounting for over 90 percent of global emissions were there. They all submitted their plans for how they are going to reduce emissions, with the goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Centigrade by the end of this century. One of the things I was impressed with in Paris was that the countries that were there represented everybody from China to the Marshall Islands, and all of them understood that climate change is real, that it is a threat to our planet, and that we have to do something about it. They understand that because they have seen it. They have seen it in their home countries. They have seen rising sea levels, extreme weather events, environmental changes--all linked to global warming. Here in the United States, we see it too. According to a recent Pew poll, two-thirds of all Americans recognize that climate change is real and that action must be taken to address it. We see it in my home State of New Hampshire, where we are seeing a change in our wildlife population, a change in our snowpacks that affects our ski season, our foliage season is affected, and it has an economic impact on our State. But the exciting thing is--and we saw this very clearly in Paris--that at the local level, mayors, Governors, local leaders around the world understand that we have to take action to address it, and they were there in Paris urging the negotiators to come to some sort of an agreement. In New Hampshire, we have taken action. With nine other Northeastern States, we have been part of a regional cap-and-trade program called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. As a result of that and other actions that we have taken, we are going to meet the goals of the Clean Power Plan 10 years early. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative has generated $1.6 billion in net economic value. It has created more than 16,000 jobs across the region. That is one of the benefits of the action we can take to address climate change. As we all know here, it doesn't matter what we do in New Hampshire. It doesn't matter what we do in this country. Unless we get a global agreement in Paris so we are all going to move forward together to address the harmful impacts of climate change, we are going to see the continued sea level rise, the continued extreme weather events, all of the continued negative impacts of that global warming. Finally, I want to say that for me one of the most exciting things about meeting with people when we were in Paris was hearing that they were cautiously optimistic that we will get an agreement, that we will take action, and we will be able to make a difference for our planet and for future generations. I was pleased to have Senator Chris Coons from Delaware with us on this trip. I know he is going to talk about what he observed when we were in Paris.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, it is time to come together in the interests of national security to pass this bill to close this loophole in our Nation's gun laws.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to join my colleagues because I also believe we should keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. I don't think that applies to law-abiding citizens, but I think it does apply to terrorists. I have been a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. In New Hampshire, we have a rich tradition of safe and legal firearm ownership. We have a rich tradition of hunting and sportsman's activities. But like most Granite Staters, I also support pragmatic and sensible ways to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people who would threaten this country, while also protecting the rights of law- abiding citizens. That is what we are discussing here today. We have put forward commonsense legislation that adheres to a pretty simple principle: If you are not allowed on a plane because you are on a no-fly list, because you are suspected of threatening the country, then you should not be allowed to buy a gun. I want to repeat what Senator Schumer said because I think people don't think that is real. They think: Oh, well, if you are on the no- fly list, you are not going to be able to buy a gun. But according to the Government Accountability Office, between 2004 and 2014, suspected terrorists attempted to purchase guns from American dealers at least 2,233 times that we know of. In 2,043 of those cases--2,043--91 percent of the time, those suspected terrorists succeeded. That is unacceptable, and it is time we close the loophole that allows suspected terrorists to purchase guns. After the horrific tragedy last week that was carried out by radicalized individuals in San Bernardino, it is clear that we need to be doing more to prevent violent attacks inspired by ISIS here at home. Closing this loophole in our gun laws is a commonsense thing that we can do today. I have heard concerns that the legislation we have proposed doesn't allow for adequate due process for those on the list, but that is just not correct. The Department of Homeland Security has a process in place for removing a name from the no-fly list. As Senator Feinstein, the author of the legislation, has noted, the FBI office that handles the firearm background check system must provide a reason for a denial upon request. Individuals who are listed then have a right to correct any inaccurate records in the background check system. So there is a process in place for people who are wrongfully on that no-fly list to be able to remove their names. I would ask those who oppose this bill: If the no-fly list is not good enough for keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists, why is it worthwhile for protecting commercial airline flights from terrorists? The reasoning is inconsistent.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2892.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. This is a public health emergency. This amendment is fully paid for. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I rise this morning in opposition to the reconciliation bill that we are considering today. There are a number of reasons I have concerns, but one of the most important has to do with its repeal of the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act, while it is not perfect, is working. More Americans than ever before have access to health care. In New Hampshire, almost 45,000 people have received health insurance through the exchange. Most of those people did not have health care coverage before the Affordable Care Act, and the majority of these people are getting insurance premium support to make it more affordable. In New Hampshire, another 44,000 people are getting coverage through Medicaid expansion. The Governor and the State legislature worked long and hard to come to a bipartisan agreement--a Democratic Governor and a Republican legislature--on how to expand Medicaid in a way that works for New Hampshire. The reconciliation bill that we are considering today would turn back the clock on all of that work. It would repeal Medicaid expansion, and it would eliminate coverage for so many of the people who need it the most. In short, this bill would wreak havoc on the lives of families and individuals, people such as Deborah from Conway, NH. She and her husband own a small business. They work hard, and they live within their means. But for 17 years, they have been without health insurance, and they have had to forego health care services because of costs. As a result of Medicaid expansion, Deborah was recently able to go to the doctor for her first physical in 18 years. Imagine that; it was her first physical in 18 years. During that exam, she discovered that she has high blood pressure and that she is at risk for cancer. