[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.

                          ____________________