[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 169 (Tuesday, November 17, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7992-S8012]
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--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate as in morning business and that I be allowed to speak without a
time limit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
ISIL
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it has been more than 1 year since
President Obama spoke to the Nation about the threat posed by ISIL and
escalated U.S. military operations against it. The goal at that time,
the President said, was to degrade and destroy ISIL. One year ago, the
goal was to degrade and destroy ISIL. It is impossible to look at where
we are today and claim that the President's strategy is succeeding or
that it is likely to succeed on anything approaching an acceptable
timetable and level of risk.
No one should take this as a criticism of the men and women in
uniform, as well as their civilian counterparts in the field, who are
doing the best they can under the strategic and operational constraints
they face, especially in the face of the White House's desire to
revisit the Vietnam war tactics and to micromanage the military's
campaign.
It is not that we have done nothing against ISIL; it is that there is
no compelling reason to believe anything we are doing will be
sufficient to destroy ISIL. Thousands of airstrikes against ISIL's
targets have conjured the illusion of progress, but they have produced
little in the way of decisive battlefield effects.
I noted with some interest that we provided some targeting for the
French, who carried out airstrikes. I wonder why we hadn't done any of
that in the last year.
ISIL continues to dominate Sunni Arab areas in the world, in both
Iraq and Syria, and efforts to reclaim major population centers in
those areas, such as Mosul, have stalled, to say the least. Meanwhile,
ISIL continues to expand globally. It is now operating in Afghanistan,
Yemen, Libya, Lebanon, and Egypt, and other radical Islamist groups,
such as Boko Haram in Nigeria and al-Shabaab in Somalia, have pledged
allegiance to ISIL. This appearance of success only enhances
[[Page S7993]]
ISIL's ability to radicalize, recruit, and grow.
In the past month, ISIL has commenced a new stage in its war on the
civilized world by unleashing a wave of terrorist attacks around the
globe. In Ankara, ISIL detonated two bombs outside a train station,
killing 102 people and injuring over 400 more. In the skies over Egypt,
ISIL destroyed a Russian civilian airliner with a bomb that killed all
224 passengers aboard. In Beirut, ISIL conducted 2 suicide bombings
that killed 43 people and injured 239 more. In Baghdad, ISIL bombs
killed 26 people and wounded more than 60 others. Finally, in the
streets of Paris last week, as we all know, gunmen wearing suicide
belts attacked innocent civilians at restaurants, bars, a soccer
stadium, and a concert hall, killing at least 129 and wounding 352
other people.
The American people have experienced this kind of terror before, and
we stand together with the people of Turkey, Russia, Lebanon, Iraq,
France, and nearly 20 other nations whose citizens were murdered by
these brutal atrocity committers. These attacks reveal nothing new
about ISIL's character. ISIL is the face of evil in our world today. It
has crucified its enemies, beheaded innocent journalists, burned a
Muslim pilot alive in a cage, and it has condemned women and children
and girls to slavery and torture and unspeakable sexual abuse. And when
waging war on the living has failed to satisfy its savagery, ISIL has
desecrated and destroyed many of the monuments to civilization that
remain across the Middle East.
ISIL's latest attacks also reveal nothing new about its intentions.
Everything that ISIL is doing is what their leaders have long said they
would do. They have stated their aims explicitly and clearly. All we
have to do is listen to their words. Indeed, as one author put it, ISIL
has ``toiled mightily to make their projects knowable.''
What these attacks have demonstrated and what now should be clear is
that ISIL is at war with us whether or not we admit we are at war with
them. What should now be clear is that ISIL is determined to attack the
heart of the civilized world--Europe and the United States--that it has
the intent to attack us, the capabilities to attack us, and the
sanctuary from which to plan those attacks. What should now be clear is
that our people and our allies will not be safe until ISIL is
destroyed--not just degraded but destroyed, and not eventually but as
soon as possible.
Unfortunately--unfortunately-- almost tragically, President Obama
remains as ideologically committed as ever to staying the course he is
on and impervious to new information that would suggest otherwise, as
he made quite clear during his incredible press conference yesterday in
Turkey. According to the President of the United States, anyone who
disagrees with him is ``popping off''--popping off.
I guess Michael Morell, former Deputy Secretary of the CIA, was just
``popping off'' when he said recently that ``the downing of the Russian
airliner, only the third such attack in 25 years, and the attacks in
Paris, the largest in Europe since the Madrid bombings in 2004, make it
crystal clear that our ISIS strategy is not working.'' That comes from
Michael Morell, the former deputy head of the CIA under this President.
I guess Senator Dianne Feinstein, vice chair of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, was just ``popping off'' when she said that
``ISIL is not contained, ISIL is expanding'' and that we need new
military strategy and tactics.
I guess GEN Jack Keane, one of my heroes and architect of the
successful surge strategy in Iraq, was just ``popping off'' when he
said, ``We are, in fact, losing this war. Moreover, I can say with
certainty that this strategy will not defeat ISIS.'' This strategy will
not defeat ISIS. That comes from the author of the surge which
succeeded, which the President, by withdrawing all troops, allowed to
go completely to waste, and the lives of brave young Americans were
wasted.
I guess Hillary Clinton, the President's former Secretary of State
and desired successor, was just ``popping off'' when she declared her
support for a no-fly zone in Syria to ``stop the carnage on the ground
and from the air.''
I guess GEN David Petraeus was just ``popping off'' when he testified
to the Committee on Armed Services that the President's strategy has
failed to create the military conditions to end the conflict in Syria
and that ISIL will not be defeated until we do so.
I guess James Jeffrey, a career foreign officer and the President's
Ambassador to Iraq, was just ``popping off'' when he wrote in the
Washington Post today that the President needs to send thousands of
ground troops to destroy ISIL.
What all of these national security leaders recognize is the reality
that is staring us right in the face. It is the President who is once
again failing to grasp it. He fails to understand even now that wars
don't end just because he says they are over, that our terrorist
enemies are not defeated just because he says they are, that the threat
posed by ISIL is not contained because he desires it to be so, and that
maybe, just maybe, the growing group of his bipartisan critics might
just be right. And why won't he listen to them? Why won't he listen to
these people of experience and knowledge and background? Whom does he
listen to? Whom does the President listen to? He couldn't be listening
to anybody knowledgeable and then make the comments he made at that
press conference.
The President has had to go back on everything he said he would not
do to combat the threats now emanating from Syria and Iraq. He said he
would not arm moderate Syrian rebels because that would militarize the
conflict. He was wrong. He said he would not intervene militarily in
Iraq or Syria. He was wrong. He said he would not put boots on the
ground in Syria. He was wrong. Now he says that his strategy is
working, that all it needs is time, and that no further changes are
required despite ISIL's campaign of terror. Now, get this straight.
After the bombing in Paris, after the Russian airliner, after the other
acts of terror, he needs time--he needs time--and no further changes
are required. Does anybody believe him anymore?
What the President has failed to understand for nearly 5 years is
that unless and until he leads an international effort to end the
conflict in Syria and Iraq, the costs of this conflict will continue to
mount. Those consequences have grown steadily, from mass atrocities and
hundreds of thousands of dead in Syria, to the repeated use of weapons
of mass destruction, to the rise of the world's largest terrorist army
and its rampage across Syria and Iraq, to destabilizing refugee flows
that have shaken the stability of Syria's neighbors and are now
potentially changing the character of European society. Now we see the
latest manifestation of this threat: global terrorist attacks directed
and inspired by ISIL that killed hundreds around the world.
The Paris attacks, obviously, should be a wake-up call for all
Americans, most of all for the President. If we stay the course, if we
don't change our strategy now, we will be attacked. I don't know where,
when, or how, but it will happen. Do we need to wait for more innocent
people to die before we address the reality that is right before us?
ISIL has said it intends to attack Washington, DC. Do we not take them
at their word? Do we think they are not capable of it? Do we think time
is on our side? It is not. Time is not on our side.
The lesson of the September 11 attack was that mass murderers cannot
be permitted safe havens. They cannot be permitted safe havens from
which to plot our destruction. Do we really have to pay that price
again through the blood of our citizens?
For nearly 5 years, we have been told there is no military solution
to the conflict in Syria and Iraq, as if anyone believes there is. In
fact, one of the things that is most frustrating about the President's
rhetoric is that he sets up straw men. He says we either should do
nothing or the Republicans or critics--now Democrats as well--are
wanting to send in 100,000 troops. We do not. We do not. We believe and
I am convinced that we can send in a force composed of Sunni Arabs, of
Egyptians, of Turks, and Americans--about 10,000--establish the no-fly
zone, allow the refugees a sanctuary, and make sure that no barrel
bombing will be allowed in those areas. We can succeed. ISIS is not
invincible. The United States of America and our allies are far
stronger. We are the strongest Nation on Earth.
[[Page S7994]]
To say we can't defeat ISIL--it is a matter of will, not a matter of
whether or not it is a capability.
So I say to my colleagues and the American people, we can defeat ISIS
and we can wipe them off the face of the Earth, but we have to have a
strategy, and this President has never had a strategy.
For nearly 5 years we have been told that there is no military
solution; that there are no good options; that our influence is
limited, as if that is not always the case; that we won't succeed
overnight, as if our problem is one of time, not policy; and that we
can't solve every problem in the Middle East, as if that absolves us of
our responsibility to make the situation better where we can. This
isn't a question of our capacity, our capabilities, or our options. We
have always had options to address this growing threat. But the longer
we wait, the difficulty and risk and cost increase.
Four years ago, Lindsey Graham and I came to this floor and said: We
need to have a no-fly zone and we need to arm and train the Free Syrian
Army, once Bashar al-Assad crossed the redline. We could have done it
then, and it would have been one heck of a lot easier. But this
President didn't want to do it, and we are faced with a more complex
situation. Tens of thousands or a couple hundred thousand Syrians dead
and millions of refugees later, the President of the United States
still won't act. He still believes, as he stated in his press
conference yesterday, that, somehow, everything is going fine--what
delusion.
After the attack on France, article 5 of NATO's founding treaty
should be invoked, which states that an attack on one is an attack on
all. That is what we did after 9/11. The United States should work with
our NATO allies and our Arab partners to assemble a coalition that will
take the fight to ISIL from the air and on the ground. My friends, air
attacks only will not succeed. It will not succeed. I am sorry to tell
you. I apologize ahead of time. We need boots on the ground--not
100,000 but about 10,000, with the capabilities that are unique to
American service men and women. We can defeat ISIL.
We have to step up the air campaign by easing overly restrictive
rules of engagement. At the same time, we have to recognize that ISIL
will only be defeated by ground combat forces. Those don't exist today.
We must recognize that our indirect efforts to support our partners on
the ground--the Iraqi Security Forces, the moderate Syrian opposition
force, the Kurdish Peshmerga, and the Sunni tribal forces--are
insufficient to outpace the growing threat we face.
As I mentioned, the United States must therefore work to assemble a
coalition and ground force with a commitment on the order of 10,000
U.S. troops.
In Syria, we must hasten the end of the civil war. We must accept
that Russia and Iran are not interested in a negotiated solution that
favors U.S. interests. Russia and Iran have entirely different goals
than the United States of America in Syria. Russia wants to keep Bashar
Assad or his stooge in power, they want to keep their major influence
in the region, and they want to protect their base there. The United
States of America has none of those interests. They want to prop up the
guy who has killed 240,000.
I appreciate the outpouring of concern of all my colleagues and all
Americans about these refugees. The refugees are the result of a
failure of Presidential and American leadership. They are not the cause
of it. The cause of these hundreds of thousands or millions of refugees
is because our policy failed. Bashar al-Assad slaughtered them with
barrel bombs, and we are now faced with the threat, in some respects,
of a possibility that one or more of these refugees, having gone
through Greece, now are or possibly could be--as the Director of the
CIA said yesterday--in ongoing operations to try to orchestrate attacks
on America.
It is often said that America doesn't go abroad in search of monsters
to destroy. But that doesn't mean there are no monsters in the world
that seek to destroy us. The longer we wait to accept this reality, the
greater is the cost we will pay.
One of my great heroes and role models, as is the case with many of
our colleagues, is Winston Churchill. I would never compare myself to
Winston Churchill in any possible way, except that I do sometimes have
empathy with Winston Churchill, who, during the 1930s, came to the
floor of the Parliament and made comments and speeches that were very,
very moving, but no one paid any attention to him. In fact, he was
ridiculed. In fact, Lindsey Graham and I have been ridiculed from time
to time because of our assessment of the situation and what needed to
be done.
Winston Churchill, after the crisis had been resolved to some degree
and the people of Britain and the world had awakened, said--and there
is a parallel between the situation 4 years ago and what Winston
Churchill had to say:
When the situation was manageable, it was neglected, and
now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the
remedies which then might have effected a cure. There is
nothing new in the story. It is as old as the Sibylline
Books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the
fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability
of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when
action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking,
confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-
preservation strikes its jarring gong--these are the features
which constitute the endless repetition of history.
I say to my colleagues, we are observing the endless repetition of
history--what once upon a time was a manageable situation. When the
President of the United States said that it is not a matter of when
Bashar al-Assad leaves but it is a matter of when, when the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and then-Secretary of Defense testified
before our committee that it is inevitable that Bashar Assad will go,
when the President of the United States continuously said time after
time that we have a strategy and it is not anything to worry about,
when we get out of Iraq and we draw redlines in Syria and don't do it,
when we don't take any action after the redline is crossed, when his
national security team, composed of Secretary of State Clinton,
Secretary of Defense Panetta, and then-Director of CIA David Petraeus
all recommended training and arming the Free Syrian Army, he rejected
it.
So now we find ourselves with 240 thousand dead in Syria and more
Syrian children in school in Lebanon than Lebanese children. Jordan,
one of our best friends, has their very fabric threatened and unstable
because of the huge number of refugees. We find a very unstable Middle
East, and we find ISIL spread now to Libya, Lebanon, Yemen, and other
nations. ISIL has now even established a foothold in Afghanistan, and
the Iranians are doing the same.
It is not too late. It is not too late. We have to take up arms. We
have to tell the American people what is at stake here. We have to
inform the American people that what happened in Paris can happen here.
Mr. Baghdadi, who was once in our prison camp at Camp Bucca for 4 years
in Iraq, when he left said: ``I'll see you guys in New York.'' He was
not kidding. There is no doubt that what ISIL has just proved is that
contrary to what this President believed, contrary even to what our
intelligence told us, they have a reach. They have had a reach to make
sure that a Russian airliner was destroyed. They have a reach to Paris.
They have a reach to Beirut. They have a reach in northern Africa and
other places in the world. There is no reason why we should not suspect
that they have a reach to the United States of America. It is time we
acted. It is time the United States of America, acting with our allies,
takes out ISIL. We must go both to Iraq and to Syria and take them out.
Their total defeat is the only thing that will eliminate this threat to
the United States of America.
Yes, after they are destroyed there is a lot to do. Yes, there are
things such as building economies and free societies and all of that.
But there is only one thing that Mr. Baghdadi and his legions
understand, and that is that we kill them and that we counter with
everything we can this spread of this perverted form of an honorable
religion called Islam. This is radical Islamic terrorism, whether the
President ever wants to say it or not.
There is one additional point. The refugees are a huge problem.
Obviously, we have to pause until we are sure that nobody is doing
exactly
[[Page S7995]]
what--apparently, at least--one of the terrorists who attacked Paris
did, and that is, to go through Greece and into France. But at the same
time, we need to understand that the refugee problem is an effect of a
failed policy, not the cause of it.
