[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 133 (Wednesday, September 17, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5676-S5684]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONTINUING RESOLUTION
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, at some point today or tomorrow the Senate
will hastily consider, and likely pass, a massive, hodgepodge spending
bill to fund every last Department and program within our Federal
Government--even those programs and those Departments we know don't
work, even those programs and those Departments where we know there is
a lot of abuse and misuse of sacred Federal funds. The alternative, if
we can call it even an alternative at all--and the only alternative--is
to deny funding for every last Department and every last program within
the Federal Government--even those programs and those Departments we
know are absolutely essential.
All or nothing--those are our only options, the only options we are
given. We have no other choice made available to us. This is government
on autopilot or, alternatively, government without an engine.
The problem is that by funding the Federal Government with a massive
patchwork spending bill, we force the American people to choose between
two equally bad, two equally unacceptable options: Pay for everything
in government or pay for nothing at all; either fund the entire Federal
Government tomorrow at exactly the same level we are funding it today
or fund nothing within the Federal Government, not even to pay our
soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, our marines, our judges, or not even
to provide care for our veterans or support for the most vulnerable
among us.
This kind of all-or-nothing proposition is dysfunctional, it is
antidemocratic, and it prevents Congress from doing its job, which, I
remind my colleagues, is to represent the American people and to be
faithful stewards of their money--of the taxpayers' money--with which
they have entrusted their Congress.
During the month of August, I held a long series of townhall meetings
across my State, the great State of Utah. Whether I was in Cache County
in the northern end of the State or in Washington County in the
opposite direction or somewhere in between, the people of Utah,
Democrats and Republicans alike, were clear about what they wanted.
They were clear about the fact that they were demanding action. They
wanted action in Washington. Their concerns weren't always the same.
Some worried most about the public lands. Others were anxious about the
economy. Many, of course, were troubled by the growing crisis along our
southern border.
They were all looking for answers. They were all looking for
solutions from someone. Everywhere I went they asked me: What are you
going to do? What are you going to do to get our economy back on track?
What are you going to do to deal with many of the problems within our
Federal Government that seem to go unaddressed for
[[Page S5677]]
far too long? I would tell them: As a matter of law and by operation of
our Constitution, Members of Congress have certain tools to address all
of these concerns, but none of these powers is greater than the power
of the purse. This is the power to allocate money, to fund the
government, to fund its operations. It is what enables Congress, and
only Congress, to reform dysfunctional government.
Encompassed within the power to give money is the power, necessarily,
to withhold money. In this case the power of the purse is the most
potent and the most effective instrument Congress can use to hold the
executive branch accountable.
So when the administration fails to follow the law, as our current
administration has done so freely and so frequently, Congress can
demand answers and accountability by using the power of the purse as
leverage.
As several of these townhall conversations continued, in the course
of those townhall conversations, I began to notice that at this point
in my answer, many people began to look hopeful--hoping that perhaps
something could actually get done in Washington; hoping that perhaps
some of the problems within our Federal Government could be corrected,
could be reined in, could be turned around and set on a better course--
but then I would have to break the bad news, and here is the bad news.
I would have to tell them all those things their representatives
should be able to do and have an obligation to do--such as fixing
broken government programs and ensuring the solvency of Social
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and impeding lawless actions by the
executive branch--but simply cannot get done because the Democratic
leadership in the Senate insists that our Federal Government operate on
autopilot.
This is the problem with the continuing resolution. When Congress has
only one opportunity to exercise its power of the purse by voting for
or against an all-or-nothing spending package and an all-inclusive,
all-or-nothing spending bill, Congress has essentially no opportunity
to exercise its power of the purse--at least not in a meaningful way,
at least not in a way that enables Congress to demand accountability
from Government.
In the continuing resolution we will consider tomorrow, there are
several provisions that deserve their own consideration and debate,
such as reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, extending the Internet
Tax Freedom Act, and authorizing military action in Syria. None of
these measures--and certainly not something that could put American
lives at risk--should be hurried through on an all-or-nothing vote.
This is why the continuing resolution matters for everyone in this
country. It is the principal reason our government is so dysfunctional
and so unaccountable. A government on autopilot leaves Congress
effectively paralyzed--powerless to implement meaningful government
reforms and powerless to hold the President and the President's
administration accountable for their actions.
This is not how government is supposed to operate. This is not how
this government is ever supposed to be allowed to operate. It doesn't
have to be this way. There is a better way. Indeed, as you can see on
this chart, until just a few years ago, the better way was the only
way. The House has done this and it is still doing it today.
Let me explain what this demonstrates right here. Freestanding
appropriations bills that were passed by the Congress for fiscal year
2006--we had 11 separate individualized freestanding appropriations
bills. To put that in context, that is more freestanding independent
appropriations bills than Congress has enacted in all of the fiscal
years ever since then--just in one year. That, of course, used to be
the norm. It no longer is. In fact, lately, we are not doing any of
these things.
It is important to point out that the House of Representatives still
routinely passes freestanding appropriations measures. For fiscal year
2015, the upcoming fiscal year, the House of Representatives has passed
seven such bills. The Senate has passed zero. Not only has the Senate
passed none of its own free-standing appropriations bills, it has
refused even to vote on any of the seven appropriations bills passed by
the House of Representatives.
The fact is that before the Democratic leadership took control of the
Senate, Congress would spend most of its time during the spring and
summer of each year discussing, debating, amending, and eventually
figuring out how much taxpayer money to spend and on what. Congress
would consider separate spending bills, one by one, individually. Each
of these bills would allocate a certain amount of money to fund the
Departments, the agencies, and the programs within a certain area of
government, organized by government functions such as defense,
transportation, homeland security or health care.
Each spending bill originated in one of the corresponding
subcommittees in the House and in the Senate. This is what we call the
appropriations process. It makes sense that it would take up most of
our time because as Members of Congress we have a solemn obligation to
represent the people and to be faithful stewards of taxpayer money--of
the money that many Americans spend many months of their lives each
year just to earn so that they can send it to Washington, DC.
The American taxpayer deserves better. The American taxpayer should
be able to expect more out of Congress. Instead, they have come to
expect so much less.
That is how Congress used to operate, according to its own rules,
according to historic precedent, and--more to the point--according to
basic principles of common sense. Alas, times have changed. What
Congress used to deliberate on for months, we now rush through in a
single afternoon without opportunity for amendment, without opportunity
for a full debate.
What used to be the subject of open and robust debate is now
trivialized and treated as a mere formality, as a mere technical
requirement to be dispensed with and discarded as quickly as it
arrives.
