[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 104 (Thursday, June 20, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4151-S4162]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020--MOTION TO 
                           PROCEED--Continued

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume 
legislative session on the motion to proceed to S. 1790. I further ask 
that notwithstanding rule XXII, the postcloture time on S. 1790 expire 
at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 24.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  (The remarks of Mr. Portman pertaining to the introduction of S. 1925 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                            Clean Power Plan

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, earlier this week, the Trump 
administration, through the EPA Administrator, Andrew Wheeler, issued 
what was called the Clean Power Plan rule. That replaces the Obama-era 
Clean Power Plan rule that dealt with carbon emissions from our 
powerplants. I am very

[[Page S4152]]

concerned about this proposed rule, and I want to share some of my 
concerns with the Members of the Senate and the American people.
  The Obama Clean Power Plan rule was aimed at reducing carbon 
emissions by 30 percent by the year 2030 compared to the 2005 level. It 
was a strong proposal, but it gave maximum discretion to the States on 
how they could meet those targets. Those States that relied more on 
coal-burning power generation were given different standards than those 
States that had already transitioned to cleaner energy sources. It was 
a fair rule, a tough rule, and a rule that would significantly reduce 
carbon emissions in this country.
  Powerplants are the largest single source of carbon pollution, and we 
know how harmful carbon pollution is to our environment. Nearly 40 
percent comes from power generation.
  We need strong Federal regulation. We were moving in that direction 
under the previous administration. Now we demote the current emissions 
standards to a mere suggestion. That is wrong, and I hope that does not 
become the case.
  There are many reasons that we should be concerned about this rule. 
We should be concerned about what we are doing about carbon pollution. 
Let me cite a few.
  In the area of public health, we know that if we don't control carbon 
emission, we will have more premature deaths. The New York Times 
estimates that there would be 1,400 annual premature deaths as a result 
of not properly regulating the carbon emissions coming from 
powerplants.
  We also know that because of the impact carbon has on public health, 
the failure to regulate it means more children will miss schooldays 
because of their respiratory challenges and more parents won't be able 
to work because they have to take care of their children. So the result 
is lost schooldays and lost workdays because of the failure to 
regulate, which affects our economy and our educating workforce.
  We know that children who are vulnerable to respiratory ailments, 
such as asthma, are particularly at risk, and there will be more days 
that they will be confined to some form of air-conditioning rather than 
being able to go out in the neighborhood.
  It is also a matter of our economy. We know that clean energy 
produces more jobs. That is where we are headed, and the faster we get 
there, the better it will be for our economy.
  We also know, as a matter of energy security, the faster we move in 
this direction, the more secure we will be. America has taken steps to 
wean ourselves off of imported energy, but our allies around the world 
are still too dependent, as we know from the way Russia uses energy as 
a weapon. We need to transition to renewable energy sources so there 
can be energy security for America's allies.
  Lastly, on the environment, carbon is the major pollutant for 
nitrogen pollution in our waters. I say that because many of you have 
heard me talk frequently on the floor about the Chesapeake Bay and the 
importance of the Chesapeake Bay. It is a national treasure. It is the 
largest estuary in our hemisphere. It is critically important to the 
way of life here in the Chesapeake Bay watersheds--six States and the 
District of Columbia. We recognize its economic value--$1 trillion to 
our economy.
  Well, 85 million pounds of nitrogen pollution goes into the 
Chesapeake Bay from the air. One-third of the Chesapeake Bay's total 
nitrogen load comes as a result of our failure to regulate carbon going 
into the air. This causes algae blooms in the Chesapeake Bay. It causes 
dead zones. It makes it much more difficult for the stakeholders to 
meet their stated goals.
  I am proud of the Chesapeake Bay Program. All the local governments 
have agreed on their responsibility. It is tailored toward the States 
and enforced through the help of the Federal Government. But because of 
this rule change, it is now going to be more difficult to meet the 
goals we have set for the Chesapeake Bay. It is not just affecting the 
powerplants; it is affecting our quality of life, public health, the 
environment, and the economy.
  The States have acted. I am proud of what Maryland has done. We have 
shown that you can clean up your carbon emissions through power 
production and you can grow your economy. We have done that in the 
State of Maryland. We have joined with other States in the RGGI--with 
Delaware, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode 
Island, Vermont, and New York--and we have shown a 40-percent reduction 
in emissions since 2009. That is what the States have done.
  In the rule that is being proposed, they are saying they are leaving 
it up to the States. Maryland has done that, but we are downwind. The 
progress we are making is being negated by the pollution coming in from 
the Midwest. We need a national standard in order to be able to meet 
our targets.
  I would urge my colleagues, let's get engaged. This rule is bad for 
our economy. It is bad for public health. It is bad for energy 
security. It is bad for the environment. We can do better. Let's work 
together so that we have proper regulation at the national level 
dealing with carbon emissions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                             VA MISSION Act

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I wanted to join with my colleagues 
this week to mark the implementation of an updated and streamlined 
healthcare system that is specifically for our veterans. This is made 
possible by the VA MISSION Act.
  In Tennessee, we have such a large and vigorous and wonderful 
population of veterans. I will tell you, we are so grateful to them for 
their service, and we are so grateful they have chosen to make 
Tennessee their retirement home.
  One of our colleagues asked me one day about how patriotic Tennessee 
is. They had been there to visit. They saw flags out in so many places. 
They saw signs out that were ``thank you'' signs to our veterans. I 
told them that I felt like it was because we do have a strong military 
presence. Fort Campbell is primarily in Tennessee. We have Millington, 
the air naval station. We have Arnold. We have our National Guard, and 
a couple of our units have just finished a good deployment. We cherish 
these veterans, and they are such an integral part of our communities 
and our churches.
  We have worked diligently on this healthcare system for veterans to 
specifically meet their needs. That should be the mission of the VA. It 
is not to serve itself but to serve the veterans.
  Once this new structure that is put in place by the MISSION Act is 
fully implemented, members of the military community who have been, in 
my words, neglected for too long--their access to healthcare 
neglected--they are finally going to get the attention and the care 
they need. I use the term ``neglected'' because anybody who knew they 
were headed to the VA clinic for a checkup knew that was not going to 
be a quick checkup. There is a lot of paperwork that goes into that 
process of asking for that checkup and then seeing it actually take 
place.
  I have heard from hundreds of veterans, their stories and their 
experiences. Sometimes you will hear them say it was a comedy of 
errors. But it is no comedy; it is a catastrophe of errors. The 
consequences from this have really taken a toll on the life, the 
health, the safety, and sometimes the sanity of our veterans community.
  The reason you hear these stories is because we have asked 
generations of veterans to put their physical and their emotional 
health in the hands of practitioners whose hands were tied by arbitrary 
rules and procedures that turned even simple procedures into what would 
be a logistical nightmare. I have no doubt that if we went around this 
Chamber and each Member of this Chamber were to stand, they could--
without any notes, right off the top of their head--give us a story 
they have heard from a veteran. That should never happen.
  But as of this month, we have dealt with a lot of these issues. We 
have removed some of the roadblocks. And the new Community Care 
Program, which adopted elements from the successful Veterans Choice 
Program, will continue to allow veterans to seek care closer to home. 
What was once a cluster of seven programs has been merged into one 
single system--a whole-of-health, whole-of-the-soldier approach. It 
makes this process simpler and easier to understand and to implement 
this program.

[[Page S4153]]

  Options will expand even more with the authorization of local 
provider agreements and access to walk-in community clinics, which is 
specifically and precisely, what for years veterans have said they 
want:
  Just let me go to the doctor in my hometown.
  We have a neighborhood clinic over here.
  We have a clinic over at the pharmacy, the CVS or the Walgreens. Let 
me go there and not have to drive to a clinic that is out of town.
  One provision in particular that I believe is going to really make a 
big difference is the removal of barriers that have prevented VA 
healthcare professionals from practicing telemedicine. Any of us who 
have used telemedicine and have Skyped with a physician know this is a 
timesaver. It gets you in front of the doctor in a more expeditious 
fashion. It allows you to get that advice to start taking and treating 
your ailment sooner. It is a huge timesaver. This is now going to be 
available.
  As we are crafting these updates, we are careful to consider the cost 
to the patient and to make sure that veterans won't have to worry about 
receiving a massive bill if they see a provider at a local community 
facility. The VA MISSION Act keeps costs at these clinics in line with 
those at the VA healthcare centers.
  We have also taken steps to encourage consistent treatment at the VA 
healthcare centers by providing the funds necessary for these clinics 
to retain top talent. You have to have healthcare professionals in the 
clinics in order for these clinics to see their patients.
  Most importantly, the VA MISSION Act supports these changes via an 
updated and extensive system of reporting and accountability. For 
years, this body has debated the merits of various healthcare regimes 
for children, the elderly, and the poor, but for some reason, we have 
asked veterans to accept a system incapable of providing care without 
snarling patients in miles and miles of redtape. For this, we owe the 
veterans community an apology.
  It is an honor to work with our veterans and now say that the VA 
MISSION Act is being implemented and that care is coming to your 
community. I think this reflects the sincere desire to do right by our 
best and our bravest.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Planned Parenthood

  Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, we are just a few days away from the first 
official Democratic Presidential debate of the campaign season in 
Miami, but for anyone paying close attention, the first meaningful 
debate is actually about only 48 hours away in South Carolina.
  On Saturday, 11 Democrats, including 4 of the top 5 in the current 
polls, are going to take part in a candidate forum hosted by the 
Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
  What is Planned Parenthood? Planned Parenthood is the country's 
largest abortion business. That is their mainstay of operation. Last 
year, Planned Parenthood reported committing more than 330,000 
abortions--somewhere between one-third and one-half of all abortions 
committed in America last year. Planned Parenthood's president has said 
that providing, protecting, and expanding access to abortion is part of 
the organization's ``core mission.'' It does this work with the help of 
more than $500 million in annual subsidies from the Federal Government; 
that is, from taxpayers across this country, many of whom believe that 
abortion is immoral. Yet the position of Planned Parenthood is and has 
long been abortion at any time, anywhere, for any reason for free. That 
used to represent the most extreme position anywhere in the Democratic 
Party. It was shared by only a very small, hard-fringe portion of its 
elected leaders.

