[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 154 (Wednesday, October 21, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7407-S7408]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        CYBERSECURITY INFORMATION SHARING ACT OF 2015--Continued

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is 
invoked on the Burr-Feinstein substitute amendment to S. 754, the 
Senate then vote in relation to the Paul amendment No. 2564, as 
modified, with 10 minutes divided in the usual form prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2117, which is a 60-day 
extension of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I believe the 
amendment number is 2717.
  Mr. UDALL. It is amendment No. 2717. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank Senator Udall. He is a cosponsor of 
the permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 
I came to the Senate prior to the expiration of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund with the hope that my colleagues would give it a 60-
day extension. It has now expired. The 60-day extension on an expired 
act isn't even an offer that is on the table.
  For my colleagues, let me just remind you that the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund has been around a long time--50 years. Some say: They 
have $20 billion in funds; why don't they just draw on it? It is 
because they receive about $900 million a year in royalties off of 
offshore exploration of energy. Congress in its infinite wisdom said if 
we are going to tap our natural resources we are going to put part of 
the royalties of that back into conservation. The unfortunate thing is 
they never got the $900 million a year. Our appropriators in the 
Congress have seen fit to give them on average over the life of this 
fund about $390 million a year.
  Some of my colleagues suggest that there is a fund over there, the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund, and you could just tap it. Well, no, 
there isn't. The appropriators spent that money long ago. As a matter 
of fact, this year it was just over $350 billion for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund.
  So as delighted as I am that he has sponsored the permanent 
reauthorization, most Members believe that we should reauthorize this 
permanently. So I would ask the Senator to modify his unanimous consent 
request to make the amendment read that we would take up the Murkowski-
Cantwell permanent extension language.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2717, as modified, which is 
a 1-year extension of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BURR. I object to the last unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BURR. And on the current unanimous consent request, if I can 
address that, reserving the right to object, again, without being 
repetitive, this is a 1-year extension. The beauty of the effort by 
Senator Cantwell and Senator Murkowski, a bipartisan approach to the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund, addresses exactly what Senator Lee 
asked for, a reformed bill. This is a package that has been negotiated 
by Republicans and Democrats--the chairman of the energy committee and 
an individual who is extremely invested in the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund.
  So I would once again ask the Senator to modify his unanimous consent 
request to make that amendment read that we move to the Murkowski-
Cantwell permanent extension language.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. BURR. I object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I can't tell you how disappointed I am. The 
Senator from North Carolina objects to making an unrelated amendment to 
his bill, but he insists on one to ours. It seems we are at a 
standoff--a standoff with a bipartisan TSCA reform that

[[Page S7408]]

has already moved through the Senate. We have done incredible work on 
this with Senator Inhofe, Senator Vitter, and 60 cosponsors who are 
ready to roll with this with a very short timeline, and yet we have 
this objection.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund reauthorization also has a 
strong majority of the Senate in favor. Fifty-three Senators signed a 
letter led by Senator Burr recently, and I am confident there are over 
60 supporters for this. I am also confident that we will reauthorize 
and continue to fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund. As the 
ranking Democrat on the interior subcommittee, that is an extremely 
high priority for me. But for some reason, TSCA is being held up by 
demands for a vote on unrelated Land and Water Conservation Fund 
legislation. I don't see how this would help matters. This 
dysfunctional situation is what gives the Senate a bad name.
  Again, I respect Senator Burr. I know he does not seek a 
dysfunctional Senate. On the contrary, I have watched him do his best 
to get the Senate to function on this important cyber security 
legislation. But this calls out for leadership and cooperation, not 
ultimatums. I will keep doing what I can to continue the conversation 
and bring people together on a path forward.
  TSCA reform is ready. We will be back one way or another. We will 
pass in the Senate this bill. We will resolve our differences with the 
House, and this critical reform will go to the President's desk. With 
that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank Senator Udall for his work on TSCA. 
His description is pretty accurate. I am doing what the Senate 
historically has always done, allowing any Member of the Senate to 
exercise their authority as a Member of this austere body to amend any 
piece of legislation, and the Senate has functioned for a long time 
based upon that. It is just recently that we have not allowed that to 
be exercised. In other words, one Senator can't come to the floor and 
offer an amendment. He can't come to the floor and propound a unanimous 
consent request without objection. It has to change. I dare say that 
TSCA has overwhelming support and so does the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. For us to get functional we have to return to where 
we expect Members to come. I have nongermane amendments on the cyber 
security bill, and they would all receive a vote if somebody hadn't 
objected, and we would actually see the Senate process exactly like it 
is supposed to, where if a nongermane amendment has 60 votes in favor 
of it, then it is added. I am not scared to have nongermane amendments 
on my bill. I have them, and because of somebody's fear, they will get 
knocked off and two Members of the Senate, a Republican and a Democrat, 
will not get their day to have a vote on their bill.
  I don't object to the Land and Water Conservation Fund being a part 
of it, as I just expressed. What I object to and what I am disappointed 
about is that there would be an offer to do a 60-day extension or a 1-
year extension from a Member that I know supports permanent 
reauthorization, because this whole deal on TSCA is to make me look 
bad. Well, you know what; so be it. I am willing to accept it. I have 
had the hounds sicced on me. We are at a point now where there is no 
damage you can do, and what we saw was a nice orchestrated process that 
was supposed to make me back down.
  It is not going to happen. I believe in the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. The Senate will take it up, whether it is on this 
bill or another bill or as stand-alone bill.
  And let me just say to my good friend that what we are doing has not 
been a surprise. I shared with all the authors of this bill that I am 
going to amend it. I am going to amend it with this. So I hope he 
agrees that I am not trying to pull a swift one. I have been straight 
up on this since the beginning, and I will continue to press for it.
  Here is the solution. Allow us to have a debate on the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund permanent reauthorization on the floor of the Senate 
with an up-or-down vote. If we don't get 60 votes, it doesn't pass. 
That is the way the Senate is. If Members want this bill or any other 
bill passed, it is very simple. Let's get the process back like it is 
supposed to be, and with one assurance: that we will get an opportunity 
to debate the Land and Water Conservation Fund and have a vote. I am a 
cosponsor of your bill. I will lift my objection, my attempt to try to 
amend it, and we will pass it by unanimous consent. It is that simple, 
and there is described the history of how the Senate has always worked. 
Let's get back to it.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:45 
p.m. tomorrow, Thursday, October 22, the Senate proceed to executive 
session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 339, 340, 
341, and 342; that the Senate vote without intervening action or debate 
on the nominations; that following disposition of the nominations the 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with 
no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to 
the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be 
printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________