vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator wish to vote or change his vote? if not, on the franken amendment number 3833, the ayes are 76. the nays are 19. the amendment carries. mrs. feinstein: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i rise as the vice chair of the appropriations committee to really express my appreciation to the majority leader of the senate, senator mcconnell, and senator cochran, the chair of the appropriations committee,

for moving the process forward. we have here on the floor today the energy and commerce committee bill. this is the first bill of the appropriations committee to come to the floor. it really signals that we are ready to do regular order. i so appreciate the leadership commitment to do that so we don't end with a big omnibus bill at the end. that every bill comes, they can be amended and everyone can have their day and their say. it is an excellent kickoff to what i hope the ability to move all 12 bills and some crucial urgent supplementals. we also want to compliment senators alexander and feinstein for the excellent job they've done on this particular

subcommittee. they have followed the bipartisan agreement. they have a bill that is free of poison pill riders. and when you look at what they have been done in terms of energy and water, it is an excellent bill from the standpoint of national security and economic development. from whether it is the funding for the corps of engineers that is so important to those of us who have ports to science in terms of our fields of energy, you know, we win the nobel prizes but we need to win the markets. it has an excellent approach in terms of tech transfer. maryland benefits from this project, and i could elaborate on everything from the appalachian regional council to again the port of baltimore. i ask unanimous consent that my full statement be in the record. but if this is the way it's going to be to move appropriations, i think it's a good day. it's not only a good bill, but it shows when the senate

practices the ability to work together to bring legislation to the floor, to follow a regular order, we can get our job done. it can be open, it can be transparent. we can have our amendments. and i so look forward that this is the tone and the tempo of the rest of the appropriations season. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. cotton: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: this week i encourage all arkansans to take a moment to celebrate national park week 2016. this week national park week is particularly important because it also happens to be the 100 anniversary of the national park service, a milestone that we will celebrate all year long. for those of you who don't know, our national park system began in 1872 with the establishment of yellowstone national park. the organization charged with

managing these parks, the national park service, was established four decades later in 1916. today we have over 400 national parks and historic sites around the country, all full of wildlife, beautiful -p landscapes and rich culture. these sites are all cared for by over 20,000 dedicated employees of the national park service, including park rangers who patrol our parks and keep visitors safe. arkansas is home to several national parks and national historic sites, some of the prettiest and most interesting in the country, in my opinion. for those of you who haven't been to arkansas, i encourage you to visit hot springs national park to see our natural springs and thermal pools. if you're a history buff, you can visit arkansas post, the site of the only revolutionary war activity in the state of arkansas. if you're into the outdoors you can float the buffalo river. the list goes on. each of the national parks and historic sites in arkansas and around the country has its own

unique appeal and holds its own adventure. so happy national park week and happy 100th birthday to the national park service. i encourage everyone to take advantage of free admission to all national parks in arkansas and across the country through this sunday, april 24. have a little fun, learn a little bit about our great country, and show your support and thanks for the men and women who serve us in the national parks. i yield the floor. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: i ask that i be permitted to complete this speech. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, over the last couple of years, i've spoken numerous times on the issue of corporate inversions. the problems they cause and various proposed solutions. i want to take a few minutes today to comment on some of the recent developments with regard to this important issue. inverses are a matter of -- inversions are a matter of great concern in our country. this is true of both parties both in and out of government.

as the chairman of the senate's tax writing committee, i have to say that for years now most major discussions i have had on tax policy and reform with various private sector stakeholders eventually end up focusing on inversions. virtually everyone acknowledges that inversions are a problem. when a u.s. company reidentifies itself as a foreign entity and moves its tax headquarters overseas, it shrinks our tax base. it means lost investment and growth no our country, and it further demonstrates the failure of the government to create a tax environment in this country that allows businesses to flourish, create jobs, and of course help grow our economy. like i said, members of both parties see inversions as a problem, one that needs fixing. sadly the debate surrounding this issue has all too often become mired in politics and