The American people deserve better. Indeed, as I discovered while
visiting with the people from one corner of Utah to the other, the
American people demand that we do better. I think we can do better. In
fact, I know we can. We have in the past. We will in the future, but we
have to get the regular order appropriations process back on track.
We need to dispense, once and for all, with this mindset that says we
are going to fund the government with one bill. You are going to have
one opportunity to vote on any and all matters relating to the funding
of the Federal Government. It is a binary choice. We fund everything at
current levels or we fund nothing. We keep it running just the way it
is with no opportunity for meaningful reform or we don't fund anything
at all and we accept all of the heartache and all of the difficulty
that goes along with this. This is wrong. It violates our laws and
violates our procedures and it violates common sense.
We as a Congress have asked the American people over and over to
expect less. I am here to tell each of my colleagues that it is time
for the American people not to expect less. It is time for the American
people to expect more. They are expecting more. They are expecting
freedom. They are expecting for us to honor them by debating and
discussing and voting on how we are going to spend their money.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from Montana.
The American Dream
Mr. WALSH. Mr. President, I was born during the baby boom in Butte,
MT. It was a boom time for our economy. Millions of kids such as me
grew up expecting the boom years to go on forever. Things weren't
always easy, especially in a tough blue-collar town like Butte. But it
was still easier in those days to believe that the American dream was
within your grasp. Put in your time and you can earn a good living.
Work hard and you can play hard.
Unfortunately, I am less confident in the American dream for today's
young people unless politicians can put their partisanship aside and
put the interests of this country ahead of their own. I am hopeful that
this Congress can once again behave like statesmen from half a century
ago, when the boom times of the 1960s also produced restraint. I grew
up in the morning shadow of the continental divide. Butte was
[[Page S5678]]
surrounded by some of the best fly fishing in North America and huge
areas of land known as primitive areas.
Some of those blue-ribbon streams were separated by the smallest of
divides from the most polluted waters in America. Some of those
primitive areas shared borders with the most valuable hard rock mines
and timber cuts in the country. Those same resources continue to
support thousands of jobs in Montana. But the boom times of the 1960s
proved how wasteful and damaging unlimited production can be.
Today I applaud the lessons of restraint. This month is the 50th
anniversary of the passage of the Wilderness Act. Senators on this same
floor in 1964 turned the primitive areas and administrative wilderness
areas of Montana and 12 other States into permanent protected areas.
That same year they also passed the visionary Land and Water
Conservation Fund. Several of the original wilderness areas are in
Montana, including one of the largest, the Bob Marshall Wilderness. In
Montana we just call it the Bob. Imagine a Congress with the foresight
to create a whole category of restraint. Anyone that says the American
dream is gone for good has never visited the Bob.
Last month I had the opportunity to hike with a local group of
Montanans up 2,000 feet to Headquarters Pass on the Rocky Mountain
Front. On the trail, we met a herd of mountain goats. When we got to
the pass, we stood under the windy shoulder of Rocky Mountain peaks and
looked into the Bob.
Today I am the proud sponsor of an important made-in-Montana bill
that would keep this land the way it is and add to the legacy of 1964.
The Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act, first introduced three years
ago, would protect almost 300,000 acres of public land. Today I urge my
colleagues to move a public lands package forward this year in order to
reward the collective efforts of so many Americans who work so hard on
bills like the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act.
The American dream today has a new challenge because of the
Wilderness Act. A small portion of our public lands has been set aside
and made available forever for all Americans to enjoy in Montana. We
call this our outdoor heritage. Despite news stories about the
perennial and terrible idea of giving away this heritage, support for
public lands in Montana remains deep and wide. The reason goes to the
heart of what it means to be American. The American dream isn't just
about having a job. It is about where we live and how we live.
In Montana, our public lands to support trout or elk or whatever
adventure Montanans seek are part of that dream, whether they are a
boilermaker, a teacher or an outfitter.
It doesn't hurt that tourism has become a huge part of our economy in
Montana. Today outdoor recreation supports 64,000 jobs in our State and
almost $6 billion in revenue each and every year. Like many Montanans,
I am frustrated with how long it takes to conduct a timber sale or
complete an environmental analysis on potential projects.
We need to get our forests healthy and working again, creating good
jobs and making our forests more resilient to wildfires. Even simple
projects get tied up in redtape and our rural communities and the land
itself suffer for it. But this frustration should not blind us to our
incredible heritage of untrampled public land owned by you and me and
every American.
Rather than government shutdowns and public land selloffs, I urge
this Congress to find the same wisdom to look ahead 50 years from
today. We need to support local collaboration and fully fund the Land
and Water Conservation Fund. Bills such as the Rocky Mountain Front
Heritage Act, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act, the East Rosebud
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act
deserve every Senator's support.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Unanimous Consent Request
Mr. CORKER. It is my understanding the leader is on his way down. I
have a unanimous consent request that I would like to offer. I know
that he wants to say a word. I will preliminary make some comments.
When he gets here, out of respect for his time, I will ask that
unanimous consent request.
Let me move on by saying that the President gave a speech a week ago.
We have a hearing today in the Foreign Relations Committee. Secretary
Kerry and others will assess our strategy in Iraq and Syria related to
ISIL.
I just want to say these obviously are very important decisions. One
of the pieces of this strategy is that instead of the President coming
and asking for an authorization for the use of military force--which,
in my opinion, is the sound judgment, to come and ask us for that
support so the American people are behind this effort, by virtue of the
House and Senate taking that up. They are not going to do that. Instead
they are asking for the authority to do a very, very small piece of
that, which is to train and equip some members of the moderate, vetted
Syrian opposition and to do so in the country of Saudi Arabia.
So they are asking for an authorization to do that overtly. It is
something about which many people have questions. It is something that
for many years, for some time, I have supported and actually been
disappointed that the administration has left hanging the people of
Syria whom we encourage now to take on Assad.
So that is a very important vote, a vote that all of us should take
as a freestanding vote. But instead what is getting ready to happen is
coming over from the House is a continuing resolution bill that funds
the government. So instead of voting on the continuing resolution,
which is a totally separate matter, and voting on arming the vetted
moderate opposition the way the President has requested, as a separate
vote so, No. 1, we have the opportunity individually to weigh in on
those two measures separately, as the House is doing right now--
instead, what is going to happen, as I understand from the majority
leader, is we are going to take up that vote in a combined way. I think
that is a poor way to run the Senate. It is a poor way for the people
of the United States to understand where we are on important issues.
