Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 164 (Wednesday, November 16, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 164 (Wednesday, November 16, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6388-S6397]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AMERICAN ENERGY AND CONSERVATION ACT OF 2016--MOTION TO PROCEED

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to

[[Page S6389]]

proceed to S. 3110, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 543, S. 3110, a bill to
provide for reforms of the administration of the outer
Continental Shelf of the United States, to provide for the
development of geothermal, solar, and wind energy on public
land, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I want to speak on the bill. We are going
to have a vote somewhere around midday tomorrow on this bill. This
Senator comes to this issue with a long history of drilling for oil off
our coast. Ever since I was a young Congressman, I have been fighting
to keep oil rigs off Florida's coast. It is especially important at
this time, as we have a new administration coming in that took a public
position in the election declaring the intent of the President-elect to
open up additional areas off the coast to oil drilling. The package
that we are going to consider tomorrow is an enhancement of exactly
that goal.
I want to point out to the Senate why this is not in the interest of
our country now. First of all, we are dealing with a law that we passed
about 5 or 6 years ago with an acronym of GOMESA, which opened up for
the first time oil revenues that came from Federal waters to be shared
with the Gulf States.
We were doing this primarily in the interests of Louisiana because
Louisiana had been hit so hard by Hurricane Katrina, and there was a
need to restore a lot of those marshes. This was another way of getting
revenue to the State of Louisiana. At the same time that bill was
passed, it enhanced a law that we had passed with my former colleague
Senator Mel Martinez back in the 2006 timeframe that kept the oil
drilling off Florida in the gulf--and kept it off, and it is in law. It
is the only place of the Outer Continental Shelf where it is in law
that you cannot drill up through the year 2022.
I want to point out for the historical record why that is so and why
this bill we are considering tomorrow is not in the interest of the
country. This area in yellow is the Gulf of Mexico off of Florida. This
is Florida, the peninsula, the Keys. This is the gulf coast of Florida.
Over here is Pensacola. All of that area in yellow is off limits to
drilling until the year 2022.
Why? Well, it does not take a rocket scientist to realize what
happened to Florida's economy after the Deep Water Horizon oil spill.
The oil got as far as Pensacola. The spill was over here off of
Louisiana. It got to the beaches of Pensacola, some to Destin, some tar
balls to Panama City, until the wind started sending it back the other
way.
But what happened to Florida's tourism industry on its gulf coast for
an entire season? The tourists thought there was oil on our beaches,
and tourists did not come for an entire season all the way down to
Marco Island, Naples--all of those beautiful sugary white sand beaches,
including the beaches of Northwest Florida.
They did not come because they thought there was oil there. That did
not just affect the airlines and the hotels. It affected the dry
cleaners and the restaurants and all of the largest industry in
Florida, which is the tourism industry. That is one reason.
Another reason is that there are so many of the bays and estuaries
along this gulf coast where the critters are hatched that supply the
fish stocks for the entire gulf. Of course, there are stocks that are
hatched here that migrate out into the other oceans.
But there is a third reason. That reason is that all of this area to
the east of this line--in other words, 125 miles off Panama City, 235
miles off Tampa Bay, even further off Naples--all of that is the
largest testing and training area in the world for the U.S. military.
The Department of Defense has issued two letters under the signatures
of two Republican Secretaries of Defense saying that any oil-related
activities here would be incompatible with our testing and training
mission, this being the largest one in the United States.
That is why we do not have drilling there. You will hear the
proponents of the bill say: Well, we have exempted this part. We have
exempted it not only because it is off limits in law, but what they are
doing to the rest of the gulf coast is almost doubling the revenue
sharing that would go to the States, the Gulf States, thereby giving
even more incentive for the State governments to want to have drilling
off of their coasts regardless of the U.S. military, regardless of the
economic engine of Florida, regardless of the very delicate
environment.
But there is more. As a matter of fact, the bill before us would
offer revenue sharing to States. Mind you, this is drilling in Federal
waters. Any revenue would typically go to the Federal Government. As a
matter of fact, it is estimated by CBO that it would be a loss of $7
billion to the U.S. Treasury.
That would also be available for the States on the Atlantic. Here is
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland,
New Jersey, New York, and on up on the Atlantic coast. I brought this
chart to show not only the gulf area off of Florida and the military
testing and training ranges, but to look at the military testing and
training ranges off the Atlantic coast. If it is incompatible here, are
we not going to hear, as we have heard from some in the Department of
Defense, that it is going to be incompatible in the Atlantic region?
I want to urge that not only have we been battling to keep our
coastal environments and beaches clean and unpolluted--that is not the
only argument. The argument is also one of keeping our national
security tested and trained in the most sophisticated weapons and
training for the best military in the world.
This Senator is a senior member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee. There is a reason that we do not have oil rigs out here.
First of all, in the State of Florida, we have Tyndall Air Force Base
at Panama City. That is where they are training our pilots on F-22s. At
Eglin Air Force Base near Fort Walton Beach, that is where about half
of the U.S. Air Force training and the other services--the Navy as well
as the Air Force--are training their pilots for the F-35 that is now
being cycled in to be the workhorse of our fighters.
The U.S. Navy, which will have F-35s but presently has F-18s, will
fly a squadron to Key West Naval Air Station. They will be there for a
week or two. When they lift off from the runway at Boca Chica Key, in 2
minutes they could be over restricted airspace, not having spent a lot
of time and fuel to get to the area of restriction for their testing
and training. So the Department of Defense has said: You simply cannot
have oil rigs operating in an area where we are testing these very
sophisticated weapons systems--and they need a lot of space; from this
location down here, this is some 300 miles--as well as the training
that goes on.

It is not just for the benefit of our military, it is key to our
national defense.
We have watched the tar balls wash up on the beaches. We have seen
the sugary white sands of Pensacola Beach completely black, covered in
oil. We saw the harm that was done to not only the local businesses
that cater to tourists, such as the hotels, restaurants, and
attractions, but to all the ancillary businesses, such as the
drycleaners and the real estate firms.
To put it into perspective, for our State of Florida, this is a $50
billion industry that oils the engine of our economy. We are talking
about generating some $700 million in sales tax revenue for the State,
and it helps support more than 450,000 jobs throughout the State. Why
would you risk destroying a State's economy as well as our military
preparation? It is not as if we don't have other places that we want to
produce oil. Think of the oil shale that has been tapped in the
Dakotas, in Oklahoma, and in Texas that is not producing at maximum
capacity.
As Floridians, the images of the hazmat crews in those hazmat suits
and the Coast Guard vessels skimming off the water just 6 years ago are
emblazoned on our memories. Our fishermen and our businesses certainly
haven't forgotten their own losses that amounted to hundreds of
millions of dollars. So if the new administration and the oil industry
want to have a fight on in issue, well, they certainly have one. This
Senator is going to continue to try to keep the oil rigs off the State
of Florida with everything I have, for all of the reasons I have
stated.

