[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 169 (Tuesday, November 17, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7979-S7992]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Congressional Review Act, I move to proceed to S.J. Res. 24, a joint 
resolution providing for congressional disapproval of a rule submitted 
by the EPA.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 294, S.J. Res. 24, a 
     joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval 
     under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule 
     submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to 
     ``Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing 
     Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is not debatable.
  The question occurs on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 24) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency relating to ``Carbon Pollution Emission 
     Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 
     Generating Units.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 
there will now be up to 10 hours of debate, equally divided, between 
those favoring and opposing the joint resolution.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of my 
resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act against 
EPA's greenhouse gas regulation targeting existing power sources.
  I am so proud to be here with my colleague from North Dakota Senator 
Heidi Heitkamp. We have 47 cosponsors on this bipartisan effort to stop 
the existing coal plant rule. We have had a lot of discussion about 
this. It affects all of our States differently, but I think it is 
important to talk not just about what this does to our individual 
States but what this is going to do to us as a country.
  If the administration's proposed Clean Power Plan moves forward, 
hardship will be felt all across the country. Fewer job opportunities, 
higher power bills, and less reliable electricity will result. West 
Virginia and other coal-producing States, such as Kentucky and Wyoming, 
are feeling the pain of prior EPA regulations. Nearly 7,000 WARN 
notices, or notifications to employees--let me ask, does everybody know 
what a WARN notice is? If you have gotten one, you will never forget it 
because basically what a WARN notice says to that employee is that you 
could be laid off within the next 60 days.
  In West Virginia, 7,000 of those notices have gone out to West 
Virginia families, West Virginia coal miners, in the year 2015, and 
more than 2,600 of those were just issued last month alone. Our 
neighboring State of Kentucky--the State of the majority leader--lost 
more than 10 percent of its coal jobs during the first quarter of this 
year.
  Kentucky's coal employment now stands at the lowest level since the 
1920s. The Energy Information Administration's most recent annual coal 
report for 2013 showed that the average number of coal mine employees 
dropped by roughly 10 percent in other coal-producing States, such as 
Alabama, Utah, and Virginia.
  According to the Mine Safety and Health Administration, coal mining 
employment nationally has dropped by a massive 31 percent in just the 
last 4 years. If you travel to the State of West Virginia--particularly 
our coal area--it does not take you long to see that. The impact of 
this war on coal extends far beyond the coal industry. These 
regulations are affecting all aspects of Americans' lives. Last month, 
West Virginia's Governor announced that most State agencies would have 
to endure 4 percent cuts, largely because of shrinking energy tax 
revenues. For the first time in many years, the Governor cut our 
education budget in the State of West Virginia because of this war on 
coal. That means less money for roads, for schools, and for health care 
services, but the terrible impact that prior regulations have had on 
West Virginia and the Nation would get far worse if the EPA's Clean 
Power Plan goes into effect.
  The Clean Power Plan is the most expensive environmental regulation 
the EPA has ever proposed on our Nation's power sector. Compliance 
spending is estimated to total between $29 billion and $39 billion per 
year. Household spending power--the money American families have in 
their pockets--will be reduced by $64 billion to $79 billion by this 
rule.
  A new study by NERA, a respected economic analysis firm, of the final 
rule found that electricity prices in West Virginia would increase 
between 13 and 22 percent, but certainly West Virginia will not be 
alone, as we are going to hear through this debate, in enduring higher 
energy prices and job loss. NERA projects that all of the lower 48 
States will see their electricity prices go up under the Clean Power 
Plan. As many as 41 States could see electricity prices increase by at 
least 10 percent. That is just from this regulation. I am sure my 
colleague from North Dakota represents one of those affected states. 
Twenty-eight States would see electricity prices that would increase by 
at least 20 percent.
  What does that mean for our economy? The National Rural Electric 
Cooperative Association found that a 10-percent increase in electricity 
prices could mean a loss of 1.2 million jobs across the country. Half a 
million of those jobs would be in rural communities in rural States 
such as West Virginia and North Dakota.
  The National Black Chamber of Commerce found that the Clean Power 
Plan would increase poverty among blacks by 23 percent and poverty 
among Hispanics by 26 percent. Affordable energy matters, especially to 
those living on fixed incomes. Households earning less than $30,000 a 
year spend an average of 23 percent of their income on energy costs. 
These families, these children, these workers, these elderly are the 
ones who will suffer most under this administration's policy.
  Energy reliability also matters. Coal is the source of our baseload 
generation, and the administration wants to replace coal with 
intermittent sources. What does that mean? That means that on a hot 
day, when the air-conditioner is running and factories are operating, 
we could be confident that a coal-fired powerplant will be supplying 
the energy needed to cool our homes and keep our businesses running.
  In the cold winter of 2014, when the demand for electricity surged, 
coal was the energy source utilities relied on to keep people warm. 
Renewable sources--and we want more. We want more variable ones and 
more frequent ones. Renewable sources are an important part of our 
country's energy mix, but there are always going to be days when the 
wind isn't blowing and the Sun isn't shining, and it is critical we 
preserve more reliable energy resources to meet the demand of powering 
our economy.
  Where I would like to see us go is innovation. Innovation, not 
across-the-board regulations, should be our focus, but these 
regulations will not spur innovation. The Clean Power Plan sets a 
standard for new plants that cannot be met by the most commercially 
available technology we have today. That not only flies in the face of 
the Clean Air Act but also makes gradual improvements in technology 
that would improve our environment impossible implement. The effect 
will be to instead choke off our most reliable and

[[Page S7980]]

affordable source of energy and devastate the livelihoods of many folks 
around this country.
  Prior to this administration, our country did a laudable job of 
protecting and improving our environment while promoting economic 
growth. Last week marked the 25th anniversary of the 1990 Clean Air Act 
amendments, which were signed into law by President George H.W. Bush 
and supported by Senators across the political spectrum. Our air is now 
the cleanest it has been in decades. We continue, and we must continue, 
to reduce harmful pollutants such as sulfur dioxide as our energy 
consumption increases and our population grows.
  Since 2005, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have fallen by 13 percent. 
According to the EIA, West Virginia has emitted 19 percent less carbon 
dioxide since the year 2000. We should continue on this track. We 
should continue to protect our environment but not at the expense of 
our families, our communities, and our economy. I am serious when I 
say, if you come to West Virginia, you will easily see this.
  With this rulemaking, the EPA is attempting to impose the same type 
of cap-and-trade system that Congress rejected 5 years ago. Having 
failed at its attempt at cap and trade, the administration has taken a 
second bite at the apple by claiming authority under the Clean Air Act 
to impose a regulatory cap-and-trade program. That is not the way it 
should be. This raises an obvious question. If EPA had cap-and-trade 
authority, as the administration is asserting now, why did the 
administration go to such lengths to try to pass cap-and-trade 
legislation? The answer is clear. The Clean Air Act does not authorize 
a mandatory cap-and-trade program. With its Clean Power Plan, EPA 
ignores 40 years of history and prior regulations that consistent with 
the law, always based standards on controls installed at an existing 
plant.
  Let me be clear. In the 40-year history of the Clean Air Act, EPA has 
never issued an existing plant program quite like this. As one EPA 
official summed it up to the New York Times, ``The legal interpretation 
is challenging. This effectively hasn't been done.''
  Rather than regulating existing plants using the best technology, EPA 
is instead attempting to regulate the entire energy grid. This has not 
been done before because the Clean Power Act does not authorize EPA to 
do this. Both States and the private sector are doing what they can to 
fight back over this overreach.
  West Virginia is 1 of 27 States that has filed lawsuits to block this 
rule. Additionally, 24 national trade associations, 37 rural electric 
cooperatives, 10 major companies, and 3 labor unions representing over 
800,000 employees are challenging the EPA's final Clean Power Plan.
  In less than 2 weeks, international climate negotiations will begin. 
The world is watching to see whether the United States will foolishly 
move forward with costly regulations that will do virtually nothing to 
protect our environment.
  Under the Congressional Review Act, the Senate now has the chance to 
take a real up-or-down vote on whether the EPA's Clean Power Plan can 
and should move forward. This is a legal binding resolution that if 
successful will prevent the Clean Power Plan or a similar rule from 
taking effect.
  Passing this resolution will send a clear message to the world that a 
majority of the Congress does not stand behind the President's efforts 
to address climate change with economically catastrophic regulations. 
Passing this resolution will also demonstrate to the American people 
that the Senate understands the need for affordable and reliable 
energy. Congress should pass this resolution and place this critical 
issue squarely on the President's desk. America's economic future is at 
stake, and it is time to send a clear signal that enough is enough.
  I am very privileged to be offering this resolution with Senator 
Heitkamp from North Dakota. She has been a champion on this issue. She 
has a different energy mix in her State and different energy concerns, 
but I think it goes to the heart of North Dakotans and West Virginians 
about the economic impact of such a very far-reaching and untried 
regulation in an area that is so far-reaching. I thank the Senator for 
her steadfast support. It has been my pleasure to be working with 
Senator Heitkamp.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I want to express my great thanks to my 
colleague from West Virginia, Senator Capito, who has been absolutely a 
champion on this issue, but also a champion on looking at new 
technologies and a champion to actually see what we can do moving 
forward with the great innovation that is the history of this country 
and the history of coal country.
  If you look over the life of the Clean Air Act, you will see 
literally billions of dollars of investment in cleaner energy, billions 
of dollars of investment in pollution control, billions of dollars of 
commitment to the environment by the industries we represent, whether 
it is a utility industry that has an interesting resource mix that 
includes coal or whether it is those facilities that utilize the energy 
looking at energy efficiency.
  The numbers that Senator Capito gave you in terms of America's 
achievement on reduction of CO2 happened without any 
involvement or any interference by the Environmental Protection Agency.
  North Dakota's situation is unique as it relates to the Clean Power 
Plan rules, and that is why North Dakota filed its own separate piece 
of litigation because we have a different story to tell, I believe, a 
story that involves lignite, which isn't the coal that is mined in West 
Virginia, but it certainly, for those of us in the center of the 
country, has become an important fuel source for a generation of 
electricity for generations.
  When you look at it and you think about where we are with fuel 
sources, you remember that there was a period of time when utility 
companies in this country were told you cannot use natural gas to 
generate electricity and, as a result, billions of dollars of 
investment were deployed to find a way to have a redundant, reliable, 
and affordable source of energy, and that redundant, reliable, and 
affordable source of energy was coal. Now things have transitioned. 
North Dakota is truly all of the above as it relates to our energy 
resources in this country and providing the electricity and the 
reliability of our electricity in the region.

