[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 112 (Tuesday, July 12, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4968-S4975]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY POLICY MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2015--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 2:30
p.m. will be controlled by the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, or
her designee; the time from 2:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. will be controlled by
the majority; and the time from 3 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. will be controlled
by the two managers.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to speak for 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Tragedy of Violence
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I stand here as one of the two Senators
from the largest State in the Union to recognize that there is a hole
in the heart of America today as we cope with the tragedy of violence
on all sides. I am working on comprehensive remarks because I am doing
it more, in a way, for myself, and those are not prepared right now,
but right now I want to send my deepest condolences to those who are
suffering, who have lost loved ones, be those loved ones police
officers or community members, and for that matter, so many Americans,
so many American families who suffer losses because of violence every
day. It is critical that we address this issue. I compliment the voices
on all sides--the voices of compassion, reason, and love--and I hope I
can add my voice to their voices.
Climate Change
Mr. President, what several of us are doing on another topic is
calling attention to the web of denial that is being peddled in our
Nation by special interests and their think tanks and organizations
that are working to undermine peer-reviewed climate science. Their goal
is to create uncertainty and to delay action on the biggest
environmental and public health threat we face today.
Climate change is real, human activities are the primary cause, and
the warming planet poses a significant threat to our people and to our
environment. That is not my opinion. I am the first one to say I am not
a scientist. I rely on scientists, and 97 percent of them have said
that climate change is real and human activity is the primary cause.
The level of scientific certainty on manmade climate change is about
the same as the consensus among top scientists that cigarettes are
deadly, but some of you may remember that up until the late 1990s, the
tobacco industry scoffed at the best available science proving that
tobacco is addictive and causes cancer. No one in today's world would
argue with the fact that tobacco is addictive and causes cancer. In the
1990s, there was a campaign of denial, just as there is for climate
change now. Year after year, the tobacco industry attacked the science
that showed the link between cigarettes and the threat to human health,
as well as the Surgeon General's warning that nicotine was as addictive
as heroin and cocaine. Let me share a few of the statements made by or
on behalf of the tobacco industry.
In 1970, the Tobacco Institute advertised that the scientific finding
that proved a connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer was
wrong. They said: ``The Tobacco Institute does not--and the public
should not--accept these claims at face value.''
In 1971, Joseph Cullman, the chairman of Philip Morris, said: ``We do
not
[[Page S4969]]
believe cigarettes are hazardous; we don't accept that.''
In 1988, a lobbyist from the Tobacco Institute submitted written
testimony for a congressional hearing stating: ``In sum, there is no
medical or scientific basis for viewing cigarette smoking as an
`addiction.' The effort to disparage cigarette smoking as an
`addiction' can only detract from our society's attempt to meet its
serious drug problem.'' That was what the cigarette companies said.
At congressional hearings in 1994, executives from the seven biggest
tobacco companies testified that they believed nicotine was not
addictive. Do you remember the picture of them swearing to that fact?
A tobacco industry doctor said: ``The proposed addiction warning and
the assumption upon which it is founded are based neither in science
nor fact and will have unintended harmful results.'' This is the
tobacco company doctor saying that if you warn people, it will have
unintended harmful results. Sure--for his bosses, the tobacco
companies, who are paying his salary.
In 1998, Walker Merryman, vice president and chief spokesman for the
Tobacco Institute, said: ``We don't believe it has ever been
established that smoking is the cause of disease.''
The reason I spent so much time going through that painful history is
that a lot of people died of cancer because the tobacco companies and
their think tanks would not tell the truth to the American people. That
is why a lot of people died.
At the end of the day, the tobacco companies failed, but there are so
many bodies out there because of their heavily funded propaganda
campaign. When the people knew the truth, America's smoking dropped
from 42 percent in 1964 to 15 percent in 2015. To anybody out there who
is still addicted, I pray God that they will get help. There are very
few things where we know the cause and effect. We know the cause and
effect of smoking--it is not good.
Investigative reporting has clearly shown that those who led the
fight against health warnings on tobacco have been involved in the
climate denial movement from the beginning. Just as Big Tobacco denied
that smoking was dangerous to people's health, Big Oil and other
special interests have tried to undermine scientists' warnings about
harmful climate pollution by claiming that climate change does not
exist.
So we had Big Tobacco spreading the big lie that smoking was
nonaddictive--they even said at one point that it was good for you--and
Big Oil telling us that there is no climate change, that it is a hoax.
But if we look at the 97 percent of scientists, what have they told us
we are going to see? Higher temperatures, more extreme weather, severe
droughts, increased wildfires, decreasing polar ice, and rising sea
levels. That is what 97 percent of the scientists said would happen.
Guess what. It is happening.
Don't take my word for it. Let me give specifics. Mr. President, 2015
was the hottest year on record. Every month of this year continues to
set records. Sea levels are rising many times faster than they have in
the last 2,800 years. The 2015 wildfire season was the costliest on
record, with $1.71 billion spent. California, my fantastic home State,
is suffering from its worst drought in modern history, and scientists
are predicting megadroughts. Rising temperatures are expected to worsen
air quality and threaten public health.
The American public sees what is happening, and they understand the
need to act. Seventy-one percent of Americans supported the historic
Paris agreement to address climate change by reducing harmful carbon
pollution. A March 2016 Gallup Poll shows that 64 percent of
Americans--the highest percentage since 2008--are worried about climate
change. Gallup also found that between 2009 and 2015, a decline in
public concern about climate change was linked to a well-publicized
campaign of misinformation about climate science.