partisanship which thus far have prevented congress from making any real progress. some here in washington here in the capitol and on the other end of pennsylvania avenue would rather talk about inversions than solve the problem. when a wave of u.s. companies announced that they're merging with other entities and moving their headquarters off shore, the strategy seems to be publicly attack those companies, accuse them of among other things lacking -- quote -- "economic patriotism." and to put forth unworkable policy proposals while labeling anyone opposing those proposals as somehow being in favor of or at least indifferent to inversions. most of the policy ideas that get put forward tend to be punitive and burdensome with the goal not of incentivizing companies to stay in the u.s. but to forcibly prevent them from leaving. over the past year or so of political campaigning, we've

heard a lot of talk about building walls and who will be made to pay for them. some are proposing that we build a literal physical wall to keep certain people from coming into the united states with a supposedly clever plan to force other countries to pay for it. while at the same time most of the proposals we've seen to deal with inversions would amount to building a virtual wall, a wall forged in regulation and punitive tax treatment around the country to keep companies from leaving and making every business in america and all of their employees and their individual customers pay the cost. the latest wall building exercise came earlier this month with treasury's temporary antiinversion regulations and proposed regulations aimed at earnings stripping. of course the administration's antiinverse approach was essentially the regulatory

equivalent of a doctor who wastes all of his time and energy treating a patient's symptoms one by one as they arise without making any effort to diagnose let alone treat the underlying illness. inversions, mr. president, are not in and of themselves a disease. they are merely symptoms of a much broader illness that will continue to infect our economy so long as we refuse to treat it. and i won't keep you in suspense, mr. president. that illness is not a lack of proper regulation. it is an overly burdensome tax system and an environment that is on the whole unfriendly to american businesses. u.s. companies don't move their tax headquarters off shore because they like the weather in other countries. if that were the case, i don't think so many of them would be moving to ireland or the u.k. no american companies invert because they face global

competition and our system forces them to compete on an uneve playing field without at least one if not both arms tied behind their back. for example, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. and we have a tax code that effectively pays u.s. multinationals to keep their foreign earnings off shore and punishes them when they decide to bring capital back into the country. it is these factors, not a lack of appropriate regulation by the government or a shortage of -- quote -- "economic patriotism" on the part of american businesses that make foreign countries more attractive. more attractive destinations for american companies. if we want to prevent future inversions, we should spend less time taking -- thinkerring around the -- tinkering around the regulatory edges and engaging in partisan rhetoric and more time trying to find common ground to actually fix

our tax code. and for the record, it isn't just inversions that are the problem as i've noted repeatedly even if the administration and congress found a way through repunitive and burdensome means to block all inversion our tax system would make companies even more attractive targets for takeovers which are every bit as problematic as inversions, if not more so and much harder to address through a purely regulatory approach. foreign takeovers are already a problem. dorgan ernst and young study released last year, the u.s. economy suffered a net loss of $179 billion -- with a "b "-- in business and foreign assets in the decade between 2003 and 2013. the same study also found that a reduced corporate tax rate would have decorately reduced these

losses, possibly eliminating them entirely. keep in mind that unlike most inversion transactions, u.s. management is always fired after a foreign takeover. other employees, local service providers, and suppliers are often targeted for elimination as well. sadly, many democrats in washington, both here in congress and in the administration, don't seem to grasp the full nature of this problem. they talk a great deal about inversions and the need to prevent them. and because the picture of a big american company moving offshore to escape taxation is particularly distressing for pop ulust audiences, they tend -- populist audiences, they tend to ramp up that talk and coupled it with ways to punish inversions in even-numbered years. yet there've taken little acti

action. there was a glimmer of hope with the findings and recommendations of the finance committee's bipartisan international tax real estate form working group. however, as is far too often the case, that glimmer of hope may very well be taken over by the politics of the moment. instead of acknowledging that our tax system is the cause of the inversion problem, my friends on the other side have generally opted to put forward regulations that may very well be effective in curwing inversions in the short term but will do nothing to improve businesses in the long-term. within days of the release of treasury's latest regulations, fies,a major -- pfizer, a major american drug company, announced it was backing out of its deal

