[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 6, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S627-S628]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHILD PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2017
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I understand that the Senate has
received a message from the House to accompany H.R. 695.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is correct.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move that the Chair lay before the
Senate the message to accompany H.R. 695.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message
from the House of Representatives:
Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the
Senate to the title of the bill (H.R. 695) entitled ``An Act
to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993 to
establish a national criminal history background check system
and criminal history review program for certain individuals
who, related to their employment, have access to children,
the elderly, or individuals with disabilities, and for other
purposes.'' and be it further
Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the
Senate to the text of the aforementioned bill, with an
amendment.
Motion to Concur
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment
to the Senate amendment to H.R. 695.
Cloture Motion
I send a cloture motion to the desk on the motion to concur.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
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
concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R.
695, a bill to amend the National Child Protection Act of
1993 to establish a national criminal history background
check system and criminal history review program for certain
individuals who, related to their employment, have access to
children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities, and
for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Mike Crapo, Jerry Moran,
Richard Burr, David Perdue, Tom Cotton, Shelley Moore
Capito, Deb Fischer, James M. Inhofe, Pat Roberts,
Roger F. Wicker, John Hoeven, John Barrasso, John
Boozman, Steve Daines, Mike Rounds.
Motion to Refer With Amendment No. 1922
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to refer the House message on
H.R. 695 to the Committee on Appropriations to report back forthwith
with instructions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] moves to refer
the House message on H.R. 695 to the Committee on
Appropriations to report back forthwith with instructions,
being amendment numbered 1922.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end add the following.
``This Act shall take effect 1 day after the date of
enactment.''
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my
motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 1923
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the
instructions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an
amendment numbered 1923 to the instructions of the motion to
refer.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike ``1 day'' and insert ``2 days''
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 1924 to Amendment No. 1923
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an
amendment numbered 1924 to amendment No. 1923.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike ``2'' and insert ``3''
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 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. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join my
colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, in raising the alarm about a
decision I believe represents politicized policymaking at its very
worst. Just a few weeks ago, we were notified that the Trump
administration's Interior Department seeks to open up 90 percent--90
percent--of America's waters to oil and gas drilling.
This was startling news for Americans everywhere but particularly for
those of us who come from States along the Atlantic and Pacific
coastlines who had no expectation that our coastal waters were about to
be subjected to the search for oil and gas. The objections to the Trump
administration's decision came swiftly from elected officials in both
parties, Republicans and Democrats, because protecting America's
fragile coastlines isn't--or shouldn't be--a partisan issue.
This decision by President Trump and Secretary of the Interior Zinke
was not rooted in public input or scientific analysis. This decision
was not based on concerns about community safety or economic
prosperity. This decision was our administration putting their ``energy
dominance'' goals above all else.
I know several of my colleagues have already spoken out to discuss
what this means for their States and how it will impact their
constituents, but I am here today to raise my voice for mine, to fight
for Delaware. In Delaware, our coasts are critical to our local
environment and our robust economy. Delaware has 28 miles of Atlantic
coastline--some of the most pristine, most beautiful beaches in the
entire country.
As you can see in this graphic of our boardwalk at Rehoboth Beach,
DE, our 28 miles of coastline employ 10 percent of our total State
workforce. That is a remarkable amount of economic activity in a very
small space. Our coastline generates $6.9 billion in economic activity
every year and hosts thousands of acres of protected land. It includes
on our bay shore side two national wildlife refuges that serve as
critical
[[Page S628]]
habitat for bald eagles, white-tailed deer, and striped bass. The
future of our coastal economy depends on recreational access, fishing,
and tourism, which are now potentially at risk because of this ill-
advised decision to open the coastline off of Delaware and the rest of
the mid-Atlantic to potential oil and gas exploration and production.
My colleagues know that I make an effort to promote pragmatic and
bipartisan ideas. It is one of my top priorities, day in and day out,
to work across the aisle and do what is right for our constituents and
for the United States.
Let me be clear. My view is not based on an anti-oil or anti-natural
gas message. I support an ``all of the above'' energy strategy and have
advanced legislation that will embrace an ``all of the above'' energy
strategy, and I acknowledge there are many places in the United States
where we can, and do, safely produce these resources, both onshore and
offshore. But what if we happen to face a spill of the scale and size
of Deepwater Horizon?
This is an overlay of the footprint of the 2010 oil disaster of the
Deepwater Horizon and how it spread to impact the gulf coastline. It is
perhaps a little hard to see here, but the State of Delaware and New
Jersey and its fragile coastline are underneath that footprint. It
suggests how we might end up facing dramatic impacts, negative impacts
on tourism and fishing that depend on clean coastlines to support tens
of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of economic activity in my
home State.
If we are going to think seriously about doing this, we need to think
about the impacts. We need to ask whether the costs outweigh the
benefits. When it comes to the Trump-Zinke plan to drill off the coast
of Delaware, I am here to tell you that the potential costs
dramatically outweigh the benefits. As you can see in this graphic, a
spill the size of the Deepwater Horizon could devastate all of our
beach communities and protected wildlife areas in Delaware and the
region.
Again, protecting our coastlines, an idea supported by scientists and
coastal residents alike, should not be a partisan issue. In Delaware
alone, multiple city councils, all up and down our coast, have openly
opposed offshore drilling through letters and resolutions they have
sent to me and the rest of our congressional delegation.
Coastal lawmakers from both parties have opposed offshore drilling. I
know for a fact the same is happening in virtually every other coastal
State potentially impacted by this unwise decision. These are the
people we should be listening to--the people who don't just visit the
coast for a week in the summer but who live on it, who rely on it, who
have built their lives and their local economy around it.
Instead, as this decision shows, the Trump administration is
prioritizing the oil and gas industry and partisan politics over those
of independent scientists, coastal residents, and the elected officials
who speak for our coastal communities. That was made painfully clear
when the Republican Governor of Florida, a close ally of the President,
petitioned to shield just Florida from potential oil and gas
exploration and production.
Sure enough, Florida promptly got a public promise from Secretary
Zinke that its coastlines would be spared. I am sure Florida's
coastline is beautiful. In fact, I visited Florida's coastline, and I
can tell you it is beautiful. But guess what; so is Delaware's. We
deserve to be able to protect our coastline just as much as Floridians
do. I invite Secretary Zinke to once again come to Delaware but to
instead see the coastline and see these fragile resources and see what
they have to offer for wildlife, for conservation, for fishing, for
hunting, and for tourism.
Secretary Zinke promising to exempt Florida is the Trump
administration deciding which States have to deal with oil and gas
drilling based purely on partisan, political considerations. I think
the state of our coastal communities and local economies shouldn't be
auctioned off to the highest bidder and shouldn't be subject to
partisan politics. Instead, they should be protected based on science
and based on the views of coastal communities.
I am here today to voice my profound disappointment in this blatant
neglect of local voices and the well-being of individual States and
coastal communities. I came to the floor to fight for my State and to
raise the local voices I have heard from our coastal communities. Our
coastlines are just too fragile and too vital and too important to let
partisan politics get in the way of their future.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________