[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15784-15806]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                        2016--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 96, 
H.R. 2028.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 96, H.R. 2028, a bill 
     making appropriations for energy and water development and 
     related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2016, and for other purposes.

  The Senator from Utah.


                       Trans-Pacific Partnership

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the recent 
developments in U.S. trade policy and their implications for the 
future. Over this past weekend, officials from the Obama 
administration, along with 11 other countries, reached what they 
believed will be the final agreement on the terms of the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership or TPP. If enacted, the TPP would be the largest trade 
agreement in history, encompassing approximately and roughly 40 percent 
of the world economy and setting standards for one of the most dynamic 
parts of the world, the Asia-Pacific.
  I will repeat what I have said many times before. I believe a strong 
TPP agreement is essential for advancing our Nation's economic and 
strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific region. However, while I have 
often touted the potential benefits of the TPP, I have also been very 
clear that I will not support just any TPP agreement. The United States 
has only one chance to negotiate, consider, and implement the TPP. We 
have to get it right. Under our system of government, both the 
executive and legislative branches play essential roles in developing 
and implementing our trade policy.
  While the administration has the power to reach agreements with other 
countries, no such agreement can go into force without Congress's 
approval. Congress is not just a rubberstamp in this process. We have 
an obligation to evaluate every trade agreement and determine if it 
advances our Nation's interests and serves the needs of our 
constituents. Toward that end, as I continue to review the deal that 
was struck in Atlanta, three important considerations will determine 
whether I can support this agreement.
  First, the deal must be balanced to meet the U.S. negotiating 
objectives established under our trade promotion authority or TPA 
statute which Congress passed earlier this year with strong bipartisan 
majorities in both the House and the Senate. Second, I must have 
confidence that our trading partners will actually live up to the 
commitments they have made under the agreement by implementing the 
terms and obligations included in the deal. Third, the agreement must 
be subjected to a thorough and rigorous congressional review, including 
indepth consultation with the administration.
  Before I talk about these factors in more detail, I want to 
acknowledge the many years of hard work officials in the 
administration, particularly those at the office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative, have put in to get the agreement this far. I 
particularly want to acknowledge the hard work of the lead negotiators 
at USTR who have sacrificed for years to bring this agreement to 
conclusion. I also want to acknowledge that over time they made a great 
deal of progress on a variety of fronts, but now that the 
administration says it has reached an agreement, it is time for 
Congress to intensify its review of TPP.
  The primary standards by which I--and I would hope all of my 
colleagues--will judge this trade agreement are set forth clearly in 
our TPA statute. As one of the original authors of the current TPA law, 
I worked hard to ensure that it did not just represent my priorities 
for trade agreements but those of a bipartisan majority in both the 
House and the Senate.
  The congressional negotiating objectives that we included in the 
statute spell out in detail what must be included in a trade agreement 
in order

[[Page 15785]]

for it to get Congress's approval. The negotiating objectives we 
included in our TPA law are not just pro forma, they are not 
suggestions or mere statements of Members' preferences. They represent 
the view of the bipartisan majority in Congress as to the rights and 
obligations a trade agreement must contain when it is finalized and 
submitted for our consideration.
  I have to say no one in Congress worked harder and longer than I did 
to get that TPA bill across the finish line. I was joined by many of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who put in significant time and 
effort as we drafted the bill, got it through the committee, and passed 
it on the floor. In fact, if you will recall, in the Senate we ended up 
having to pass it twice.
  Since the day we passed the bill, I, as well as many of my colleagues 
in both the House and Senate, have been urging officials and the 
administration to do all they can to conclude a TPP agreement that a 
majority in Congress can support. Unfortunately, when we look at some 
of the outcomes of the final round of negotiations, it is not clear if 
the administration achieved that goal.
  For example, it is not immediately apparent whether the agreement 
contains administrable and enforceable provisions to protect 
intellectual property rights similar to those found in U.S. law. As you 
will recall, this was a key negotiating objective that we included in 
our TPA law and a necessary component if we want our trade agreements 
to advance our Nation's interests in the 21st century economy.
  I have serious concerns as to whether the administration did enough 
to accomplish this objective. This is particularly true with the 
provisions that govern data exclusivity for biologics. As you know, 
biologics are formulas that are on the cutting edge of medicine and 
have transformed major elements of the health care landscape, thanks in 
large part to the effort and investment of American companies. I might 
add, it is one of the principal industries where we might not only be 
able to find treatments but also cures. It is one of the three or four 
things that I think can bring down health care costs immeasurably.
  I am not one to argue that parties to a negotiation should refuse to 
compromise. In fact, I have come to the floor many times over the years 
and espoused, sometimes at great lengths, the merits of being able to 
find a compromise. But--and this is an important point--a good 
compromise usually results in something of greater overall value for 
all the parties involved, and, at least according to the information 
now available, it is unclear whether this administration achieved that 
kind of an outcome for American innovators.
  Aside from biologics, there are other elements that, according to 
initial reports, may have fallen short of Congress's negotiating 
standards. For example, there are issues with some of the market-access 
provisions on agriculture, the inclusion of product--and sector-
specific carveouts from some of the obligations, as well as some 
potential of overreaching on labor commitments. While we can't make 
final determinations on any of these issues without seeing the final 
text of the agreement, initial indications are that these items could 
be problematic when the agreement is submitted to Congress for 
approval.
  In the end, Congress will need to take a good look at the entire 
agreement and judge whether the agreement satisfies the standards we 
have put forward in our TPA law.
  Beyond the negotiating objectives, we need to have confidence that 
key elements of a TPP agreement will be implemented and respected by 
our trading partners. There are a number of important elements to 
consider when we talk about enforcement and implementation but, for 
now, I will speak once again about the intellectual property rights.
  For too long--indeed, for decades now--American innovators and 
investors haven't been able to take full advantage of our trade 
agreements because, quite simply, many of our trading partners either 
refuse to enforce intellectual property obligations or fail to 
implement them all together. All too often, this administration has 
looked the other way as other countries steal U.S. innovation and 
intellectual property.
  If countries want to trade with the United States, we should demand 
that they respect and enforce the intellectual property rights of 
American businesses and individuals. That means including strong 
provisions protecting intellectual property in our trade agreements and 
a requirement that intellectual property rights commitments be 
implemented before allowing the agreement to enter into force for our 
trading partners.
  Unfortunately, implementation of these types of commitments is one 
area where this administration has come up short in the past. Before 
Congress can approve an agreement as vast as the TPP, we need to be 
sure this has changed. We need to have detailed assurances that our 
trading partners will live up to all of their commitments and a clear 
roadmap as to how the administration intends to hold them accountable.
  Finally, I expect that pursuant to both the letter and the spirit of 
TPA, the administration will communicate and work closely with Congress 
over the coming weeks and months. In the short term, that means deep 
and meaningful consultations before the President signs the agreement.
  Under our TPA law, the President must inform Congress of his intent 
to sign an agreement at least 90 days before doing so. This period is 
an essential part of congressional consideration of the deal. Congress 
reserved this time in the statute to ensure that we would have ample 
opportunity to review the content of a trade agreement before it is 
signed by the President.
  In order for that review to take place, Congress must have access to 
the full text of the agreement, including annexes and any side 
agreements, before the President provides his 90-day notice. This is a 
vital element of TPA. The law was designed specifically to give 
Congress all the necessary tools to conduct an exhaustive evaluation of 
any and all trade agreements and to ensure that the administration is 
fully accountable both to Congress and to the public.
  There are a number of provisions and timelines in the law that help 
us achieve these goals. I will not list them all on the floor today. 
Instead, I will just say that I expect the full cooperation of the 
administration in meeting all of these mandates.
  The American people demand no less. There are no shortcuts. Let's be 
clear. Our Nation could clearly benefit from a strong TPP agreement, 
and I hope that in the end that is what we get--and these other nations 
can too. In the end, I hope this agreement meets all of these 
challenges that we have thrown out.
  Unfortunately, I have real reservations as to whether the agreement 
reached over the past weekend meets the high standards set by Congress. 
I will not make a definitive statement on the overall merits of the 
agreement until I have a chance to review it in its entirety. For now, 
I will just say that I am worried. I am worried that we didn't get as 
good a deal as we could have. I am worried that the administration 
didn't achieve a balanced outcome covering the congressional 
negotiating objectives set out in TPA. And, ultimately, I am worried 
there won't be enough support in Congress for this agreement and that 
our country will end up missing out on important opportunities.
  I hope I am wrong. I will continually scrutinize this agreement as 
details emerge. Before I can support the TPP deal struck in Atlanta, I 
must be convinced that the TPP is a balanced agreement that complies 
with the TPA law and that it has clear, implementable rules that our 
trading partners will follow.
  The TPP is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to define high-standard 
rules for the Asia-Pacific and to gain real access to overseas markets 
that our businesses and our workers need. I intend to do all I can to 
ensure that the agreement meets these goals.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 15786]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  National Defense Authorization Bill

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor today to 
express my support for the final conference report on the National 
Defense Authorization Act, what we need to do as a Congress to 
authorize the work that can be done to defend the country. I urge the 
President to sign this bill.
  For 54 straight years the Senate has done its job in authorizing the 
things that need to be done to defend the country. We have passed the 
bill. This fulfills part of that responsibility to defend the country. 
It is the first responsibility of the Federal Government to defend the 
country. This is something that can't be better done somewhere else. It 
is something that has to be done by us, and two things have to happen 
for that to be done. We have to authorize the spending in the way this 
bill does and then we have to appropriate the money once that spending 
has been authorized.
  The majority voted several weeks ago to debate the appropriating 
bill, but we couldn't get even six Democrats to join us to debate that 
bill. Well, now this bill has passed. So maybe the next move is to pass 
the bill that funds what has just been authorized. It has passed the 
House, it has passed the Senate, and the Commander in Chief of the 
United States is saying he would veto the National Defense 
Authorization Act?
  The President apparently believes the defense of the country is a 
legitimate bargaining chip in how we spend all other money. The 
President somehow has latched onto this idea that he proposed a few 
years ago that all spending be equal, that you take all of the 
discretionary spending in the country and half of that would be for 
defense and half of that would be for everything else that is 
discretionary--an increasingly small part of the budget, because 
mandatory spending is what continues to grow. The discretionary 
spending, the spending that people think about when they think about 
the Federal Government, gets smaller every year.
  But even with that challenge in front of us, the President apparently 
has the position that no matter how dangerous the world is, no matter 
what is happening in Ukraine or no matter what is happening in Crimea, 
no matter what is happening in Syria, no matter what is happening in 
response to the Iranian agreement, you have to have more money for 
everything else if you are going to have more money for defense. 
Somehow more money for the EPA and more money for the IRS are equal to 
the responsibility that the Federal Government has to defend the 
country.
  We saw a little of that, again, just a few weeks ago when the 
appropriators brought the Defense appropriations bill to the floor with 
a vote of 23 to 7. That means many Democrats and many Republicans voted 
for that bill, but when we got it to the floor, we couldn't get the 
number it took to bring it up.
  This bill, the authorizing bill, just passed the Senate with 70 
votes. It passed the House with 270 votes. This bill fully supports the 
number the President said we needed to defend the country. This is like 
not taking yes for an answer. When the President says this is how much 
money we need to defend the country, the Congress appropriates the 
money the President says we need to defend the country, and then the 
President says: Well, but we need a lot of money for a lot of other 
things too, and I am only going to be for what I was for--this is the 
President's number--the amount of money I was for to defend the country 
if I get the amount of money I want to do everything else.
  That is not a very good formula for either democracy or making the 
system work. This has the base funding for the Department of Defense. 
It has the defense funding and the national security funding for the 
Department of Energy. It has money involved for the overseas 
contingency fund that was created for when things are happening outside 
of the country that we didn't anticipate. And surely that is the case.
  The President was just saying 3 years ago that the Russians weren't a 
problem. That was a Cold War idea that the Russians could be a problem. 
He was saying 3 years or 4 years ago that Assad must go.
  Clearly, things are not working out as we thought. So it is probably 
time to use the overseas contingency fund, as this does. This provides 
money for the intelligence-related programs. I am on the Senate 
committee that the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence, and 
others report to. They are publicly not at all shy about saying that 
more things are coming at the country from more different directions 
with more potential danger than ever before and so they need to be 
funded. The activities have stressed those agencies in a lot of ways, 
but another way you can stress them is not to let them know whether 
they are going to have the money necessary to do their job.
  Our allies are constantly confused by the lack of resolve on our 
part. In fact, when you are looking at this from some other country and 
you say that the President got the amount of money he wanted in a 
defense bill that met the needs that the President proposed, but he 
doesn't want to sign the authorization bill now because he is not happy 
with all the other spending, that is a pretty confusing message.
  It is like the confusing message when the President draws a redline 
in Syria but it doesn't mean anything. But when you don't enforce the 
redline, then not just Assad is emboldened but all of our adversaries 
are determined at that point that there may be new ways to test the 
United States and its allies they hadn't thought of before. So, before 
you know it, the Russians are in Crimea, the Russians are in Ukraine, 
and now the Russians are in Syria. What we are watching unfold in 
Syria--and I would want to emphasize ``watching unfold'' as if we were 
spectators in an area of the world that since World War II the United 
States of America has done what was necessary to see that there wasn't 
a Russian presence there--is clearly the result of a strategy that is 
confusing, but it is also pretty darn confusing when the President says 
he is going to veto the Defense authorization bill.
  We see China moving in the South China Sea in ways that we wouldn't 
have anticipated, taking a 5-acre island and turning it into a 3,000-
acre military base.
  We see Iran spreading its bad influence with the new resources that 
it now has.
  When the United States leaves a leadership vacuum in the world today, 
bad things rush to fill that vacuum. And when that happens--when there 
is less U.S. leadership, when there is less U.S. presence, when there 
is less positive U.S. encouragement in the world--that almost always 
produces the wrong kinds of results, and it almost always produces 
hasty decisions that cost America more in lives and international 
respect than we would have had otherwise.
  The President can take a positive step here by just saying: OK. I am 
going to sign this bill because 70 Senators and 270 House Members voted 
for this bill. If the President wants to have a fight, there is still a 
fight to be had. We shouldn't be having a fight about authorizing the 
money that would then be appropriated, but there is still a fight to be 
had because, remember, this bill doesn't spend one dime. It just 
creates the authorization to spend money if that money is appropriated.
  This is a good bill. It is a responsible bill. It eliminates waste 
and unnecessary spending. It trims down bloated headquarters and 
administrative overhead at the highest levels of the military so that 
more money goes to the places where the fight is and more money goes to 
the families and the troops that defend us. It contains the most 
sweeping defense acquisition reforms in a generation. It helps sustain 
the quality of life for the people who serve and their families.
  By the way, yesterday I introduced a bill along with Senator 
Gillibrand--a bill that focuses on family stability. When we were doing 
that, I was able to