The fossil fuel industry took a page right out of the tobacco
company's playbook, supporting a network of organizations that create a
false sense of uncertainty. So let me tell you that I have joined my
colleagues on a resolution condemning the effort by the fossil fuel
industry to discredit climate science, just as the tobacco industry
worked to discredit science that proved tobacco causes cancer.
I want to work with my colleagues to call attention to this web of
denial. There are organizations out there--they have beautiful names.
They are funded by ExxonMobil, they are funded by the Koch brothers,
and organizations like DonorsTrust, which hides the identities of
funders and was called the Dark Money ATM in the press. Dark money is a
good description because the deep pockets of Big Oil and other special
interests have been misleading the American people for many years.
As I close my presentation, I want to talk to you briefly about three
organizations based in my home State: the Reason Foundation, the
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, and the Hoover
Institution. These three organizations have been involved in efforts to
undermine climate science.
The Reason Foundation has been churning out materials to raise
uncertainty. The Hoover Institution, which is affiliated with Stanford
University--which has so many wonderful things to commend it, but in my
opinion not this--has been identified by the researchers as part of the
climate countermovement. I have great respect for the work former
Secretary of State George Shultz and others are doing at Hoover.
However, I have to point out many articles published under Hoover's
name have created uncertainty about climate science, trying to
undermine the need for action.
The third organization is Pacific Research Institute, which is a free
market think tank that published a number of anti-climate science
materials, including the ``Almanac of Environmental Trends.'' Just last
month, 31 major scientific organizations basically said there is strong
evidence that ongoing climate change is having broad negative impacts
on society, including natural resources, the global economy, and human
health.
For the United States, climate change impacts include greater threats
of extreme weather, sea level rise, increased risk of regional water
scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, disturbance of biological systems. We
expect to see this increase. This is what the real scientists are
saying, the ones who care about our people, our environment. They don't
get their paychecks from Big Oil and those who stand to lose if we turn
to clean energy.
So the scientists who work for that money from the Koch brothers,
this is what they say: The world is warming far less quickly than we
thought. A little warming will also extend growing seasons. Now
consider the dire prediction regarding global warming and think of
climate like golf. It is easy to see where the ball has landed but
difficult to construct a model to predict with much confidence where
the next ball will land.
We have many other comments by these sham groups that are funded by
Big Oil, by the special interests, just like the tobacco industry had
think tanks that supported them. You know, fool me once, OK. Fool me
again, I am going to find out. We know about these organizations.
ExxonMobil gave a total of $381,000 to Reason; $295,000 to Hoover;
$615,000 to the Pacific Research Institute--ExxonMobil. Foundations
associated with the Koch brothers provided more than $1 million to the
Reason Foundation and to the Pacific Research Institute. So we know
what is going on here, but there is good news. The American people are
not asleep at the wheel. They understand what happened with Big
Tobacco. They understand the phony science that was put forward by Big
Tobacco. Thanks to the leadership of my colleague Sheldon Whitehouse,
who has done an extraordinary job--he knows the truth. He knows the
truth that these organizations are puppets of the big fossil fuel
industry. You know what. They are going to be found out.
The people already do not, in any way, support them. That is why I am
optimistic and came to the floor today. The truth will have its day.
The people understand. They look out the window and they know.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a
colloquy for 30 minutes with the Senators from Montana, North Carolina,
and Iowa.
[[Page S4970]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Department of Defense Appropriations Bill
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, last week we had a lot going on in terms
of national security and foreign policy facing our country and, most
importantly, facing our troops, facing our military. The President, the
Secretary of Defense, the top leaders in the military were asking a lot
of our troops in 1 week. Let me just give you a little example of that.
Just yesterday, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced, from where
he is in Iraq, that the United States will be deploying 560 more troops
to Iraq in our fight against ISIS. Make no doubt about it, the White
House might spin what we are doing over there, but our troops are
definitely in combat, fighting to protect us.
At the NATO summit on Friday, President Obama announced that the
United States will be deploying an additional 1,000 troops and a
separate brigade headquarters to Poland. A lot of us--I think
bipartisan--support what is going on at the NATO summit and
congratulate the President for a successful summit.
On Wednesday, the President announced he plans to leave 8,400
American troops in Afghanistan--more than he originally planned, a
number that a lot of us had been advocating for, maybe even more--to
combat the Taliban; again, our troops in action.
On Saturday, we learned that North Korea launched a submarine
ballistic missile off the coast of the eastern part of the country.
Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal reported that even after
reaching the Iran nuclear deal, the Iranians continue to try to
illegally procure nuclear equipment from Germany. Finally, just today,
there was an important ruling from The Hague, the tribunal there, about
what is going on in the South China Sea, in keeping sealanes open where
we just recently had two carrier battle groups--two U.S. carrier
battles groups, thousands of sailors in that part of the world.
So what did the Senate do with regard to all the activities facing
our troops? What did the Senate do to support these troops whom the
President and the Secretary of Defense are asking so much of? Well, a
lot of Americans did not see it, but in the late night, on Thursday
night, led by the minority leader, unfortunately our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle filibustered defense spending, filibustered the
Defense appropriations bill.
This is not the first time that has happened. Indeed, that is the
bill the other side seems to like to target. Amazingly, they like to
target funding for our troops and our military. That is not the first
time. It is not the second time. It is not the third time. It is the
fourth time, inside of a year, our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle filibustered funding our troops, at a time when national security
challenges and what we are asking our military to do are at an alltime
high.