with allergan. many were quick to credit the obama administration is for a supposed job well done, while democrat candidates for president openly celebrated the fact that an american company chose to subject itself to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses and penalties in order to avoid even greater losses as a result of these regulations. these the kind of world we're living in, mr. president, one where a willingness to demonize an iconic american company that employs tens of thousands of american workers, and cheer when it suffers massive losses, when it's viewed as an affirmative qualification to be the democratic nominee for president. now, to be fair, i will acknowledge that in addition to unveiling the proposed anti- inversion measures, the obama administration did also lay out a basic framework for corporate tax reform. of course, this framework, which

closely resembles similar proposals that the president has included in past budgets, is woefully short on details. it is not a reform proposal within any serious potential of bipartisan, nor won -- bipartisanship, nor one with a detailed list of specific goals and objectives. it is more or less just a vaguely worded wishlist of tax ideas they'd like to see enacted at some point. the reaction from many sectors of the business community, including from c.e.o.'s who more often than not support my friends on the other side, proves the point. we know basically that the present's version of international tax reform consists of a one hfer time manned -- one-time mandatory repatriation of foreign earnings to be taxed at a rate designed not to maximize any benefit but to hit a revenue target for increased spending. in other words, so they can spend more money!

this would be coupled with a high minimum tax on foreign earnings, also designed specifically for increased spending, not for significantly bringing down the statutory tax rate, which after all is one of the few ways you can really help our american companies. put sum plirks there is virtually -- put simply, there is virtually nothing in the president's nebulous tax reform framework that would discourage companies from moving offshore. one could argue -- and many have -- that the present proposed high minimum tax on foreign earnings would actually encourage more u.s. companies to invert. for example, this past november the vice president of global taxes at procter and gamble -- another iconic american company -- was quoted as saying -- quote -- "if we take a step towards minimum tax at the corporate level, we're exacerbating the problem, we're actually guarantees that inversions are more attractive."

unquote. on top of these new taxes, there's no real effort in the president's tax framework to improve the business climate in the u.s. more generally. and after all these changes, the framework would still leave the united states with a corporate tax that would be well above the average in the developed world. leaving us right where we have been. in part, this framework is par for the course with this administration. we've heard quite a bit of blame thrown in congress' direction for not acting to prevent inversions. what we haven't heard is any serious effort on the part of the president or anyone in his administration to engage with commerce on - with congress on meaningful tax reform. the president is far more willing to blame than to actually work towards a solution. this is particularly true in election years when the motto

seems to be, why fix a problem when you can blame it on the other side? for my part, i'm working to take specific steps to address these problems. i've been the republican leader on the senate finance committee for about four and a half years now. for four and a half years i've been calling on my employees and imploring officials in the administration to engage on tax reform. to date i've seen little in the way of meaningful response. currently i'm working on a relatively simple but potentially effective tax reform proposal that i believe is -- will be bipartisan, that many believe would relieve a great deal of the inversion pressure on american companies, and at the very least significantly alter the economic calculation for inversion transactions. best of all, it would do so without publishing companies -- punishing companies or imposing burdensome mandates. in short, my proposal wroo

provide more carrots to keep companies from inverting and fewer sticks to punish companies that try to go in that direction. while i'm still working with the joint committee on taxation to finalize the details, the basic idea would be to streamline business income and eliminate instances in which profits and earnings are subject to mull many layers of taxation at the company and shareholder levels. i'll have nor say in the coming weeks -- i'll have nor say in the -- i'll have more to say in the coming weeks. today i am discussing the narrative that companies can and should be forced to stay in the united states by regulation. i am trying to demonstrate that you cannot fix the inversion problem by building a virtual wall around the company to keep businesses from leaving while at the same time keeping tax rates so high that they have to leave to be able to compete.

and i'm trying to show why you can't build that wall expecting some other country to pay for it. indeed, if an anti- inversion wall goes up without any real changes to improve the tax and business environment in the u.s., it will be american workers and consumers that will end up footing the bill. what we're working on is corporate integration. right now the work we've done seems to be getting some positive feedback from the joint tax committee. but they're not through with their work yet, and we're going to wait until they do, and they should be done by the end of may -- or at least that's what they've indicated will be their target. hopefully they'll have some preliminary results before the end of may. let me say, if we're right on corporate integration, then both parties should come together to

resolve these problems so that we can compete with any companies anywhere in the world. and i can just say, in short, this program that we're devising will allow the companies themselves to bring down their own tax rates without worrying upon -- worrying about what the wonderful members of congress are going to do. and at the same time, by bringing down those rates, be able to help this economy to go forward. so far it's been revenue-positive. all we want for this program is to be revenue-neutral. but i think we can get there, and i hope that my friends on the other side will seriously look at this, because this is something we could do this year to help this country resolve its problems with regard to corporate inversions. and i believe it'll work. i believe it'll work. a lot will depend on joint tax

and we'll see what they're doing. so far the work that they've done is positive. they've worked ton for a number of months now, and they want to cover every possible ramification, and we're very appreciative of the work that they're doing. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: .

