women who are serving. they're the ones who are suffering from this. in the defense authorization bill, we have a 2.1% pay raise for the military. continuing resolution? not in there. not in there. so we aren't going to reward our men and women in the military with a pay raise they have earned. some of my colleagues on the appropriations committee will argue that this continuing resolution is an increase to defense spending. that is a lie. i want to say right now, and i don't say this very often, anyone who says there's an increase in defense spending in this continuing resolution is lying. those of you who are not aware of doublespeak let me explain how cut translates into increase inside the beltway. the new continuing resolution represents a modest increase over the previous continuing resolution passed in september.

that legislation contained a large cut to defense spending. and just as now, members of this body were asked to go along with this cut with the promise that a defense appropriations bill would soon follow. in other words, the best we sake about the continuing resolution we're considering in this body today -- and i'm sure on a friday night will be passey contains a smaller defense cut than its predecessor. twist the figures all you want. i guarantee you somebody in the budget committee or the budget committee chairman or the appropriate -- they'll twist it. but the fact is this continuing resolution is $6 billion less than what congress just authorized for defense spending yesterday. yesterday we passed the defense authorization bill. and this is $6 billion less than what we authorized. that is what we should be

grading ourselves on because that's what our military has told us they need and what this body has agreed to provide them. let me emphasize, we go through weeks and months of hearings, of markup, of input, of debate, and we come up with a defense authorization bill, and we provide this body and the congress and the nation with our best judgment of what america needs to defend this nation and how much it costs. this continuing resolution will cut that number by $6 billion. that may not be much money among some. it's one heck of a lot of money overall. the hypocrisy of this continuing resolution is nauseating. the defense cut it contains is blind to the needs of our military, but ultimately it's the basic fact that congress has failed to pass an appropriations bill, will be forced to pass another continuing resolution that will have the most real and immediate consequences for our

service members. our nation has a lot of men and women serving in uniform. as i mentioned, we're going to go home tonight, i am sure, because of the pressures that always takes place on a thursday or a friday, and they'll still be out there. they'll still be out there on the front line. they'll be in syria. they'll be in iraq. they'll be helping the afghan fighters to defend their nation. they won't be going home, but we will be. and what we will leave them with? a $6 billion reduction in their ability to defend this nation. continuing resolution block our military into last year's budget and last year's priorities. tell me a company in the world that you have to stick with the priorities from the year before as you approach the coming year as to what you want to do. that you're locked into the last year's provisions.

so what happened to our counterisil efforts under the continuing resolution that's about to expire? last week military leaders had to come to congress hat in hand seeking relief from the constraints of a continuing resolution in order to keep up the fight against isil. since the beginning of the year the department, defense department requested money to support local forces in syria who are fighting to drive isil out of raqqa. but because we're on a continuing resolution, the money wasn't there. the secretary of defense, the highest civilian leader of our military, had to spend his time searching couch cushions to continue our fight against isil. every day that isil remains entrenched in raqqa is another day they can plot attacks on our homeland. it's another day they can terrorize syria, another day they can call themselves a caliphate, another day they can attract foreign fighters to their murderous cause. all the defense authorization and appropriations bill included the money to fund syrians fighting to remove isil from its

sanctuary, but the continuing resolution did not. if we had done our jobs, this wouldn't be an issue, but it was. the same thing will happen under a new continuing resolution which does not fully fund the war in afghanistan. the legislation will force the department of defense to pay for urgent requirements to deter russian aggression in europe by can can cannibalizing funds. when it comes to national security robbing peter to pay paul isn't necessary, it's a disgrace. it wouldn't be necessary under a appropriations bill but it is under this continuing resolution which is brined it to the realities of our dangerous world and the consequences will be felt on the battlefield. the department of defense has requested $814 million to provide our afghan partners with the helopters and fixed wing aircraft they need to fight to -- to take the fight to the taliban and isil.

this continuing resolution contains none of that funding. if there's anything we need in this fight, it's air power. general nicholson, the commander of u.s. and international forces in afghanistan, sent me a letter yesterday, and he warns that without this funding, the afghan security forces risk losing the positive close air support momentum gained over the past year which proved instrumental in enabling them to thwart the enemy eight separate times in its efforts to seize provincial capitals. so what are we doing here? with the continuing resolution, we're putting the lives of countless afghans in danger because we're not giving them the air support that they need. our failure to do our jobs, pass this bill in this irresponsible continuing resolution will make it even harder to achieve success and our nation's longest war. this is shameful, and a continuing resolution would also make the job of managing the government's largest agency even

more difficult and at the worst possible time. the presidential transition process currently underway is difficult enough on its own, but no incoming president has ever had to inherit a department of defense operating under a continuing resolution. i'll repeat that. no president has ever had to inherit a department of defense operating under a continuing resolution. this is not a time to break the streak. under a continuing resolution of any duration, our military by law have to delay 78 new military systems and stall additional production of 89 others. a continuing resolution delays major research and development initiatives. the laterrest continuing resolution provides d.o.d. relief for these restrictions for the ohio program, the apache and blackhawk helicopters. but that is the only programs out of hundreds. worse still, this leaves d.o.d. with the wrong mix of funding causing shortfalls in important

accounts totaling $22 billion. let me repeat, continuing resolution leaves the department of defense with a $22 billion shortfall across important accounts. locking in funding at last year's level across all account is willful ignorance of the department's plan to grow necessary programs and cut wasteful ones. this is not a wise fiscal stewardship. this is reckless government on auto pilot. and there are just -- and here are just a few of the consequences. continuing resolution is totally blind to the military readiness crisis that is putting the lives of our service members at risk. we're asking our troops to be ready to defend this nation on a moment's notice. we're asking our troops to be ready to take the fight to isil. we're asking our troops to be ready to deter if necessary to feed aggression in europe, the middle east and asia pacific. we're asking them to be ready today but a continuing resolution forces trade-offs that undermine readiness. we've heard about the readiness

crisis all year. what does it really mean? it means the navy doesn't have enough money to maintain ships and aircraft. it means ships the taxpayers spends billions of dollars to buy will be anchored at docks instead of at sea. it means our navy and marine corps aircraft will be grounded and pilot skills wasting away. it means the air force won't have the funding required to keep air men, keep aircraft maintained and flying. the ndaa we passed would have stopped the military from cutting soldiers, sailors and air men. but because of this continuing resolution, the army will begin firing 3,000 qualified captains. that's 3,000 soldiers with families. that's 3,000 soldiers who want to stay in the military and continue to serve their country. that's 3,000 soldiers willing to put their lives on the line for us. but because we refuse to do our jobs, 3,000 soldiers are going to get pink slips.

that is shameful. it's madness. every senior leader at the department of defense has warned congress about the negative impacts of a continuing resolution on our troops. secretary of defense ash carter has stated -- quote -- "a continuing resolution is a straitjacket that prevents us from fielding a modern ready force in a balanced way. a continuing resolution" secretary carter said -- quote -- "undercuts stable planning and efficient use of taxpayer dollars." the commandant of the marine corps warned a long-term continuing resolution -- quote -- "dramatically increases risk to an already strained fiscal environment and destructs predictability and our ability to properly plan and execute a budget and a five year program. the chief of staff of the air force warned that a continuing resolution would reduce procurement of critical munitions for the isil fight affecting not only the united

states but our coalition partners who rely on us to deliver preferred munitions. admiral richardson warned that a continuing resolution would lead to wasted taxpayer dollars. under a continuing resolution, the navy would be forced to break up its contract actions into smaller pieces. as a result, admiral richardson warned the navy would not be able to -- quote -- "take advantage of savings from contractors who would better manage their workload and pass on lower costs to the navy. these redundant efforts drive additional time and cost to the system for the same output." chief of staff of the army general milli made similar warnings about waste and inefficiency resulting from budget uncertainty saying things like multiyear contracts, et cetera, et cetera. general milli is right. i say to my colleagues, this madness has to end. it's time for congress to do it's job. when it comes to doing our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense, there

is no call for lacey shortcuts -- for lazy shortcuts that shortchange our troops. we passed the defense authorization bill. now let's fund it by passing a defense appropriations bill that gives our troops the resources, predictability and flexibility they need and deserve. next year with a new president and a new congress, let's go to work immediately ending sequestration once and for all and returning to a strategy-driven defense budget. it's what the american people expect of us and it is what the men and women who serve and sacrifice on our behalf deserve from us. as i said, i find in my historyd here long enough, there will be an agreement, we'll have a vote and we'll all go home and we'll congratulate ourselves that for the next 15 days or whatever it is we're going to enjoy the christmas holidays with our families and friends and pat ourselves on the back about what

a great job we've done for them. we shouldn't do that. we shouldn't do that. because the men and women who are serving in uniform overseas away from their families and friends, putting their lives in danger, we haven't done our job. we haven't done our job to provide for their security and their defense. what we have done is miserably failed, and this is another -- not the first, but another and maybe most egregious, given the state of the world today as we watch thousands being slaughtered in aleppo, as we watch in syria, a refugee crisis there, as we watch the chinese act more aggressively, as we watch a build-up of the military in leningrad, a place most people have never heard of, and we watch the continued aggression and advantage that our enemies and our adversaries believe are appropriate action for them in light of our weakness. and what do we do?