What I want to do with my colleagues is talk about this, try to let
the American people know this is not what we should be doing. Perhaps
the media will talk about this and highlight this a little bit more
because we are going to vote again on this appropriations bill, which,
by the way, came out of committee unanimously. The Democrats on the
committee voted for it.
Yet, somehow, when it comes to the floor, they are going to do
another filibuster. They did it last Thursday. It is our hope--and one
of the reasons we are on the floor right now--to convince our
colleagues to change their ways. I am sure they don't want to have to
go home after recess and have to explain to their constituents why they
voted not once, not twice, not three times, not four times but five
times to filibuster spending for our troops. I hope they don't have to
do that. We are going to vote on that again this week.
I am honored to be on the floor with some distinguished Members of
the Senate, some of the Members of the class of 2014. I am going to ask
the junior Senator from Iowa--who knows a little bit about what she is
talking about when it comes to the U.S. military, with 23 years of
military service, having just retired as a lieutenant colonel in the
Iowa National Guard. I am honored to have her open up and say some
words about something that is remarkable that is going on, on the
Senate floor--filibustering the spending for our troops at this
dangerous time.
It is not what we should be doing. Our colleagues know it. I
guarantee you the American people know it. If you ask people,
Democratic or Republican: Should we be funding our troops at this
moment, the answer, clearly, in every State and every part of the
country, would be yes.
Senator Ernst.
Mrs. ERNST. I say thank you to Senator Sullivan, the distinguished
Senator from Alaska. Thank you for your passion as well. You have
served in the Marines, in the Marine Reserves. I thank you for that,
for your dedication and your commitment to our United States of America
through your service as a marine and now through your service in the
Senate.
We are also joined by the Senators from Montana and from North
Carolina. I would like to thank my colleagues for joining in a
colloquy. The filibuster we have seen on the other side of the aisle
sends a message to our troops that we don't care about their security,
and we don't care about the Nation's security. We must fund our troops,
at a time when, as you stated, the world is virtually imploding.
We see actions going on all around the globe, whether it is from
North Africa into Iraq, Syria, North Korea, China, Iran, Afghanistan.
We could go on and on, where our troops are needed for safety and
security, where they are needed to keep the fight away from our
homeland.
So I thank everyone who is joining in today. I appreciate the
thoughts we will be sharing with our constituents and with the audience
we have. Hopefully, we will see this projected nationwide, with an
outcry of outrage that the Democrats are blocking--are daring to block
funding for our national security.
This is a bipartisan bill--a bipartisan bill. The Senate version
cleared out of our Senate Appropriations Committee by a vote of 30 to
0, Democrats and Republicans. We came together, bipartisan, 30 to 0.
In total, this bill appropriates $515.9 billion for our national
security. Some $900 million of this is funding for the National Guard,
a critical arm to the security of the United States and where I ended
my 23-plus-year career last November in the Iowa Army National Guard.
In fact, my old unit, the battalion I commanded in the Iowa Army
National Guard, that battalion headquarters is currently forward-
deployed. So the men and women I served alongside, they are out there
protecting our freedoms. They are out there securing an area far away
from home. They are doing it not just for me and not just for the
Senators who are here, but they are doing that for all of you.
The fact that we would reject funding for our forward-deployed troops
is appalling to me. Those are my brothers and sisters. These are my
friends, my neighbors, my colleagues. They are fighting on behalf of
the United States. The United States is now turning its back, with a
filibuster, on these troops. So how dare our colleagues block a bill to
fund our military, while our troops are forward-deployed. They are out
on our frontlines.
I know my colleague from Montana has had some troops who have just
recently returned. I know he would like to join us in this discussion
as well.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Alaska. I
also want to thank Lieutenant Colonel and Senator Ernst for her service
to our Nation. Senator Ernst is the first female combat veteran to ever
serve in the Senate. It is an honor to serve with her, and I thank her
for her service to our country both as a soldier as well as a Senator.
As I speak today, my friends from across the aisle have already--not
once, not twice, but three times--blocked consideration of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2017, which will deny our
troops the proper funding and support they deserve. I am proud to be
standing here with some of my freshmen colleagues, imploring my friends
on the other side of the aisle to stop the political games and get back
to work, and that starts with funding our military.
We shouldn't be playing these petty political games on legislation
that is
[[Page S4971]]
and should be historically bipartisan. In fact, this bill, the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, passed the House of
Representatives in June on a bipartisan vote of 282 to 138, and that
included 48 Democrats. That is a very strong bipartisan vote. Over on
the Senate side--as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I
recall it clearly--it passed our committee 30 to 0. That is called
running up the score--30 to 0 out of the Committee on Appropriations on
May 26. Not one Democrat opposed this bill in committee. I ask my
colleagues: What in the world has changed? Why did we go from 30 to 0
in the committee and now we are seeing a filibuster here on the floor
of the Senate?
Just so we are all clear, when Senate Democrats vote no, here is what
they are saying no to: 1.2 million military Active-Duty servicemembers
and 800,000 reservists. They are saying no to 10,000 troops engaged in
combat in Afghanistan and the additional military in harm's way in
Iraq, Syria, and other places throughout the world.
We are seeing ISIS expanding into places like Libya. They are
attacking Western targets like Paris, Brussels, and the homeland here,
in places like San Bernardino and Orlando. We need to make sure our
military forces have the tools they need to win. As Senator Marco Rubio
once said: It is either we win or they win. There is no middle ground
here. Let us give them the tools they need to win. I can tell you one
thing: Our enemies are not waiting around for Senate Democrats to fund
our military to make it a fair fight.