Finally, I would say the President should do two things: One, call
together the smartest people that we know. I named some of them:
General Petraeus, General Keane. There are a number of people. There is
General Maddox, General Kelly, Bob Kagan. The names are familiar to
many of us who follow national security. These people are the ones who
made the surge succeed. Call them together over at the White House and
say: Give me your advice. He must do that. What he has been listening
to and what he is doing is failing.
I know that my friend and partner, Lindsey Graham, knows more about
these issues than any other Member of this body--certainly anybody who
is running for President of the United States. We will go over. We
would be glad to go over and sit with the President. I want to
cooperate with him. I want to work with him. We need to do that. I
offer up my services and my advice and counsel, and anybody else on
this side of the aisle.
This is a threat to the lives of the men and women who are living in
this Nation. They deserve our protection, and they deserve a bipartisan
approach and a bipartisan action in order to stop that.
So I stand ready. But right now, I have not been more concerned.
I leave my colleagues with two fundamental facts:
No. 1, there are now more refugees in the world than at any time
since the end of World War II. No. 2, there are now more crises in the
world than at any time since the end of World War II. We cannot sustain
the failed policies that have led us to the situation that America and
the world are in today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Authorization For Use of Military Force Against ISIL
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, over the weekend France suffered the worst
attack that it has seen since World War II. The day before that, Beirut
was rocked by two suicide bombs perpetrated by ISIL that killed more
than 40 civilians. We just had confirmation that the Russian plane
flying over Sinai was taken down by a terrorist bomb. Again, ISIL has
claimed credit. These attacks have followed on the heels of an
announcement 2 weeks earlier by the President that he has authorized
deployment of up to 50 Special Forces in Syria. They will be there to
support U.S.-backed Syrian rebels in the campaign against ISIL.
More than 1 year after the announcement of Operation Inherent
Resolve, a mission to ``degrade and ultimately defeat'' ISIL, this
conflict has escalated dramatically. The facts on the ground in the
Middle East have changed dramatically. Russia is intervening militarily
on behalf of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians
left their homes and their country to escape ISIL and Assad,
precipitating a massive humanitarian crisis that has brought the
European Union under great strain.
In addition to the deployment of U.S. Special Forces in Syria, news
reports indicate that the United States will increase supplies and
military weapons to U.S.-backed Syrian rebels fighting ISIL.
For all the changes that we have seen over the past year, one thing
has not changed: The Congress of the United States has not voted to
authorize the use of military force against ISIL. That needs to change.
That is why I have come to the floor today. The Senator from Virginia,
Mr. Kaine, who will speak in a moment, has come as well. We need an
authorization for the use of military force.
The President maintains that the legal underpinnings of his
authorization come from an AUMF provided to our previous President in
the 107th Congress, back in 2001. The 2001 AUMF allowed the President
the authority to use ``all necessary and appropriate force'' against
those he determined ``planned, authorized, committed, or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
organizations or persons.''
More than 10 years later, two provisions of the massive Fiscal Year
2012 National Defense Authorization Act expanded the 2001 AUMF to
include ``associated forces'' of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This is the
expansion from which the administration derives its authority for
today's actions to go after the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
I am not standing here today to debate the merits of the
administration's argument as to whether they have the legal authority.
That is not what is at issue right here. What is at issue is the ease
with which Congress happily defers to old statutes and abdicates its
authority to weigh in on what history will record as a long, complex,
brutal conflict. This conflict has been going on for more than a year
with very mixed results, and the consequences will change the
geopolitical landscape in that region for decades.
Ten American servicemembers have died supporting Operation Inherent
Resolve--one of them recently killed in action. Five others have been
wounded. With thousands of servicemembers in support of Operation
Inherent Resolve and attacks happening all over the world, the notion
that a 14-year-old statute aimed at another enemy is any kind of a
substitute for congressional authorization is insufficient. Operation
Inherent Resolve warrants its own authorization not just because of its
size and duration, because Americans are dying in pursuit of it, or
because it is directed at an enemy that is a threat to our security;
this mission warrants its own authorization because we want it to
succeed. We want the world to know that the United States speaks with
one voice.
Nearly a year ago, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee pressed the
administration to come forward with a draft AUMF against ISIL. When it
did not do so, the committee proceeded with its own AUMF, which spurred
the administration to take action. Two months after that exercise, the
administration sent up its own draft AUMF. That was more than 8 months
ago. But efforts to produce an AUMF here in Congress have since
stalled. In an effort to break the gridlock, as I mentioned, the
Senator from Virginia, Mr. Kaine, and I introduced a resolution that we
think represents a good compromise. It may not be perfect. It may
represent only a starting point. But we need a starting point here, and
we need to move forward. This issue is far too important not to try to
get an agreement to move ahead.
I urge my colleagues to consider the importance of this operation
against ISIL and the implications to foreign policies for many years
ahead--specifically, the implications to this body, the Congress of the
United States and the U.S. Senate. If we are not even willing to weigh
in and authorize the use of force here, what does that say to our
adversaries? What does that say to our allies? What does that say to
the troops who are fighting on our behalf? How much longer can we go
without an authorization for the use of force?
I wish to yield time to my colleague, the Senator from Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arizona for
working so closely. This does not have to be a partisan issue. In fact,
it should not be a partisan issue. My sense is that in this Congress,
in both Houses, 80-plus percent of the Members believe strongly that
the United States should be engaged in military action under some
circumstances against this horrible threat of ISIL. Yet, despite that
overwhelming consensus and despite the clear constitutional command in
article I that we should not be at war without a vote of Congress,
there has been a strange conspiracy of silence about this in the
legislative branch for the last 16 months.
The Senator from Arizona and I introduced a resolution in January to
authorize military force, building upon previous efforts in the Foreign
Relations Committee, the President's submitted authorization. We did it
knowing that it is not perfect, knowing that not everyone would agree
with every word, but we did it to show that we can be bipartisan and
stand up against a threat such as ISIL.
As the Senator did, let's review what has happened since August 8,
2014. The President on that day started airstrikes against ISIL and
said he was
[[Page S7996]]
doing it for two reasons: first, to protect American personnel who were
jeopardized at a consulate in Erbil, and second, to provide
humanitarian support for members of a minority religious sect, the
Yazidis, who were basically being hemmed in by ISIL in Sinjar in
northern Iraq. Those were the two reasons.
At that point in August of 2014, ISIL and their activities were
limited to Iraq and Syria. Sixteen months later, we have lost four
American hostages who have been executed by ISIL. We have lost 10
American service men and women who were deployed to that theater. We
have about 3,600 American troops who are deployed thousands of miles
from home, risking their lives every day. We have spent $5 billion--$11
million a day--in the battle against ISIL. We have flown nearly 6,300
airstrikes with American aircraft against ISIL--ISIL, which was at
first limited to Iraq and Syria and now has presence in Afghanistan,
Libya, Yemen, and Somalia. They have undertaken attacks that they claim
credit for in the Sinai in Egypt and in Lebanon.
This threat is mutating and growing. At the end of last week, on
Friday the 13th, we saw the horror of ISIL with the grim assassination
of innocents as they were enjoying dinner or going to music concerts or
watching soccer games in Paris. ISIL put out a video a few days ago
threatening similar attacks on Washington. ISIL is not going away. This
is a threat.
The President started military action for a narrow and limited
reason, but the threat has mutated. Like a cancer, it has grown, and it
is now affecting nations all over the world. The question is, How long
will Congress continue to be silent about this? I will say that I think
this is a malady you can lay at the feet of both parties in both
Houses. Congress has seemed to prefer a strategy of criticizing what
the President is doing. And look, I am critical of some of the things
the President is doing. In an earlier speech, the senior Senator from
Arizona laid out some challenges with this strategy. But it is not
enough for this body that has a constitutional authority in matters of
war to just criticize the Commander in Chief. What we have done is sat
on the sidelines and criticized, but we have not been willing either to
vote to authorize what is going on, vote to stop what is going on, or
vote to refine or revise what is going on. It is easy to be a critic.
It is easy to sit in the stands and watch a play and say: Well, why
didn't the coach call a different play? But we are not fans here, We
are the owners of the team. We are the article I branch, and we are not
supposed to be at war without a vote of Congress.
I will hand it back to my colleague from Arizona, and then perhaps I
can say a few concluding words that would be more about the kind of
emotional rather than the legal side of this as we are thinking about
the challenges in Paris.
I think the events of last week--Egypt, Beirut, Paris--demonstrate
that the voice of Congress is needed. The voice of Congress is needed
to fulfill our article I responsibility. The voice of Congress is
needed, as the Senator from Arizona mentioned, because we send a
message by our voice to our allies, to the adversary, and to our
troops. The voice of Congress is also needed because it has the effect
of solving some of the problems Senator McCain mentioned earlier. To
the extent that the administration's strategy is not what we would want
it to be, they have to present a strategy to Congress. We ask tough
questions of the witnesses, and we refine it and it gets better. We do
that all in the view of the American public so they can be educated
about what is at stake. When you don't have the debate, you don't put
before the American public the reasons for the involvement, and that is
desperately needed.
With that, I thank my colleague from Arizona. I would like to say a
few words at the end about why this is a matter of emotional
significance to me.
I now defer to my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Virginia.
Let me say that we both mentioned the importance of the message that
needs to be sent from the U.S. Congress, the article I branch, the
message to our troops who are fighting on our behalf and the message to
our adversaries. They need to know that we are resolved, that we speak
with one voice.
Let me talk for a second about the message to our allies. An
authorization for use of force will dictate and will set the parameters
for that use of force. Our allies need to know if we are all in or
whether there are certain limitations. If we decide--if the Congress
decides there are certain limitations to that use of force, our allies
need to know that. They need to know their role and what they are
required to do. That will be useful. If there are limitations, we need
to spell them out. If there aren't, we need to let our adversaries know
that as well.
But whatever the case, we need to debate this. We need to authorize
this use of force. We have waited long enough. Frankly, we have waited
far too long. We have asked the President for language. The President
sent up language. I think that it is lacking in a few areas. I like
some parts of it. But it needs to be debated here. If we asked the
President for that language, then we need to take it up and actually do
something with it. It is our responsibility. We are the article I
branch. We are the branch that is supposed to declare war. We need to
do that here.
Again, I invite my colleague from Virginia to close. I thank the
President and say that it is time--it is well past time that we move on
this. Hopefully the events of the past couple of weeks--the attacks
that happened in Paris, the bombing of a plane, the other suicide
bombings that have occurred--our commitment of new resources will
convince us all that it is time to act here in Congress.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for
joining together in this important area.
I had a sad epiphany on Friday as I was thinking about this. I think
Senator Flake and I have children who are about the same age. I was
thinking about young people--looking at our pages here, thinking about
young people. Like many, when the attacks happened Friday, my first
thoughts were, whom do I know in Paris? A lot of folks have relatives
or have family or coworkers or former coworkers who were in Paris.
Like a lot of people, I got on the phone and I got on text to try to
track down my niece. I have a niece who is a student at law school, a
third-year law student. She is in Paris for a semester studying at the
Sciences PO. She was in the restaurant area where the shootings
occurred so close that she could hear them. She was not immediately
affected, but she and her friends had to barricade themselves in the
restaurant for a while, wondering what was going on.
We were able to determine that Elizabeth was fine. She assured all
the family and the people who wanted to send her a plane ticket to come
home that, no, she was fine. But over the weekend I started to think
about how fine she really is, how fine our young people really are.
Elizabeth was a Peace Corps volunteer in Cameroon a few years ago.
After she came home, the village she lived in was essentially wiped out
by Boko Haram. The next door neighbor, who was her protector and the
protector of all the Peace Corps volunteers who came before, was
killed, along with a lot of her other friends. Boko Haram has now
pledged allegiance to ISIL.
She had the experience of losing friends in a terrorist attack in
Cameroon, and now she has had the experience of being near a terrorist
attack in Paris. It started to work on my conscience a little bit that
this for her is now a norm. For me, at age 57, these events are not the
norm. They are the extreme. But for Elizabeth or for my children--I
have three kids, one in the military, and they all came of age after 9/
11--we are living in a world that for so many of our young people, the
norm is not peace and safety and complacency; the norm is war or
terrorist attacks all over the globe. If that can be said about
America's young people, it is certainly the case for young people in
France and young people in Syria and all over the region.
I hate that we are living in a world where young people are starting
to think this is the norm rather than the exception. It seems to me as
an adult, as somebody in a leadership position,
[[Page S7997]]
that a part of what we need to do is rather than just allow us to drift
without taking a position into the world where this is more and more
normal, while acknowledging that we are humble people and we can't
completely control our destiny, we have to take charge of a situation
and not stand by and lob in criticism but try to shape it to the best
of our ability. I think that was the genius of the drafters of the
Constitution.
James Madison, a Virginian who drafted many of these provisions, was
trying to do something incredibly radical. At the time, war was for the
King or the Monarch or the Emperor, and Madison and the others who
drafted the American Constitution, said: We are going to take that
power to initiate war away from the Executive. Nobody else has really
done this, and we are going to put the power in the hands of the
people's elected representatives so that they will debate and soberly
analyze when you should take that step of authorizing military action
where, even under the best of circumstances, horrible things can happen
and people can lose their lives.
Well, we have allowed this war to go on long enough without putting a
congressional fingerprint on it. For our young people, for our troops,
for our allies, and for our adversaries, it is my prayer that we in
Congress will now take up that leadership mantle and try to shape this
mutating and growing threat to the greatest degree we can.
With that, I yield the floor and again thank my colleague from
Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from Montana.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, the Obama administration's war on energy
isn't just a war on coal, it is a war on American jobs, American
families, and our national security. That is why it is no surprise that
the President's anti-energy agenda is gaining opposition from both
sides of the aisle. I am thankful for the bipartisan leadership
demonstrated by leader McConnell, Senator Capito, two Republicans, as
well as Senator Manchin, Senator Heitkamp, two Democrats, in standing
up against the President's harmful regulations on our Nation's coal-
fired plants. I am proud to have joined them as a cosponsor of the two
bipartisan resolutions to stop the EPA from imposing its anti-coal
regulations.
The Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval we are
considering today will block the Obama administration's regulations on
existing coal-fired plants. We are also seeing strong opposition from
more than half of the States in the country, including my home State of
Montana, which through three different lawsuits have requested an
initial stay on the rule.
The Obama administration's reckless agenda is shutting down coal-
fired powerplants across the United States. It is killing family waged
jobs for union workers and for tribal members in Montana, and it is
stifling investments that could lead to innovations to make coal even
cleaner here in the United States. President Obama calls it the Clean
Power Plan. It is not named correctly. It should be called the
unaffordable energy plan. President Obama's unaffordable energy plan
will have a negligible impact on global coal demand and global
emissions, but it will lead to devastating consequences for affordable
energy and these good-paying union and tribal jobs.
Here are the facts: The United States mines just 11 percent of the
world's coal and consumes about 10.5 percent of the world's coal. Said
another way, approximately 90 percent of all the coal that is mined and
consumed occurs outside of the United States. Global demand for coal-
fired energy will not disappear even if the United States were to shut
down every last coal mine and coal-fired plant.
Coal use around the world has grown four times faster than
renewables. There are plans for 1,200 coal plants in 59 countries. Let
me say that again: 1,200 coal plants are planned in 59 countries, about
three-quarters of which will be in China and India.
China alone consumes 4 billion tons of coal each year. Compare that
to the United States, which is at 1 billion tons. In other words,
China's coal consumption is four times greater than that of the United
States. In fact, China will be building a new coal plant every 10 days
for the next 10 years.