the message to the men and women who are serving in the military, we care more about being home for the holidays than we do about you. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i would like to begin by saying a few words about my colleague -- i beg your pardon. mr. inhofe: would the nor yield? mrs. feinstein: i certainly will. mr. inhofe: i think i'm in the queue and ready anyway. in case there's some confusion, i ask that i be recognized for such time i shall consume at the conclusion of the remarks of the distinguished senior senator from california. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, before i begin, i'd like to say a few words about my colleague from california who's retiring. i very much regret that i was not able to be here for her remarks on the floor. however, i have written rather extensively in the record, and

i want to say here now that no one has fought for california or for this country harder. she's dedicated a long career of service to our country, and her accomplishments are many. those are documented in the record, and i believe they will stand the test of time. so i want to offer my heartiest congratulations to her for 24 years of service to this country. we came to the senate together, and i have very much respected her, her work and her diligence over these years. now, mr. president, i rise to speak about the water resources development act which the house passed yesterday afternoon 3660- 61, and this again, my colleague, senator boxer, was the author of that bill.

i believe it is a good bill. there is a whole litany of excellent projects that benefit the environment as well as the economy of so many of our states. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record additional remarks about the bill's water infrastructure provisions which are both good and substantial for states. i want to speak today about the california drought language in this bill which represents three years of effort on my part, and i believe these provisions are both necessary and will help our state. i think it's notable that both democrats and republicans in the california house delegation voted for this bill. in fact, a substantial majority of california house democrats,

21 out of 37, voted yes for the bill. and i particularly want to thank representative costa and garimindi for their help in this bill throughout this effort. they really made a major effort. overall, 35 of the 51 california representatives from both parties who voted, from up and down our very big state, voted for this bill and its drought provisions. california is now entering into our sixth year of drought, and experts have indicated that even if this is the final year of drought, which many doubt, it will take an additional time of four years to recover. the effects of the drought have been devastating. in the past two years, 35,000 people have lost jobs.

$4.9 billion has been lost to the california economy. one million acres of farm land were fallowed in 2015. 69 communities have little or no water. and 2,400 private water wells have gone dry. we have had 102 million trees on federal land die during this period of time. parts of the great central valley have seen as much as one foot of land subsidence. that's where the ground actually sinks because of groundwater depletion. this means cracks in canals, bridges and pipelines, and i have seen those photos. we have had a 95 and 98% salmon mortality in the past two years because of problems with cold water temperature valves and

probes at shasta dam which provides the cold water to the sacramento river. to address the devastating impacts of this drought and to create a long-term beginning new infrastructure that moves away from dams, the bill contains two key parts -- short-term provisions and long-term provisions. before i go into them, i want to say that this bill, the drought part of the bill, is sparred by 218 cities, six county vernments, 445 water districts, both urban and agricultural. and if i may, i would like to submit that information to the record to be in place directly following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: these

operational provisions are short term. they last just five years. they do not contain any mandatory pumping levels. this bill does not say that if the water flow is such and such, the pumps that move that water must pump at x, y or z. there is none of that. instead, what this bill does is require daily monitoring for fish when water is turbid. this monitoring will also take place more frequently and closer to the pumps than it does today. today it is 17 miles from the pumps, and the change is 12 miles from the pumps. it also requires agencies to explain their decisions when they reduce pumping. this will bring about transparency, provide solid

reasoning for decisions, and i think improve the angst that exists out there about how these systems are controlled. these provisions simply require the agencies to use the best available science. based on real-time monitoring so that we can save some water from those heavy flows, as you see on the chart next to me. and these are the heavy flows that came, and we were not able in february and march to hold this water and use it later in the year. what we have done here is tracked every single day from the beginning of the year, and what the pumping level was and what the water level was, and that says its own picture. we also talk about the numbers caught, which are very small.

adult smelt 12, juvenile smelt eight, and winter run salmon, 56. so this can be improved, and we seek to do that. we also provide provisions which simply require the agency to use the best available science, based on real-time monitoring, so again we can save water from the heavy flows, as you have just seen. if even this sixth year is a bumper crop of water, ucla predicts that it's going to take four and a half years to recover from the drought. other short-term provisions include extending the time period for voluntary water transfers by five months, ending the winter storm payback requirement, which says if you save this water, you must put it

back into the ocean. allowing a one-to-one ratio for voluntary water transfers that can help both fish and farms, and allowing expedited reviews of transfers and construction of barriers to protect water quality. these water guys are not for big corporate agriculture, as some would have you think. this water is for the tens of thousands of small farms that have gone bankrupt, like a melon farmer who sat in my office with tears in his eyes and told me how he had lost a farm that he had struggled to pay for and that had been part of his family for generations. there are also small towns in the central valley where people are still bathing with bottled water and some 2,500 wells have run dry. we worked for two years with

interior, noaa fisheries and the council on environmental quality to make sure there were strong environmental protections, including a very comprehensive savings clause, and we'll get to that in a minute. so the bill in this measure requires agency scientists to review every proposed action. that's right. scientists must review and approve every proposed action under this bill. these are agency biologists, experts in endangered species, and the bill requires them to carefully review every proposal to move water under the provisions of this bill. that's what they do today, and that's what they would do under the bill. that's what the e.s.a. requires, and that's what this bill will require.

the savings clause in this bill also makes clear that the provisions will not override existing environmental laws like the endangered species act and biological opinions. the bill also makes clear that nothing in this bill will affect water quality. drinking water will still be available at the same levels of quality as before, and the state will have the same ability to regulate water in the delta, as it always has had. and to make this even clearer, each individual section also requires consistency with the environmental laws and biological opinions. these protections are referenced in the bill no less than 36 times throughout it. in fact, the commissioner of the

bureau of reclamation wrote on june 27 -- he wrote about the savings clauses, and let me quote. "the savings clauses leads me to conclude that the directors in this legislation are to be implemented in a manner consistent with the e.s.a. and the current biological opinions for federal and state projects." mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to place this letter in the record, if i may. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: in fact, the savings clause here is drafted to be nearly identical to the savings clause in a case called verizon communications versus trinko. this is a supreme court case in which the case took a commonsense law of the same clause as we have in this bill

and concluded that that clause prevented any exception. i also want to talk about process. the bill before you today is t result of three years of painstaking public work. i first introduced a version of this bill in july of 2015, and that bill received significant public input, including a state energy committee hearing last october. based on feedback, i revised that bill and then circulated a public discussion draft in december of that year. we incorporated feedback from a variety of stakeholders, including environmentalists, water districts, state and federal agencies, and we made dozens of changes. incorporating all of this, i then introduced a revised bill

in february of 2016. that revised bill received a second senate hearing in the committee in may. the administration testified at that time that the bill complied with the endangered species act and relevant biological opinions. the short-term operational provisions in this bill are largely the same as the bill i introduced in february. we also made the savings clause and environmental protections even stronger, referencing them no fewer than 36 times. i truly believe the long-term provisions, as well as the environmental protections, would not be included in any bill under a congress that we might expect in the future.