  When we look at where we are right now, we have created an incredible 
level of uncertainty for utility companies in this country. What do I 
mean by that? If you are sitting as a member of the board of directors 
in a utility company right now and know you are going to have baseload 
growth moving forward, how do you build out your resources to meet the 
demand, which is required by our regulatory environment? Now you are 
told: Look, by this year, those of you in North Dakota have to reduce 
your CO2 output by 45 percent. Guess what. The original 
rule, as drafted, had an 11-percent reduction, and now we are up to 44 
percent. In what world is that an appropriate leap as we move forward 
in terms of looking at compliance with this new regulation? The EPA is 
not authorized to issue rules that are impossible. The baseline and 
fundamental principle of both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act 
is about using the best available technology--what is actually there 
and commercially available in that space. I have sat down with people 
who run utility companies in my State, and they have told me it is 
virtually impossible. Not only do we have a rule that is impossible, 
but we have an issue that I think the good Senator from West Virginia 
talked about that is even more serious. We have one agency of the 
Federal Government not empowered by any law in this country basically 
controlling our energy deployment, our electrical deployment. We have 
ignored FERC, and we have ignored all the other agencies that are 
responsible for the transmission of electricity.
  If you look at the history of this country and compare our history 
with many of our competitors across the world, the one thing we do 
better than our competitors is our reliable electricity. No matter what 
time of the day it is, you can reach over and turn on a light switch in 
the United States of America and the lights come on.
  If you are building a new manufacturing facility and need new energy,

[[Page S7981]]

that energy is made available to you. Having electricity deployed at 
the end of the mile in my State, which can be as remote as another 20, 
30 miles away from anyone else is a miracle. That is really a miracle 
of the commitment we have made to make sure we have power in America. 
This rule jeopardizes that commitment. This rule is wrongheaded and it 
is a dramatic change from the draft rule, especially as it relates to 
the State of North Dakota. This rule represents an attitude that says: 
We don't care what the law says. We don't care that you have rejected 
cap and trade. We don't care that you have rejected a carbon tax. We 
are going to unilaterally adopt those public policies as public 
policies in America. I don't think any of that should happen. I think 
it is time that we push back at all levels.
  As I said many times on the floor, whether it is the waters of the 
United States or the Clean Power Plan rule, the challenge we have is 
trying to do what this Congress is responsible for doing, which is to 
legislate. It is not to have a fight about whether we like the EPA or 
not. It is not to have a fight about whether this rule is right or not. 
It is about the appropriate public policy. When we simply leave it to 
the regulatory agencies, we end up with litigation and uncertainty for 
those people sitting in the boardroom who have a critical 
responsibility for delivering power in the United States of America.
  I gladly join my colleague from West Virginia as we pursue this 
matter. I think we all know that this legislation will likely pass. We 
also know what the likely outcome will be once it reaches the 
President's desk. We need to continue to have these conversations. We 
need to continue to talk about what the consequences are, not just for 
the coal miners in West Virginia and North Dakota but for the 
redundant, reliable, and affordable delivery of electricity in our 
country.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I listened to every word as my friend 
spoke, and I respect the words from my colleague from West Virginia 
very much, but I just want to be clear. I could not disagree with them 
more. Why would the majority leader and my friends push for the 
overturning of a Clean Power Plan rule that will, in fact, save lives--
that is a fact because when the air gets cleaner, you save lives--and 
will also protect our planet from the ravages of climate change? I 
don't know why they would take that stand. I really don't. When we are 
sworn in here, above all we are supposed to protect the health and 
safety of the people of our Nation, not protect one utility over the 
other. That is the private sector. We are here to protect lives and to 
protect the planet. I am going to go into depth as to why I feel this 
is very wrongheaded.
  I particularly have great respect for our majority leader. Senator 
McConnell has the power to bring anything before the body that he 
chooses. That is his right, and he has done that. But I must question 
this--given what happened in Paris and the need to keep America safe: 
Why are we going after the Clean Air Act today? It doesn't make sense. 
We should be moving to the omnibus budget agreement. We should be 
looking at every part of that budget to make America safe.
  For example, in the EPA budget, we could look at ways to improve 
chemical safety and how to protect our reservoirs. We could look at the 
Department of Homeland Security and how we can step up security at our 
ports, airports, border checkpoints, and railroads. We could look at 
funding biometrics, which could help us fight against homeland 
terrorism.
  In the State Department, we could look at ways to enhance security at 
our embassies and consulates. There is a lot of talk about Benghazi, 
Benghazi, Benghazi, but the Republican budget cut embassy security. How 
about looking at that? Why don't we look at the Office of Personnel 
Management and look at ways we could boost our cyber defenses after one 
of the largest data breaches in our government's history. The 
Department of Justice needs to make sure the FBI and local law 
enforcement have the resources they need to keep our families safe.
  I compliment everyone who came to the table and got a universal 
agreement on the budget for the next 2 years. Why are we looking at 
repealing a Clean Power Plan rule instead of taking up that budget 
agreement and looking--in a bipartisan way--at every single agency that 
we fund to make sure they are doing everything to keep America safe?
  I was talking to one of my colleagues from New York, and he pointed 
out that the terrorists have been after us since 9/11. So we know we 
have been doing something right. Let's look at what we are doing right 
and see if there is anything we are not doing right. Let's beef it up 
and make sure that our refugee policy is the right policy. We have a 
lot of work to do, but, no, here we go again.
  Just 2 weeks ago Senate Republicans led an attack on one of our 
Nation's landmark environmental laws, the Clean Water Act, and we 
defeated them. Now they are back again, and this time they are against 
clean air. They are attacking the Clean Air Act and the President's 
commonsense proposals to address dangerous climate change. Of course, 
most of them don't even believe climate change is happening. They say: 
Well, we are not scientists. That is right; you are not. So why not 
listen to the 98 percent of scientists who know this is happening?
  The Senate is considering at least one Congressional Review Act 
resolution, and the one we are talking about now has to do with 
existing powerplants. Senator Capito has introduced that legislation 
that would block the Clean Power Plan for existing powerplants from 
going into effect. This is dangerous. It is dangerous because we would 
be throwing out the first rules to reduce carbon pollution for 
powerplants that emit 31 percent of our Nation's total carbon 
emissions. If we are ever going to attack the problem of too much 
carbon pollution, we have to go to use our powerplant side, and I 
commend the President for his courage and for doing the right thing.
  I have heard colleagues say that the process wasn't good. What more 
do you want? The process used to develop these rules was extremely open 
and inclusive. The EPA met with State officials and a broad range of 
stakeholders. They held 600 meetings for the Clean Power Plan alone. 
How many more meetings do they want--1,000? The EPA received more than 
6 million comments from the public on both the existing powerplant rule 
and the new powerplant rule.
  Senator McConnell's resolution to block the standards for new 
powerplants and Senator Capito's resolution, which we are talking about 
now, to block the Clean Power Plan would not only toss out these 
extensive outreach efforts, but the hubris of this is that this 
resolution would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from ever 
undertaking similar rulemakings, leaving no plan in place to address 
carbon pollution from this source. Let me repeat that. Not only does 
this resolution toss out this rule that would clean our skies, but they 
say that we can never do it again. This is an attack on the American 
people.
  I remind my colleagues that the EPA is setting these carbon pollution 
standards not because they decided one day to go after the coal 
companies. They did not. They are doing it because under the Clean Air 
Act, they have to do it. It is an authority they have that has been 
confirmed by the Supreme Court. I don't know if my colleagues want to 
hear this, but I am sorry, because I will repeat it: In the 
Massachusetts v. EPA case, the Supreme Court found very clearly that 
carbon pollution is covered under the Clean Air Act. George W. Bush 
fought it for 8 years. He fought it for 8 years, but the Supreme Court 
wrote the following in their decision: ``Because greenhouse gases fit 
well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of `air 
pollutant,' we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate 
the emissions of such gasses.''
  All that talk about how the EPA is overreaching and that carbon isn't 
dangerous and you don't have to fix it is so much baloney. The Court 
found it straightforwardly in Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007. Following 
that decision, the Obama administration issued an endangerment finding 
showing that current and future concentrations of carbon pollution are 
harmful to public health and welfare.

[[Page S7982]]

  Once that decision is made, we have to act. We can't make believe 
this planet isn't endangered. We can't make believe pollution from 
powerplants does not cause problems for our people. We have to act. The 
administration is well within its rights. If they did not act, they 
would be sued, and they would lose because they have to protect the 
people from too much carbon pollution. It is required under the Clean 
Air Act and was sustained by the Supreme Court in 2007. Not only do the 
Republicans oppose standards for old plants, but they even oppose 
standards for newly constructed plants. Both of these resolutions--both 
of them--are harmful to public health and the environment, and many 
groups oppose them.

  So I am going to show my colleagues some of the groups that oppose 
this Republican resolution, and America can decide whom it wants to 
stand with. The Republicans want to overturn the Clean Air Act rule, or 
these people.
  How about public health groups--the Allergy and Asthma Network, the 
American Lung Association, the Public Health Association, the Thoracic 
Society, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Children's 
Environmental Health Network, Health Care Without Harm, Trust for 
America's Health. That is as American as apple pie. These are the 
people who stand up and protect our health and the health of our 
families. Whom do we want to stand with--the Republicans, who are 
pushing this on us on a day when we should be making America safe from 
the terrorists, or these groups?
  Business groups: the American Sustainable Business Council, Business 
for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy, and Environmental 
Entrepreneurs.
  Consumer groups: Center for Accessible Technology, Citizens Action 
Coalition, Greenlining Institute, National Consumer Law Center, Ohio 
Partners for Affordable Energy, Public Citizen, TURN, the Utility 
Reform Network, Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, the Washington 
State Community Action Partnership, and A World Institute for a 
Sustainable Humanity.
  Latino groups--why do they care? Because a lot of times they live in 
communities that suffer from filthy air. The abc Foundation Green 
Forum, Citizens Energy, the City Project, Common Ground for 
Conservation/America. There are more Latino groups. It goes on an on: 
Emerald Cities Collaborative, GreenLatinos, Ideas For Us, Latino 
Coalition for a Healthy California, National Hispanic Medical 
Association, National Latino Evangelical Coalition, solar Four.
  I will just mention a few environmental groups: Alliance of Nurses 
for Healthy Environments.
  Could I just say, if we were to ask people ``Whom do you trust more--
the Senate or the nurses?'' dare I say the results? I would guess it 
would be 99 percent in favor of nurses as opposed to us. And why don't 
we listen to them? They don't want to see these rules overturned.
  Appalachian Voices, Arkansas Public Policy Panel, Center for 
Biological Diversity, Clean Air Task Force, Clean Water Action, Climate 
Parents, Conservation Voters for Idaho, Conservation Voters for South 
Carolina, Defenders of Wildlife, Earth Justice, Elders Climate Action, 
Environment America and 24 State affiliates, and Environmental 
Advocates of New York. It goes on.
  These groups whose names I am reading oppose this action by my 
Republican friends because they want clean air, they want to protect 
their families, and they want to fight climate change.
  Environmental Justice Leadership Forum, Environmental Law Policy 
Center, Health Care Without Harm, Interfaith Power & Light and 28 State 
affiliates, League of Conservation Voters and 7 State affiliates, Maine 
Conservation Voters, Montana Environmental Information Center, Natural 
Resources Defense Council, New Virginia Majority, PDA Tucson, 
PennEnvironment, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Protect Our 
Winters, Rachel Carson Council, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law 
Center, Southern Oregon Climate Action Now, Union of Concerned 
Scientists, Virginia Organizing, Voices for Progress, Western 
Organization of Resource Councils, Wisconsin Environment, World 
Wildlife Fund.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of groups that 
oppose this rule change be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 Groups That Oppose S.J. Res. 23 and 24


                          Public Health Groups

       Allergy and Asthma Network, American Lung Association, 
     American Public Health Association, American Thoracic 
     Society, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Children's 
     Environmental Health Network, Health Care Without Harm, Trust 
     for America's Health.


                            Business Groups

       American Sustainable Business Council, Business for 
     Innovative Climate & Energy Policy (BICEP), Environmental 
     Entrepreneurs.