Look at Japan, for example. After the great earthquake in Japan, they
lost their nuclear power capability. Japan is currently building 43
coal-fired plants.
By 2020, India may have built 2\1/2\ times as much coal capacity as
the United States is about to lose.
The Obama administration's reckless war on energy will have little
impact on global emissions, but here is what it will do: It will
devastate significant parts of our economy. It will cause energy bills
to skyrocket. It will be a loss of tax revenues for our schools, roads,
and teachers. And it is going to destroy family-wage union and tribal
jobs.
If this rule moves forward, countless coal-fired plants like the
Colstrip powerplant in Montana will likely be shuttered, thereby
putting thousands of jobs at risk. It will also make new coal-fired
plants incredibly difficult to build.
The bottom line is this: Coal keeps the lights on in this country,
and it will continue to power the world for decades to come. In fact,
in my home State of Montana, it provides more than half of our
electricity.
I have told my kids--we have 4 children--when they plug in their
phones, odds are it is coal that is powering that phone. Rather than
dismissing this reality, the United States should be on the cutting
edge of technological advances in energy development. We should be
leading the way in powering the world, not disengaging. Unfortunately,
President Obama's out-of-touch regulations take us in the opposite
direction, and the people who can afford it the least will be impacted
the greatest.
I urge my Senate colleagues to join in this bipartisan effort to stop
the President's job-killing regulations on affordable energy and join
us in standing up for American energy independence. With what we have
seen happen in the world in the last week, our national security and
energy independence are tied together. Stand up for American jobs.
Stand up for hard-working American families.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there is a desperate need for the Senate
to address one of the greatest national security and public health
risks we face as a country, something that has the ability to affect up
to 3.4 percent, or $260 billion, of U.S. economic output annually. What
is this threat? It is climate change.
In its 2010 and 2014 Quadrennial Defense Reviews, the Department of
Defense identified climate change as a risk that must be incorporated
into the Nation's future defense planning. Last year, I held a hearing
on this issue as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
Pentagon experts explained the far-ranging effects of this threat . .
. putting the U.S. at risk around the world . . . changing the
landscape and vegetation of training areas . . . accelerating regional
tensions and conflict. This summer, the Department issued a new report
outlining in even greater detail the threats we face. It states, ``The
Department of Defense sees climate change as a present security threat,
not strictly a long-term risk.'' It goes on to say that climate change
is introducing ``shocks and stressors'' in the Artic, the Middle East,
Africa, Asia, and South America.
The report argues that global warming has had ``measurable impacts''
on vulnerable areas and regional conflicts, like Syria. Due to these
impacts, military leaders are now forced to include ways to respond to
the risks and challenges of climate change in their planning.
So if our Nation's senior military leaders are doing their part to
address climate change, isn't it about time that we did the same? Well,
we can start by supporting the Environmental Protection Agency's
efforts to limit carbon pollution from power plants--which account for
over 40 percent of U.S. carbon pollution emissions. The rules would cut
carbon pollution from power plants by over 30 percent and reduce
emissions of the pollutants that cause soot and smog by 25 percent.
That is equivalent to removing over 160 million cars from the road--or
almost two-thirds of U.S. passenger vehicles.
The rules will also drive new investment in clean energy generation
and energy efficiency technologies while growing the economy, shrinking
household electricity bills, and putting the
[[Page S7998]]
U.S. on a pathway to lead the world in creating new clean energy jobs.
In addition, EPA's rules would lead to climate and health benefits
worth up to $54 billion annually, including avoiding 3,600 premature
deaths; 90,000 asthma attacks in children; and up to 3,400 heart
attacks and hospital visits. This is a win-win for America.
The State of Illinois has already started taking steps to reduce its
emissions by adopting laws that promote the use of renewable energy and
energy efficiency.
Our ``community choice aggregation'' law allows Illinoisans to choose
their energy providers. Since the program was started, more than 90
communities have chosen to use 100 percent renewable electricity
sources for their residential power.
Illinois's Renewable Portfolio Standard requiring the State to use 25
percent renewable electricity resources by 2025 is one of the strongest
in the country.
And State law also requires utilities to reduce Illinois's energy
demand by 2 percent each year through efficiency improvements.
With the support of these laws, Illinois now employs approximately
100,000 people in the clean energy industry--and meeting EPA's new
targets would put even more Illinoisans to work designing,
manufacturing, and installing clean energy systems. Most importantly,
EPA's rules will allow the U.S. to face the challenge of climate change
head on instead of ignoring the problem until it is too late.
Leading scientists warn that the world is running out of time to make
the cuts in carbon emissions that are needed to prevent irreversible
damage to the Earth's climate. According to the United Nations's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, at least half the world's
energy supply needs to come from low-carbon sources such as wind,
solar, and nuclear by 2050 if we are going to avoid catastrophic
climate changes. That gives us just 35 years to save the planet for
future generations.
This may seem like a long time, but we have a lot to do. We need to
start now, and EPA's rules are a great first step.
But I know some of my colleagues are opposed to the EPA's plan and
anything this administration does to acknowledge the existence of
climate change. So they have introduced two resolutions of disapproval
to prevent EPA from listening to over 97 percent of climate scientists
and acting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If the resolutions were
to become law, they would prohibit EPA from proposing any new
regulations that are ``substantially the same'' as their current rules
for new and existing power plants.
But even supporters of these resolutions have to admit that we have a
responsibility to be good stewards of our planet.
So I have to ask, if you don't like what the President is doing, what
is your plan to make sure we leave future generations with a brighter,
cleaner future? How do you propose we address the threat of climate
change? And what is your plan to make sure that America leads the world
in creating the well-paying, green jobs of the future? Denying the
harmful effects of greenhouse gas emissions, as these resolutions do,
is shortsighted and declares war on science and on public health. So I
hope my colleagues will vote ``no'' on the resolutions of disapproval
from Senator McConnell and Senator Capito.
The evidence is clear: we need to get serious about addressing the
causes and effects of climate change. America has the resources and the
inventiveness to create a new energy system that can protect our
environment and economy and allow us to continue to choose our own
destiny. But we can only do it by focusing on policies that address
both the economic and environmental challenges facing the country by
supporting critical, sustainable infrastructure. And we need to do it
soon--our generation has a moral obligation to leave the world in as
good of shape as what we inherited from our parents and grandparents.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there is irrefutable evidence, with more
accumulating all the time, that humans have altered not just the
weather of a region, but the climate of our entire planet.
From flooding felt across the country to extreme temperatures from
north to south and east to west, these severe events are happening more
and more frequently. Droughts are proliferating, wildfires are bigger,
and more expensive, tropical storms and hurricanes are more intense.
You can look no further than the damage wrought in Vermont in the wake
of Tropical Storm Irene--a storm that had greatly weakened since first
making landfall, but still so powerful as to deliver hundreds of
millions of dollars in damage to our small State. It was enough to
convince many Vermonters of the reality of climate change as they
watched roads washed away and iconic covered bridges yanked out of the
footings that had supported them for generations.
The science and the data by now are clear that human activities are a
factor in the climate change that is unfolding all around us and in
every corner of the globe, but common sense alone should tell us, as we
look about us and see all of the carbon and pollution that is being
pumped into our thin and fragile atmosphere, that all of these human
activities are contributing factors.
We must address the root causes of climate change, and that is what
the administration's Clean Power Plan, bolstered by the rules for new
and existing power plants, will do.
Today, we won't vote about how to support our roads and bridges. We
won't vote to further advance educational opportunities for young
children. We won't vote on ways to keep our government--of the people,
for the people--open. Rather, we are summoned to heed the call of
pressure groups, wealthy corporations, and moneyed interests and vote
on a resolution of disapproval that denies the impact and the causes of
climate change. These challenges under the Congressional Review Act
fail to recognize the true cost of carbon pollution. The Clean Power
Plan sets clear and flexible rules that signal to the marketplace that
we cannot continue to spew harmful carbon pollution without limit. It
finally puts an end to the free lunch for the fossil fuels industry.
These rules offer commonsense solutions that will not only address
climate change, but will protect Americans' health with cleaner air.
They will also unleash the creativity and inventiveness of American
entrepreneurship and support investments in new technology. They will
further set the stage for our vibrant and job-rich energy future. The
flexibility in these rules means that States and companies will be able
to decide the best ways to reduce their carbon emissions, whether
through gains in efficiency and new technologies or through an
increased use of natural gas or renewable fuels.
Vermonters are encouraged by these rules and about the Clean Power
Plan--not only because together these proposals move the country
forward to finally address climate change, but also because the plan
and rules recognize the important work that Vermont and other Northeast
States have been doing for the last decade through the Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI, to cap carbon emissions and offer
credits to cleaner producers. In Vermont, we can breathe easier knowing
that under these rules, we will have less pollution blowing into the
State from power plants in the Midwest.
The majority in the Senate would rather roll back some of the most
meaningful environmental initiatives of our time, rather than help to
improve the health of Americans across the country. The science is
clear: Failing to address climate change will lead to more dangerous
and costly extreme weather events and threaten the health and well-
being of our families and our communities. We must stop putting the
interests of polluters above public health. It is time to stop putting
the future of our planet and of generations to come in danger and to
act now to halt the devastating effects of climate change. Let us move
beyond the energy policies of the last two centuries and move forward
toward America's energy future.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, strong clean air protections remain very
important for our health and environment. I have voted previously to
protect the EPA's ability to take action to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, and I will oppose the two resolutions of disapproval under
the Congressional Review Act which would permanently
[[Page S7999]]
block EPA from limiting carbon pollution from existing and new fossil
fuel fired powerplants.
Finalized on August 3, 2015, the Clean Power Plan sets the first
national limits on carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel fired
powerplants, the Nation's single largest stationary source of
greenhouse gas emissions. According to EPA estimates, the Clean Power
Plan will reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power
sector by 32 percent, from 2005 levels, by 2030. The final plan
includes additional flexibility and provides States with more time to
submit plans and to achieve compliance with the requirements. The
standards to limit carbon dioxide for new, modified, or reconstructed
powerplants were also finalized on August 3. On November 4, 18 States,
including Maine, and several cities asked a Federal court to allow them
to defend the Clean Power Plan against legal challenge.
I am encouraged that the emissions targets under the Clean Power Plan
for Maine are more realistic than were originally proposed in
recognition of the fact that Maine already ranks first in the Nation in
the percentage reduction in greenhouse gases due to the State's
participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI. Through
RGGI, Maine has already made substantial progress in reducing carbon
emissions, increasing energy efficiency, spurring the adoption of clean
energy technologies, and improving air quality and public health. By
contrast, the EPA's original proposal would have unfairly disadvantaged
and asked more of States that took action early than it would have from
States that had not yet acted to reduce their emissions. The final rule
represents a considerable improvement in this regard.
I continue to have some concerns, however, with the Clean Power
Plan's treatment of renewable biomass energy. Biomass energy is a
sustainable, responsible, renewable, and economically significant
energy source. Many States, including Maine, are relying on renewable
biomass to meet their renewable energy goals. Because the final rule
places the onus on States to demonstrate the eligibility of biomass for
the Clean Power Plan, this approach will lead to more regulatory
uncertainty. The EPA must appropriately recognize the carbon benefits
of forest bioenergy in a way that helps States, mills, and the forest
products industry and recognizes the carbon neutrality of wood. I will
continue to seek regulatory certainty and clarity on this issue.
Climate change is a significant threat both here in the United States
and around the world. It is a challenge that requires international
cooperation, including from large emitters like China and India, to
reduce greenhouse gas pollution worldwide. The upcoming climate summit
in Paris provides a new opportunity for international efforts to curb
greenhouse gas emissions in countries around the globe.
I have had the opportunity to meet in the field with some of the
world's foremost climate scientists. I have traveled to Norway and to
Alaska where I saw the dramatic loss of sea ice cover and the
retreating Arctic glaciers. In Barrow, AK, on the shores of the Arctic
Ocean, I saw telephone poles leaning over because the permafrost was
melting, and I talked with native people who told me that they were
seeing insects that had never before been this far north. I returned
from this trip believing that U.S. leadership to slow climate change
would be vitally important--in order to prevent the worst extreme
weather events, shifts in agricultural production and disease patterns,
and more air pollution.
For Maine, climate change poses a significant threat to our vast
natural resources, from working forests, fishing, and agricultural
industries, to tourism and recreation, as well as for public health.
With heat waves, more extreme weather events, and sea level rise, the
greenhouse gasses that drive climate change are a clear threat to our
way of life. As a coastal State, Maine is particularly vulnerable to
storm surges and flooding, and unpredictable changes in the Gulf of
Maine threaten our iconic fisheries. Climate changes also raise
significant public health concerns for Maine's citizens, from asthma to
Lyme disease. Maine has one of the highest and fastest growing incident
rates of Lyme disease, and its spread has been linked to higher
temperatures that are ripe for deer ticks and their hosts. Sitting at
the end of the air pollution tailpipe, Maine also has some of the
highest rates of asthma in the country.
The Clean Air Act remains vital for protecting our health and the
environment, and I will continue to support responsible and realistic
efforts to reduce harmful pollution that affects us all.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak in favor of the Clean
Power Plan. This plan shows real American leadership when it comes to
climate change, proof that we are taking responsibility for the world
we leave to our children.
The debate over the Clean Power Plan is a question of whether we
should take any action at all on climate change, a shocking question
considering how long we have known about the ways we are harming the
planet.
A recent report by Inside Climate News shows that Exxon scientists
were warning the company's leadership about climate change as early as
1977. The Exxon scientists wrote: ``There is general scientific
agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing
the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning
of fossil fuels.''
Even before that, scientific advisers first cautioned the President
about climate change in 1965--50 years ago this month--explaining that
carbon dioxide from fossil fuels would ``almost certainly cause
significant changes'' and ``could be deleterious from the point of view
of human beings.''
And as far back as 1956, the New York Times reported early evidence
connecting climate change with greenhouse gases from fossil fuel
combustion. That prescient article concluded with a sad commentary:
``Coal and oil are still plentiful and cheap in many parts of the
world, and there is every reason to believe that both will be consumed
by industry as long as it pays to do so.''
Today, decades later, we not only have even more scientific evidence
of climate change, we are actually seeing the real-world consequences
of inaction.
This past September was the planet's warmest September in the 136-
year history of weather records. The last 5 months in a row all set
world records for hottest average temperatures.
Last year was the planet's hottest recorded year, and the last two
decades include the 19 hottest years on record. Global sea levels rose
7 inches in the last century. And since the beginning of the industrial
era, the acidity of the oceans has increased by 26 percent, which could
destabilize the food chain.
My own home State of California is seeing firsthand the effects of
higher temperatures and changing precipitation patterns. We are in the
midst of an epic drought, which scientists say has been made 15 to 20
percent worse due to human-induced changes in the climate. This has
made a drought into a disaster.
The Sierra snowpack, which accounts for a third of the State's
drinking water, is down to 5 percent of its usual levels, the lowest in
500 years.
The wildfires in California are made even more terrifying by the hot,
dry conditions. And the fire season now lasts 75 days longer than just
10 years ago, resulting in more and larger fires.
Southern California and the Central Valley have the worst air
pollution in the country, home to six of the top seven regions of worst
ozone smog pollution. This is made worse by hotter conditions.
But this is just the beginning. Unless we dramatically change course,
children born today will witness calamitous changes to the world's
climate systems in their lifetimes.