Just to give an example, I do not support the funding levels in the
CR. I voted against the Murray-Ryan budget. I couldn't believe that in
such a short amount of time we were willing to do away with the budget
caps we thought so important to the fiscal well-being of this Nation.
So I do not support the funding levels for the continuing resolution
and had planned to vote against it.
Now there is a piece in it that is an important foreign policy piece
that I think needs further debate, where we are authorizing the arming
and training of the moderate opposition through December 11 as a part
of this bill. That, to me, is an inappropriate way for us to do
business. I think every Member of this body ought to have the
opportunity to vote on each of those.
So the request I am going to make when the leader gets here is not to
change any of the wordage--I realize time is of the essence. We have
two bodies that sometimes do not act in concert in appropriate ways.
But my unanimous consent request is to ask that properly these be
separated, the language be identically the same.
So what I have done is I have at the desk a bill that lays out the
authorization for arming and training the vetted moderate opposition in
Saudi Arabia and other places. I have that exact language that is
coming over from the House so that the Presiding Officer, myself, and
others can weigh in on that issue. Once that issue is dealt with--
again, it would take 15 or 20 or 30 minutes for that to occur--we could
then move over to the continuing resolution, which, again, has a
different set of supporters, generally speaking.
So I do wish this body would debate the issues of great importance to
our Nation. I know that in this hearing with Secretary Kerry, on both
sides of the aisle there are numerous questions about how this strategy
is going to work in Syria and how, with no ground force on the ground
and us planning to train people in a very short amount of time, a very
small amount of people--we are not going to give them very
sophisticated equipment--how that ground game, that ground effort is
going to be effective. I wish this body would take that up and debate
it. To me, it is an important issue. It is an
[[Page S5679]]
issue that I have supported for some time. At the same time, the
efficacy of it has changed.
One of the things that is fascinating to me--General Dempsey
yesterday: All of a sudden, we are going to train them.
By the way, they have been organized because they want Assad out.
They have been fighting against Assad in Syria. But we are going to
train them to fight ISIS or ISIL, which has not been the rallying
entity for the Free Syrian Army to organize.
So, look, I plan to support publicly, as I am right now, this first
phase of arming and training them because I have been pushing for it
for so long. I worry about its efficacy. It seems as if the goals of it
now are very different. But I am OK authorizing that until December 11
and we can hear more about it. But I do not support the funding levels
in the CR. This is not an appropriate way for us to do business.
I am going to ask unanimous consent--I hope the majority leader is
going to be here in a minute. I would like to get back to the hearing
on Syria that we are having in foreign relations. I understand he may
well be on the way.
With that--as a matter of fact, I may pause for a minute. Let me just
make a point I made earlier with Secretary Kerry at the hearing. I do
not want to debate whether the President has the legal authority to
conduct a war, a multiyear war, a war that many people say may take up
to a decade in another country against another enemy. I do not want to
debate whether he legally can do that. I know he is tying himself to
the 2001 authorization, which I assure you no one was contemplating.
But I do not want to debate that. I know there are all kinds of article
II people--all kinds of people who believe the President can do almost
anything he wishes relative to military engagement.
I just want to talk about how lacking in judgment it is for three
people--the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State--
to attempt to do this over a multiyear period, in a different country,
with a different enemy, and not come to us. That lacks in judgment.
That lacks in judgment because bad things are going to happen. Mistakes
are going to be made. Five hundred thirty-five Monday-morning
quarterbacks make no sense. Holding the country together is what is
important. So selling that plan, selling the details, having us have
the opportunity to tease out and understand how this is going to work
is an important part of the process that they are skipping.
I see the majority leader is here. I know he is busy. I thank him for
coming to the floor.
I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the two
leaders prior to the consideration of H.J. Res. 124, the CR, that the
Senate proceed to the consideration of my bill--the exact same language
as coming over from the House--which is at the desk--that is the same
language as included in the CR regarding Syria; that there be up to 4
hours of debate followed by a vote on passage of my bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my friend
from Tennessee is a fine Senator. He has the interests of the State of
Tennessee every step of the way and, of course, our country. So my
statement here has nothing to do with the kind of man he is and the
kind of Senator he is.
I have just left my office, where I watched the second of three votes
in the House. The House has voted on the continuing resolution. It
passed by an overwhelming margin over there. The purpose of that is to
stop another government shutdown. The continuing resolution includes
language on training and equipping the Syrian opposition. That bill
will come over here in a matter of an hour or two. The House has chosen
how it wishes to address these two matters; that is, the CR and arming
and training the Syrian rebels.
As my colleagues know, in order to make a law, you need the Senate to
pass something and the House to pass something or vice versa. Then, of
course, it is signed by the President. They have to be identical. If we
wish to prevent a government shutdown, we have to pass this continuing
resolution the House will send us. I have had conversations with the
Speaker, and he has been very strong in stating what they are going to
do over there.
Senate committees are in the process--one of the committees the
Senator from Tennessee is the ranking member of--in the process of
holding hearings on whether an authorization to use force is necessary
and if so, how it should be crafted. So I look forward to Foreign
Relations deciding what legislative action to take on this matter. But
in the meantime, we should pass the House-passed continuing resolution
which includes the language on training and equipping the Syrian
opposition and present the people here an up-or-down vote on what we
get from the House of Representatives.
We cannot have another government shutdown. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I want to thank the leader for coming down
and thank him for agreeing to a time when we both can be here.
I do want to say that we could deal with it exactly in the way that I
laid out and keep the government from shutting down because we would be
passing exactly the same language.
But I understand. I talked privately with the majority leader about
this. I understand people do not want to do that over in this body.
They do not want to separate the two. I know that the majority leader--
that is his right, to object to dealing with these issues in the same
language that I laid out. I do appreciate him coming down. I disagree
very strongly with this approach.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I believe under the regular order that I
will be recognized for up to 30 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I
be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
ISIL Threat
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, with all the things that are going on
right now, I am particularly interested in the hearing we had yesterday
on ISIS. It was a big deal. I applaud General Dempsey for his honesty
in talking about how serious this war is that we are embarking on right
now. The fact is that we have a mess, and ISIS has tripled in the last
3 months, up to now well over 30,000 troops, with tanks, heavy
artillery.
This is not--I know the President has tried to make people believe
this is just another rag-tag terrorist operation like Al Qaeda or the
Taliban. It is not. This is war. This is a real serious thing that we
are in the middle of.