[[Page 15787]]

quote the recently retired Chief of Staff of the Army, General Odierno, 
who said the strength of the military is in the families of the 
military.
  This bill does things that move in the right direction. It authorizes 
a pay raise for those people serving below the grade of colonel. It 
requires the Department of Defense and the Veterans' Administration to 
establish a joint uniform formulary to ensure our troops have timely 
access to the medicines they need.
  The bill authorizes commonsense reforms in a 70-year-old, outdated 
retirement system. Currently, 83 percent of the people who serve in the 
military don't benefit from the retirement system. If this bill would 
pass, servicemembers exiting the military have more choices, resulting 
in about 80 percent of the people who leave the military getting a 
retirement benefit instead of 80 percent not getting a retirement 
benefit.
  The bill keeps in place restrictions that bring detainees to 
Guantanamo and keep them there. It prohibits the transfer of Guantanamo 
detainees to places such as Yemen, Libya, Syria and Somalia. Six and a 
half years after taking office, the President has never produced a plan 
to close Guantanamo. The Congress and the chairman of the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services are still waiting to hear what his plan 
might be. As terrorism spreads across the globe, we also don't appear 
to have a plan to do what needs to be done with the law of war 
detainees that are brought under our control and the control of our 
allies around the country.
  The challenges faced by the intelligence community are unlike any 
past challenges we have seen--cyber security, maybe it is more cyber 
insecurity than cyber security--from defending the critical 
infrastructure of the country to too much information on too many 
people in too many places. Previously, people who wanted to get our 
information had to be pretty close and were likely to be detectable. 
Now our adversaries can be in the middle of the desert, somewhere in 
Syria or anywhere around the world, using satellite technology to hack 
into us--as it turned out recently our U.S. Government personnel 
records. One has to hope the military, the dot-mil, is more secure than 
the dot-gov, but that doesn't happen if we don't provide the money.
  There are a number of priorities in my State that are reflected in 
this. We have a great training base at St. Joseph, MO, where C-130 
aircraft pilots from all over our country and from 16 of our allied 
countries trained last year. This bill would provide the aircraft 
upgrades for that C-130 training.
  It provides the necessary resources for geospatial intelligence 
activities in the country.
  The bill includes military construction funding for a new 
consolidated nuclear stealth and deterrence facility at Whiteman Air 
Force Base. Missouri is proud to have Whiteman Air Force Base as the 
home of the B-2 bomber, the stealth bomber system, where dedicated 
airmen stand by at a moment's notice to let our allies know we can 
reach anywhere, anytime from that base, and they are unlikely to know 
we are there until we get there.
  Finally, this bill includes critical funding to keep the Army ready, 
equipped, and trained. At Fort Leonard Wood the Army trains 
approximately 80,000 soldiers every year. While I was disappointed with 
the announced reductions at Fort Leonard Wood, which are scheduled to 
occur in 2017, the number of uniformed positions at that installation 
will still be higher than they were in 2001. The Army's decision to 
minimize reductions at Fort Leonard Wood was a decision that I think 
anybody who understands the Fort would agree with.
  In summary, I want to say to the President of the United States that 
this bill provides for our common defense. That is his No. 1 
responsibility as Commander in Chief. Blocking this bill will keep us 
less safe and less secure. So Mr. President, sign this bill.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, it is not uncommon for me when I am at 
home in Oklahoma to have a mom approach me at a townhall meeting or in 
conversations or even at a store or restaurant. What she will want to 
talk to me about is very interesting. Almost always the moms who 
approach me lately want to talk to me about national security. They 
want to talk to me about the fear they have that the world is spinning 
out of control, and they are very concerned about their kids. They are 
concerned about terrorism coming to the United States. With a lot of 
moms in Oklahoma, there is a sense of a loss of trust that this is a 
safe world and a safe place.
  I can't say that is isolated. As I have talked to other Members in 
this body, I seem to find the same theme coming up over and over again. 
As I talk to people at home, they want to know: Is the American 
government performing its primary responsibility of maintaining 
security and protecting American citizens around the world?
  I would love to be able to tell them yes, but quite frankly this has 
become a very chaotic world, and the challenges we face need clear 
messaging about what we plan to do and our intent to actually follow up 
on that plan. We need to have a national policy plan for defense, and 
then we need to follow through on that.
  That seems straightforward and simple. Well, the national defense 
authorization is one of those areas where Congress and the President 
have for decades agreed on a national policy for defense. They have 
laid out that perspective, and then it is the President's 
responsibility as Commander in Chief to fulfill. That is the primary 
responsibility of the U.S. Government. The challenge is, our world is 
in utter turmoil and that primary responsibility is not being 
fulfilled.
  Passage today of the National Defense Authorization Act by 70 to 27--
which is a rare vote in the Senate, to have that much bipartisan 
agreement on something--is a significant next step. It has passed the 
House already, it has now passed the Senate with a veto-proof majority, 
and it is headed to the President's desk, and he has threatened a veto, 
of all things, for a national plan for defense.
  There is a sentiment, an emotion from Americans: Please get a clear 
national policy. We feel like the world is on fire, and somebody needs 
to provide a clear path. That is what this is, and I am astounded by 
the conversation about a possible veto threat from the President of the 
United States, even when it passes the Senate by a veto-proof majority.
  Where are we and what is really going on right now? Let's take a look 
at the world and what is happening in real time. The Middle East is 
absolutely rocked to its core with violence, and there is this 
perception that the United States is disconnected from it. I would say 
that is untrue. We are just not providing clarity in the plan.
  At a time when we have men and women in harm's way across the entire 
Middle East, I am astounded that the President is talking about a veto, 
which will provide even more instability. Let me give an example. When 
I talk about men and women in harm's way, there are many Americans who 
don't hear about the ongoing battle happening now in Iraq and Syria and 
how our sons and daughters are already very engaged in what is 
happening there. There is this belief--I believe fostered by the 
President--that we are really not there because we never talk about it.
  So let's talk about yesterday. This is yesterday over Iraq and Syria 
and what happened. Near Abu Kamal, there were three strikes from the 
Americans on two separate ISIL crude oil collection points. That was in 
Syria yesterday. In Iraq, one strike destroyed two ISIL rocket rails. 
Near Kirkuk, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and 
destroyed two ISIL heavy machine guns and an ISIL fighting position. 
Near Kisik, three strikes suppressed

[[Page 15788]]

two ISIL rocket positions, an ISIL mortar position, and an ISIL sniper 
position. Near Makhmur, one strike suppressed an ISIL heavy machine gun 
position. Near Mosul, three strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and 
destroyed three ISIL heavy machine guns and three ISIL fighting 
positions and suppressed an ISIL rocket position and an ISIL mortar 
position. Near Ramadi, five strikes struck four separate ISIL tactical 
units and destroyed three ISIL fighting positions, three ISIL weapons 
caches, two ISIL buildings, an ISIL bunker, and denied ISIL access to 
terrain they were pursuing. Near Sinjar, one strike struck an ISIL 
tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL heavy machine gun and two ISIL 
fighting positions. Near Sultan Abdallah, one strike suppressed an ISIL 
rocket position. Near Tal Afar, two strikes destroyed an ISIL fighting 
position, an ISIL trench, and an ISIL berm, and suppressed an ISIL 
mortar position. Near Tikrit, one strike destroyed four ISIL obstacles. 
That was yesterday.
  Americans have this belief that we are disconnected. We are a nation 
that is engaged, but the challenge is that there is no clear plan, 
there is no end game that is being laid out. In a moment when we have 
this many strikes that are happening in Syria and in Iraq--and I can go 
on and on about what is happening with our Special Forces in 
Afghanistan and across the rest of the region, as I will describe in a 
moment, but at this moment, with this going on, the President is going 
to veto a national defense authorization with this kind of bipartisan 
support, when the whole Nation is saying: Give us a plan because we 
feel insecure.
  Currently, we are trying and failing to train and equip moderate 
opposition forces against ISIL in Syria. Currently, we are trying to 
give Kurds all the equipment they need to hold the line against ISIL. 
There are millions of displaced people who are fleeing across Europe, 
who are trying to find some place of respite.
  In Yemen, we are supporting the Saudi-led coalition as the Iranians 
are causing a coup to become a reality in Yemen by the Houthi rebels.
  In Libya, there is still an unbelievable vacuum left by the 
incomplete campaign, which resulted in ISIS getting a foothold in Libya 
and a bloody civil war in a very divided Libya. They have not been able 
to form a central government in several years now.
  Egypt is facing a growing terrorist threat in Sinai. There are all 
kinds of tit-for-tat violence happening right now in Israel between the 
Palestinians and Israelis.
  In Africa, we are still hunting Joseph Kony--a despicable madman--but 
with no success. AFRICOM is also trying to assist forces working to 
kick al-Shabaab out of Somalia. Bloody sectarian violence is breaking 
out in the Central African Republic. South Sudan has an extremely 
fragile peace agreement. Boko Haram continues to rapidly grow in West 
Africa.
  In Mexico and other parts of Latin America, drug thugs are running 
rampant, and they are pushing drugs into the United States in record 
amounts, destabilizing many of our cities.
  In Afghanistan, a new offensive by the Taliban threatens to roll back 
the progress we have made.
  DNI Clapper testified that the world is still facing an emerging and 
rapidly growing cyber threat. It is not just a cyber threat to the 
American Government, it is a threat to every American citizen, as many 
American citizens have personally experienced in recent days.
  Let's look to the future and some of the plans that are ongoing.
  Iran. We heard from Secretary Kerry and this administration that a 
nuclear deal with Iran would lead to a more peaceful Middle East. Since 
the agreement was announced, we have seen Iran continue to arm the 
Houthi rebels in Yemen, continue to support Hezbollah and their 
expansion, and continue to aggressively prop up the Syrian dictator 
Bashar al-Assad. Some of us have stated quite blatantly our suspicion 
that this deal would make the region less stable. Indeed, in just 5 
years Iran could begin importing large amounts of conventional weapons 
under this deal. So an Iran that is already supporting large amounts of 
terrorism will only become better equipped in the days to come.
  China. They had a state visit here recently with lots of broad 
promises about cooperation. Meanwhile, we know that much of the cyber 
threat emanates from China. They are building islands in disputed 
waters--airfields capable of hosting military assets there. They are 
beginning to build a world-class navy that could threaten our closest 
allies in the region. China continues to be one of the world's leaders 
in human rights violations.
  Russia. We have heard several of our top military commanders say 
there is a long list of threats, but the threat they are most concerned 
about is a growing Russia. Putin walked into Crimea, and the world 
watched. He continues to threaten eastern Ukraine, and the world 
watches. He is now expanding Russian adventures into the Middle East, 
supporting Iranian-backed Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and attacking the 
moderate opposition forces attempting to defend their own families. 
This is not a new vanguard against terrorism; this is an expansion of 
the ``Russian Bear.''
  So what are we doing about it? We are trying to actually put out a 
clear plan. Where are we going in national defense? What are we going 
to do to stop terrorism and the expansion of terrorists around the 
world? Instead of the White House cooperating with us, they are 
threatening to veto the NDAA. It is unbelievable. It is astounding that 
the White House is spending more time trying to make a deal with Iran 
than they are trying to actually support our own military. What does 
this do? What does this agreement really accomplish?
  For those who aren't familiar with the national defense 
authorization, let me share a few things that are in this national 
defense authorization that the President is now saying he is going to 
veto.
  Here is one: personal carry of firearms. Post commanders are 
empowered to permit a member of the Armed Forces to carry appropriate 
firearms on our posts or bases. After the attack that happened in 
Chattanooga, this is something the American people have called out for. 
It is included in this bill, to allow it.
  It provides for stronger cyber operations capabilities and looks to 
safeguard our technological superiority.
  It ensures that military intelligence analysis remains a priority at 
the national level.
  The NDAA extends vital authorities for our forces in Afghanistan as 
we try to deal with what is happening on the ground there. It 
authorizes the Iran military power report for 10 additional years, 
reflecting Congress's view that Iran's illicit pursuit of a nuclear 
weapons capability and its malign military activities constitute a 
grave threat to regional stability and U.S. national security 
interests. The NDAA reinforces the mission against the Islamic State of 
Iraq and the Levant, ISIL.
  Congress authorizes through this the European Reassurance Initiative 
to address Russia's employment of conventional and unconventional 
warfare methods to counter U.S. and Western interests, whether it be in 
the Ukraine or across the area--bicameral, bipartisan efforts to 
provide assistance and sustainment for the military forces in Ukraine.
  The NDAA allocates $30 million for DOD-unique capabilities to address 
the threatening levels of violence, instability, illicit trafficking of 
drugs, and transnational organized crime in Central America.
  Dealing with the Pacific region, this conference remains concerned 
about America's strategy in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region, and the NDAA 
requires the President to make a clear strategy for this ``pivot to 
Asia.''
  The Defense Department has also placed greater emphasis--under this 
agreement, the NDAA--on security cooperation with all parts of the 
world to make sure we have a consistent strategy.
  If we want to talk about individual members of the military, this 
NDAA changes how retirement is done. Now, 83 percent of the individuals 
who serve