Sea levels will rise another 1 to 4 feet this century based on
thermal expansion of the oceans and continued melting of land-based
ice. This would inundate Miami Beach, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach, and 85 percent of New Orleans.
In addition, a portion of the west Antarctic ice sheet large enough
to raise global sea levels by 4 feet has begun an irreversible
collapse. We have to slow down this process as much as possible and
make sure the same doesn't happen to the rest of Antarctica or
Greenland.
By midcentury, ice-free summers in the Arctic Ocean could be routine.
The global volume of glaciers is projected
[[Page S8000]]
to be reduced by up to 85 percent this century. And massive numbers of
species will go extinct because many plant species cannot shift their
geographical ranges quickly enough to keep up with the rate of climate
change.
This future is unacceptable. We cannot leave future generations a
planet in such terrible disrepair.
I will not see California become a desert State, with aquifers
overrun by salt water and coastal cities overwhelmed by storm surges.
My colleagues must understand that we will never relent in the fight to
save the planet.
I understand some States are afraid of an economy without fossil fuel
extraction. But I assure you that transitioning to a new economy will
be easier than coping with the devastating effects of global warming.
That brings me to the issue we are debating today: the Clean Power
Plan. Although the final rules were only recently completed by the EPA,
the Supreme Court set us on this path 8 years ago when they found in
effect that the Clean Air Act compelled the regulation of greenhouse
gases.
It puts us on a path to cut national emissions from the electricity
sector by 32 percent over the next 15 years, using tools that each
State can tailor to its own unique situation. It is a remarkably
flexible regulatory approach that will harness the ingenuity of the
American people to confront and roll back the effects of climate
change.
I know this approach can work because I have seen it work in
California. In the last 10 years, the State has implemented a number of
changes: an economywide cap-and-trade program to return statewide
emissions back to their 1990 levels by 2020; a renewable portfolio
standard requiring 50 percent renewable electricity by 2030;
regulations to double energy efficiency by 2030; a low carbon fuel
standard to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels
at least 10 percent by 2020; and a program to reach 1 million zero-
emission vehicles by 2020.
Here is the thing: even though California is making these changes,
the State continues to grow. The economy grew by 2.8 percent last year,
with a 1.3 percentage point reduction in the unemployment rate. Both of
those figures are better than the national average.
As a result, California is already on track to meet or exceed the
Clean Power Plan's targets. And more importantly, California's
leadership is showing others just how much we can accomplish.
Internationally, California's cap-and-trade program was used as a
model for China's cities and provinces. Now, President Obama has
leveraged the ambition of the Clean Power Plan to convince the Chinese
to combine their regional cap-and-trade programs into a national carbon
strategy.
This is how bold leadership achieves results. And this December in
Paris, the Clean Power Plan will serve as the keystone of America's
national climate ambitions, helping convince the world that we will be
the leaders we promise to be in combatting climate change.
The Senate shouldn't be considering a rejection of the Clean Power
Plan. Our real responsibility is to find ways to be even more
ambitious.
Today's vote changes nothing. If Congress were to pass this
resolution to disapprove of the Clean Power Plan, the President's veto
would not be overridden. The Clean Power Plan will be implemented.
I believe the Clean Power Plan will not only reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, but that process won't be nearly as difficult as some now
fear. The Clean Power Plan will be seen as one of the many important
steps we took to stabilize global temperatures.
I truly think we are making headway in the fight against global
warming. Environmentally conscious individuals are marking changes in
their own lives, and those are driving changes in the economy and in
State policies. Those changes spurred reform on the national level, and
now, we are seeing real action on the global stage.
Today's ``show vote'' on the Clean Power Plan won't diminish those
successes.
Thank you.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I join many of my colleagues in
opposing S.J. Res. 23 and S.J. Res 24.
These measures are an attack on the Clean Power Plan's carbon
pollution protections for new and existing power plants.
Not only would these measures undo the health and economic benefits
of the Clean Power Plan, they would also bar the EPA from issuing any
standards in the future that are substantially similar.
The Clean Power Plan is an important step in reducing carbon
pollution and taking action on climate change. It seeks to protect
public health, cut energy costs for consumers, and create jobs in the
clean energy economy. Additionally, these reductions--the first of its
kind in our country for carbon pollution from power plants--are vital
to meeting the commitments the United States has made to lowering
emissions. Our country is not alone in making these commitments. China
and other nations are also doing so--as will be discussed and hopefully
furthered at the climate negotiations taking place next week in Paris.
Because pollution crosses borders, protecting air quality is a globally
shared responsibility.
Let me also emphasize that EPA has the legal authority to set
standards on carbon pollution. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that
the Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions from sources including power plants.
Despite criticism from the opposition, we have seen, since the
enactment of the Clean Air Act 45 years ago, that economic growth and
environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. According to the
Department of Commerce, environmental laws including the Clean Air Act
have made the U.S. the largest producer of environmental technologies
in the world, supporting close to 1.7 million jobs and $44 billion in
exports annually.
The Clean Power Plan will build on this progress and help accelerate
the development of renewable energy, creating thousands of jobs in the
clean energy sector.
The Energy Information Administration, EIA, finds that the Clean
Power Plan will increase the use of renewable energy, leading to
thousands of clean energy jobs across the country, including in my home
State of Rhode Island.
The 2015 Rhode Island Clean Energy Jobs Report states that Rhode
Island's clean energy economy currently supports nearly 10,000 jobs and
suggests that the State is expected to add approximately 1,600 new
clean energy jobs over the next year.
Renewables, like wind and solar, are already generating power
reliably and cost-effectively across America. Wind power is already
showing it can be integrated onto the grid at a large scale while
ensuring reliability.
Wind power plays an important role in Clean Power Plan compliance,
with wind electricity generation capacity more than tripling over 2013
levels by 2040, according to the EIA.
This is why in Rhode Island we are building the first offshore wind
farm, which is projected to increase energy capacity for the residents
of Block Island.
Our commitment to clean energy is not only cost-effective, but vital
to supporting our Nation's health. Climate change is impacting air
pollution, which can cause asthma attacks, cardiovascular disease, and
premature death, and fostering extreme weather patterns such as heat
and severe storms, droughts, wildfires, and flooding that can harm low-
income communities disproportionately.
The Clean Power Plan makes America healthier by improving the well-
being and productivity of our children, workforce, and seniors through
such benefits as reducing asthma attacks in children, lowering the rate
of hospital admissions, and reducing the number of missed school and
work days.
Action is needed to protect not just our economy's growing renewable
energy field, but also our public health. This is why I stand with my
colleagues in supporting the Clean Power Plan.
We must make clean air a priority.
I urge my colleagues to support the Clean Air Act and vote ``no'' on
both S.J. Res. 23 and S.J. Res 24.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Syrian Refugee Crisis
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, on Friday, ISIS terrorists massacred 129
people in Paris. Just the day before, ISIS terrorists massacred 43
people in Beirut. While these are merely the latest
[[Page S8001]]
in a series of horrific attacks launched by ISIS over the last few
years, these twin tragedies have riveted the attention of the world.
These events test us. It is easy to proclaim that we are tough and
brave and good-hearted when threats feel far away, but when those
threats loom large and close by, our actions will strip away our tough
talk and reveal who we really are. We face a choice--a choice either to
lead the world by example or to turn our backs to the threats and the
suffering around us. Last month Senator Shaheen, Senator Durbin,
Senator Klobuchar, and I traveled to Europe to see the Syrian refugee
crisis up close. I come to the Senate floor today to speak about what I
saw and to try to shed some light on the choice we face.
Over the past 4 years, millions of people have fled their homes in
Syria, running for their lives, searching for a future for themselves
and their families. Official estimates indicate that 2 million Syrians
are now living in Turkey, more than 1 million in Lebanon, and more than
one-half million in Jordan. The true numbers are probably much larger.
The crisis has put an enormous economic and political strain on those
countries. In late 2014, I traveled to Jordan where I visited a U.N.
refugee processing center. I also met with Jordan's Foreign Minister,
U.N. representatives, and American military personnel stationed in
Amman. Even a year ago, it was clear that the humanitarian crisis was
straining these host countries and that there was no end in sight.
In recent months, the crisis has accelerated. The steady stream of
refugees fleeing Syria has become a flood, and that flood has swept
across Europe. Every day refugees set out on a journey of hundreds of
miles from Syria to the Turkish coast. When they arrive, they are met
by human smugglers who charge $1,000 a head for a place on a shoddy,
overloaded, plastic raft that is floated out to sea, hopefully in the
direction of one of the Greek islands.
I visited one of those islands last month. Lesbos is only a few miles
from the Turkish coast, but the risks of crossing are immense. The
water is rough, the shoreline is rocky, and these overcrowded, paper-
thin rafts are dangerously unsteady. Parents do their best to protect
their children. Little ones are outfitted with blowup pool floaties as
a substitute for lifejackets in the hope that if their rafts go down, a
$1.99 pool toy will be enough to save the life of a small child--and
the rafts do go down. According to some estimates, more than 500 people
have died crossing the sea from Turkey to Greece so far this year.
Despite the risks, thousands make the trip every day. Greek Coast
Guard officials told us that when refugees see a Coast Guard ship, they
may even slash holes in their own rafts just so they will not be turned
back.
I met with the mayor of Lesbos, who described how his tiny Greek
island of 80,000 people has struggled to cope with those refugees who
wash ashore--more than 100,000 people in October alone. Refugees are
processed in reception centers on the island before boarding ferries to
Athens, but Greece plainly lacks the resources necessary to handle
these enormous numbers. Refugees pile into the reception centers,
overflowing the facilities and sleeping in parks or beside the road.
Last month, a volunteer doctor in Lesbos was quoted as saying: ``There
are thousands of children here and their feet are literally rotting,
they can't keep dry, they have high fevers, and they're standing in the
pouring rain for days on end.'' Recently, the mayor told a local radio
program that the island had run out of room to bury the dead.
Greece's overwhelmed registration system is not only a humanitarian
crisis but also a security risk. In meeting after meeting, I asked
Greek officials about security screening for these migrants, and time
after time I heard the same answer. It was all Greece could do simply
to fingerprint these individuals and write down their names before
sending them off to Athens, and from there, to somewhere else in
Europe. Now Greece's Interior Minister says that fingerprints taken
from one of the Paris attackers may match someone who registered as a
refugee at a Greek island entry point in early October. Whether this
ultimately proves to be true, there is no question that a screening
system that can do no more than confirm after the fact that a terrorist
entered Europe is obviously not a screening system that is working.
The burden of dealing with Syrian refugees cannot fall on Greece
alone. Greece and the other border countries dealing with this crisis
need money and expertise to screen out security threats. Europe needs
to provide that assistance as quickly as possible, and if we are
serious about preventing another tragedy like the one in Paris, the
United States must help. We must build adequate procedures to make sure
that refugees, especially those who have entered Europe through this
slipshod screening process, can enter the United States only after they
have been thoroughly vetted and we are fully confident that they do not
pose a risk to our Nation or our people.
The security threat is real and it must be addressed, but on our
visit to Lesbos, we also had the chance to meet with refugees processed
at the Moria reception center to see who most of them really are. From
the outside, with its barbed wire and guard towers, Moria looks like a
prison. At the entrance, the words ``Freedom For All'' are etched into
the concrete encircling the facility, but speaking with refugees inside
feels more like a 21st-century Ellis Island. We met doctors, teachers,
civil engineers, and college students. We met young, educated, middle-
class Syrians seeking freedom and opportunity for themselves and their
families. They were seeking a safe refuge from ISIS, just like the rest
of us.
The most heartbreaking cases are the unaccompanied children. These
boys and girls are separated from the other refugees in a fenced-in
outdoor dormitory area. I met a young girl in that fenced-in area--
younger than my own granddaughters, sent out on this perilous journey
alone. When I asked how old she was, she shyly held up seven fingers. I
wondered, What could possibly possess parents to hand a 7-year-old girl
and a wad of cash to human smugglers? What could possibly possess them
to send a beloved child across the treacherous seas with no more
protection than a pool floatie? What could make them send a child on a
journey knowing that crime rings of sex slavery and organ harvesting
prey on these children? What could possess them to send a little girl
out alone with only the wildest, vaguest hope that she might make it
through alive and find something--anything--better on the other side?
Today, we all know why parents would send a child on a journey alone.
The events of the last week in Paris and in Beirut drive it home. The
terrorists of ISIS--enemies of Islam and of all modern civilization,
butchers who rape, torture, and execute women and children, who blow
themselves up in a lunatic effort to kill as many people as possible--
these terrorists have spent years torturing the people of Syria.
And what about the Syrian Government? President Bashar al-Assad has
spent years bombing his own people. Day after day, month after month,
year after year, Syrian civilians have been caught in the middle,
subjected to suicide attacks, car bombings, and hotel bombings at the
hands of ISIS or Assad or this faction or that faction--each assault
more senseless than the last. Day after day, month after month, year
after year, mothers, fathers, children, and grandparents are
slaughtered.
In the wake of the murders in Paris and in Beirut last week, people
in America, in Europe, and throughout the world are fearful. Millions
of Syrians are fearful as well, terrified by the reality of their daily
lives, terrified that their last avenue of escape from the horrors of
ISIS will be closed, and terrified that the world will turn its back on
them and their children.
Some politicians have already moved in that direction, proposing to
close our country for people fleeing the massacre in Syria, but with
millions of Syrian refugees already in Europe, already carrying
European passports, already able to travel to the United States--and
with more moving across Europe every day--that is not a real plan to
keep us safe, and that is not who we are. We are a country of
immigrants and refugees, a country made strong by our diversity, a
country founded by those crossing the sea, fleeing religious
persecution and seeking
[[Page S8002]]
religious freedom. We are not a nation that delivers children back into
the hands of ISIS murderers because some politician doesn't like their
religion, and we are not a nation that backs down out of fear.
Our first responsibility is to protect this country. We must embrace
that fundamental obligation, but we do not make ourselves safer by
ignoring our common humanity and turning away from our moral
obligation.
ISIS has shown itself to the world. We cannot and we will not abandon
the people of France to this butchery, we cannot and we will not
abandon the people of Lebanon to this butchery, and we cannot and we
must not abandon the people of Syria to this butchery. The terrorists
in Paris and in Beirut remind us that the hate of a few can alter the
lives of many. Now we have a chance to affirm a different message--a
message that we are a courageous people who will stand strong in the
face of terrorism. We have the courage to affirm our commitment to a
world of open minds and open hearts. This must be our choice--the same
choice that has been made over and over again by every generation of
Americans. This is always our choice. It is the reason the people of
Syria and people all around this world look to us for hope. It is the
reason ISIS despises us, and it is the reason we will defeat them.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague Senator Warren
for those very eloquent remarks. She and the Senators she traveled with
have taught us a lot. We have heard her comments, and she is right. Our
values in the United States of America are accepting and open to
refugees who flee violence and persecution, and that is the country we
are.
So I thank very much the Senator from Massachusetts for her remarks.
As I have said, we all have learned very much from her and the trip she
took and from what she shared with us.
Terrorist Attacks Against France
Mr. President, before I begin my remarks today, in addition to the
comments I have just made, I wanted to first pause for just a moment
and say a few words about the Paris attacks last Friday.
The people of New Mexico and the people the world over are grieving
for those who were killed and injured in the horrific attacks that have
just been spoken about by Senator Warren and others who have come to
the floor today. Earlier today, we had a moment of silence to recognize
them. I just want to say that our thoughts are with the French people,
and we are united in our resolve to fight the murderous thugs of
terrorism who thrive on hate, intolerance, and fear.