This bill provides money to replace the munitions and other
consumable items being used to defend America against the likes of
ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban. Passing this also gives confidence to
our Eastern European allies.
Back in my home State of Montana, we have a rich legacy of service. I
am the son of a U.S. marine. My dad served in the 50th Rifle Company in
Billings, MT. In fact, our Nation's ``peace through strength'' strategy
can be seen clearly at Montana's Malmstrom Air Force Base. You see, up
in Montana, we have one-third of the Nation's intercontinental
ballistic missiles. We play a critical role in meeting our Nation's
security and military needs. In fact, I have the utmost faith--and
always do--in the 1,200 defenders at Malmstrom that provide security
for the missiles that silently sit across Montana. I know these airmen
will not fail our Nation, but Washington, DC is failing them. Senate
Democrats are failing them, and that is unacceptable.
At Malmstrom, the motto on the commander's coin says this: ``Scaring
the hell out of America's enemies since 1962.'' And they do so because
this body chose duty over politics.
So how can Democrats continue to stand here and say no to our
military when so much is at stake, when the House passed a bipartisan
bill, when this body passed a bill by a unanimous vote of 30 to 0 out
of committee? We must say yes to our military who fight for us every
day and say no to petty politics in Washington, DC. We must stand up
for the rights and the freedoms we enjoy. Senate Democrats, stop saying
no. Let us debate the DOD appropriations bill.
Finally, I urge my Senate colleagues across the aisle to have the
courage to vote against the wishes of their leaders and help us move
this legislation forward.
Again, I am proud to stand here with some of my Senate freshmen
colleagues and the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Thom
Tillis. I know Senator Tillis has some real concerns about what is
going on here on the Senate floor.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I want to thank my friends and colleagues
from Montana, Alaska, and Iowa for being here. I particularly want to
thank Lieutenant Colonel Ernst for her service. She is now a veteran,
but she served bravely. I want to thank my friend from Alaska. He is a
marine, and he still answers the call. He is doing the work here in the
Senate, but he is prepared to go on a moment's notice wherever we have
to go to defend freedom.
I come from North Carolina. This is almost getting personal with me.
I am going to talk a little bit about that, but I want to explain to
the people who may be watching this on television or to those in the
Senate Gallery what we are talking about.
We use the word filibuster, and it is kind of hard to understand, but
it is actually pretty straightforward. The Democratic conference has
decided to say no to funding our troops. They have decided to say no to
providing them a much deserved pay raise. They have decided to say no
to funding important training that is necessary to make sure they can
complete these highly dangerous and complex missions wherever a threat
may occur.
Now, why is it personal to me in North Carolina? Because I have about
100,000 Active-Duty personnel in North Carolina. Fort Bragg in North
Carolina is the home of the Global Response Force. That is the base
that gets the call from the President when, on a moment's notice, we
may have to send hundreds or thousands of men and women to drop out of
airplanes anywhere in the world. It is not just jumping out with a
parachute. It is jumping out with a hundred pounds of equipment
attached to them, it is dropping earthmovers, weather stations, a small
city operation anywhere in the world to support a relief effort or to
support a combat mission. That takes training. That takes constant
training. It takes hours and hours of training to make sure they can
complete their mission but, even as important, to make sure they do it
safely and that they themselves do not get injured or killed in the
process.
Now, we have already heard it said multiple times before, but I think
it bears repeating. Why on Earth would the minority leader prevent us
from moving to a vote? A filibuster is nothing more than saying no to
sending this bill to the President's desk, after 30 Democratic members
in the Appropriations Committee said yes. We only need six of them to
move this bill to the President's desk.
I guess the minority leader has a hammerlock on all of the Members
who want to vote for this bill. They won't come to the floor and show
the courage and commitment to the men and women in uniform to do the
right thing. That is where we are. That is why it is personal to me.
What do I tell the 100,000 Active-Duty military in North Carolina
when I go home? I am sorry, but the minority leader has decided you are
not a priority, in spite of the fact that we go to Committee on Armed
Services hearings weekly and we hear the threat level has never been
greater and in spite of the fact that we see the rise of ISIS across
all of the Middle East, now in Europe, and it is threatening our
homeland.
In spite of all of these threats, we tell the men and women in
uniform and their commanders that politics win over the principle of
funding our troops and saving our Nation and protecting our Nation. I
think that is despicable.
We know we have enough votes to send this bill to the President
because they voted for it before. We only need a third of them to vote
for this now and send it to the President's desk.
I could go on, and if we have time, I hope Senator Sullivan will ask
me some questions because I have spent a lot of time down at Camp
Lejeune and Fort Bragg. Ask me about whether or not the leader of
FORSCOM and the leaders down there responsible for the 82nd Airborne
Division and the XVIII Airborne Corps think they have enough money and
they can keep our men and women safe. Ask them about the conditions at
Camp Lejeune and the conditions we ask these men and women to serve in
after we tell them we are not going to give you money to keep you safe
so that you can complete your mission.
This is politics at its worst. We need to send this bill to the
President's desk. We need to show respect for the men and women who
have sworn an oath to lay down their life for the cause of freedom.
This is a failure on the part of the minority leader and on the part of
any other person who would sit there and refuse to move to a bill that
every single one of them in the Appropriations Committee supported.