[[Page 15789]]

in our military don't receive any kind of retirement at the end. This 
allows those individuals to actually be able to participate in 
retirement benefits, in their retirement from the military, even if 
they don't make it all the way to 20 years. This is a dramatic shift 
not only in supporting the warfighter but in actually setting a 
strategy for where we need to go to provide some clarity to individuals 
at home and to our troops in the field.
  The President's statement that he is going to veto this has come 
under two areas. He said he is going to veto this because the funding 
mechanism comes from the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund, OCO. 
Because the funding is coming from OCO, he is going to veto it. The 
second thing he said: I am going to veto it because I don't like what 
it says about Gitmo--about Guantanamo--and keeping those individuals 
who are terrorists who have attacked our Nation at Guantanamo.
  The ironic part is that when I started to pull this to be able to 
look at the figures--let me just give the last several years. In 2013, 
the OCO funding was $89 billion. The President signed that. In 2014, 
OCO funding was $81 billion. The President signed that. In 2015, OCO 
funding was $64 billion. The President signed that. This year's OCO 
funding is $89 billion, which is right there in the same range as the 
previous 4 years, but this year he is saying: I can't sign it; it has 
OCO funding. Can somebody tell me the difference on this? This is very 
similar to what has been done the last 4 years.
  His statement about Guantanamo Bay and preventing funding--moving the 
terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to the United States--I can tell you 
that in my State people are adamantly opposed to moving the terrorists 
from Guantanamo Bay to the United States. Going all the way back, let's 
say, to 2011, that NDAA prevented moving prisoners from Guantanamo; 
2012, prevented it; 2013, prevented it; 2014, prevented it; 2015, 
prevented it. All of those, the President signed, but for some strange 
reason, this year the President has said: It has OCO funds and it deals 
with Guantanamo--just like every other year in the past.
  This is the season when we need to bring clear voices and a clear 
mission, not politics. This is the primary mission we have as a federal 
government: Take care of our national defense and provide a clear 
messaging.
  I am proud of this Senate for finishing the conference report on the 
NDAA and sending it to the President's desk. Now I would ask the 
Commander in Chief to stand with the troops, to sign this, and let's 
get on to providing some clarity in the days ahead.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, first, I want to commend my colleague, my 
partner on the Senate Intelligence Committee, for his recent remarks 
delivered here on the floor.
  It was our Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Clapper, who 
said that in all of his 50-plus years of serving in intelligence 
functions--first in the military and now as the Director of National 
Intelligence--he has never seen a world so troubled, he has never seen 
such a proliferation of threats, threats to our way of life, threats to 
our country, threats to our allies, threats to world order. And my 
colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Lankford, just laid out in specific 
detail the multitude of threats, the multitude of dysfunction and chaos 
that exists not just in the Middle East but throughout the world. I 
won't repeat any of it, but I thank him for bringing attention to the 
fact that we live in very uncertain times, times which require decisive 
leadership, and that leadership--over the years and over the centuries, 
world nations have pointed to the United States as the democratic 
leadership absolutely necessary to deal with these types of issues and 
provide directional leadership to our allies and to the world, as well 
as show strength to our adversaries that has restrained some of their 
actions. That is missing.
  There is a huge void being left by the lack of any kind of sensible 
policy--if there is a policy at all--coming out of this particular 
White House and from this President. This vacuum that has been created 
has allowed the opportunity for those who seek to do us harm, to do 
others harm, and those who seek to use power to achieve their means--
literally, a blank check and a free hand, knowing there is no order 
here in terms of addressing this in a successful way.
  So I thank my colleague for defining this on the floor, and I 
certainly want to support--and hopefully my colleagues will pay 
attention to this serious challenge that America faces with the lack of 
a coherent strategy and lack of decisive leadership that is coming to 
us from the White House.


                           Wasteful Spending

  Mr. President, today we face something far less consequential but 
still consequential from the standpoint that it is a contributor to 
another major threat that Americans face.
  I have been engaged in everything from major programs--done in a 
bipartisan way, with support from the President, all of which have 
failed--to address this and bring us to the small, sometimes almost 
ridiculous and embarrassing, spending that has taken place here for 
those who are looking at it from bottom up instead of from top down. It 
is something I have tried to identify every week--now for 23 weeks--
called the waste of the week, hopefully it will provide the kind of 
embarrassment to my colleagues and knowledge of the fact that we simply 
cannot keep spending money that we do not have.
  These waste of the week sums are substantial, into the tens of 
billions of dollars. Some are there to show the American people or 
describe to the American people the fact that there is a significant 
amount of unneeded spending, of waste, fraud, and abuse that occurs on 
an almost daily basis throughout all of our agencies and throughout 
Federal spending. People are saying: Given the kind of debt crisis we 
are looking at, why are we spending hard-earned tax dollars to address 
this or that or whatever?
  Today I want to address one small but yet another example of 
unnecessary Federal spending, and it involves the role of robots 
replacing humans for certain functions. Those who have watched ``The 
Jetsons''--I don't really tune in, but my grandkids do--perhaps wish 
that they, too, could have a Rosie the maid, the robot that cooks, 
cleans, and tells jokes to the Jetson family. This obviously is a 
cartoon presentation, but it reflects a role for robots that provides 
us interesting entertainment or perhaps the robot from ``Lost in 
Space'' that played the electric guitar and exhibited human emotion or 
Michael Knight's trusted robot sidekick KITT on ``Knight Rider.''
  This is a little bit beyond my generation, but I am told robots are 
now part of the entertainment scene. While this makes for good 
television and draws viewers, we all know robots can never replace the 
care of a human being, the care of a parent, the efforts of a teacher, 
those who are reaching out to provide support and encouragement for 
young people. Yet the National Science Foundation is currently spending 
$440,855 trying to do that with robots. The agency recently awarded a 
taxpayer-funded grant to develop the use of ``autonomous, personalized 
social robots'' in the classroom.
  The first thing that came to my mind was what in the world does a 
personalized social robot look like and how do you personalize a robot 
to provide social interaction with children? The purpose of this grant, 
which began last month and continues until August 2017, is to create 
robots that can tell stories to children.
  This might be a cute thing to do. I don't know. Is this something the 
Federal Government, at a time when we are in the middle of deficit 
spending, evermore borrowing, should ask the taxpayer to send out their 
hard-earned tax dollars for--this kind of thing? If private industry 
wants to do this and can sell the product to schools, more power to 
them, but why do we have to go to the Federal Government to do a test 
case to see if this works? We know we do basic research here. We 
support that through NIH and the National Science Foundation. This is 
not basic research. I am questioning this.

[[Page 15790]]

  Let me quote from the grant description. This will ``offer unique 
opportunities of guided, personalized and controlled social 
interaction, whatever that means, during the delivery of a desired 
curriculum. They can play, learn and engage with children in the real 
world--physically, socially, and emotively.''
  Maybe the effort here is to build a robot that can physically, 
socially, and emotively connect with children. That might work on ``The 
Jetsons.'' That might work on television. I can't believe how that 
works in real life.
  What parent wants a preschooler to be read to by a so-called social 
robot instead of a teacher or a parent? And why are we spending 
taxpayer dollars on reading robots? Actual human teachers provide what 
robots cannot. They relate to our children. They understand their 
individual needs, and they tailor their instruction to bring out the 
very best in our children and on a personalized basis. I don't think a 
robot can adjust emotively and socially to different children in the 
classroom. Yet obviously the teacher is trained to do that.
  Even the most advanced robot can't sense when a child is going 
through a rough time or provide the right touch to ensure a child's 
learning. Should the Federal Government, which is over $18 trillion in 
debt, be spending any money, let alone $440,000, on this research? Is 
this something the private sector could be conducting instead? 
Certainly, if that is what the goal is.
  My purpose throughout the Waste of the Week Initiative is to drive 
home the point that the Federal Government should be stewarding 
taxpayers' dollars for essential functions and in a way that truly 
helps people.
  Let me be clear. I am not criticizing all Federal research spending 
or the National Science Foundation. The government does play an 
important role, as I have said, in promoting basic science research 
that cannot be done elsewhere, but there are many private companies 
that offer products that use technology to help children learn. Is it 
the role of the government to also perform this sort of research? Just 
because something is interesting to do doesn't mean it rises to the 
level of priority, particularly at a time when we are continuing to 
spend more money and go deeper into debt each and every day.
  Families and small businesses have to prioritize all the time. The 
Federal Government needs to do the same. So let's pull the plug or take 
out the battery and short circuit this funding for this grant.
  Today I am marking more money on our ever-increasing amount of waste, 
fraud, and abuse. We are adding $440,855 to the nearly $117 billion 
that over the last 22 weeks we have brought to this floor.