I met today with the French Ambassador to give him New Mexicans'
heartfelt condolences. All of us on the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee and the Senate leadership met today with the French
Ambassador to say to him that we stand together with him against these
murderous thugs.
Mr. President, today, because we are on this resolution of
disapproval, we are discussing the issue of climate change and global
warming. It is one of our greatest challenges and we have a choice. We
can deny the reality. We can ignore the danger to our planet, to our
economy, and to our security--that is one choice--or we can move
forward. We can work together. We can find common ground with a
diversified energy portfolio that includes clean energy, with an energy
policy that makes sense, that creates jobs, that protects the
environment, and that will keep our Nation strong. That is the choice
we should make, that is the choice we must make and, once again, that
is the choice we are failing to make.
This year is almost over. It will likely be the warmest year on
record. The current record holder is last year--2014. The impact is
clear. People are seeing it all over the world, with rising sea levels
and increased droughts.
The Southwest is at the eye of the storm. In New Mexico, temperatures
are rising 50 percent faster than the global average, not just this
year or last year but for decades. This has strained my State with
terrible droughts and wildfires. When the rain does come, it often
brings floods as well. In 2011, we had the largest fire in our State's
history--the Las Conchas fire. Then, in 2012--just a year later--we had
an even larger wildfire. The Whitewater-Baldy fire burned 259,000
acres. We have seen massive droughts. Our crops and natural resources
are at risk.
Through all of this, Congress has failed to act. There have been many
attempts in the past. We have had many bipartisan bills introduced in
the Senate, including the McCain-Lieberman cap-and-trade proposal, the
Bingaman-Specter cap-and-trade proposal, the Cantwell-Collins cap-and-
dividend proposal, the Lieberman-Warner bill, the Kerry-Graham bill,
and others. In the House of Representatives, I had my own bipartisan
bill with Representative Tom Petri. In 2005, over half the Senate voted
on a resolution affirming the need to implement mandatory reductions of
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Each and every time
Congress failed to make it to the finish line--failed to pass
comprehensive legislation in both Houses to curb our greenhouse gas
emissions. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking. Time is growing short, and
we are going from bad to worse.
So the President and the EPA have used their authority under the
Clean Air Act to implement restrictions and to control the pollution.
They have done what needs to be done with the support of many of us in
Congress and, as we know, with the support of the American people. The
proposals are reasonable, they are critical, and they will make a
difference to restricting emissions from new and existing powerplants.
Some in the Senate have argued these proposals do too much and others
argue they don't do enough, but instead of rolling up our sleeves and
developing a comprehensive energy and climate strategy of our own, we
are here today voting on a Republican resolution of disapproval of the
Clean Power Plan rules. What a waste of our time, the American people's
time, and the time we have left to seriously address this very
important problem.
I started this speech talking about choices and again we are making
the wrong one. We are wasting time when we should be working together
and developing proposals that would address global warming and help
push forward clean energy jobs. There are now more solar jobs in the
United States than coal jobs. There are currently more than 98 solar
companies in New Mexico, employing 1,600 people. Renewable energy jobs
and solutions are in abundance in New Mexico, and this is true for many
other States. A renewable electricity standard, which I have long
fought for, would create 300,000 jobs. Most of these jobs are high-
paying, local, and cannot be shipped overseas.
Congress could be using this time moving forward. Our country can
lead the world in a clean energy economy. We have the technology, we
have the resources, and we need the commitment. Instead, the Republican
leadership in Congress is doubling down, trying to overturn the
President and derailing the progress we are making. They do so knowing
they will fail, knowing the President will veto it, and knowing the
votes aren't there to override the veto. Once again, this is a lot of
sound, a lot of fury, and a lot of wasted time. It makes a false claim
that support for climate action does not exist in the United States,
and it does so ahead of the Paris Climate Conference, where 153
countries, it is my understanding at this point, are going to gather
and sign on to positive climate proposals.
Action on climate change is under attack in the U.S. Senate. That is
true, make no mistake about it, but also make no mistake that all of
these attacks will fail.
I have led the charge in our Appropriations Committee, on the
subcommittee of which I am the ranking member, to fight against
dangerous environmental riders. I will continue to fight them, and they
will fail.
My colleagues and I are here today in opposition to this resolution
of disapproval and we also are here to ask that we move on, to ask that
we work together and face the very real threat of climate change.
We will go to Paris next month, and we will get a solid, strong
agreement from the international community. The United States will
continue to lead on this issue even if our Republican colleagues
continue to fight it each step of the way.
[[Page S8003]]
With that, I yield the floor to my good friend from Massachusetts
Senator Ed Markey, who has been an incredible champion in terms of
working legislation and who had a big part a Congress or two ago
getting climate change legislation out of the House of Representatives.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for
his historic leadership on these issues.
The consequences of climate change are evidenced around the world.
Temperatures are increasing, sea level is rising, glaciers are
receding, rainfall is changing, and people's health is suffering. These
impacts can worsen the tensions that are fueling terrorism and
conflicts around the world. The Pentagon and the CIA have both issued
reports that found that instability from changes in the climate can
contribute to conditions that breed insurgencies.
As we look around the world, we can see how climate change is a
threat multiplier and a catalyst for conflict today. That is why
partnering with developing countries so they can grow their economies
in a climate-smart way is a crucial part of our foreign policy. That is
why we need to support the Green Climate Fund and other financing and
aid programs that will help countries increase their resiliency in the
face of climate change impacts, because those impacts are very real,
and scientists agree that it is humans who are causing them.
The year 2014 was the hottest year in a global record that stretches
back to 1880. The first half of this year is now the hottest January to
June in that same record. As temperatures continue to soar upwards on
land, our seas are getting hotter as well.
While we have to deal with the consequences of climate change that
are already gripping our Nation and our planet, there is still time to
prevent future catastrophes. That is why President Obama has been using
the tool he has in the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon pollution. He has
used it to further increase the fuel efficiency of America's cars and
trucks.
He has released the historic Clean Power Plan, but Republicans want
to undo that plan with the Congressional Review Act. Undoing the Clean
Power Plan would be bad for our economy, for our national security, and
for our health. The Clean Power Plan captures the scientific urgency
and the economic opportunity needed to avoid the worst consequences of
climate change. The Clean Power Plan provides flexibility to the States
to find solutions to reducing carbon pollution that work best for their
situations. The Clean Power Plan will be at the heart of a supercharged
renewables renaissance in every single State in the Union. It will
create jobs and save consumers billions on their electricity bills. It
will avert almost 100,000 asthma attacks a year and prevent thousands
of premature deaths. The climate and health benefits of this rule are
estimated to be $34 to $54 billion every year by the year 2030.
With the Clean Power Plan, we can create wealth and health for our
country. In Massachusetts, we know firsthand that by cutting carbon
pollution, we can grow our economy and save families money. It is a
formula that works. We did it through the Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative, or RGGI, which is a model for the Clean Power Plan. Since
the program went into effect in 2009, the program has added on the
order of $3 billion worth of economic value to participating States and
it has saved consumers more than $1.5 billion.
Massachusetts now has nearly 100,000 people working in the clean
energy sector in our State. It is the fastest growing job-creation
sector in our economy. All of this has happened just over the last 10
years.
As a nation, we have a choice: We can continue to pump harmful carbon
pollution into our skies and foreign oil into our cars or we can pump
new life into our economy, creating jobs and saving Americans money on
their energy bills.
Climate deniers call this plan a war on coal, but it is really a war
on carbon pollution. The Clean Power Plan is a signal to the
marketplace to invest in clean energy, and it is a signal to the world
that America will lead the global effort for climate action and be the
global leader. You cannot preach temperance from a bar stool. If we
want to be a leader, we have to stand up and say: Here is what we are
going to do.
By reducing U.S. carbon pollution, the United States will be the
leader and not the laggard in the international climate negotiations
beginning at the end of this month in Paris. U.S. leadership has helped
secure climate pledges for Paris from more than 150 countries. We now
have the opportunity to forge an international climate agreement that
includes all countries doing their fair share for a global solution to
global warming.
We aren't tackling climate change alone. Efforts are underway in
legislatures around the world to develop laws and develop national
responses to climate change. But without the Clean Power Plan, America
would not be able to have any credibility in Paris in 2\1/2\ weeks in
saying: We are going to reduce our greenhouse gases. You must, as
another sovereign country, reduce your greenhouse gases.
Coal companies, the Koch brothers, and other allies of the fossil
fuel industry may oppose the United States and the world acting on
climate, but scientific facts, economic opportunity, and history are
not on their side.
Today we are debating a resolution to overturn the Clean Power Plan,
and should it pass, the President will veto it and Republicans won't
have the votes to overturn the veto. What the Republicans are doing
today is nothing more than a political Kabuki theater. Instead of
wasting time tilting at legislative windmills, we should be passing tax
extenders to help build more wind turbines and more solar panels in the
United States of America. That is what we should be debating out here
on the floor of the Senate today.
If the Republicans don't like the Clean Power Plan, then I ask them
what is their plan to prevent climate change, expand energy, and create
jobs. That is the real question we should be debating on the Senate
floor today. The reality is that they have no plan. The reality is that
as a party they are in denial that the planet is dangerously warming.
The reality is that they want to keep the wind and solar tax breaks off
of the books, giving incentives for Americans to innovate in this area.
The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is still driving the
agenda of the Republican Party here in Congress. That is the reality.
That is why we are having this vote here on the floor of the Senate
today, because the Republican Party is siding with Big Coal and Big
Fossil Fuel in order to keep us on a pathway that does not allow us to
unleash this renewable energy revolution.
The green generation--the young generation in our country--wants to
be the leaders. They are innovators and they can find investors to help
them with their new technology. They are professors and they are
producers who want to work together in order to unleash this
revolution.
The next generation already did this with telecommunications. They
moved us from a black rotary dial phone to an iPhone in about 8 years.
The technology was locked up. There was no innovation that was
possible. The utility industry that was the telephone industry had a
stake in everyone still renting a black rotary dial phone. The utility
industry, which is the electrical generating industry, has a stake in
slowing down the pace at which we move to wind and solar and to new
technologies of the 21st century that are the match for the iPhone in
the telecommunications sector. That is what we are debating on the
floor--the path to the future. That is what we are debating on the
floor--the 19th-century technologies versus the 21st-century
technologies.
That is what we are debating on the floor--the status quo or an
innovation economy where young people are able to move into these new
sectors and invent these new technologies and exploit them around the
planet. We did that in telecommunications. It is branded Google, eBay,
Amazon and YouTube, around the planet. We did it in the blink of an eye
once we unleashed the potential. We can do the same in the green energy
sector, but defeating the Clean Power Plan vote the Republicans brought
out on the floor is the key to unleashing this potential not only in
our own country but across the planet.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this historic set of regulations that
President Obama is
[[Page S8004]]
putting on the books. It is what will give us credibility when he goes
to Paris in the beginning of December in order to negotiate this
historic deal.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I rise today to oppose the Congressional Review Act to derail the
Clean Power Plan.
It was Theodore Roosevelt who said, ``Of all the questions that can
come before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its
existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance
with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for
our descendants than it is for us.''
Theodore Roosevelt was at the core of the conservation movement in
the Republican Party. It is a Republican Party far removed from the
party it is today. Roosevelt's determination to ``leave this land a
little better'' has been replaced by complete abdication of responsible
leadership for the stewardship of our planet.
The Clean Power Plan that this resolution concerns is the single most
significant step this country has taken now or in the past to combat
climate change. Many citizens do not know that over the past few
decades we have seen the carbon pollution rise in the atmosphere, and
it is now in the upper level of 400 parts per million. As that carbon
dioxide concentrates and comes to a higher level, it traps the heat,
and that heat is producing profound consequences. We haven't had this
level of carbon pollution for 3 million years--long before humans
walked this planet and when sea levels were as much as 80 feet higher
than they are today. So this is no ivory tower issue; it is very real,
not only in the measurement of pollution in the air but in the facts on
the ground.
In my home State of Oregon, we are seeing impacts on our forests. We
see impacts of pine beetles spreading and creating a big red zone of
dead trees. We see it in impacts in terms of fiercer forest fires and a
longer forest fire season--a season that has grown 60 days in 40 years.
We see it in terms of the diminishing snowpack in the Cascades, which
not only makes our trout streams warmer and smaller, but it decreases
the water we have for agriculture, and we have a massive drought year
after year. The three worst ever droughts have been in the last 15
years in the Klamath Basin in the south. We see it in terms of our sea
production--our oysters, which are struggling to create shells when
they are small because the Pacific Ocean is 30 percent more acidic now
than it was before the industrial revolution.
Carbon pollution is really a war on rural America. It is a war on
forestry, our fishing, and our farming, and that cannot be allowed to
stand.
There is no question that we have conclusive evidence of global
warming. Globally, 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all
occurred in the last 15 years. They have all occurred in this century,
and 2014 was the warmest year ever on a global basis. This year, 2015,
is on course to be even warmer yet. This translates into damage to our
rural economy not only in terms of our forestry, our fishing, and our
farming, but also in terms of the economic impact that occurs from the
damage. The damage we see today is going to only get worse in the years
ahead. These rural industries will suffer, and American livelihoods
will suffer.
It is irresponsible to continue business as usual. We need to
dramatically change course. We need to pivot from a fossil fuel energy
economy to a renewable energy economy.
The Clean Power Plan sets achievable standards to reduce carbon
dioxide emissions by 32 percent of 2005 levels by the year 2030--strong
but achievable standards. We have the technology today, but do we have
the political will? Or is this body going to be ensnared by the
powerful lobbying of the Koch brothers and the fossil fuel industry,
which have announced they are going to spend $1 billion in the next
election to make sure their policies are the ones adopted in this room
and that their policies will guide our future.
Well, how about this? How about we have policies that are the
policies related to the welfare of American citizens, related to the
welfare of our farmers, our fishing industry, and our forest industry?
How about we fight for rural America instead of being led astray by the
Koch brothers and the fossil fuel industry?
We know the Clean Power Plan will have a powerful, positive impact
that will provide significant public health benefits, reducing
premature deaths from powerplant emissions by nearly 90 percent, and
that will avoid 3,600 premature deaths, will lead to 90,000 fewer
asthma attacks for children, and will prevent 300,000 missed work and
school days. We know this plan will create tens of thousands of jobs
while driving new investments in cleaner, more modern, and more
efficient technologies. We know it will save the American family nearly
$85 on their annual energy bill.
Fewer deaths are a good thing. More jobs are a good thing. Saving
families money is a good thing. So let's fight for good things. Let's
not follow the path my Republican colleagues are proposing, in which
they are saying no to reducing bills for families, they are saying no
to creating good-paying jobs, they are saying no to improving public
health, and they are saying no to saving lives. Well, let's say yes.
It has been said that we are the first generation to feel the impacts
of global warming and the last generation that can do something about
it. This is a moral challenge to our generation of humans on this
planet--on our beautiful blue-green planet. This responsibility rests
not with some future generation or some past generation but with all of
us right now. This resolution to try to torpedo the most effective
measure America has ever adopted in the past or in the present is, in
fact, deeply, deeply misguided.
Let's turn back to the test President Theodore Roosevelt put before
us when he said that there is no more important mission than leaving
this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us. Our
children and our children's children are counting on us to act. They
are counting on us to save jobs, to save lives, and to save our planet.