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i filed two amendments, very important to my home state of florida that i want to discuss. first the amendment would authorize the planning project. the florida everglades are a national treasure. we have to work together to restore the lands. the state has experienced, for example, a wetter than average winter. the rains have elevated the levels of lake okeechobee to

discharge billions of gallons of water to the east and to the west. these discharges have been ongoing for months. and they have negatively impacted the delicate ecosystem in the area as well as the agricultural and tourism industries. in order to diminish these discharges we must authorize the everglades planning project. once complete, this project will allow water to flow south from lake okeechobee to the everglades national park and to florida bay. i had hoped that this project would be authorized in 2014 by the administration but that the administration delayed the army corps of engineers chiefs report which is the final step before congress can authorize new projects. mr. rubio: but this year we have a real chance to get this done. thanks to the good work of chairman inhofe of the environmental and public works committee, i expect the central everglades planning project to be included in the forthcoming water bill which is slated to be marked up in committee next week. as such i will not ask for a

vote on this amendment today but i want to draw attention to this essential everglades restoration project and i'm hopeful this body can come together to restore our everglades but in the meantime i will continue to push for this vital authorization. the other amendment i filed today cosponsors by senator shelby, nelson and sessions also highlights the importance of water management. the issue at hand there involves water that is naturally supposed to flow south but it has not done so due to the army corps actions in and around the state of georgia. the results of this mismanagement have led to a 2013 department of commerce fishery disaster. it was declared for oysters in the apalachicola bay. during the same year senator nelson and i held a field hearing in apalachicola where we heard from local fishermen whose livelihoods and family traditions were injured by the collapse of these fushries. we must -- fisheries. we must continue to explore ways to fish more sustainably. a large part of the collapse was

the lack of fresh water flows. i have long supported the role governors played in water allocation when the water in question greatly impacts multiple states. however, act such an agreement between governors water continues to be withheld and the situation has now become dire in my home state of florida. the bottom line is that the status quo is only working for one state. i along with the senior senator from florida and our colleagues from alabama have stood lockstep to bring our respective states to the table to finalize water allocations that will take into account our share of goals. today we filed an amendment to do just that, to require the governors to agree on water allocation before the army corps of engineers can reallocate waters between the apalachicola, chat houthi flint river basin the amendment also stipulates no funds would be available for reallocation of water within the

states if an agreement between the governors is not finalized. and i urge my colleagues to support this common sense measure. on a different matter, i want to take this moment to applaud the residents of the our reck came garden apartment -- eureka garden apartments in jacksonville, florida for coming together during a time of hardship. while they faced dangerous living conditions, this he have remained united and resilient. the bottom line is the federal government has failed them. the department of housing and urban development has for years certified a living facility that has put hundreds of families at risk. when h.u.d. inspected the property in question last summer, they passed the apartment complex and they passed it with flying colors. eureka gardens received an 85 out of 100. but less than a month later, residents were complaining at tenant association meetings and to their city councilmembers about how bad their living conditions had become. when my staff visited the complex, what they witnessed was

literally unbelievable. they saw crumbling stairs and black mold. they saw exposed electrical wiring that had been covered up by a trash bag. they smelled the natural gas that would soon hospitalize residents just days later. that was and that is unacceptable. in my office along with mayor curry of the city of jacksonville and the city council and the tenants association pushed for months to have improvements and repairs done to this complex. in february h.u.d. finally had a date by which all repairs must be completed. when they came back to reinspect eureka gardens, it passed the inspection and they eventually renewed their contract with the property's owner. but the residents continue to say what they've been saying all along, h.u.d.'s inspections weren't working. just recently h.u.d. revealed that eureka garden passed with a score of 62 and that the passing score is a 60. however, a senior h.u.d. official admitted that h.u.d.