            60th Anniversary of Crispus Attucks Championship

  Mr. President, while I am here, let me switch and for a couple of 
minutes speak to something that I think speaks well of our State; that 
is, celebrating an important anniversary.
  In Indiana, few things better personify the Hoosier spirit of hard 
work and overcoming adversity, persistence, and sportsmanship more than 
high school basketball. It is rabid in our State, and it always has 
been. It defines our State.
  Every year the high school basketball season culminates in February 
and March with what we call Hoosier Hysteria--the postseason 
tournament. Half a century ago, the height of Hoosier Hysteria was 
before school consolidation and before the advent of class basketball. 
At that time we had one single athletic class and crowned one high 
school basketball team State champion each year. For the final game of 
the tournament, fans would fill Butler University's historic Hinkle 
Fieldhouse to standing-room-only capacity. Throughout those weeks of 
tournament, as the small, medium, and large-sized schools worked their 
way through the system to that championship game, it captured the 
hearts and minds of Hoosiers in a way that nothing else does.
  This phenomena was immortalized by the award-winning 1986 movie 
``Hoosiers''--one of my personal favorites--and based on an improbable 
but true story. Back in the 1950s, hundreds of small high schools 
existed across our small State, but no small school had ever won the 
basketball State championship. In 1954, Mylan High School--a rural 
school with an enrollment of only 161 students in all four grades--
faced a much larger school, Muncie Central High School, whose 
enrollment was 2,200 students in the State championship game. The Mylan 
Indians defeated the Muncie Central Bearcats to win the State title. It 
has been immortalized through the movie ``Hoosiers,'' which any 
Hoosier, and hopefully people outside the State, watched more than 
once. I watch it on a regular basis. It is a great story.
  Even today, Mylan's incredible accomplishment is widely admired and 
discussed by Hoosier basketball fans. Indiana high school basketball in 
this era produced not only this ``David and Goliath'' episode but also 
another truly inspirational team. This is their 60th anniversary.
  En route to winning the 1954 State championship, Milan defeated the 
Crispus Attucks Tigers in the semi-State. That is no small 
accomplishment. That was a large school with an exceptional team. At 
that time, Crispus Attucks was an all-Black high school in 
Indianapolis. Despite their loss to Milan in 1954, the Tigers were back 
the next year. On March 19, 1955--60 years ago--Crispus Attucks won the 
State title by defeating Gary Roosevelt High School 97 to 74 in that 
championship game.
  The next year Crispus Attucks went undefeated, riding a 45-winning 
streak to State title. The Tigers finished the 1950s with a third 
championship in 1959.
  Crispus Attucks High School's 1955 State title was one of several 
firsts. Not only were they the first team from Indianapolis to win the 
State title, they were the first African-American school in the Nation 
to win an open State tournament.
  Through the perseverance and leadership of their coach, Ray Crowe, 
the players learned not just the game of basketball but also valuable 
lessons about discipline, patience, and perseverance. These lessons 
resulted in back-to-back State titles, as I have said.
  On the court, the Crispus Attucks teams of the mid-1950s were led by 
a future professional all-star, champion, and Hall of Famer named Oscar 
Robertson. Oscar Robertson said of those Crispus Attucks teams: ``The 
way we played and won, we did it with a lot of class.''
  The Tigers' success on the basketball court helped tear down many 
lingering racial barriers of that time. This team inspired the State of 
Indiana with their hard work, graciousness, and sportsmanship. Today I 
join my fellow Hoosiers in marking the 60th anniversary of this 
milestone and honoring this team of champions.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for up to 10 minutes; that following my remarks, Senator 
Schatz be recognized for up to 10 minutes; and that following his 
remarks, Senator Whitehouse be recognized for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Climate Change and Technology

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, the evidence and impacts of climate change 
are clear and they are undeniable. Scientists can measure the increase 
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They can measure the rising 
temperatures. They can measure the increasing level of the sea. They 
can measure the increase in extreme rainfall. All of this increases the 
risk for extreme weather events that threaten people and the economy. 
While addressing the challenges of climate change will take a 
comprehensive approach, we have many of the policies, the workforce, 
and the technologies we need to address the problem already.
  To illustrate that point, I want to tell you a tale of two tax 
policies--one for wind and solar and one for oil, gas,

[[Page 15791]]

and coal. Let's look at the last decade of our tale of two tax 
policies.
  In 2005, we, the United States, installed 79 total megawatts of solar 
in the United States. Seventy-nine megawatts was a teeny amount back in 
2005. Last year we deployed nearly 100 times that amount--7,000 new 
megawatts in the year 2014. Look at that. We have nearly 100 times more 
solar.
  Well, what happened? First, technology costs plummeted. Everybody has 
heard of a Moore's law for semiconductors. It told us that today's 
iPhones would be more powerful than last generation's supercomputers. 
We all know Moore's Law. We knew we would move from this pocket phone 
to an iPhone because the technology keeps getting more powerful.
  There is a Moore's law for solar as well. Every time solar panel 
deployment doubles globally, the cost of solar falls by 18 percent. It 
is predictable. It is why we are seeing the cost of a solar panel drop 
70 percent since the year 2010, and it is why costs will continue to 
fall.
  Next, 30 States enacted renewable electricity standards. Yes, now 
more than half of the States in our country have a standard to get a 
sizable portion of their electricity from renewable sources, and 
finally, and most importantly from a national policy perspective, we 
passed an 8-year extension of the Solar Investment Tax Credit in 2008. 
We gave this industry and these companies certainty. We now have more 
than 20,000 megawatts of installed solar capacity in the United States. 
More than 60 percent of it was added in just the last 2 years, and we 
are projected to double that installed solar capacity over the next 2 
years. We are forecast to add 8,000 megawatts this year and 12,000 
megawatts next year, and that is because we put smart tax policies on 
the books 7 years ago.
  Look what happened. If we go from the beginning of the American 
Revolution until 2005, we were still only installing 79 megawatts--just 
a teeny, tiny amount of solar energy. But when we started putting State 
renewable electricity standards on the books and a new tax policy, it 
started to explode 100 times--1,000 times more solar in America, by the 
way, with all the experts saying: This can't happen. Solar isn't real. 
Wind isn't real. You Senators, you House Members, you have to get real. 
Well, this is the proof that bad policies had stopped this explosion of 
these technologies.
  By the way, the same thing is true for wind power. We are projected 
to add 9,000 new megawatts of wind power in our country this year, and 
we are projected to add another 8,000 megawatts of wind power next 
year. We can see what is happening with the combined totals of wind and 
solar once we put the new policies on the books. It was basically an 
era where almost no electricity in the United States was generated by 
wind and solar to the next year having 5 to 6 percent of all the 
electricity in America coming from wind and solar. It is like the 
explosion of cellphones that turned into smartphones. People didn't 
have anything in their pockets just 20 years ago--it was like the wind 
and solar industry--but we changed policies in the United States. We 
said: We can do it. We can untether ourselves from a telephone line in 
our living rooms. We can let people walk around with their phone, and 
we began to make the same decisions on wind and solar. We can untether 
ourselves in the United States from coal-generated electricity that 
emits greenhouse gases that dangerously warm our planet, and we are now 
doing it. It is accelerating, and that is the beautiful part of the 
story.
  By the end of next year, there are going to be 300,000 people 
employed in the wind and solar industry in the United States. Right 
now, there are 73,000 people building these wind turbines. Steel and 
iron workers are out there doing this work right now, and it generates 
clean, renewable, nonpolluting energy. We can do this. We are the 
United States of America. We are the innovation giant on the planet. We 
can solve this problem.
  What has happened with the wind industry? Well, their tax break has 
now expired. Has the tax break for the oil industry expired? Oh, no. 
Has the tax break for the coal industry expired? Oh, no.
  Those tax breaks have been on the books for 100 years. They will 
never expire--never. There are too many people who want to help the 
fossil fuel industry here in the Senate and over in the House of 
Representatives, but the tax breaks for the wind and solar industry--
the ones that are showing the tremendous growth, innovation, and 
capacity to develop new technologies that we can export around the 
planet--are expiring.
  If we look at the green generation--young people within our society--
which technology do they want us to invest in? Do they want black 
rotary dial phones and coal-burning powerplants or do they want the new 
technologies of the 21st Century, their generation? Do they want the 
past dirty carbon pollution or do they want future clean energy? It is 
not even close. This is a choice that has to be made by this 
generation. The green generation expects us to be the leaders on this 
issue.
  The oil and gas industry get $7.5 billion a year in tax breaks. The 
oil industry doesn't need a subsidy to drill for oil any more than a 
bird needs a subsidy to fly or a fish needs a subsidy to swim. They are 
going to do it anyway. What they do though is lobby to take away the 
tax breaks for solar and wind because they know that will displace 
them. Our goal, of course, should be to have a massive ramping up of 
these energy technologies.
  Do you want to hear an incredible number? The Chinese government, 
while the Pope was in town here in Washington, announced that China was 
going to deploy wind and solar and other renewable technologies by the 
year 2030 that would equal the total of all electrical generation 
capacity in the United States of America. They are going to deploy all 
their coal, natural gas, hydropower, wind, and solar. Again, I said 
earlier that every time there is a global doubling of the deployment of 
solar on the planet, the price of solar drops by 18 percent. China is 
going to be doing that.
  Last week India announced that they are going to have a massive 
increase in their renewable energy resources as well.
  Unfortunately, the tax breaks in our own country have already expired 
or are going to expire for the wind and solar industries. Our country 
is supposed to be the leader. We are supposed to be the technological 
giant on this planet.
  All I can say is, if we want the jobs, this is the sector where the 
jobs are being created. There will be 300,000 jobs in this sector by 
the end of next year. If we want to reduce greenhouse gases, this is 
the sector that can make it possible for the United States to be the 
leader.
  If we want to be the leaders to ensure that we are acted on the 
message that Pope Francis delivered to the Congress just 2 weeks ago, 
we have to move toward these technologies. The Pope asked us to use our 
technological capacity in order to solve this problem. The Pope pretty 
much said three things. No. 1, the planet is warming dangerously, and 
the science is clear. No. 2, the cause of the warming is largely by 
human beings, and the science is clear. No. 3, we have a moral 
responsibility.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is a huge day because we have Members 
coming out to the floor to talk about this revolution and how we can 
find a solution so we can deal with this issue in a positive, 
affirmative job-creating way. We can engage in massive job creation in 
order to save all of God's creation. We can do it, but we have to 
decide that we are going to be the leaders in this sector, and all I 
can say is that in the end we are going to win because technology 
always triumphs--always. You can hold it back for a while, but in the 
end it is going to ultimately change our world. By the year 2100 people 
will look back and wonder why we ever did generate electricity by the 
use of fossil fuels on our planet.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I see that Senator Schatz and 
Senator Whitehouse have arrived.
  With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.