  Just to review some history, in 2008, Hillary Clinton was still 
calling for safe, legal, and rare abortion access, and as she would 
regularly emphasize, ``by rare, I mean rare.'' Yet, today, the radical 
things that the Nation's largest abortion business wants are basically 
indistinguishable from the position of every Democrat who is now 
running for President--abortion at any time, anywhere, for any reason 
for free.
  In fact, it is actually worse than this because the position of every 
Senator who is currently running for the Democratic nomination and of 
at least one Governor is that a living, breathing baby who survives an 
abortion procedure can still be left to die after birth. All seven 
Senators who are currently running for the Democratic Presidential 
nomination voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection 
Act earlier this year, and Governor Bullock of Montana vetoed a State-
level version of that bill just before he entered the race.
  As things currently stand, it is entirely possible that the next 
Democratic nominee for the highest office in our land will be publicly 
agnostic about the moral status of post-abortion infanticide--morally 
agnostic about post-abortion infanticide.
  Let's be clear. These candidates are wildly and spectacularly out of 
the mainstream in American life. Over the last two decades, Gallup 
polling has consistently shown that a majority of Americans are opposed 
to unrestricted abortion access beyond the first trimester. The Gallup 
numbers actually show that well under one-third of Americans support 
abortion beyond the first 3 months, and a new NBC/PBS/Marist poll finds 
that fully four out of five Americans are opposed to all abortion in 
the third trimester. That includes a majority of self-identifying pro-
choice voters. I want to say that again. A majority of self-identified 
pro-choice voters in America are opposed to abortion in the third 
trimester. So the polling of Americans is actually quite different than 
what the Democrats are going to pretend it to be over the next 2 days 
when they talk into their echo chamber.
  What is even more important than anything about public opinion is 
that the Democrats are also out of step with our fundamental American 
conviction that all men are created equal--all men and women and 
babies. Instead, they are increasingly committed to the proposition 
that some people are less than human and are, therefore, disposable. 
Sadly, though, the most radical leftwing voices are winning in their 
party's echo chamber, and Democratic candidates have now decided that 
they must prostrate themselves before the ``flush with cash'' abortion 
industry. This has consequences well beyond policy. As Democrats' 
abortion positions have become more extreme, they have no longer sought 
to even persuade fellow citizens with whom they disagree. Rather, they 
have become openly hostile to Americans who disagree on this great 
moral challenge.
  My colleague from New York, for instance, Senator Gillibrand, who 
will be attending this weekend's forum in South Carolina, made her 
feelings clear earlier this month in an interview with the Des Moines 
Register. In promising that she would appoint only judges who would 
uphold Roe v. Wade, here is what she said. Listen to this quote:

       I think there [are] some issues that have such moral 
     clarity that we have as a society decided that the other side 
     is not acceptable.
       Imagine saying that it's OK to appoint a judge who is 
     racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic.
       [This is not an issue where] there is a fair ``other 
     side.'' There is no moral equivalency when you come to 
     racism, and I do not believe there is a moral equivalency 
     when it comes to changing laws that deny women reproductive 
     freedom.

  What? What are we talking about here? Are you kidding me? Did you 
catch what she just said?
  According to a sitting U.S. Senator and a candidate for the 
Democratic nomination to be President of the United States, holding 
pro-life views in America is no longer acceptable. It is not a fair 
position, she tells us. It is the moral equivalency of racism or anti-
Semitism. Perhaps in the Senator's next interview she will suggest that 
pro-life Americans belong in a basket of deplorables.
  There is so much wrong with this statement that it is difficult to 
know where to begin. We could note the plain, simple fact that it is 
not pro-lifers who have an ugly link to racism. Rather, since the very 
beginning, the American abortion industry has been intimately connected 
to eugenics. This is the origin of the movement.
  As Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger put it herself--and 
think about this quote--``the unbalance between the birth rate of the 
`unfit' and

[[Page S4154]]

the `fit' [is] the greatest present menace to civilization.''
  Sanger's racial opinions are a matter of some dispute, but this part 
is clear--that she intentionally targeted efforts at Black 
neighborhoods in Harlem and in the Deep South. Many of the people 
involved in her efforts took things a step further--going so far as to 
forcibly sterilize African-American women whom they deemed to be unfit 
to procreate.
  We can also note that it is, in part, because of this ugly history 
that, today, Black women in America are 3\1/2\ times more likely to 
have abortions than White women, and in some parts of Senator 
Gillibrand's home State, Black children are actually more likely to be 
aborted than to be carried to term.

  We could also point to the continued eugenic use of abortion--for 
example, to kill children who have nonlife-threatening diseases. In the 
United States today, two-thirds of all babies in the womb who are found 
to have Down syndrome are aborted, and in some parts of Europe, the 
rate is pushing 100 percent. There are public ad campaigns in two 
nations in Europe that celebrate the fact that they have gotten rid of 
all of their Down syndrome babies.
  Instead of going point by point, I will just recommend that anyone 
who wants to better understand this disturbing history read Justice 
Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion last month in Box v. Planned 
Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky. Yet, according to my Senate 
colleague, perhaps Justice Thomas is one of those racists--you know, 
one of those notorious pro-life racists who is stalking America.
  In their leftward lurch to become the Planned Parenthood candidate, 
it is not just that the Democrats who seek this office are losing touch 
with where Americans actually are on the hard questions of abortion or 
with our fundamental American convictions, it is also, as my colleague 
from the State of New York has shown, that we are losing touch with 
even how to do politics like Americans, where you respect the dignity 
of people you differ with and argue about the ideas. You don't declare 
them an unfit and an unworthy, unacceptable other side. Americans have 
always had a genius for talking to each other. In our constitutional 
system, we set up debate fora like this to be able to facilitate, 
channel, and elevate debate--even heated, feverish debate about really 
sensitive topics.
  Our Framers held firmly to the principle that men and women in their 
exercise of reason could come to agreements by persuasion and by 
dialogue even if it took a long time and even if the topics were 
difficult. Anything less than that would be a violation of the basic 
dignity of our fellow citizens. Our Founders knew that hard political 
issues should not be resolved at gunpoint; they should be resolved by 
debate, which starts by assuming the dignity of your counterparty in 
that debate.
  We are watching that conviction go by the wayside right now. 
Slandering pro-life Americans as being, in effect, Klan members and 
Nazis is just a way to crush debate, not to persuade. It is a way of 
saying that these people--people like my mom, who prays outside 
abortion clinics; people like my daughters and my wife, who have spent 
a lot of hours volunteering at crisis pregnancy centers; and people 
like the overwhelming majority of Nebraskans, whom I get to represent, 
or Indianans, whom the Presiding Officer now gets to represent--are so 
morally repugnant that they don't deserve a voice, that they don't 
deserve to be treated like human beings, that they don't deserve to be 
engaged in debate, that they are not people you could possibly have a 
reasonable conversation with.
  This is crazy talk.
  It is not difficult to imagine where this approach leads. When we 
lose sight of the intrinsic and inexhaustible dignity of unborn 
children, we open the door to abortion's violence, and when we lose 
sight of the dignity of our fellow citizens in debate, we open the door 
to yet other kinds of violence.
  I have spent a lot of time with pro-lifers in my life, probably a lot 
more time than most of my colleagues who are going to be at the Planned 
Parenthood debate in South Carolina on Saturday. I will tell you what 
you will not find among these people is partisan caricature. What you 
will find are people who are passionately devoted to the dignity of 
every human being no matter how small or how vulnerable or what disease 
one might have been diagnosed with. You will find a lot of Americans, 
young and old, in the pro-life movement who care deeply about women who 
are in need. You will also find a lot of enthusiasm for promising in 
vitro surgeries and for scientific developments in ultrasound and 
neonatal technology. You will find fellow citizens who are ready to 
advance the basic American commitment to life through the tools of 
dialogue, persuasion, and respect.
  The dehumanization of our friends and neighbors, whether they are in 
the opposite party or in the womb, destroys our national life together 
and our national conversation. On both sides, we need to be constantly 
stitching back together that fabric that has been torn asunder.
  I suggest to the Democrats who are heading to the South Carolina 
debate this weekend to spend less time wrestling with each other in 
order to say more ridiculously extreme, clickbait things for high-
propensity primary voters and spend more time listening to the voices 
of their pro-life fellow citizens. My guess is they will learn 
something, and our national debate will be the better for it.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Braun). The Senator from Oregon.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, Ernest Hemingway said that the world is a 
fine place and worth fighting for, and I couldn't agree more. My 
colleague from Delaware and I are here on the floor to fight for that 
world, to fight for our planet.
  If you breathe in a lung full of air right now--and I invite anybody 
following this to do so--hold it for a few seconds, and breathe it out, 
the air that you will have just taken into your body, into your lungs, 
will have had 33 percent more carbon than when I was born. That is a 
dramatic transformation of the atmosphere on this planet. It doesn't 
matter where you go. You could be doing this exercise here in DC, back 
home in Oregon, or in Japan. It is still 33 percent more carbon in a 
single lifetime. Because that extra carbon is blanketing our entire 
globe, it is having a huge impact--an impact we see in all kinds of 
ways.
  Back home in Oregon, there has been a huge impact with the forest 
fires. We had forest fires this year that started in March. Perhaps you 
have seen some pictures of walls of flames and fires in Montana, in 
Washington, in Oregon, and in California in the last couple of years--
smoke that has blanketed our cities and our States for weeks on end.
  This is not the norm. This is the result of changing climate chaos, 
and it is not good.
  We see extreme weather across the country. We see more powerful 
hurricanes assaulting the Southeast. We see more Lyme disease in the 
Northeast and fewer moose because the ticks kill the moose and ticks 
carry Lyme disease to humans. We see the slowest planting season in 
four decades--too much rain, flooded farms.
  As of June 3, the Department of Agriculture told us 40 million acres 
of corn that would normally have been planted haven't been planted.
  Climate chaos is the greatest threat humans have ever seen on this 
planet, and it is happening for one simple reason: We discovered fossil 
fuels. We discovered that burning them could create a lot of energy, 
and we could transform the globe with that energy, but every single 
time you use those carbon sources, you put carbon in the air, and now 
we have started to really damage our own planet.
  So what is the national response? Well, under President Obama, we had 
the Clean Power Plan--the CPP. The CPP laid out a pretty ambitious 
vision, an example for the world to follow, but, quite frankly, it 
wasn't enough. It doesn't accelerate enough our transition to renewable 
energy.
  Just think about it this way: We have been gifted with a fabulous 
source of fusion energy. We don't have to recreate fusion reactors here 
on the planet because we have it safely stowed millions of miles away 
in the Sun. That is a fusion reactor. All we have to do is capture the 
energy that shines on planet Earth, and we are in pretty good