We must not fail this test.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the
administration's Clean Power Plan. I think the first thing that must be
said--and said over and over, especially this week, with so many
critical issues facing our country, with appropriations bills pending,
with the transportation bill pending, with perhaps a motion to go to
conference on the education reauthorization--is that we are wasting
floor time, that this piece of legislation has no chance. The threshold
under the Congressional Review Act is 51 votes, and while it is very
likely the threshold will be met, let's take this through the
legislative process.
This will eventually, if it passes the House--when it passes the
House--reach the President's desk. Can you imagine that President Obama
is going to enact legislation that overturns his signature and
environmental achievement? Whether you agree or not with the Clean
Power Plan, the idea that he is going to sign this into law is
preposterous. So it faces a veto. So then the only question is this:
Can you get 67 votes in the Senate? And the answer is a resounding no.
So let's put this in context. This is an important debate, but this
is not likely to result in any kind of legislation one way or the
other. But here is what this is about. The Clean Air Act requires the
EPA--it doesn't authorize the EPA; it requires the EPA--to regulate
airborne pollutants. So it doesn't allow the EPA to pick among airborne
pollutants and place limits; it requires that any airborne pollutant
have limits.
In 2007 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that
CO2--carbon--was in fact an airborne pollutant, which is
kind of intuitive and consistent with what every expert in the field
understands. So the only question is this: Do you believe in the Clean
Air Act? Do you believe there should be an exception in the Clean Air
Act for carbon pollution? Do you disagree with the consensus among
scientists that carbon is a pollutant? That is what we are voting on
today. So carbon is a pollutant, and this is a pretty straightforward
policy issue, and it is a pretty straightforward scientific issue. The
EPA must regulate emissions.
[[Page S8005]]
Let's also understand how CRA works. This vehicle is to overturn the
Clean Power Plan. The way the statute runs is that it doesn't give the
administration--or any future administration--any flexibility to do a
different version of the same thing. It prohibits the administration
from doing anything that is ``substantially similar.''
So the difficulty, of course, is that hasn't actually been tested too
many times in court. But the assumption most attorneys on both sides of
this question are operating under is that it would not just invalidate
this Clean Power Plan but prohibit the EPA from regulating carbon on a
going-forward basis.
So if you have a specific concern, if you have a specific objection
to the way this thing is administered, that is fair enough, but you
don't have the ability to tell EPA to go and do this again and submit
it again. It will actually be illegal under a CRA. So CRA is an
extremely blunt instrument. It is an extremely radical thing to do, and
that is what we are contending with.
So why, if all of that is true, is there a CRA vote this week? My
instinct is that it is designed to create confusion, to kick up dust,
and to raise the possibility that the American government does not
stand behind the Clean Power Plan as we go into the final throes of the
Paris climate talks.
Now, we have an opportunity here. We have 160 countries for the first
time in history committing to different versions--all executed from
within their own governmental systems, but they are all committing to
different versions--of emissions reductions. Some of them have cap and
trade, some have incentives, some of them have regulations, some have
financing programs, but all of them are committing to various programs
to reduce carbon emissions. This is a significant international
achievement.
In previous climate negotiations, folks who opposed international
climate action would actually go to these negotiations to create
confusion, to imply the American government was somehow not going to
stand by its commitments. That is why I wanted to go through how the
CRA works and what the inevitable outcome of this piece of legislation
will be, which is that it will be vetoed and that veto will be
sustained.
The hope, I think, among people who oppose international climate
action is that there is enough confusion going into Paris that someone
can point to America's national legislature and say: Well, there is no
consensus. That is true. There is no political consensus. But there is
no practical way to overturn the Clean Power Plan, and there is no
going back. I mean that is the most important aspect of this. This
year, 2015, of all the new power generation in the United States, the
majority of it was clean energy. The majority of new power generation
in the United States was clean energy--how exciting.
I am not exactly sure why people fear the clean energy future so
much. I understand we need to make a transition. The State of Hawaii
depends on low-sulfur fuel oil for the vast majority of its
electricity. I understand we can't make that transition overnight, and
I understand there is going to be disruption and there is going to be
difficulty as we make a transformation of this magnitude, but we are
going to have to make this transformation. It doesn't have to be a bad
thing. It can create innovation jobs, it can attract investment
capital, and it can be a new American economy.
This is already happening. This is not pie in the sky any more. This
is already underway. The majority of new power generation in the United
States is clean energy. Let's keep the momentum up. Let's support the
Clean Power Plan.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I first want to thank very much the
Senator from Delaware for his courtesy in this regard.
(The remarks of Mr. Vitter pertaining to the introduction of S. 2284
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. VITTER. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Syrian Refugees
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to address the issue
of climate change, but I am inclined to follow up on comments by our
friend from Louisiana who has just spoken.
As the Presiding Officer knows, I am no longer the chairman of the
homeland security committee, but I am the senior Democrat. I have
served on the committee for about 15 years. The issue of the security
of our homeland, whether from cyber attacks or terrorists or any other
of number of threats, is something I care a whole lot about.
I am sure all of us recall when we had a special visitor who
addressed a joint session of the Congress on the other side of the
Capitol. His name is Francis, and he is the Pope. It was a Papal visit.
He addressed a joint session of Congress. I am not Catholic, but I was
moved, and I know a lot of our colleagues were moved, especially when
he invoked the Golden Rule in front of a national television audience,
when he called on all of us to treat other people the way we would want
to be treated, and also when he invoked the words of Matthew 25: When I
was hungry did you feed me, when I was naked did you clothe me, when I
was thirsty did you give me to drink, when I was a stranger in your
land did you take me in?
When I hear of the prospect of a thousand or so Syrian refugees
coming to this country this year--and more next year--I think of the
desperate plight of people who are trying to escape the hellacious
situation in Syria and who have been living, in some cases months or
years, in refugee camps. What kind of moral imperative do we have with
respect to them? What kind of moral imperative? What kind of moral
imperative do we have at the same time to ensure that the folks we
allow to come in as refugees to this country--that we are going to
protect those of us who live here from possible threats that might be
caused by that immigration?
This week I learned a few things I didn't know before. There is a lot
more I have to learn. Among the things I have learned this week is that
when refugees--whether in Turkey or someplace else in that or the other
side of the world, in Pakistan or any other place--seek to come to this
country, they don't get to just come. It is not like they say: I am
applying under refugee status to come to the United States, and I would
like to come this week or this month or even this year. The average
wait for folks in refugee status trying to get someplace out of a
refugee camp--and it could be here, but especially here, the average
wait for refugees is not a week, it is not a month, it is not a year.
It is 1.5 years. For those of Syrian descent, the wait could be even
longer.
I am not going to go through all the hurdles folks have to go
through, but it is a screening process that begins not with the
Department of Homeland Security in this country. It is a screening
process that begins way before that with the U.N. High Commissioner for
Refugees. They first register refugees, they gather biometric data, and
they gather other background information. Only those who pass the U.N.
assessment are ever referred to the United States for possible
resettlement. Where they are looking to accept maybe 1,000 Syrian
refugees this year, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees may
interview 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 refugees, or more, to come up with a list
of 1,000 that we would even consider. Those refugees are interviewed
not when they get off a plane here, but overseas, before they ever get
on a plane. Before they ever get on a plane, they go through multiple
background checks and vetting and use biographical checks conducted by
the State Department, security advisory opinions from intelligence and
other agencies for certain cases, National Counterterrorism Center
checks with intelligence agencies for support, the Department of
Homeland Security and the FBI biometrics checks, and the Department of
Defense biometric screening.
Then, after going through all of that, if they get here, they have
the opportunity to be interviewed again face-to-
[[Page S8006]]
face by the Department of Homeland Security folks who are trained to
interview people alleging to be refugees. They could be something else.
Then, if they get approved to stay here as a refugee, we continue to
monitor them for an extended period of time.
A year or so ago there was great concern with Ebola. We had a lot of
people coming across the border from Mexico, and they were going to
have Ebola and infect us all and a lot of people were going to die. Not
one American died from Ebola contracted here.
So I would have us take a deep breath, try to gather the facts, and
really understand what somebody has to go through as a refugee to get
here. It is not overnight; it is not a 1-week or a 1-month deal. If I
were a bad guy wanting to come here and create mischief, I sure
wouldn't go as a refugee. I wouldn't cool my jets for a year and a
half, trying to get through that process. I would find another way.
Mr. President, that is not what I wanted to talk about. I want to
talk a bit about one of our favorite subjects, climate change and
global warming.
I will start off with a map here of New Jersey, Maryland,
Philadelphia. In between Philadelphia and the Delmarva Peninsula is my
State, the State of Delaware. This is probably hard to see from up
there or on television, but the outline of this map is Delaware today.
A couple hundred years from now, if we don't continue to make progress
in reducing carbon dioxide, Delaware will not look like the outline of
that map. It is not going to look like the green. It will be somewhere
between the outline of that map and the green that we see here that
depicts Delaware. For us, this is real. These are our homes, these are
our farms, the places we live and raise our families. So for us, this
is something that is serious.
Long before I ever moved to Delaware, I served as a naval flight
officer in the Navy during the Vietnam war and served in Southeast Asia
and other places. Long before I ever did that, long before I went to
Ohio State to study economics, long before I moved to Virginia, I was
born in West Virginia. I was born in a coal mining town. My dad, coming
out of Shady Spring High School in Beaver, WV, was for a short while a
coal miner. Even after my sister and I had grown up and left West
Virginia--she after being in the third grade and I in the second
grade--we would come back and visit my mom's parents, my grandparents,
in Beaver, WV, right outside of Beckley. A coal miner named Mr. Meaders
lived next door to my grandparents. He had a big field of about 2 to 4
acres right next to my grandparents' house. He would come home from
work at about 4 or 5 in the afternoon. He always had his coal mining
clothes on. He had mined coal for decades. He also owned a cow, and he
kept his cow in a shed on that 3-, 4-, 5-acre field. When he would come
home, he would clean up, and then he would milk his cow and he would
let us milk his cow. Mr. Meaders didn't make his living off the milk
from that cow. He made his living as a coal miner. And he wasn't the
only person in West Virginia who made their living mining coal. There
are still a number of people in West Virginia whose income is derived
from mining coal.
West Virginia is one of the top five coal-producing States in the
country, among Wyoming, Kentucky, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. The
number of people employed in the coal mining business in each of those
States today--as opposed to when I my sister and I were little kids
running out with Mr. Meaders to milk his cow--has come down a whole
lot. But for these people, these are good-paying, life-sustaining jobs
for their families.
So we try to figure out--not just in Delaware, not just in America,
but around the world--how do we reduce the threat from high levels of
carbon in our atmosphere? Is there a way to do that? Is there a way to
do that that is also respectful of the needs of people in Wyoming, West
Virginia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Kentucky, who are trying to make
a living and all they want to do is mine coal? That is what they have
done maybe all their lives and want to be able to continue to do that.
The Golden Rule--again, is there a way we can somehow adopt a policy or
policies that are mindful of their needs to be able to sustain and
support their own families, and at the same time to make sure in doing
that, they don't endanger the rest of us? That is the dilemma we are
in. We have a moral imperative to look out for the coal miners and
their families in those States I mentioned, and we have a moral
imperative to look out for everybody else, including the folks here and
up and down the east coast and west coast, and others whose lives are
going to be changed if we don't continue to make progress. We want to
continue to make progress with respect to reducing the amount of carbon
in our air.
I think we can try to at least address both moral imperatives--to try
to make sure the folks who for generations have mined coal can continue
to do that in a way that is not just economically sustainable but
environmentally sustainable, and do so in a way that actually looks out
for the legitimate interests of a whole lot of us who come from States
where we don't mine coal.
One of the biggest sources of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere
continues to be coal-fired plants. We generate electricity. It used to
be that about 40 percent of the electricity in the United States came
from coal-fired plants, maybe another 20 percent or so from nuclear
powered plants, another 20 percent or so from natural gas-fired plants,
and the rest from hydroelectric, solar, wind, and so forth. That mix
has changed a little bit. Today, coal is down to about 30 percent.
Natural gas, in terms of generating capacity, is up to about 30
percent. Nuclear is still in there at about 20, adding a couple nuclear
plants in the next few years, maybe building some smaller, modular
plants. We are generating ever more electricity from wind, a bit more
from solar and from geothermal and hydro. But coal is down from 40 to
maybe 30 percent, and the projection is that maybe by 2030 it will be
down from 30 percent to as low as 20 or 25 percent. That is going to
create some hardship for the folks in those States, including my native
State. Is there some way that we can actually help them while at the
same time helping those of us who aren't from those five States?
For as long as I can remember, I have heard people, including from
this floor, for many years talking about Robert Byrd, who was the
former majority leader, dean of the Senate, and maybe the longest-
serving person in the House and Senate in the history of our country.
He was a big champion of clean coal technology. Since approximately
1997, we have pursued clean coal, carbon capture, and sequestration. I
am told that just in this last decade we have spent about $20 billion,
since maybe 2005--something like that, in the last decade--and we have
a success story. We have had a lot of disappointments, but we have a
success story. I want to share that with our colleagues today.
The success story on U.S. clean coal is a project in Southwest Texas,
in Houston, where there is NRG, a big utility company. That project is
a clean-coal project generating electricity. It is going to come online
sometime next year. There are other projects under way, and we are
continuing to invest a lot of money in clean-coal technology. We need
to continue to do more.
The last thing I want to say is this. We face many threats to our
Nation these days. ISIS is certainly one of those. There are also other
terrorist threats. Cyber security is certainly a threat we face. We
have an obligation to our grandchildren and their grandchildren to be
able to make sure we address those threats.
This is not a battle that the United States can win alone on those
fronts--nor with respect to our climate change concerns. It is going to
take a coalition of many nations, and we are one of those nations. We
are one of the nations that put as much CO2 in the air as
anybody else. We have an obligation to try to figure out how to reduce
that amount and how to reduce the threat. We need to be a leader and
not just say to other nations that they should do this but also that
they follow our example. What we are trying to do is to lead by our
example.
At our church, our pastor sometimes will say: I am preaching to the
choir, but even choirs need to be preached to. The other thing he will
say from time to time is this: I would rather see a sermon than hear a
sermon. For the rest
[[Page S8007]]
of the world, they don't want to hear a sermon from us on climate
change. They want to see the sermon.
What we are trying to do over the next 15, 20 years is to reduce our
CO2 emissions since 2005 by about 30 percent and leave it up
to the States--not EPA calling shots and not micromanaging--to figure
out what works best in their States and to help them help us meet that
national target. Thirty percent reduction from 2005 to 2030--that is
the deal. That is the goal. My hope is that we will do our part. We
will provide the leadership that is needed, not by what we say but by
what we do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Order of Procedure
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30
p.m. today, all time on S.J. Res. 24 be considered expired and the
Senate vote on passage of S.J. Res. 24; further, that following the
disposition of S.J. Res. 24, the majority leader be recognized to make
a motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 23; that if the motion to proceed is
agreed to, then all time under the Congressional Review Act be
considered expired and that the Senate vote on passage of S.J. Res. 23.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized for such time as I shall consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, at 5:30 p.m. today, two votes are going to
take place on the two CRAs--one by Senator Capito and one by Senator
McConnell, as he just referred to.
The Congressional Review Act is something really good that has come
along for a reason. A lot of people don't understand that the
bureaucracy gets out of hand sometimes. I was listening very
attentively to my friend from Delaware. When I see some of the
regulations that come through, I am wondering: How in the world could
this happen? These are things that we have voted on over and over, as
with the case of cap and trade, which is what we are talking about now.