while the short-term provisions will alleviate some suffering, i believe that the most important part of the bill is actually the long-term section. in california, we have depended on a water system that's overallocated and overstressed, and i want to explain that. we have two big water systems. one is the state water system put forward by governor pat brown in the middle 1960's when california was 16 million people. and the other is the central valley water project, bonded and paid for by agriculture water contractors, and that was put forward in the 1930's. now, california today by census is 39.1 million people, and the

number of undocumented in addition to that is estimated to be 2.47 million. so i often say at its conservative, the state today is 40 million people with a water infrastructure created when we were 16 million people. so you can see what happens. we have long-term provisions that include $550 million in authorizations for programs including fish and wildlife protection, desalination, storage, recycling and water grant programs. over the course of three years of work, we heard concerns of many people about the loss of salmon. and i won't say this, we were very disappointed to learn that

the pumps -- actually were to blame for the high mortality rates of salmon in the past two years. in fact, only 56 out of an allowable 1,017 salmon were caught at these pumps. i said we were disappointed. the word is surprised. the problem has been a malfunctioning cold water valve at shasta dam that meant there was not enough cold water for fish in the sacramento river. and according to noaa fisheries, these mistakes resulted in a salmon kill of 95% in 2014 and a salmon kill of 98% in 2015. we have $100 million in the energy and water appropriations part of these appropriations

bill essentially to provide for this and other infrastructure problems so it can be corrected. and we have $43 million of environmentally beneficial bills, some of which can be used to make sure we avoid a devastating loss to salmon. let me tell you what that program includes. $15million for habitat restoration projects. $15 million for fish passage projects. $3 million for a long wanted delta smelt distribution study requested by fish and wildlife, a program to reduce predator fish. let me tell you what a big problem in the delta is. people add predator fish like striped bass to be able to encourage a fishing industry.

well, the smelt go where the tush turbid waters are. the fishing magazines say if you want to cash -- catch fish here's where they go so they go to where the spriepped bass -- striped bass are feeding in the endangered species. we have money to eliminate what has been a huge growth of water hyacinths which drain the knew tree yens from the water. -- drain the nutrients from the water. we have about a dozen sewage treatment plans that put ammonia even in the secondary treated water into the delta. so the delta is a troubled place, and let there be no doubt about it. there are a lot islands, there's farming, the soil is

pete. when the levee leaked it throws off trihalo methane and complicates it further. we have $11 million for wildlife refuges to sources of water. the bill also includes $515 million that can go to a new kind of water infrastructure for california. this includes $30 million for design and construction of desal plants. these projects actually do work. what i am told is what we need to secure is a third-generation membrane because the energy coefficient of desal has been negative. and with the third-generation membrane, you can turn that deficit into a positive coefficient. the bill also includes $p --

$315 for storage and groundwater projects. the only way we'll be able to weather future droughts is by holding water in wet years for dry years, and that means more storage including groundwater storage. we have money in there for water smart, and this will help fund water supply and conservation. we have $50 million included for the existing colorado river system conservation program. and today this popular program has resulted in 80,000-acre feet of water saved throughout the west, including through projects in arizona, california, nevada, california, colorado and california. i want to address my colleagues' concerns that this bill will allow the next administration to build dams all over the country without any congressional approval, and this is simply

not true. so let me set the record straight about how storage projects work under this bill. the drought language here gives congress veto authority through control of appropriations for any storage project. this means that reclamation will do the same rigorous studies it has always done, including feasibility studies and environmental impact statements. reclamation would then submit a list of recommended projects to congress, and congress would decide how to fund them. if congress has concerns, it doesn't fund the project. it's that simple. this will allow federal funding to go to qualified environmentally mitigated and cost-beneficial projects on the same time frame as projects funded under the california

state water bond. and that's just common sense. make sure the federal government partners with states like california to ensure the best projects get funding, but only with congress's approval. moreover, a large part of these projects are groundwater, not storage. it was said on this floor that groundwater projects are the best solution for california water problems. and this bill helps build those groundwater projects. again, this proposal makes so much sense one year ago, that my colleague from california cosponsored the measure. moreover, this is not the federal government building projects that states and local governments oppose. to the contrary, the bill sets up a progress where the federal

government can contribute up to 25% of the cost of projects built by states or local agencies in collaboration with a broad range of local agencies. the federal government cannot contribute more than 25% of the cost. they have to work with the states and local agencies that would fund the rest. this provision has also been the subject of two public hearings, and the obama administration supported it. the obama administration stated the following in relationship to the water storage programs in the bill at the may 26 hearing in the energy committee -- and i quote -- "we are finding that state and local jurisdictions are developing their own funding for many of these types of projects and would like to have a federal partner but are unable

to wait for an authorization for reclamation to participate in such a project. consequently, we are of the view that in addition to the traditional reclamation paradigm for study authorization, that participation -- then participation federal water projects congress should revisit a standing authorization that allows some kind of investment in the state and local projects asontemplated. i want to talk about the offsets in the bill. it has been said on this floor that this is a sweetheart deal that would cost the treasury billions of dollars. and that is simply flatly untrue. the c.b.o. budget office has said that the bill will save treasury $558 million, and that's the truth.

and here's how. this is no sweetheart deal. the water contractors have agreed to boost the time they pay the debt they owe the united states up front before those debts are due. therefore, that effectively replaces the -- or fills in the score. california is home, as i said, mr. president, to more than 40 million people, and our major water infrastructure hasn't been significantly changed in the past 50 years when we had 60 million. we must modernize the system, both infrastructure and operational flexibility, or i fear we risk eventually becoming a desert state. we have addressed to the best of our ability, and on and on and

on, concerns raised by environmentalists, water districts, federal and state agencies and the ag sector. this bill has bipartisan support in both houses, and i believe that these provisions will place california on a long-term path to drought resiliency. i want to say thank you. a lot of people have had a very hard time in california through this drought, and it's my hope that we can get this bill passed and then on a bipartisan basis this congress, both senate and house, can see that we do what we can to abate this drought and also begin to build a new water infrastructure in california. so i thank the chair. i yield the floor.

mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i stand on the floor and listened to all of the remarks of the senior senator from california. while doing that, we did some checking, my staff and forwarded it to me that probably this bill has more benefits for the state of california than any bill since i've been here for 22 years. i think it's very important the people understand that for some reason if this bill doesn't pass, none of the things, none of the things, the provisions that the senator was talking about will happen. so it is very significant. and i -- i think that we need at this point, since we're going to have a vote on a continuing resolution to make sure that our government does not shut down, it's very important that it not shut down right in the middle of arguably three wars, but that could be as late as 1:00 tomorrow

morning. after that is when we'll be considering the wrda bill, that's the water resources development act. it's one, i'm very proud as chairman of the environment and public works committee to have been very much involved in this bill that has been so eloquently described by senator feinstein. for the last several months our committee has been working to put together the final wrda package with our counterparts in the house, actually the house energy and commerce, the house t&i committee and natural resources committee of the house. this legislation is truly one for america. while we just heard of many things that will benefit, therefore, the state of california, it's also there for all the rest. there's not one state that doesn't have benefits that are long overdue coming from this legislation. wrda authorizes 30 new navigation, flood control,

environmental restoration projects and modifiesight existing projects based on reports submitted to congress by the secretary of the army. these projects support our nation's economic competitiveness and our well-being by deepening nationally significant ports, providing protection from disastrous flood waters and restoring valuable ecosystems. let me just list a few. diamede harbor and craig harbor in alaska, upper ohio river in pennsylvania, the port everglades in florida. 17 flood control and hurricane protection projects in california, florida, mississippi, new jersey, illinois, wisconsin and oregon. this bill also includes ecosystem restoration in the florida everglades which will fix lake okeechobee and stop algae blooms in the florida coast. the bill also includes ongoing

flood control and navigation safety in hamilton city project in california. and the rio de flag project in arizona and critical fixes for the house ship channel, houston ship channel. the bill includes programs to help small and disadvantaged communities provide safe drinking water and will help communities address drinking water emergencies like the one facing the city of flint, michigan. and let's censure we don't -- that we all understand that without the authorization of this bill, there will be no flint relief. that's very important. i want to repeat that. people don't seem to understand there is a lot of support in this chamber to try to help out with the problems, the disasters that took place in flint, michigan, and so we have a relief package that is included in this bill. but if the bill for some reason doesn't pass, there will be no relief for flint, michigan.