[[Page S4155]]

shape. That Sun heats up the air and creates wind, and we can capture 
that same energy by capturing the wind.
  We have geothermal energy, potential wave energy. We have to 
transition to these sources and quit burning carbon, and we need an 
ambitious plan to do so. We need a turning point.
  Future generations will either celebrate the moment when we committed 
ourselves to saving our planet or they will ask why we failed, and 
right now we are looking at failure. The rate of carbon pollution isn't 
going down; it is accelerating upward. We are accelerating into 
oblivion.
  When I was born, it took about 2 to 3 years to increase a single 
point of carbon pollution, parts per million. You can see how this 
curve is now accelerating upward. Now we are at about 2.5 points per 
year. That is a huge difference.
  We are kind of lulled into this false sense of comfort. Well, don't 
we have more insulation in our buildings? Aren't we blessed with cars 
that get greater mileage? We have appliances that use a little less 
energy. Well, yes, those things are true, but they are not enough. Even 
with that, the curve is accelerating upward. So we are in trouble, but 
we do have some blessings in this battle.
  Solar and wind electricity have plunged in cost, and the result is 
they are now cheaper than or competitive with fossil fuels. That is 
before you take into account the massive subsidies granted by 
legislative action to fossil fuels. So they are actually cheaper, and 
that is before you take into account the externalities--the damage that 
fossil fuels are doing to our planet. So now we can really see that 
renewables are a complete win except for the greed manifested through 
our political campaigns to keep burning fossil fuels.
  It means more dollars in a few corporations' pockets, pockets of a 
few really rich people who say that their generational need for 
wealth--which they can't take with them to the grave anyway--that 
generational need, they are willing to sacrifice our planet for all.
  Now, they are not willing to bear the costs. They are not willing to 
pay for the damage to all the homes destroyed by those more powerful 
hurricanes. They are not willing to pay for all the forests destroyed 
by the forest fires in Oregon. They are not willing to pay for the 
structures destroyed by those fires. They are not willing to pay the 
farmers whose crop is going to produce less because they had to plant 
so late. In other words, they want the private profit while planet 
Earth and the rest of us bear the consequences of their greed.
  So we need a strong plan, and we need it now. We need to have a 
clear, robust response to transition to renewable energy quickly. So 
let's build on the foundation of the Clean Power Plan. Let's make this 
the turning moment in history that future generations can celebrate 
because we really do have a very fine planet, and it is worth fighting 
for.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. While the Senator from Oregon is here, I just want to say 
he mentioned we have a very fine planet, and God knows we do, but it is 
also the only planet we have, and I think for certainly everybody who 
serves in this body--and maybe some of these young pages will have the 
opportunity someday to live on another planet but probably not.
  The President of France was just down the hall 2 years ago. I am sure 
Senator Merkley remembers it. President Macron addressed us on a 
variety of subjects, but one of those was the future of our plant.
  He said these words. I will never forget them. He said: We only get 
one planet, planet Earth. There is no planet B. This is it.
  He reminded us of our obligation, really a moral obligation, to take 
care of this gift from God that he has entrusted into our care.
  It is in that spirit that I am pleased to rise today with Senator 
Merkley and other colleagues to speak out against the so-called 
Affordable Clean Energy rule that repeals and replaces the Clean Power 
Plan from the previous administration.
  As I said when this rule was proposed in, I think, August of last 
year--and our colleague, given where he is from in America, maybe they 
say this in his State too--but we have a saying here that you can put 
lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.
  I said at the time when this rule was introduced that the only thing 
that has changed from the proposal to the final rule is maybe a little 
more lipstick.
  The Trump EPA rule promotes neither affordable energy nor clean 
energy. What it actually does is it attempts to scam the American 
people into believing that the EPA is doing something to stem the tide 
of climate change.
  I think this poster probably speaks well to that thought, but this 
proposal, I think, is a failure of vision, and I think it is an 
abdication of leadership in our fight against climate change. We need 
to fight this problem head-on.
  The fact that our climate is warming, the fact that we have this 
extreme weather, whether it happens to be in the Midwest with floods, 
the Northwest with wildfires the size of my State, whether it happens 
to be in the number of category 5 hurricanes that we are seeing, 
extreme weather--literally within an hour or so of here, Ellicott City, 
where they have had two 1,000-year floods in 18 months.
  My wife and I were out in Palo Alto, CA, last weekend for the 
graduation of our oldest son from business school, and the week before 
we arrived there, he told us that the temperature in the Bay Area, 
where I used to be stationed in the Navy during the Vietnam war, he 
said that the temperature reached 104 degrees. I don't ever remember it 
ever reaching 94 degrees in the years I was stationed in Moffett Field 
Naval Air Station.
  Something is going on here, and it is serious. I think we have a 
pretty good idea what is causing this, and we need to fight this 
challenge head-on.
  The good news is this doesn't have to be something to divide us as a 
nation. It doesn't have to be something that divides us as Democrats 
and Republicans. It doesn't have to be something that divides us with 
respect to the rest of the world. This is something that should unite 
us.
  There is an old saying that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Well, 
the enemy of a world that has all this crazy weather, extreme weather--
and maybe in a lot of places in the internal part of our country you 
don't see what we see. What we see is that my State is sinking. 
Delaware is the lowest lying State in America. We are sinking, and the 
seas around us are rising. That is not a very good combination.
  Folks who don't happen to live on our coast--I was born in West 
Virginia, grew up in other parts of the country, but for us it is real. 
It is not just something that is esoteric. We see it every day.
  The science behind climate change is, I believe, settled. Climate 
change is real. It is happening. It is a growing threat to our country, 
and it is getting worse every year.
  Climate change is leading to rising global temperatures, rising sea 
levels, more frequent and severe weather events such as hurricanes, 
rainfall measured by the foot, not by the inch, and drought-fueled 
wildfires, as I said earlier, the size of my State.
  The more I hear about these extreme weather events, the more I am 
reminded of the story in the Old Testament. I think it is in the book 
of Exodus, where you may recall that Moses gets a call from on high to 
lead the people of Israel out of Egypt where they are in bondage.
  He tells God: God, I am not a very good public speaker, and I don't 
think you have the right guy to do this.
  The Lord said to him: You have a brother, Aaron, who is a real good 
speaker, a real good talker. Why don't the two of you sort of lead this 
effort together?
  So, urged by the Almighty, the two brothers visited the pharaoh who 
was running the show in Egypt. They called on him and said: We are here 
to ask you to let our people go. Set us free.
  Pharaoh was stubborn. He rejected their plea, and there were 
consequences to that rejection. I think there were about 10 different 
plagues that were brought to bear on Egypt in an effort to try to 
convince the pharaoh to let the people go, like the hordes of locusts 
that covered the land.
  Moses and Aaron would go back to see the pharaoh and would say: We