                            Consumer Groups

       Center for Accessible Technology, Citizens Action 
     Coalition, Citizens Coalition, Greenlining Institute, Low-
     Income Energy Affordability Network, National Consumer Law 
     Center, NW Energy Coalition, Nuclear Information and Resource 
     Service, Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy, Public Citizen, 
     Public Utility Law Project of New York, TURN--The Utility 
     Reform Network, Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, WA State 
     Community Action Partnership, A World Institute for a 
     Sustainable Humanity (A W.I.S.H).


                        Latino Community Groups

       The *Abc Foundation Green Forum, Citizen Energy, The City 
     Project, Common Ground for Conservation/America Verde, Dewey 
     Square Group/Latinovations, EcoRico Entertainment, LLC, 
     Emerald Cities, GreenLatinos, Hispanic Association of 
     Colleges and Universities, IDEAS for Us, Latino Coalition for 
     a Healthy California, League of United Latin American 
     Citizens, MANA--A Latina Organization, Mi Familia Vota, 
     National Hispanic Medical Association, National Latino 
     Evangelical Coalition, PolicyLink Center for Infrastructure 
     Equity, Sachamama, SolarFour, Voces Verdes.


                          Environmental Groups

       350.org, ActionAid USA, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy 
     Environments, Appalachian Voices, Arkansas Public Policy 
     Panel, Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Air Task Force, 
     Clean Water Action, Climate Action Alliance of the Valley, 
     Climate Law & Policy Project, Climate Parents, Conservation 
     Voters for Idaho, Conservation Voters of South Carolina, 
     Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Elders Climate Action, 
     Environment America and 24 state affiliates, Environmental 
     Advocates of New York, Environmental Investigation Agency, 
     Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on Climate Change, 
     Environmental Law and Policy Center, Environmental and Energy 
     Study Institute, Environmental Defense Action Fund, Health 
     Care Without Harm, Interfaith Power & Light and 28 state 
     affiliates, International Forum on Globalization.
       KyotoUSA, League of Conservation Voters and 7 state 
     affiliates, League of Women Voters, Maine Conservation 
     Voters, Montana Environmental Information Center, Natural 
     Resources Defense Council, New Virginia Majority, PDA, 
     Tucson, PennEnvironment, Physicians for Social Responsibility 
     and 4 state affiliates, Polar Bears International, Protect 
     Our Winters, Rachel Carson Council, Sierra Club, Southern 
     Environmental Law Center, Southern Oregon Climate Action Now, 
     The Climate Reality Project, Union of Concerned Scientists, 
     Virginia Organizing, Voices for Progress, WE ACT for 
     Environmental Justice, Western Organization of Resource 
     Councils, Wisconsin Environment, World Wildlife Fund.

  Mrs. BOXER. So we can see clearly--and I think the letter from the 
American Sustainable Business Council makes a very important statement:

       History shows that smart clean energy policies are good for 
     our environment, our economy, and business. We urge you . . . 
     to oppose both resolutions to disapprove the established 
     safeguards.

  Another letter from many of these leading public health 
organizations--quote:

       Please make your priority the health of your constituents 
     and vote No on these Congressional Review Act resolutions. . 
     . .

  I find it very hard to comprehend that a majority of this Senate, led 
by my Republican friends, would side with the special interests above 
the people who simply want to breathe clean air, who simply want to see 
us dedicated to the fight against climate change.
  These groups understand the importance of taking action to reduce 
carbon pollution. When we reduce that dangerous pollution from 
powerplants, the Clean Power Plan will deliver important health 
benefits.
  This is what I hope the American people will understand. This is 
science. By the year 2030, if we defeat this Republican effort, here is 
what will happen to our communities: We will prevent up to 3,600 
premature deaths, we will prevent up to 1,700 heart attacks, we will 
prevent up to 90,000 asthma attacks in children, and we will prevent

[[Page S7983]]

300,000 missed workdays and schooldays.
  Why on Earth does anyone want to vote to repeal a rule that will 
prevent 3,600 premature deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma 
attacks, and 300,000 missed workdays and schooldays? Why? The answer is 
special economic interests. That is the answer. It is a disgrace, a 
total and complete disgrace. We should be fighting for our families, 
not for the special interests. These are the cobenefits of reducing 
carbon. A lot of times we will hear my colleagues say: Carbon isn't 
dangerous. We breathe it out. It is not dangerous. The fact is, when we 
make these improvements to the powerplants to reduce carbon pollution, 
there are cobenefits. These are the cobenefits. They are, in fact, 
articulated.
  The Clean Power Plan will cut emissions from existing plants 32 
percent below 2012 levels by 2030.
  The other thing is it is going to save $85 a year on utility bills. 
So everyone who says that this is terrible and that it is going to 
raise our energy bills doesn't know the facts.
  The Clean Power Plan also includes help to low-income Americans 
through the Clean Energy Incentive Program, which prioritizes early 
investment in energy efficiency projects in low-income communities. So 
if we reduce our use of energy because we are conserving energy, we are 
using less energy, we are cleaning the environment, and our bills go 
down. That is what we call low-hanging fruit--conservation.
  The American people support efforts to reduce dangerous carbon 
pollution. According to a League of Conservation Voters poll in August, 
60 percent of voters support the Clean Power Plan, while just 31 
percent oppose it.
  So I have to ask my colleagues, my friends whom I constantly fight 
with on this, why do you side with the special interests against the 
people--the people who will benefit from longer lives, fewer sick days, 
fewer schooldays lost, and fewer asthma attacks? Why? And why do you 
turn against 60 percent of the voters who support the Clean Power Plan? 
The only answer I can come up with is they are not really thinking 
about the majority of the American people; they are thinking about the 
special interests who call here all the time and push us to do things 
to help them.
  There was another report in January of 2015 by Stanford University. 
We have all heard of Stanford University. It is pretty well thought of. 
A lot of my colleagues went there and graduated from there. The 
Stanford University poll found that 83 percent of Americans, including 
61 percent of Republicans, say that if nothing is done to reduce 
emissions, climate change will be a serious problem in the future. It 
also found that 74 percent of Americans say the Federal Government 
should take substantial steps to combat climate change.
  Look, all of this furor against these rules doesn't go with the 
American people; it goes against where the American people are. As I 
said, 83 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans, say 
reduce these emissions. We have to stop climate change. We already see 
the ravages around us. We already see climate refugees. We already see 
extreme weather. It is destabilizing. It is dangerous.
  According to the same poll, 74 percent of Americans say the Federal 
Government should be taking substantial steps to combat climate change. 
Yes, the President has listened and he has put forward these rules that 
are substantial steps because the emissions come from these 
powerplants--31 percent of the carbon emissions. So instead of just 
standing up here and demagoguing and saying this is horrible and 
frightening the American people, why not join hands with us and do this 
right?
  My State is a leader in clean energy. We are creating jobs hand over 
fist. We are doing great in California because we care about climate 
and we care about jobs, and those things go hand in hand. When we 
install a solar rooftop, we can't outsource that job, we have to hire 
someone in our State. That is why we have so much strong support in our 
State, because we see the results of pushing forward aggressively for 
clean energy. People are happy about it. They are proud of it. They are 
doing well. Climate change is real.
  We have to take reasonable steps to reduce carbon pollution, as with 
the Clean Power Plan. And all we see from our Republican friends, God 
bless them--I am very close with a lot of them--is attack after attack 
after attack on the environment, attacks against the Clean Water Act, 
attacks against the Clean Air Act, attacks against the Safe Drinking 
Water Act.
  These resolutions that are coming before us ignore the long and 
successful history of the Clean Air Act. We heard the same arguments 
against the original Clean Air Act that we are hearing today. In the 40 
years since the Clean Air Act was enacted, our GDP--our gross domestic 
product--has risen not 100 percent but 207 percent. If we go back to 
those debates--and I have gone back to them--we would hear the very 
same voices coming from the very same side of the aisle decrying the 
Clean Air Act: Oh, this is going to be a disaster. Well, it not only 
wasn't a disaster, it was a resounding success. And where we export our 
ideas to the world, clean energy is an area where we are exporting 
those ideas.
  Supporting the Clean Air Act makes good fiscal sense. The benefits of 
this landmark law, the Clean Air Act, amount to more than 40 times the 
cost of regulation. Let me say that again. For every dollar we have 
spent complying with the Clean Air Act, we have gotten more than $40 of 
benefits in return.
  As I mentioned, my State--I am so very proud of it--we are on a path 
to meet or exceed our goals of reducing climate pollution to 1990 
levels by 2020, just 5 years from now. That is required in our State--
AB 32. By the way, Big Oil and big polluters tried to overturn it on 
the ballot, and the people said: Go home. We are happy. We like this. 
We embrace it. And they turned back the millions of dollars spent by 
Big Dirty Oil, and we won. Clean air won.
  We are on the path to achieving our ultimate goal of reducing 
emissions by 80 percent by 2050. Imagine. During the first year and a 
half of my State's carbon reduction program called cap and trade, we 
added 491,000 jobs. So all this fearmongering about jobs lost is so 
much fearmongering because, guess what, look at my State--491,000 jobs 
added. And that job creation actually outpaces the national growth rate 
of jobs. California has been a leader in reducing its carbon footprint, 
and the United States must take steps to address this threat.
  I am just going to go back and read to my colleagues the main 
prediction of mainstream scientists made many years ago about what 
would happen if we weren't aggressive on climate.
  One, temperature extremes, they said, would be more frequent. NOAA 
scientists predicted that 2015 would be the hottest year since 
recordkeeping began and it will displace 2014. So the first prediction 
by the scientists that temperature extremes would be more frequent has 
been proven true--2015 will be the highest year on record, and before 
that 2014 was the hottest year on record.
  Secondly, they told us when I took over the chair of the EPW 
committee--which I regretted having to hand over the gavel to my friend 
Senator Inhofe, but I did hold it for about 6 years, if my memory is 
correct. A little over 6 years I had the gavel, but who is counting. 
The fact is, we called the scientists before the committee. They said 
temperature extremes would be more frequent. That has proven out. They 
said heat waves would be more frequent. That has proven out. They said 
areas affected by drought will increase, and Lord knows the West knows 
that has been proven. Wildfires would be bigger and more frequent, they 
said. We know in the West that is true. Tropical storms and hurricanes 
will be more intense. Just ask New Jersey and New York. There will be 
more heavy precipitation and flooding events. We have seen that with 
our own eyes. We have seen cars floating down the streets in Texas. 
Polar sea ice will shrink. That is a fact. Sea levels will rise. That 
is a fact. All of these predictions by climate experts have become a 
reality today.
  So I ask my friends, Why are you willing to gamble? Why are you 
willing to take this gamble and walk away from trying to reduce the 
ravages of climate change? That is immoral in the face of what we know 
from the scientists and with what we know from reality in the States. 
We see all the predictions coming true. The fact is