I do applaud General Dempsey and also Secretary Hagel for their
honesty in the committee hearing. It was difficult for them when the
President talks about no troops on the ground, no troops on the ground.
We know we already have troops on the ground.
I think the American people have had a wake-up call. I believe they
understand how serious it is. In fact, there were two polls out last
week. One of them was a poll that 70 percent of the American people
know how serious this is and that ISIS could affect and would affect
and is affecting our homeland. That was a big thing, that 70 percent of
the people in America understand that. Just yesterday the Wall Street
Journal poll came out, along with ABC, and they said the same thing: 70
percent of the people know this is something that affects our homeland.
When they talk about troops on the ground--I remember asking the
question during the hearing yesterday. I said to the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey: If the President said no troops
on the ground, what if your airstrikes--if something happens to one of
those planes and we have the problem that one of the pilots is bailing
out. Are you saying that we do not have troops on the ground to ensure
his or her safety?
He said: Absolutely we will.
So the point is that has been a question that people have to
understand, that this is war. We have to win it. We can't take another
chance.
The Economy And Overregulation
But that is not why I am here. I think because of the distraction of
ISIS and all of these other things, a lot of people have forgotten the
serious problems that are hampering our economy; that is, what this
President has done through the overregulation that takes
[[Page S5680]]
place. Since he first took office and failed to achieve his signature
cap-and-trade legislation, he has been working tirelessly to try to do
what he couldn't do through legislation with regulation. The
regulations received most of the attention because they are the most
expensive.
I first started in 2003, and I remember so much in the Senate. In
2003, at that time Republicans had a majority. I was the chair of the
committee that had the jurisdiction. They started off in 2003 with the
first cap-and-trade legislation, and we defeated it. We defeated it
ever since that time. One reason we defeated it was I was able to find
out--and I didn't know this in the beginning--that people said: Global
warming is real, there are all these bad things, and we are all going
to die.
Yet from the costs we determined--and this came not just from me but
from others who were interested, but universities such as MIT came out
with a study, the Wharton School of Economics came out with one, and
Charles River Associates. They all had the cost of this cap-and-trade
somewhere between $300 billion and $400 billion a year.
Every time I hear a large figure, I look at the population in my
State of Oklahoma and see what that cost means to a family. In my State
of Oklahoma, $300 billion to $400 billion a year would be a permanent
tax increase for the average family in Oklahoma--that files a Federal
income tax--of $3,000 a year.
When we get to these numbers, we look and we realize this is going to
be very expensive and no one wants anything to do with greenhouse
regulations when the cost is so high.
I will show later on that it wouldn't accomplish anything, anyway.
That is probably why the recent polls, such as the Gallup poll on
global warming, have it on the bottom of the national priority list.
Their last poll is a poll of 15 things to be most concerned about, and
global warming and climate change registered No. 14 out of 15.
The people have understood--it is as if they understand now what is
going on with ISIS. They know what the truth is.
The Pew Research Center showed that 53 percent of Americans either
don't believe that global warming and climate change are occurring or
they say if it is, it is natural causes.
This has been going on. This is what has bothered me. I can
remember--and I am going from memory now--but I used to use the
example, back when we first started looking at this subject, as to how
this is a cyclone that has been going on for recorded history.
In 1895, we were in a cooling period, basically. They were referring
to it as the little ice age at that time--I could be wrong. But,
anyway, that endured until 1918. Then in 1918, it turned into a warming
time and that went all the way up through 1945.
This is what is significant. In 1945, we started another cooling
period. It happened that 1945 was the year that was recorded as the
year when it had the highest amount of CO2 emissions, and
that precipitated not a warming period but a cooling period. Of course,
that went on up to about 1975 when we went to the other side, where we
have actually entered into a cooling area. Everybody knows that.
God is still up there. We have always had these seasons. People would
like to think somehow it is man who is doing it. They don't want any
progress. They don't want people to be able to generate electricity and
energy to take care of our needs.
While my friends on the other side of the aisle act as though public
debate has been settled on the issue, obviously it is just the opposite
of that. It probably explains why it has been difficult for Tom Steyer
to raise the full $100 million he promised to help Democrats win
elections this fall.
We remember in February that he announced he would put up $50 million
of his own money--and then he did--and that he would raise another $50
million. It would be $100 million that he would put in campaigns for
incumbents who would agree to try to resurrect the global warming
issue--because it has died in the eyes of the American people--and try
to stop the pipeline.
He did this, and the trouble is he is not able to raise the other $50
million. The last count was it is only $1.7 million he has been able to
raise from outside donors. Nonetheless, of course, he has his own $50
million. Regardless, we know he is spending the money he has, even
though he hasn't raised other money.
We can see on this chart a quote where he said--that is a picture of
Tom Steyer. He is not a bad guy and all of that, he is just far left,
and he has a lot of money. He said:
It is true that we expect to be heavily involved in the
midterm elections. . . . we are looking at a bunch of . . .
races. . . . My guess is that we'll end up being involved in
eight or more races.
So Tom Steyer's goal is, as I said, to try to resurrect the global
warming issue and try to stop the Keystone Pipeline.
I think it is an appropriate time to talk about the hypocrisy on the
left over political spending. We spent all of last week debating a
constitutional amendment to limit political speech that is currently
protected under the First Amendment. Democrats are talking about the
Koch brothers, and people are not aware that this type of activity was
from a man named Tom Steyer, by his own admission.
Someone asked me the other day--I think we were on the floor. I was
the only Republican to come down. It was kind of fun. They were having
their all-night session. I made the statement: If there is anyone with
insomnia at home who is not asleep yet, this is a good way to do it. I
made the comment that this is something we know is going on.
I stated that with all these races that are out there, they are
trying to do something in order to elect people to try to go back to
what they failed to be able to get. I think it is an appropriate time
to get through that hypocrisy.
Recent news reports have surfaced and described the Democracy
Alliance. That is an organization that aims to organize the policy
objectives and funding streams of the leftwing liberal establishment.
According to an internal memo that was leaked to the press a few
weeks ago, the Democracy Alliance for the past 9 years ``has aligned
donors, leaders in the progressive movement, [that is liberal] and
political infrastructure in order to achieve victories at the ballot
box and in policy fights including those for comprehensive health care
reform, Supreme Court confirmations . . . ''
This influence is estimated to be between $600 million and $700
million.
The Washington Post recently had this chart. It is kind of hard to
read, but in the Post it was obvious because each one of those dots is
a liberal political organization. They all joined together and that is
called the Democracy Alliance.