[[Page 15792]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for 
explaining to the public and this body what we are all becoming 
increasingly aware of. The technology is there. This is no longer pie 
in the sky. This is not hopeful ecological utopia thinking. This is 
real stuff. These are real jobs that are being financed by banks and 
financial institutions. This is already upon us.
  I wish to tell the story of Hawaii's clean energy transformation. Of 
course the clean energy transformation is taking place across the 
country, but it is especially true in Hawaii. For decades--since the 
demise of the sugar plantation--Hawaii relied on imports of fossil fuel 
for our energy needs. As recently as 2010, we derived nearly 90 percent 
of our electrons from burning oil. In just 4 years we have driven this 
number down to around 80 percent, and we are on our way to a 100 
percent clean energy target.
  Hawaii's reliance on imported fuels isn't just bad for the climate, 
it is also bad economics. We have the highest electricity rates in the 
country. Our rates are three times higher than the national average. 
For the privilege of burning LSFO, low sulfur fuel oil, we are paying 
higher prices than anywhere in the Nation, and so something had to 
give.
  In order to bolster our own energy security and economic prospects, 
we made the decision to transition away from fossil fuels to solar, 
wind, and geothermal. Clean energy is Hawaii's future, but it is 
important to point out that in the beginning we had naysayers on the 
left, right, and center, much like the current debate in the Congress. 
There are those who think that what we do in the clean power plan or 
with the carbon fee will not be nearly enough, and there are those who 
think that we are doing too much too fast.
  I remember having this exact conversation in Hawaii in 2001. In 2001, 
we started small and passed a voluntary renewable portfolio goal that 
encouraged utilities--didn't mandate--to generate 9 percent of their 
electricity from clean energy by the year 2010. The target, frankly, 
was unambitious. It was voluntary and it was unenforceable, but it was 
important because it was a start. For some it was little and for others 
it was too radical, but it was a start. So we kept pushing.
  In 2004, we replaced the original goal with a requirement of 20 
percent clean energy by 2020. Two years later, we added incentives for 
compliance and established penalties for noncompliance.
  In 2008, Hawaii partnered with the USDOE to identify the technical, 
regulatory, and financial barriers preventing the State from reaching 
its clean energy potential. This partnership, the Hawaii Clean Energy 
Initiative, was crucial to helping Hawaii realize that a 100 percent 
clean energy goal was actually realistic.
  A year after starting this partnership, the State increased its Clean 
Energy Standard to 40 percent by 2030, establishing an energy 
efficiency standard of 30 percent and enshrining into law the 
requirement to reduce emissions from the power sector by 70 percent by 
the year 2030.
  I want to give context here. People thought this was totally 
unrealistic and that we would even at the first 2- or 3-year increment 
already miss our goals, but what happened was the opposite. We started 
exceeding our interim targets, and then we ratcheted up our goals. 
Progress toward these goals demonstrated that an even more ambitious, 
audacious goal of 100-percent clean energy was a real possibility.
  So this year Governor Ige in Hawaii signed the law requiring 
utilities to generate all of their electricity from renewable sources 
by 2045. We are currently meeting or exceeding our interim targets, 
thanks in large part to big increases in wind power and in distributed 
generation, especially solar rooftops.
  It is important to say that progress towards our clean energy goals 
hasn't impeded economic growth. Hawaii's unemployment rate is among the 
lowest in the Nation and 1.5 percent below the national average.
  Strengthening this law required consistent efforts by advocacy 
groups, businesses, and government agencies to bring about the change. 
It also showed the importance of taking those first steps down the road 
to a low-carbon economy. Whether they seem too small to make a 
difference or too large to be possible, we have to start. Once we do, 
ambitious goals are more within reach than they may have originally 
seemed.
  Now, Hawaii is blessed in a number of ways, including with ample 
sunlight, steady winds, and volcanic energy. But Hawaii is not unique 
in its ability to generate substantial quantities of electricity from 
clean renewable resources.
  The National Renewable Energy Laboratory analyzed clean energy 
potential across the country and found that ``[r]enewable electricity 
generation from technologies that are commercially available today . . 
. is more than adequate to supply 80 percent of the total U.S. 
electricity generation by the year 2050.''
  That is with technologies available today. As these technologies 
improve and the cost of clean energy continues to fall, wind and solar 
power will be increasingly competitive with electricity generated from 
fossil fuels in States across the country. As my home State of Hawaii 
illustrates, we just have to start.
  This is a lesson that we must take to the international context as 
well. As the world meets in Paris later this year, I urge 
representatives from all countries to think of Hawaii's experience 
moving towards a zero carbon energy system. The climate negotiations in 
Paris are shaping up to be at least a moderate success. But whatever 
agreement emerges from Paris will likely be a political Rorschach test, 
which is to say that some will say that we are promising too much and 
others will say that we should be offering more. Whatever one's 
predisposition about climate, Paris will prove it to the world.
  But what truly matters is not exactly what the particulars of each 
agreement in Paris are but what happens next. It is doing the work. It 
is power purchase agreements. It is public policy. It is tax 
incentives. It is permits. It is public utilities commissions. It is 
actually getting the work done across the country and across the 
planet.
  When something as consequential as climate change is on the table, it 
is going to require global capital, technological breakthroughs, and 
political will. That political will will only occur if people 
understand that, yes, this is a problem. It is real. Yes, it is urgent, 
and yes, it is caused by humans. But, most importantly, we can, in 
fact, fix it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues from 
Massachusetts and Hawaii to talk about the tax credits for wind.
  We have had a remarkably exciting new thing happen in Rhode Island 
this summer. From time to time, I am able to get out on Narragansett 
Bay and, over and over, whether driving on the bridges over 
Narragansett Bay or actually out on Narragansett Bay, we saw the sites 
of these enormous barges traveling down the bay, bringing these huge 
structures that were carried out, located off of Block Island, and sunk 
to the ocean floor to provide the platforms for the first steel-in-
water offshore wind energy in the country.
  Now, we can go over to Europe and see wind energy all over the place. 
We are behind them in developing it, but Rhode Island is the start. And 
whether we saw these enormous structures that were the legs--the frames 
for the pylon and the turbine--or whether we saw enormous pilings that 
get carried out there and in the same way that you drive a nail through 
the hole for a hanger and put it through wall, they take these enormous 
pilings that reach way up into the sky and drive them through the 
hollow legs of the framework and down to anchor them in the ocean 
floor.
  So this is under construction right now. It is big. We see these 
barges coming by and they are enormous. The structures run hundreds of 
feet in the air. It is exciting to see this happening,

[[Page 15793]]

and it is part of the wind revolution that Senator Markey and Senator 
Schatz talked about.
  So there is a conflict in my mind between this exciting sight in 
Rhode Island--these big yellow structures coming down the bay in the 
bright light--and then coming to the darker Halls of Congress and 
moving from that exciting sight to the tedious fight that we have over 
and over to protect the wind production tax credit. Over and over we 
have to go through this fight. Why? I will tell my colleagues why. It 
is because opposition to the wind tax credit is one more little 
wriggling tentacle of the fossil fuel industry. They have huge tax 
subsidies, tax credits, and tax advantages baked permanently into the 
Tax Code, and they sit on those and they defend them and they are 
merciless about anybody who tries to take those away. But let a little 
wind come along and try to get a competing tax credit of its own, and 
they try to crush it, over and over and over.
  Nobody runs for office to come to the Senate and says: The thing that 
drives me, the thing that motivates my candidacy is to make sure that 
our wind energy in the United States gets knocked down; let's take 
their little tax credit away. Nobody runs on that. In fact, if I recall 
correctly, the Presiding Officer ran for office with a picture of a 
wind turbine in Colorado. So it is not as if there aren't friends to 
wind in this Chamber.
  But once someone gets here, the oil and fossil guys are very 
powerful. They are very remorseless. They have made immense threats to 
squash any action on climate change. And as a little sidebar, they 
always try to beat the little wind energy subsidy. They will never give 
up their own, and their own are much bigger. We have probably $50 
billion over 10 years in cash tax benefits going to these companies, 
which are the most profitable companies in the history of the planet. 
They are the last companies that need any help.
  If we look at people such as the International Monetary Fund--not 
exactly a liberal, green group--the International Monetary Fund 
estimates that if we put in all of the subsidies that fossil fuel gets 
around the world, it adds up to more than $5 trillion--trillion. I am 
from Rhode Island. I think $1 million is a lot of money. I am starting 
to get used to talking about billions of dollars being here. Trillions 
is what the fossil fuel subsidy, in effect, is around the world, and 
just in the U.S. it is $700 billion in a year. Yet, greedy, big 
corporations that sit and defend that benefit to the last trench also 
want to crush the poor little wind benefit. It is just not fair and it 
is just wrong.
  But I think we are going to be able to prevail. We have seen some 
real progress here. Bloomberg just published an article that wind power 
is now the cheapest electricity to produce--cheaper than anything 
else--in both Germany and in the United Kingdom. It is a powerful 
industry in States such as Colorado and in Wyoming, where they have so 
much wind that they export wind energy to other States. Iowa is 
probably our leader. Iowa generates nearly 30 percent of its 
electricity from wind. TPI Composites is a Rhode Island company. It 
builds composite materials in Warren, RI. They have a facility in Iowa 
where they manufacture wind turbine blades and, in the last decade, 
they have manufactured 10,000--10,000--wind turbine blades. There had 
been a Maytag factory in a town called Newton, IA, and the Maytag 
factory went bust because, of course, we are offshoring jobs to China. 
But guess what. They came in and started building these wind turbines. 
They are really too big to ship from China, so it has been a boom 
industry. It has put little Newton back on its feet.
  If we don't pass the wind production tax credit, then States such as 
Wyoming and Colorado and Iowa that depend on this are really going to 
be hurt. This is bipartisan in these States. I don't know why the 
fossil fuel industry primarily runs its mischief through the Republican 
Party here in Congress, but it doesn't work in Iowa. In Iowa, a year 
ago, the Iowa State Senate unanimously passed a resolution supporting 
extension of the production tax credit--unanimously.
  So we have a really strong case to make that this is the technology 
of the future. We have a fairness case to make that the great big 
brutal fossil fuel lobbyist organization shouldn't be allowed to hold 
on to all of its subsidies--depending on how we measure, they are 
measuring into the hundreds of billions of dollars--and, at the same 
time, try to squash poor little wind when it wants to get some 
subsidies in order to compete with this massive and malevolent 
incumbent.
  Then I think we have the practical politics of this, which is that in 
State after State after State, wind has become real enough that it is 
going to be very hard for some of our colleagues on the Republican side 
to go home and say to their home State industry: Sorry, we put you 
under the bus. We put you under the bus. We protected your competitors 
in oil and gas; we absolutely would never touch them. We protected 
them. They are sacrosanct on our side. But we put you under the bus. 
That is going to be a little hard to explain.
  So I very much hope that as we come together and pull together the 
continuing resolution or the omnibus--that avoids, I pray, another 
shutdown and that puts our country on a sensible budgetary footing 
going forward--this tax credit is a part of it, because we need these 
jobs. People are working in Rhode Island, and I will tell my colleagues 
this: When you are building a giant, enormous, big frame offshore, you 
are paying good wages. You are paying good wages to the people who 
operate the barges. You are paying good wages to the ironworkers, the 
steelworkers, and the electrical workers. You are paying good wages to 
the stevedores who are helping to load it up. These are really strong 
economic businesses, and we want to support them.
  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. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue of the fiscal 
year 2016 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill--the bill 
that, in fact, is now before the Senate.
  We just voted at 2 o'clock this afternoon on the NDAA, the National 
Defense Authorization Act. That is very important because we need to 
pass that legislation for our military. In fact, we did, and we passed 
it with 70 votes. That is incredibly important because the President 
has threatened a veto on the National Defense Authorization Act.
  This is legislation that has passed the House, and now it has passed 
the Senate and it is going to the President. If he vetoes it, we have 
to have the votes to override because we have to get that legislation 
done for our men and women in uniform. Not only, as I spoke earlier on 
the floor, is it about making sure we are doing our job on behalf of 
our military but also on behalf of our Nation's defense.
  The other thing I mentioned in regard to that legislation is we also 
need to pass the companion bill, which is the Defense appropriations 
bill. So very soon we will be taking up the Defense appropriations 
bill, which is the funding that goes with the National Defense 
Authorization Act. We authorize those military programs and then we 
have to fund them. That is why the Department of the Defense 
appropriations bill has to be passed along with the Defense 
Authorization Act in order to get the job done for our military. I make 
that point because until we have done both of those things, we have not 
funded the military the way we need to. I make that point as part of a 
bigger point and that is this: The Appropriations Committee, of which I 
am a member, has passed all 12 appropriations bills out of committee, 
and they are awaiting action on the floor of the Senate. Those bills 
have been passed with strong bipartisan votes. Instead of having each 
and every one of those

[[Page 15794]]