[[Page S7984]]

that climate change endangers the health of our families and our 
planet. We cannot delay action to reduce carbon pollution.
  I thank President Obama for his leadership on this critical issue. 
These rules are an essential element of the leadership on climate 
change. There is no doubt about it. At the end of this month President 
Obama and other leaders will gather to reach an agreement on how all of 
the nations will work to reduce carbon pollution that is causing 
climate change. Nearly 160 nations have reduced their plans.
  I ask my Republican colleagues that if you don't like President 
Obama's plan, don't just repeal it, tell us how you would reduce 
harmful carbon pollution. Tell us how you are going to save all these 
lives. Tell us how. Explain to us how you are going to prevent 3,600 
premature deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks in kids, 
and 300,000 missed workdays and schooldays. Where is your plan? Don't 
just get up there and say it is going to cost more for electricity, 
because the fact is, we have a special part of this rule that addresses 
the costs and will actually save money for consumers because we will 
push the low-hanging fruit of energy efficiency.
  These resolutions will take us backward, prevent us from acting to 
avert the worst impacts of climate. This Republican initiative is going 
to endanger the health of millions of our children and families from 
dangerous carbon pollution and will stop the cobenefits to them from 
going into effect.
  I know we are going to have a robust debate. As I said at the start, 
I think we ought to be debating the omnibus budget agreement. I think 
we ought to be debating how to keep America safe from the terrorists 
instead of figuring out ways to repeal a law that if you are 
successful, will in fact mean adverse health consequences for our 
people. We should be debating how to keep America safe today. We are 
not debating that. I am very sorry about that, and I agree with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who say they know the end result 
of this. Yes, there is a majority of people here who are going to vote 
to repeal these clean power rules. We know that. Yes, we know that will 
go to the President and, yes, we know the President will veto that and, 
yes, we know when that comes back we are going to sustain the 
President. We know the outcome.
  Why not get to work on keeping America safe? Go to this omnibus 
budget resolution, look throughout the budget and see ways we can make 
sure our people are kept safe from terrorists and, for goodness' sake, 
while we are at it, keep them safe from pollution. That is something we 
have in our hands. What is before us today will not keep them safe from 
pollution, and I look forward to this being rejected at the end of the 
day.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                    Terrorist Attacks Against France

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I do agree we should be debating what is 
happening in the world, particularly on the issue of ISIS and its 
impact not only on America, not only on Europe but on the world, and 
that is what I intend to do.
  We have all witnessed the horrific attacks in Paris and this 
unprecedented form of evil that we have seen disrupt the lives of free 
people. All Americans--Republicans, Democrats, Independents--all 
Americans stand in solidarity with Paris and the French people. This 
isn't just an attack on Paris. This is an attack on the free world, the 
civilized world.
  Don't just take my word for this conclusion because ISIS has already 
made such a declaration; that is, we are coming after you. We are 
coming after all those who don't abide by our messianic message of our 
purpose in the world to destroy you because you don't agree with us.
  Sadly, the tragedy we have seen in Paris reinforces that the battle 
against terrorism and extremism will not only be fought in the Middle 
East. The United States and Western nations are dealing with escalating 
security challenges that cannot be resolved through diplomacy and are 
not being resolved by the current strategy of this White House.
  A headline today in the Wall Street Journal is: ``Pressure Grows for 
Global Response.'' We, the United States, need to show the world that 
threats to our principal freedoms are entirely unacceptable. 
Unfortunately, President Obama continues to fail to provide the 
American people with the leadership we so desperately need.
  Consider his response yesterday to the tragic events in Paris versus 
the response of the French President. The French President, Francois 
Hollande, said: France is at war. We are in a war against jihadist 
terrorism, which is threatening the entire world.
  I want to repeat that: France is at war. We are in a war against 
jihadist terrorism, which is threatening the whole world.
  Virtually at the same time, President Obama, in a shockingly 
dismissive tone, doubled down on his so-called strategy to deal with 
this global threat. What has his strategy to date accomplished? Well, 
ISIS has expanded into more than half a dozen countries. They are not 
contained as the President said. Ask the people in Paris if ISIS is 
contained. Ask the people who have been subjected to attacks inspired 
by ISIS across the world: Is ISIS contained? I don't think so.
  Time after time, the President has shown he simply doesn't get it. In 
2012, he boasted Al-Qaeda was on the path to defeat. In 2014, he 
dismissed the Islamic State as the ``JV team,'' saying that ISIS ``is 
not a direct threat to us nor something that we have to wade into.'' 
Last Thursday he said, ``I don't think [the Islamic State] is gaining 
strength'' and saying ``we have contained them.''
  What will it take for this President to wake up and see what is 
happening around the world as a result of the ever-expanding threat of 
ISIS terrorism? The President did say yesterday that if people have 
other ideas to bring them forward. So what I would like to do is offer 
a few suggestions for the President to consider. In fact, I actually 
brought forward suggestions over a year ago, but of course none of them 
have been accepted or acted upon by the President that I am aware of.
  When I first addressed this subject in the summer of 2014, I outlined 
several areas in which urgent action was required. First, and more 
important, I called for the administration immediately to articulate a 
comprehensive plan to defeat ISIS. We have a problem out there. Put a 
plan together to address the problem and do it in a comprehensive way 
so we have a goal to achieve and a strategy to work out to achieve that 
goal. This comprehensive plan has been entirely absent from this 
Congress and from the American people. What we have seen instead are 
incremental responses--responses that contradict what the President had 
earlier said--to events that have taken place behind the curve, not 
ahead of the curve, too little and too late. I called for efforts to 
reach out to nations across the globe to work together to defeat ISIS, 
including working with Islamic states and communities to oppose this 
outrageous ISIS perversion of the Islamic faith.
  I want to say that, again, for those who simply say this is a 
decision that affects America only, all we are calling for are our 
boots on the ground, that is entirely wrong. The President should know 
it, and I think he does know it. I, among many, have called for efforts 
to reach out to nations across the globe to work together to defeat 
ISIS, including working with Islamic states and communities to oppose 
the outrageous ISIS perversion of the Islamic faith.
  I called for a diplomatic effort to persuade Saudi Arabia, Turkey, 
Qatar, and other regions to join with us to resist more forcefully ISIS 
aggression. Last year I called for much greater security assistance for 
our potential partners in the fight against ISIS. The United States 
should move quickly to provide more arms, training, and other requested 
assistance to Iraqi Kurdistan's Peshmerga forces--proven fighters who 
are willing to stand up and confront ISIS. They needed our support. 
They needed weapons from us. They needed training and guidance from us, 
but they were ready to engage in the fight. I said we also needed to 
find effective ways to support and directly arm the reliable, vetted 
Sunni tribes and Sunni leaders in Iraq who are essential partners in 
combatting ISIS extremism that ultimately are Sunni Islam's greatest 
threat.

[[Page S7985]]

  It is true, the question of where have they been, where are they. We 
need more than just sending a check to cover payment for somebody else 
to fight a proxy war. We need their engagement. They are in the 
crosshairs of ISIS. Why haven't they stepped up? Where is the flocking 
to the center square of town saying enough is enough? Where are the 
imams saying that this is a perversion of our religion? Where are the 
people in the crosshairs of ISIS simply rising up together and saying 
we need to address this?
  As I said, we also need to find effective ways to support the Sunni 
tribes and Sunni leaders. Those efforts have been slow, indirect, and 
insufficient. I called for us to provide lethal assistance to the Free 
Syrian Army. The administration's effort in this regard was an absurd 
$500 million, multiyear effort to train and arm 40 fighters, most of 
whom were promptly killed or captured. Yes, I called for increased 
specialized military action by our own Armed Forces. I, with many 
others, am willing to stand here and say enough. I have called for 
increased specialized military action by our own Armed Forces--
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and special forces--not a 
massive invasion. This has to be a global effort, as I just talked 
about. It has to include Sunni nations. It has to include Muslims who 
believe their faith and their culture is being brutally perverted by 
ISIS.
  It is clear ISIS cannot be defeated without U.S. participation. 
Nations of the world look to the United States to either have their 
backs or to work with them to stand side by side. We have capabilities 
and capacity that other nations don't have. Coalitions cannot be formed 
without our engagement. Our bombing campaign--this strategy of bombing 
against ISIS targets--has been far from adequate. There have been an 
average of just a handful a day, many of which have planes turning 
around and landing back at the airfield with bombs still attached to 
their wings because they simply haven't had the kind of targeting and 
directing to ensure that the rules of combat are confirmed.
  Contrast this anemic bombing campaign with the bombing campaign 
before the first Gulf War, which was several thousand sorties a day. In 
Bosnia it was several hundred a day. Clearly, our anemic air strategy 
is not defeating ISIS. Frankly, military history shows that air action 
only cannot achieve the goal of defeating an enemy.
  Lastly, I called on the Obama administration and Congress to reassess 
our border security and do whatever is necessary to make us stronger. 
One element of that effort is legislation I introduced earlier this 
year, a bill that would enact changes to the Visa Waiver Program and 
provide additional tools to enhance border security--changes that, in 
my opinion, are absolutely necessary to fill and plug a gaping hole in 
our border security.
  Let me talk about that for a moment. The current Visa Waiver Program 
allows citizens from several dozen nations to travel to the United 
States without a visa. They are citizens of these nations. In order to 
expedite the travel process, we entered into the Visa Waiver Program. 
That works fine if you don't have a situation like the one that exists 
today, with ISIS and other forces--Al-Qaeda and others--trying to bring 
people into the United States, to plant people here to carry out evil 
acts against American people.
  My bill would amend the Visa Waiver Program by tightening existing 
pre-travel clearance procedures and making them more focused on 
counterterrorism efforts. We have to now recognize the reality that 
exists here in terms of abuse of the Visa Waiver Program or the 
possibility of abuse and inserting terrorists into the United States.
  The bill would ensure stricter compliance with information sharing 
agreements by those countries that participate in the Visa Waiver 
Program and suspend their participation if they do not come into 
compliance at a 100-percent level. We can't afford any glitches. We 
cannot afford 99 percent. We have to go all the way.
  The bill would also authorize the Secretary of State to revoke any 
passport issued to a U.S. citizen who is suspected of engaging in 
terrorist activities and would update the definition of ``treason'' to 
include support of terrorist organizations.
  When introducing this, I remember the response: Oh, that is too 
tough. Nothing is too tough these days to keep Americans safe. We need 
to implement these provisions that I introduced many months ago, 
because I believe it is a solution that addresses the real and growing 
threat of terrorist attacks carried out by individuals with Western 
passports.
  Unfortunately, these things I have mentioned and have introduced 
earlier have not been adopted in any meaningful way. Now, a year and a 
half later, we are in a much more difficult position, with ISIS 
stronger and expanded to new areas and new countries. The threat to us 
all is comprehensive, multifaceted, and nearly global. It demands a 
global, comprehensive response.
  So I would urge the President to seriously consider these and other 
proposals, and I would like to mention one other proposal this morning. 
In addition to what I have previously stated, I believe it is now time 
to consider whether NATO should take on a vital new mission. NATO 
responded in Bosnia in 1994 and brought about peace. It can do so 
again.
  When I served as ambassador to Germany for 4 years, I had direct 
contact with NATO and NATO nations, and I know the accumulation of 
resources, of training, of capability that is available through NATO, 
and it is a multi-nation, comprehensive coalition. It can play a vital 
role in dealing with this terrorist threat.
  We need a comprehensive, realistic, articulate plan if we are going 
to destroy ISIS, and NATO action should be part of that plan, whether 
or not France invokes the article 5 collective defense provision of the 
NATO treaty--which I think they should do, and perhaps they will do--
which requires all NATO nations to come to the support of and do what 
is necessary to address a threat to one of the nations. If one of the 
NATO nations is threatened, we all stand together to deal with it.
  Former NATO Commander ADM James Stavridis issued his own six-step 
plan for NATO engagement and leadership to destroy ISIS, and we should 
look at that and take it seriously. He suggests NATO should assign one 
of the major alliance commands to lead the operational planning for 
forceful military efforts against ISIS in both Syria and Iraq and bring 
all the alliance resources to bear. In addition, he suggests our NATO 
allies should be joined in this effort by other nonmember European 
states, such as Sweden and Finland, which are similarly threatened by 
ISIS terrorism. Most importantly, he said NATO must work creatively to 
bring in the regional powers, such as the Kurdish Peshmerga, Saudi 
Arabia, and other Arab states in a broad coordinated effort against 
ISIS under NATO leadership.
  This is the mechanism and this is an organization that is trained, 
has the equipment, has the capability, and can form the coalition 
necessary with our Arab friends and neighborhoods--the Saudis, the 
Sunnis and others--that need to be a part of this if we are going to be 
successful.
  NATO's efforts against ISIS, Admiral Stavridis says, should also 
include assistance to Turkey--after all, Turkey is a NATO member--to 
better secure their borders against the flow of jihadists in and out of 
Syria. This is NATO at its best and is something I think should be 
seriously considered by this White House as a way of moving forward to 
develop a coalition to address the great threat we are facing.
  Let me now say one other thing, because Admiral Stavridis also 
suggests the possibility of forming some type of a coalition with 
Russia. We are seeing a strong Russian response today--last evening--
once it was determined and proven the Russian airliner was brought down 
by a bomb and by ISIS. ISIS has taken credit for it, and ISIS will 
receive the wrath of the Russian military as a result, in direct 
contrast to what we have done for attempts on our own people.
  I am not a big fan of Putin. I am not a big fan of the current Russia 
government. I spoke out strongly about Russia's invasion of the Ukraine 
and the annexation of Crimea, and have strongly advocated for Russia's 
diplomatic isolation. In fact, I so strongly advocated for it that 
Russia put me on a