officials do not believe the property would currently pass another inspection. and so h.u.d. has just admitted that it had certified a failing facility. something is clearly wrong with the h.u.d. inspection process and floridians are being hurt because of it. i'd like to read part of an article from the florida times union which was published on monday that quotes one of the residents at eureka gardens. it says -- quote -- "dwawn wilson said she had to go to the hospital at least six times with asthma issues since the mold remediation cried as she spoke about her apartment's problems. we thank you all for what you're trying to do, wilson said. we thank you all for pushing but we're telling you they aren't doing anything." how many more years, how many more years must the residents of eureka garden suffer under this mismanagement? how many more children have to be put at risk due to lead poisoning and gas leaks and how many more facilities will h.u.d.

continue to rubber stamp approval of only to further slum like conditions for the most vulnerable tenants? how many taxpayer dollars will be wasted by this agency on failing projects such as this? these are the questions h.u.d. must answer and in the meantime the residents of eureka gardens are forced to detail with the consequences of h.u.d.'s failures. i will continue to look for solutions that help make sure that what's happened at eureka gardens isn't repeated elsewhere. americans deserve better from their government. mr. president, at this time i'd ask unanimous consent to enter a letter that i wrote to the secretary of h.u.d. it's dated april 18. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: one last item i wanted to discuss today. and i think it is appropriate given where the president finds himself at this moment in saudi arabia. it is regarding a letter that i sent earlier this week along with senators durbin and johnson

and leay to president obama asking him to raise human rights issues during his meetings in saudi arabia. in particular the case of wright badowi, a saudi blogger. he was arrested in 2012 on the charge of insulting islam and indicted on several charges. he was sentenced to ten years in prison and 1,000 lashes. in january of 2015 he received his first set of 50 lashes in public and this resulted in an international outcry. he sub-- his subsequent lashes have been postponed. they've been postponed on el when t grounds. they've been postponed because just the first 50 lashes were so brutal, that there were doubts whether he would survive 50 more. but he continues to serve his sentence in prison. last week i met with his wife to discuss his case. he and his lawyer should be immediately and unconditionally released. while i deeply value and i think it is very important alliance

between the united states and saudi arabia, this alliance cannot allow our country to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses. and i hope that we will take up this cause. i'd also, mr. president, ask unanimous consent to enter our letter that we wrote to the president earlier this week into the record dated april 19, 2016. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: with that, mr. president, i thank you. i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

mr. peters: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: mr. president, i

ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. peters: i rise to discuss the bipartisan energy modernization act, which passed the senate yesterday with my strong support. this bill will help improve the energy efficiency of our buildings and appliances, saving michiganders money on their bills by incentivizing weatherization and other activitieactivities. many of these cutting-edge building technologies such as insulation and window sealing are designed and developed in my great state of michigan. the bill also included a number of conservation provisions that will not only protect our environment, they will boost our economy by supporting the $646 billion outdoor recreation industry. permanent authorizations of the land and water conservation fund and reauthorization of the north american wetland conservation act are just two examples that will protect wildlife habitat and improve access to public lands for all kinds of outdoor

recreation. i'd also like to take a moment to focus on a bipartisan provision that i authored with my colleagues, senator stabenow and senator alexander, the vehicle innovation act. this legislation will provide the tools that researchers, engineers, manufacturers, and others need to create the next generation of cars and trucks built in michigan and in states all across our country. southeast michigan is home to more engineers per capita than anywhere else in the country. we must ensure that our automakers, part suppliers, and other advanced manufacturers have the right tools to develop and incorporate new vehicle innovations that will improve safety, innovation, and vehicle performance in the cars and trucks of the future. exciting innovations are already under way. cars and trucks are being made with high-strength, lightweight