[[Page S6390]]

When we vote tomorrow, I would commend to our colleagues to beware of
all of the effects of almost doubling the revenue for the Gulf Coast
States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, which is at the
heart of what is behind this particular bill we are going to vote on,
but also beware there are hidden messages in this revenue sharing, and
it strikes at the heart of what we have been trying to protect here--
the environment, our economy, and our U.S. military preparedness.
I yield the floor.
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.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Bringing People Together

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, as long as no other Senator is asking to
be recognized, let me just say that from the perspective of the senior
Senator from Florida, I think it is the obligation of those of us who
were backing the candidate who did not win the Presidency--as President
Obama has said, the President-elect will be the President. It is
incumbent upon the rest of us, regardless of party, to reach out and to
try to help the new President on behalf of and for the sake of our
country.
This Senator, who in four decades of public service has always tried
to reach out in a bipartisan way and bring people together, to build
consensus in order to govern, will continue to do so, and this Senator
greets the new administration with that statement. It is important that
a statement like that be made, especially in this time where we are so
rent asunder, where we are so divided, and where we have come through
an election that has been--the only word I can think of is ``ugly.''
Things were said in the ordinary course of conversation in this
election that should not have been said. Particularly as we try to heal
the wounds of both sides and take back the awful things that were said
and create an atmosphere where we can come together for the sake of our
country, that is especially important, and this Senator is going to
contribute to that.
It is my hope that it will be received on all sides and that we will
reach out and try to bring people together. I think it is important to
say that, particularly at a time where feelings have been hurt and
feelings have been so high and so tense.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Working Together

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we are living in historic times. The 115th
Congress will be the first time in a decade that Republicans have held
both Chambers of Congress and the White House. Before the George W.
Bush administration in the early part of this century, you would have
to go back to the Eisenhower administration--I believe it was 1953--to
find a comparable time of Republican control.
Interestingly, for the history buffs who may be listening, there have
actually been 14 times since 1945 when we have had single-party
majorities in both Houses and the White House. Eleven of those times
have been our Democratic colleagues and three times have been
Republicans. So I come back to where I started in saying these are
truly historic times.
This morning, our Republican conference met to elect our leadership
team to serve in the next Congress during this extraordinary time.
After gaining the majority 2 years ago, it has been a pleasure to
look back and see what we have been able to accomplish even with the
President from the opposing party in the White House.
Yesterday I mentioned the rewrite of No Child Left Behind, which sent
more authority back to the States, parents, and teachers to make
education decisions for children in kindergarten through 12th grade. I
also mentioned passing a long-term highway bill for 5 years--something
we hadn't been able to do for a long time. Those are just two concrete
examples of how, working together, we can tackle big, intractable
problems. Frankly, nothing happens in the Senate unless it is
bipartisan.
We also passed some other important legislation, something negotiated
by the majority leader in the House at the time, Nancy Pelosi, or
Leader Pelosi, and Speaker John Boehner, which was the reform of our
Social Security laws in terms of how doctors under Medicare are paid.
It is an important item because if doctors are not paid a prevailing
fee or competitive fee for their services, they are simply not going to
see Medicare patients and seniors are not going to have access to the
care they deserve. We passed a bill sanctioning North Korea for its
nuclear program and its human rights abuses. We also passed legislation
to better support our troops, who fight and put themselves in harm's
way to keep us safe every day.
I am grateful to our Republican colleagues for voting to continue the
direction of progress for the American people by reelecting their
current leadership, including the senior Senator from Kentucky, Mr.
McConnell. As all of us have, I have had the honor to serve alongside
Senator McConnell for several years now, although I have served for the
last 4 years as the whip or the right hand of the majority leader when
it comes to trying to corral votes and trying to promote our
legislative agenda. I found the majority leader to be a wise and steady
hand in a town marked by the absence of those virtues, among many. So I
am proud to serve with him in the next Congress, as I am with all of
our colleagues, and in his case as the majority leader, as his
assistant.
We also had a chance, having come back together after the election,
to talk about the future and to talk about our agenda going forward.
Yesterday I pointed out several legislative priorities at the top of
the list--policy items we have to get right on behalf of the American
people--such as confirming a Supreme Court Justice who will interpret
the laws as we write them and as the Constitution is written, rather
than as another policymaking branch of government.
We have also promised we would repeal and replace ObamaCare, which
was a failed experiment--failed because the President, when he promoted
it, said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. He said: If you
like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. And he said: An average
family of four will see their premiums go down $2,500. None of that has
been proven to be true. So it is very important we keep that promise of
repealing ObamaCare and then replace it on a step-by-step basis over a
transition period with more affordable health care that will preserve
the choices in health care through Americans and their families and not
Washington, DC.
And then there is the matter of legislation. After our Democratic
friends lost their 60-vote majority in the Senate and the Republicans
flipped the House, providing for a divided government, the one thing
that has characterized the Obama administration has been its Executive
actions and overregulation. In August, it was reported the President
and his administration had issued 600 major regulations with a pricetag
of more than $740 billion.
If there is one thing I hear from my constituents back in Texas--
small business owners and the like--it is that they are feeling the
strangling effect of overregulation, along with the cost of compliance
and the uncertainty that goes along with it. So it is no surprise to
see that our economy has essentially flatlined and not been growing
because none of this is good for the small business owners we are
relying upon to create jobs and opportunities, and it is not good for
American families looking for those jobs in order to provide for their
families and simply put food on the table. So we are eager to roll back
those expensive, and in many instances unnecessary, certainly in every
instance burdensome regulations so the economy can have some breathing
room and begin to grow again.
Many of us are interested in addressing tax reform as well. There is
bipartisan consensus that our Tax Code is simply too complex and
counterproductive. In fact, it is literally a self-