the house has voted to authorize flint funding in the wrda bill and spending in the continuing resolution. both of these that provide the benefit for flint, michigan passed by over a 3/4 majority. so we could not have worked closer with senator stabenow, senator peters to ensure we keep relief for flint, and i appreciate their partnership and their persistence. they were really persistent because these provisions were in here before. but relief is delivered. but if for some reason the bill doesn't pass, flint gets nothing. and people have to understand that. we could not have the closer working relationship with senator stabenow or senator peters. i have just -- i just really appreciate the fact that we all work together to accomplish this one thing. there is unanimity, and that is the help for flint, michigan. the bill includes the gold king

mine spill recovery, as championed by senators bennet, gardner, udall to get costs incurred by state tribes and local governments with the king mines bill. this includes rehabilitation of high hazard tension dams. this authorizes fema assistance to states to rehabilitate unsafe dams. there are 14,726 high-hazard potential dams in the united states. what that means is that definition means that if a dam fails, lives are at stake, so the program will be prevent loss of lives. the wrda bill is bipartisan and will play a critical role in addressing problems faced by community, states and our country as a whole. earlier this week, senator boxer said that the house republicans ruined a beautiful bill because of -- because some of them -- quote -- wanted to flex their

muscles. i don't know about that, but i do agree with her, this is a beautiful bill because it does things that we haven't had the courage to get done before, so we want to make sure this does pass. so the house passed the wrda bill with the provisions by a 3/4 vote. 360 votes. i can't think of another time that the house has passed something with 360 votes. but that's the popularity of this wrda bill and all the work that's gone in. however, there is something i don't think anyone has heard. this drought provision was drafted by the u.s. department of interior and the u.s. department of commerce. the savings clause prohibits any federal agency under any administration from taking any action that would violate any environmental laws, including the endangered species act and biological opinions. so don't -- -- don't just take my word for it. ask senator feinstein. she articulated this very well,

but people have to realize this came from the department of the interior and the department of commerce. so it's not something that was stuck in there by the committee. now, we've heard claims that these operational provisions would violate environmental laws. let's look at the actual text. under this section, 4001, any operations to provide additional water supplies can only be implemented if they are consistent with the applicable biological opinions and only if the environmental effects are consistent with effects allowed under the endangered species act, the clean water act and the california quality water control act. so section 402 and section 4003 reiterate the requirement to comply with the smelt biological opinion and the salmon biological opinion. senator feinstein also covered that. finally 4012 includes a savings clause, a savings clause written by the u.s. department of

interior and the department of commerce that ensures that the entire subtitle must be implemented in accordance with the endangered species act or the smelt and salmon biological opinions. so that is significant. that i think is documented well enough, that all of these environmental provisions are complied with. now, how i would rather spend my time on the floor is talking about the positive things in the bill because there is much more to say. coal ash, state permitting, that's coal ash state permitting is something that has been desired for a long period of time. it's finally allowed in this bill. spcc, that's spill relief, for our nation's small farmers, is included thanks to senator fischer, and that provision is not just good for her state, it's certainly good for my state of oklahoma. to say that this violates environmental law and regulations is simply not -- is simply not the case.

so many senators have contributed to this piece of legislation, and there is literally crucial infrastructure and accomplishments in every state contained in this bill. let me just repeat, it's very important because there has been a lot of discussion about -- about what has happened in michigan. if the bill is not passed, flint, michigan, gets nothing. now, i was going to talk about some of the other provisions in the bill, but i -- since there is some concern expressed by one of the senators from washington state, i want to mention just washington state. i won't mention anything more about california because senator feinstein has already done that, but in washington state, in one state, in this bill, the soquomish river, washington, authorize $26.6 million to renew a levy which has the economic benefit of restoring 40 miles

for salmon taibt and for the fishing industry. so the fishing industry for those concerned with salmon. this is a huge thing for them. puget sound, it authorizes $61 million to provide refuge habitat for three listed species and ten threatened species, including five species of pacific salmon. the project is part of the puget sound chinook salmon recovery bill, in this state. the columbia river ecosystem restoration increases the authorization ceiling for restoration ecosystem studies and projects for the lower columbia river in oregon and in washington state, authorized by section 536 of our -- the wrda bill that we passed in 2000. the watercraft inspection stations, columbia river basin, clarifies that the watercraft inspection stations to protect the columbia river basin from invasion species may be located

outside the basin if that is necessary to be prevent introduction of invasive species. again, washington state. tribal assistance. this bill authorizes relocation assistance to indian families displaced due to the construction of the bonneville dam. it requires a study of indian families displaced due to the construction of the john day dam and the development of a plan to provide relocation assistance associated with that dam. additional measures at donors point and energy transfer ports. this section permanently extends the authority to provide additional funds for donor ports and energy transfer ports. harbor deepening. the lines of cost share for construction of harbors with the change in wrda 2014 modified the cost share for maintenance of harbors, a huge thing, certainly a great benefit for the state of

washington. implementation guide. it requires the corps to issue guidance to implement section 2102 of wrda 14 relating to maintenance of emerging ports and great lakes ports. columbia river ecosystems restoration increases the authorization ceiling for ecosystems restoration studies and projects for the lower columbia river in oregon and washington, authorized in section 536 of the wrda -- the last wrda that we passed. watercraft inspection stations, columbia river basin clarifies that the watercraft inspection stations to protect the columbia river basin from invasive species may be located outside of the basin if that is necessary to prevent introduction of invasive species. the oyster aquacultural study

requires the g.a.o. to study the different regulatory treatment of oyster hatcheries across the corps districts. everything i mentioned was in washington state. this is -- and yet i could go state by state, but there certainly isn't the time. i would remind my colleagues that we are -- the next vote that takes place that everyone has been concerned about, and it is going to pass, and it is going to pass to stop us from having to shut down government, but after that is when we're going to bring up the bill that we have been talking about all day today that the senator from california was talking about. it's something that as -- i know that we have only been working on it for this particular -- for about a year, but we have been working on some of the projects in there for as long as three years. so this is the chance to get it all done. now, if something happens we don't do it, none of the stuff we're talking about are going to take place. and certainly all the efforts that senator stabenow and i have talked and senator peters about in michigan, the problems they are having up there, that's not

going to happen, there's going to be no help for flint, michigan, if for some reason this doesn't -- i have no reason to believe it's not going to pass. i believe it is. but i have to stress the significance of this legislation. and with that, i yield the floor. 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 massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president, i come to the floor today to support senators from both parties -- i'm sorry. are we in a quorum? i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: thank you. mrpresident, i come to the floor today to support senators from both parties, and in particular west virginia senators joe manchin and shelly capito in their fight to protect health and retirement benefits for over 100,000 american coal miners and their families. 70 years ago, the federal government made a simple promise

to these union coal miners. america, our country, promised to provide health insurance and retirement benefits to miners who went down in those mines and put their lives at risk to power this great nation. we recognized that this was dangerous work, but we believed it was essential to our economic growth and our national security of our country. and because of that belief, we promised that if these men would go down into the mines, our country would make sure that they had some protection in case of injury, disability or death. we promised that after a lifetime of back-breaking work, ey would have a dignified and secure retiremt, and we promised that if the worst happened, that their wives, their widows and theiramilies would still be provided for.

when the american government made this deal with the united mine workers of america 70 years ago, coal generated more than 50% of our power. today coal generates only about 30% of our power. coal prices plummeted and other sources of energy like natural gas have become more prevalent. automation has also transformed this industry and there are critical environmental reasons to transition. but make no mistake, these changes have drastically altered the coal industry and have left thousands of coal miners out of work. every month there are more reports of coal companies filing for bankruptcy, and the layoffs, they're never far behind. more than 25,000 miners have lost their jobs in the last five years alone. as a country, we all benefited from the decades of work put in by coal miners. every member of congress and everybody we represent back

home, we benefited from the work of the coal miners, and we made a deal to keep these men in the mines. and now we must honor the commitments we made. congress is on the verge of turning out the lights and going home for the rest of the year, but 100,000 coal miners face a reckoning. if congress does not act, more than 16,000 mine workers will lose their health insurance by the end of this month. another 2,500 coal miners will lose their coverage by march. by july, another 4,000 miners will be without insurance. and on and on and on. this is not right. losing health insurance is tough for anyone, but for coal miners it is a killer, literally. coal miners face far higher rates of cardio pulmonary disease, cancer, black lung and other injuries than most other americans.