Again, this was 161 plus 21--182 organizations are part of this
alliance. It details all of their agendas and how they are being
coordinated by the political Democratic agenda by the Democracy
Alliance. We will recognize most of the names on the list. It includes
the Center for American Progress, Media Matters for America, America
Votes, and even Organizing for Action which, incidentally, is President
Obama's political campaign arm.
In April, this group convened a secret meeting in Chicago to huddle
with its deep-pocketed donors to craft a strategy in messaging for this
coming year's elections. It was shrouded in secrecy, and the memo
prepared for attendees--all the people on this list who were coming in
to meet in Chicago--warned them of interacting with political
reporters. In fact, it included a pages-long list of reporters who are
expected to try to crash the conference, along with the photos, so
folks could be on the watch for these people.
The names of the people attending and involved were not going to be
disclosed to the public, nor would any details be released about the
discussions that were taking place.
Tom Steyer and the Democracy Alliance are acting like a cult, even as
the Democratic left pushes for the institution of a new constitutional
amendment. We now know that initiative was nothing more than a
political sham.
At the end of the day, the liberal left wants an aggressive,
secretive, political machine operating on its behalf, and it looks as
though they have what they need in the Democracy Alliance.
The key selling point for the Democracy Alliance pitch to its
contributors is the inseparable link to the deep connections with the
Obama White House administration. The Democracy Alliance firmly
believes it is in the driver's
[[Page S5681]]
seat when it comes to setting policy for liberals in Washington, and it
wants its donors to know it.
There is nothing wrong with this. We have had differences of opinion
and philosophy, and that is why we have political parties. This is more
extreme than anything I have seen and more organized.
One of the key goals of the Democracy Alliance is to promote ``an
environment that keeps our kids safe.'' This explains why the
administration continues to push an extremist agenda of environmental
mandates that will crush our economy.
This is where Tom Steyer has really succeeded in being part of the
Democracy Alliance. He has managed to convince Democrats in the Senate
to hold more than one all-night vigil on global warming, and these have
come as the United States has been enduring one of its coldest years
yet.
Just this month so far, NOAA, of the Commerce Department, has
reported 246 record cold temperatures. Wyoming already has right now 20
inches of snow in some places, and it is unseasonably cold in
Washington, DC.
One of these colder areas, my city of Tulsa, OK, on Saturday set a
record cool high temperature. It only reached 65 degrees. It has never
happened before, so it is not cooperating very well with trying to
convince people the world is coming to an end because of global
warming.
It also explains why the President is continuing to aggressively try
to implement greenhouse regulations after failing to accomplish this
goal legislatively. These regulations will effectively prevent any
coal-fired powerplant from being constructed and force our Nation into
relying substantially on expensive renewable resources.
Regulations such as these would take us in the direction of Europe,
which in many instances has experienced electricity prices three times
as high as they are in the United States. They have been ahead of us in
trying to stop fossil fuels and in trying to stop nuclear energy. The
rates their people are paying are now three times higher than ours.
If anyone doubts these rules will have a negative impact on our
economy, just look at Australia. Australia imposed a carbon tax on
their economy a few years ago and it caused horrendous damage. It
caused $9 billion in lost economic activity per year and destroyed tens
of thousands of jobs. This is in Australia. This just happened. It was
so bad that the government in Australia recently voted to repeal the
carbon tax. Remember all the talk about the fact: Oh, Australians are
leading the way and they are going to have a carbon tax, we should be
following them. Now they have repealed that by an overwhelming vote and
their economy is now better for it. In fact, it was announced last week
that Australia experienced record job growth last month of 121,000
jobs. They said this is because they have repealed this carbon tax they
had passed. They credit this success to the repeal of the carbon tax in
addition to these greenhouse regulations.
I think it is important for us to recall the many other regulations
this Obama administration has already imposed on the American people
and discuss all of the new regulations that have not yet come out, but
they are working on it. Some of these regulations they are holding off
until after the elections so the people would not know the cost of the
regulations and how many jobs are going to be lost.
The first we need to remember is Utility MACT. By the way, MACT means
maximum achievable controlled technology. In other words, what
technology has told us we could do to try to control these releases.
Utility MACT was the first one they successfully passed. In this
case, the EPA established a standard that was impossible for utilities
to actually meet.
This regulation is inappropriate under the Clean Air Act, and it is
having a $100 billion annual impact on the economy and destroying 1.65
million jobs. They have already done it. They were able to pass it
along party lines.
The EPA has already finalized similar regulations for industrial
boilers and cement kilns. Together, those regulations are having an
impact of more than $63 billion on the economy and they have destroyed
800,000 jobs and may result in the shutdown of 18 cement plants around
the country. No one has refuted these figures.
In another section of the law, the EPA put a rule together, knowing
it would increase the cost of gas. The rule is known as the Tier 3
rule, and it regulates the amount of sulfur that can be in gasoline
when it leaves the refinery.
Tier 2 standards were put in place back in the early 2000s. That
resulted in a 90-percent decline in the sulfur content of gasoline by
2010. That is already behind us, and it had a positive, measurable
impact on the environment.
The need for a Tier 3 standard is not articulated very well. In fact,
EPA did not have any unique scientific data to support the key benefits
of this rule, and the EPA ignored the fact that it would actually
increase greenhouse gas emissions. So they are going to increase
greenhouse gas emissions with the rule they are still putting forth and
be counterproductive. Talking about the Tier 3 rule, EPA stated that
``this rule will increase the cost of gasoline.''
Furthermore, the EPA recently finalized a rule called the 316(b)
water rule. This rule regulates the cooling water systems used by
powerplants and other major industrial facilities to prevent their
operations from overheating. So they use water. The EPA and the Fish
and Wildlife Service were worried about the impact these facilities
were having on fish, and so they put out a rule to help. In the
rulemaking, EPA again states that ``the final rule will increase
electricity costs.''
Worse is the fact that EPA could not even fudge its numbers enough to
present a positive cost-benefit ratio. In its final rule, the stated
costs are $300 million, which is about 10 times the estimated benefits
of the rule, which are only $28.6 million. This violates the
President's own Executive Order 13563, which states that agencies must
``propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that
its benefits justify its costs.''
That is another problem we have with this administration. They will
add rules, they will add laws, and they violate these laws--just like
when he turned loose the five terrorists from Gitmo. We had passed, in
fact, knowing he was going to try to get rid of people in Gitmo--and he
took the five who were the very worst--we had passed a law saying he
can't do that until he gives the Senate Armed Services Committee 30
days' notice and gives us a chance to respond and stop him from doing
it. He totally ignored it, just as he ignored these regulations.
