Brian Schatz

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. I thank the Senator from Connecticut and the senior Senator from Connecticut for their leadership. Before I ask my question, I want to read something I received just about a half hour ago from a constituent: Dear Senator Schatz, I am following the filibuster online and though I know you don't need more convincing about what we need to do, I thought to reach out to you anyway. Like many Americans I felt so paralyzed since Sunday's shooting in Orlando. On Sunday afternoon I brought my 4-year-old to the [University of Hawaii] campus for a film screening and I found myself, for the very first time, strategizing about where to sit and what I would do if there was an active shooter and how I could best cover my son's body if we couldn't escape. I am not an anxious person by nature but I refuse to accept that powerlessness to gun violence must be our accepted ``new normal.'' I work diligently at my job and as a mom to care for my own kids and the community of students I work with and am intentional in trying to create opportunities for their growth and learning. So it seems completely insane that in 2016 we have nothing more inspiring to offer a nation of families other than hoping that loved ones are not ``in the wrong place at the wrong time.'' That is totally unacceptable to me and I am willing to help with any community or national efforts to bring about necessary change. . . . I have personally sent postcards . . . to every Senator who voted against background checks. Please let your supporters in Hawaii know what we need to do. I will show up. #notonemore Your constituent, Vanessa Ito. I really want to thank Senator Murphy for his leadership in this. This is really moral leadership. I was in the Presiding Officer's chair. Both Senator Murphy and I were new to the Senate under very, very different circumstances, in a lot of ways both tragic circumstances. But I was in the chair and Chris Murphy gave his maiden speech. He was my friend. We had sort of just met and become fast friends. The first speech he gave was on this topic, and I understood his personal passion. But what he is doing now is bigger than that. He has displayed physical courage, emotional courage, and political courage that I think we couldn't imagine even at the beginning of the week. And even though all of us are committed to this issue, he shocked our conscience in that caucus room and laid down a marker for all of us to do better and to do more. I just want to say one thing before I go into a sort of preamble to my question, and that is this: My instinct about this is that our political opponents absolutely rely upon our being despondent. I think they absolutely rely upon the idea that we will give up by the end of the week--that we get our memo that this week is the National Defense Authorization Act, next week is the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations measure, and every week it is a different topic. Donald Trump will say something and distract the national media, and everybody will move on. But here is why I am so hopeful about what has happened today. It is not just that we have a bunch of Members of the Senate on the floor pretty late at night. It is very difficult to get any of us together for anything other than lunch--for anything--and yet here we are. Senator Murphy did some recruiting through staff and everything else, but this was organic. We saw what was happening, and we wanted to offer our moral support--and not, frankly, to him as a friend and a colleague but to everybody across the country who deserves people who are going to fight on this issue. The other really exciting thing that is happening is outside of the Senate, and that is more important. The gallery doesn't usually get more and more crowded through the day. People visit, people do their Capitol tour, and they come and check out the gallery--and we are yammering at each other or we are voting and we are shuffling around-- and then they leave. But what is happening in the gallery physically is that people are actually coming to see that something meaningful has happened. Senator Murphy's phone lines are ringing off the hook. Chris Murphy himself is the No. 1 trending topic on Facebook. And it is not about Chris Murphy. It is about the sense that maybe we can actually do something here. Maybe we can actually do something here. So for all of the people who are watching this online or observing it on Twitter or hearing about it for the first time, I want people to understand that this is the continuation of a movement, but this is an inflection point. This is a point at which we are not going to accept that if 90 percent of the public is demanding that we take action, the Senate and the House won't. That is unacceptable to me. Since I got to the Senate alone, there have been nearly 1,000 mass shootings. That is not 1,000 people killed. That is 1,000 mass shootings. Over 40,000 Americans have been killed by guns, and there are zero changes to our gun laws. The shooting in Orlando was the worst mass shooting event that our Nation has ever seen in one night--49 people killed and 53 shot and injured. Those numbers are shocking, but here is what I think is even more shocking--and Senator Booker mentioned this both in public and in private: Since then, more than that many people have been killed as a result of gun violence. This happens all of the time. Now, the Orlando situation was uniquely shocking because of the public dimension, because of the homophobia, because of the awful, graphic, shocking violence in one place at one time for one purpose--to strike terror in people's hearts and to strike terror in the hearts of people who are gay. So that was uniquely shocking. But in terms of the number of people killed, this was actually pretty similar to any other day in the United States. So my first question for Senator Murphy is--you haven't taken a break, you haven't had a meal, you haven't been able to interact with your son or your wife except in the gallery and at your podium. I guess my question for you is this: Do you feel momentum now? Do you feel momentum now?

Mr. SCHATZ. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I would like to ask a question specifically about the terrorist gun loophole. It seems obviously straightforward to everyone that we would want to prevent terrorists from getting guns, and yet we can't get the other side of the aisle to even show up, let alone to vote to close this loophole. As we know, last year 53 Senate Republicans voted against closing the terrorist gun loophole that allows known or suspected terrorists to get guns. They had several excuses. But I kind of want to go through the main complaint, and that is that there was not enough due process for these individuals. That is just plain false. There are several layers of due process, starting with the procedures that are available to anyone who does not pass a background check when trying to buy a gun. Anyone denied a firearm transfer has the right to find out the reason for the denial, submit correcting information to the Attorney General, and even bring a civil action against the government. The bill that Senator Feinstein has introduced--of which I think every Member of the Democratic conference is a cosponsor--provides additional due process. A person denied a firearm transfer because he or she was determined to be a known or suspected terrorist can challenge the determination in court. According to the FBI: A range of quality control measures are used to ensure that the Terrorist Screening Database contains accurate and timely information. This includes regular reviews, periodic audits, and post-encounter reviews conducted by the Terrorist Screening Center and the agencies that nominated the record to ensure the information continues to satisfy the applicable criteria for inclusion. Just yesterday, the majority leader stated the obvious--that nobody wants terrorists to have firearms. But what is really being proposed? The bill being proposed by Senator Cornyn--a very skilled and good legislator--is just not viable. The Republicans who would vote for this bill over Senator Feinstein's proposed legislation would keep the loophole wide open, because this bill is unworkable. It will require law enforcement officials to prove to a court that a gun buyer has already committed an act of terrorism instead of stopping likely terrorists ahead of time. Or the government would have to prove to a court that there is probable cause that a gun buyer will commit an act of terrorism. So in order to stop somebody from buying a gun, you have to show that this person is going to commit an act of terrorism. Now, I am not the lawyer--and I am looking around and seeing a number of lawyers on the floor. But my instinct is if you have probable cause that someone is about to commit an act of terrorism, you don't allow a database to be pinged and say: I'm sorry, sir; we can't give you your gun today. You would arrest that person. You would detain that person. So my question for Senator Murphy is first about this proposal from Senator Cornyn, and whether you think it would be workable. And then, if you wouldn't mind fleshing out--even if we are able to solve this so-called terror gap issue, if you would talk about straw purchases and the gun show loophole and how we have to be complete in our strategy-- that even if we solve this problem legislatively, there are gaping holes in our security when it comes to this issue. I would like you to talk us through how all of these issues work together. Because one thing I know about Senator Murphy is that he is deadly serious about actually solving this problem. You don't want to run on this problem. You don't want to tweet on this problem. You want to actually fix it because you feel it in your gut. (Mrs. CAPITO assumed the Chair.)