[[Page S4156]]

want you to let our people go. The pharaoh would say, basically: Get 
out of here.
  Then, after that, snakes would come out and appear everywhere, all 
over the land.
  They would go back and see the pharaoh, and he would say: Get out of 
here.
  Lizards came out of the rivers and covered the land, and they went 
back to see the pharaoh, and he said: Get out of here.
  Finally, the river was turned to blood, and they went back to see 
him, and he said: Get out of here.
  Finally, after the 10th plague, he changed his tune. The 10th plague, 
as you may recall, if you remember the Old Testament--the 10th plague 
was the firstborn sons of every Egyptian family died.
  That time when Moses and Aaron showed up to see the pharaoh, he said: 
Why don't you leave. Take all your people and your stuff and just 
leave, and they left--and they left.
  Our President's dismissal of the extreme weather that is associated 
with the unrelenting worsening reality of climate change reminds me of 
the pharaoh's dismissal of the plagues unleashed on the people of 
Israel 2,000 years ago.
  The pharaoh was dismissive. This President is dismissive. We have 
seen this movie before. In this movie version of it, our President is 
playing the role of pharaoh, and we need to make sure we don't succumb 
to that.
  The Obama-Biden administration finalized the Clean Power Plan to 
reduce carbon pollution and try to stem the tide of climate change.
  The Clean Power Plan established the very first Federal targets to 
reduce carbon emissions from our Nation's electric powerplants, which 
at the time were the largest source of carbon pollution in our country 
not that long ago.
  The rule was not developed on a whim. The Clean Power Plan was 
finalized after a lengthy rulemaking process, which was 2 years or 
longer in the making. They considered over 3.5 million public comments, 
and I am told they responded to every one of them.
  The Clean Power Plan set real carbon reduction targets for each State 
but gave flexibility and time for States to meet these individualized 
standards. EPA estimated the Clean Power Plan would have achieved over 
$54 billion--that is billion with a ``b''--in health and climate 
benefits if fully implemented. The Clean Power Plan provided long-term 
certainty for U.S. businesses, helping American companies make smart 
investments at home and compete in the global energy market around the 
world.
  When finalized, critics of the Clean Power Plan--and there were 
plenty of them--argued the plan's carbon targets were too ambitious. 
That is only about 4 or 5 years ago. Critics swore that every American 
consumer who relies on electricity to keep the lights on would soon be 
in dire straits. Administrator Wheeler echoed these false claims just 
yesterday. Today, we know just how wrong the Clean Power Plan critics 
were.
  Even though the Clean Power Plan was never fully implemented, States 
and utilities went ahead and started making investments in order to 
meet the plan's carbon standards. They began acting in a way that said: 
We believe this is the way we are actually going to go as a country, 
and we need to get onboard.
  As with other clean air regulations, America's utilities have been 
able to find ways to meet the carbon reduction targets faster and much 
cheaper than originally estimated. When George Herbert Walker Bush was 
President, he pushed for a cap-and-trade approach to reducing acid rain 
in the northeastern part of our country. It was killing all of our 
forests, and he came up with a plan to reduce acid rain cap and trade. 
People said: It is going to cost too much; it is going to take too 
long. At the end of the day, it cost less than half of what it was 
supposed to cost, and I think it was accomplished in about one-third of 
the time.
  Today, our Nation's utilities are already on track to meet and 
surpass the goals set by the Clean Power Plan way ahead of schedule--
not on schedule but way ahead of schedule--because even though the 
Clean Power Plan was held up in court, it sent clear signals to the 
utility industry of this country.
  All the while, the vast majority of Americans are now enjoying lower 
utilities--let me say that again. They are enjoying lower utility 
bills, not higher, and more than 3 million Americans are now going to 
work in the clean energy sector every day, which includes jobs in 
renewable energy generation and energy efficiency.
  Despite the revolutionary changes in our energy sector, leading 
climate scientists are now telling us that we need to do even more to 
protect American lives and our economy from the threats of climate 
change.
  In the past year alone, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change issued an alarming report that concluded that if the global 
community does not enact ``rapid and far-reaching'' carbon reduction 
policies in the next decade, we could face irreversible damage to our 
planet as soon as 2040.
  Just 6 months ago, 13 Federal agencies under the Trump administration 
concluded unanimously that if this country does not take more drastic 
actions to address climate change, every major sector of our economy 
could be negatively affected by climate change by the turn of the 
century--every one. Some sectors are expected to see hundreds of 
billions of dollars of loss every year. My recollection is, in the last 
year alone, we have suffered damages from extreme weather in our 
country that add up to hundreds of billions of dollars in 1 year alone.
  What a science-based agency like EPA should be doing is building off 
of Obama's forward-looking carbon reduction vision and strengthening 
the Clean Power Plan standards, not weakening them. But even though 
utilities are on track to meet carbon reduction targets and scientists 
are warning us to keep our foot on the gas pedal, the Trump 
administration, sadly, is hitting the brakes.
  What this EPA has done fails to heed the warnings of climate 
scientists by weakening the Obama-Biden carbon standards put into place 
almost 4 years ago. The Clean Power Plan set clear targets for States 
to achieve a 32-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the 
power sector by 2030. Let me say that again. The Clean Power Plan set 
clear targets for States to achieve an almost one-third reduction in 
greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector by 2030.
  In comparison, the Trump proposal fails to set any real carbon 
emission standards for the power sector. It fails to set any real 
carbon emission standards for the power sector.
  This new proposed rule provides States with a menu of options for 
making coal-fired powerplants operate more efficiently, allowing States 
to decide whether to make coal plants implement those options. This 
means States could do nothing to clean up their powerplant emissions--
nothing.
  Add it up, and the dirty power scam fails to drive down powerplant 
carbon emissions. According to EPA's own analysis, this rule is, at 
best, going to keep powerplant carbon emissions at status quo levels. 
At worst, there are credible reports that show the scam may well result 
in an increase in carbon emissions.
  Like all climate change policies by President Trump, the dirty power 
scam also fails to advance the American clean energy economy. Instead, 
this rule tries to take our country back to a decade ago, when this 
country relied much more heavily on dirty coal generation. EPA 
Administrator Wheeler even touted the dirty power scam as a way to 
support more coal energy production in the United States. But ask any 
utility CEO or investor. America's future is not in dirty coal; it is 
in clean energy.
  As a native of West Virginia whose family members once worked in coal 
mines, let me say this. There are 50,000 people who work in coal mines 
in this country today, and those jobs are going down. Today, there are 
3 million people who work in sustainable energy and clean energy and 
conservation businesses, and for each of those 50,000 miners, we have 
an obligation to them and their families. If they lose their employment 
opportunities because we are moving to cleaner, carbon-free air, we 
have an obligation to help them in terms of transitioning and training 
for other jobs that are available. We have 3 million jobs today in this 
country that nobody showed up to do because they don't have the skills, 
the education, or the desire to do those jobs.