[[Page S6391]]

inflicted wound when it comes to forcing $2 trillion-plus overseas that
American-based companies would like to bring back, but the reason they
do not is they would be subject to double taxation, first, in the
country where the money has been earned and, secondly, when they bring
it back to the United States. Rather than do that, many of them will
leave that money overseas. That means that rather than investing in
American jobs and American infrastructure, they are literally investing
in jobs overseas and in building infrastructure to support their
facilities in other countries. That makes no sense whatsoever.
So tax reform is high on our agenda. I believe, and I am optimistic,
that at a time when everybody understands our Tax Code has simply
gotten too complex, too expensive, and too counterproductive, we will
be able to make some real progress.
Coming from a border State, I can tell you I am delighted to hear
President Elect Trump talk about the importance of border security. In
a post-9/11 world, it is simply critical we know who is coming into our
country and make sure they do so only by legal means. So securing our
border is something we need to deal with, and thank goodness there is
no shortage of good ideas.
Chairman Mike McCaul of the House Homeland Security Committee has a
bipartisan bill I think would make great progress along those lines,
but obviously we are going to have to have an important discussion
among all Members of Congress and the administration about how best to
accomplish the goal.
We also need to remember our ports of entry are where legitimate
trade and travel occur, and we should do nothing to impede that because
legitimate trade and travel are very important to our economy. The U.S.
economy enjoys about 6 million jobs as a result of trade between the
United States and Mexico alone.
So I look forward to working with the administration and with our
colleagues to make sure we secure our border against illegal
immigration, including human trafficking, drug trafficking, and the
potential violence that goes along with that, while making sure our
legitimate trade and travel at our ports of entry are supported so we
can benefit from those as well.
Of course, as we debated earlier this Congress, having an updated and
efficient infrastructure is vital to the health and well-being of our
economy. I mentioned the Transportation bill we passed. A long-term
Transportation bill will provide for some of that, but certainly not
all that is necessary. We need to take a look at the proposals the
President-elect is going to send our way, but there is no shortage of
good ideas being discussed both in the House and the Senate as well.
I look forward to learning more about those, but one thing that
hasn't been talked about very much is how we are going to pay for it,
and that is going to be an important item to discuss as well. Frankly,
we can't keep spending our kids' and grandkids' inheritance or at least
forcing upon the younger generations the obligation to pay for bills we
incur today.
One of the things I hope will occur as a result of this historic
election is that we will have the courage and the willingness to sit
down and come up with structural solutions to our financial situation,
which is $19 trillion-plus in debt. Because of the Federal Reserve
keeping interest rates very low, we are not having to pay huge amounts
of money in order to service that debt or pay interest to the people
who own that debt, but that is going to change if the Federal Reserve
begins to raise interest rates, and we are going to find ourselves
paying more and more money to service that debt to the bondholders and
less and less of that money will be available for our priorities
domestically, whether they be national security or other investments in
things such as medical research and the like.
So finding out how we can crack that nut and come together on a
bipartisan basis, working with the White House to deal with our long-
term fiscal problems and continuing to meet the needs of our Nation are
going to be challenging but exhilarating to do.
Many are talking about the next steps and what should and shouldn't
happen in light of the new political reality, but what is clear to me
today is that Republicans are united by a strong desire to listen to
the concerns of the American people and to deliver results--results
that make their lives easier and our collective futures stronger. I
want to say that as committed as the majority party is to that, we
can't do this without the cooperation and consensus building that comes
along as part of the legislative process.
Unfortunately, we have seen the last years characterized by
obstruction and filibusters and blocking things that essentially have
already received bipartisan support. I am talking particularly about
the appropriations process. One of the terrible things that happened
this last year in the Congress is the Appropriations Committees have
gotten back to work on a bipartisan basis. We would see bills coming
out at a fiscally responsible level, with agreed-upon spending caps and
Democrats and Republicans supporting them, only to see them dead on
arrival on the floor of the Senate. That is the kind of mindless
obstructionism I hope we can avoid going forward.
Just from the conversations I have had as a result of this election,
many of our Democratic colleagues appear to be willing to work with us.
Certainly, with the new leadership on the Democratic side of the aisle,
I am more optimistic than I have been in a long time that we can come
together while maintaining our strongly held convictions and
principles--I am not talking about compromising those but rather
working together when we can--and try to develop more ideas to better
serve the American people.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 3110, the
American Energy and Conservation Act of 2016. This would increase
revenue-sharing with the States for offshore oil and gas development.
This legislation is scheduled for a vote on the Senate floor tomorrow.
I am pleased the Senate is finally voting on this critical
legislation, and I thank my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Cassidy,
for his lead and his hard work on this crucial issue. Senator Cassidy
and I and several of our colleagues have worked hard over the years to
bring this issue to the forefront and help both Congress and the
American people understand how important revenue-sharing is not only to
Louisiana, to other energy-producing States, but to the country and for
the good of the country to expand American energy.
I also thank Leader McConnell and Chairman Murkowski for working with
us to bring this important bill to the floor for a vote. Revenue
sharing with oil- and gas-producing States is only fair, for two key
reasons: First, energy-producing States incur real costs and real
impacts from that production, including environmental, and second,
revenue sharing is the most important way we can continue to incent
domestic energy production over the long term in this country. It makes
it fair and smart for our U.S. energy future.
Energy production is essential to job creation and an overall healthy
economy. If it weren't for the oil and gas jobs that accompanied the
energy sector boom earlier this decade, we would perhaps still be in a
technical recession. One point I want to emphasize is that many of
those jobs have been created by small firms in the oil and gas sector
and support sectors. These small business energy jobs are something I
have highlighted in my role as chair of the Committee on Small Business
and Entrepreneurship, and they are vital in terms of the impact in this
sector.
This legislation would increase revenue sharing for the Gulf States
that produce energy offshore and would establish revenue sharing for
new production off of Alaska and off of Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Georgia. These are all areas that welcome the opportunity
to have this revenue sharing to incent domestic energy production and
increase the availability of American energy.

[[Page S6392]]