Mr. SCHATZ. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I believe firmly-- and I really appreciated the conversations between him and Senator Kaine about the Second Amendment. I am a Second Amendment Democrat. A lot of us are. I believe firmly that as Senator Schumer said, you can't pick the amendments you like and pick the amendments you don't like. I believe that we can protect the Second Amendment while protecting communities from gun violence. As stated by the late Justice Scalia, ``Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.'' To Senator Murphy, I would like to ask him, how does he view the Second Amendment fitting into this conversation? Speaking of bogeyman, I think that there is this sense that if you are for reasonable restrictions on purchasing a gun, that you are against guns. It seems to me, at least in the State of Hawaii, that people who are the most concerned with gun safety, the people who impart gun safety to their children, the people who do this right are gun owners, are hunters, are people who even have a gun for protection. So the question I have for the Senator is, What is the right balance, both under the law and from the perspective of keeping our people safe?

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, what we do next on Zika is not an ideological test; it is a test of our basic competence. It has nothing to do with one's views on the size and scope of the Federal Government because, after all, if you believe the government should do even just a few things, preventing a catastrophic epidemic has to be one of them. Zika is a public health emergency, and we have to act now to fund $1.9 billion in supplemental funding to address it, as requested by the public health experts. I congratulate Senators Nelson, Rubio, Blunt, and Murray for working across the aisle to reach these agreements, and I would especially like to offer my support for the Nelson-Rubio $1.9 billion compromise. The Nelson-Rubio amendment provides the full $1.9 billion in Zika funding through the following: approximately $743 million for the CDC, $277 million for NIH, $335 million for USAID, and $417 million for the State Department. And here is an important aspect of it: It also pays back the borrowed Ebola money that we need to ensure that countries stay prepared to prevent another Ebola crisis. There are a few proposals to pay for this, but I want to make the following point: This is an emergency. It fits the definition precisely, and so it shouldn't require a so-called pay-for. I would like to say something to the Members who have rediscovered their fiscal conservatism. Remember that we just passed a $622 billion tax subsidy package last December, and none of it was paid for--more than half a trillion dollars not paid for--and 5 months later we are nickeling-and-diming the Centers for Disease Control. I recently visited CDC headquarters in Atlanta to learn more about their efforts to combat Zika, dengue, and other vector-borne diseases. I have total confidence in the CDC's ability to respond to challenges like Zika, but we have to give them the strongest funding possible to make sure they can do their good work. And taking money away from the Prevention and Public Health Fund will strip CDC and other important agencies of the funds they need to protect our country from within and from without. It is fair to say that this is a Congress that has struggled to do its job. And even when it stumbles through a solution such as this, it sometimes creates a new set of problems. So far in addressing Zika, we have forced the administration to pull money from the CDC for Ebola or from States to address public health risks. If you want to find savings, there are plenty to be had in the Tax Code, including the more than half a trillion dollar package that was passed in December, and not a penny was paid for. There was $622 billion in tax subsidies--some great things in there, some questionable things in there--and not a penny of it was accounted for and paid for properly. Regardless of your side of the aisle, we can all agree that this is the one thing the government ought to do: keep us safe. Thank you to Senator Rubio and others for their calls to make Zika funding nonpartisan. Investing in the CDC and other agencies will protect our citizens from horrific diseases and shouldn't depend on your philosophy regarding the size and scope of the Federal Government. Let's do our job. Let's keep the people of the United States safe. Let's fund this emergency for Zika and keep us safe from Ebola and other dangerous diseases. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, if this isn't an emergency, then I don't know what is. Zika is a public health emergency. It defines a public health emergency, and we really have to act now to fund the administration's full $1.9 billion supplemental funding request. I want to respond to the assistant majority leader's concerns that there is no plan. With due respect--and I know he is working hard on this as well--that is just not accurate. The legislation propounded by Senators Nelson and others has a very specific plan. I was fortunate enough to visit the headquarters for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. They have a very specific plan. It is vector controlled. It is developing the diagnostic tests necessary to figure out whether or not people are carriers of the Zika virus. It is working on a vaccine. They have a high degree of confidence that they are eventually going to get a vaccine. But this takes time, and this takes resources. It is public health outreach regarding mosquitos and how this is transmitted, and it is assurance regarding the safety of our blood supply. So they have a plan. Let me be a little more specific: $743 million for CDC--this money would include grants and technical assistance to Puerto Rico and the U.S. territories and help our domestic and international response activities; about $250 million for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, or CMS, to increase the Federal match rate to Puerto Rico where there have been 500 active transmission cases--and, unfortunately, that number continues to go up; several hundred million dollars for the National Institutes of Health and BARDA to invest in vaccine research and development. That is the end game, but in the meantime, we have to prevent the transmission as our country warms up and as the mosquitos become more prevalent across the country with $10 million to the FDA for a vaccine and diagnostics development review and $335 million to USAID's efforts abroad to support affected countries' public health efforts on mosquito-borne diseases. I will make a couple of specific procedural points. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I believe it is really important that we are trying to move in the regular order on each individual Appropriations subcommittee. We have been working on a bipartisan basis. So we are trying to move in the regular order, and that is good news. We are moving a little more quickly than I think has been done in many years. That is good news. But the practical fact of that also means that we are not in the middle of working on legislation that must be passed by today or must be passed by next week because whatever we do--whether it is the Energy and Water title, whether it is THUD coming next, maybe MILCON-VA after, whatever it may be--we are going to be waiting for the House to act, and we are going to be conferencing. It is not at all clear when we will actually move appropriations measures to the President's desk, but it is fair to say those things are not exactly legislatively on fire. We could wait 2 or 3 legislative days. We could wait 2 or 3 legislative weeks. We are ahead of the game. That is not to say we don't have our own challenges with each of these individual appropriations measures, but this defines an emergency. This defines an emergency. This is an actual public health emergency, which means the idea of a pay-for for this is antithetical to the way we ought to work. This is what government does. Whatever your political persuasion, whatever your ideology is about the size and scope of the Federal Government, I think we can all agree that the most basic responsibility of the Federal Government is to keep us all safe. This is a real risk. This is not an imaginary risk, this is not a trumped-up risk, and this is not a partisan thing. If you talk to the CDC, if you talk to your local departments of health, vector controls, mosquito control areas--talk to them. They are very nervous, and it is increasing. The only reason this hasn't totally popped both epidemiologically and politically is that it is still cold in a lot of places and mosquitos aren't out. This is a real emergency. There is no reason we shouldn't be taking this up as the emergency starts to happen. There is no reason we can't take a couple legislative days to deal with that. To address the senior Senator from Texas, the assistant majority leader's questions about whether the plan addresses his concerns about accountability, about the ability to move money from one account to the other, about backfilling the Ebola funding--fine. Those are all legitimate questions, and I think they can all be addressed. But here is my question: Why not get on the bill? Why object to a UC request that we get on the bill? All of those questions can be addressed on the floor or in committee or in conversation. There are many ways to address those questions. But the refusal to even acknowledge that this matter is sufficiently urgent that it should be the thing we are dealing with right now, that THUD could wait a week, and that whatever we are planning to do next is not quite as urgent as the Zika virus--that is the point we are making today. Not that there isn't going to be some legislative wrangling and not that we are supposing that the President's request is exactly perfect, it is just that this is a real emergency, and we ought to get this thing onto the floor so we can take some action. That is what we have to do. I know the Senator from Missouri is working very hard on this. I know others are too. We don't want this to be a partisan issue either. But to object to a request to get on this bill fails to acknowledge what a serious public health emergency the Zika virus is. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 17 minutes.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I first want to talk about the Zika public health emergency that is coming to the United States of America. We have to act now to fund the administration's request of $1.9 billion in supplemental funding. Zika is a disease carried by the Aedes aegypti mosquito, a vector that has already caused a dengue epidemic in my State of Hawaii. The Aedes mosquitoes are in more places than we previously thought throughout the United States. Zika is the first mosquito-borne illness to be associated with a congenital birth defect. We are continuing to learn more about this devastating disease every day, including its association with Guillain- Barre syndrome--a type of paralysis--eye abnormalities, and more. While there have not yet been any locally transmitted diseases of Zika in the continental United States, we do have hundreds of travel- related cases and up to 500 cases of active transmission in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. As I mentioned, Hawaii is recovering from a dengue epidemic. So we must provide emergency funding for mosquito-borne illnesses, and we must do it now. This is an emergency. The administration has clearly laid out its request to combat Zika, which includes the following: $830 million for the CDC. This money would include grants and technical assistance to Puerto Rico and the U.S. territories and help our domestic and international response activities; about $250 million for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, to increase the Federal match rate to Puerto Rico; and several hundred million dollars for the National Institutes of Health and BARDA to invest in vaccine research and development. That is the long-term solution. There is a high degree of competence that we will be able to get a vaccine but not without the funding. This is an absolute emergency. We need $10 million for the FDA vaccine and diagnostics development and review, which is absolutely critical--we don't have diagnostic tests that are quite as efficient and effective as we are eventually going to need--and $335 million for USAID efforts abroad in public health infrastructure. I was fortunate to visit the CDC in Atlanta a couple of weeks ago to learn more about their efforts to combat Zika, dengue, and other vector-borne diseases. I saw firsthand how the CDC has activated its Level 1 Emergency Operations Center to combat Zika. During my questions at the Labor-HHS appropriations hearings, I heard how the CDC is strapped for funds and has already programmed its Ebola funds and how these Ebola funds are critically needed to prevent another Ebola crisis. I have total confidence in the CDC, but they need this emergency funding request to be granted. We are about to go on a 1-week recess. There is no reason that we can't at least get on the supplemental this week. This is an absolute emergency. There are a lot of things we are doing that are important this week in terms of individual appropriations bills, but let's be clear: None of these appropriations bills are going to pass in the next week or even the next month. We still have the House that needs to take action, and there is no doubt we are going to go to conference. So in terms of whatever other legislative vehicles are pending or about to be pending, there is no urgency for us to move to those instead of what is happening right now in terms of a public health emergency with Zika. This is an absolute emergency. The reason this is not smashing through every headline online, on television, in the newspapers, and on the radio is that it is still cold outside in a lot of places and the mosquitoes haven't come out. This is about to be a very serious public health crisis. For those of us who have differing views about the size and scope of government, I just want to say this: We have arguments about the EPA's role, about the Department of Human Services' role, about the Department of Education's role, and the size and scope of government across the board, but can't we agree that government's basic job is to protect its citizens, and can't we agree that the CDC is one of the best agencies in the government across the board, and can't we agree that this is a real emergency and ought not to wait until May or June or July and ought to be taken up immediately? Mr. President, this is an emergency, and we ought to fund the supplemental on a big bipartisan vote. Trans-Pacific Partnership Mr. President, I would like to talk about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Many promises were made about the TPP. Before the final text was available, I received dozens of phone calls from advocates of the deal asking for my support. They said that this trade agreement was going to be different; that it would raise standards rather than lower them; and that my concerns about labor, the environment, climate change, public health, and consumer protection would be addressed. But since the text was released, I have read it, and unfortunately this deal does not turn out to be any different from the previous deals. It looks like just another race to the bottom. Proponents claimed that the labor and environment chapters would contain enforceable commitments, and I know a lot of people worked very hard to make that true. But when you look closely at the wording of these chapters, you see that the commitments are basically just strongly worded suggestions. There are very few requirements. Instead, the countries have promised to ``promote,'' ``encourage,'' ``cooperate,'' ``strive,'' and ``endeavor'' to do various things. I have no clue how one can enforce an obligation to encourage something or discourage something. Many of the provisions contain this weak language, carefully written by lawyers to be unenforceable. Here are a few examples from the environment chapter, which is particularly weak. First, the chapter opens with a general commitment that ``each Party shall strive to ensure that its environmental laws . . . provide for, and encourage, high levels of environmental protection.'' That is right; they are to ``strive to ensure.'' On transitioning to a low-emissions economy, ``Parties shall cooperate to address matters of joint or common interest.'' There is nothing more on climate change whatsoever. On marine animal conservation, ``Each party shall promote the long- term conservation'' of sharks and various marine animals through ``such measures'' considered appropriate. I don't even know what that means. What is clear is that none of this is enforceable. So the problem is, no accountability. There is no requirement that countries meet their obligations before Congress has to vote on the agreement and no independent verification of whether those obligations are ever met. We will vote to open our markets on day one to goods made under terrible labor and environmental conditions and hope that over time, after we have forfeited our leverage, these countries will implement and enforce the kinds of labor laws our country has had for decades. What this means is that we are giving them the deal, and after we forfeit all of our leverage, we hope they will see the light and do the right thing. Take Vietnam as an example. The economic benefits to Vietnam of reduced or eliminated U.S. duties are enormous. Importers from Vietnam currently pay around $2 billion in annual tariffs. Most of that comes from imports of apparel and footwear--industries that frequently utilize forced and child labor. Although Vietnam is supposed to comply on day one with the labor side agreement it signed with the United States, there is no independent verification. The side agreement sets up a long process of consultation before punitive action can be taken. At that point, Vietnam will already be enjoying the benefit of the elimination of the tariff, and the United States will have lost jobs that cannot compete with forced child labor. No punitive action will bring back those jobs. Now let's talk about the enforcement side. Our track record, unfortunately, is not good. In the limited instances in which there are enforcement mechanisms in our trade agreements, we rarely utilize them. Recently, the GAO reported a systemic failure to enforce labor and environmental commitments across several trade agreements, even in light of compelling evidence of violations. The reason for this is that we don't really provide the resources for enforcement. But more importantly, there is a real lack of political will. For instance, the inclusion of Malaysia in this trade zone gives us insight into the lack of political will. When we debated fast-track authority last year, Congress agreed on an important negotiating objective: No trade deals with countries that earn the worst human trafficking ranking, according to the U.S. State Department. This seems like something everyone ought to agree to. At the time, this included Malaysia, which had the lowest ranking. But just after fast-track became law, Malaysia's ranking was upgraded--to the surprise of human rights experts everywhere. The upgrade allowed the circumvention of Congress's will and the continued inclusion of Malaysia in TPP. This came just a few months after the discovery of human cages and 130 graves at a human trafficking detention camp on the Malaysia-Thailand border. Against this backdrop, it is hard to have confidence that we will ever prioritize labor rights, human rights, or environmental protection over commercial interests. I am also deeply concerned about the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement provisions, or ISDS for short. ISDS provides a special forum outside of our court system that is just available