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, she is able to take the preventive measures. She expects to live a long, healthy life and is probably going to save money because she has received this preventive care. We cannot turn our backs on people such as Deborah and her family. Finally, the reconciliation bill would defund Planned Parenthood, which would deny access to 12,000 women in New Hampshire access to health care providers they trust and to services they need. For many of those women, Planned Parenthood is the easiest, most affordable, and best way for them, and--in many cases--the only way for them to get the care they need. I proudly stand with the millions of women who rely on Planned Parenthood, and I will continue to oppose any attempt to defund such an important component of our health care system. While I remain gravely concerned about the underlying bill, I am pleased to join Senators Wyden and Murray today in offering an amendment to address an issue that is vitally important to New Hampshire, to northern New England, and to much of the country, and that is this epidemic of heroin and opioid abuse. In New Hampshire and across this country, drug abuse has reached epidemic proportions. Each day 120 Americans die of drug overdoses. That is two deaths every hour. In New Hampshire we are losing a person a day due to drug overdoses. Drug overdose deaths have exceeded car crashes as the No. 1 cause of fatalities in the United States. We just had a report come out that shows that for the first time in years, the lifespan of White Americans is going down. It is going down for one reason that was cited, and that is because of drug overdoses. Mental health illness and drug abuse is a national public health emergency, and it is time for us to act. What the amendment we are offering will do is to take important steps to provide critical resources for the prevention, intervention, and treatment of mental illness and substance abuse disorders. The amendment will ensure that any health insurance plan purchased on the exchange is held to mental health parity and addiction equity standards, and it will make it easy for consumers to know what benefits are covered and the insurance plan's denial records. Importantly, the amendment makes it easier for patients to receive medication-assisted treatment drugs--drugs such as methadone, naltrexone and naloxone, commonly known as Narcan, and it prohibits lifetime limits on those drugs. Our amendment also strengthens Medicaid coverage of services to prevent and treat mental illness and substance abuse disorders. Again, not only do we have this epidemic, but we don't have enough treatment beds, we don't have enough treatment facilities, and we don't have enough providers to assist and support those people who are trying to get clean. For years, Medicaid has been prohibited from reimbursing medically necessary care to patients in residential or treatment facilities with more than 16 beds. Historically, this has been a barrier for patients who need these treatments for drug abuse and who have limited access to that treatment. Our amendment would enable more people to receive these services by allowing reimbursement for these facilities in States that have expanded Medicaid, such as New Hampshire. The amendment will also provide additional Medicaid Federal funding to help States provide community treatment programs and health homes for those in need of help. Finally, this amendment provides over $15 billion of needed funding to States and municipalities to help address the public health emergency in those States and communities that are the frontlines of this crisis. Through the substance abuse prevention and treatment block grants and the community mental health service block grants, this service is targeted to those most at risk for substance abuse and mental illness, giving the States flexibility to develop and fund programs that work best for them. This prevention, intervention, and treatment of substance abuse and mental health disorders have the potential to make the difference in millions of lives. The amendment is fully paid for by closing tax loopholes. With the tools provided in this amendment, we can change the lives of those struggling with mental illness and substance abuse disorders, and we can turn the tide of this national public health epidemic. I thank you all, and I hope that as we consider this reconciliation bill, we will have the opportunity to vote on this amendment and that there would be support to address the critical crisis we are facing because of heroin and opioid abuse. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, we are facing a public health emergency in New Hampshire and States across the country. Heroin and opioid abuse are at epidemic levels. This is important because it affects every State that is represented on the Senate floor. Each day, 120 Americans die of drug overdose; that is 2 deaths every hour. In New Hampshire we are losing one person every day from drug overdose. Drug overdose deaths have exceeded car crashes as the No. 1 cause of fatalities in this country. This amendment recognizes that this is a public health emergency and that we need to provide additional resources to address it. It does three things. First, it ensures that all health plans bought on the exchange cover mental health and addiction-related benefits. Second, it eliminates the Medicaid coverage exclusion that currently prohibits reimbursement for critically important inpatient facilities that treat mental illness. That is the 16-bed limit on those inpatient treatment facilities. Finally, it provides much needed funding to help States, municipalities, and their implementing partners prevent and treat mental illness and substance use disorders.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. I will be brief. Mr. President, I think it is important to challenge the provision in this legislation. I support the highway bill. I think the negotiators did a great job to get us a 5-year bill, but the fact is this provision was not included in either the House transportation or the Senate transportation bill. It is an indefensible reversal of the bipartisan budget bill that became law less than a month ago. It is a $3 billion giveaway to the insurance companies, and I think we need to challenge this kind of move when it gets dropped into a bill.