[[Page S7986]]

list of seven people who are banned from entering Russia for life. 
Well, I have been to Russia, and I don't need to go back. So it is no 
big deal. Apparently it was a big deal to them. But now we are facing 
an emergency situation.
  Russian forces are deployed in Syria. Russian efforts need to be 
coordinated with NATO efforts, if we go the NATO route. We are already 
coordinating in terms of some of our flights. As we learned in 1941, 
national emergencies can create strange bedfellows.
  Whatever option is considered, the irreducible minimum is real: 
determined U.S. leadership. This tragic civil war and escalating 
terrorist threat have continued and grown much too long without an 
effective American response. Oh, yes, we have had a response--mostly 
rhetorical--but clearly a strategy that has not succeeded, and clearly 
something that is not deterring ISIS from growing stronger and 
spreading further. It simply has not been effective. So whether it is 
through NATO, whether it is through a coalition of the willing, 
vigorous American leadership is absolutely essential for the future of 
all of us.
  In conclusion, let me say this. In 2014, the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr 
al-Baghdadi, said:

       Our last message is to the Americans: Soon we will be in 
     direct confrontation, and the sons of Islam have prepared for 
     such a day. So watch, for we are with you, watching.

  This is the enemy we are dealing with. This is not some vague threat; 
this is a direct threat. We have seen how they carry out their direct 
threats, and we stand in the crosshairs. And, yes, it is very possible 
and probably very true that they are with us here now, watching, 
waiting, planning, contriving for another Paris, for another Baghdad, 
for another attack--hopefully none, but something that could be 
possibly much greater than what we saw in Paris. They have created 
their homeland in Syria, but they have told us what we don't want to 
hear, but which is probably true, that they are here and they are 
watching and they are waiting.
  So the question is, does President Obama grasp what we are up 
against? Last year he laid out the goal of defeating ISIS, but 
President Obama still has not put forward the comprehensive strategy to 
accomplish that goal, and yesterday he doubled down on the same 
policies that have led to our current foreign policy failures. The 
effort to defeat ISIS will be successful only with leadership from the 
President of the United States. Let me say that again. The effort to 
defeat ISIS will be successful only with the leadership from the 
President of the United States.
  So, President Obama, as Republicans, as Democrats, as Independents, 
as Americans, we desperately need for you to provide that leadership at 
this critical time. President Obama, are you up to the job or do we 
have to wait another year to put a leader in the White House?
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, it is a pleasure and privilege to 
follow the distinguished Senator from Indiana. His concerns for 
national security are well established, and I enjoy working with him, 
particularly in the area of cyber security. But I would note, in the 
wake of his eloquent remarks about our national security situation, 
that we are not here on the floor to discuss national security. We are 
here on the floor right now because the Republican leadership is taking 
a run at the President's Clean Power Plan.
  Paris has not recovered from the devastation of the other day, and we 
have important bills that the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations has worked very hard on to get ready and that would 
improve the capacity of our Department of Justice, our FBI, and our 
Department of Homeland Security to address this threat. Are we on those 
bills? No. The majority leader has decided we are going to take a run 
at a climate regulation.
  Now, with ISIS and terrorism being the issue of the day, one might 
think: OK, I can understand why we are going to climate change. We have 
known for years that our intelligence community, our defense leaders, 
and the men and women in uniform we count on to protect us have said 
climate change breeds terrorism. It creates the conditions--the 
Quadrennial Defense Review and the intelligence reports have said--that 
spawn the kind of despair that leads to terrorism. It is a catalyst of 
conflict.
  So one might say: OK, sure, it makes sense we should address climate 
change because it is a catalyst for conflict. And we would find 
voices--I think the distinguished Senator from Indiana mentioned 
Admiral Stavridis. We love Admiral Stavridis in Rhode Island because he 
has been associated with the Naval War College. He has said that the 
cascading interests and broad implications stemming from the effects of 
climate change should cause today's global leaders to take stock, and 
he has said many other eloquent things on climate change too. But we 
are not here to do something about climate change and help reduce it as 
a catalyst of conflict. What the majority leader has brought us here to 
do is to undo American leadership in this area.

  One might say: OK, they have a better plan. The Republicans have a 
plan they think is better than the Clean Power Plan, and therefore they 
want to foul up the Clean Power Plan so they can put a clean power plan 
of their own in place. There is no such thing. There is no Republican 
strategy to deal with climate change. In fact, a majority of my 
colleagues on that side can't even admit that it is real.
  So that is where we are. We are on a measure that clearly won't pass 
under the Congressional Review Act, clearly will go to the President 
and be vetoed and be sustained on the veto. So this will never become 
law. It is just a big exercise in time-wasting.
  While the smoke is still clearing over Paris, we are still engaged in 
this big exercise in time-wasting. Why? To send a signal. To send a 
signal to the big coal interests, the big oil interests, the Koch 
brothers, and the tea partiers that ``We are with you.'' The American 
public isn't with you. Even Republicans aren't with you. If we look at 
recent polling, other than the tea party--and by the way, 70 percent in 
the tea party thinks global warming isn't happening--isn't happening. I 
don't know whom they are talking to. They are not talking to fishermen 
in my State. They are not talking to foresters out West. They are not 
talking to farmers in the Midwest. It is happening. We might go further 
as to discussing what to do about it, but the tea party is so 
irresponsible that they think, in a strong majority, it is not even 
happening. But they are not the ones we should be listening to because 
83 percent of Americans--including 60 percent of Republicans--and by 
the way, with the November elections coming up, 86 percent of 
Independents say that if nothing is done to reduce emissions, global 
warming will be a very or somewhat serious problem in the future. So we 
are now going against what 83 percent of Americans, including 61 
percent of Republicans and 86 percent of Independents, would direct us 
to do, in order to keep the faith with the big coal and oil and Koch 
brothers industries that fund so much of this operation here.
  So 56 percent of Republicans--and 54 percent of conservative 
Republicans--say that the climate is changing and that mankind is 
contributing a lot or probably a little to the change. A majority of 
Republicans now believe there is solid evidence of global warming--
again, 56 percent. When we look at young Republicans, this is where it 
gets very interesting. Young Republicans--under the age of 35--think 
climate denial by politicians in Congress is ``ignorant, out of touch 
or crazy.'' That is where young Republicans are on this.
  Yet the majority leader has brought us here to interrupt any 
conversation we might be having over national security, slowing down 
any progress on the domestic security appropriations bills that might 
go forward, against the interests of young Republicans and everybody 
else virtually across the country, all to help out Big Coal, Big Oil, 
the Koch brothers, and to cater to this small, little tea party 
contingent, 70 percent of whom don't even believe climate change is 
happening. There is a point where you can't take views seriously. 
Frankly, if this group by 70 percent thinks it is not even happening, 
there is a point where we have to say: Run along, fellows; we want to 
play with the grownups here who understand what is going on.
  So here we are on this bill. I will say that I like to do a little 
research when

[[Page S7987]]