bills filibustered, we need to take those bills up and debate those 
bills. People should offer the amendments they have, we can debate 
those amendments, and then we can vote. That is our job. That is how 
the Senate works. That is what the people of this great country send us 
to do. That is the work of the Senate. That is regular order.
  As we talk about authorizing programs for men and women in uniform, 
we also have to pass the Defense appropriations bill. That will be 
coming before this Senate. I make that point because what we have been 
facing is a filibuster of all these appropriations bills. We will have 
another test. We will have another test now this week, and this is on 
the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. This is energy, 
Corps of Engineers, vital fundamental infrastructure for this great 
country. So we will see if our colleagues will join us. Can we join 
together in a bipartisan way and advance through this appropriations 
bill, have the debate, offer the amendments, and get this work done? I 
hope the answer to that is yes. We will find out over the course of 
today and tomorrow if our colleagues would join together and get this 
work done for the American people and then on we go.
  We may have to deal with a Presidential veto on the National Defense 
Authorization Act. If so, let's do so. Let's do so in a bipartisan way. 
Then let's take up the appropriations bill that goes with that Defense 
authorization. Let's make sure all 12 of these bills, all of these 
appropriations bills are brought to this floor, people have their 
opportunity for the debate, people can offer their amendments, and we 
will have our votes. If something can get 60 votes, it passes. That is 
the work of the Senate. That is the work of the Senate. If it is not 
done, the reason it will not be done is because there will be an 
ongoing filibuster. It is very important that the American people 
understand that because this is the work of the Senate, this is the 
work of the Congress, and we need to be clear about whether we are 
getting that work done or whether we continue to face a filibuster that 
does not allow us to bring this legislation forward to debate it in an 
open, transparent debate. Put it out there in front of the American 
people, make the argument, offer the amendments, and vote. That is how 
it is done. That is how it is done in this democracy. That is how it is 
done in this Senate.
  So I rise to talk about the merits of the Energy and Water 
Development appropriations bill. This measure appropriates funding for 
the U.S. Department of Energy, including national nuclear security and 
energy research and development, as well as critical infrastructure 
projects administered by the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of 
Reclamation. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved this bill in 
May. I am a member not only of this Appropriations Committee but this 
subcommittee, and we voted out of committee 26 to 4. So there are 30 
members on the full Appropriations Committee, Republicans and 
Democrats, and by a vote of 26 to 4 we voted in favor of this 
legislation. That is about as bipartisan as it gets. It was supported 
by all of the Republican members of the committee and 10 of the 
Democratic members.
  As a member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and 
Water Development, I thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member 
Feinstein. They have crafted a bipartisan bill within our budget 
framework that balances our energy priorities and our national security 
preparedness.
  I also commend Senate Appropriations Chairman Cochran and Ranking 
Member Mikulski. They brought the measure up in regular order, allowing 
amendments and debate, and they advanced this bill, as I said, with a 
very strong bipartisan 26-to-4 vote. The fact is, this is the first 
time in 6 years the Appropriations Committee has passed all 12 
appropriations bills. All 12 have been passed in a bipartisan manner, 
awaiting action on the floor.
  As I said, this legislation is within the budget guidelines. The 
Senate Energy and Water bill includes $35.4 billion in overall funding, 
which is $1.2 billion more than last year's funding level.
  The Energy Department's nuclear security program is funded at $12.3 
billion, which is $856 million more than last year. The Department of 
Energy programs receive an additional $270 million. This is important 
because our Nation has significant infrastructure needs, and that is 
what we are addressing, basic infrastructure needs of this kind. The 
longer we wait to improve America's infrastructure, particularly our 
waterways, the higher the cost will be. So it is very important that we 
get this legislation moving.
  One of the ways we can cost-effectively improve the Nation's 
infrastructure is by using public-private partnerships, P3s, to fund 
water projects. I worked closely with Senator Alexander, the chairman 
of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee to include support for 
P3-style projects in this legislation.
  I see that our chairman has joined us. Again, I commend him for not 
only the overall legislation but for his support for the P3s, public-
private partnerships. By leveraging the resources of the private 
sector, we can accelerate construction and reduce overall project 
costs. This creates a win for citizens who benefit from the project and 
a win for taxpayers who save money on projects that are constructed on 
a more cost-effective basis. I look forward to passing this legislation 
so we can advance this P3 concept.
  In fact, we have a project in Fargo, ND, that is perfectly suited for 
this type of approach. A P3 project can save the government hundreds of 
millions of dollars in construction costs, but we need to get this 
legislation passed so the Corps has the ability to start these types of 
projects and get them constructed for our country.
  I am also pleased the legislation permits the Army Corps of Engineers 
to get a handful of new feasibility studies. Mother Nature doesn't wait 
on the Senate or Congress, so we have to keep looking at areas where we 
need to upgrade infrastructure and respond to things as they occur; for 
example, some of the recent events, as the Presiding Officer knows, 
which occurred in Colorado, the Animas River. One area I am very 
familiar with that needs better protection is Minot, ND, where we had a 
devastating flood in 2011. We need to do a feasibility study to 
determine how best to make sure that flood protection is put in place.
  Finally, I am strongly supporting funding included in the legislation 
for improvements to water infrastructure across this country. Whether 
it is our ports or whether it is large or small, this is basic 
infrastructure we need for quality of life in this country. This is a 
long-term investment for the future of our country, the quality of 
life, the welfare of our people, and the ability to grow our economy.
  Let me touch on a couple of areas before I turn over the floor to our 
chairman. In addition to the Corps of Engineers, this legislation 
provides funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration, the 
agency that develops and maintains the Nation's nuclear warheads. NNSA 
relies on the funding provided every year in the Energy and Water bill 
to preserve the Nation's nuclear deterrents. It is critical that this 
legislation moves forward. I am particularly pleased the legislation 
meets the fiscal year 2016 budget request for funds needed to refurbish 
the W80 warhead, which is the warhead that goes on our nuclear cruise 
missiles.
  The W80 warhead is aging and needs to be refurbished so it can move 
to the new cruise missile being developed by the Air Force. The W80 is 
critical to the air leg of the Nation's nuclear triad. I am glad this 
legislation provides the funding to help keep our triad intact and in 
fact modernized.
  The bill also makes advances in our energy security priorities. It 
increases funding for the Energy Department's energy research and 
development, which will help provide the research for technologies that 
will advance coal, natural gas, oil, and other fossil energy resources 
and innovations. This is important in order to pursue a true ``all of 
the above'' energy policy that enables our country to produce both 
traditional and renewable energy with better environmental stewardship.

[[Page 15795]]

  The bill also provides support for the coal Advanced Energy Systems 
Program to research the efficiency of coal-based power systems and 
enabling affordable, commercially viable CO2 capture 
technologies.
  It continues funding for many other research and development programs 
that will strengthen our energy future, not only by enabling us to 
produce energy more cost-effectively and more dependably but also with 
better environmental stewardship.
  I will start to wrap up and turn the floor over to our esteemed 
colleague from the other side of the aisle and the outstanding Senators 
who are members of the committee who are here and looking to speak in 
support of this very important legislation, but I want to finish on the 
aspect I started on earlier.
  We have passed all 12 appropriations bills out of committee. This is 
the fundamental work of the Senate, making sure we fund the government, 
we fund the enterprise we are talking about, and we do so within the 
budget that was duly and properly passed by this Senate and by this 
House--by the Congress. This is the work we need to do. That means we 
have to proceed to these bills, that we have to offer the opportunity 
for debate, the opportunity for amendments, debate those amendments, 
and vote. That is our job. That is our responsibility. That is how we 
get the work done for the American people who sent us to do just that.
  This is good legislation. These bills were passed with bipartisan 
support. As I said in the case of this bill, 26 in favor, only 4 
opposed. Let's get going. Let's get the work done we were sent to do.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from Michigan.


           Wisconsin-Lake Michigan National Marine Sanctuary

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, this week I was pleased to hear some good 
news about a very special place in the Great Lakes. On the bottom of 
Lake Michigan, right off the shores of Wisconsin, lies an incredible 
collection of shipwrecks. People across the Great Lakes region, 
especially in Wisconsin but also in my home State of Michigan and 
elsewhere, recognize that this stretch of Lake Michigan is a national 
treasure because of its historical significance and its great beauty.
  Through a bottom-up community-driven process, many people teamed up 
to put together a proposal to protect this area as a National Marine 
Sanctuary. The Obama administration listened, and this week they 
announced they will be moving forward to establish a Wisconsin-Lake 
Michigan National Marine Sanctuary.
  A National Marine Sanctuary designation, as Michiganders know from 
firsthand experience, helps to improve access and resources for special 
maritime places in order to enhance visitor access and preserve 
irreplaceable resources for future generations.
  The Wisconsin-Lake Michigan sanctuary proposal would preserve an 875-
square-mile area of Lake Michigan with waters extending from Port 
Washington to Two Rivers. As Michiganders watch a pure Michigan sunset 
over Lake Michigan on beaches from Ludington south to Muskegon, the Sun 
would set over the new sanctuary directly across the lake. The new 
sanctuary has 29 known shipwrecks, 15 of which are listed in the 
National Registry of Historic Places, with many of those wrecks almost 
completely intact--a very rare occurrence. Research shows the proposed 
sanctuary includes 123 reported vessel losses, so there are many more 
wrecks to discover in these waters.
  Local community leaders in Wisconsin deserve much of the credit for 
building the support needed to move this proposal forward, but it would 
not have made it to this point without the tireless work of my friend 
and colleague Senator Baldwin of Wisconsin.
  In 2013, Senator Baldwin urged the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, or NOAA, to reopen the public nomination process for 
the first time in 20 years, and she continues to advocate for 
additional funding for national marine sanctuaries through her role on 
the Senate Appropriations Committee.
  Earlier this year, I was pleased to introduce a bill with Senator 
Baldwin and my good friend Senator Stabenow called the Great Lakes 
Maritime Heritage Assessment Act, which would require NOAA to review 
maritime heritage resources in the Great Lakes and suggest areas worthy 
of designation.
  In addition, I teamed up with Senator Baldwin to introduce the 
Waterfront Community Revitalization and Resiliency Act, which can work 
hand in hand with marine sanctuaries to boost the local economies of 
waterfront communities across the Great Lakes and the country. The bill 
would improve areas along the water to increase access to public space, 
grow business development, and create a new vision for waterfronts that 
can boost tourism, recreation, and small business.
  The administration also identified another new potential sanctuary, 
the Mallows Bay--Potomac River National Marine Sanctuary, which is a 
14-square-mile stretch of the tidal Potomac River with the largest 
``ghost fleet'' of World War I wooden steamship wrecks and one of the 
most ecologically valuable waterscapes and landscapes in Maryland.
  These two sanctuary proposals, if finalized, would be the first 
sanctuaries established since 2000 and would be just the 15th and 16th 
additions to the national marine sanctuaries network. The last addition 
to the network was in 2000, and that was Michigan's very own Thunder 
Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve, located in Lake 
Huron, with the main NOAA office based in the great city of Alpena. The 
Thunder Bay sanctuary is a remarkable maritime treasure. It is known as 
Shipwreck Alley. Throughout history, it has been one of the most highly 
traveled and dangerous parts of the Great Lakes system. Nearly 100 
shipwrecks have been discovered within the sanctuary, with a wide range 
of vessel types that makes the collection nationally significant.
  The cold, clean, fresh water of the Great Lakes keeps shipwrecks in 
excellent condition, and the archaeological research that is conducted 
at Thunder Bay is world class.
  Pictured here is the helm of the F.T. Barney, a two-masted schooner 
located at a depth of 160 feet near Rogers City. On October 23, 1868, 
the F.T. Barney was en route from Cleveland to Milwaukee with a cargo 
of coal when it was run into by the schooner T.J. Bronson. The ship 
sank in less than 2 minutes in very deep water. The wreck is one of the 
most complete you will find anywhere, with masts and deck equipment 
still in place.
  Another impressive wreck, lying at a depth of only 18 feet near 
Alpena, is the wooden steam barge Monohansett. On November 23 of 1907, 
the ship burned at the water's edge at Thunder Bay Island. Today, the 
Monohansett's wreck lies in three sections. The stern portion has hull 
features, propeller, and shaft all in place, and the boiler is nearby.
  You can still go up to Alpena and take a glass-bottom boat to tour 
these wrecks and see the crystal waters of Lake Huron, and you can even 
snorkel or scuba dive amongst some of the most well-preserved ships. It 
is truly
a one-of-a-kind and once-in-a-lifetime experience.
  Not only is Thunder Bay the only freshwater marine sanctuary among 
the 14 marine-protected areas--at least until these two new proposals--
but it is unique in that it is also a State underwater preserve. It is 
jointly managed by NOAA and the State of Michigan. A joint management 
committee makes major policy, budget, and management decisions, and an 
advisory council represents the community's interests. It is part of 
the local community up north, and it is refreshing to see local, State, 
and Federal officials all working together to protect a national 
treasure.
  The Thunder Bay sanctuary is a major tourist draw and economic driver 
for the area, and the Great Lakes Maritime Heritage Center in Alpena 
attracts out-of-State visitors and educates school groups.
  Over the last decade or so, the benefits of preserving Thunder Bay 
were widely recognized, and a process was

[[Page 15796]]

set in motion to expand the boundaries of the sanctuary. In September 
of 2014, after holding many meetings and completing a thorough 
environmental impact statement, Thunder Bay was expanded from 448 
square miles to 4,300 square miles, driven by strong public and 
congressional support. This map shows the original boundaries and the 
new expanded boundaries. The process was successful in part because of 
the work of Senator Stabenow, and, of course, my predecessor, Senator 
Carl Levin, who was a champion for the Great Lakes every day of his 
long service here in the Senate.
  As we move forward to protect the Great Lakes and other valuable 
marine resources in the Great Lakes and across the country, we must 
devote robust resources to these deserving places. Many agencies, 
including NOAA, are operating on shoestring budgets. While their work 
is impressive as they stretch their funding, the benefits these 
designations bring to communities such as Alpena and the surrounding 
area are sustainable and provide a foundation for the local economy.
  As a member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, 
with jurisdiction over NOAA and the National Marine Sanctuary System, I 
am committed to working every day on protecting the Great Lakes and the 
fantastic waters and marine places within the boundaries of the United 
States of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                EB-5 Regional Center Investment Program