[[Page S4157]]

Coal miners could do a number of jobs. People who work in coal mines 
could build windmills. They could build solar fields. They can do all 
kinds of stuff. They can build clean corridors for our transportation, 
fueling electric-powered vehicles across the highways across America. 
They could build hydrogen fueling stations. They can do all kinds of 
stuff.
  Today, our utilities are making investments that will last 40 to 60 
years, if not longer. We should be providing the right market signals 
today for a clean energy economy tomorrow.
  The dirty power scam doesn't do that. What it does is create business 
uncertainty for our Nation's utilities and States grappling with the 
effects of climate change.
  To recap, if I could, the dirty power scam does three things, 
regrettably: It fails to heed the warnings of climate scientists; it 
fails to drive down powerplant carbon emissions; and it fails to 
advance a clean energy economy.
  Referring again to the failure of vision and leadership, that is why 
the dirty power scam is a failure of vision and an abdication of 
leadership in our fight against climate change. Repealing the Clean 
Power Plan and replacing it with a rule as ill-conceived as the dirty 
power scam will have serious consequences for the health of the public, 
our economy, and our planet. It is also a clear retreat from the EPA's 
responsibility to tackle the greatest environmental crises we face on 
our planet today, and those are climate change and the extreme weather 
that flows from it.
  The people of this country deserve a strong economy. They deserve 
more job creation. They deserve cleaner air. They deserve better 
environmental quality. The American people and our neighbors around the 
world deserve a healthy planet that we can call home. The American 
people deserve better than the dirty power scam, plain and simple.
  My colleagues and I are going to do everything in our power to make 
sure that the people of this country ultimately get the climate 
protection they deserve.
  The last thing I would say before yielding back to Senator Merkley is 
that the issue of climate change is not something that should divide 
us. Ultimately, this is something that should unite us, not just within 
this body, not just within this country, but around the world. That is 
my hope and prayer because, at the end of the day, we can clean our 
air, we can clean our water, we can combat climate change, and we can 
create a lot of jobs--a lot more than the 3 million jobs we have 
already seen created.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                   National Defense Authorization Act

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, each year we have a debate on the 
National Defense Authorization Act. In the past, it was a real debate--
a debate for which people brought significant issues to the floor 
related to American national security. Their amendments were 
considered. We argued pro and con. We took votes. We lobbied our 
colleagues within our caucus or across the aisle with the wisdom of our 
viewpoint. That is a tradition; that is a practice; that is what this 
Chamber is all about--to take on the issues that we face as a Nation, 
wrestle with them, explore the pros and cons, find their strengths or 
weaknesses, sometimes come to compromises that take several viewpoints, 
and merge them together into an even stronger point of view. But I am 
deeply disturbed that the U.S. Senate is quickly losing the ability to 
consider the issues facing our Nation.
  My colleague just spoke about the challenge of climate pollution, and 
I appreciate his doing so. But we have had few determined efforts to 
address the ideas different Members have for taking on that challenge, 
despite its devastation to so many ways and different parts of our 
country.
  When it comes to the security of our country, no issue is more 
important than the question of going to war. Our Founders realized this 
is a decision that should never be vested in a single person, not even 
the President. They knew that a single individual might find political 
cause or corrupt purposes to make the decision to go to combat against 
a force and that such a decision should be debated in a Chamber like 
this and a Chamber like the House. That is why the Constitution gives 
to this body, the legislature of the United States of America, the 
power to go to war.
  It is a question that came up early in our history. There was a 
challenge that we had off the Barbary Coast with corsairs, who are 
often referred to as pirates, taking charge of American brigs and 
holding them hostage.
  Jefferson embraced the idea of going to war. He became President in 
1801. Alexander Hamilton wanted to remind him what the Constitution 
said. As he said, ``It belongs to Congress only to go to war.'' Any one 
of us should be able to pull out our pocket Constitutions, read article 
I, section 8--that deliberate delegation to this Chamber and the House 
to make that decision.
  Well, right now we are in the drumbeat of war with Iran. There has 
been a lot of animosity between our two countries for a long period of 
time. The United States mounted a campaign through the Central 
Intelligence Agency to take out the directly elected leadership of Iran 
in 1953--a CIA-staged coup--and to install a leader, the Shah of Iran, 
who operated with great, shall I say, violence against the people. He 
had a secret police that was as feared as any in the world.
  There were other points of animosity when the people of Iran rose up 
against that Shah and took hostage Americans. They kept them hostage 
for a great length of time during the Carter administration. They did 
not release them until President Reagan came into office.
  Then there was the Iraq-Iran war, a war in which hundreds of 
thousands of people in Iran died, and the United States assisted the 
Iraqis in that war against Iran. Well, we have had often no love lost 
between our two nations over this period of time.
  I mention these few points of history to say that each side nurtures 
its grievances against the other, but something remarkable happened 
under the last administration. They worked to coordinate pressure from 
the entire world to strike a deal with Iran, to end their nuclear 
program, end the risk of Iran becoming a nuclear power. This agreement 
was something bought into by Russia and China, the European powers, and 
the United States. They did many concrete things, things that their 
rightwing did not like: dismantling their plutonium reactor, shipping 
enriched uranium out of their country, shutting down their centrifuges, 
allowing a massive amount of inspectors into their country to watch 
everything that they were doing.
  In return, the deal was we would help them economically find a better 
standard of living. This is a moment of potential turning point in the 
relationship--this long animosity between the two countries--
potentially a win-win, but then comes in a new administration, the 
Trump administration, and they don't like this possibility, this deal. 
The President says it is the worst deal ever struck. We, the United 
States, pulled out of the deal on May 8, 2018--just over a year ago. 
Since then, we have heard the drumbeats of war echoing on Capitol Hill.
  The administration designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps 
as a terrorist organization and then proceeded to tighten the economic 
sanctions in order to pressure the economy of Iran.
  So we had the end of the Uighurs, who are partners of ours, to be 
able to buy Iranian oil, greatly starving the economy of that nation. 
Then we deployed, in recent weeks, the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike 
force to the Gulf. Then we deployed a B-52 squadron to the Gulf. Then 
we heard the advocates in the administration saying: If anything 
happens with a connection with Iran, we will show them the ferocity of 
our forces. We will respond and show them not to mess with the United 
States of America.
  Different officials cited different examples, but one was: If an 
Iranian militia in Iraq should happen to harm an American, that could 
be a trigger or if Iran were to disrupt the movement of oil from the 
Gulf, that could be a trigger.
  When you deploy forces and then start looking for triggers, you can 
find one for war, if you want, but I stand here today to quote the 
Constitution of the United States of America, and that Constitution 
says the power of war

[[Page S4158]]

rests with this body--not the Oval Office.
  As we have pressured Iran, we have had incidents occur that have been 
highlighted in recent days. Some mines were put on the side of a couple 
ships--blew a hole through the side, didn't sink the ships. The 
administration is pretty sure, they say, that Iran did this. Well, I 
always exercise some caution. We all remember the Iraq war. We remember 
that the administration then--the Bush administration--built what they 
said was a powerful case of weapons of mass destruction being 
cultivated by Saddam Hussein and the Iraq Government. We went to war on 
that evidence, and we were wrong.
  Here we are at this moment and an administration that has predeployed 
forces, is squeezing the Iranian people as powerfully as possible. What 
happens in this situation? What is the goal? Some in the administration 
say the goal is negotiations. Now, let me get this straight. The United 
States broke the deal, strengthening the far right in Iran which said 
don't trust the Americans. We strengthened the Revolutionary Guard 
because the Revolutionary Guard did not like the deal to begin with. 
Then we economically squeezed the people of Iran, creating great 
hardship throughout the land--meaning we have moved the entire 
population in the direction of supporting the far right in that 
country.
  Now, take these two things. We have strengthened not the moderates 
who want to see the nation on a different course but the far right. 
Then we have alienated much of the country and increased their support 
for the far right, and we have shown that when we sign a deal, we don't 
stand behind the deal because this administration broke the deal. How 
is that a foundation for negotiation? We are saying to Iran: We 
negotiated. You agreed, but we are breaking the deal, and now we want 
to negotiate again.
  People don't tend to want to negotiate with folks who have broken the 
previous deal. So we here see that we have a challenge in which we 
stand on the precipice of potential war.
  My colleague from New Mexico has an amendment that restates the 
fundamentals of our Constitution, and he has teamed up with my 
colleague from Virginia who is here on the floor as well, and I am 
certainly completely supportive of their effort. They are saying that 
while we are on this bill, on security, on Defense authorization, this 
is a moment we should be debating whether the President has the 
authority to go to war, and their amendment says: No, he does not. He 
must follow the Constitution, and he must come to this body for 
authorization. That is an important message for us to send. We must not 
leave the debate on Defense authorization without debating the Udall-
King amendment.
  My colleagues are here to speak to it in greater detail. I so much 
appreciate their work. This is a moment that this Chamber must rise to 
the challenge of being a force that can wrestle with great issues 
before us, and there is no more important security issue at this moment 
than debating whether the President has the power to go to war. I stand 
with the Constitution. I hope my colleagues will all stand with the 
Constitution in this Chamber. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I also rise today with my colleagues to 
talk about the rumors of war we have been hearing in this body and in 
the news. I want to advocate for a very simple amendment whose timing 
is, I think, propitious as we discuss the National Defense 
Authorization Act. Why wouldn't we discuss what we are hearing from the 
White House and others? Why wouldn't we discuss the events that are 
happening on the ground in the Strait of Hormuz in the Middle East?
  The amendment Senator Udall has prepared that is a bipartisan 
amendment that is before the body--and we hope for a vote early next 
week--is a straightforward one. No funds would be used to prosecute a 
war against Iran unless this Congress has a vote to authorize it, to 
authorize such a war. As my colleague from Oregon mentioned, that is 
what the Constitution suggests, and that is the debate we should be 
having.
  Part of the reason I feel so strongly about this is because I am a 
Virginian. We are the most connected State to the military mission of 
the United States. All States are connected and all States are 
Patriotic, but if you just add up the kind of per capita in Virginia--
our Active Duty, our Guard, our Reserve, our DOD civilians, like the 
nurses who work at the Fort Belvoir Hospital, the DOD contractors like 
the shipbuilders in Newport News, our military families--we are the 
most connected to the Nation's military mission. I am personally 
connected to this with a son in the U.S. Marines. So as a Virginian I 
feel very strongly about this, and I also feel strongly about it 
because we are proud of the Virginians, Madison, Jefferson, and others, 
who are among the Founders who crafted the Constitution. They tried to 
do some things that were pretty revolutionary then, and they are still 
revolutionary. Some of our Constitution was a great borrowing 
exercise--taking wonderful ideas from other constitutions and laws and 
assembling them together in a wonderful document they put together in 
1787, but there were a couple of ideas in the Constitution of 1787 that 
were not chosen from elsewhere, that were really unique to our country 
and are still unique. One of the unique ideas is this: War is not a 
matter for the Executive, the King, the Emperor, the Monarch, the 
Sultan, the Pope. No, war is a matter that needs to be declared by the 
people's elected legislative body.
  That was revolutionary in 1787, and it is revolutionary today. The 
balance of power that was struck was that Congress would declare war, 
and then once declared, there would only be one Commander in Chief--535 
Commanders in Chief would be a disaster. The decision to initiate war 
would be for Congress, and then the President, working in tandem with 
military leadership, would be the Commander in Chief to prosecute a war 
if declared, but there should be no shortcut and no substitute for the 
debate in this body before the initiation of war.
  The amendment that will be on the table--and then hopefully we will 
receive a vote on--that is bipartisan in nature would prevent funding 
for a war against Iran unless there is a vote of Congress to authorize 
such a war.
  The amendment does make clear that no previous congressional act--for 
example, the 2001 authorization--can be tortured and twisted and 
stretched and bootstrapped into a declaration of war against Iran. The 
administration has sort of been trying to lay that as a predicate, 
suggesting that an authorization that passed in 2001 that did not 
mention Iran would authorize war against Iran, when not a single person 
who voted for it in 2001 ever thought it was to be used in 
justification for war against Iran. The administration would like to 
try to use that as a justification, they have said, in testimony here 
on the Hill.
  Think about this: If they are so afraid to come to Congress and ask 
for an authorization that they want to try to use something from 18 
years ago, what does it tell us about their confidence that they have a 
good justification that we need to be in a war?
  The amendment we have does not prevent the United States from 
defending itself from attack against Iran. The President has the power 
as Commander in Chief under Article II, and the War Powers Resolution 
specifies that power and doesn't codify it. It doesn't need to be 
codified, but it makes clear that power is always inherent in the 
Office of the President.
  Our amendment doesn't suggest that Iran's behavior is acceptable or 
consistent with international norms. I have been part of many efforts 
over the course of my time in the Senate to impose sanctions on Iran if 
they violated, for example, ballistic missile protocols, U.N. 
sanctions, or rules, and if they engaged in human rights abuses. The 
purpose here is not to stand up and defend Iranian behavior, but it is 
to stand for the proposition that we shouldn't be committed to a war 
without a vote of Congress.
  I will say that this administration's actions and rhetoric have been 
unnecessarily provocative. It was the United States that pulled out of 
a diplomatic deal that was working, not Iran. When President Trump 
pulled out of the diplomatic deal at the time he did, his then-
Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson; his then-Secretary of Defense, James 
Mattis; his then-National Security Advisor, General McMaster; his then 
and current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