Contrary to what some have said, this legislation would not authorize
any new offshore drilling. Let me repeat. This legislation does not
provide for new or expanded lease sales. This bill is about revenue
sharing.
Let me be clear on what revenue sharing means for a State like
Louisiana, but there are many more. In Louisiana, we spend 100 percent
of these revenues on environmental concerns--specifically coastal
restoration. We lose about a football field worth of land in coastal
Louisiana--just think of the football field you see every Sunday in an
NFL game; that amount of land just in coastal Louisiana--every 38
minutes. That is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, no
time off for weekends, holidays, nothing. It is a constant loss. It is
an environmental disaster. That is the most significant environmental
issue by far that we face in our State. Our State is committed to
spending all of the money we receive from revenue sharing to restore,
rebuild, and protect our coast. That is vitally important for
Louisiana, but it is also vitally important for the rest of the country
because Louisiana supplies so much energy that is good for America.
Let me be clear on what this legislation does. It expands revenue
sharing to Alaska and the Mid-Atlantic States, so it has impacts well
beyond the gulf in a very positive way. Beginning in 2027, Alaska,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia would begin
receiving 37.5 percent revenue sharing from oil and gas production off
of their coasts, which is what Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, and
Mississippi receive on new production there.
It would also increase revenue sharing that those Gulf States receive
under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, or GOMESA. Under
that law, revenue sharing in those four Gulf States is capped at $500
million per year between all of them, but beginning in 2027, that cap
would increase substantially. That cap right now is completely
arbitrary and far too low. Revenue sharing is vital when it comes to
adequately compensating States that help provide so much U.S. energy.
It needs to be adequate if we are going to continue to incent those
States to play that very important role in our U.S. economy. This
legislation would help bring that objective to reality, and it is a
critical component of a robust, strengthened revenue sharing regime for
those major energy-producing States.
I urge my colleagues to pass this important legislation. Again, I
thank everyone who has worked on this, starting with my colleague from
Louisiana, Senator Cassidy, who will be speaking on this topic
immediately following me.
With that, I welcome the Senator's remarks.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Vitter for his
support, his kind words, and his tireless effort over his senatorial
career to highlight the fact that Louisiana is losing so much land and
there is something we need to do about it.
I also thank Majority Leader McConnell for following through on his
commitment to allow a vote on the American Energy and Conservation Act
of 2016. This was introduced earlier this year by Senators Murkowski,
Scott, Vitter, Tillis, Sullivan, and me. I thank each of them for their
hard work.
I also thank Senators Kaine and Warner for helping draft the Atlantic
portion of the legislation and for cosponsoring an earlier version. As
I just said, this is a bipartisan piece of legislation that uses an
``all of the above'' strategy to pursue true American energy
independence.
More than anything else, though, this legislation is about creating
better jobs with better benefits. If there was one message we heard
from this past election--if we actually listened to the American
people, if we heard what they were saying, what we heard is that they
want jobs that work for them, better jobs with better benefits. This
helps accomplish that. For example, a study conducted by Quest Offshore
Resources, Inc., projects that this legislation would incentivize the
creation of 280,000 new jobs by 2035. That same study estimates $195
billion in new investments and an additional $51 billion in cumulative
government revenue. That is $51 billion in new Federal revenue that
this bill helps unlock. It goes a long way to addressing our debt,
deficit, and obligation to future generations.
The American Energy and Conservation Act will benefit American
families and small businesses by expanding opportunities for States--
not just gulf coast but elsewhere--to support energy development.
For years, energy activities in coastal Gulf States and adjacent
offshore waters have produced billions of barrels of oil and trillions
of cubic feet of natural gas for American families. These States
support offshore energy development for the rest of the country and
provide the support and pay for the infrastructure needed to bring this
energy to market. As with all development, there are increased costs
associated with supporting increased traffic, additional use of local
and State resources, as well as transportation corridors such as
pipelines, vessels, and trucks to get this energy delivered to
consumers across the United States.
This bill is truly an ``all of the above'' energy jobs bill. This
legislation includes language introduced by Senators Heller, Heinrich,
Risch, and Tester that streamlines the process for developing the
renewable energy on public lands while establishing the first-ever
revenue sharing paradigm for renewables. This legislation incentivizes
tapping into the 27,000 megawatts of carbon-free energy that the Bureau
of Land Management estimates could be provided by these projects.
Furthermore, if offshore revenue exists for oil and gas development,
the same should be true for offshore wind development. That is why we
are using the same model established in GOMESA to extend revenue
sharing to States that support offshore wind projects. This legislation
thus incentivizes developing some of the 4,233 gigawatts of carbon-free
generation that the Bureau of Land Management estimates is available
for development off our coasts.
This is the American Energy and Conservation Act of 2016. This
legislation makes significant investments in conservation projects all
over the United States. This legislation provides an additional $807
million for projects that increase access to public lands for hunting,
fishing, and other outdoor recreational activities. This particular
provision was included in Senator Murkowski's Bipartisan Sportsmen's
Act of 2015, which 24 Senators have cosponsored. The legislation makes
investments in a variety of important programs, including the Payment
in Lieu of Taxes Program.
This legislation is supported by over 50 important stakeholder
groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council, the American
Petroleum Institute, and the Consumer Energy Alliance. These
organizations understand that this legislation is a jobs builder and
good policy for American workers.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, the
American Energy and Conservation Act of 2016.
I yield back.
Mr. VITTER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Remembering Jack Shatford

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, my Arkansan of the week is Jack Shatford,
and the recognition is both honorary and, sadly, posthumous. Jack
passed away last month during one of his many hunting trips to
Arkansas. He loved our State and its people, and we all miss him badly.
Jack first got to know Arkansas on the other side of the world in
Vietnam. Jack and my dad Len served together in the same infantry squad
in Vietnam in 1969 and 1970. They became closest of friends, a
friendship that only grew over nearly a half century.
Jack was from Missouri, so he and Dad were able to see each other
regularly, often on deer-hunting trips in

[[Page S6393]]

Arkansas and duck- and goose-hunting trips in Missouri. He became like
the brother my dad never had, a second son to my grandparents and Aunt
Pood. Jack also got to know my mom Avis, just as my mom and dad got to
know Jack's wife Joy. Over time, my sister and I came along and Jack
and Joy became like an aunt and uncle to us, just like my parents felt
about Kurt, Jack and Joy's son. Some of my oldest memories are
traveling to Missouri to see the Shatfords at places like Six Flags,
Silver Dollar City, and Branson and seeing how happy and excited my dad
was in the days leading up to Jack's visits to Arkansas.
Jack was a lifelong hunter and outdoorsman. He worked for 34 years at
the Missouri Department of Conservation. If it flew, ran, or swam, you
can pretty much bet that Jack knew how to find it, track it, kill it,
and cook it. In fact, I have to confess that Jack probably put more
meat on the Cotton family table than my dad ever did. He taught me a
lot of lessons as well, not just about the outdoors but about life.
Jack helped me see some things through my dad's eyes, and I figure he
probably did the same thing for my dad. Their example from Vietnam
contributed to my decision to join the Army. That wasn't an easy time
in the Cotton household, believe me, but Jack was there to help smooth
things over, and he encouraged me all along the way.
Jack was a patriot. He had put his life on the line to defend the
country we love so much. I know from my dad's war stories that Jack was
fearless and brave, but he was also gentle and outgoing, the kind of
guy who makes fast friends. He sure made a lot of friends in Dardanelle
where he was like an adopted son. He even belonged to our Yell County
Wildlife Federation. Above all, though, Jack was a loving family man, a
devoted husband to Joy, and father to Kurt and his wife Mary, and Jack
was a doting grandpa to Sarah and Shelby. They will miss Jack as we all
miss him so dearly.
The pain hasn't gone away yet. It will not for a while, and it may
never go away, but with the pain, we ought to be swelled with pride and
gratitude to have known and loved such a fine man.
Jack Shatford, rest in peace and follow me.