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there is an immigration program that is 
out of control and not conforming to the reason the program was put 
into effect in the first place. It needs to be reformed or it needs to 
be eliminated. So I come to the floor to talk about this immigration 
program known as the EB-5 regional center investment program and the 
serious concerns I have about continuing this program without reforms. 
The program was just extended in the continuing resolution to keep the 
government funded, but I want to talk about changes that need to be 
made before and if it is extended again.
  The EB-5 program was created in 1990. A foreign national under this 
program can invest $1 million in a new commercial enterprise that 
creates 10 full-time jobs, and then, in turn, that person receives 
lawful permanent residence and then, if they want to, citizenship. The 
required investment amount is only $500,000 if the investment is made 
in what is called a targeted employment area, defined to be a rural 
area or an area with high unemployment. The EB-5 program allows 
investors to pool their investments for a project, and they can meet 
the job-creation requirements by providing evidence of not direct jobs 
but evidence of indirect jobs.
  In previous speeches on the floor, I have talked about the national 
security and integrity issues associated with the program. I have 
detailed the risks, and I have expressed concern about the lack of 
oversight by the administration. Today, I will focus on one particular 
abuse of the program and how this program does not fulfill the intent 
of the law passed in 1990.
  Perhaps the greatest violation of congressional intent that has 
evolved over the years is the manner in which so much of the investment 
money coming into targeted employment areas has been directed toward 
lavish--and I mean lavish--building projects in well-to-do urban areas, 
not in the areas of high unemployment and not in rural areas, as the 
1990 law implied. Four-star hotels and commercial office buildings are 
being built with foreign investment dollars in very affluent urban 
neighborhoods rather than the high-unemployment and rural areas which 
Congress intended to benefit. This has been done by gerrymandering the 
boundaries of the targeted employment areas to include at one end the 
affluent census tract in which the building project is located and at 
the other end, perhaps many miles away, a census tract with high 
unemployment.
  In other words, the word ``gerrymandering'' is the word that is used 
in forming some congressional districts that are very strangely 
arranged so somebody can be reelected to office. The same approach is 
being used here to form a targeted employment area to get all of this 
money into urban areas that are very affluent.
  One of the most notorious examples of this gerrymandering, to push 
the boundaries, is the Hudson Yards project, a group of luxury 
apartment buildings and office towers in Midtown Manhattan--in midtown 
Manhattan, meaning New York.
  Even the Wall Street Journal, which never met a business project it 
did not like, reported on how this program has been abused. The Wall 
Street Journal explained how the Hudson Yards project qualifies for the 
lower investment threshold despite the affluent Midtown location of the 
project because the boundaries of the targeted employment area were 
manipulated--or let me say gerrymandered--to include a public housing 
project in Upper Manhattan.
  Another project that flies in the face of congressional intent--
meaning the intent of the 1990 law--is located in Lower Manhattan near 
Wall Street. As the New York Times reported, the Battery Maritime 
Building has been classified as being located in a targeted employment 
area based on a gerrymandered area that ``snakes up through the Lower 
East Side, skirting the wealthy enclaves of Battery Park City and 
TriBeCa, and then jumps across the East River to annex the Farragut 
Houses project in Brooklyn.'' In other words, the developers did 
everything they could to include the Farragut Houses project, which is 
a public housing community, to come in at the lower investment level. 
The New York Times went on to say that ``the small census tract that 
contains the Farragut Houses has become a go-to-area for developers 
seeking to use the visa program: its unemployed residents have been 
counted towards three projects already.'' That is the New York Times.
  Watchdog.org, a national watchdog group that has followed abuses of 
the program closely over many years, has also identified another 
problematic, gerrymandered targeted employment area. They reported that 
a 21-story residential building project, which included trendy 
restaurants and shops, was built with foreign investments despite its 
location in an upscale neighborhood with only 0.8 percent unemployment.
  These are just a few examples, yet they point to a clear problem with 
this program.
  When it was created by Congress, we set two different investment 
levels and clearly tried to steer foreign capital to high-unemployment 
and rural areas. Obviously, I am showing you that has not been 
fulfilled by the way this program has finally evolved.
  The Wall Street Journal reports that at least 80 percent of program 
money is going to projects that wouldn't qualify as being in targeted 
employment areas without ``some form of gerrymandering.'' Meanwhile, 
the article adds, people wanting to raise money for projects in rural 
areas and low-income parts of cities say they find it increasingly hard 
to compete.
  Even the Washington Post has become fed up with the way in which the 
intent of Congress has been violated. In a September 6 editorial, after 
discussing the program's numerous economic and integrity failings and 
suggesting that the program lapse, the Post writes: ``The EB-5 program 
is supposed to favor distressed economic areas, but the definition of a 
needy zone has been stretched to include nearly the whole country, 
including hot downtown real estate markets.''
  I wish to end by saying, again, that the program is in need of 
reform. In June, Senator Leahy and I introduced S. 1501, a bill that 
would substantially reform the program by improving program oversight, 
addressing national security vulnerabilities and restoring the program 
to its original intent. I hope my colleagues will look at this very 
bipartisan bill and will take an opportunity to understand how this 
program is being used and abused and review the proposal that Senator 
Leahy and I have put out there.

[[Page 15797]]

  Mr. President, I refer my colleagues to the Wall Street Journal 
article ``U.S. Visa For Cash Plan Funds Luxury Towers--Program to spur 
jobs in poor areas supports projects in well-off neighborhoods,'' dated 
September 10, 2015, by Eliot Brown; the Watchdog.org article ``Upscale 
Dallas project cashes in on EB-5 visa program,'' dated September 24, 
2015, by Kenric Ward; an article from the Washington Post ``It's time 
for the corporate visa giveaway to go away,'' dated September 6, 2015; 
and the New York Times article ``Rules Stretched as Green Cards Go to 
Investors,'' dated December 18, 2011, by Patrick McGeehan.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  



          Arkansas and 25th Anniversary of National Rice Month

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, the rare blend of soil type, environment, 
and availability of water make Arkansas an ideal location for rice to 
thrive and grow, making Arkansas the Nation's largest producer of rice.
  Last year, production in the Natural State accounted for more than 50 
percent of rice produced in the country. Farmers in more than half of 
Arkansas' counties grow rice; 96 percent of those are family owned and 
operated.
  As the No. 1 producer of this crop, Arkansas has a unique role in the 
industry. That is why I am proud to recognize the 25th anniversary of 
National Rice Month. I am also proud to promote policies that enable 
our farmers to manage risk and ensure that high-quality U.S. rice 
remains a staple on tables throughout the globe.
  This industry is not only contributing to a nutritious and balanced 
diet, it is also an economic engine. Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, 
Missouri, California, and Texas all produce rice. Nationwide, this 
industry accounts for 125,000 jobs and contributes more than $34 
billion to the economy. In Arkansas, it accounts for more than 25,000 
jobs. The rice industry stands to benefit from a change in policies 
toward Cuba because it is a staple of the Cuban diet.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that U.S. rice exports 
could increase up to $365 million per year if financing and travel 
restrictions were lifted. Arkansas's agriculture secretary recently 
said that the economic impact on the Natural State's rice industry 
could be about $30 million. Rice production is efficient. More rice is 
being produced on less land, using less water and energy than 20 years 
ago. As great stewards of the land, rice farmers are committed to 
protecting and preserving our natural resources.
  Arkansas' location on the Mississippi Flyway makes it a duck-hunting 
capital of the world and draws hunters from around the globe.
  I am proud to support our rice industry and celebrate 25 years of 
recognizing National Rice Month.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic Senators for 
their courtesy. We are running a little behind, and they have allowed 
me to go on and make my remarks.
  I ask the Chair to let me know when 12 minutes have expired of my 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, tomorrow we will be voting on the 
Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. I come to the floor 
to make two points about that very important legislation.
  No. 1: if our Democratic friends would allow us to vote on it, allow 
us to debate it, amend it, pass it, send it to the President, and do 
the same with the other 11 appropriations bills that our Appropriations 
Committee has reported, we could easily say that this year in the 
Senate is one of the most productive years in a long, long time.
  No. 2: the other point I wish to make is the importance of this bill. 
Ben Bernanke, the retired Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board wrote 
an article in the Wall Street Journal this week in which he said that 
you cannot rely on the Federal Reserve Board to create jobs in a growth 
economy in the United States, and that what you need to do is have 
better educational opportunities, more research, and you need 
supercomputing. I would add to this that you need to have 
infrastructure. This bill, the Energy and Water bill, has all of those 
things. It is a pro-growth bill for the United States of America.
  Let me take the first point first. This is the first time in 6 years 
that the Appropriations Committee has reported all 12 appropriations 
bills. You might find that unusual because that is the Appropriations 
Committee's basic job. As much as it is for the Grand Ole Opry to sing, 
our job is to pass appropriations bills. That is article I of the 
Constitution. It is the first time in 6 years. The bills are all 
sitting there waiting. Most of them passed in a bipartisan way.
  The one that we are bringing to the floor tomorrow passed 26 to 4 on 
May 2. Senator Feinstein and I worked on it with most of the Members of 
this body. It is a very good bill, passed in a bipartisan way.
  What would usually happen in a properly functioning Senate is that we 
would spend the two months of June and July dealing with those 12 
appropriations bills. That would mean that not just the members of the 
Appropriations Committee would have a chance to vote on them. It would 
mean that the Senator from Utah, who is not on the Appropriations 
Committee, would have a chance to make his points about the 
appropriations bills, which is part of his job here, yet he is shut out 
of that.
  Why? Because Democrats say: We won't even let you bring them to the 
floor.
  It is an extraordinary thing to do.
  But despite that, I want you to know what this body has accomplished. 
In the last 7 months or 8 months we passed the Keystone Pipeline. The 
President vetoed it. We overruled the ambush elections rule from the 
NLRB, and the President vetoed it.
  But listen to all the things we accomplished with the cooperation of 
Democrats on the other side of the aisle. Then, as I said, if we could 
add the appropriations bills, we would have the most productive Senate 
in many, many years. There is the trade authority law. It passed, and 
it is law.
  We fixed No Child Left Behind, and we ended the common core mandate.
  We reversed the trend of the national school board, and we did it 
with 81 votes in the Senate. It was a bipartisan bill.
  We passed a long-term highway bill after we had 34 short-term highway 
bills.
  There was a permanent fix of what we call the doc fix--the way we pay 
doctors for Medicare payments. A long-term permanent solution passed 
this body. It is now the law after 17 short-term fixes. This law 
changed the way we pay for doctors so that we pay them more for quality 
rather than fee-for-service.
  We have dealt with what happens when a terrorist calls from 
Afghanistan to Nashville on the phone. That is the USA FREEDOM Act. It 
is now the law.
  We passed the Defense authorization bill, terrorism risk insurance, 
and the Iran review act. Waiting in the wings is the chemical safety 
bill, which has bipartisan support, and--believe this--it is 39 years 
since it has last been touched. And there is a cybersecurity bill right 
after that.
  That is an impressive list of accomplishments for this Senate. Think 
of what we could say if we had spent June and July, as we should have, 
debating the appropriations bills.
  Now let's move to the Energy and Water appropriations bill. On May 
21, it was approved by the Appropriations Committee. The Senator from 
California, Mrs. Feinstein, and I recommended it, and 26 Senators voted 
for it and 4 voted against it. It stays within the law. The law that we 
passed and the President signed tells us what we have to spend.
  Yet Democrats said: Well, we are not going to let you bring it to the 
floor because we think you should spend more than that.