I appreciate Senator Sullivan's elevating this dialogue to the extent
that he will, and we shouldn't stop until we fulfill the promise that
is our first and foremost constitutional obligation, which is to
protect this Nation. The
[[Page S4972]]
people voting against this bill and preventing it from getting to the
President's desk, in my opinion, are failing to live up to their oath.
I want to thank Senator Sullivan and Senator Ernst again for their
service, and I thank my colleague for bringing this to the attention of
the American people.
Mr. SULLIVAN. I thank Senator Tillis, and he put his finger on it
when he said it is personal. I think it is personal to all of us.
Senator Ernst talked about it. She literally has her former
colleagues, the troops she commanded, in Afghanistan right now. There
is nothing more personal than that.
Just like Senator Tillis and Senator Daines, the great State of
Alaska also has thousands and thousands of Active-Duty Army, Air Force,
Coast Guard, and Marines servicemembers, reservists, and veterans, and
they are wondering why. I get asked: Why would the minority leader
filibuster spending for America's troops? Isn't that like the most
important thing the Congress does--national defense? Why?
Why on Earth would they consider doing it a fifth time before we go
home on recess? The one thing we should be doing before we take a 2-
month recess--when, as Senator Ernst said, the whole world is imploding
with national security challenges--is voting to fund our troops. So
why? I really don't know the answer.
At one point, the minority leader came to the floor last year and
said the bill was ``a waste of time.'' I am not sure most Americans
would agree with him on that. Then they made some kind of excuse: Well,
we need to make sure the appropriations bill fits with the bipartisan
budget agreement from last year. Well, it does. Nobody is making that
argument. He was even recently quoted as saying he doesn't want his
party to be ``at the mercy of Republicans.'' In essence, that blocking
our defense budget gives his political party leverage. Well, I will
tell you who gets leverage from blocking this funding--our enemies and
our adversaries, not our troops.
There is one other myth here, and I hear it a lot. When these
procedural votes happen in the Senate, the troops don't really see it.
They do not really understand it. Heck, this vote they took to block it
last time on Thursday night was almost at midnight. Maybe nobody saw
it. But I want to ask Senator Ernst: Do you think the troops see this?
Do you think they understand what is going on? Do you think your troops
in Afghanistan or in the Iowa National Guard or all the other military
members we have gotten to know through our positions on the Committee
on Armed Services see what is happening? How do you think that impacts
morale?
Mrs. ERNST. I thank my colleague. Yes, of course, they pay attention.
They see what is going on in the Senate. We track this. I tracked this
when I was a young captain serving in Kuwait and Iraq. We track this
because it is so important that we have the funding necessary for our
personnel--just basic funding of our human resources obligations to the
U.S. Armed Forces.
As to our personnel, we have to have funding to update our equipment,
and we have to have the funding for the training necessary so that our
men and women are ready and able to forward deploy. Even when they are
forward deployed--in Iraq, Afghanistan, or you name it--they pay
attention.
It is vitally important that what we do here today is to vote on the
DOD appropriations bill. We have to stop this filibuster. Our troops
are paying attention. Their families are paying attention. Their
families here in the United States want to know the Senate is doing the
right thing by protecting our military, making sure we have the troops
necessary, the equipment necessary, the training necessary to make sure
that when they forward deploy, they come home safe again. That is No.
1--making sure they are properly trained, equipped, and manned so they
come home safe.
So yes, Senator Sullivan, they do pay attention. As we are standing
here debating the importance of this appropriations bill, we have
almost 10,000 troops serving today--right now--in Afghanistan. We have
almost 5,000 troops in Iraq. Our special operators are deployed
throughout the world protecting our Nation.
Just last week I had the opportunity to visit a hospital and see one
of those special operators, and I am going to come back to that special
operator in just a second.
I stated before that the world is imploding, and we only have to look
at the headlines over the past several days to see what a risk our
globe is in. North Korea test fires a ballistic missile from a
submarine on July 9. The Chinese Navy holds a live fire drill in the
South China Sea--even after the international court has ruled against
their claims in the region. Iran, which is now, oddly enough, being
fueled by taxpayer dollars after the horrific nuclear deal our
administration entered in, drove their boats dangerously close to ours
once again. They came dangerously close to American ships. And U.S.
intelligence reports come forward saying ISIS is ``adapting'' to our
current efforts.
These are the things, folks, that keep me up at night. These are the
things that keep many of us up at night. But what lets us rest a little
more at ease is knowing that we have our airmen, marines, soldiers, and
sailors who are forward-deployed guarding our homeland. What puts my
mind at rest is knowing we have these brave men and women doing their
job for us. They are not failing us.
Back to the special operator I visited in the hospital last week,
this young man--forward-deployed into a theater in the Middle East--had
been shot four times. Two weeks ago when I went into his hospital room,
he was standing up. This special operator was pretty proud to show me
his wounds--standing up, shot four times. He didn't bemoan the fact
that he had been injured severely; what he was bemoaning was the fact
that he was not with his unit.
He said: Ma'am, I have no idea how long it is going to take me to
heal, but I am ready to go back and serve with my unit. I am ready to
go back.
These are the men and women we need to be funding, folks. They are
our defense--our national defense. So I am asking that the filibuster
end and that we take a vote on the DOD appropriations bill.
I know we would like to hear a little more from my colleagues--again,
I thank them for coming to the floor--the Senator from Montana, the
Senator from North Carolina. And I thank the Senator from Alaska for
leading us in this discussion today.