Our first one was the McCain-Lieberman act of 2003, then again in 2005,
and then the Warner-Lieberman act of 2008. And Waxman-Markey didn't
even come to the Senate floor because they knew they didn't have the
votes for it. Each one of these was rejected by the elected Members of
the Senate and by a larger margin each year.
It is interesting what this President has done. He has taken the
things that people don't want and has said: Well, if we can't do it
through legislation, we will do it through regulation.
We have seen time and again that he has followed this. It is really
going to come to a screeching halt this time because there are some
things that are going on that people are not aware of. There are a lot
of legal problems with Obama's carbon rules--especially his power plan.
Right now we have 27 States, 24 national trade associations, 37 rural
electric co-ops, 10 major companies, and 3 labor unions representing
just under 1 million workers. They are now challenging the final rule
in court. This chart shows you the States that are challenging the rule
in court. A lot of these entities have requested a judicial stay, which
would likely put these rules on hold until early next year. While the
courts work through the numerous other challenges, time is going to go
by and time is certainly not their friend.
I was listening carefully to what my friend from Delaware was saying.
One observation I have is that the people have caught on. In 2002 it
was very lonely standing here at this podium in this Chamber, and no
one else wanted to be a part of that discussion. Yet, at that time, the
ranking of people, insofar as what they thought about the legitimacy of
the argument that the world was coming to an end because of global
warming, was either No. 1 or No. 2. I am talking about the polls that
were across the nation at that time.
Now that same poll last March that said that global warming was the
No. 1 concern back in 2002 is now No. 15. People have caught on. They
realize that the cost is going to be exorbitant, and they realize it is
not going to accomplish anything. I don't have any doubt that once the
courts assess the merits of these challenges, the Obama
administration's power plan will not survive judicial scrutiny.
President Obama and Administrator McCarthy are equally aware of their
legal vulnerabilities, which is why Obama's Agency deliberately slow-
walked the implementation process to try to prevent any CRAs or
negative court rulings prior to the International Climate Conference in
December. It has already been done over there. It is going to get very
active here in a matter of just a few days.
POLITICO had an article a week ago that reported that the
administration has asked the DC Circuit to postpone decisions until
after December 23. What does that tell you? It tells you that they
don't want to go over to the International Climate Conference for the
big show and then walk in and find out that nothing is going to happen
over here in this country and where the people are in terms of this
issue.
The Agency's lack of legal authority is not the only reason for
bipartisan opposition to the administration's carbon regulations. The
President's power plan alone would cost $292 billion, resulting in
double-digit electricity price increases in 46 States. That is
conservative. We have documentation from MIT and from many of the
organizations saying that the cost of this type of cap and trade is
somewhere in the range of between $300 billion and $400 billion a year.
The Presiding Officer and I are very concerned about the State of
Oklahoma. In the State of Oklahoma, every time I hear a figure that
talks about trillions or billions of dollars, I find out how many
families in my State of Oklahoma paid Federal income tax, and I do the
math. This would cost somewhere around $3,000 a family--an average
family in Oklahoma. You couple that with the fact that nothing is
happening only here. If you believed in all the dangers that you hear
about with CO2 emissions, if you really believe that to be
true, that would not be true in terms of what we are talking about now.
The first Administrator of the EPA who was supported by President Obama
when asked the question if we were to pass this regulation or pass the
legislation on cap and trade, would this have the effect of reducing
CO2 emissions worldwide, said no, it wouldn't because it
would only affect the United States of America. If that is the case,
then it is not going to affect the other countries.
In fact, you can carry it one step further. If we have very tight
restrictions in this country where our manufacturing base is forced to
go to other countries, and then there are countries that don't have any
emission requirements at all, it has the effect of increasing, not
decreasing, the emissions.
We had a hearing in the Environment and Public Works Committee, which
I chair, and we had as one of the witnesses Harry Alford. Harry Alford
is the President of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. He talked
about how any type of a cap-and-trade scheme is unfair to very poor
people. He estimated that the Obama power plan would result in an
estimated job loss of nearly 200,000 jobs for Black Americans and more
than 300,000 jobs for Hispanics. The increased energy cost undermines
global competitiveness for American small business and energy-intensive
industries. These companies will ultimately shut down here at home
where the electricity bill becomes unaffordable and create jobs instead
for our competitors, such as China.
I can remember talking to China at the various meetings such as the
International Climate Conference meeting that is coming up at the end
of next month. They are hoping that something will happen where we are
going to restrict our manufacturing base because they are the
beneficiaries of that.
The EPA has consistently acknowledged this. The former Administrator,
Lisa Jackson, says that U.S. action alone is not going to have any
reduction. Her job didn't last too long after she made that statement.
The current Administrator, Gina McCarthy, testified that the
President's power plan is not about pollution control but rather about
sending a signal to the rest of the world that the United States is
serious about addressing global warming. The minuscule
[[Page S8008]]
benefits that might come would be hardly measurable to this country.
Lastly, I would like to mention something that people don't talk
about very often, and that is, there is something good about the
process that we have available to us, the CRA--the Congressional Review
Act. There are a lot of people who are of liberal nature, and they like
overregulation. They don't mind it a bit. I am talking about Senators
and House Members now. They go back to their States, and they get hit
by all the business communities that say: We can't compete because of
the overregulation of EPA. The response is always this: Well, I have
nothing to do with that; the unelected bureaucrats are doing that.
That is not true. You need to carry this message back with you. The
CRA is there so that a person cannot tell the people at home that he is
opposed to regulations that he is really supporting, because what is
going to happen tonight--I can tell you right now--is that both of them
are going to pass. But they are not going to pass them by a two-thirds
margin. That means that they will go to the House, and they will pass
them. They will go to the President's desk, and he will veto them.
Therefore, it is going to take two-thirds to override a veto. They will
come back for a vote. Those individuals who always rejoice in not
having to vote and getting on record are going to have to vote on them.
That is a neat deal. It is going to happen. You are here in on it right
now.
That reminds me a little bit about Copenhagen, back in 2009. I
remember so well that they were all going over there. That was back
when the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the White
House. They made it a real issue. They put on quite a show over there.
President Obama went over. Pelosi went over. John Kerry went over. They
all talked about the 192 nations that were there and how we were going
to pass cap and trade as legislation. This is 2009. I went over at the
very last conference and told them they were telling the truth. We are
not going to pass it. In fact, there weren't 30 votes in the Senate
that would pass it at that time. Of course, that is what ended up being
the case.
There is a real setback that happened 6 days ago. You may have
noticed that Secretary of State Kerry made the public statement that
nothing would be binding on the United States that came out of the
International Climate Conference. Immediately, the President of France
and all the others were outraged, saying that he must have been
confused. They used the word ``confused.''
Right now the big fight that is going on is not Republican or
conservatives and liberals. It is between those participants who are
all for restrictions on emissions. That is what is going on now. I
think the vote this afternoon is going to be a very important one. I
can assure you that anyone who wants to vote against this can go ahead
and do it. But keep in mind that this is going to pass. It is going to
be vetoed by the President. It is going to come back for a veto
override. Everyone is going to be on record. Here it is. These are the
States that are currently anticipating the process of putting together
legal action to stop this outcome. It is a very important vote this
afternoon.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Terrorist Attacks Against France and Syrian Refugees
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I wish to begin by echoing the
condolences shared by millions around the world regarding last week's
attacks in Paris. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families and
loved ones of those who died. As a nation, we remain committed to
supporting and defending the people of France in whatever way we can.
The attacks in Paris last week remind us again of the dangerous world
in which we live. Although Paris has become the focus of attention, the
day before the attacks in France, two ISIS suicide bombers in Beirut
blew themselves up, killing 40 people in a bustling urban area. Our
thoughts and prayers go out to the people in Beirut and to all those
who have suffered loss at the hands of this horrific terrorist
organization.
ISIS remains one of the most brutal and indiscriminate terrorist
organizations in recent history. Its campaign of violence is not
limited to a specific region, nationality or religion. As the events in
Paris have shown us, the threat posed by ISIS reaches well beyond the
borders of Iraq and Syria. If it can, ISIS will spread its campaign of
violence to innocent people all over the world.
The United States, as a champion of freedom and democracy, has a duty
to stand up against ISIS's brand of radical Islam and stomp it out
wherever it exists. ISIS represents a clear and present danger to the
American people and our allies and it must be stopped.
President Obama, when asked about ISIS the day before the Paris
attacks, made the following statement. He said:
I don't think they're gaining strength. . . . From the
start our goal has been first to contain, and we have
contained them.
``We have contained them.'' Those were his words. Unfortunately, ISIS
does not appear to be contained. My colleague from California, the
ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, responded this week by
saying:
I've never been more concerned. I read the intelligence
faithfully. ISIL is not contained. ISIL is expanding.
Yet yesterday President Obama, unbelievably, doubled down on this
failing strategy by stating: ``We have the right strategy and we're
going to see it through. . . . '' And when referring to the Paris
attacks, he called them a ``setback.'' Based on the number of
casualties and population of France, this attack was the equivalent of
a 9/11. I would hardly call such an attack a mere ``setback.'' When it
comes to the U.S. strategy against ISIS, one thing is clear: ISIS
cannot simply be contained. ISIS must be defeated.
From what we have learned so far, most of the terrorists involved in
last week's Paris attack were individuals who already resided in France
and Belgium. That means these are individuals who became radicalized at
home, received training or support from ISIS, and in some cases
traveled to Iraq or Syria for training and then returned to France to
carry out these attacks. Since ISIS first occupied territory in Iraq
and Syria and began recruiting foreign fighters, the possibility of
these combatants returning home has been a concern to the United States
and to our allies, and this attack in Paris demonstrates the validity
of that concern. As a nation we must remain vigilant in defending our
homeland against this type of attack by radicalized individuals holding
U.S. or European passports.
I also wish to speak for a moment about the Syrian refugee crisis
because it ties into everything that has happened in that region of the
world. As we are all aware, the regime of Bashar al-Assad is
responsible for the civil war in Syria that allowed ISIS to gain a
foothold and to expand. Assad used chemical weapons on his own people
and hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost as a result of the
conflict he created. It is completely understandable that the peace-
loving people of that country want out.
Just this week, several of my colleagues sent a letter to President
Obama expressing concerns about the possibility of ISIS infiltrating
the Syrian refugee population and asking what is being done to
thoroughly vet these refugees. Over half the Governors in this Nation
have stated they don't want Syrian refugees resettled in their States.
I share their concerns. The United States should not accept Syrian
refugees as long as there is a threat posed by ISIS. If we cannot be
100 percent certain that additional refugees from Syria do not put
Americans at risk, the President's plan to accept up to 10,000
additional refugees this year should be rejected. If the President
tries to act unilaterally, Congress should cut off funding to prevent
the President from taking any action that would put the American people
at risk.
If we are going to be serious about solving the Syrian refugee
crisis, the answer is not deciding which countries are accepting how
many refugees, the answer is to defeat ISIS and remove Basher al-Assad
from power so the
[[Page S8009]]
peace-loving people of Syria can return home.
On that point, I want to speak about a realistic strategy for
defeating ISIS. So far the United States has relied almost entirely on
airstrikes. Prior to the attacks in Paris, France was already the
coalition partner conducting the second greatest number of airstrikes
against ISIS. Those airstrikes have been ramped up in recent days, but
this is not a fundamental shift in our strategy. Airstrikes are
important, but ultimately they cannot be a solution in and of
themselves.
It was President Obama's politically motivated decision to withdraw
troops from Iraq that ultimately led to ISIS expanding into Iraq to
begin with. President Obama stated yesterday that boots on the ground
would be a mistake, but it was his decision to withdraw U.S. troops
that is partially responsible for creating this problem, and now we are
at a point where retaking territory from ISIS will require ground
forces. There is no way around it. If President Obama is going to be
realistic about defeating ISIS, he needs to form a coalition capable of
taking the war to ISIS on the ground. That does not require the United
States committing ground troops, but it does require the United States
leading by example and forming a coalition capable of fighting both in
the air and on the ground. The President needs to stop talking about
containment and start acting on a strategy that will root out and
defeat ISIS wherever it can be found.
I thank the Presiding Officer and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I have the honor of being the ranking
Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and earlier today I
had a chance to be with the other Members of the Senate and the
Ambassador from France to express our solidarity, our condolences about
those who lost their lives in the attack last Friday night, and to
express America's resolve to work with our French partners to root out
ISIL.
Let it be clear, our policy is to degrade, defeat, and destroy ISIL
wherever it may be, any place in the world. We will retake the
properties and lands they currently control, and we will destroy their
operation. That is our commitment, and that is what we must do. We will
protect U.S. citizens, our homeland. That is one of our most solemn
responsibilities. We will do that by having the strongest possible
security screening measures for those who enter our country. We will do
that by enhancing our intelligence-gathering capacity not only here in
the United States because we have taken major steps since the attack on
our country on September 11, but we need a seamless system with our
allies in Europe and our global partners to share timely information so
we can track those who want to do harm to us and so we can apprehend
foreign-trained fighters who have joined the terrorists and then go
back to Europe or try to enter the United States. We need to know where
they are, apprehend them, and get them out of our community.
Let me mention a couple of issues that have come to light just
recently; that is, our policies with regard to refugees. I want to make
it clear that we have to have the most stringent security screening, so
that when we are settling refugees, we don't allow anyone with any
association to terrorist organizations to be able to enter the United
States.
I also think it is important that we understand the current
procedures and processes that are in place and how it differs
dramatically from Europe. In Europe, they literally have millions of
refugees who are fleeing Syria and who get into Europe. They usually
get in at a border country to the Middle East, over water, and then of
course enter Europe and can travel throughout that continent. There is
virtually no screening.
In the United States, before we will resettle a refugee under the
auspices of the United Nations, there is a requirement for an in-person
interview, biographic checks, interagency checks, biometric screening,
including fingerprinting, initial case review by the Department of
Homeland Security before an in-person interview, and it goes on and on
and on.
My constituents and the Presiding Officer's constituents want to make
sure that those security screenings are strong enough to make sure
terrorists can't get into the United States, and we have a
responsibility to make sure that in fact is the case, but I also point
out that millions travel to the United States freely through our
borders because it is a small world and people travel. They travel here
for vacation, and they travel here for family. We have relationships
with many countries, a program known as the Visa Waiver Program, where
individuals can travel to the United States without obtaining a
visa. It is interesting that if a person has a French passport, they
can enter the United States without a visa. So we need to make sure
that anyone who attempts to come to America, we know that; that if they
are dangerous, we have that information, and as a result we can prevent
them from entering our country.
I say all of this because I hope that what happened in France will
energize us in unity to carry out our most important responsibility,
which is to keep America safe and keep Americans safe. We need to do
everything we can, whether it is going after terrorists or protecting
our homeland, to make sure Americans are kept safe.
Madam President, shortly we will be voting on the Congressional
Review Act, the regulatory review act which will allow us to vote on
two regulations on the Clean Power Plan rules that have been
promulgated by the administration. I urge my colleagues to reject these
resolutions that would prevent these regulations from going forward. In
other words, I urge my colleagues to allow these regulations to go
forward that deal with the Clean Power Plan rules.
There are four reasons I say that. First and foremost is the public
health reason. We have a responsibility for the public health of the
people of this Nation, and clean air is critically important. The
number of children who suffer from asthma will go up dramatically if we
don't clean up our air. Premature deaths will go up. There is a direct
cost to our public health as a result of ignoring what we can do for
cleaner air in America.