to foreign investors. These investors are given the right to sue governments over laws and regulations that impact their businesses--a legal right that is not granted to a labor union, an individual, or anyone else. Here is how it works: If a decision is made by a national government that is contradicted by a provision in a trade agreement, the trade agreement wins. If a law that we pass contradicts a provision in TPP, TPP trumps our law. Corporations are increasingly seeing this as a viable legal strategy to increase profits and undermine public health and environmental and labor protections. The ISDS forum is not available to anyone other than foreign corporations. It is not open to domestic businesses, labor unions, civil societies, or individuals who allege a violation of a trade agreement obligation. The arbitrators in ISDS who preside over these cases are literally not accountable to anyone. Their decisions cannot be appealed. By profession, the arbitrators usually make their living working as lawyers for multinational corporations. The arbitrators cannot force the government to change its laws, but they can order the government to pay the investor when they lose money as a result of a law that contradicts a trade agreement, which can have the same effect. It is one thing for the United States to decide to pay a penalty to keep a law in place, but small countries cannot afford to go up against these multinational corporations in the ISDS context. Not only will they repeal their national laws, they sometimes will not enact national laws knowing that they will be subject to fines under this ISDS process. The government often agrees to change the law or regulation that is being challenged, in addition to paying compensation. The threat of a case can be enough to convince a government to back away from legitimate public health, safety, or environmental policies. The practical implication is potentially sweeping. ISDS could prevent us from addressing climate change, raising the minimum wage, protecting consumers from harmful products, or preventing another financial crisis. Each time we pass a law or regulation to improve the lives of the American people, foreign investors will effectively have the final say. These risks are not theoretical. In fact, for the United States, the risk of ISDS has become very real. In January, TransCanada--the Canadian company behind the Keystone XL Pipeline--filed a claim against the U.S. Government under NAFTA's ISDS provisions for failing to approve the pipeline. If TransCanada wins, taxpayers--U.S. taxpayers-- would be on the hook for $15 billion in damages being demanded by foreign corporations. Make no mistake. This is a new strategy for fossil fuel companies to challenge laws and regulations that are attempting to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change. There are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, and with that on the line, you have to believe that law firms are spending hours systematically scouring every trade and investment agreement for provisions they can use to invalidate Federal law. This is the legal strategy to bust up laws designed to protect public health, the environment, and consumers. Corporate interests should not be the driving force for public policy decisions. Yet that is exactly what this trade agreement would allow. A lot of us had hopes that this trade agreement would be different, but in a lot of ways, it is the same as the bad agreements that have come before it, and in some ways, it is actually worse. We are forfeiting valuable leverage across a huge area of the Asia Pacific that we could have used to lift labor and environmental conditions and level the playing field for our workers. This is not a question of whether you are for trade or whether you believe we should be engaged in the Pacific region, it is a question of how. This deal is, unfortunately, a lowest common denominator agreement. For these reasons, I must oppose the TPP. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCHATZ. I wish to thank the chair and the vice chair of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee for their great work, and especially their staff, who were instrumental in finding offsets to increase funding for a great, successful, bipartisan program, ARPA-E, which funds research at the cutting edge of clean energy. This amendment takes unspent money from prior years' appropriations for expired programs. This is an important point. CBO has confirmed that this amendment does not score. This amendment does not score. This amendment uses unspent balances to increase funding for ARPA-E. I again thank the chair and the vice chair for helping us to find some resources for this very successful program and for cosponsoring this amendment. I ask all of my colleagues for their support.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I wish to call up my amendment No. 3802.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, this year marks the 70th anniversary of the 1946 tsunami disaster in Hawaii. Early on the morning of April 1, 1946, an undersea 8.1-magnitude earthquake off the Alaskan coast triggered a tragic event 5 hours and 2,400 miles away. Travelling at nearly 500 miles per hour, a succession of tsunami waves hit the Hawaiian Islands around breakfast time, devastating downtown Hilo on Hawaii Island and killing 96 people. Across the Hawaiian island chain, 159 people lost their lives to the tsunami. In response to this disaster, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration established the Tsunami Warning System in 1948. Despite the system's proven effectiveness during two subsequent but minor tsunami events, another massive tsunami wave on May 23, 1960, took the lives of 61 Hilo residents. Many of the victims failed to take the warnings seriously or returned to their homes before the danger had passed. Another contributing factor was uninformed city planning that allowed residents to rebuild homes and businesses in tsunami risk zones. Shinmachi, a district in downtown Hilo rebuilt after the 1946 tsunami, was destroyed again by the 1960 tsunami. While sobering, these tragedies are critical teaching opportunities. Decades after the disasters at Hilo, Dr. Walter Dudley and Jeanne Branch Johnston, a tsunami researcher and a tsunami survivor, respectively, envisioned a place where the public could remember and learn from these tragedies. Without sustained collective memory of the risk posed by tsunamis and complementary public outreach, they believed the tremendous progress in tsunami research and warning systems in the last half century would not prevent future disasters. After all, an unheeded warning is no warning at all. Since opening its doors in 1994, the Pacific Tsunami Museum, PTM, in Hilo has demonstrated its ability to catalyze public engagement with tsunami risk. Museum exhibits include the history of tsunamis in Hawaii and how past events have shaped the community and impacted long-range planning. The museum places strong emphasis on the human component of the tsunami story, the resiliency of a community that survived the disasters and also pays tribute to the victims. PTM also features exhibits on major tsunami events around the globe and frequently collaborates with sister institutions as far away as Sri Lanka. As part of its public outreach efforts, the museum has developed tsunami curricula and evacuation plans for schools, created publications on tsunami safety, and presented workshops and lectures on the issue both in Hawaii and abroad. April is Tsunami Awareness Month in Hawaii. On April 16, PTM will host a special open house commemorating the 70th anniversary of the 1946 tsunami. This event seeks to promote awareness of tsunami risk, educate the public on appropriate responses to a tsunami warning, and honor the victims of Hilo's tsunami disasters. The need to continually cultivate community resilience to tsunami events inspired me to push for stronger Federal support for essential detection, forecast, warning, research, and preparedness programs. My colleagues, Senators Maria Cantwell of Washington and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, and I introduced the Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act of 2015. If signed into law, this bill would reinforce and amplify the great work being done by PTM. I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering the tragic loss of life at Hilo in 1946 and 1960 and commending the Pacific Tsunami Museum for its tireless work to keep the public safe from tsunamis.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Henry Schliefer, Justin Brown, Justin Hoffman, Michael George, Rebecca Gilbert, and Scott Richards, fellows in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this session in Congress.