materials that can improve fuel economy without compromising safety. improved combustion technologies can increase efficiency of traditional engines while decreasing emissions. researchers are making batteries more affordable and recyclable while enhancing battery range and performance. making hybrids and electric vehicles even more competitive. the department of energy's vehicle technologies program is leading this effort, working with a wide range of partners, manufacturers, material suppliers, universities, energy suppliers, and our national laboratories. the department of energy's vehicle technology activities are authorized by a patchwork of different laws, and these authorities were last renewed almost a decade ago. a lot has changed in that time. vehicles today are wired with cutting-edge electronics and sensors. while my favorite part of

detroit cars and trucks remains horsepower and torque, advances in on board computers and tech knolls are making our cars -- technologies are make our cars more efficient and competitive globally. this act provides for a steady increase in funding for critical d.o.e. programs through the year 2020. this will create more certainty for companies and entrepreneurs engaged in public-private partnerships and ensure that critical research and development can keep up as technologies continue to emerge. our bill also establishes a clean authorization for d.o.e.'s advanced vehicle technology activities. this will improve collaboration with light-duty automobile and medium- and heavy-duty commercial truck engineers, manufacturers and suppliers to conduct cutting-edge technology-neutral research that will minimize fossil fuel use.

with over 256 million vehicles on our roads, it takes decades of sustained effort to turn over our fleet. it is absolutely critical that we continue developing these advanced technologies here in the united states in order to achieve major fuel savings in the future and become truly energy-independent. the vehicle innovation act has support from major manufacturers, labor, and environmental groups. this is something that just makes sense, and i appreciate the support of senators murkowski and cantwell and all of my colleagues who support it, including this legislation in this bipartisan energy package. while i was pleased to see this commonsense measure included, i continue to be frustrated and disappointed that this body has held up an up-or-down vote on a

bipartisan package authored by senator stabenow and i to help the people of flint, michigan. flint is still in crisis mode, as families still do not have safe, reliable water flowing from their taps. senator stabenow and i will continue pursuing all paths to fight for the assistance that the people of flint deserve. we will not give up. we remain fully committed to delivering flint families the assistance they need to be able to use their tap water for beiging, cooking -- bathing,ingg could -- bathing, cooking, without the fear that it will harm them. i urge my colleagues to continue working with us to pass this package through the senate as soon as possible. the people of flint cannot wait any longer.

mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: with the senator withhold his request? mr. peters: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i want to at this time respond to senator reid's juvenile attacks on my judiciary committee's investigations and to senator reid's frequent crying about my previous state department holds. over the past several months, senator reid has been obsessed with mentioning holds on nominees, holds which i no longer have. holds are often necessary to force the executive branch to comply with congressional investigations. if you want proof of that, just ask the obama administration. in a federal court filing during

the "fast and furious" very, the obama administration argued that the court should not even consider that particular case. the justice department said courts should not enforce subpoenas at all. instead, the justice department reasoned that congress should use other powers to get documents. here's exactly what that government's brief said. quote -- "among other powers, congress can withhold funds from the executive branch, override vetoes, decline to enact legislation, refuse to act on nominations, and adjourn." end of quote. later in the brief, the obama administration specifically suggested that congress can --

quote -- "tie up nominations in order to get documents." now, if the administration can say that, why would senator reid think that that's a wrong act for congress to take? it's this simple. if the minority leader doesn't like senators using holds to get documents from agencies, perhaps senator reid should talk to his friends in the obama administration who suggested that in the first place. in addition, senator reid shows his hypocrisy, since members on his own side have held up obama nominees, and senator reid never said a peep about democrats exercising their rights. further, senator reid's attempts to politicize the judiciary

committee's oversight work are very uninformed and result in misguided statements. in senator reid's accusations that taxpayers' money is being wasted by engaging in oversight of the executive branch, it rings hollow. secretary clinton's nongovernment server and private e-mail arrangements effectively walled off her official communications from the normal freedom of information act and other federal records -- record keeping requirements. so to senator reid, i would say the freedom of information act is squarely within the jurisdiction of the judiciary committee and subject to

oversight. the former secretary's use of a secret private server to conduct all of her official business led to an avalanche of freedom of information act litigation. it also caused inaccurate responses to the freedom of information act request. example: in december 2012, citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington submitted a freedom of information act request for records of secretary clinton's e-mail addresses. the department responded stating -- quote -- "no records responsive to your request were located." end of quote. that response is very misleading, and that's at best.

