[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.
____________________