Worse yet, this rule has no human health benefits. Its only
beneficiaries are fish. So EPA is putting out a rule that will increase
electricity costs, including for those who live on fixed incomes, all
for the sake of saving a few fish.
Another rule EPA has done since President Obama began his
administration is the regional haze rule. These regulations were
established to improve the visibility of national parks, and States
were instructed to develop their own plans--known as State
implementation plans--in order to comply. My State of Oklahoma did
this, but EPA overturned it because of a technicality associated with
its economic analysis. When EPA did this, it instituted a Federal
implementation plan, and in this case it cost over $1 billion to
execute or nearly 10 times the amount of the State-based plan that had
been developed cooperatively with our utility companies. This is the
kind of uncooperative relationship we have come to expect when working
with the EPA.
Beyond the greenhouse gas regulations, the one receiving the most
attention is the waters of the United States rule. Nearly every group
from Oklahoma is talking about this rule because it would extend the
powers of the Federal Government over millions of new acres of land.
Just last week I was in Guymon, OK; El Reno, OK; and Boise City, OK.
Boise City is the farthest west, largest city out in the panhandle. It
is kind of sandwiched between Oklahoma, New Mexico, Kansas, and Texas.
They are all in western Oklahoma. This is an arid part of the country.
They are in their third year of their drought right now, but the new
rule would declare much of this area as a Federal waterway subject to
the onerous Federal regulations. This would impact every industry--
farming, ranching, oil and gas,
[[Page S5682]]
construction, transportation--everything.
Tom Buchanan happens to be the president of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau.
I asked him a question in a kind of townhall setting that we had not
too long ago.
I said: What is the biggest problem we have in agriculture in
Oklahoma?
He said: The biggest problem has nothing to do with the farm bill.
The biggest problem we are facing right now is the overregulation by
the EPA and what they are doing with endangered species, what they are
doing with the containment of fuel on farms, what they are doing with
the water rules they have. That is the biggest problem.
I was with Terry Detrick, president of the American Farmers and
Ranchers, and he agrees that the biggest problem farmers in America are
having right now is the overregulation of the EPA.
The EPA has said it will work with industries to make sure it works
for them, but we know from experience this won't be possible. It is not
going to happen. Their goal is to take over, to control and leave no
room for negotiation.
Another devastating regulation being developed by the EPA is the
ozone NAAQS standard. NAAQS means national ambient air quality
standard. It was last set at the end of the Bush administration at 75
parts per billion. The EPA has been working since President Obama took
over the White House to lower this standard.
In 2011 the President cancelled EPA's plans to lower the ozone
standard because it was going to hurt his reelection chances. But now
that he has secured that reelection, he is ready to start it up again.
The EPA staff and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee--
CASAC--recently recommended that the Administrator propose to lower the
NAAQS level to between 60 and 70 parts per billion.
This chart shows how much of the Nation would be out of attainment if
EPA lowers the standard to 60 parts per billion. In Oklahoma, all 77
counties would be out of attainment. What does that mean? I was mayor
of the city of Tulsa once when it was out of attainment. We were not
able to increase populations in many of our businesses.
It essentially means the EPA will have to issue a regulatory permit
for any business expansion plans that could increase emission levels.
It would make business expansion enormously expensive and would
dramatically increase the power of the EPA. All told, this rule would
put nearly 94 percent of the counties' populations of the United States
of America out of attainment zones and would cede our economic
superiority to the likes of China and India.
Zooming in to more industry-focused regulations, the EPA has been the
main culprit in the President's war on fossil fuels. Hydraulic
fracturing and horizontal drilling have opened up dramatic new oil and
natural gas resources in this country that no one thought we would ever
be able to profitably extract.
By the way, hydraulic fracturing was actually developed in my State
of Oklahoma, in Duncan, OK, in 1949. So this is something that is going
on. In spite of this, they are trying to use hydraulic fracturing to
stop the successful increases we have been able to have in the wells.
Lisa Jackson was the first EPA Administrator under Barack Obama. I
remember asking her the question: If we were to do something with
hydraulic fracturing, has there ever been a documented case in the
United States that hydraulic fracturing is damaging to groundwater?
She said: No, it is not. There has never been--her actual exact
words--any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected
water.
So if we eliminate this, it is not going to save anything because it
is not going to create any problems. And this doesn't come from me; it
comes from the Administrator of the EPA, appointed by President Obama.
Regardless, the EPA is moving full force to regulate hydraulic
fracturing. At one point during the administration, there were a total
of 13 different agencies working to do this. The Bureau of Land
Management is one of them. It is my understanding that their
regulations are being finalized, and it could cost producers as much as
$100,000 per well. Keep in mind that every time they talk about what it
is going to cost industry or business, that is passed on to the public.
The EPA is also working to regulate methane emissions from across the
oil and natural gas industry. Whether it is the upstream producers
during the drilling and completion process, the midstream pipeline
operators, or the downstream retail distributors, EPA is convinced that
the industry is willingly allowing their valuable product to seep into
the atmosphere without any concern or awareness of where it is.
EPA's methane strategy is part of the President's overall climate
change action plan, and the Agency recently published white papers
outlining its understanding of methane leaks in the industry, and they
were not very impressive.
I recently wrote EPA and the White House to express my concern with
these papers. I was shocked that the papers seemed to lack any
comprehensive understanding of the industry's operational practices. I
was also disappointed that EPA didn't consider many of the regulatory
hurdles in place which actually prevent producers from installing the
technology and infrastructure that would reduce methane emissions. I am
hopeful that EPA will take my recommendations seriously before moving
forward.
So we have two problems. Right now we could be totally independent of
any other country. All we have to do is do what every other country in
the world does; that is, exploit our own resources. This President has
made it impossible for us to get into public lands and to get this
done.
Then, of course, we have the problem of overregulation. In all, the
administration's regulatory agenda is intended to shut down the engine
of America's economy. They have already shut down coal. Now they are
working on oil and natural gas.
What they have done so far is just a preview. But the liberal
environmentalists--Tom Steyer, Bill McKibben, Democracy Alliance--must
all be frustrated by what is going on right now. Temperatures are not
going up, they are going down. Nobody seems to care. No one has any
desire to implement the policies they want. Polling is all showing they
have lost this battle. That is exactly why they are willing to spend
between $600 million and $700 million on this year's elections--to
convince the American people to elect Members who will support the
President's regulations, which will shut down the economy.