Clean air has an effect on our economy. When a parent can't go to
work because they have a child suffering from asthma because the air is
not clean to breathe, that is a day lost from work. It affects our
economy. We also know that if we rely more on clean energy and
renewable energy sources, that is stronger for economic growth. It
creates more jobs. So for the sake not just of our health but for the
sake of our economy, it is important that we take the appropriate steps
to make sure we have clean air.
Yes, there is also the issue of our environment. Climate change is
real. We should follow the recommendations of the experts, not
necessarily the politicians. The experts tell us that our activities on
Earth are affecting the rate of change in climate, that they affect the
stability of the world in which we live, and that we can do something
about it for a more positive outcome.
The extreme weather conditions that we have seen all too often--I
could talk about what has happened in my own State of Maryland and the
impact it has had on the Chesapeake Bay. We know that. Scientists are
telling us that. It is because the carbon emissions are accelerating as
a result of our activities on Earth. Scientists say we can do something
about it. Scientists have told us we can do better in the way we
generate power in reducing carbon emissions. That is not a heavy lift;
it is something we can do.
Shortly, the world will meet in Paris to come together, I hope, on a
way that we can join, as an international global community, in a
strategy to reduce our carbon emissions. The United States must
exercise leadership. President Obama has done part of that leadership
by the promulgation of these power plan rules.
[[Page S8010]]
Lastly, this is a matter of national security. We know that we have a
limited amount of fossil fuels. We know that. We also know that
renewable energy sources are becoming more energy independent, and that
is smart for our national security concerns.
So for all of those reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the
resolution that would prevent these regulations from going forward.
I just want to give by way of example what is happening in my own
State of Maryland. Maryland is well underway in complying with these
rules. We are there. We will be there. We have shown that we can make
these types of investments, and by the way, we would create more jobs
in doing this. Creating clean power generation will help our economy.
As I said earlier, it helped Maryland's economy. So we have been able
to move forward in aggressive steps for clean energy production. But
Marylanders breathe air that is polluted by the generation of power in
other States. We need a national policy. It can't be done just by a
State. We need a national policy, and that is what these clean power
rules do.
I urge my colleagues to follow the best science. Allow America to
continue to be the world leader. Do what is right for the public
health, for our economy, for our environment, for our future, and
reject these efforts that would block these rules.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to the
Environmental Protection Agency's new rules on carbon dioxide, which I
believe need to be rescinded.
On August 3, 2015, the EPA released its so-called Clean Power Plan.
This final plan will impose a 32-percent reduction nationwide in
CO2 emissions in the existing electric power sector compared
with 2005 levels. This is an increase from a 30-percent reduction
outlined in last year's proposed rule.
North Dakota's mandated reductions, however, far exceed those levels.
The EPA originally proposed an 11-percent reduction, but then in the
final rule that went from 11 percent to a 45-percent reduction. Let me
repeat that. For our State, the EPA put out a proposed rule and said
North Dakota has to reduce by 11 percent. Then, without reissuing a new
proposed rule or anything else, EPA said in the final rule, no, it is
not an 11-percent reduction in the State of North Dakota, it is a 45-
percent reduction. Not only does that create real problems in real
terms as far as our industry addressing that level of reduction, but I
think it raises real questions as to whether EPA followed the law and
regulation in promulgating the rule.
It is critical to communicate the impacts this rule will have on our
State and across the country, especially in our electricity generation
and mining sectors. People need to know that thousands of workers'
families and communities across the country will be negatively impacted
by this rule.
On September 30, 2015, I hosted a meeting with North Dakota's coal
industry and regulators to meet with Janet McCabe, the EPA Assistant
Administrator in charge of issuing the new carbon dioxide rule. We
directly communicated our State's opposition to the rule. We also
called on the EPA to provide greater flexibility by recognizing the
investments and advances made by industry in reducing CO2
levels and North Dakota's unique coal and geographic resources.
As a result of the meeting, EPA officials agreed to provide
flexibility for the State to submit its State implementation plan, its
SIP. Essentially, instead of requiring a plan in 1 year, we will be
able to provide a draft plan in 1 year, with 3 years to submit the
final SIP. We also received a commitment from the EPA to send technical
staff to North Dakota so that the Agency can hear firsthand from North
Dakota regulators and officials about the challenges in complying with
the Agency's mandate.
Also, here in the Senate, I am working with colleagues on several
legislative efforts to halt and repeal this rule. As a member of the
Senate Appropriations Committee, I worked to include language in the
fiscal year 2016 interior and environmental funding bill to block the
EPA from implementing this rule. We are working to include this
priority in the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus appropriations bill that
Congress will take up in the coming weeks.
I have also joined with Senator Capito of West Virginia to introduce
a bipartisan bill, the Affordable Reliable Energy Now Act, or the ARENA
Act. This legislation would empower State Governors to protect
ratepayers from increases and ensure the reliability of the electric
grid. At the same time, it would prevent the EPA from mandating
unproven technology or withholding highway funds from States not in
compliance with the rule.
Further, I am cosponsoring the resolutions of disapproval under the
Congressional Review Act to repeal the new EPA regulation which we are
considering on the Senate floor right now and which we will be voting
on in a little more than half an hour. The Congressional Review Act, or
CRA, authorizes Congress, by a majority vote, to repeal actions by a
Federal agency after they are formally published and submitted to
Congress.
In North Dakota, we have successfully adopted an ``all of the above''
approach to energy development, and we have demonstrated that we can
utilize our natural resources to do it with better environmental
stewardship. EPA's new rules on carbon dioxide neither reflects our
State-led approach nor accounts for the significant investment our
industry and workers have already made to improve the way electricity
is generated in our State, and that is true across the country.
I encourage my colleagues to vote for Senator Capito's CRA which
disapproves the EPA's carbon rule for existing electric utility
sources, as well as Leader McConnell's CRA to disapprove the EPA's rule
for new sources.
We can produce more energy with better environmental stewardship, but
the way to do it is not by shutting down powerplants and destroying
jobs as well as raising costs on hard-working families and small
businesses. Instead, we need to create a business environment that will
attract more investments so that the industry can develop and deploy
new technologies that help us produce more energy more dependably and
more cost-effectively while at the same time promote better
environmental stewardship. That is the right way to do it. That is the
way we are doing it in North Dakota.
Thank you, Madam President.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise today to speak about this battle
and regulatory war being waged by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Just 2 weeks ago, the Senate considered two measures aimed at rolling
back ill-thought-out rules by the EPA--the waters of the United States
rule. The body did the right thing in stating our bipartisan resolve
against the rule.
Unfortunately, here we are again, another week, another proposed rule
to massively expand the EPA's power, and another attempt by this
administration to stomp out America's coal industry. That is exactly
what the Clean Power Plan is--a miscalculated regulation aimed at
keeping coal in the ground at any cost.
This latest travesty of a rule, known as the Clean Power Plan,
requires States to develop and implement plans to reduce carbon
emissions between 2022 and 2030 in order to accomplish interim and
final emission goals established by the EPA. Let me clarify that. This
is actually not one rule but three separate rules which, taken
together, would be more aptly named the ``No Power Plan.'' The Clean
Power Plan includes a final rule to revise carbon pollution standards
for new, modified, and reconstructed power plants; a final rule to
revise carbon pollution standards for existing power plants; and
thirdly, a Federal plan for enactment and enforcement of the other two
rules. Simple, right? No.
Under the guise of flexibility and cooperation, the CPP requires
States to choose between two types of plans, described by the EPA as an
``emission standards'' approach or a ``state measures'' approach. Some
States, such as my home State of Wyoming, will have some terrible
choices to make under the CPP. Under the final rule, by the year 2030,
Wyoming's carbon emissions will have to be 44 percent lower than in
2005, which is the baseline year the
[[Page S8011]]
EPA uses for the plan. That is more than double the 19-percent
reduction the EPA imposed upon Wyoming in the proposed rule, which was
released about 18 months ago, in June of 2014.
As Wyoming's Governor Matt Mead said recently when my home State
joined 23 others in suing the EPA to strike down the rule, ``The fact
that the agency more than doubled the damage to Wyoming in the final
rule shows arbitrary and capricious action.''
Not only that, this plan puts the onus on the States to figure out
how they are going to do it, and that is so the EPA can avoid a cost-
benefit analysis that they are required to do. But not if they force
the States to do it! But, of course, if the States don't do it, then
the EPA will have to do it, which means the agency should have done a
cost-benefit analysis to begin with. But the EPA doesn't have a very
good track record on cost-benefit analyses.
One of the regulations, the mercury air toxins rule, is going to
provide about $500 million in benefits over a 10-year period. It is
hard to determine what those benefits are or how the EPA did the
calculations. None of it is transparent. But the compliance cost for
that $500 million in benefits is up to $43 billion a year. Couldn't we
incentivize somebody to come up with a better system for a whole lot
less than $43 billion a year, to save $500 million over 10 years? That
is another example of an arbitrary and capricious action.
So how does Wyoming wind up with such a huge burden under the Clean
Power Plan? Because the Clean Power Plan supposes it will achieve
carbon emission reductions from electricity generating units that burn
fossil fuels--coal, oil, and natural gas. States that produce these
fuels are the hardest hit. Wyoming is the largest coal-producing State
in the Nation. Wyoming produces 40 percent of the Nation's coal, and
coal represents almost 40 percent of the electricity generated in this
country. It is abundant, affordable, clean and, most important, it is
stockpilable. If the power plants that produce energy from fossil fuels
like coal are forced to shutter their doors to make dramatic structural
changes, it will have tangible negative impacts on fossil fuel
consumers. If that doesn't alarm you, it should, because according to
the National Mining Association, every person in America uses 20 pounds
of coal a day.
Of course, when we are talking about CO2, we are also
breathing CO2, and plants need CO2. There is an
interesting invention in Wyoming. A guy figured out how to grow plants
vertically, and Whole Foods has some of his mechanisms to be able to do
that, and you can actually cut your own vegetables while you are in the
store. I asked him why he isn't doing greenhouses with this. He said:
Not enough CO2. Yes, plants rely on CO2 to live.
I suggested that he locate near a power plant, where they can absorb
the CO2 and use the waste heat from any power plants and
help feed America at the same time. We need to be more innovative in
what we are doing instead of just trying to put businesses out of
business because we don't like the business.
As I said, under the Clean Power Plan, Wyoming will have to reduce
its carbon emissions by 44 percent. That isn't just a problem for
Wyoming or the 27,000 people employed in the coal industry and the
ripple effect it has on people who work with the things that people in
the coal industry use. If you represent Illinois or Missouri, you
should be worried about CPP, too, because in 2013 each of those States
received more than 10 percent of Wyoming's coal. Wisconsin, Kansas,
Arkansas, and Michigan each got 5 percent of Wyoming's coal. Wyoming's
coal was distributed to Georgia, Alabama, Colorado, Louisiana,
Minnesota, and Arizona. If I didn't list your State, don't think this
issue doesn't affect you. More than a dozen other States and foreign
entities got smaller amounts of Wyoming coal in 2013.
According to the National Mining Association, which commissioned the
report on the Clean Power Plan after it was released, the plan would
cost $366 billion and bring double-digit electric rate increases to 43
States. That is more than a 10-percent increase to 43 States. All this
because of the administration's vendetta against coal and power plants
that burn it and provide energy.
Just this week the EPA held a hearing in Denver and received public
comments on the proposed Federal plan to implement the Clean Power
Plan. That is right. Even though 26 States are suing the EPA to block
the plan's implementation, the Agency is going ahead with a rule to
implement it. At that hearing, Mickey Shober, a county commissioner
from Campbell County, WY, also known as the energy capital of the
Nation, had a chance to speak. Campbell County has 11 surface mines
that produce over 340 million tons of coal every year, the majority of
which is delivered by train to about 30 States across the country for
electricity generation. All in all, Campbell County coal provides about
one-quarter of the Nation's electricity every year. That is one county.
So when a Campbell County commissioner gets up to talk about power
generation, everyone should pay attention.
As Commissioner Shober pointed out, the coal industry has
historically stepped up and dealt with every new regulation and
challenge the Federal Government has thrown at it, but the new
technology and innovation--the type that will have to be utilized, if
there is any way for new and existing power plants to comply with this
rule--takes time and takes money. As the commissioner said, America's
energy industry always rises to the challenge, but the EPA isn't
fighting fair this time. This rule needs to be scrapped in its current
form, and that is exactly what these joint resolutions of disapproval
will do.
Congress has provided billions of dollars in incentives for solar and
wind energy. Wyoming produces a lot of solar and wind--primarily solar,
because Denver is the Mile High City and you have to go uphill to get
to Wyoming. There are high plateaus across the southern part of the
State. The first wind turbines that went in Wyoming had to be
redesigned because the wind blew so hard that it blew the rotors off.
At 80 miles an hour, the rotors on wind turbines will not stand up.
They will generate a tremendous amount of power. Most of that power
goes out of State, and other States use it but claim offsets from their
wind power because it doesn't carry any of these bad connotations from
the EPA. Wyoming has to claim all of carbon emissions from the coal and
the coal-fired power plants, though most of the electricity produced is
sent out of State. So Wyoming gets no credit for the energy it
provides, but we get all the disadvantages associated with providing
energy.
General Electric wanted to build a test facility in Wyoming to figure
out better ways to burn coal. They went through all the permitting
process to the point of building it. Then they said: Wait a minute.
Under this President, who is trying to get rid of coal, who would we
sell our product to? So they postponed the project.
I have spoken of why this rule is bad for my home State of Wyoming
and why it is bad for any State that consumes fossil fuels, but I would
be remiss if I didn't address the reasons the Clean Power Plan is bad
for the United States. At the end of this month, the President is going
to send his team of environmental experts and negotiators to the U.N.
Climate Summit in Paris. That summit aims to map out a global accord to
limit greenhouse gas emissions. The emissions goals described in CPP,
which have been rejected by industry and rejected by almost half the
States, are at the heart of this administration's plan to contribute to
the overall global emissions reduction. To make commitments to our
allies based on the plan which doesn't have the support of the American
public is nothing short of irresponsible and disingenuous. We are
living in a dangerous, complicated, frightening world--a world that
forces our Nation to rely daily on its friends for priceless assets,
such as shared intelligence and safe havens at which to strategically
position our military troops around the globe. The very least America
can give our allied partners in return is our candor.
Incidentally, I heard the comments about the growing cases of asthma.
There has been a reduction in the amount of CO2, so why
would these coal-fired power plants be elevating that health problem?
One problem that we have out West is called regional haze here, but we
call it smoke from forest fires. This summer we had tremendous smoke
from forest fires and it
[[Page S8012]]
wasn't just smoke, it was ash as well. There hasn't been a power plant
putting out ash in decades, but when we don't do the proper stewardship
of our forests, we let them burn. If we allowed some of that to be cut
into boards for houses, it could reduce the cost of housing, and the
CO2 would be trapped forever, not burned up and released
into the air and blamed on coal.
I am hoping my colleagues will come together today to show our
constituents where we and the world stand on the Clean Power Plan.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I yield back our remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading
and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is, Shall it pass?
Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Rubio).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio)
would have voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 306 Leg.]
YEAS--52
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--46
Ayotte
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Graham
Rubio
The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 24) was passed, as follows:
S.J. Res. 24
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental
Protection Agency relating to ``Carbon Pollution Emission
Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility
Generating Units'' (published at 80 Fed. Reg. 64662 (October
23, 2015)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________