[[Page S4159]]

Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford--all said that the Iran deal was working, 
that Iran was complying with it, and that the United States should stay 
in it. The President pulled out of the diplomatic deal nevertheless and 
in the year since has reimposed sanctions and taken a number of steps 
that are provocative toward Iran--diplomatic provocation, rhetorical 
provocation, economic provocation, and military provocation.
  We have been having a set of briefings--some classified--from the 
administration on this. I am not going to get into classified material, 
but one thing I will acknowledge--and I am impressed by this--is the 
administration's intel experts, when they brief us on the situation--
even yesterday--they will state that Iran's activities are--and this is 
pretty much a direct quote--in response to the ``U.S. Maximum 
Pressure'' campaign.
  The ``U.S. Maximum Pressure'' campaign that started with the United 
States backing out of the diplomatic deal is leading to Iran taking 
other actions that we don't like, but they are not taking those actions 
unprovoked. Their actions need to be understood as a response to the 
``U.S. Maximum Pressure'' campaign.
  Senator Merkley talked about it. We pulled out of the deal. We 
reimposed sanctions. We designated part of the Iranian Government as a 
foreign terrorist organization. We misrepresented routine military 
operations in the region. We moved more troops and Patriot missiles and 
aircraft carriers and other military material into Iran's region. This 
is not their moving material into our region; it is our moving material 
into their neighborhood.
  Just this week, the administration announced the deployment of an 
additional 1,000 troops to the Middle East to counter Iran, and that is 
what this administration is doing--a ``U.S. Maximum Pressure'' campaign 
that tears up diplomacy and thus raises the risk of unnecessary war.
  I will also point out that it is not just U.S. activity that is 
provoking Iran. When the United States allows Saudi Arabia to get 
missiles they shouldn't have and when the United States observes the 
Saudis building a missile program--by public reports, possibly with the 
support of China--that is viewed as very dangerous by Iran. When the 
United States transfers nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia--not even 
briefing Congress about it--and the Saudis say they would try to build 
up a nuclear arsenal to counter Iran, it is a provocation. So the 
maximum pressure by the United States and nations like Saudi Arabia are 
leading to an unnecessary escalation of tension in the region.
  I want to conclude because my colleague from New Mexico, who is the 
author of this, also wants to speak about why we need to take it up, 
but let me just say this. I am going to state my position for the 
record.
  I think another war in the Middle East now would be a disaster. I 
think it would be catastrophic for the United States to tear up a 
diplomatic deal and then look our troops in the face and say ``Because 
we tore up a diplomatic deal, you have to now go fight another war'' 
when we have been in the Middle East for 18 years. I think it would 
represent just about as catastrophic a failure of American foreign 
policy as you could imagine.
  I think it would also have the disadvantage of taking our eye off the 
ball. I have always been taught to keep the main thing the main thing. 
I think the main thing right now in national security for the United 
States is to keep our eye on our principal competitor, which is China. 
When we take our eye off our principal competitor and we engage in wars 
we needn't be in, China will be the victor in that. That is a very 
dangerous thing for us.
  So I think it would be catastrophic for the United States to be 
engaged in another war in the Middle East, particularly a war against 
Iran right now. But if the President feels differently about that; if 
some of his advisers think we ought to be about regime change in Iran, 
as they have said; if some of them think it would be easy to beat Iran 
in a war, as they have said; if some colleagues here on the floor think 
we should be in a war with Iran, as some have publicly urged, let them 
come to the floor of the Senate, in full view of the American people, 
and make that argument.
  Let's have that argument right here in the greatest deliberative body 
in the world with the American public watching, and I will make my 
argument about why a new war in the Middle East would be catastrophic 
and see who wants to stand up and make the argument that a new war in 
the Middle East is something this great Nation should do. And if we 
then have that argument and cast a vote and I lose, I am going to be 
disappointed, but we will have done what the Constitution suggests that 
we must do.
  Our failure to have that debate is so unfair to our troops. It is 
unfair to our troops to put them in harm's way with Congress hiding 
under their desk, not being willing to state yea or nay on whether we 
should be engaged in hostilities.
  Let's honor the troops and the sacrifice we would ask them to make, 
follow the Constitution, and have this debate before the American 
public. That is what the amendment would essentially guarantee that 
this body would do, and that is why I so strongly support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I thank you for the recognition, and let me 
thank the two Senators that preceded me here. Senator Merkley spoke on 
this issue of whether we should be going to another war in the Middle 
East, and Senator Kaine, whom I have watched since he has been in the 
Senate, has been relentless and very consistent about raising the 
issues of authorizations of force and relying on authorizations of 
force from 2001 and 2002--what we consider very outdated in terms of 
looking at the facts on the ground. I know he has been working hard--
Senator Kaine has--in the Armed Services Committee. Both of us have 
been working in the Foreign Relations Committee to try to address this 
constitutional issue that is really before us.
  I came to the floor of the Senate 4 weeks ago warning that this 
administration's reckless escalation of tensions with Iran was blindly 
leading us to the brink of war. I urged this body to assert its 
constitutional authority and pass my bipartisan legislation, the 
Prevention of Unconstitutional War with Iran Act. I called on all of 
us, Republicans and Democrats, to make it clear that the President 
alone cannot wage war against Iran without authorization from Congress.
  Well, here we are, 1 month later, and tensions with Iran have only 
increased. The threat of conflict has only drawn closer. Today, we woke 
up to the news that Iranian forces shot down a U.S. drone. That comes 
on the heels of 1,000 American troops being sent to the Middle East. 
Yet the Senate does nothing--nothing to assert Congress's 
constitutional authority and nothing to assume the responsibility that 
the Founders clearly placed on our shoulders, the people's 
representatives.
  The Republican leadership should not duck all debate on the military 
conflict with Iran. We need to vote. We owe it to our men and women in 
uniform, whose lives would be put on the line, to have this debate, to 
make the hard choices, and to take the tough votes.
  Today, we are calling for a vote on an amendment to the 2020 National 
Defense Authorization Act. The amendment prohibits funding for military 
operations against Iran without explicit authorization from Congress. I 
am joined in this amendment by Senators Kaine, Durbin, Paul, Merkley, 
and Murphy. My related bill has 25 cosponsors and still counting.
  Article I, section 8, of the Constitution couldn't be clearer. It is 
Congress and Congress alone that has the authority to declare war. This 
amendment recognizing Congress's clear-cut authority should have broad 
bipartisan support. Whether you support armed conflict with Iran or 
believe that the war would be a disaster, you should have the courage 
to cast a vote when the Constitution says it is your job.
  Let's be clear. This bill does not tie our Armed Forces' hands. Our 
military is highly capable, and we have an inherent right of self-
defense, which this amendment clearly underscores. But we need to step 
up. The situation is more urgent day by day.
  The President and Secretary of State have accused Iran of being 
responsible