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President I rise to join my colleagues in condemning North Korea's belligerence in East Asia. For decades North Korea has starved its people, sponsored criminal misconduct and cyber attacks, and bullied South Korea. In the last month it has violated numerous U.N. resolutions regarding development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. DNI Clapper recently stated that the regime is expanding its Yongbyon enrichment facility and restarting the plutonium production reactor. These actions are a threat to the United States, our allies, to their regional stability, and they remind us that the Kim regime has no interest in abiding by international rules. The continued development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles threatens our military forces in Japan and South Korea and poses a risk to Seoul, Tokyo, and other major cities in the region. While North Korea regularly exaggerates its capabilities, it is clear that its belligerence is unending and its technology is improving. This legislation will strengthen and expand the U.S. sanctions against North Korea. We should use every tool we have to increase pressure on the regime so it dismantles its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, but it is not at all clear that they are responding to direct pressure from our own country. If there is going to be meaningful change in the security situation on the Korean Peninsula, then China is going to have to exert more leverage over its neighbor. While we certainly do not see eye-to-eye with China on many things, we can and must work together to address our shared concerns. China has a tremendous amount at stake too. Unfortunately, Chinese efforts to rein in North Korea have so far been underwhelming. In response to China's diplomatic overtures to stop the missile launch last Saturday, North Korea actually accelerated its plans and launched its missile on the eve of the Lunar New Year celebrations in China. If that is how North Korea treats its only ally, then we face an uphill battle, especially without China recalibrating its approach and increasing its pressure. China must step up to the plate and recognize that dealing with the Kim regime now is better than dealing with it later. China ought to communicate to its ally that it is fed up with its belligerence and supports stronger U.N. sanctions. This is the way China will demonstrate its commitment to international peace and security. The goal of this sanctions legislation is not to target the North Korean people. They are the victims of the Kim regime. They have borne the cost of these ballistic missile launches. One estimate is that it cost $1 billion for the most recent launch, which would have fed the entire country for a year. Our goal is to convince North Korea that working with the international community is preferable to being isolated from it. Since President Obama took office, the U.N. has adopted three major resolutions on North Korea's nuclear program. President Obama has signed three major Executive orders, further sanctioning North Korea's activities. I support these efforts, and we must do more. This sanctions bill will give the administration additional tools to squeeze North Korea to change its behavior, but sanctions are not going to be enough. We need to reassure our allies in the region and provide the necessary resources to protect our forces in South Korea and Japan. After all, diplomacy is advanced when it is backed up by a strong defense. To that end, we need to do three things. First, we must continue serious discussions with South Korea about deploying the Terminal High Altitude Defense System, or THAAD, to defend against the missile threat. This has probably become a necessity because of North Korea's recent actions. If it is deployed, we will have to reassure countries in the region that THAAD is intended to defend solely against the North Korean missile threat to avoid any misperceptions. Second, we need to pass a well-funded defense budget that provides for the readiness of the forces under Admiral Harris's command at PACOM, through which General Scaparrotti at United States Forces Korea can keep our men and women ready to ``fight tonight.'' Third, we ought to explore new opportunities to strengthen our ballistic missile defense, including increasing the protection of our forces in Hawaii and the Western Pacific by turning the Aegis Ashore Test Complex on Kauai into an operational site, a proposal Representatives Gabbard and Takai are working on with the Department of Defense. These are preliminary steps we can take to reassure our allies and forces in the region that we are committed to their security, and we should refine our thinking as the threat evolves. The sanctions bill reinforces that commitment and sends a clear message that it is time to step up all levels of pressure on North Korea to end its belligerence in the region. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, what is aloha? It is not a catchphrase. As it is commonly understood, it is synonymous with kindness, with love, with hospitality, with a Hawaiian perspective, but it is difficult for those not from Hawaii to fully understand its meaning and for those of us from Hawaii to fully explain. No one embodied the spirit of aloha more than State senator Gil Kahele, who died suddenly last week. He was a living personification of the idea that we are all in this together, that it really does mean something to live together in an island State in the most isolated populated place on the planet and the most beautiful place in the world. Senator Kahele devoted his life to public service, but political office for him was an afterthought. Gil was a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps. He worked for the State's department of defense for 33 years and eventually became director of public works at the Pohakuloa Training Area. Gil took office in 2011 and dedicated his efforts to the people of Senate District 1. He was the chair of the Tourism and International Affairs Committee. Gil was committed to supporting the needs of his district and was instrumental in securing funding for the College of Pharmacy at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. The circumstances of my election in 2014 were unusual in the extreme, and they brought me to Gil. On election night, I was ahead by fewer than 2,000 votes, but there were parts of Hawaii Island--two precincts in particular--that were unable to vote because of a category 4 hurricane that hit the southern part of the Big Island, the Puna District. As a result, the day after the primary election day, we realized we weren't quite done, and so we went to Puna. But more than the election not being done, the people of Puna were without water and power. Their food was rotting, their roads weren't clear, and they had no working utilities. So we went to work--not gathering votes but gathering provisions; not walking door to door to campaign but literally standing on the road handing out blocks of ice for the folks in Puna. We did this every day for a week, with Gil and the Kahele ohana, until a sense of normalcy was eventually restored. For their family, this was just what you do if you are a person like Gil Kahele, born in a grass shack in the fishing village of Miolii, a Native Hawaiian who served his country, his State, his community, and his family the best way he knew how--with aloha. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3176 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, this amendment is based on a very simple idea: that there should be a level playing field for fossil fuels and for clean energy. Right now we have subsidies on both the fossil fuel side and on the clean energy side through our Tax Code. Periodically, we need to recalibrate our energy policy based on market conditions, fiscal circumstances, and what is happening in the world. Again, here is the idea: We should make sure to reevaluate tax preferences for fossil fuels and clean energy at the same time. If we are serious about creating a level playing field, we should phase out incentives for fossil fuels as we phased them out for wind and solar power. Majorities of both Democrats and Republicans support the repeal of these tax preferences, and so I hope my colleagues will join me in a big bipartisan vote for putting our clean sources of energy on equal footing with their fossil fuel counterparts.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I wish to start by congratulating the chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the senior Senator from Alaska, for her leadership on this bill and so many other issues. She is a testament to how the Senate should operate. She is a testament to the tradition of bipartisanship that characterizes this body when it is behaving properly. I thank her and congratulate her for her leadership on this issue and many others. I also thank the ranking member, Senator Cantwell from Washington State, for her leadership on this and many other issues. They have formed a good and productive partnership. Our energy system is undergoing a fundamental transformation. In the last 8 years, wind power capacity has grown by more than 400 percent, and solar capacity has grown by more than 2,500 percent. In 2015, wind and solar comprised 61 percent of new generation capacity. Last year in the United States, by far the majority of new generation was clean energy. So what has happened is that the clean energy revolution is no longer aspirational. It is no longer something people put in a bullet point in their campaign brochure or as a talking point in a debate. It is actually happening. It is actually real, and it is across the country. We drive more hybrids and electric vehicles and increasingly use efficient appliances and manufacturing equipment. We have made incredible progress in driving down the costs of clean energy, but we cannot let this progress stall out. We need to modernize our infrastructure in order to integrate greater amounts of renewable energy and save money for consumers through energy efficiency. This bill is a positive step in transitioning our energy system from the 19th and 20th centuries into the 21st. There are a number of provisions that are worth highlighting. First, the bill proposes $500 million in research and development for grid-scale storage. This will allow us to use even more electricity from renewable sources. There is no doubt we are going to continue to need baseload power, but the assumptions about the percentage of baseload power that we need in order to have good power quality across our grids are changing. For instance, in the State of Hawaii the basic assumption was that you couldn't have more than about 15 percent of penetration of intermittent renewable energy. Well, we now have parts of our grid that are 35 percent, 45 percent, renewable energy. So the old assumptions are being thrown out the window, but no doubt we are going to continue to need to have Federal research and private sector research into this question of how much intermittent renewable energy a grid can accommodate without sacrificing power quality. This $500 million investment is going to be