[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.

                          ____________________