One more thing, going back to global warming. Earlier I said that
back in 2002 when we discussed the costs of it, being between $300
billion and $400 billion, as the largest tax increase in history, a
permanent tax increase, I asked the question to Lisa Jackson--again,
she was the Administrator of the EPA, appointed by Barack Obama--I
said: If we were to pass these cap-and-trade regulations or bills or do
it by regulation, would this have the result of lowering CO2
emissions?
She said: No, because this isn't where the problem is. The problem is
in China, it is in India, it is in Mexico, it is in other places.
In fact, one could use the argument that it would actually have the
effect of increasing emissions because as we chase away our base, the
manufacturing base will go to countries like China and India, where
they don't have any restrictions on emissions at all.
I think it is important to remind the people that even though that
era is almost gone and people realize that is something that was very
popular at one time, now the polls show that people have caught on. But
keep in mind that what the President could not do through legislation
he is now doing through regulations, and regulations, as we pointed
out, are the greatest problem our economy is facing today, and this is
something we are going to have to change.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington State.
Reauthorization Of The Export-Import Bank
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the
reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank and the legislation that we
are soon going to be seeing on a continuing resolution that was just
voted on by the House of
[[Page S5683]]
Representatives. While I am happy that there is a CR--a continuing
resolution--that keeps our government open, I am very distressed with
the fact that the House is sending us a simple 9-month extension of the
Export-Import Bank to expire June 30 of next year.
The reason why that is so frustrating to me and many of my colleagues
over here is because this is a jobs issue. It is about our economy, and
we have heard today at various venues throughout the Capitol how people
are actually losing jobs right now because of the uncertainty of the
Export-Import Bank. So I know that some of my colleagues in the House
of Representatives--Republicans--are proud they have helped to
reauthorize the bank for 9 months. Make no mistake about it; this will
cost us jobs in the United States of America during that time period.
We had a press conference today. I was proud to be joined by my
colleagues Senator Kirk, Senator Graham, Senator Manchin, and various
leaders in the energy industry--the Nuclear Energy Institute;
Combustion Associates, Inc.; Itron, which is a company in the
Northwest; Westinghouse; and FirmGreen--to talk about how many energy
jobs are dependent upon the Export-Import Bank. You can see from this
chart: 46,000 U.S. energy jobs and $7.7 billion in energy exports.
Just last year these transactions helped these energy jobs in the
United States of America by putting investments in projects overseas.
That is why we want to see a long-term reauthorization of the Export-
Import Bank. While this uncertainty exists in the continuing
resolution, all you are going to do is to exclude U.S. companies from
closing deals. That is because a credit agency is critical to U.S.
companies actually being at the table.
We heard from one firm today, FirmGreen, that they were actually
excluded from participating and getting a deal simply because of the
uncertainty of the Ex-Im Bank: A credit agency guaranteeing financing
the deal was not at the table and we lost out to an Asian competitor.
So during these 9 months of uncertainty, that is exactly what is going
to happen to more U.S. companies. They are going to lose out on these
energy jobs that we are looking for overseas.
I am talking about things that are part of our energy strategy--
everything from Sub-Saharan Africa, wind turbines in Central America,
and powerplants in Africa to various investments in the nuclear
facilities. A short-term 9-month extension doesn't provide a large
enough window for companies to build a pipeline, to construct a wind
turbine or to develop a nuclear facility. So it will hurt us by slowing
down on these energy projects just at a time when we are trying to fund
the training of troops to combat ISIS. We are going to be creating
uncertainty in places such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iraq on water
projects, construction projects, and road projects that might not get
done because U.S. companies won't be able to get the financing of a
credit agency. So this is a national security issue, and we are already
hearing from exporters about this.
Mr. President, I would like to submit for the Record a list of 30
different newspapers with editorials supporting the reauthorization of
the Export-Import Bank.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Newspapers Endorsing Ex-Im Reauthorization
1. New York Times
2. USA Today
3. Los Angeles Times
4. Chicago Tribune
5. Boston Globe
6. Miami Herald
7. Houston Chronicle
8. Seattle Times
9. Columbus Dispatch
10. Akron Beacon-Journal
11. Milwaukee Journal-Constitution
12. Wichita Eagle
13. Winfield Daily Courier (KS)
14. The Hartford Courant
15. The Fort Myers News-Press (FL)
16. Crain's Detroit Business
17. Scranton Times-Tribune
18. Lancaster Intelligencer Journal (PA)
19. Rock Hill Herald (SC)
20. Greenville News (SC)
21. Orangeburg Times and Democrat (SC)
22. Beaumont Enterprise (TX)
23. San Antonio Express-News (TX)
24. Roanoke Times
25. The Columbian (WA)
26. Tacoma News Tribune
27. The Spokesman-Review
28. The Olympian
29. The Puget Sound Business Journal
30. Bellingham Herald
Ms. CANTWELL. The Roanoke Times was one of those newspapers. It
typifies what companies are saying, that ``to really increase
manufacturing jobs, you need to increase exports.''
That is why we feel so strongly about this. The Roanoke Times also
said:
It's a global economy. Policymakers need to put U.S.
manufacturers on an even playing field with foreign
competitors in emerging markets, not take them out of the
game.
That is exactly what happens when we give a short-term
reauthorization for 9 months. No deal of this size and magnitude with
energy companies gets done in a 9-month period of time. It takes the
bank basically 3 months just for the processing. The discussion of
being at the table, closing the deal, and competing with your
competitors takes much longer, and no one is going to be interested in
closing a deal when they don't know whether the bank is going to
continue to exist.
That is why other newspapers such as the Times-Picayune has said that
one of their companies--basically a CEO of Reliable Industries of New
Orleans--said: ``The Export-Import Bank is a major reason his firm has
built an export business with 600 customers in 60 countries.''
I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the other
side of the Capitol who don't understand business: The notion that you
don't get is that the export opportunities for our economy are the
biggest chances to grow GDP in America, and you are foreclosing on that
for the next 9 months because you are creating uncertainty and
unpredictability.
Well, you know what I say to that? You are basically shipping jobs
overseas. That is exactly what you are doing. You are participating in
shipping jobs overseas because you don't want to reauthorize the
Export-Import Bank. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out
that the United States right now in manufacturing has a supply chain of
small businesses all throughout the United States that help in the farm
economy in building farm equipment, help in the aerospace industry
building airplanes and airplane-related products, and in the energy
economy, as we focused on today at our press conference. All of these
suppliers, when they cannot get financing for their products, are going
to look to overseas suppliers who can get support from the credit
agencies in their country, whether that is China, whether that is in
France or whether its in Germany or other countries. So people who
don't support giving predictability on the Export-Import Bank are
supporting shipping jobs overseas.