FUNDING OUR MILITARY

Mr. President, the world may be more unstable than ever. The security
architecture we built after World War II is at risk. Our parents and
grandparents fought to keep the world free from a conflict between
major powers. They created order out of the chaos of world war and
genocide. They protected our freedom and ensured that our democratic
ideals would be the dominant power in the world. The foundation of that
order is the U.S. military. Since they toppled Nazi Germany and
imperial Japan, they held firm against the North Korean assault on the
democratic South. They faced down a powerful Soviet Union through
decades of Cold War. They liberated Kuwait and have shed blood and
sweat for over a decade, keeping America safe from Islamic terrorism.
Today our military is composed solely of volunteers. We don't press
our people into service. They choose to serve. Since the draft was
abolished, we have had a basic compact with our men and women in
uniform. In exchange for their service, we ensure that they have the
best training, equipment, and leadership America has to offer. We make
certain that if our troops must face the enemy, they are equipped to
meet the task. With regret, I must say this compact is fraying and we
are failing in our duty to our military.
Today the Armed Forces face a growing number of threats and a
shrinking budget. Russia is resurgent. They don't think they lost the
Cold War, only that they were behind at halftime. Russia's invasion and
occupation of Ukraine and Georgia make it clear that Moscow seeks to
dominate its so-called near abroad. Moscow wants to divide the great
Atlantic Alliance, viewing the confederation of democracies as a threat
to the power and authority of a Putin government. Their bombers probe
our airspace in ways unseen since the Cold War. They recently sent a
carrier fleet through the English Channel. They probe our electronic
defenses with daily cyber attacks and rattle the sabre of their nuclear
arsenal at the West.
China has also risen. They have sought to establish military control
over the East and South China Seas. China also probes and attacks
American servers, stealing vital military and industrial secrets. China
has quadrupled its defense spending in the past few years, seeking
control of the Pacific Rim.
North Korea is growing a nuclear arsenal and developing the
capability to hit any American city with those nuclear bombs.
Iran continues to violate the terms of its nuclear agreement and is
the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism. Just last month, Iranian-
backed rebels fired Chinese anti-ship missiles at an American warship.
Had it not been for the skill of the crew and our modern defenses,
sailors may have come home in boxes.
In Afghanistan, we lost 15 servicemembers in 2016. They continue to
fight daily, protecting Americans from the threat of a resurgent
terrorist threat.
How do we repay their service? We have cut their budget by over $1
trillion. We have told them to do more with less. We have ignored their
needs, long and repeated deployments, and brutal operations tempo. We
have cut their pay, forced them to sail on rickety ships, and told them
to fly on aircraft so old they date back to the Truman and Eisenhower
administrations. This neglect has taken its toll.
In January, 12 Marines died in a helicopter crash. Low readiness and
subpar flying hours were to blame. Last week, six Green Berets were
killed in 72 hours. They died in three separate incidents, stretching
from the continental United States to Jordan, to Afghanistan. The Air
Force is 4,000 airmen short of what is needed to maintain their fleet,
and they are 700 pilots short to fly that fleet. They are salvaging
parts from scrap yards to keep their aircraft flying.
Since May, five F-18 Hornets and Super Hornets have crashed, killing
two pilots and destroying all five jets. In the Army, just 30 percent
of brigade combat teams are properly trained and equipped to fight. The
Navy has had to defer maintenance for combat ships, leaving them more
dangerous for the crews.
We are wrong to ask our military to work and risk their lives under
these conditions, and we cannot wait until the next fiscal year to fix
this crisis because this is a crisis. This is no way to treat our
troops and the military needs relief now.
I will soon introduce a $26 billion emergency spending request, a
lifeline to our overworked warfighters. The funds will be used to
address immediate needs in military readiness and overseas operations.
They will give our warfighters critical relief in these trying times.
They will help keep our men and women in uniform safe as we ask them to
do an increasingly dangerous job.
I ask my colleagues to put aside old debates and do what is right for
our Armed Forces. They are the ones risking their lives daily, not us.
They are the ones out on the front lines defending our country, not us.
They are the ones begging for help, and we are the ones obligated to
provide it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Working Together

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it has been the great privilege and honor
of my life to represent the people of Arizona in the Senate. I am
humbled that in last Tuesday's election they placed their trust in me
for another term.
Since I first came to this body, I have never taken that trust for
granted, and I never will. I will get up every day for the next 6 years
determined to work harder than the day before for the people of
Arizona.
Of course, mine was not the only election last Tuesday. The American
people did their civic duty and chose a

[[Page S6394]]

new President. I congratulate the President-elect. My prayers are with
him and his family as he prepares to assume our Nation's highest
office, and I will do all in my power to help him lead us through the
many challenges confronting our Nation.
This was a long and difficult national election and not always an
uplifting one. I know there were many Americans who were disappointed
on election night, and we have seen some of that disappointment in the
protests that have taken place in several cities across the Nation.
Some of those protesters have even taken to using the slogan ``Not my
President.'' This is misguided.
I have been on the losing side of elections before, and it is no fun.
But America has only one President at a time. We do not have to agree
with the President on every issue, and when we do disagree, we should
express ourselves in the spirit of mutual respect that is essential for
a free and democratic people.
Therefore, I urge all Americans to offer our next President good will
and an earnest effort to find ways to come together to make necessary
compromises to grow our economy, defend our security, and leave future
generations a stronger, better America.
That better America is one in which we never forget that whatever our
differences, we are all Americans. We must respect our common
citizenship by treating each other with respect.
That is why I have been so disturbed by reports of increased acts of
intimidation, harassment, and even violence directed at minority,
racial, and religious groups in the aftermath of this election.
Prejudice and hate have no place in America. Such behavior is a
betrayal of who we are as a people and all that we aspire to be. To
those who have committed these disgusting acts, I repeat the words of
the President-elect: Stop it.
With the campaign over, it is time for all of us to go about the work
the American people sent us here to do, and there is a lot of work to
do. For too long, Washington has schemed, fought, and maneuvered to
gain political advantage at the cost of delivering for the American
people. The predictable result is that we have made little, if any,
progress toward meeting the great challenges of our time and too many
Americans feel left out and left behind.
This election made clear that Americans are fed up with business as
usual in Washington, and they want us to make progress now on solving
national problems that threaten their ability to prosper and make a
better life for their families. They want progress now on growing the
economy and increasing their opportunities to live purposeful and
satisfying lives. They want progress now to secure their families and
America's interests from the dangerous threats we face overseas.
As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, America's
national security and the men and women in uniform who protect it will
be my top priorities.
We have to put an end to business as usual at the Pentagon, where the
largest government agency cannot pass a financial audit and where a
broken acquisitions system is too often plagued by cost overruns,
schedule delays, and poor performance.
We have to put an end to sequestration once and for all and return to
a strategy-based defense budget. It gives our servicemembers the
resources, training, and equipment they need to meet current and future
threats. We have to accelerate the defeat of ISIL in Iraq and Syria and
continue to take the fight to radical Islamist terrorists who seek to
attack our homeland. Above all, we must remain the free world's leader
and stand up always and everywhere for the values that make us
exceptional and to which all people are entitled: the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have to reinvigorate
America's alliances around the world, not discard them in favor of
cynical deals with adversaries who want us to relinquish our global
leadership.
We have to enhance shared efforts to deter and, if necessary, defeat
aggression from whatever power threatens our interests and values.
Achieving these goals will require a team at the Department of Defense
composed of the best people our Nation has to offer. The Senate Armed
Services Committee stands ready to receive nominations from the new
President. The stakes for our Nation are high. So too must be our
standards.
America has many challenges ahead, but none of us should despair of
our present difficulties. Instead, we must believe always in the
promise and greatness of America. I still do. In that spirit, my
promise is this: to work as hard as I ever have; to use all my
knowledge, experience, and relationships; and to work with our new
President and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to solve our
problems together as fellow Americans.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Congratulating the Chicago Cubs on Winning the World Series