there is somebody speaking on the Senate floor. I thought the Senator 
from Indiana was going to talk about climate change, so I did home 
State Indiana, university, and climate change, to see what comes up. 
What came up was an article published by the University of Indiana that 
says ``Indiana University experts comment on climate change report.'' 
That is the headline. The No. 1 lead under it is ``Changing climate 
will affect Midwest crops, forests, public health.'' That is the lead, 
Indiana University. The second lead is ``Report signals need to move 
away from fossil fuels.'' So they get it at the University of Indiana.
  Here is the quote: ``Climate change, once thought to be a problem for 
future generations, `has moved firmly into the present. . . . ' '' That 
was an article from May 6, 2014, more than a year ago, and still we are 
on the floor fighting about vain and doomed-to-failure efforts to 
attack the only climate change plan that is out there.
  I invite my Republican colleagues: If you have a better plan than the 
climate plan the President has put forward, let's hear it. But I am 
here to say they have nothing--nothing--zero. So bring up that subject 
if you want. Highlight for the American people that this is a party in 
tow to coal and oil and Koch brothers' interests. Highlight for the 
American people that you are running in direct opposition to what the 
American people believe, to what even young Republicans believe. I 
don't get it, but have fun with it.
  The last thing I will mention is this. I am from the Ocean State. I 
am about to be followed by my distinguished colleague and friend from 
Wyoming. Rhode Island has a little bit of a different situation. We are 
on the ocean. This denial business really doesn't work for us. We can 
go down to Narragansett Bay and measure that the bay is 3 to 4 degrees 
warmer, mean water temperature, than it was 30 years ago. That is not 
just a statistic; that signals the end of the winter flounder fishery 
in Rhode Island. We used to catch winter flounder. It was a robust 
crop. It is gone, more than 90 percent wiped out, largely because that 
warming has changed the ecosystem in which the winter flounders grew. 
So it is gone. We paid a price for that.
  We can go to Naval Station Newport and look at the tide gauge. It is 
up 10 inches since the hurricane of 1938 came through. Google 
``Hurricane of 1938, Rhode Island.'' Take a look at the images. We got 
smashed by that hurricane, and now there are 10 inches more water that 
can stack up with storm surge into an even bigger cocked fist against 
my State. That is directly related to the warming oceans--unless 
somebody wants to repeal the law of thermal expansion around here. But 
I don't think we get to do that in the Senate. That is one of God's 
laws. That is one of the laws of nature.
  So our seas are warming, and our seas are rising. We have virtually 
lost our winter flounder fishery. We are losing our lobster fishery. We 
are getting clobbered, and we can't deny this stuff. The effect carbon 
has on the oceans can be replicated in a high school science lab. Ramp 
up the carbon dioxide in saltwater and seawater and it turns acidic. 
The ocean is turning acidic at the fastest rate ever since humankind 
has been on this planet.
  Go to the western coast and look at a little tiny sea snail called 
the pteropod, the sea butterfly. God's evolution has metamorphosed this 
little snail to having a foot that is actually a wing that swims it 
through the ocean. It is one of the core species. If we had good ocean 
sense here, everybody would know what a pteropod was. It is all over 
the place. It is a huge food source. It is the bottom floor of the food 
pyramid.
  In the study just done, more than 50 percent of the pteropods in the 
Pacific from California north had severe shell damage--more than half 
of the species had severe shell damage from acidification of those 
seas. People in Oregon and Washington have had their oyster farms wiped 
out as the acidified water came in and ate away the shells of these 
little creatures. You do not survive long in an environment in which 
you are soluble, and that is the predicament we are creating for these 
of God's species.
  Pope Francis said something very simple: We don't have that right. We 
don't have that right. Those pteropods aren't this generation's 
species. They are God's species. They are the Earth's species. It is 
not for us to tell our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren: We 
don't care. Go ahead, die right out. We are going to protect our big 
industry friends. That is just wrong.
  We should not be on this bill. This is a time-waster. This is a 
disgrace. This has no business being here. The American people know 
better, and that may be the reason we are trying to get off it as 
quickly as we can. But I am here to say it is not enough to get off 
trying to knock down our one plan for dealing with climate change; we 
ought to be thinking about how we enhance wind and solar in Texas, wind 
and solar in Wyoming, protect the great forests of this country, 
protect the great shores of this country, and protect the species 
offshore. We are changing their world on them by making the oceans more 
acidic than they have been in the lifetime of our species.
  I know the Senator from Wyoming is here to rebut everything I have 
said, but he has that right.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for 10 minutes, followed by Senator Shaheen for 10 minutes, 
Senator Cornyn for 10 minutes, Senator Nelson for 10 minutes, and 
finally Senator Manchin for 10 minutes; that following Senator 
Manchin's remarks, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly 
conference meetings, and that the time in recess count against the 
majority time on the CRA.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it is fascinating to listen to my 
colleague and friend from Rhode Island because I have the National 
Journal Daily printed today. It has back-to-back pages talking about 
the terror, the horror in Paris. Obviously the thoughts and heartfelt 
condolences of the people of this country continue to go out to our 
friends in France, who have stood by us, and we will stand by them.
  One page talks about how President Obama has continued to 
underestimate ISIS. This is in today's paper, quoting President Obama, 
saying: ``The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is 
accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn't make 
them Kobe Bryant.''
  The President has continued to underestimate ISIS.
  The other side of the page: ``ISIS vs. Climate Change.'' It talks 
about the Democratic debate Saturday night--national television--after 
the tragic events in Paris the night before. The moderator asked one of 
the leading Democrats running for President--running second in the 
polls now--if that candidate had a chance to back off on his claims 
that climate change is the greatest security threat facing the country. 
That candidate said: ``In fact, climate change is directly related to 
the growth of terrorism.'' That is the position I just heard from the 
Senator from Rhode Island. It is a position we hear from a leading 
candidate for President on the Democratic side of the aisle. I would 
wonder how many Americans believe that who--if they heard that 
statement, believe that is true.
  That is why I come to the floor today to talk about President Obama's 
plans--his plans to tear down the American energy reliability, American 
energy stability, things that are important for our national security, 
because he wants to remake energy into a form he prefers. The President 
has a strategy to do it. He has made it clear. He said that when he was 
running for President in 2008. He bragged that his plan--he said if it 
went through, that ``electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' 
And ever since then, President Obama has been pushing to make that 
happen, even though he couldn't get it passed. When he tried to get 
part of his plan through Congress, even the Democrats rejected it. They 
knew that the American people didn't want it and that the American 
economy couldn't afford it.
  Did President Obama listen to the American people? Absolutely not. 
Did he accept the overwhelming judgment of Congress--a bipartisan 
approach--

[[Page S7988]]

that his extreme attacks on American energy were a bad idea? No, he 
didn't listen to that, either. The President is much more interested in 
the opinion of far-left, extreme environmentalists than he is in the 
opinion of hard-working Americans. He has done everything he can to 
give his plans the effect of law without asking Congress to actually 
pass them as laws. He has had his Environmental Protection Agency draw 
up regulations--regulations that would shut down American energy 
producers and damage our own economy. That is what the President's own 
Energy Information Administration has said. The agency put out a 
report--a report that found that the EPA's new rule on carbon dioxide 
emissions would close coal-fired powerplants, would raise electricity 
prices, and would reduce the gross domestic product of our Nation.
  That is just one of many rules this administration has been pushing 
into force without legal support. Every one of these rules will mean 
hard-working Americans will lose their jobs and hard-working families 
will be paying higher electric bills. Put it all together, and the 
price tag could reach hundreds of billions of dollars.
  Who is asking President Obama to do this? Who is asking to pay more 
in their electric bill every month? People don't want it, and the 
President doesn't have the authority to do it. That is why he is not 
asking Congress to weigh in on his plans. That is why he is pushing 
these rules by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats instead of going to 
the people and their representatives. The American people do have a 
voice, and they are making their voice heard through us today.
  We are here talking about two rules in particular. These are the 
restrictions on existing powerplants and on new powerplants, plants 
that haven't even been built yet. These are the core of what the 
President calls his Clean Power Plan.
  We are here to say today that these rules go too far. The Obama 
administration has tried this before. It has pushed through other 
regulations that people didn't want and can't afford. The 
administration has said that it gets to decide what is best, that it 
gets to decide what people should do. The courts legitimately have 
said: not so fast.
  This summer, the Supreme Court rejected a different EPA rule because 
the administration never bothered--this is what the Court said--to take 
into account the costs of the rule. The Supreme Court said: ``One would 
not say that it is even rational''--this is the Supreme Court talking 
about the President's rules; it isn't even rational--``never mind 
`appropriate,' to impose billions of dollars of economic costs in 
return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.''
  Two courts have blocked the EPA's rule on waters of the United 
States. One of the courts said that the rule was likely the result of 
``a process that is inexplicable, arbitrary, and devoid of a reasoned 
process.''
  All of these rules are suffering from the same kinds of problems. The 
Obama administration, once again, has been acting far beyond its own 
authority and far beyond anything that is rational or appropriate for 
our Nation. The same day that President Obama put out the new rule on 
his so-called Clean Power Plan, 26 States filed lawsuits in Federal 
court to stop the disastrous rule. Twenty-three States sued to block 
the rule on new powerplants. Twenty-seven States have sued to block the 
rule on existing powerplants. I believe these States are going to win 
in court because the rules are so extreme and this administration is so 
out of control.
  President Obama doesn't really care about any of that. He thinks he 
still wins even when he loses in court. He thinks if he can drag it out 
long enough, businesses will have to spend the money and comply anyway.
  That is actually what the President's EPA chief said before the last 
regulation got rejected by the Supreme Court. She went on television a 
few days before the decision and said that it didn't matter what the 
Supreme Court said. She said that it didn't matter if the 
administration loses because the rule has already been in place for 3 
years.
  That is exactly what the Obama administration is counting on this 
time as well. That is why it is so important that Congress act today to 
block these rules from taking effect. We are debating the two measures 
that will do that. The measure by Senator McConnell and Senator 
Manchin--this is bipartisan--would block the rule for new powerplants, 
and the second measure by Senator Capito and Senator Heitkamp--again, a 
Republican and Democrat working together--would block the rule for 
existing powerplants.
  These are bipartisan resolutions of disapproval under the 
Congressional Review Act. They are our chance for Congress to stand up 
for the people that we represent. America can't afford these illegal 
rules to go into effect and be there for 3 years before the Court 
tosses them out.
  There is another reason that Congress needs to vote to strike down 
these expensive, burdensome regulations immediately. Later this month, 
the President will be participating in the international talks on 
climate change. This is a meeting of about 200 countries from around 
the world to limit the amount of carbon dioxide and other emissions 
that each country can produce.
  The President desperately wants his so-called Clean Power Plan so 
people will say he is leading on the issue. Without these illegal 
regulations, he has nothing to offer. Congress needs to make clear that 
the American people do not support these regulations. Foreign diplomats 
at the climate conference need to understand that these rules will not 
stand up in court.
  President Obama's ego is writing checks that his administration can't 
cash. Any climate deal based on these flawed rules is simply not worth 
the paper it is printed on. It is time for President Obama to be honest 
about what he can and cannot do. If he will not admit that, then 
Congress is going to have to make it clear so that everyone 
understands. The American people do have a voice. They will not allow 
these reckless and destructive regulations to shut down American energy 
production.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
Clean Power Plan and against the efforts by the majority to undermine 
the plan. The Clean Power Plan is vital to the environmental and 
economic well-being of both New Hampshire and this country. It is an 
important and historic step that will mitigate the effects of climate 
change by reducing carbon pollution from our Nation's dirtiest 
powerplants.
  Powerplants account for nearly 40 percent of all U.S. carbon 
emissions. That is more than every car, every truck, and every plane in 
the United States combined. If we are to be successful in addressing 
climate change, we have to reduce the amount of pollution that is 
coming from this sector, and we cannot delay.
  My home State of New Hampshire is doing its part to reduce carbon 
emissions by making smart investments in renewable energy and energy 
efficiency, but we do need a Federal plan to make sure our country 
moves forward together.
  As Senator Whitehouse and Senator Boxer have said so eloquently, the 
verdict on climate change is in. It is a reality that must be 
addressed. Study after study reinforces the overwhelming consensus that 
global temperatures are steadily rising and contributing to more 
extreme weather events and changes in our environment.
  We are seeing that firsthand in New Hampshire, where climate records 
show a steady increase in yearly temperatures and annual precipitation 
amounts continue to grow. As a result, climate change is affecting New 
Hampshire's tourism and outdoor recreation economy, which are really so 
important to our State. Tourism is the second largest industry in New 
Hampshire. Each year hundreds of thousands of sportsmen and wildlife 
watchers come to New Hampshire to enjoy our natural resources. Hunting, 
fishing, and outdoor recreation contribute nearly $4.2 billion to the 
New Hampshire economy each year. But rising temperatures are affecting 
our fall foliage season, which has just ended. We are seeing fewer snow 
days, which impacts skiing and snowmobiling, and ice