they need their insurance. our coal miners knew what they were getting into. they knew they were taking on work that was dangerous and risky to their health, and that is why they fought so hard for guaranteed health coverage, and that is why they gave up a portion of their paycheck every month, month after month, year after year to pay for it. and it's not just health coverage. about 90,000 miners and their families will also soon lose their guaranteed monthly pension benefits. these benefits aren't some cadillac deal. the average monthly benefit for these mine workers is about $586, about $7,000 per year for their retirement. that may not sound like much, and let's be honest, it isn't much. but for thousands and thousands of retired miners and their families, social security and these $586 payments are all

they've got to show for a lifetime of going into those mines. we cannot back out on our promises. there is bipartisan legislation written and ready to go to fix this problem. it would not add a dime to the deficit. we could pass it right now today. the senators who serve here come from every corner of the country. we don't agree on everything, and i certainly don't agree on every issue with senator manchin or senator capito, but i don't understand how anyone can disagree with this. a lot has changed in seven years, but the fact that america makes good on its promises to american workers is one thing that should never change. and we should not leave here until this congress makes good

on america's 70-year-old promise to our miners. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from utah is recognized. mr. hatch: mr. president, before the 114th congress adjourns i want to take a minute

to put on record my strong support for the nomination of our distinguished colleague senator jeff sessions of alabama to be the next attorney general of the united states. thomas jefferson once wrote the government's most sacred duty is -- quote -- "to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." this idea was reflected in the justice department's own mission statement which i have here, right here. it says to enforce the law and defend the interests of the united states according to the law, to ensure public safety against the threats foreign and domestic, to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime, to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior, and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all americans. no one believes in this mission

more, no one understands better what this mission requires than jeff sessions. unfortunately, mr. president, the justice department has lost its way, becoming partial rather than impartial, commit rather than independent around partisan rather than objective. the justice department has enabled the executive branch's campaign to accede its constitutional powers while ignoring congress's proper and legitimate role of oversight. now this decline undermines the american people's trust in government. according to the pew research center, public trust in government is at a record low. fewer than one in five say that they trust government most of the time. remembering this decline and reliving this trust and reversing this decline and building this trust will require getting back to the essential ingredients in the justice department's mission and its mission statement.

senator sessions will bring more hands-on experience to the leadership of the justice department than any of the 83 men and women who have occupied the post of the attorney general. he was a federal prosecutor for 18 years, 12 of them as united states attorney. he has also served on the senate judiciary committee since he was first elected two decades ago. in other words, he has been directly involved in both the development and implementation of criminal justice policy, a combination unmatched by any attorney general since the office was created in 1789. his service in this body and on the committee of jurisdiction over the department is especially important because a respectful and productive working relationship with congress has never been more important mr. president, no one knows more what the office of attorney general requires than those who have actually served in that office. i have a letter signed by ten

former attorneys general and deputy attorneys general who served over the past three decades and ask consent that it appear in the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that that appear in the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: some of these officials knew and worked with senator sessions when he was u.s. attorney. others since he joined us here in the senate. they all share the same conclusion. quote, "all of us know him as a person of honesty and integrity, who has held himself to the highest ethical standards throughout his service -- his career and is guided always by a deep and abiding sense of duty

to this country and this nation and its founding -- i can't read that. its founding charter." i think that's really true. and all of these ten former leaders have said so. i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle whether there is a better description of the kind of person we want in public office generally and leading the justice department in particular. let me say a word about senator sessions' work on the judiciary committee. i have worked with him in that capacity for 20 years including when he served as ranking member. we worked together on dozens of bills to improve forensic science services for law enforcement, to promote community policing, help child abuse victims and prevent gun

crimes. he is a serious legislator who knows that prosecutors and law enforcement need common sense, workable policies from lawmakers to help keep communities safe and protect the rights of all americans. i also received a letter from a bipartisan group of eight men and women who have served at director of national drug control policy, or as administrator of the drug enforcement administration. i ?ebt that this letter -- i ask consent that this letter appear in the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: here's what they say. his distinguished career as a prosecutor earned him a reputation as a tough, determined professional who has been dedicated to the appropriate enforcement of the rule of law. his exemplary service of record and law enforcement demonstrates that he is a protector of civil rights and defender of crime victims. unquote. again i ask my colleagues

whether there is a better description of the kind of leader america needs at the justice department. i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who would have a better informed, more comprehensive knowledge of senator sessions fitness to be attorney general? and before i conclude, i want to address what is already shaping up to be an ugly propaganda offensive against this fine nominee, this fine person who i know very well, has served with virtually every day for the last 20 years. i've served in this body under both republican and democratic presidents. under both republican and democratic senate leadership. i have actively participated in the confirmation process for 12 attorneys general of both parties and have seen before the tactics that are already being used in a vein attempt to undermine this nomination.

the critics do not qualify senator sessions' qualifications. they can't. instead, they traffic in rumor, innuendo, and i hate to say it, smear tactics. they came a comment here, a decision there from years or even binged dids in the past -- or even decades in the past and use their medi immediate media o transform them into full-fledged stories. they're counting on people not knowing the full story. such a cynical dishonest campaign. it is not about the truth or fairly evaluating the president-elect's nominee to be attorney general. and it's despicable, and that's beneath the dignity of us here in the united states senate. to be honest, these tactics are really not about senator sessions at all but about the power of those who are using these tactics. they have to mark their territory, flex their muscle, and show that they are still a force to be reckoned with.

if such things as fairness, integrity, truth, or decency have to be sacrificed in that power struggle, so be it, i guess. i hope my colleagues not only will resist these tactics but that they will join me in exposing and rejecting them. they degrade the senate, they mislead our fellow citizens, and they quor road our democrats -- corrode our democracy. let us stay focused on our people here, which is to evaluate whether the president-elect's nominee is qualified. we n -- we know that he is. we no he that he is superbly qualified and will be a strong and principled leader for the justice department. in closing, i want to groat that letter by -- i want to quote from that letter by bipartisan drug policy officials. they say this about senator sessions: quote -- "his prudent and responsible approach is exactly what the department of justice needs to enforce the law,

restore confidence in the united states justice system, and keep the american people safe. we support the nomination of senator sessions to be attorney general of the united states, and we ask you to do the same." unquote. now, i could not have said it better. i've known jeff for 20 years now. every year he's served here, and i knew him before then. i remember the despicable way he was treated many years as a nominee up here. i don't want to see that repeated. and i personally will hold accountable anybody that tries to repeat it. jeff sessions is a wonderful man. he's a good person. and though any one of us here might have some disagreements from time to time with policy, we do -- each other.

that doesn't denigrate and shouldn't denigrate him. i'm proud of donald trump doing this, giving this really fine man an opportunity to serve. i believe that he'll straighten out the department of justice to be the department that it should be, that we all want it to be, and i think it will elevate the department of justice in ways that just plain it hasn't had for many of the years that i've been in the united states senate. that is not to denigrate everybody who has served in the department of justice. but let's face it ... it has been used politically by both parties at times for no good reason. i tell you this: jeff sessions will make sure that that's not going to be the case. that's going to be a pleasant change from what we've had in the past in some

administrations, republican and democrat. i have a strong knowledge of his background. i have a strong feeling about jeff as a person. i believe that he'll be a great attorney general. and i hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle treat him with respect, as he goes through this nomination process. and if we do, we'll be able to walk out of here at least with some sense of pride that we did what was right. and i think you'll find, as jeff serves -- and he is going to serve -- as he serves in the justice department, that he'll do a very good job, and it will be a job done for everybody in america, not just republicans, not just for the new administration that is coming in, but for everybody. and that's what i think you'll find from jeff sessions. he's a tough guy. he has the ability to stand up. he has the ability to do what's right. and he'll do it. and i have great confidence in

jeff as a human being. now, mr. president, if i could talk about one other thing, i will do that at this particular time. as we approach the end of the 114th congress, many here have been taking the time to reflect on what we've been able to accomplish and, more importantly, plan for what we able to be to accomplish in the near future. this was a tumultuous two years for our country, punctuated by a fierce and unpredictable political campaign and results that were, to some, beyond surprising. before the start of the 114th congress, the senate had for years been languishing in partisan gridlock. very little got done around here and far too often we spent our time fighting out the political sound bites of the day and voting on whatever partisan issue happened to be grabbing headlines. while some of my friends on the

other side of the aisle have attempted to argue," the senate has been remarkably productive during the 114th congress, and that goes far beyond just a list of bills we've been able to pass. the senate has changed the ways that numbers really can't quantify. for example, committees in the senate have functioned more effectively than in the past. the debates on the senate floor have been fuller and fairer than they were before, and of course the focus has returned to actually governing rather than simple playing more noise to the political ecochamber. most astonish willing, given the tone of the country's overall discourse, most of the senate's accomplishments have been bipartisan. as i've noticed on a number of occasions, the senate finance committee, which have been privileged to chair for the past two years, has an -- has to an historic degree, ride this new