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I rise to offer congratulations to the 2016
World Series champion Chicago Cubs, who are being congratulated in a
resolution that I did with my colleague Senator Durbin.
For 100 years, it seemed fitting that we would overcome the daunting
three games to one to win the series. Many times I have said that any
team can have a bad century, like 108 years. One of the most painful
moments we have had as Cubs fans is watching the 1969 Cubs when we
always knew we were going to beat the amazing Mets. I remember the
names: the late Ron Santo, the late Ernie Banks, Fergie Jenkins, and
Billy Williams. They were up nine games on the Mets but collapsed at
the end of the season.
In 2016, the Cubs blew away the 1969 record and went all the way.
They removed the curse of the billy goat and the black cat. That
toughness exemplifies the can-do spirit of the people of Illinois. No
one deserves this championship more than the best baseball fans in the
country, the Cubs fans.
I also want to give a real shout-out to World Series MVP Ben Zobrist.
Following the victory, I had the honor of riding in the victory parade.
Over 5 million Chicagoans came to watch. I understand from the press
that this was the seventh largest gathering in human history.
Congratulations to the 2016 World Series champion Chicago Cubs.
I want to send my thank you to Tom Ricketts, Theo Epstein, and Joe
Maddon, the players, the fans, and everyone involved in making this the
most unforgettable Cubs season.
I yield back.
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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, 1 year ago I came to the Senate floor for a
series of eight speeches on a subject central to the identity and
character of our country's religious freedom. As Congress unanimously
declared less than two decades ago, religious freedom undergirds the
very origin and existence of the United States.
In that series of remarks, I started with the first principles to
establish why religious freedom matters and must be given special
protection. I reviewed the central role of religious freedom and the
central role that religious freedom has played in shaping our country
beginning long before independence. I have an example of how I phrased
it on this chart.

From the earliest settlers to the revolutionary generation,
to the 19th century, to the modern day, religious freedom has
been a driving force in American life. Without the quest for
religious liberty, there would be no United States, and
without the continued guarantee of religious freedom, there
can be no American ideal.

I also outlined the substance and status of religious freedom in
America. In other words, I answered the questions of what religious
freedom is and how important it is. From the pen of James Madison to
the words of the First Amendment, from statutes to international
treaties, religious freedom has

[[Page S6395]]

always been understood to include both belief and behavior in public
and in private, collectively and individually. The status of the
importance of religious freedom can be summed up in two words used
repeatedly by America's Founders and leaders from the beginning:
Religious freedom is both inalienable and preeminent.
In last year's series of speeches, I also described the ways our
government institutions are increasingly undermining religious freedom.
These attacks come from, of course, the executive branch and even State
legislatures, and they occur because our leaders have forgotten,
ignored, or never really learned the fundamentals of religious freedom.
A philosopher, George Santayana, wrote that ``those who cannot
remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' Put another way, as
President Andrew Jackson warned as he left office, ``Eternal vigilance
is the price of liberty.''
``You must pay the price,'' Jackson said, ``if you wish to secure the
blessing.''
Unfortunately, we are no longer paying the price necessary to
maintain this fundamental right. Either by negligence or intention,
political forces in our society are radically changing what has been
the very heart and soul of our great country. They want to restrict the
substance of religious freedom so that it includes belief but not
behavior; in private but not in public; individually but not
collectively. They want to demote the status of religious freedom from
inalienable and preeminent to optional and secondary. Examples abound
in just the last several years.
When the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress fashioned
ObamaCare, for instance, they gave no thought to the law's impact on
religious freedom. This is especially shocking given that Federal law
required them to do so. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act sets a
high standard for government actions that burden religious freedom and
explicitly requires that Federal laws and regulations meet that
standard. The Obama administration and congressional Democrats,
however, ran roughshod over religious freedom in fashioning mandates
and policies that force people to violate their deeply held religious
beliefs.
The Supreme Court has twice held that the birth control mandate in
ObamaCare is incompatible with the protections for religious freedom
that Congress previously and nearly unanimously enacted.
Another example is before us today. Two years ago, President Obama
issued a sweeping Executive order prohibiting Federal contractors and
grant recipients from taking into account sexual orientation or gender
identity when making employment decisions. The order itself is not a
surprise. President Obama has been a supporter of LGBT rights
throughout his Presidency and believes that gays and lesbians deserve
the same job opportunities as everyone else. On that latter point, I--
along with most Americans--agree. What was remarkable about President
Obama's order was that it contained no exemption for employers with
religious affiliations.