I yield the floor to the Senator from Montana.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, it is certainly an honor to think that we
are standing here as Senators with two distinguished veterans:
Lieutenant Colonel Ernst and Senator Sullivan, who served in the U.S.
Marines. In fact, tonight I will be at the Iwo Jima memorial, at a
parade, with my daughter, honoring my dad, a marine, and honoring the
men and women who served and wore the great uniform of the U.S.
military.
There is one group who is cheering right now, and that is our
enemies. They are cheering the fact that this body cannot get a defense
appropriations bill passed. Maybe we should tie congressional pay to
this bill. You know what. We could ask the minority leader: Let's put
congressional pay in here. Maybe that will get the body to act, to move
forward, if we say: If we are not going to fund our military, let's not
fund this body right here. If we can't pass the Defense appropriations
bill, we shouldn't get a paycheck here in Washington, DC.
We ought to stand with the men and women who depend on the
appropriations. What this body is saying no to--this filibuster is
saying no to military personnel; it is saying no operations; it is
saying no to the procuring we need to take the fight to the enemy; and
it is saying no to research and development, testing and evaluation to
make sure our men and women who wear the uniform of the U.S. military
have the very best tools they need to defeat a very real enemy.
I thank my freshmen colleagues for coming to the floor today. I thank
Senator Sullivan for leading this effort as we are discussing why we
need to stop the filibuster and pass the Defense appropriations bill.
Mr. TILLIS. Senator Sullivan asked Senator Ernst whether people in
uniform are watching. Let's talk about other people watching. What
about the families of those men and women in
[[Page S4973]]
uniform, the ones whom Democrats have decided to say no to for a pay
raise?
My wife and I have adopted Fort Bragg, where she started a program
called Baby Bundles where we create these bundles to give to expectant
families, E4s and below. These men and women have very little. They are
serving their Nation and are not making a lot of money. We are trying
to do our best to make up for that by providing them with these gifts
as they bring a child into the world.
But what about the mother or father who is left behind as their loved
one is somewhere in harm's way? What are they thinking about when they
come home during training and say: You know, we are just not getting
the jumps we were getting. We are not getting the equipment we were
getting. And, sweetie, I am about to be deployed.
That is happening. That is what this ``no'' stands for. That is what
this action on the part of the Democrats stands for.
We need to vote for this bill. We need to show military families and
men and women in uniform that we support them. I encourage my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to move this bill to the
President's desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to
conclude this colloquy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who bring honor to
the Senate by coming down here and talking about this important issue.
Those watching at home should be calling their Senators and telling
them: Fund our troops. Fund our troops.
When there are so many national security challenges out there, we
need to make sure we do not go on a 2-month recess without funding our
troops and moving forward on this bill. We should not move forward on a
vote to have another filibuster vote, the fifth one in a year--the only
bill that seems to get the focus of our colleagues and the minority
leader to filibuster.
We need to do the right thing. We need to do the right thing by the
American people, and we need to do the right thing by our troops. Fund
the troops. Break the filibuster. We need to move forward.
I certainly hope my colleagues on the other side are going to finally
see the light and vote to move forward funding for our military,
national security, our troops, and our families.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time now will be controlled by the two
managers.
The Senate minority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, what does the previous order say?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is equally divided until 3:30 p.m.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will take some of that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Zika Virus Funding
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senate's work is that of legislating.
The art of legislating is rooted in good faith, and, always,
legislation by definition is the art of compromise. In order to
accomplish things for the American people, the Senate must work
together in good faith, but I am seeing very few good-faith efforts
from the Republicans on Zika, among other things. What I am seeing is
one cynical Republican ploy after another.
It is clear now that Republicans are not going to provide President
Obama and the country with the $1.9 billion in emergency Zika funds
that public health officials need, but Democrats still want to get as
much funding as the experts tell us they need in order to stop Zika. To
that end, the President of the United States, Leader Pelosi, and I have
made several entreaties to the Republican leaders--that is, Senator
McConnell and Speaker Ryan--pleading with them to work with us. Last
Thursday, the administration tried to schedule a meeting with Speaker
Ryan and Senator McConnell in the same room with Health and Human
Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell and Director Shaun Donovan, the
leader of the Office of Management and Budget. This was an opportunity
for Republicans in Congress and the administration to get on the same
page about Zika and chart a path forward. Speaker Ryan and Senator
McConnell said no to me. They wouldn't even meet with two members of
the President's Cabinet.
Democrats are disappointed, but we continue to look for solutions.
The only solution at this point that would get doctors, researchers,
and public health experts the immediate Zika funding they need is to
pass the bipartisan Senate compromise as soon as possible. We were
willing to do more, but the Senate compromise I just mentioned passed
this body with 89 votes and could pass again today if it were brought
up by the Republican leader for a vote.
I spoke with the Republican leader personally and asked him to
consider this legislation as a stand-alone bill. And we would be
willing to do even more. I told him that. He would not commit one way
or the other. Yesterday, I had my staff reach out to the Republican
leader's staff. We haven't heard back. Instead of getting back to my
office with a substantive response, the Republican leader came to the
floor this morning and made accusations that were wild and unfair about
what we are proposing. I guess that was the Republican leader's
response to our good-faith offer. I guess that was it. But that is not
the way the Senate should operate.
Now it is clear that the Republican leader has been stringing us
along. He never had any intention of coming back to negotiate a deal.