wave of bipartisan productivity. in this congress, our committee has reported 41 separate bills, all of them bipartisan. these include priorities throughout the committee's jurisdiction. that's remarkable, and these writtenty by thety bills. they were very important bills. mr. president, that was remarkable. and honestly, i wish i could take credit for t but the success has been due to the work of every senator on our committee. to a member, they have all been committed to work on a bipartisan basis to move ideas forward and produce rult results. we haven't agreed on everything, but we found enough common ground that the desire to work together has remained strong throughout this congress. i want to thank the members of our finance committee for their efforts this year. they've all been exemplary colleagues to work with, even when we've disagreed. we've had good discussions. today i want to particularly thank senator coats, who is, as

we know, retiring tend of this congress. we will miss his style on the finance committee on the one hand -- and in the senate as a whole. i wish him the best of luck. i want to take a moment to dig deeper into the substance of our committee's work. let me give you the highlights, mr. president, or else we'll be here all day. early on in the 114th congress, the senate and the house passed legislation produced in the finance committee to repeal and replace the broken medicare sustainable growth rate, or s.g.r. form o. - formula. putting an end to the ritual of cobbling together s.g.r. patches at the last minute. this reform was one of the best. we made once-in-a-generation advancements in u.s. trade policy by renewing and updating trade promotion authority, revitalizing trade preferences programs and modernizing our

trade enforcement and customs laws. all are important strides in the on-going effort to promote u.s. leadership in the world marketplace. -- in order to benefit our workers. our farmers, our ranchers, and inventors, just to mention a few. we acted decisively to prevent benefit cuts in social security disability insurance and put into place the most significant improvements to the social security system since the 1980's. we came up with enough offsets to extend the lightest. highway trust -- the life of the highway trust fund for five years, something nobody thought we could do. that's the longest such extension in nearly two decades. this was accomplished despite the crisis of naysayers who -- despite the cries of naysayers who said it couldn't be done without a massive tax increase. we did not increase taxes. we also made serious strides to advance a number of the committee's long-term efforts including those for patients

dealing with chronic illnesses, overdue reforms to our foster care system, a series of measures to protect taxpayers from the ever-increasing threat of identity theft and more legislation to help americans save adequately for retirement. not all have been signed into law yet but in every case we've been able to move the ball significantly forward. in addition, we continued the finance committee's long tradition of conducting robust and exhaustive oversight. our investigation on the i.r.s. scandal was a great eafntle the committee's work to shine a light on the inept complementation of obamacare was second to none, and of course we made real progress in the on-going effort to reform our nation's tax code. i'd like to talk about tax reform in a little more detail because that has been the focus of so much of our efforts in this congress. and that's not likely to change when we gavel in the 115th

congress. among other things, the members of the finance committee produced a number of bipartisan reports outlining the key challenges we face with our tax code, after working together in the tax reform working groups we established last year. also, the finance committee, working with our leadership here in the senate and our colleagues in the house, drafted and facilitated passage of a massive tax bill that made permanent a number of oft-expiring tax provisions providing real certainty to businesses and job creators and sets the staimg for more significant reforms in the future. that bill also delayed a number of obamacare's burdensome health care taxes. in addition, i have spent much of the 114th kongs congress hard at work developing a tax reform proposal to better integrate the corporate and individual tax systems. under current law, the u.s. not only has the highest corporate

tax rate in the industrialized world, we also subject many of our businesses and individuals that invest in them to multiple levels of tax on what are essentially the same earnings. this system results in a number of inequities and economic distortions including undue burden on u.s. workers and incentives for businesses to finance their operations with data instead of equity. these problems have troubled policy-makers for years, particularly recently as the combined effects of these misguided policies have resulted in waves of corporate inversions and foreign takeovers of u.s. companies. this is a serious set of problems. my idea to address this problem was relatively simple. allow corporations to deduct from their taxable earnings any dividend they distribute to shareholders. currently, our system taxes a business' earnings once at a company level at an

astronomically high rate, no less when the earnings are distributed to shareholders. my proposal has been to eliminate one level of taxation on these distributed erption and require only -- earnings and require only a share level holder tax on dividends which are similar to the way debt is treated. forms of this proposal has been put forward by the treasury department and congressional tax writers from both parties in the past. in addition to a dividend divid, deduction to bring balance to the system and eliminate more distortions, i have looked for ways to equalize the tax treatment of debt and equity under our system. those monitoring the tax world undoubtedly know that i've spent quite a long time working on this proposal, including a number of months going over the numbs with the joint committee on taxation. at this point i can say that the feedback i received from j.c. on this matter has been very positive. for example, in its preliminary

assessment, j.t.c. indicated that the proposal would increase economic growth and activity relevant to the current law. they found that it would increase wages for u.s. workers through increased productivity. thertheir analysis also showed t the proposal would increase capital investment and reduce effective tax rates for american business. interestingly, j.c.t. also found that the proposal would eliminate some of the pressures that drive corporate inversions and help prevent erosion of the u.s. tax base overall. that sounds pretty good, and it is true. these concerns -- economic growth, wairnlings and u.s. companies moving offshore or being acquired by foreign kches -- have a real moral impact on american employers and they were at the heart of this year's campaign debates. thus far, the feedback we've received shows that a dividends-paid deduction combined with equalized tax

treatment for debt and equity would help address these concerns. and according to j.c.t., all of this could be done without adding to the deficit or shifting more of the overall tax burden from those with higher incomes to middle and lower-income taxpayers. i know the d.c. tax committee has been speculating on this matter for awhile now and can attest today that the idea of better integrating the corporate and individual tax systems to a dividends paid deduction wouldn't just work, it could actually work very well. once again the numbers we've seen thus far have been quite favorable. i will note that we've heard some concerns from those in the charitable and nonprofit community as well as retirement security stakeholders regarding the potential impact of equalizing the treatment of debt and equity. i think my history in the senate has demonstrated pretty clearly my commitment to both charitable

giving and retirement security. so i want to make clear that my staff and i are prepared to address these types of concerns when this proposal takes legislative form. now i suppose that for most of the people who have been monitoring our efforts on corporate integration, their biggest question is about timing. when will we try to move this forward? after any big election campaign, particularly one as unpredictable as the one we saw in 2016 -- although i thought it was predictable, but most people didn't -- it is important to take the time to reflect on the results and acknowledge the realities on the ground. i remain very interested in the concept of corporate integration and continue to believe that it would have a positive impact on our tax system and our economy overall. but let's be honest, mr. president. after this election, the ground has shifted and we don't know how everything will play out in the coming months. it's safe to assume that the tax

reform discussion is shifting as well. right now we are seeing more momentum from comprehensive tax reform. that is reform that deals with both the individual and business tax systems than we've seen in a generation or more. and if we're going to do right by our economy and the american people, we need to think in those comprehensive terms. at the very least, i think it's fair to say that with the changing circumstance, the assumptions and parameters that have for some time now governed the tax reform debate will have to be modified, if not thrown out entirely. i believe that corporate integration can and should be part of the comprehensive tax reform discussion that appears to be on the horizon. but given the current reality, any substantive tax reform proposal will need to be considered and evaluated in the context of what quickly -- what

has quickly become a much broader discussion. let me be clear, i am not walking away from the idea of corporate integration. on the contrary, i'm excited to see how the debate over comprehensive tax reform plays out in the near future and where this concept might fit in that broader discussion. going forward we have a real opportunity to make significant, perhaps even fundamental changes to our entire tax system in order to encourage growth, create more jobs and improve the lives of individuals and families around our country. as the chairman of the senate's tax writing committee, i am very excited for this opportunity, and i am committed to doing all i can to make sure that we succeed in this endeavor and that we do it in a bipartisan way. we're working right up today in a bipartisan way to try and resolve some of these problems. i've been meeting with every member of our committee, democrat and republican, to see

how we can work better together. now this discussion about comprehensive tax reform promises to be one of the big-ticket items in the coming congress, and i'm excited to be a part of it. in addition to tax reform, the senate and the senate finance committee will have a number of other tests to perform in the early days of the 115th congress. for example, early on i expect that we'll finally be able to repeal obamacare and begin a serious process of replacing it with reforms that are more worthy of the american people. we also need a serious look at our broken entitlement programs like medicare, medicaid and social security. i'm sure that simply because i'm a republican who just happened to mention the names of those programs out loud i will be scorned and labeled a -- quote -- "privatizer" in certain corners after this speech.