[[Page S7989]]

out on our lakes is happening earlier each year.
  We heard Senator Whitehouse talking about the impact on fisheries in 
Rhode Island. We have seen that in New Hampshire as well, where cod 
stocks in the North Atlantic and the Gulf of Maine have been reduced so 
precipitously that it has devastated New Hampshire's fishing industry.
  We are also seeing changes in our State's maple syrup industry. New 
Hampshire produces more than 100,000 gallons of maple syrup annually. 
It is the third largest maple producer in the New England States. Maple 
syrup production is entirely dependent on weather conditions. Any 
change, no matter how slight, can throw off production and endanger the 
industry. Trees require warm days and cold nights to create the optimal 
sugar content and sap production. The changing climate is putting more 
stress on sugar maples, affecting syrup production.
  According to a report by the New Hampshire Citizens for a Responsible 
Energy Policy, ``current modeling forecasts predict that maple sugar 
trees eventually will be completely eliminated as a regionally 
important species in the northeastern United States.''
  If we look at this chart, we can see the red here is elm, ash, and 
cottonwood. We see the green is oak and pine and oak and hickory. This 
is 1960 to 1990. This is a current look at what is happening with our 
trees in New Hampshire and New England. This darker red that we see 
here, which is almost all of New Hampshire, is maple, beech and birch 
trees. That is what things look like today. By 2070, you can see there 
are no more maple trees left in New Hampshire and all of New England. 
There are very few elm, ash, and cottonwoods. There is a little bit in 
New York. They have all moved to the West and the North.
  If we fail to act on climate change, we are going to lose these 
trees, lose the industry, and lose our fall foliage because maples are 
so important to the fall foliage. Climate change is also a threat to 
our wildlife and their habitats.
  In New Hampshire, the moose is a vital part of our State's culture, 
and yet, as a result of climate change, we have seen a 40-percent 
decline in the moose population. It is hard to see. You can see that 
this moose looks very distressed, as does this one. What looks like 
little knobs on this moose's tail are ticks. Those ticks are there 
because with the warmer winters, insects and ticks are not dying off. 
They infested our moose population, which is down 40 percent.
  Climate change is also impacting the health of New Hampshire's 
families. New Hampshire has one of the highest childhood asthma rates 
in the country. Rising temperatures increase smog levels. They heighten 
the effects of allergy season. All of those things imperil the health 
of vulnerable populations in New Hampshire, which is already the 
tailpipe. New England is the tailpipe of the central part of the 
country. So all of the pollution that is being created in the Midwest 
by those powerplants that are spewing out fossil fuels is coming on the 
air currents to New Hampshire and to New England.
  I am proud to say that Granite Staters have recognized the effects of 
climate change, and New Hampshire has been a leader in reducing 
pollution. We are one of nine Northeastern States that are part of the 
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. As a result, New Hampshire has 
already reduced its power sector carbon pollution by 49 percent since 
2008. Because of the initiative of the State and local communities, New 
Hampshire is on track to meet the Clean Power Plan's carbon reduction 
goals 10 years early. We are going to be there by 2020, rather than 
2030.
  In addition, New Hampshire is investing in clean energy, using 
proceeds from emissions permits sold at RGGI auctions. The Regional 
Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a cap-and-trade system that is working in 
the nine Northeastern States. In 2012, New Hampshire invested 94 
percent of those funds from the program in energy efficiency and 
renewable energy programs that directly benefit New Hampshire 
residents.
  I had a chance last week to visit the western part of the State and a 
town named Peterborough. Actually, ``Our Town,'' the play by Thornton 
Wilder, is written about Peterborough. They have built the largest 
solar array in New Hampshire, and they are using it to power their 
wastewater treatment. Selling excess power into the grid and reducing 
the town's other energy costs, they are saving between $25,000 and 
$50,000 a year.
  What is so exciting to me is that when this project came up at a town 
meeting for a vote, it passed unanimously. Yesterday I had a chance to 
visit Middleton, NH. I went to Lavalley/Middleton Lumber. It is a 
sawmill that produces pine boards for Diprizio Lumber. In 2006, they 
installed a very large wood-fired boiler. They are able to use the 
byproducts from the sawmill to fire the boiler, using combined heat and 
power. Not only are they able to heat their complex, but they are also 
able to provide the generation that they need for power to run the 
mills. As a result of this, they are saving $700,000 a year on their 
power bills.
  New Hampshire has shown that we can take advantage of moving to 
renewable energy sources. We can make smart energy choices that benefit 
the environment and yet strengthen our economy. Nationally, the Clean 
Power Plan is projected to cut carbon emissions by millions of tons per 
year and generate tens of billions of dollars a year in health and 
climate benefits.
  It is good for the economy. That is why 81 major companies, including 
four in New Hampshire, have signed a letter pledging to support new 
initiatives that may emerge from the global conference on climate 
change in Paris in December. America's Clean Power Plan is a powerful 
demonstration of our global leadership on climate change, and it will 
allow the United States to lead with credibility and authority at the 
Paris conference.

  We all know--or at least those people who are willing to acknowledge 
what the research shows--that climate change represents an enormous 
challenge, but solutions are within reach if we put in place policies 
that allow for action. We have a responsibility to help protect our 
children and our grandchildren from the severe consequences of global 
warming by taking action now. It is time to move forward with the Clean 
Power Plan without delay. It is time to stop short-circuiting efforts 
to reduce carbon pollution in this country.
  I urge my colleagues to stop standing in the way of this important 
effort to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Alabama be recognized to speak and that following his remarks, I 
be permitted to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Terrorist Attacks Against France and Syrian Refugees

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the terrorist attacks that rocked the city 
of Paris and the entire world on Friday, I believe we all agree, were 
horrific and unthinkable. The people of France stood by our side after 
the horrendous events of September 11, 2001, and the American people 
will stand by them during this tragic time. Cowardly and barbaric acts 
of violence against innocent civilians absolutely should not be 
tolerated anywhere in our society, and we must take any and all steps 
available to prevent a similar attack from occurring right here in the 
United States.
  Early reports from the terrorist attacks in Paris on Friday indicate 
that the refugee programs in Europe allowed at least one of the 
attackers to enter France. In light of these reports, the United States 
should take notice. We are now faced with an opportunity to make a 
commonsense, responsible decision that would put Americans at ease and 
put an end to the risk of radical Islamic terrorists infiltrating our 
Nation through the refugee resettlement program. I believe we simply 
cannot trust this administration to put in place the rigorous vetting 
system needed to ensure that the refugees who enter our Nation will not 
be future threats to our people in our own homeland. It is, without a 
doubt, in the best interest of the American people and our national 
security to immediately halt any plans to allow Syrian refugees to 
resettle in the United States.

[[Page S7990]]

  We know we live in an increasingly dangerous world, and I believe the 
Obama administration's lack of leadership on foreign policy has 
exacerbated the problem. We cannot continue to let President Obama's 
ill-conceived policies put Americans at risk. This administration is 
either asleep or out of touch with the danger lurking in the world.
  I ask the American people today: What is it going to take to wake up 
this administration? Will it take another horrific attack on our own 
soil and our own people?
  I believe it is more than time to put an end to relocating Syrian 
refugees in our country, and that is why I will work tirelessly with my 
colleagues in the Senate to reverse President Obama's extremely 
dangerous position that threatens the American people and our homeland.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on Friday we all watched in horror the 
tragic events that unfolded in the city of Paris. We saw radical 
Islamic terrorists brutally target innocent civilians in places that no 
one should feel unsafe--a soccer stadium, a concert hall, and a cafe. 
These attacks on our Nation's oldest ally have struck us here at home 
to our very core.
  We know what it is like to be attacked in our homeland, and therefore 
we know what the French people are going through. As we continue to 
keep the French people in our thoughts and prayers, we should do 
everything in our power to assist them. As the facts unfold and if, 
indeed, ISIS did plan and execute these attacks as they have claimed, 
then the United States and our allies have an obligation to join France 
in responding swiftly and forcefully.
  These attacks are a tragic reminder that the threat of ISIS stretches 
well beyond the Middle East. ISIS is not a JV team, nor have they been 
contained as the President of the United States has claimed. More than 
a year ago, I stood here on the Senate floor and said that we would not 
vote to give the President a blank check in Syria without a clear 
strategy with achievable objectives to defeat the terrorist threat. 
Nevertheless, over the course of this last year, the President has 
failed to come up with any sort of coherent strategy to deal with this 
threat. What we have seen and heard are speeches, interviews, and vague 
assurances that have attempted to distract the American public from the 
stark reality that the President's so-called strategy against ISIS is 
not achieving his stated objective of degrading and ultimately 
destroying ISIS. This whole idea that you can, through bombing attacks, 
defeat a threat like ISIS and, once the threat is cleared, hold that 
real estate or hold that land is just a pipe dream.
  The United States and our partners are facing a robust enemy of more 
than 20,000 core and foreign fighters that have continued to murder 
their way across Syria and Iraq, decimating populations there and 
elsewhere as their influence and power grows. Over the last year, the 
administration's paralysis over how to defeat this terrorist threat has 
plunged Syria deeper and deeper into violence and chaos. What started 
as a civil war in Syria back in 2011 has now cost the lives of roughly 
1 million Syrians. Millions of people have been internally displaced 
within Syria and outside of its borders into surrounding countries, 
such as Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and elsewhere, and now we are seeing 
that wave of refugees extend to Europe, and, indeed, some have now made 
their way to our shores.
  By allowing ISIS to take over such a large portion of territory, 
President Obama has neglected one of the key recommendations of the 9/
11 Commission, which advised the U.S. Government following that fateful 
day on September 11, 2001, to ``identify and prioritize actual or 
potential terrorist sanctuaries.'' Instead, the President has stood and 
watched like a spectator while this terrorist army, over the course of 
many months, has carved out its own safe haven right in the heart of 
the Middle East, and in doing so, has erased the border between Syria 
and Iraq where they control large swaths of territory.
  The capture of these swaths of territory and the spread of the 
violent, extremist ideology has not been the only consequence. The 
civil unrest in Syria has fueled the influx of nearly one-half million 
refugees who have flooded Eastern Europe and elsewhere.
  Under questioning in the House Committee on Homeland Security last 
month, FBI Director James Comey was asked about the security 
precautions the Federal Government was taking when screening refugees. 
Director Comey confirmed what many of us have feared, and that is if a 
Syrian refugee was not already known to law enforcement and 
intelligence officials, it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to 
vet that individual's background for potential terror ties to various 
terrorist groups. He explained it by saying: ``If someone has never 
made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their 
identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our 
database until the cows come home but . . . there will be nothing . . . 
because we will have no record on that person.''
  I am proud of our history of opening our doors to innocent people 
fleeing violence or religious persecution. That is part of who we are 
as a country. But following Friday's attack, we should pause our Syrian 
refugee program until we can be sure that the individuals are being 
fully vetted for potential terror ties so we can ensure the public 
safety of all Americans, which is our first responsibility. Compassion 
for those refugees is important, as I said, but protecting our homeland 
and keeping the American people safer is the first order of business. 
With the latest public threat from ISIS yesterday directed at us here 
in the United States, we must remain vigilant against the ongoing 
threat that may come from those already inside our country.
  The attack in Paris has drawn attention to the degree to which law 
enforcement and intelligence officials are able to track, surveil, and 
apprehend potential threats before they turn deadly, but with changing 
technology and damaging intelligence leaks, that is becoming 
increasingly challenging.
  In that same House hearing in October, the Director of the National 
Counterterrorism Center noted that potential homegrown threats were 
finding ways to communicate ``outside of our reach'' and therefore, off 
our radar.
  As law enforcement officials have noted, this includes the use of 
Internet service providers outside the United States as well as the 
increasingly widespread use of encryption capabilities and new 
technologies. Yet, as the threat of ISIS evolves and intensifies, the 
world is looking toward the United States as an example of strength. So 
I propose in the wake of this deadly attack that our administration and 
the Federal Government do three things.
  First, the President needs to hit the pause button on Syrian refugee 
resettlement until the Department of Homeland Security can verify with 
certainty that our processes are enhanced to ensure that applicants do 
not have ties to ISIS or any other terror groups.
  Secondly, the President needs to lay out a clear strategy for 
destroying perhaps the best resourced, best armed terrorist group on 
the planet. This is long overdue, and his failure to do so is one of 
the reasons we find ourselves where we are today. It is in the best 
interest of the Syrian people to stay in Syria if they can, but with 
circumstances being what they are, we can understand from a human 
perspective why they would seek a safe haven wherever they can find it. 
This refugee crisis is directly related to the President's failure to 
have any effective strategy to deal with the situation on the ground in 
Syria. It is destabilizing governments in the region, which have huge 
refugee populations and which have to deal with the economic and other 
challenges of dealing with that situation. It is important to see the 
refugee crisis--including the 10,000 Syrian refugees who appeared in 
New Orleans just this last week--is a result of a failure of any 
strategy to deal with this conflict in Syria.
  There are suggestions that have been made that I think bear some 
consideration, such as having safe zones and no-fly and no-drive zones 
enforced by the international community. Before I spoke, I believe the 
Senator from Indiana suggested maybe this would be an appropriate 
mission for NATO. Maybe so. We ought to talk about and reach some 
decisions about that.