Our economy is struggling too much and our national security
interests are at stake to be shipping jobs overseas and not having the
investments in these countries such as Iraq and Egypt and other places
where we want to build security. I believe in the long-term interest of
fighting our challenges with extremism around the globe with economic
power. I know people are going to talk about military power and people
are going to talk about soft power. I believe in economic power. Having
an Export-Import Bank that is doing business like building roads and
building water and building energy facilities actually helps to
stabilize these areas of the world.
I am glad to see that General Petraeus also agrees. General Petraeus
basically said that the Ex-Im Bank ``is integral to our country's
security interests.'' Integral--he has watched this on the ground and
he knows and understands what the Export-Import Bank is, and he is
asking us to give it more certainty and predictability than what a 9-
month extension does, because, as I said, business deals cannot get
done in that short a period of time. Here is a person who understands
these issues both from a military perspective and an economic
perspective. I wish more of my colleagues would understand that they
are basically just shipping jobs overseas.
Newspapers around the country are continuing to try to help echo this
issue. The Charlotte Business Journal said: ``Executives say the Ex-Im
Bank is a key to a competitive U.S. nuclear industry.'' They have been
trying to focus on this issue.
The Boston Globe said: ``Billions will be lost unless Congress
reauthorizes
[[Page S5684]]
the Export-Import Bank.'' It also went on to call exactly what this
game is that is happening right here and now in Washington, DC. The
Boston Globe in their editorial in support of a longer reauthorization
said: ``Conservative hardliners rallying to shut down the agency are
risking a serious, self-inflicted economic wound.''
That is because we don't have to be at this point. If you want to
talk about reforms for the Ex-Im Bank, we have a lot of opportunity to
do that, but hardliners don't want to reauthorize the bank.
Having been in business, I am somebody who believes in trend lines. I
would ask my colleagues who are going home and thinking they are going
to campaign about jobs to ask themselves what kind of message are they
sending to the global community about the Export-Import Bank when just
a few years ago an agency that should have a 5-year reauthorization was
only reauthorized for 2 years--just 2 years. Now you are going to go
into the international community and say, wait a minute, we only
believe in this bank for 9 months. So the trend line is it used to be 5
years. For basically about 80 years it used to be 5 years, but because
the conservative tea party people are having their way--not the
majority of the people in the House but the tea party conservatives are
having their way--this has gone from a 5-year reauthorization to a 2-
year reauthorization to now a 9-month reauthorization. Who knows what
they will propose next. We know they don't support the bank. We know
they want to get rid of it.
I think the Charlotte Business Journal, again, characterized this
issue very well because they know this industry: ``The United States
will lose its lead in nuclear technology if it is not involved in the
construction boom overseas.''
You are not going to be very involved in the construction boom over
the next 9 months because you are not going to be able to get people to
close long-term deals when they think the other side of the aisle just
wants to kill the Export-Import Bank.
I think the Columbian in my State said it best. They said: ``While
complaining about the Ex-Im Bank might make for sound bites that pander
to conservatives, in the end it amounts to legislative negligence.''
They are talking in general about those who want to kill the Export-
Import Bank, but the very day that the House proposed a 9-month
extension, the Republican study group also proposed killing the Export-
Import Bank. So make no mistake about it, there are those who are
pandering to very conservative views who basically just want to end the
Export-Import Bank.
Thank God we have other businesses in this country. The Louisville
Courier-Journal said: ``When a small company is attempting to navigate
the international marketplace, it can be difficult to manage the risks
related to financing and growth and securing payment.''
That is a local company in Louisville, KY, that knows what it takes
to compete in an international marketplace. That industry leader also
said that the Ex-Im Bank has helped them manage the risk and as a
result their export business has grown strong in recent years. That is
what is at stake for these small businesses and supply chains to
getting this business done.
I think for us right now the challenge is to try to get people to
understand that a 9-month extension is not going to solve this problem.
It is going to exacerbate the lack of confidence in our ability to get
this bank reauthorized for a long period of time.
The Wichita Eagle editorial also added a this great comment:
``Failure of Congress to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank would be a
philosophical victory for some--but a badly timed blow to Kansas
companies trying to compete in the global marketplace.'' They went on
to say to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
So, while I know the House is sending us 9 months, and I know that
some people are trying to take comfort that they have dodged this issue
instead of taking a really hard vote on it or improving the bank, all
they have done is left the marketplace with a great deal of
uncertainty.
It will cost us jobs; it will shift jobs overseas, and Congress--here
in the Senate we need to act to get a long-term reauthorization for the
Ex-Im Bank.
The Wichita paper had it right. Reauthorize this bank--not a short-
term Band-Aid, but give the certainty that businesses need to compete
in the global economy and help our economy at home by growing jobs.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, over the last hour or so I had the good
fortune to hear the junior Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell,
describe what is happening with the Ex-Im Bank, and it is not good for
the country.
The Ex-Im Bank is so very important to the Presiding Officer's State.
The State of Connecticut benefits tremendously from the Ex-Im Bank, as
do the small manufacturing businesses in the State of Nevada.
As Senator Cantwell said, it is a shame we are shipping more jobs
overseas, and by not extending the Ex-Im Bank long term, that is what
we are doing. She is such an advocate for this program which is so
important to our country. I underline and underscore everything she
said this afternoon. I am so disappointed we are not able to have a
long-term extension of the Ex-Im Bank. It is very important, and it is
too bad we are not going to do that.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.J. Res. 124
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of H.J. Res. 124, which was received from
the House and is at the desk, at 1 p.m. on Thursday, September 18; that
following the reporting of the joint resolution, the majority leader be
recognized; that there be up to 4\1/2\ hours equally divided between
the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back
of time, there be no other motions or points of order in order to the
joint resolution other than a Sessions or designee motion to table or a
budget point of order and the applicable motion to waive; that Senator
Sessions or designee be recognized for a motion to table an amendment
to the joint resolution; that if the motion to table is agreed to, the
majority leader be recognized; that if the motion to table is not
agreed to, and notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to vote on
the motion to invoke cloture on H.J. Res. 124; that if cloture is
invoked, all postcloture time be considered expired, the pending
amendments be withdrawn, the joint resolution be read a third time, and
the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the joint resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________