Republicans have no desire to work with us to get a bipartisan Zika
funding bill to the President now or at any time in the near future. It
has all been a charade. Republicans are interested in one thing only:
attacking Planned Parenthood. Zika is the sideshow. What Republicans
really show their interest in is undermining women's health by taking
potshots at Planned Parenthood. They are good at this. They have been
doing this for years, and they will use Zika, Ebola, and anything else
to do it.
There is a frightening shortage of integrity in this body, and it is
getting worse every day. It doesn't have to be that way. Democrats and
Republicans can work together and should work together, and we should
work in good faith.
The chair and ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee have an agreement that if Democrats agree to go to
conference on this Energy bill, Senator Murkowski has given her word to
side with Senator Cantwell in order to produce a consensus-based
conference report they can both support. She made that same commitment
to me personally. So Senator Murkowski and Senator Cantwell will work
together to represent the Senate at the conference--not represent
Democrats or Republicans but the Senate. That is terrific. Senators
Cantwell and Murkowski have proven in the past that they can work on
good, strong legislation without poison pills and with strong
bipartisan support. So I look forward to them working with other
conferees to complete a final energy bill that Democrats can support
and the President will sign.
The basis of this legislation has been going on for 4 or 5 years--4
or 5 years. The effort was led by Senator Shaheen for years. We almost
got it done, but we had Republican obstruction on it. So we are where
we are now. We can't legislate for things done in the past, but the
Republican leader should take a cue from the senior Senator from
Alaska.
We still want to work together with Republicans to get something done
on Zika. It is important to the American people. That would require a
good-faith approach from our Republican colleagues. That is not here
right now, and it is too bad.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time in the quorum
call that I am about to suggest be charged equally against both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page S4974]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in just a matter of minutes this
afternoon, we will proceed to a motion to go to a formal conference on
S. 2012, which is the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2016. There is
no doubt in my mind that we should agree to go to conference with the
House on this broad bipartisan measure.
I want to begin my remarks with a reminder of both the process that
we followed to reach this point and the many, many good provisions that
the process has allowed the Senate to include within our Energy bill.
From the very beginning, we have committed to the regular order,
committee-oriented process.
I want to acknowledge the strong working relationship with my friend
and colleague on the committee, the ranking member, Senator Cantwell
from Washington. We set out working this together. We set out with a
view in mind that we needed to update our country's energy laws. In
order to get a good product, we were going to have to work
cooperatively and collaboratively and in an open, transparent, and
inclusive process. That is what we did. That has been a goal that was
worth working toward, and I think the effort that we made as a chair
and as a ranking member brought in support from both sides of the aisle
and allowed us to come to this place today.
Our Energy Policy Modernization Act is the result of listening
sessions, legislative hearings, bipartisan negotiations, a multiday
markup held last July, and a multimonth floor process earlier this
year. That process concluded with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, as
85 Senators voted in favor of the first major Energy bill to pass this
Chamber in nearly a decade.
After we passed our bill, it went over to the House. They responded
with a series of measures that had already passed their Chamber. While
what they sent back has been criticized by some, I certainly think the
House was restrained in its process. They could have passed a highly
partisan package that would have been more difficult to reconcile with
our bill, but I think they developed a more measured response and chose
by voice vote to ask the Senate to conference with them. Now it is our
turn.
The very last procedural step is for the Senate to vote to proceed to
go to a formal conference. After waiting more than a month--actually, I
think we are probably at about 6 weeks now--we will have that vote in
the next 10 minutes or so. In looking at all the significant provisions
included within our bill, all of which are at stake today, I think this
should be a very easy choice for all of us to make.
Our bill includes priorities from 80 different Members of the Senate,
including 42 members of the Democratic caucus. When we vote to go to
conference, it is no exaggeration to say that at least 80 of us within
this body will be voting on whether or not to advance our own ideas and
our own policy suggestions.
Let me give you a couple of examples. Our bill contains a bipartisan
provision from Senators Barrasso and Heinrich, as well as 16 others
that would streamline the LNG export approval process. The bill
contains an entire title on energy efficiency that was written by
Senator Portman and Senator Shaheen, as well as 13 other Members.
The resources title that I developed with the ranking member is a
balanced package of some 30 lands and water bills, including a
bipartisan sportsmen's provision that the Senate adopted by a vote of
97 to 0. We made innovation a key priority to promote the developing of
promising technologies. We have Senators Alexander, Peters, Capito,
Manchin, Wyden, and many others to thank for that.
We also focused on grid modernization, cyber security, the National
Park Centennial, and conservation policies. These are all bipartisan
efforts. All of those are a part of this bill.
Now we have to vote to determine whether we will keep going in the
last stretch of this legislative process or whether the Senate says:
All that work that you did--we are not going to move forward with it. I
don't think that is a good option, and I hope it is an option this
Chamber will reject.
My very strong preference is that we keep going. I think we should
agree to conference with the House of Representatives because I know
the conference process can produce a worthy bill that becomes law. I
think it is fair to say that it will not include everything that is on
the table right now, but anyone who has looked at what each Chamber has
passed knows there is plenty out there that we can agree on.
I have a few assurances from Members who may be a little bit hesitant
to move forward this afternoon. First, I will reiterate my personal
commitment to a final bill that can pass both Chambers and be signed
into law by the President. That doesn't mean we are going to
unilaterally disarm ourselves in conference negotiations, but my
objective here is to deliver a law. That means it can't be the House
product necessarily or the Senate product necessarily. It has to be
something the Chambers can both agree on and the President can sign
into law. I intend to lead the conference committee the way I led the
Senate process--by looking for common ground, by being open, by being
fair and inclusive, and by seeking consensus over partisan division.