senior department officials knew about secretary clinton's use of private e-mail for official correspondence, since they were sending e-mails to her nongovernment e-mail address. they would have known instantly of records responsive to that request that the citizens for responsibility and ethics in government -- or ethics in washington submitted. yet, those senior officials apparently failed to communicate with the state's freedom of information act office. even then, if state's foia office were to search secretary cline i-- secretary clinton's el office, they would find nothing since she operated an account not subject to freedom of

information. separate from her e-mail address, secretary clinton's nongovernment server was a secret to high-level officials at the state department who were responsible for information technology and security. now, these officials had no idea the secretary was operating a separate unofficial system. she did not get their approval to do so. so how would they know? the judiciary committee has interviewed the chief information officer, the former chief information officer, the former deputy chief information officer, and the director of diplomatic security at the state department. the chief information officers oversaw the work of information

technology staffer who secretary clinton paid secretly to maintain her nonpublic server. and yet all of these people knew nothing about that nonpublic server.. that staffer didn't ask permission to have outside employment. that staffer didn't -- while that staffer at the state, at the state department, he didn't disclose his outside income on his financial disclosure forms. now think about that. officials whose job it is to know are kept in the dark about this home brew e-mail server. if a government agency hopes to

be transparent with the american people -- and that's the point behind freedom of information act legislation -- it must first be transparent with itself. and now we know that highly classified material was transmitted to and stored on secretary clinton's secret server. what's important about that is this is an issue of national security. state department diplomatic security personnel have informed the committee, the judiciary committee, that they were unaware of secretary clinton's using nongovernment server for official business. so how then could they possibly

secure it from security threats? now, the f.b.i. is investigating this matter as well as several other investigations. we keep hearing that the f.b.i.'s inquiry is just a security review and not a criminal inquiry. so let me tackle that. however, one witness asserted his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination rather than answer questions about his work on secretary clinton's secret server. and he is relying on the fifth amendment to withhold his personal e-mails as well. recently the department of justice granted him immunity. so quite naturally, right, we're searching for other ways to get

information before deciding whether it might be appropriate to seek an immunity order for his testimony. now, to senator reid, these are legitimate oversight inquiries for the judiciary committee. further, secretary clinton did not turn over all of her official e-mails. e-mails between general david petraeus and secretary clinton which secretary clinton failed to provide to the state department were later turned over to the defense department. secretary clinton also failed to turn over e-mails with secretary blumenthal whom secretary clinton used as an off-the-books intelligence resource while secretary of state.

if secretary clinton used a government e-mail address for official e-mails, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place. so how many more official e-mails were not turned over but should have been? the committee -- let me emphasize, the judiciary committee cannot ignore these important issues simply because the former secretary decided to run for president. and to be clear, to be perfectly clear, i started this investigation before secretary clinton announced her candidacy. now, senator reid suggested that the committee's work on these issues is a waste of time. senator reid, this is nonsense. congressional oversight is not a

waste of money. it's a constitutional responsibility. the minority leader fails to understand that congress is so obligated to i don't see see that the executive -- to oversee that the executive branch of government faithfully executes the laws, faithfully spends the money the way congress intended. without such constitutional oversight, congress will not know if there are failures in the executive branch's duty to faithfully execute the laws that we pass. but you know what is a real waste of money? this administration fought tooth and nail in the courts against congress for more than four years. why? just to avoid tk-gs -- disclosing documents with the fast and furious scandal, which

papers they eventually turned over. that is a waste of money. four-year waste of money. the obama administration has fought against the press and watchdogs for years in the freedom of information act litigation over former secretary clinton's e-mail records. senator reid, that's a waste of money. it is shocking that the obama justice department devotes so much tax and resources to avoiding the very transparency that president obama promised on january 21, 2009, one day into office that this administration was going to be the most transparent in the history of the entire country. and it's turned out to be the most stonewalling.