a big help toward that. This bill will also continue investments in grid modernization that will help to smooth the integration of distributed renewable generation. This will make a real difference in improving reliability while reducing individuals' reliance on fossil fuels. This bill would also permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This is not just the most successful conservation program in our Nation's history--and that would be a good enough reason to permanently reauthorize it--it is also an economic driver, returning $4 in economic value for every $1 invested. Amendment No. 2965 Last, but certainly not least, this bill increases funding for energy research and development at the Advanced Research Projects Agency- Energy, which is desperately needed because only the Federal Government can undertake the kind of high-risk, high-reward research that will allow us to maintain our economic dominance in this space. But I think we must do more on energy innovation, so I have offered an amendment to increase the authorization for ARPA-E above and beyond what is in this bill. Specifically, the amendment sets forth authorization levels as follows: $325 million for fiscal years 2016 to 2018 and $375 million per year for fiscal years 2019 through 2020. This is a relatively modest increase of just $113 million over 4 years. It is important to remember that ARPA-E was the brainchild of a National Academies report which recommended to Congress that they establish an ARPA-E within the U.S. Department of Energy, modeled after a very successful program in the Department of Defense called DARPA. The agency was credited with such innovations as GPS, the stealth fighter, and computer networking. In 2007, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law the America COMPETES Act, which officially authorized the creation ARPA-E. In 2009, Congress appropriated and President Obama allocated $400 million to the new agency, which funded ARPA-E's first projects. In the years since, despite bipartisan support, ARPA-E has not received more than the $280 million in funding. Yet this agency has had incredible success with even this modest amount of funding. For example, ARPA-E awardees have developed a 1-megawatt silicon carbide transistor the size of a fingernail and engineered microbes that use hydrogen and carbon dioxide to make liquid transportation fuel. They invest in pioneering research that is groundbreaking, transformative, and amazing. Think about what they could do with just a little more money. Innovation in advanced energy technologies can be a significant part of the solution to any number of challenges: increasing the reliability of our grid, lowering our electricity rates, hardening our energy infrastructure against cyber attacks, and many others. ARPA-E is helping to fund projects at the cutting edge of all of these challenges--and more. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue to support ARPA-E and to vote for this amendment and to support the underlying bill, which is an important step to paving the way to a revolution in the way in which we produce and consume energy in the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time during the quorum calls be equally charged to each side.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from New Mexico for his longtime leadership on climate and conservation issues. I have been working on this for a long time, as many of us on the floor have been working on this for a long time, and I have not been so hopeful in a very long time. I am reminded of the essential elements of success when it comes to an international agreement, and that is American leadership. We still remain the indispensable Nation, and we finally reasserted ourselves and reclaimed the moral high ground and the political high ground that put us in a position to stitch together an international agreement. One observation I will offer from the Paris climate talks is how positive the response was. I think we anticipated that we were going to have to do perhaps more troubleshooting, more allaying of concerns about America's commitment to climate action than we ended up having to do. That is because people understand that the President is committed, and people understand that the Clean Power Plan is going forward, and we are making progress and there is no turning back. I will offer seven very quick observations about the Paris climate talks. The first is this: It is already a success. If you had told any knowledgeable observer that they were going to get 185 countries-- representing 97 percent of countries and 98 percent of emissions--and 150 heads of State in the same place at the same time--the most in history--if you had said that 2 years ago, that would have sounded wildly optimistic. We really are making progress. No. 2, this is not going to require Senate approval. There have been more than 18,000 such agreements that our President and Presidents in the past have entered into over time not requiring Senate approval. No. 3--and this is important and can't be overstated--it is not enough. If we want to hit the 2-degree Celsius target, this only gets us about 40 percent there. But 40 percent there is 40 percent there. We were at zero 3 weeks ago. So I think getting 40 percent there is very important. I think the other thing we have learned from other states and other countries and even in the private sector is that once you unleash the power of clean energy on the private sector, there is no turning back. So we anticipate being able to ratchet up these agreements every 3 to 5 years on an international basis. No. 4, it is way more than expected and way more than ever before. No. 5, I think we need to know that there are some pretty good accountability and transparency mechanisms in there. This was a key element of the negotiations that Secretary Kerry and the President himself have insisted upon. We need to know--the United States has a robust reporting mechanism. At the public utilities commission level, at the regional level, we know exactly what our energy portfolio is. That is a little bit more of a challenge in the developing world, so we had to develop a matrix so we know that countries aren't cheating or they are not getting their own data wrong. I feel satisfied that it is likely to hit those marks. No. 6, it is wildly popular in the United States. Two-thirds of Americans support an international climate agreement. A bare majority of Republicans, a decisive majority of young Republicans, and decisive majorities of Democrats and Independents support international climate action. No. 7 is this: People are going to try to undo this. They are going to do it through the Congressional Review Act. They are going to try to do it through the appropriations process. They are going to try to do it through the electoral process. That is the democratic process, and that is OK. But there is no turning back either legislatively, politically, or in terms of the momentum we have in the private sector. I would like to introduce someone who has come at climate from a different perspective, as he always does, who has become a leader on these issues, and who was an incredible asset during the weekend we were in Paris, and that is the junior Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Cory Booker.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the administration's Clean Power Plan. I think the first thing that must be said--and said over and over, especially this week, with so many critical issues facing our country, with appropriations bills pending, with the transportation bill pending, with perhaps a motion to go to conference on the education reauthorization--is that we are wasting floor time, that this piece of legislation has no chance. The threshold under the Congressional Review Act is 51 votes, and while it is very likely the threshold will be met, let's take this through the legislative process. This will eventually, if it passes the House--when it passes the House--reach the President's desk. Can you imagine that President Obama is going to enact legislation that overturns his signature and environmental achievement? Whether you agree or not with the Clean Power Plan, the idea that he is going to sign this into law is preposterous. So it faces a veto. So then the only question is this: Can you get 67 votes in the Senate? And the answer is a resounding no. So let's put this in context. This is an important debate, but this is not likely to result in any kind of legislation one way or the other. But here is what this is about. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA--it doesn't authorize the EPA; it requires the EPA--to regulate airborne pollutants. So it doesn't allow the EPA to pick among airborne pollutants and place limits; it requires that any airborne pollutant have limits. In 2007 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that CO2--carbon--was in fact an airborne pollutant, which is kind of intuitive and consistent with what every expert in the field understands. So the only question is this: Do you believe in the Clean Air Act? Do you believe there should be an exception in the Clean Air Act for carbon pollution? Do you disagree with the consensus among scientists that carbon is a pollutant? That is what we are voting on today. So carbon is a pollutant, and this is a pretty straightforward policy issue, and it is a pretty straightforward scientific issue. The EPA must regulate emissions. Let's also understand how CRA works. This vehicle is to overturn the Clean Power Plan. The way the statute runs is that it doesn't give the administration--or any future administration--any flexibility to do a different version of the same thing. It prohibits the administration from doing anything that is ``substantially similar.'' So the difficulty, of course, is that hasn't actually been tested too many times in court. But the assumption most attorneys on both sides of this question are operating under is that it would not just invalidate this Clean Power Plan but prohibit the EPA from regulating carbon on a going-forward basis. So if you have a specific concern, if you have a specific objection to the way this thing is administered, that is fair enough, but you don't have the ability to tell EPA to go and do this again and submit it again. It will actually be illegal under a CRA. So CRA is an extremely blunt instrument. It is an extremely radical thing to do, and that is what we are contending with. So why, if all of that is true, is there a CRA vote this week? My instinct is that it is designed to create confusion, to kick up dust, and to raise the possibility that the American government does not stand behind the Clean Power Plan as we go into the final throes of the Paris climate talks. Now, we have an opportunity here. We have 160 countries for the first time in history committing to different versions--all executed from within their own governmental systems, but they are all committing to different versions--of emissions reductions. Some of them have cap and trade, some have incentives, some of them have regulations, some have financing programs, but all of them are committing to various programs to reduce carbon emissions. This is a significant international achievement. In previous climate negotiations, folks who opposed international climate action would actually go to these negotiations to create confusion, to imply the American government was somehow not going to stand by its commitments. That is why I wanted to go through how the CRA works and what the inevitable outcome of this piece of legislation will be, which is that it will be vetoed and that veto will be sustained. The hope, I think, among people who oppose international climate action is that there is enough confusion going into Paris that someone can point to America's national legislature and say: Well, there is no consensus. That is true. There is no political consensus. But there is no practical way to overturn the Clean Power Plan, and there is no going back. I mean that is the most important aspect of this. This year, 2015, of all the new power generation in the United States, the majority of it was clean energy. The majority of new power generation in the United States was clean energy--how exciting. I am not exactly sure why people fear the clean energy future so much. I understand we need to make a transition. The State of Hawaii depends on low-sulfur fuel oil for the vast majority of its electricity. I understand we can't make that transition overnight, and I understand there is going to be disruption and there is going to be difficulty as we make a transformation of this magnitude, but we are going to have to make this transformation. It doesn't have to be a bad thing. It can create innovation jobs, it can attract investment capital, and it can be a new American economy. This is already happening. This is not pie in the sky any more. This is already underway. The majority of new power generation in the United States is clean energy. Let's keep the momentum up. Let's support the Clean Power Plan. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I rise to talk about one of the solutions to one of the driving forces behind global climate change; that is, deforestation. After fossil fuel combustion, deforestation is the single largest contributor to human-induced climate change, but the exciting thing is that we have proven cost-effective solutions at hand that can go a long way in addressing this problem. Forests in the United States and around the world provide important services to people--services that are not adequately or appropriately valued by the free market, creating a market failure. These services include many things that we all take for granted--clean air, clean water, wildlife habitats, and long-term carbon sinks that absorb and sequester carbon pollution for years. Because these functions of a healthy forest ecosystem don't have a dollar sign attached to them, they are often not incorporated into decisions made by businesses, consumers, and governments, but just because they don't have a pricetag does not mean they are without value. In fact, the 2008 study pegged the cost of deforestation to the global economy at between $2 trillion and $5 trillion per year. As the U.S. Forest Service put it, ``When our forests are undervalued, they are increasingly susceptible to development pressures and conversion. Recognizing forest ecosystems as natural assets with economic and social value can help promote conservation and more responsible decisionmaking.'' I agree. Adequately valuing forests, and the services they provide offers many benefits to local populations to the climate. Limiting deforestation and forest degradation will not reduce global carbon pollution and slow the pace of climate change. It will also help to safeguard the livelihoods of the more than 1.6 billion people who the U.N. estimates depend on forest services. What is more, tropical forests are the source of over one-quarter of all modern medicines. Forests impede the transmission of insect- and animal-borne infectious diseases. So beyond the economic benefits, we know that keeping our forests intact can improve the livelihoods of billions of people while avoiding drastic increases in global temperatures. Thankfully there are good solutions available to address deforestation. We can start by properly enforcing laws that are already on the books. I plan on working with my colleagues to ensure that we fully fund the agencies charged with enforcing the ban on illegally sourced timber and paper included in the 2008 amendments to the Lacey Act. When the leaders, environmental ministers, finance ministers, and climate negotiators from all nations meet in Paris later this month, I hope they will keep in mind the many advantages of reducing forest loss in rainforest nations and other developing countries. I hope my colleagues will recognize the crucial role that the United States can play in sharing our best practices and helping to build capacity in those countries so we will all be better stewards of our natural environment. A changing climate brings with it a unique set of challenges, but it is not too late to take the necessary steps to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. There is good news to be had. We have at our disposal a wide range of solutions for reining in our emissions of carbon pollution. Addressing deforestation is one of the most effective and cost-effective ways to slow global warming, while enhancing the lives and livelihoods of the hundreds of millions of people who rely on forests and the services they provide. Clean Power Plan Mr. President, I wish to talk about another aspect of climate change and another reason for hope. Two weeks ago the Clean Power Plan was published in the Federal Register, meaning that it is now the law of the land. This is the signature achievement of President Obama's efforts to reduce carbon pollution. It will reduce carbon emissions from the power sector by 32 percent by the year 2030. The power sector is the source of some of the most cost-effective emissions reductions, and the Clean Power Plan is the most critical and vital step toward putting the United States on a path to a low-carbon economy. Powerplants are the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the Nation, accounting for more than 30 percent of all U.S. carbon pollution. There are currently no limits to the amount of carbon pollution that can be emitted from powerplants. I want to repeat that. There is no limit under the law before the Clean Power Plan to the amount of carbon pollution that can be put into the air. This is despite having landmark legislation already in the books called the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act requires the Federal Government to regulate airborne pollutants. It doesn't require or allow the Federal Government to select from among a menu of airborne pollutants and decide which ones will be most cost-effective or most important to regulate. It says the EPA is charged with taking airborne pollutants and regulating them, to place limits on them. It is a mistake that over the last 20 years, even though we have recognized that carbon is an airborne pollutant, that it is not regulated under the Clean Air Act. The Clean Power Plan fixes this problem. It is an innovative and flexible solution that gives States the right to develop their individual plans. This is also an important point. The first iteration of the Clean Power Plan was a little more of a blunt instrument. It was geographically constrained. It was powerplant constrained. Therefore, a lot of States, a lot of utility companies came back and said: Look, there are going to be individual instances where it is going to be very difficult to reduce carbon pollution at a particular site because it is rural, because it has already been capitalized, because we can't get the financing to reduce the carbon pollution at a particular site, but if you allow us to work what they call outside of the fence and you allow us State by State to reduce in the aggregate the amount of carbon pollution put into the air, then we can make this work. We can still have what they call good power quality, which is to say you don't want undulations in power quality to the point where you have blackouts and brownouts. That was industry. That was regulators. That was a public utilities commission. That was energy companies coming back and saying this is not workable. The EPA came up with a scenario where we are still regulating carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act, but we are doing it in a way that is totally workable for every State and every energy portfolio in every region in every State. It gives States the rights to develop their own individual plans to cut carbon pollution from the energy sector. The Clean Power Plan has sent a signal to the rest of the world that the United States is serious about preventing catastrophic changes to our climate. The