[[Page S4160]]

for the attack on two oil tankers last week. Iran has denied that 
involvement. There is a somewhat conflicting report from the Japanese 
tanker owner. I do not know whether Iran, its surrogates, or another 
party is responsible for this heinous action, but this administration's 
itch to go to war is all too reminiscent of how we got embroiled in 
Iraq in 2003 and how the disastrous tanker war of the 1980s began.
  We must not make the same terrible mistakes again. We do need to find 
out precisely what happened and who is responsible, but the response 
need not be another endless war in the Middle East. We need a thorough 
and objective investigation of this incident, as has been called for by 
a number of nations, and the Senators need a real intelligence briefing 
that covers sources and evidence and not just a statement of opinions 
from administration officials.
  If the Trump administration is entering our forces into hostilities, 
then this Congress should demand that a report be submitted to Congress 
in accordance with the War Powers Act. Those who wrote that act made it 
clear: ``Hostilities also encompasses a state of confrontation in which 
no shots have been fired, but denotes a situation in which there is a 
clear potential either for such a state of confrontation or for actual 
armed conflict.'' We may have already crossed this threshold. Some have 
said we have.
  The Reagan administration failed to submit such a report to Congress 
during the tanker wars, and the Congress failed to hold that 
administration accountable, despite the overwhelming evidence of 
hostilities.
  Now, the current administration has hinted that it does not need to 
go to Congress for approval for hostilities against Iran. They seem to 
believe that the 9/11 AUMF gives them legal authority for war. Many of 
us in Congress today voted for that AUMF, including myself, and let me 
be clear--no one who voted for it thought it would be used to justify a 
war against Iran 18 years later. Congress needs to make that clear 
before it is too late.
  Yes, the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf, and the Gulf of Oman 
should be safe from navigation. Vital interests are at stake. But I 
agree with the statement issued by the U.S. Central Command in the 
aftermath of this recent attack:

       We have no interest in engaging in a new conflict in the 
     Middle East. We will defend our interests, but a war with 
     Iran is not in our strategic interest, nor in the best 
     interest of the international community.

  A war with Iran is not in our strategic interest, and a majority of 
Americans agree. The American people are tired of forever wars in the 
Middle East that take our resources, produce no strategic gains, and, 
most tragically, endanger the lives of American men and women.
  In any war with Iran, we will have few allies to back us. The 
international community is not behind the National Security Advisor and 
Secretary of State's bellicose rhetoric. We would have to go it nearly 
alone.
  The administration's maximum pressure strategy is supposedly intended 
to bring Iran to the negotiating table, but this strategy has 
predictably failed to produce any negotiations or make any diplomatic 
inroads. Instead, it is emboldening the hardliners in Tehran who also 
want confrontation.
  The administration's pulling out of the Iran nuclear agreement was a 
colossal strategic blunder. It was supposedly intended to get the U.S. 
a better deal, but violating our obligations has only produced saber-
rattling, brinksmanship, and the very real risk that a miscalculation 
or mistake will result in an all-out war.
  The United States and the world were safer with the Iran nuclear 
agreement. It included strict verification requirements. The 
International Atomic Energy Agency and the President's own intelligence 
and defense teams agreed that Iran was complying.
  The unilateral withdrawal only undermined relations with our allies, 
signaled that the United States will not keep its word, and 
destabilized the Middle East even more. This was a predictable result 
and many warned the Trump administration about this outcome.
  Iran threatens to exceed the agreement's limits on nuclear fuel 
within days. While I hope Iran holds to its end of the bargain, the 
United States pulling out of the agreement and reimposing sanctions has 
opened the door for Iran to walk away as well.
  Now we must do all we can over the next 17 months to make sure this 
President does not precipitously start a war with Iran, a country of 80 
million people, about four times the size of Iraq, and with proxy 
forces throughout the region. A war would cost trillions of dollars and 
undoubtedly American lives. With each passing day and with each 
incident, the risk of a catastrophic war grows closer.
  I realize some of my colleagues have a different view of the 
situation. Some talk about how all options must be on the table or say 
that the Iranian regime must be overthrown. I hope they reconsider and 
change their minds.
  If they don't, they should at least have the courage of their 
convictions. If you want to empower this President to fight a war with 
Iran, let's vote on that question. The American people and our men and 
women in uniform deserve to know that their representatives will 
debate, discuss, and vote on these most difficult of decisions. That is 
why all of us in this body must demand that this amendment be heard, 
debated, and voted on. Senate gridlock cannot be an excuse.
  The Constitution puts this decision squarely in our court. It is long 
past time for Congress to reassert its war powers authority. Our oath 
demands that we make any decision to go to war. The real possibility 
that this administration will precipitate conflict in Iran requires us 
to face this question now. The fact that American lives will be on the 
line places the moral imperative on us to debate this issue and to make 
clear to the President and his administration that any decision to go 
to war with Iran must be made by Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
the National Defense Authorization Act and to highlight amendments that 
I have sponsored or cosponsored to enhance opportunities for 
servicemembers and their families.
  The NDAA represents one of the Senate's most important 
responsibilities. It authorizes funding to support our servicemembers, 
including those who are serving in harm's way. It sets policy for our 
Nation's military and authorizes critical national defense priorities. 
It is vitally important to ensure that our men and women in uniform, as 
well as our Department of Defense civilians, have the training, ships, 
planes, vehicles, and other equipment they need to help defend our 
Nation and its interests.
  I commend Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed and the other 
Members of the Armed Services Committee for their leadership and 
bipartisan work on this important legislation. They have done an 
excellent job.
  This bill contains many provisions that are important to the State of 
Maine and to our Nation. To cite just a few items, I am pleased that 
the NDAA includes authorization for three Arleigh Burke destroyers, 94 
fifth-generation Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, and six CH-53K King 
Stallion helicopters. These essential ships and aircraft will help to 
ensure that our military maintains its superiority in both the seas and 
skies. I also strongly support the 3.1 percent pay increase that 
members of the Armed Forces will receive when this bill is signed into 
law.
  In addition, the NDAA expresses our commitment to key international 
partners and allies. For example, the bill includes a full $500 million 
authorization to continue the cooperative missile defense programs with 
Israel, which are becoming increasingly vital in that volatile region. 
It also provides additional security assistance for Ukraine to help 
check continued Russian aggression on its eastern and southern borders.
  To build on the impressive work done by Chairman Inhofe and the rest 
of the committee, I have introduced amendments to improve benefits for 
military widows, increased access to and awareness of Department of 
Defense and VA apprenticeship programs, and improved temporary duty 
travel lodging for DOD employees, such as those serving at the 
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME.
  The first amendment, which I am pleased to join my colleague Senator

[[Page S4161]]