none of that would be necessary if the administration would just comply with congressional subpoenas and the freedom of information act. that's the way to save money. and, by the way, i'd like to ask how much taxpayers money does senator reid spend having his staff write daily speeches trying to undermine the work of the judiciary committee. secretary reid also fails -- senator reid also fails to understand that we are not only focused on secretary clinton. the committee is conducting dozens of investigations on a broad range of issues under the jurisdiction of the committee. some of the executive branch agencies have complained about the amount of oversight work that the committee does on other matters. mr. president, to justify my statements for this part of my

remarks, i'd like to submit two letters for the record. the first is from the department of homeland security. the second is from the department of justice. both note that many dozens of letters and hundreds of requests that i have sent, and both essentially complain about the volume of our investigation and requests for information. that committee is hard at work doing the people's business, and the committee is doing much more than just oversight. the committee has reported 16 executive nominees, 37 judicial nominees. it has processed 27 bipartisan bills out of committee, and every bill that has come out of

committee is a bipartisan bill. 18 of those bills were passed out of the senate, or over to the senate. and eight were passed out of the senate over to the house, and eight of which had been signed into law by the president. just last week the committee unanimously adopted bipartisan legislation to finally protect f.b.i. whistle-blowers who report wrongdoing to their supervisors and provide for independent review of f.b.i. whistle-blower cases for the first time. so you can ask -- reviewing that record, it seems to me we can ask senator reid to justify his claim that this committee is partisan. the committee concluded an investigation into the abuse and

misuse of paid administrative leave. the committee took the results and worked hard with members on both sides of the aisle to actually fix that problem. in february, homeland security and governmental affairs committee approved the bipartisan commonsense reforms in the administrative leave act of 2016. similarly, the committee has worked with democrats and republicans alike to overturn an office of legal counsel opinion that allows the agencies across government to stonewall their inspector general. now let me tell you how senator reid is involved in stonewalling that effort. about the bill, we came up with the legislative solution called the i.g. empowerment act and attempted to pass it in december by a live unanimous consent request. but senator reid objected to the bill, even though it is

supported by seven members of his own caucus, supported by "the new york times" editorial board, and a host of civil liberties and good-government groups. even the largest circulating daily newspaper in the home state of senator reid urged him to work with us on a compromise. but rather than engaging us in a productive and civil manner, senator reid publicly slandered the bill as a legislative overreach. he claimed that he was concerned about a provision that allowed inspector general to issue testimonial subpoenas to fight waste, fraud and abuse, when in fact senator reid voted -- senator reid actually voted to give the exact same authority to the office of special counsel in

1989. that 1989 bill passed the senate unanimously and is now law. senator reid was at legislative legislative -- was that legislative overreach when you did it? the i.g. empowerment act had near unanimous support and is designed to root out wrongdoing by government while ensuring safeguards of the use of subpoenas. so there is no reason to object to this bill on policy grounds, and yet senator reid stands in the way of just getting that done. the judiciary committee will continue its work. i say that to just one senator: senator reid. and during the course of my oversight work, i will use every tool at my disposal to obtain answers for the american people.

so, senator reid, i will keep faith with my oath of office, and we the people. i yield the floor. mr. carper: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, 21 years ago this week, a family of 168 people, 19 of those 168 people were children, received some of the worst news of their lives, and that news was that a beloved member of each of their families had been killed in the bombing of the federal building in oklahoma city. we all watched the news that day, that night, the next day, that week and beyond as we took in the devastation caused by

that blast. that horrible crime was carried out by a radical antigovernment extremist. it remains the deadliest act of homegrown terrorism in our nation's history. the families who lost a loved one that day in 1995, there's no way, no way to fill the void left by a life taken too soon. but i know that our government's pursuit of justice for the lives lost that day served as a small source of comfort for the people who were left in mourning. at the time of that heinous crime, judge merrick garland, president obama's nominee to fill the vacancy on the supreme court, was the principal associate deputy attorney general at the u.s. department of justice. he immediately flew to oklahoma

city to lead the criminal investigation and supervise the prosecution of the bombers. in fact, he insisted, insisted on being sent. he didn't just volunteer. he didn't just say okay, i'll go. he told his supervisors that they had to let him go. he was the highest ranking justice department official on the ground in oklahoma city following the bombing. and he helped to oversee every aspect of the investigation and the subsequent trial. his colleagues at the time have attested to judge garland's commitment to following the letter of the law in every aspect of that investigation. he refused to take any shortcuts that could somehow compromise the integrity of the case that he and hisea