American public knows that climate change is a problem and large majorities want us to act. A Stanford poll found 83 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans, say that if nothing is done to reduce emissions, global warming will be a serious problem in the future. Now, 77 percent of Americans say the Federal Government should be doing a substantial amount to combat climate change, and 67 percent of Americans support EPA action to curb carbon pollution. In other words, 67 percent of Americans support the EPA action that is being undertaken right now. They support the Clean Power Plan. They may not know the details, but they understand the basic premise which is that the Clean Air Act is the law of the land. It was passed a long time ago with large bipartisan majorities. The basic idea that the Federal Government has some simple responsibilities, and one of them is to keep us safe from air and water pollution, is a bipartisan consensus not in this Chamber, unfortunately, and not in the other Chamber, unfortunately, but across the country, everybody understands that carbon is a pollutant, and we should try to reduce it over time as much as we possibly can. I think it is time we acknowledge that the electricity industry is already changing. We are rapidly moving away from fossil fuels as the dominant source of electricity generation. Soon even low-priced natural gas may not be able to compete with wind and solar energy. We should be celebrating these advances and devoting ourselves to finding ways to accelerate this transition, not throwing up roadblocks. The truth is the Clean Power Plan is merely accelerating market trends that are already underway. Listen to this. Through the first 9 months of this year, over 60 percent of new U.S. capacity additions were renewable energy. More than 60 percent of the new power generation in the United States over the last 9 months has been clean energy. That is the change that is happening. That is the clean energy revolution. In 1998, when I was in the State legislature and I was helping to work on net energy metering laws, solar tax credits, and a renewable portfolio standard, this was aspirational. This was something we hoped we would eventually achieve, but 60 percent of new generation this year in the United States is clean energy. It is already happening. As wind and solar prices fall, they are increasingly competitive with new fossil generation in more and more places around the country. To my colleagues who warn of massive price shocks from the transition to clean energy, I point out that we are already underway with our transition, and the massive price shocks have not happened. The Clean Power Plan is the most important power tool that we have in our arsenal to fight climate change. To my colleagues who are trying to stand in the way of making real progress toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions, I say this: When you are ready to be constructive and work on a comprehensive energy policy, to work on a comprehensive climate policy, we are open. I have continued to come to the floor of the Senate over the last several months, over the year of 2015, and have said this is an issue that has unfortunately become incredibly partisan. This is an issue where we have Democrats coming to the floor offering constructive solutions and an empty side of the Chamber on the other side, but this is the challenge of our generation. This is our obligation as the indispensable Nation. The United States has to lead. The Senate has to have a real debate on climate and energy policy, and we need Republicans to step up. This issue is crying for Republican leadership, and I am looking forward to the day--hopefully very soon--where we will have it, where we will have a serious negotiation. I understand that not all of my ideas will win out, not all of the progressive perspectives will win out, but that is the legislative process. We need a dance partner. We look forward to that moment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I thank the assistant Democratic leader for his leadership on this issue and for his willingness to educate colleagues and educate the public and to push the DOE to take much needed action in this area. What is happening with some for-profit colleges is truly a national scandal, and it is a scandal for two reasons: First, students are being hurt, and second, we are wasting tens of billions of dollars. The numbers speak for themselves. Almost 2 million students are enrolled in for-profit colleges, and they have collectively taken on $200 billion in debt to attend, but they often leave with little to show for it. More than half drop out within a few months, and in some programs less than 5 percent of their students ever graduate. For those who leave without a degree, repaying loans is a struggle. Students at for-profit colleges default on student loans at double the rate of students at not-for-profit colleges. People may be surprised to learn that these substandard programs are financed almost entirely by the Federal Government, and the amount is totally staggering. In total, for-profits receive over $32 billion a year in Federal financial aid--over 20 percent of the total aid--yet they serve only 12 percent of the students. There are several for-profit companies that each take in more than $1 billion a year in Federal aid and graduate less than 10 percent of their students. Think about that. They take in more than $1 billion in Federal taxpayer money and they graduate less than 10 percent of their students. These companies include the Apollo Group, DeVry, ITT, Kaplan, and Education Management Corporation. Not only are the educational metrics awful, but many of these for- profit colleges are also under investigation for fraud and deception. Essentially, they have been lying to students and to State and Federal agencies to cover up how bad their record is. Even while prosecutors go after these schools for fraud, they remain accredited and continue to rake in Federal funds. Here are a few examples: Education Management Corporation, EMC, faces charges of fraud and deception brought by prosecutors in 13 States and the Department of Justice and faces a lawsuit to recover $11 billion in Federal and State funds. Yet EMC is still accredited and still receives $1.25 billion from the U.S. DOE. So the Department of Justice is trying to recover $11 billion at the same time that the Department of Education gives them $1.25 billion. ITT Educational Services is being investigated and sued by 19 States, the SEC, CFPB, and the DOJ. It is also under scrutiny from U.S. DOE for failure to meet financial responsibility standards. Yet they are still accredited, and last year they received just under $600 million. Another 152 schools are under investigation by a working group of 37 State attorneys general. They too are still accredited. Collectively, they received $8 billion in Federal financial aid last year. What do all of these schools have in common? They are accredited. Accreditation is the key to the castle for accessing this spigot of Federal financial aid. It is supposed to signify that a program provides a quality education for its students. Too often, however, the accreditation means nearly nothing. The GAO released a study on accreditation last year, and its findings are shocking. Over a 4-year period, the GAO found that accreditors sanctioned only 8 percent of the institutions they oversee and revoked accreditation for just 1 percent. Even more troubling, GAO found there was no correlation between accreditor sanctions and educational quality. In other words, schools with bad student outcomes were no more likely to be sanctioned by their accreditor than schools with good student outcomes. Our accreditation system is broken. According to the Higher Education Act, accreditation agencies are supposed to be ``reliable authorities as to the quality of education or training offered'' by institutions of higher education. That is the reason for making accreditation a core criterion for receiving Federal funds. How are we following the law when accreditation reviews find that 99 percent--basically, everybody--99 percent of institutions are providing an education of value? How can we say with a straight face that accreditors are acting as reliable authorities on educational quality? The problem here is money. Incentives are lined up against being critical and against setting high standards. The problem can be traced to the funding and governance of the accrediting agencies. First, accrediting agencies are funded by the same institutions they accredit. Colleges pay an initial fee to become accredited and annual dues after that. They pay for site visits and other services. Second, accrediting agencies are run and overseen by the institutions they accredit. The member institutions elect their own academics and administrators to serve on the board of the accreditation agency. It is not hard to see how the incentives are misaligned here. We have created a dysfunctional, if not corrupt, ecosystem in which it is far too easy to become and remain accredited. This system is eerily similar to the one that enabled credit rating agencies to pump out inflated asset ratings, which contributed to the worst financial crisis of our time. Like credit rating agencies, accreditors have a financial interest to churn out accreditations. The DOE has the authority to improve accreditation. There are a lot of things that Senator Durbin and others, Senator Murphy, and I are working on in terms of changing the Higher Education Act and working in the appropriations context, but U.S. DOE has authority that it is beginning to use but needs to use more of in the accreditation space. It can and must do more to ensure that accreditors are actually looking at academic quality and holding schools to high standards. For the sake of students and taxpayers, the DOE must make this a top priority. I thank the assistant Democratic leader for his leadership on this issue. I yield the floor.