Doug Jones in sponsoring, calls for the elimination of a longtime 
inequity in the Survivor Benefit Plan and the Dependency and Indemnity 
Compensation Plan. This inequity, which causes there to be an offset 
between the two programs, is commonly known as the military widow's 
tax. This unfair offset is currently preventing as many as 65,000 
surviving spouses--more than 260 of them in Maine--from receiving the 
full benefits that they deserve.
  The Department of Defense's Survivor Benefits Plan, or SBP, is 
primarily an insurance benefit that military families purchase, usually 
in their retirement, and it provides cash benefits to a surviving 
spouse or other eligible recipients when the military retiree passes 
away. On the other hand, the Department of Veterans Affairs Dependency 
and Indemnity Compensation Program, known as DIC, is a monthly tax-free 
payment to survivors and dependents of servicemembers who pass away 
from service-related conditions.
  For example, if a military retiree pays premiums into the insurance 
program, then, their spouse ought to be able to receive those benefits 
when the retiree passes away. However, what we find instead is that if 
the surviving spouse receiving SPB insurance payment is also eligible 
for the separate payment from the VA, there is a dollar-for-dollar 
offset. In some cases this leads to the total elimination of the 
Service Benefit Plan. In other cases, the offset greatly reduces the 
amount that is received. In either case, it is out and out unfair, and 
it harms survivors of our servicemembers and military retirees.
  I am often reminded by our military commanders that you recruit the 
soldier, but you retain the family. We have an obligation to make sure 
that we are taking care of our military families, who have sacrificed 
so much.
  This problem goes back decades, but this year can be the time that we 
finally solve it. With more than 75 Senators--three-quarters of the 
Senate--and 340 Members of the House of Representatives supporting this 
effort as cosponsors of the stand-alone bill, this is the year. It is 
our time to do our duty, not only to support the brave men and women of 
our military but also to honor our commitment to their families.
  I would urge all of my colleagues to join in this effort and to 
support the repeal of the military widow's tax as part of the National 
Defense Authorization Act, and, indeed, Senator Jones and I have 
introduced an amendment to do just that.
  Mr. President, the second amendment I wish to discuss is one that I 
have introduced with Senator Klobuchar. It would authorize 
servicemembers transitioning to civilian life to carry out skills 
training, apprenticeships, and internship programs at other Federal 
Agencies, in addition to the private sector. Currently, the military 
services are permitted to authorize servicemember participation in job 
training, including apprenticeships and internships, beginning up to 6 
months before their service obligation in the military is complete. In 
a recent report to Congress, the Department of Defense recommended that 
we expand this authority to allow for inclusion of Federal Agencies as 
well as the private sector as participants.
  I am very grateful to Chairman Inhofe and to Senator Reed for 
recently accepting this amendment and including it as part of the NDAA 
managers' amendment. That will ensure that these provisions are 
included in the Senate bill. This is a win-win for both servicemembers 
as well as Federal Agencies, as this simple expansion will create new 
opportunities for individual members of the military and allow the 
Federal Government to benefit from the talents that our highly trained 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines bring to their careers 
subsequent to their military service. It is a commonsense reform that 
will expand access to apprenticeships to our servicemembers and ease 
their transition.
  Third is an amendment that I introduced with Senator Cantwell. It 
would require the Department of Defense, in coordination with the 
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Labor, to report on their efforts 
to promote the utilization of apprenticeships and on-the-job training 
by servicemembers transitioning out of the military. So, obviously, 
this report is very much related to the earlier amendment that I just 
described.
  The dramatic underutilization of apprenticeship and on-the-job 
training under the GI bill demonstrates the need to promote these vital 
programs. In fiscal year 2018, fewer than 1,500 veterans participated 
in apprenticeships and fewer than 1,400 participated in the other kinds 
of on-the-job training, and that is out of a universe of over a million 
beneficiaries of the VA's educational programs.
  One obvious benefit of apprenticeship programs is that graduates 
learn hands-on skills for jobs that will immediately be available to 
them, and there are many of these kinds of good-paying jobs available 
in the State of Maine and elsewhere today.
  Finally, there is an amendment that I have introduced with Senators 
Shaheen, King, and Hassan. This would address significant problems that 
the Department of Defense workers at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in 
Kittery, ME, and elsewhere in the country have encountered with the 
Department's Integrated Lodging Pilot Program, which was initially 
authorized in the 2015 NDAA. The intent of the pilot program was to 
save money by assigning TDY lodging first at government facilities and 
then at specific commercial lodging at prenegotiated rates. However, 
what we have seen with employees at our shipyard is that they are often 
being forced to stay in subpar or inconvenient lodging--sometimes, in 
areas that simply are not safe.
  Workers have shared stories with me and with the other members of the 
Maine and New Hampshire delegations about being awoken in the middle of 
the night to the sounds of loud shouts while staying at required 
government lodging, as well as more serious incidences of robberies and 
shootings nearby. In other cases, travelers describe staying in remote 
lodging on military installations without security or desk attendants 
nearby to resolve standard issues that are ordinarily addressed quickly 
at commercial hotels--basic things like dealing with room keys that 
don't work or addressing other problems in the hotel rooms.
  Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, in fact, has directed its travel office to 
no longer use the Integrated Lodging Pilot Program for travel to at 
least one installation due to repeated problems with personnel who were 
promised lodging only to find that it was not even available when they 
arrived, leaving these workers scrambling to find an alternative place 
to stay.
  This was a pilot project that simply did not work. It is for these 
reasons that I have joined my colleagues from Maine and New Hampshire 
in introducing an amendment that simply allows this pilot program to 
end in December of this year as currently scheduled. This program may 
be something worth revisiting after we straighten out the problems with 
it--certainly, after Congress reviews the still uncompleted DOD report 
on the pilot. But for the time being, it clearly has not worked well 
for the workers at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and other DOD 
employees, and it should be allowed to expire at the end of this year.
  I am very proud of the role that the State of Maine plays in our 
national defense. From the accounting center in northern Maine to the 
Air National Guard base in Bangor that refuels so many military 
aircraft, to contractors like Bath Iron Works, where we will christen a 
ship on Saturday in honor of our former colleague Senator Daniel 
Inouye, to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, to countless other 
smaller suppliers, the State of Maine is essential to our national 
security.
  Enactment of this bill is vitally important to the security of our 
Nation. I would encourage my colleagues to support the underlying bill, 
as well as these commonsense amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                               Gun Safety

  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues who 
have come to the floor this week to call for action to prevent gun 
violence.
  On Tuesday we marked the 4-year anniversary of the horrific shooting 
at the Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, where a White supremacist 
killed nine people during Bible study.
  Last week was the 3-year anniversary of the massacre at Pulse 
nightclub in

[[Page S4162]]

Orlando, when an act of terror and hatred took the lives of 49 people 
in the LGBTQ community.
  After each of these tragedies, we say ``never again'' and ``enough is 
enough.'' But after each mass shooting, Congress fails to take action. 
The discussion fades into the background until another tragedy occurs, 
then this same cycle is repeated.
  It is unacceptable that Congress has still yet to take meaningful 
action to address this epidemic. The victims who have been lost, their 
families, and those who have experienced life-changing injuries and 
trauma deserve action--as do all of our communities, because nearly 
every aspect of American life has been afflicted by gun violence.
  Nowhere is the impact of gun violence and the way it has changed our 
lives more clear than in our Nation's schools. Just this year, a friend 
of mine's son started kindergarten. Shortly after the school year 
started, he and his other kindergarten peers had to participate in a 
drill--what to do if there is an active shooter or danger in your 
school.
  At about the same time that my friend received information from the 
school that her son would be participating in a lockdown of sorts--a 
lockdown for 5-year-olds--she read an article by a teacher who had 
participated with her young students in such an active shooter drill. 
When the teacher got the kids still and turned off the lights in the 
room so they could practice staying safe, she noticed the little lights 
in the soles of their sneakers. You know those little light-up shoes 
that children have? The teacher wrote that she realized that if those 
children came to school with those shoes on a day when there was a 
shooter, even with the lights down, they would be targets. Well, 
needless to say, my friend's son no longer has light-up sneakers.
  It is time to finally meet words with action. It is time to finally 
take steps to keep the American people safe. It is time to finally pass 
commonsense gun laws.
  A good start to address this public safety issue would be to improve 
our background check system. According to the Department of Justice, 
since 1994 background checks have stopped over 3 million dangerous 
individuals from obtaining guns, including people with violent criminal 
records, domestic abusers, and those with mental health issues.
  But we know that there continue to be loopholes in that system. 
Research indicates that millions of guns are sold each year to 
individuals without background checks. We need to extend background 
checks to all gun sales and ensure that people who are legally barred 
from owning guns cannot easily access them.
  I have joined with Senator Murphy, who has been a passionate, 
dedicated leader on this issue, on legislation to do just that. Earlier 
this year, the House of Representatives passed bipartisan gun safety 
legislation aimed at improving our background check system. There is 
real momentum and urgency on this issue. Strengthening background 
checks is a measure that the American people overwhelmingly support.
  Unfortunately, Republican leadership in the Senate is more focused on 
putting the priorities of the gun lobby ahead of the will of the 
American people. It is outrageous that some in this body suggest that 
there is simply nothing that we can do to stop the gun violence that 
has plagued our country. The refusal to even bring up gun safety 
legislation for consideration is unconscionable. That must change.
  I come from a State with a long tradition of responsible gun 
ownership. People across New Hampshire own guns for hunting, sports, 
and protection. I respect the tradition, and I am committed to 
upholding it, but I know that the people in New Hampshire don't want 
dangerous weapons in the wrong hands. They are also deeply frustrated 
that Congress has refused to address the heartbreaking acts of violence 
that have become far too common in our country. Granite Staters, 
particularly our young people, are speaking out to voice these 
frustrations.
  Last year, I was proud to march with students in Nashua who organized 
their own March For Our Lives rally, and students across our State have 
engaged in everything from writing to public officials to staging 
school walkouts. They are demanding that we take action, and Congress 
needs to listen to them.
  I am going to keep pushing to pass commonsense gun safety laws, and 
it is long past time that the Senate finally take this issue up for 
debate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________