For years, laws prohibiting discrimination in employment and housing
have routinely included religious liberty exemptions to protect
religious organizations from having to take actions that contravene
their beliefs. Such exemptions, for example, permit a religiously
affiliated school that holds traditional views on marriage and human
sexuality to offer married housing only to couples of the opposite sex
or decline to hire as a faculty member an individual in a committed,
same-sex relationship. These exemptions enable religious organizations
to hold true to their beliefs while still complying with the law.
President Obama's decision not to include a religious liberty
exemption in his Executive order marked a sharp turn in the wrong
direction. One year earlier, Senate Democrats had agreed to include a
robust religious exemption in the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, or
ENDA, a bill that would have prohibited sexual orientation
discrimination in hiring by employers with at least 15 employees.
ENDA's exemption tracked similar provisions in numerous State laws,
including Utah's. Notwithstanding requests from religious groups,
President Obama refused to include a similar exemption in his Executive
order.
His refusal means that a religious organization that wishes to
compete for Federal funds may be forced to hire individuals who hold
views or engage in conduct that contravenes the organization's
religious beliefs. This is a direct attack on the ability of such
organizations to preserve and promote their religious identity.
Earlier this year, the House of Representatives took action to
reverse the President's troubling refusal to protect religious
employers. Back in May, the House passed the annual National Defense
Authorization Act, or NDAA, to fund the Armed Forces. At the markup on
the bill, Representative Steve Russell of Oklahoma offered, and the
committee adopted, an amendment to the bill to clarify that religious
organizations that contract with or receive grants from the Federal
Government do not lose religious liberty. They do not lose religious
liberty protections that they enjoy under other laws merely because
they choose to work with the Federal Government.
These protections, which are found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and the Americans with Disabilities Act, include the ability to hire
``individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with
the [organization's] activities'' and to ``require that all applicants
and employees conform to the [organization's] religious tenets.''
Such protections enable religious organizations to preserve their
religious identity by hiring employees who share the organization's
religious beliefs.
Now, the Russell amendment affirms that religious organizations and
schools enjoy these same protections when they contract with or receive
grants from the Federal Government.
The amendment embodies the commonsense, longstanding principle that
religious organizations should not have to surrender control over their
religious mission in order to interact with government. Unfortunately,
there has been a lot of misinformation spread about the Russell
amendment and what it does and does not do so let me take a moment to
clear it up.
Some have claimed the amendment would allow contractors to deny
service to gays or lesbians or would enable any contractor who so
wishes to make hiring decisions on the basis of religious beliefs. It
would do no such thing. The amendment is limited only to hiring and
employment practices and only to religiously affiliated corporations,
associations, educational institutions, or societies, in conformance
with the existing protections in the Civil Rights Act and the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The amendment clarifies that religious organizations do not lose
religious liberty protections merely because they enter into contract
with or receive grants from the Federal Government. That is it. We
might think that a position reaffirming existing religious liberty
protections would not raise eyebrows. Unfortunately, we would be wrong.
President Obama swiftly expressed his opposition to the Russell
amendment. Not only that, but he threatened to veto the entire NDAA,
cutting off funding for the entire Department of Defense rather than
allow the amendment to take effect. President Obama would rather
shutter our Armed Forces than enable religious employers to select
employees who share their particular values.
Regrettably, the President has been joined in his opposition by 42
Senate Democrats who recently wrote a letter to the President outlining
their ``strong opposition'' to the Russell amendment and asking the
President to ``ensure that [the amendment] is removed from the final
version of [the NDAA].''
The President and my Democratic colleagues are concerned, it seems,
that if religious organizations that contract with the Federal
Government are able to select employees who share the organization's
religious beliefs, they may make decisions that liberals would
disapprove of. For example, a religious family services charity may
choose to hire individuals who hold traditional views on marriage and
human sexuality. Because the President and my colleagues across the
aisle do not share these views, they think religious organizations
should be unable to take them into account when

[[Page S6396]]

seeking employees who will promote the organization's mission. It is
difficult to imagine a position more at odds with our heritage of
religious freedom.
President Obama and Senate Democrats would empower the Federal
Government to compel religious organizations to hire individuals who do
not share the organization's religious beliefs. They would insert
Federal tentacles into fundamental decisions regarding religious
mission and identity. They would have the Federal Government declare
off-limits traditional views on sexual orientation and gender identity
that many Americans hold as a matter of religious conviction.
But there is an even more pernicious aspect to the Democrats'
position on this issue. Many liberals argue that claims of religious
liberty are nothing more than a front for discrimination. They
contend--with some force--that religious liberty claimants just don't
like gay people or don't like women and use religion as a cover for
their deep-seated animus toward disfavored groups. That is, of course,
ridiculous.
I would challenge anyone who holds this view to actually interact
with a religious person. They will find, contrary to their own
prejudices, that people of faith are loving, gracious, and polite and,
more often than not, go out of their way to help the poor and the
downtrodden. Religious believers don't treat others with kindness and
charity despite their faith; they do so because of their faith.
To my liberal friends, I say: Before you tar religious believers with
whatever benighted stereotypes you see portrayed on TV and in the news
media, get to know some of them. You will find your assumptions about
them are totally wrong.
Nevertheless, many liberals claim that religious liberty is a guise
for discrimination. There is no reason, they say, for a religious
organization or individual to seek an exemption from an otherwise
equitable law, other than animus toward those the law is designed to
protect.
But what, then, are we to make of President Obama's Executive order
and the left's reaction to the Russell amendment?
President Obama could have included a religious liberty exemption in
his order--such exemptions are standard in other laws, and numerous
religious groups asked him to include one here--but he chose not to.
Senate Democrats could easily have agreed to the Russell amendment,
which does nothing more than reaffirm existing protections for
religious employers--but they chose not to do so. What reason is there
to exclude religious contractors and grant recipients from religious
liberty protections that are otherwise generally available? Why single
out such contractors and grant recipients for disfavor? It makes you
wonder.
Do my Democratic colleagues not see that the very argument they make
against religious liberty can be turned against them?
They are seeking to withdraw from religious contractors and grant
recipients rights and protections that would otherwise be available
under existing law. They are undermining the ability of believers to
navigate between secular and spiritual demands. They are bringing to
bear the sword of the State when they could easily stay their hand.
It is difficult for me to look at the President's actions and those
of my colleagues across the aisle and see anything other than
discrimination against people of faith. They could give room for
believers--as our Nation has done for centuries--but they choose not
to. Rather, they cut and nip at religious liberty until all that
remains is a hollow shell.
I am left to wonder when the drive for equality became the drive to
exclude and to undermine religion because that seems to be where we
have arrived.
Give a place for us, say people of faith. Allow us to live out our
beliefs. We will abide the law, but we ask you to make reasonable
accommodations. Surely a simple religious liberty exemption--indeed,
one that is already part of our existing laws--would be reasonable.
I close with an appeal to my Democratic colleagues. The outcome of
the fight over the Russell amendment is not in doubt. Even if President
Obama vetoes the NDAA or the Russell amendment is removed during
conference, President Obama's Executive order will be withdrawn or else
amended by the President-elect to include a religious liberty
exemption. The Russell amendment will become law whether it is through
congressional action or Executive order.
The question for my colleagues across the aisle is whether they will
stand up for the rights of religious contractors and grant recipients
or whether they will join President Obama's losing battle against
religious liberty. Will they protect people of faith or will they
prosecute them?
President Obama has cast his lot with the prosecution. It is not too
late for my Democratic colleagues to choose a different course, and I
hope and pray they will.
These are not itty-bitty issues. These are issues that go right back
to the core values of our country and our beliefs. Religious liberty is
not something that can be cast aside. It is not something that should
be cast aside. Religious liberty is a fundamental right, and we should
not be playing around with it in the Congress.
When there is prejudice and there is discrimination, that is another
matter, but in virtually every case of religious liberty, I don't find
that prejudice or discrimination. Our churches are a vibrant part of
America, and we sure as heck ought to stand behind them and make sure
religious liberty is always protected.
I hope my colleagues will think these things through, I hope the 42
Democrats who voted to remove the Russell amendment will change their
minds, and I hope they start to realize that religious freedom is not
some itty-bitty thing. It is the thing in many respects that has been
part of making America the greatest land in the world and the freest
land in the world and the place where liberty includes real liberty.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I appear to be on the floor for Utah
Day, with the junior Senator presiding and the senior Senator speaking.
I am delighted to follow the senior Senator. I think in the boisterous
days and months we will see ahead, his longstanding reputation for
collegiality and reason and the respect in which his colleagues all
hold him could become valuable attributes in our Senate.