however, labels aside, no one seriously disputes the fact that these programs are in fiscal trouble and we need to work toward finding solutions, and they need to be bipartisan solutions. i put forward a number of potential solutions to help address the coming entitlement crisis. i hope policy-makers in congress and the incoming administration and elsewhere will take a look at my ideas. i think you'll find that they are ideas that will help this country out of the problems and the mess it's in. on top of tax and health care, we need to consider the future of u.s. trade policy. while this is a matter of some fierce discussion during the campaign, i remain committed to doing all i can to ensure that th u.s continues to lead the world in trade, including the establishment of high-standard free trade agreements. all of these matters and many others as well fall within the jurisdiction of the senate

finance committee. fortunately i am joined on the committee by a host of capable u.s. senators from both parties. it's a great committee with great members, and i feel very, very privileged to be able to lead that committee. over the past two years we've demonstrated that by working together we can overcome some pretty long odds and accomplish a number of difficult tasks. i hope that continues this next year. i'm going to do all i can to make sure that it does. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president, i rise and stand here today fighting for the people, each one of us, whether you're democrat or republican, whether you belong to a 100-member senate or 435 in the house, i rise today fighting for the working men and women that we all use in our commercials.

every one of us goes out and basically tries to attract working men and women to vote for us because we say we're coming here to fight for you. we're going to stand up for you. no one's going to walk over you. no one's going to push you aside. no one's going to forget about you. every one of us have done those ads. yef one of -- every one of us. our 435 house members who had to go home yesterday because it was time for christmas. i remind all of my colleagues, we have basically missed 100 working days this year. 100 working days. you think we've been overworked? i don't think so. but i guess my house members did. they had to go home. they never even gave us the courtesy of giving us a three-day extension. we can work through these problems. we've said that. that's not even there. so i guess they think they want to jam us. we're here fighting for the

united mine workers pension, people that have given this country everything they have. these are people basically that have said i'll go down there, i'll get the energy you need to win the war. i'll get the energy you need to build this country. i'll have the industrial might. the middle class. we'll build it. we are the middle class. that's who they are. that's all they said. and we made commitments to them. for the first 50 years that they energize this country and won two world wars, they got nothing. my grandfather was one of them. they got nothing. they got no pension. they got no health care. they got nothing. in 1946, finally they got something. 1946. we've been fighting ever since then just to keep it and now all of a sudden it's going to evaporate and nobody's going to say a word because we've got to go home for christmas. we've got to go home for vacation. well, we've been working and fighting and really clawing for this. we have it. if it came to the floor, it would pass. we know that.

but we've got some friends on the other side, 435 over there for some reason believed it was not of urgency. and they said well, we're going to give you a four-month extension on the health care benefits that 16,000 miners lose, they lose december 31. so we'll give you four months. and i guess we're supposed to be happy with that. well, i'm not. i'm sorry, i'm not. because i believe that we fought for the miners protection act. we went through the regular order. we got an 18-8 vote out of the finance committee of the senate, and we thought we would be right here having that vote and showing the people that we support them and hopefully the house would have taken it up. it never happened. and where we stand today right now is we are saying okay, what's our pathway forward. well, we've been working. we've been talking, as you're supposed to. we tried to basically negotiate, tried to find compromise, tried to find a pathway forward.

that's been hard for me to see a pathway forward right now. so i'm going to have to oppose this c.r. and oppose not only the cloture but the passage of the c.r. for many reasons. but i'm going to give you one that really probably more than anyone else galls me more than anything that we've done here, what was done over in the house. and i'm not saying even my colleagues on my -- my republican colleagues didn't even know about. so it's not from this side. it came from that side. and what they did is they said not only are we going to add insult to injury and only give you four months, we're going to make you pay for it with your own money. we're going to make you pay for it with the money that's been set aside through bankruptcy courts to give retirement to miners who work for companies who declare bankruptcy, went through the bankruptcy court, had money set aside so at least have health care for a while and these people we're talking about were supposed to have health care until july. guess what? because of what they're doing,

they lose three months. now grant you, we have people, 16,000 that got health care until december that get four months. if you consider that a victory. but how about couple thousand that basically were supposed to have until july are going to only have it now until april? what do you tell them? i'm sorry, we fought like the dickens for you but you lost three months. where i come from, that doesn't fly. i can't explain that. i really can't. i am encouraged, i am encouraged to a certain extent. my friend, the majority leader, mitch mcconnell, senator mcconnell from kentucky, he said he was confident the retirees would not lose benefits next year, including more than 3,000 in his home state of kentucky. i think it's highly unlikely that we'll take that away he said. it's been my intention that the mine benefits not expire at the end of april next year. and i believe him. i do. and he pledged i'm going to work with my colleagues to prevent

that. well, i'm ready to go to work. i'm not sure if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 435 in the house, is as committed. so i appreciate the majority leader making this commitment. i do appreciate that very much. unfortunately it's not enough because i don't have the commitment from the other side and i'm going to fight for that. and for that reason and many more, mr. president, i'm going to be unable and i would encourage my colleagues not to vote for cloture on this c.r. and with that, i yield the floor. i yield the floor. mr. brown: mr. president? mr. manchin: -- to my friend from ohio, senator brown. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i thank you for the work that senator manchin's done, that senator warner and senator casey who represent a lot of these mine workers, some of them in the galleries, some of them we turned out at a rally the other night, some of them we see in

zanesville, cambridge and southwest pennsylvania and southwest virginia. senator murkowski, we thank you for your work on this. let's point out again to our colleagues what happened here. early this year the senate majority leader, the republican leader from kentucky, said before we do this, you've got to come up with a bipartisan bill. we came up with a bipartisan bill. we did exactly what he wanted. we had senator capito, senator portman, senator toomey and a lot of support on both sides, e.p.a. people who didn't -- even people who didn't sponsor it. that wasn't enough. then he moved the goal post and he said you've got to come up with a bill through regular order. you've got to go through regular order. we went through regular order in the finance committee. senator warner and senator casey and i in the finance committee called cecil roberts, the head of the mine workers. people like norm skinner from ohio and others. and babe urdis and dave dilly and others came and talked to us. we had testimony.

it was brought to a vote and passed 18-8. every democrat voted for it and a hand full of republicans. then the republica leader moved the gl post again and said that's not good enough. you've got to do something more. find a way to pay for it. we found a way to pay for it. money out of the abandoned mine fund to pay for this. this legislation would have taken care permanently of pensions and of health care. what it meant that mine workers don't have to take valuable time and spend money and come to washington to lobby us, to talk to us, to educate us, to do what they do so well in telling their stories. it would have solved that. but now week after week after week has passed before the election people were talking a good game. now they're not talking such a good game except for the colleagues with me on the floor today fighting for this. so what happens now? now the majority leader in the senate is pointing fingers down this hole blaming the speaker of

the house, and the speaker of the house back there is pointing fingers at the majority leader saying, i wanted to do a year. the fact is neither one has offered anything. they could bring this bill up and pass out of finance committee. senator mcconnell tonight could bring this to the senate floor. we could pass it. we'd we'd get, how many votes? 75-80 votes? we'd get every single democrat, at least half the republicans. they won't do that. they're too busy pointing fingers back and forth. so, mr. president, i'm going to vote "no" on the continuing resolution because i just don't think that this is the deal we should get. this four-month deal where the majority leader said he's helping the minor -- miners wita four-month deal, it means that the retired miners and widows who got a notice that they are insurance would run out andes 31, if we do this deal, they're going to get another notice in

january or february saying it runs out again. can you imagine, particularly if you are sick, particularly if you have a sick husband, can you imagine that you're going to get a notice every three or four months saying your insurance is going to run out? it's just cruel and unusual punishment. instead, the other night we see our colleagues coming to the floor and offering resolutions. there was one honoring pearl harbor victims. senator manchin and i were on the floor. we were objecting -- i've been on the veterans' committee for a decade. so has senator manchin. of course we're not objecting to honoring pearl harbor victims. but what we were doing and what we'll continue to do is fight for these mine workers -- the retirees and the widows. next year that's what we're going to do. we will get a good vote today in opposition to this because democrats -- people on this side

and a handful of more courageous republicans will vote "no" on the continuing resolution. that should send a message to senator mcconnell how important this is, that come january we vote -- not on another four months and another four months, not even voting for a year, but that we vote for a permanent fix on pensions and a permanent fix and health care that's paid for out of the miners' abandoned mine fund. that needs to be what we do on the 1st of the year. this place isn't going to operate very well, mr. president, if the leadership in this body doesn't stand up and give us a vote on a bill that protects mine worker retire year, it protects pensioners and health care, that says we're going to fix this permanently. they shouldn't have to come here month after month after month after month to lobby us. this is something we should do. it is an obligation since harry truman. senator mccaskill is always

talking about harry true man. harry truman made this prejudice and this -- made this pledge and promise. members of congress of both parties were living up to that promise decade after decade. now they don't want to live up to it. it is important we enforce that january. i am vietnaming "no." i wajts -- i'm voting no. this is just too important to back down on, mr. president. mr. manchin: at this point, to put things in perspective, a lot of people don't really know. i have people saying, why do we even need coal? let me explaining to the 300-plus million people living in america today, if you're allowed today for most of your life, over 50% of your energy has been giveno you, has been delivered to you because of coal. so to put it in perspective is this. what 12 hours of the day do you not want electricity? what 12 hours of the day do you not want heat, air conditioning, anything done?