[[Page S7991]]

  Finally, the President of the United States has the obligation to 
explain to the American people how he is going to defend our interests 
and keep our people safe here at home.
  As I said, one of the biggest threats is homegrown terrorists 
radicalized over social media and the Internet. Perhaps even more 
concerning to me than the threat of a potential attacker entering the 
United States is a self-radicalized attacker that is already here. This 
homegrown threat, I believe, poses a much more imminent danger to our 
people--a sad fact we learned the hard way at Fort Hood, TX, in 2009, 
and in Garland, TX, earlier this year.
  In conclusion, all indications from the White House are the President 
will not change a thing. He is going to stay the course in spite of the 
gathering risk and danger of terrorist attacks being exported or being 
incited within our own borders. Now, more than ever, the Nation needs 
the kind of strong leadership that is commensurate with the challenges 
we are facing. That is the kind of leadership that the American people 
expect and the kind of leadership that they deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wicker). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I will have more to say about the refugee 
crisis and the necessity of the considerable vetting of those refugees, 
as well as any other refugees, as we protect ourselves here at home. I 
will have more to say about that later.


            U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act

  Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of the Senate that 
last night the House passed a bill we modified--the U.S. Commercial 
Space Launch Competitiveness Act. It will now go to the President to be 
signed into law. This bill contains the language we helped to negotiate 
as a compromise between two different bills that had passed the House 
and the Senate earlier this year.
  This bipartisan legislation, which passed the Senate unanimously, is 
a major effort that recognizes the tremendous growth of the commercial 
space industry. It is an industry that now represents more than 75 
percent of the $330 billion global space economy--$330 billion. It is 
an industry here in the United States that will continue to grow as 
more companies enter into new and exciting space ventures, such as 
launching thousands of small satellites that will provide worldwide 
Internet access, such as recovering valuable resources from distant 
asteroids, and such as sending tourists on incredible journeys that one 
day may even include overnight stays in space hotels.
  These are the innovative kinds of commercial space activities this 
little country boy dreamed about years ago when I had the privilege of 
helping pass the first Commercial Space Launch Act way back in 1984. It 
is an industry where we are starting to see a resurgence of activity 
here in the United States. For example, just 10 years ago, there was 
only one American commercial space launch, compared at that time to 
eight launches from Russia and five from Europe. Last year there were 
11 American commercial launches, accounting for nearly half of the 
worldwide commercial launches and earning $1.1 billion in revenue--more 
than both Russia and Europe for the very first time. Much of this 
growth has been seeded by a commercial industry supporting the needs of 
our space program; in particular, the International Space Station. 
Folks just do not realize that we have an International Space Station 
up there right now that is as long as from one goalpost on a football 
field all the way to the other goalpost. That is how big this is. There 
are six human beings up there on orbit right now. Two American 
companies are now supplying the International Space Station with 
critical cargo and supplies, along with our international partners. 
Soon, U.S. companies will begin launching NASA astronauts and 
international partner astronauts to the space station.
  That is why this bill is so important. It paves the way for NASA to 
begin launching government astronauts on American-made commercial 
rockets so we do not have to depend on our crews getting to and from 
the space station just on the very proven and reliable Russian Soyuz.
  Commercial companies are also making great use of the space station 
for medical research, and one company is even 3D-printing tools right 
now on the space station. So the bill extends the operations of the 
International Space Station to provide certainty to industry and to the 
international community that the station will be around not just to 
2016, not just to 2020 but now, as we put it in the bill, at least to 
2024. I think we will see efforts later on that it will even be 
extended beyond 2024. It is fitting that I mention that because this 
month we are celebrating the 15th anniversary of continuous human 
presence aboard the ISS--15 years we have had humans up there on an 
around-the-clock basis.
  The commercial space sector is also revitalizing old government 
infrastructure such as the historic launch pads that lined Florida's 
space coast. It has been a privilege for me to spend some time there at 
the Cape and at the Kennedy Space Center. It is an amazing 
transformation of Cape Canaveral into a bustling space port, but I have 
seen how challenging it can be for commercial companies to get to do 
business out there on the Air Force territory.
  That is why this bill requires the FAA, NASA, and the Air Force to 
work together to reduce the administrative burden on industry operating 
on government property and to do that by streamlining the Federal 
launch requirements and processes.
  This bill is a major update to our commercial space legislation. It 
will encourage the growing commercial space industry for many years 
into the future--an industry of vital economic, scientific, and 
national security importance.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues who have 
worked with me on these resolutions to stop the EPA's destructive new 
regulations such as the new source performance standards. They are 
truly unrealistic and unreasonable and threaten our security and 
prosperity.
  I have always said we are all entitled to our opinion and our views, 
we are just not entitled to our own facts. As I go through this 
presentation, I will show my colleagues the facts that we will not be 
able to give us the energy we need if we go down this destructive path.
  The CRA resolution I have introduced with Senate Majority Leader 
Mitch McConnell will disapprove and stop the EPA's rule for emissions 
from new coal-fired powerplants. I thank my colleague from West 
Virginia Senator Capito and the Senator from North Dakota Senator 
Heitkamp for joining me in this fight by introducing a separate 
resolution to disapprove the EPA's rule for emissions from existing 
coal-fired powerplants. It is time for Congress to step in and stop 
these rules from harming not only hard-working West Virginians but the 
American consumer. I am pleased these measures are being brought to the 
floor for a vote today.
  Never before has the Federal Government forced an industry to do 
something that is technologically impossible--until now. I have always 
said that if a regulation is not obtainable, it is unreasonable, and 
that is the fact we have in front of us.
  The EPA has based its final rule for new coal-fired powerplants in 
the United States largely on a still-developing powerplant unit in 
Canada, which is called the Boundary Dam CCS Project. The EPA asserted 
in the final rule that the Boundary Dam facility has been operating 
full carbon capture sequestration successfully at a commercial scale 
since October 2014. That is found to be totally untrue. Canadian press 
reports have recently disclosed that the Boundary Dam project has 
failed to operate successfully at full CCS for any meaningful period of 
time.
  The reports also identify the CCS system of the demonstration plant 
as being a key issue in the delays for getting the plant up and 
running. After 1 year of operation, the project was forced to replace 
certain important features at a cost of $60 million. There have always 
been nearly $23 million in nonperformance penalties and lost revenues.
  The plant's management company, which is SaskPower, has acknowledged 
these recent reports and are now pushing back the project's operational 
date to the end of 2016, but there are no guarantees this will prove 
true either.

[[Page S7992]]

SaskPower is also claiming that the project will need at least a year 
of stable operation to prove the technical operation and the economics 
of the project, which would aid in determining commercial viability. 
SaskPower has announced it will not be able to make an informed 
decision about carbon capture sequestration until 2018. Yet the EPA 
here in the United States of America is demanding that all U.S. coal-
fired generation industry implement this technology now. That is what I 
have said all along: If it is not obtainable, which it has not been--we 
have not spent the money trying to develop this technology, and it 
hasn't worked--shouldn't we at least make sure it works before we force 
a complete overhaul of the system or people to meet standards that are 
unobtainable.
  These recent revelations prove that CCS is still technically unproven 
and still potentially damaging in a powerplant application. Therefore, 
it is foolish for this administration to require it now for new U.S. 
coal plants.
  Last week I wrote a letter to Administrator McCarthy about these 
reports because forcing coal to meet standards when experts know that 
the required technology is not adequately demonstrated on a commercial 
scale makes absolutely no sense at all. Instead, I believe the EPA 
should scrap this impossible-to-meet rule or amend it to require 
advanced technology that has actually been implemented which would 
offer improved environmental performance and is commercially viable.
  For the administration, this rule is more about desirability rather 
than feasibility, with little regard for rising consumer prices, the 
effects on jobs, and the impact on the reliability of our electric 
grid.
  This administration thinks the country can do without coal. I will 
simply tell my colleagues this: They are in total denial. They might 
not like it, they might not want it, but it is built into the plan for 
the next 20 to 30 years. They have flat out ignored their own data that 
says that coal will produce more than 30 percent of our electricity 
through 2040.
  It is completely contradictory that the EPA continues to impose 
unreasonable and unattainable rules in an attempt to regulate coal into 
extinction. The people who suffer are hard-working West Virginians and 
consumers across this great country. If these regulations go into 
effect, no new coal plants could begin new operations, more Americans 
would lose their jobs, and economic uncertainty would grow.
  The Nation's coal-fired powerplants currently have an average age of 
45 years, the average age of all coal plants in America today, which 
produce close to 40 percent of our power. Many will need to be replaced 
in the near future, and regulations that prohibit building new coal-
fired powerplants can soon become a serious issue for the Nation's 
electricity grid and the reliability we all depend upon.
  Although the Energy Information Administration--the EIA--within the 
Department of Energy still projects 37 percent of electricity 
generation will come from coal in 2040--I remind you, this 
administration that has put together rules that are unattainable and 
unreasonable is saying they are still going to need 37 percent of the 
electricity this country will need by 2040 from coal. The currently 
operating plants, without new additions, will average 65 years of age 
by that time. If nothing is done, these plants are averaging 65 years 
of age to produce the type of power this country needs. The history of 
coal plant operations already tells us coal plants at that age will not 
achieve the levels of hours of reliable operation required to meet the 
2040 forecast.

  The coal industry must be allowed to add the new coal-fired 
powerplant additions, such as the ultra-supercritical, which we know is 
technology that works. We know it works, but this is not the direction 
they are going. They are putting something that is unattainable in 
place. That is why we need to block this plan, the Clean Power Plan, 
that the President has brought before us because it cannot be attained 
and we are going to be in a deficit.
  There is no doubt this President's agenda has already had a crushing 
impact on my State of West Virginia and other energy States around the 
country. We have to say enough is enough. In West Virginia we want 
clean air, we want clean water, and we are doing everything humanly 
possible. We have cleaned up the environment more in the last two 
decades than ever before.
  If you look around the world, there is more coal being burned than 
has ever been burned before. The United States burns less than 1 
billion tons of coal a year. Over 7 billion tons of coal are being 
burned elsewhere in the world, with 4 billion tons being burned just in 
China. I would venture to say nobody is meeting the standards that we 
are required to here for the technology that is going to be needed to 
be attained.
  I will continue to explore all available options to prevent these 
unattainable regulations from impacting the State of West Virginia and 
the United States.
  I would ask the President--this administration--to work with us to 
find and develop the technology that would allow us to use a product 
that we have in abundance in this country--which is coal--in the 
cleanest fashion. We can then export that technology around the world 
to clean up the overall environment and to help the environment around 
the globe.
  Right now Congress needs to move forward to stop these rules that are 
crippling our energy production, jeopardizing the energy grid, and 
putting our workers out of good-paying jobs. I urge all my colleagues 
to support these resolutions that are put forward today when we vote.
  Thank you.

                          ____________________