Climate Change

Mr. President, I am here as the Senate reconvenes from the 2016
election recess to give my 149th climate speech, but I want first to
congratulate my colleagues who were reelected and the new Members
elected to the Senate and President-Elect Trump and Vice President-
Elect Pence. With control of the White House and majorities coming in
the House and the Senate, Republicans will wield great power in
Washington, DC, and as the well-known saying goes, ``with great power
comes great responsibility.''
In his acceptance speech, President-Elect Trump asked us all for help
and guidance in governing this great Nation. My guidance would be first
to be responsible. A key test will be whether our President-elect and
Republicans here in the Senate choose to be responsible about climate
change.
I am gravely concerned about climate change, but based on the
President-elect's campaign, he appears blissfully unconcerned, and
Congress has been stalled by a decades-long industry-controlled
campaign of calculated misinformation on the danger of carbon pollution
and by just raw industry political pressure.
But the President-elect will soon hear--and, hopefully, take it to
heart--from a grownup world outside the creepy alt-right and the fossil
fuel industry, a world of people who actually know what they are
talking about. The President-elect will hear from our military and
national security experts how deadly serious this is.
Our former Pacific commander, Admiral Locklear, said it was the
biggest national security threat we face in the Pacific theater. To use
Admiral Locklear's exact words, ``climate change is probably the most
likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the
security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we
all often talk about.''
Geoffrey Kemp, former Special Assistant to the President for National

[[Page S6397]]

Security Affairs under President Ronald Reagan, said:

Our military and intelligence leadership have recognized,
under both the George W. Bush and the Obama administrations,
that climate change will present real and costly risks to our
national security and that the effects are going to get worse
if we don't do something about it very soon. As General
Douglas MacArthur warned about the dangers of unpreparedness
for war, we don't want to be too late.

The President-elect will hear from our National Labs and from NOAA
and NASA, the folks who put a rover on Mars and are driving it around
and may know a little bit about real science, about the robust
scientific consensus on climate change, and the urgency to change our
course. If he doesn't trust our own scientific agencies, he can go to
any major university in any State in the Nation and confirm what the
government and military experts tell him.
The President-elect will hear from world leaders who have pledged,
alongside the United States, to work across borders to limit carbon
emissions. The Paris Agreement brought nearly 200 countries together
with the common goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius
and avoiding the most catastrophic outcomes for the planet and its
people.
He will also hear from CEOs across America, particularly those in the
food and agriculture sectors who are living with climate change
consequences every day, and from many others that we need to quit
fooling around.
I hope the President-elect will listen to these voices of reason and
expertise. The people in our Nation certainly are listening. Polls show
over 60 percent of Americans are concerned about global warming, and
more than 80 percent of Americans favor action to reduce carbon
pollution.
Rhode Island, the Ocean State, would tell the administration that the
oceans are the frontlines of climate change. The oceans have absorbed
approximately 30 percent of the excess carbon dioxide that we have
added to the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution--30 percent of
it. They have also absorbed roughly 90 percent of the excess heat
trapped in the atmosphere by those greenhouse gases. Without the oceans
to absorb that added heat and carbon dioxide, we would not be worried
about the 2-degree warming limit the world community is racing to
avoid. We would be looking at a 30-degree increase, and life as our
species knows it on this planet would be over.
Oceans have spared us thus far from disaster, but what they have done
to buffer our self-inflicted harm comes at its own cost. Global ocean
temperatures are rising. In Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay's mean water
temperature is up nearly 4 degrees Fahrenheit. Our Rhode Island lobster
fishery is crashing, and our winter flounder fishery is gone.
As water warms, of course, it also expands, and as glaciers melt,
they add to the volume of the ocean. That is why sea levels are rising
worldwide. The water is up about 10 inches at the Newport Naval Station
tide gauge since the 1930s, and the Navy is actively planning how to
defend the Norfolk Naval Station from rising seas.
The effect of the ocean's absorbing all that carbon dioxide is a
little different. It causes a chemical reaction. It is making ocean
water more acidic. The ocean is acidifying and doing so at the fastest
rate in 50 million years. Considering we have only been on the planet
as a species for about 200,000 years, that is a long, long interval.
Rhode Island's clammers, lobstermen, and aquaculture growers are
watching with real alarm the damage acidified seas are doing. On
America's northwest coast, oyster hatcheries have already experienced
significant losses when their new hatches were unable to grow their
shells in the acidified seawater. Off the coasts of Washington, Oregon,
and Northern California, 50 percent of ocean pteropods were measured to
have ``severe shell damage,'' mostly from acidified seas. If that
species collapses, the bottom falls out of the oceanic food chain.
As the oceans go, so goes the planet.
It is my sincere hope that President-Elect Trump will feel the call
of history, of reason, and of patriotism to live up to the awesome
responsibilities he now will bear.
The 22nd session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change, the so-called COP-22, is now
taking place in Marrakech, Morocco. A similar gathering took place in
Copenhagen 7 years ago. A full-page ad in the New York Times then
called for passage of climate legislation in the United States for
investment in the clean energy economy and for leadership to inspire
the rest of the world to join the fight against climate change. It
said:

We must embrace the challenge today to ensure that future
generations are left with a safe planet and a strong economy.
. . . We support your effort--

They said to President Obama--

to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control
climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United
States and the world today. Please don't postpone the earth.
If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that
there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for
humanity and our planet.

That full-page ad from which we took this was signed by Donald J.
Trump, Chairman and President of the Trump organization. The
signatories also included his children, Donald Jr., Eric, and Ivanka.
Their future and their reputations are at stake too.
The President-elect campaigned against big special interests
controlling Washington, and he mocked Republican politicians groveling
before the Koch brothers at their ``begathon,'' as he called it. He has
a simple choice now. He can make his own decisions based on the best
recommendations of our military, our national science laboratories, and
our great universities, or he can fall in tow to the Koch brothers--the
biggest special interest of them all.
He can believe our National Labs and our National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, or he can believe the National Enquirer. He can
believe our military or he can believe the fossil fuel industry's
denial apparatus. He can believe established scientific principles or
he can believe fanciful conspiracy theories. His choice will be
fateful, and the world and history will both be watching.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________