we need to bring attention to the people who have done the work. they're forgotten heroes. in west virginia we feel like a vietnam returning veteran. we've done everything that our country has asked of you, and now you won't even recognize us, don't even understand what we've done. that's what we're dock. that's what we're fighting for. at this time i would like to have my good friend from pennsylvania, senator bob casey, who comes from the tremendous state of pennsylvania who's provided a lot of energy for many, many years. mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from recognized from pennsylvania. mr. casey: i want to thank my colleague from west virginia for his leadership on this issue going back not just days and weeks but months and even years. and i think we should start with the word "promise" tonight. we have a matter that came before the united states senate where senator brown indicated was a subject of a bipartisan

consensus that went all the way through the finance committee, a vote of 18-8 just earlier this year. so the question before the senate today, the question before the senate in 2017 will continue to be, will the united states senate, and, i would add, will the u.s. house of representatives keep our promise to these coal miners and their families? it's really not more complicated than that. and we've got to ask ourselves whether or not we're going to fulfill our promise. just to give you a sense of what this means to individuals, i've got three letters in my hand. we've all gotten hundreds of them, if not more -- maybe thousands at this point. but three letters from three different counties that i'll read just excerpts from. the first one is from johnstown, cambria county, with a great history of coal mining but also a great history of a diverse

economy. this individual wrote -- actually two -- it is a husband and wife writing to me. "we are in a late 70's and desperately need our pension and hospitalization." cambria county, pennsylvania, alone has 2,483 pensioners. just that one county has that many pensioners who happen to be families that had a loved one working in the coal mines. this is one of those families that wrote to me. if you look at the health care issue and you look at it koingts by county -- at it county by county, sometimes the numbers are lower. but it is in the hundreds and hundreds in many counties. the next letter is from an individual in green county. she's writing about her husband and she said, "my husband was only retired about one year when he found he had cancer.

one of the relieves that he had while battling cancer is knowing that he had his pension and good health benefits, so it was one less worry." green county, a small county in pennsylvania, in the deep western corner -- in the deep southwestern corner. in green county, 1,436 pensioners and many depending upon the health care promise that our government made. the third and final letter from weswestmoreland county from on individual talking about his time in the coal mines. "in my 33 years in the mining industry, our testimony to the fact that i provide a needed service to my country and my family." then he goes on to say later in the letter, "now thousands face on certain future, a promise made and a promise -- promises

made and a promise needs tock kept." westmoreland county, pennsylvania, 1,067 pensioners. across our state just on health care, almost 1,400 pennsylvanians affected by health care. some of them have cancer, some of them have a family where the husband is dead and the wife has cancer. some face the kind of health care circumstances that none of us can identify with because everyone who works -- every member of the united states senate and the house, we have health care. we don't have to worry about next week or next month or next year. so the question becomes, as i said, whether or not we're going to keep our promise to these coal miners. there is no excuse for putting in the continuing resolution, as pathetic a proposal as we got this year, in this continuing resolution. which basically says, you have health care for just four months and you're supposed to be

satisfied with that. in fact, i think there was one member of the senate that said they should be satisfied with that. they should not be satisfied, retired coal miners and their families, nor should anyone with satisfied with that. and also at the same time, the proposal -- or i should say now, the policy in the continuing resolution has no -- no fix at all for pensions. so these counties that have news three counties -- that have just three counties, thousands and thousands of pensioners who earned that pension, gave up that -- gave up a lot to get that, there's no fix in the continuation resolution for the pension problem. we're supposed to be said and they're supposed to be satisfied i guess according to the lining of argument from some on the other side. not all but some who said they

should be satisfied. here is a news bulletin. we're not satisfied. these minor-- these miners and r families are not satisfied. we are not going to stop fighting on this. we feel so strongly about this issue that many of us, including me, will vote "no" on cloture on the c.r., will vote "no" on the c.r. itself because we feel that strongly. as you know, mr. president, usually when a continuing resolution comes before the united states senate, it gets overwhelming support. this is how outrageous this is for these families. so you're going to see a number of people on the floor here do something they probably have never done before. they're going to register a protest in a very direct and formal way to say "no" to the c.r. tonight. and i know some people will be offended by that. and i understand why they might be across the country.

but we have to ask ourselves if it's going to take a "no" on this resolution to get people to focus on what these miners were promised and what this government has not done to meet that promise, then we're willing to go to that length and to that extent to vote "no" tonight because we have to keep a focus on this. and we are not going away. so anyone who thinks that tonight is the end of a chapter, we're just getting warmed up. we're just getting warmed up on this, because this is a promise that we must keep. these miners and their families kept their promise. the miners kept the promise to their family that they would work and work in the depths and the darkness of the coal mines, put their lives at risk every single day. that's the first promise they made. and that they would bring home a paycheck so their family could eat every night and afford a

mortgage, so they kept their promise to their family. many of them kept their promise to their country. they worked in -- they fought in world war ii. they fought in korea. they fought this vietnam and beyond, in every war we've had in the modern era. so they kept their promise. it's not too difficult for a senator or for a house member to keep their promise. all they got to do is put their hand up and say aye. i agree with keeping the promise to these miners. it's about time that our government, including everyone here, kept our promise to these coal miners. so we're doing something that many of us have never done. we're going to vote "no" on a resolution tonight to make it very clear that we don't agree with what is in this continuing resolution with regard to these miners, number one; and the other message we're sending is, we're coming back. we're going to come back week after week, month after month,

and if not longer to make sure that they get their health care and they get their pensions. so, this kind of solidarity at least on this side of the aisle will remain intact. it will remain fortified and strong going forrd. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. preside? the presiding officer: is noter from west virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president, as you can see, i'm ex-strombly proud. i can't tell you how proud i am of my colleagues. this is why we're here. we're standing for people who work every day to provide a better lisk for themselves and to -- a better living for themselves and to provide a better country to live in. with that, i am happy to be huer with my dear friend from virginia, senator mark warner. mr. warner: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senar from virginia is recognized. mr. warner: first of all, let me echo everything that senator casey and senator brown have said. but the reason why we're here, beyond the justness of our cause, is the fact that the

senator from west virginia, senator manchin, has been absolutely relentless. he has not let this issue die. for 18 months he has gone through every hoop that has been put in front of him. and it's getting through. the fact is, senator manchin today reintroduced the miners protection act. in one day -- in one day he picked up 49 cosponsors. -- to this legislation. we're going to have a vote later tontsz. let me be clear, i'm going to join in that protest. but as somebody who's got one heck of a lot of federal employees, we are not going to shut down the government on this issue. we should not even be even thinking about choices where we have to trade off federal workers and miners. that's not what we're sent here to do. but we are going to make sure that this fight does not end tonight.

and the 49 who signed up today will be in the 50's and the 60's when we come back. let me just close before -- and i know we've got other colleagues, but others have commented. i went through these talking points at other times. but you got to hear the voices of people being affected. i got a letter recently from sharon. sharon has a coal miner's family, not too far from west virginia and kentucky. here is what she wrote. my father is a retired coal miner. for many years, he worked at clinchfield coal number 2 mine. he gave them his time, sweat, hard work, and even his health. in return, he expected nothing more than a paycheck, a little pension and health care when he retired. he was promised that, and he deservesha