You don't have to take just my word for it. A couple of weeks ago,
the two House chairmen who will be most heavily involved in the Energy
bill conference also released a joint statement that reinforces how we
intend to proceed. Here is what the House Energy and Commerce chair,
Fred Upton, as well as the House Natural Resources chairman, Rob
Bishop, said on June 20:
At the end of the day, our goal is to get something to the
President that he will sign into law. From our perspective, a
bill that the President will veto is a waste of time and
effort and casts aside the hard work we've put in up to this
point. We remain committed to working in a bicameral,
bipartisan manner and remain hopeful that we can set aside
our differences and move ahead with a formal conference
between the two chambers.
In addition to my approach and the approach the two House chairmen
have embraced, there are institutional protections that will help
ensure that this process stays on track. If Members are part of the
conference committee and decide at the end they don't want to sign the
conference report, then they don't have to sign it. As we have seen in
recent days, conference reports require 60 votes to end debate on them,
meaning our bill will need to remain bipartisan in order to pass.
To me, the best argument for going to conference on an energy bill is
still the one we started with; that is, it is way past time. It has
been almost a decade now. The last time Congress passed a major energy
bill was December of 2007. With almost a decade's worth of changes in
technologies and markets taking place since then, our policies have
simply become outdated.
There is a whole list of organizations and individuals that have
urged us as a Chamber to get moving with a conference, whether it is
the Alliance to Save Energy, the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Business
Council for Sustainable Energy, the American Chemistry Council, the
chamber of commerce. They go and on.
There is an urgent need to update and reform our Nation's energy
policies. We are overdue. Our policies are deficient. We have advanced
many, many good ideas, but we need to get this over the finish line.
That is exactly what going to conference will allow us to do.
The Energy Policy Modernization Act gives us a chance to do all of
that. We have a chance now to take that next step forward on this broad
bipartisan bill--keep it going, proceed to conference, allow ourselves
to write a good final bill that we can then send to the President's
desk.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Alaska, the
chair of the Senate Energy Committee, to urge my colleagues today to
move forward on going to conference on the Energy bill.
My colleagues will remember we passed a bill 85 to 12, I think it
was, and included a great deal of provisions on--my colleague just
said--modernizing the electricity grid, building next-generation
investments in energy, smart buildings, advanced composite
[[Page S4975]]
materials, energy storage and improving cyber security, critical
infrastructure, and the energy workforce for tomorrow.
This was a very worked-over process, both in committee and on the
Senate floor, and it was a very collaborative effort among our
colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It did take some discussion with
our House colleagues because the package they passed was a very
different product. I will say, it was a very less worked product on a
bipartisan basis and certainly a product that had a lot of veto threats
in it.
Our House colleagues have made some comments about that legislation
that have made it helpful for us to move forward. We met with our
colleagues, the Natural Resources and Energy Committee chairs, Mr.
Bishop and Mr. Upton. They basically said: Look, they didn't want to
waste time on things that would be vetoed by the President of the
United States, so we took that as a good sign that they were willing to
sit down and talk about legislation that could move forward in a
positive fashion.
Senator Murkowski's staff, my staff, and we together have rolled up
our sleeves and tried to look at ways in which we could talk about how
we move forward from here so that all of our colleagues could have
confidence that we are going to work on something that would be a final
product that really would get to the President's desk. I thank my
colleague from Alaska for her indulgence in that process. I know she
had conversations with Senator Reid about no poison pills and wasn't
going to sign off on those kinds of activities.
We are here to say to our colleagues: Let's continue the good
bipartisan effort that existed in the Senate bill and work with our
colleagues in the House to resolve these issues. As my colleagues know,
there are many thorny issues that still need to be addressed. Even
though the Senate worked out many of its issues, there are still
several thorny issues that are in the House bill, such as water, fire,
and a variety of other issues which will take some dialogue and give us
an opportunity to talk. If we can reach a conclusion, great, but if we
can't, I think we have all decided that moving forward on the basis of
an energy policy we can agree to is a very important concept for all of
us.
As my colleague from Alaska said, it is time to move forward on an
energy policy, and I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this
motion. Let us continue to work to protect these key provisions and
move forward so we can get a bill to the President's desk.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
disagree to the House amendment, agree to the request from
the House for a conference, and the Presiding Officer appoint
the following conferees: Senators Murkowski, Barrasso, Risch,
Cornyn, Cantwell, Wyden, and Sanders with respect to S. 2012,
an original bill to provide for the modernization of the
energy policy of the United States, and for other purposes.
John McCain, John Cornyn, Marco Rubio, Deb Fischer, Rob
Portman, Roger F. Wicker, Richard Burr, Joni Ernst,
David Vitter, James M. Inhofe, Dean Heller, Pat
Roberts, Lamar Alexander, Ron Johnson, Tom Cotton, Thom
Tillis, Mitch McConnell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to disagree to the House amendment, agree to the request by the
House for a conference, and to appoint conferees with respect to S.
2012, a bill to provide for the modernization of the energy policy of
the United States, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Texas (Mr.
Cornyn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn)
would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 84, nays 3, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 125 Leg.]
YEAS--84
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Risch
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--3
Paul
Perdue
Scott
NOT VOTING--13
Barrasso
Coats
Cochran
Cornyn
Cruz
Graham
Inhofe
Roberts
Rounds
Sanders
Shelby
Vitter
Wicker
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 84, the nays are 3.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Cloture having been invoked, the question is on agreeing to the
compound motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________