[[Page 15798]]

  Well, maybe we should, but the law says we should spend what we 
spent. So we followed the law.
  When you block our bill and don't allow it to be brought to the 
floor, what do you do? You cut 70 Senators out of having a say on the 
Energy and Water appropriations bill. And what does that mean? They 
don't have a say over it. They don't have a say over nuclear weapons.
  Half of our bill is about national defense. Are we properly funding 
nuclear weapons? They don't have a say over National Laboratories, the 
laboratories where we are inventing new ways to manufacture that will 
help grow jobs. They don't have a say over how much money we are going 
to spend on the Missouri River floods. They don't have a say over how 
much money we are going to spend on the locks and the dams that we 
have. The Panama Canal is widening, and if we don't deepen our harbors, 
the ships are going to go to Cuba. So we want them to go to Savannah, 
Mobile, and to other places like that.
  They don't have a say over nuclear waste. Where do we put nuclear 
waste? So the Democrats, by blocking the bill from coming to the floor, 
have cut their own Members out of having a say about this. Half of the 
Energy and Water bill funds national defense activities, and the other 
half of it funds other essential non-defense items. And all the 
Democrats asked for was 3 percent more funding than what we're already 
spending in the bill.
  What I said in the Appropriations Committee was this: You know, this 
is really a pretty good way to budget. Let's appropriate it as if we 
had 97 percent of what you want, and if we get 3 percent more in the 
discussion at the end of the year, then we will add it. That shouldn't 
be hard to do. We could do it in 24 hours.
  The way the Senate is supposed to work is the Energy and Water bill 
is supposed to come to the floor. We are supposed to debate it, we are 
supposed to amend it, and we are supposed to send it to the President. 
If he doesn't like it, he can veto it and send it back. That is what 
should happen.
  If Senators don't like the bill now, they can block it. They can vote 
against it after we amend it. They can vote against it after we 
conference with the House. That takes 60 votes too. If the President 
vetoes it, it takes 67 votes to override the President's veto.
  My friends on the other side said: Well, that takes too much time.
  What do you mean it takes too much time? That is what we are here to 
do. We are elected to have a say on these issues. This is $1 trillion 
in funding for the national defense of the United States of America and 
for its essential services--locks, dams, national laboratories, and 
where we put the nuclear waste--and the Democrats are saying: We don't 
even want to vote on the appropriations bills. We don't even want to 
have a say about them. We don't even want to send them to the President 
for him to consider.
  Let's take an example. The bill includes funding for inland 
waterways. Those are the avenues that carry the commerce that creates 
the jobs in America. They need to be in good shape. We have agreed on 
that in a bipartisan way. We have even asked the barge owners to pay 
more to go through the locks, to which they have agreed, and our bill 
matches what the barge owners are paying and increases the funding for 
inland waterways in Kentucky--Olmsted Locks and Dams, and Kentucky 
Lock--and Chickamauga Lock in Tennessee.
  It also provides $1.254 billion from the harbor maintenance trust 
fund. That means we will be spending more to deepen harbors in 
Savannah, Charleston, Texas, Memphis, Jacksonville, Mobile, and 
Louisiana, in Pascagoula, Big Sandy Harbor, Cleveland Harbor, Anchorage 
Harbor, and Wilmington Harbor. Do Senators not want to have a say about 
that? Do you not want to support that or oppose that if you think it is 
too much?
  What about the National Laboratories? The National Laboratories are 
the source of the research that produces the jobs that gives us our 
family incomes. One of them is in Tennessee, the Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory. I was there the other day. They have a new thing called 
additive manufacturing, where they are 3-D printing automobiles. Let me 
say that again: 3-D printing automobiles or parts of automobiles. It 
may revolutionize manufacturing in America and the world as much as 
unconventional gas and oil has revolutionized our national energy 
policy.
  Do other Senators--the other 70 who are not on the Appropriations 
Committee--not want to have a say about how much we spend on our 
National Laboratories?
  What about how much we spend for nuclear weapons? We had a big debate 
in this body over the proper level of spending for nuclear weapons. We 
had a big debate over something called the START treaty, which 
regulated the weapons that we were getting rid of. We agreed at the 
time that we would spend a certain amount of money to make sure we 
could defend the country. Do Senators not want to have a say about 
that?
  So why do we not pass appropriations bills that were ready in May, 
debate them in a day or two, and send them to the President? If the 
President doesn't like them, under the Constitution he can veto them 
and send them back.
  If we are spending 97 percent of what he thinks he should spend and 
he wants to veto it for that reason and then send it back to us and if 
we decide after negotiations to spend 3 percent more, we can add 3 
percent in 24 hours, send it back to him, and that is the end of the 
result.
  This is not the way the Senate is supposed to operate.
  I hope that my friends on the Democratic side will recognize that 
they would like to have a say in our nuclear weapons policy, and that 
they would like to have a say in how much we spend on our National 
Laboratories.
  This bill has a record level of funding for the Office of Science--as 
written, the highest ever in this bill. You don't want to vote on that? 
You don't want to support that? You want to cut that? You want to stop 
that?
  I don't want to stop it. I want us to support research. I want to 
support our national laboratories. I want to support national defense. 
I want deeper harbors all around our coast. I want inland waterways 
that aren't broken down. I want us to move ahead in this country.
  This bill is a pro-growth national defense bill. It came out of the 
Committee on Appropriations with 26 votes for it, 4 votes against it. 
Senator Feinstein and I worked with almost every Senator in this body 
for it. Why should we not consider an appropriations bill that has that 
kind of support?
  Now, if we get on that path every time we change majorities here--
let's say the Democrats win the next election and Republicans say: 
Well, look at what you did to us in the last election. We are going to 
block all your appropriations bills because we would like to spend 
less. We won't ever do any appropriations bills again in the Senate 
because one body or the other blocks the amount of money. We are 
supposed to vote on that.
  In the last Congress the Democrats were in control, and they wouldn't 
bring the appropriations bills to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 12 minutes.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair. I will conclude within the next 3 
minutes, and I thank my Democratic friends for their courtesy.
  In the last Congress, when Democrats had the majority and Republicans 
had the minority, the Committee on Appropriations completed its work in 
a bipartisan way on most bills, but the majority wouldn't bring the 
bills to the floor last year. Or when it did, it wouldn't let the 
Republicans offer amendments to it. They were afraid Senators might 
have their say.
  This year we are in the majority for the first time in 6 years. In a 
bipartisan way we produced 12 appropriations bills out of 12. We would 
like to bring them to the floor, but they are saying no. We are not 
even going to vote on them. We are not even going to amend them. We are 
not even going to

[[Page 15799]]

debate, even though if they do not like the bill at the end of that 
process, they can kill it with 60 votes. They can kill it after it 
comes out of conference with 60 votes. And if the President vetoes it, 
it can take 60 votes to override.
  We don't have time to do appropriations bills here? Traditionally, we 
have always consumed June and July for the 12 appropriations bills. 
Previous Congresses have had time to do it. We should have time to do 
it.
  Let me conclude where I started. This has been a very productive 
Senate. Most of that work has been because of bipartisan cooperation, 
whether it was the trade bill, the bill to fix No Child Left Behind, 
the highway bill, the doc fix--paying doctors for quality instead of 
fees--the USA Freedom Act, the Defense Authorization Act, the Terrorism 
Risk Insurance Act, or the Iran review act. And we have chemical safety 
and cybersecurity waiting. That is all the result of cooperation 
between Democrats and Republicans. Why can we not do that on 
appropriations bills, which is our most basic responsibility?
  We did it in committee. I couldn't have a better person to work with 
than Senator Feinstein. That vote was 26 to 4. It involves our national 
defense, it involves our growth, and it involves our security. I would 
hope every Senator would want to have a say on those issues tomorrow 
when we vote. So I hope they will vote yes on the Energy and Water bill 
tomorrow--yes to considering it; and then after we have considered it 
and debated it, we can send it over to the House, come up with a 
conference, and we can see what they think.
  That is the way the Senate ought to work. I am eager to see the 
Senate get back to that, and I think the American people are as well.
  I thank the Chair and my colleagues for their courtesy, and I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                    Land and Water Conservation Fund

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor tonight to talk 
about something I would like to see done in the United States Senate--
passage of reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  Definitely the Senate and Congress have disappointed us in not 
passing the Export-Import Bank reauthorization--which is something I am 
a big proponent of. And now, here we are with the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund.
  For the first time in 51 years since this program was created, it has 
expired.
  My colleagues are here on the floor to join me--I thank the Senator 
from Montana and the Senator from New Mexico--to talk about why this is 
such a vital program to all of our States and why we should have it 
reauthorized immediately.
  The bill creating the Land and Water Conservation Fund was championed 
by Senator Scoop Jackson at the request of then President Kennedy. Why? 
Because the American population was growing and there was a need for 
outdoor recreation, open space, and public lands.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund was created to help protect some 
of our most popular national parks, forests, public lands, and iconic 
places.
  For me, this is an incredibly important program because it has 
provided opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking and other 
recreational uses that so many people use when traveling to the Pacific 
Northwest for vacation or for their livelihood.
  Those of us who are from States with large amounts of public lands 
recognize the importance of outdoor recreation.
  Nationwide outdoor recreation supports more than 6 million jobs. This 
is an economy in and of itself. In the State of Washington, outdoor 
recreation contributes more than $11.7 billion annually to Washington's 
economy. It is clear that protecting our public lands is good for both 
our environment and our economy.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been credited each year with 
funds from outer continental shelf oil and gas revenues. The success of 
that program has helped us authorize and make these investments for the 
American people, as I said, for more than 50 years.
  We are here to remind our colleagues that we are going to put up a 
fight until we get the conservation fund reauthorized. And to make sure 
that people in our states and all across the Nation that enjoy public 
lands have access to them.
  The issue is important to us, and in the energy bill we passed out of 
the Senate Energy Committee, I worked with my colleague, Senator 
Murkowski, on a bipartisan basis to include a permanent reauthorization 
of the LWCF.
  And I was joined by 31 Senators to introduce the American Energy 
Innovation Act that also permanently reauthorized and fully funded the 
LWCF.
  So you can see from these two pieces of legislation that there was a 
lot of support from our colleagues for maintaining this vital program 
that is used by cities, counties, and jurisdictions in my State and in 
my colleagues' states and many others across the nation and that it is 
a vital tool for helping us to thrive in our outdoor economy. We want 
to see this legislation reauthorized as soon as possible.
  I thank my colleagues again from New Mexico and Montana again for 
being here and for their leadership on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I want to thank Senators Cantwell and 
Heinrich for not giving up on the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and 
I need to point out that while there are three of us Democrats standing 
here, we speak for our entire caucus. We believe that the LWCF is 
something that needs to be reauthorized and, quite frankly, needs to be 
fully funded.
  We are not going to play games with this issue. We are working to get 
this bill passed--not for show, not for politics, but because it is 
good for our economy. And I will get into that in a second.
  There was a Republican gentleman who served in the Presidency of this 
great country some time ago--Teddy Roosevelt--who called on Americans 
to cherish our Nation's vast natural resources and to ensure that we 
safely pass them on to future generations. After all, they are the 
birthright of every American. That is what the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund is all about.
  We take special pride in our public lands in Montana. They are a part 
of our way of life. We have just over 1 million people in our great 
State, but we lead the Nation in the percentage of residents who hunt, 
fish, hike, and enjoy our public lands. And the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund is a big reason for that.
  Montana's outdoor economy brings in nearly $6 billion a year. Let me 
say that again. The outdoor economy, supported by the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, brings in nearly $6 billion a year.
  Last week, when I flew out of Montana, there were several fishermen 
who were flying out with me. They didn't live in Montana. All the money 
they brought into the State while they were fishing was outside dollars 
that wouldn't have been there otherwise. They probably used some of the 
fishing access--some of the 150-plus fishing access the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund has helped developed--when they enjoyed the great 
outdoors in Montana.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund also supports over 60,000 jobs. 
We talk about economic development all the time. We talk about how if 
we tweak our Tax Code or if we build this piece of infrastructure or if 
we make this education program more affordable, it can have an 
incredible impact on our economy. But the fact is, if you want to talk 
about economic development, if you want to talk about dollars invested 
for a return, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is an incredible 
investment.
  To help preserve these lands and create these accesses, Montana has 
received some $540 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund--
money that has been very well spent. Montanans used this Land and Water 
Conservation Fund to preserve more than 8,000 acres of elk habitat in 
Meagher County, known as the Tenderfoot.

[[Page 15800]]

  Montanans used the Land and Water Conservation Fund to protect some 
of the most pristine habitat in the lower 48, from conservation 
easements in the Rocky Mountain Front to acquisitions in the Crown of 
the Continent.
  While Montanans certainly benefit from the fund, there are Land and 
Water Conservation Fund projects in nearly every county of the United 
States. Yes, this fund is responsible for protecting prime hunting and 
fishing, but it is also responsible for building trails and improving 
parks, playgrounds, and ball fields in every State in the country. That 
is why Congress must reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund--
to protect our best outdoor places and to reestablish this critical 
tool to build our communities in a way that will make future 
generations proud.
  With that, Mr. President, if it is appropriate, I would like to ask 
my good friend from New Mexico a question.
  I thank Senator Heinrich for being here today. My question is, As he 
comes from New Mexico, is the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
something Senator Heinrich hears about from his residents?
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Montana. 
I think one of the great things about New Mexico and Montana is that we 
are both from States that absolutely cherish the outdoors, and we have 
a lot of constituents who care about the activities that generate so 
much income from the outdoors.
  Obviously, I hear from an enormous number of my constituents asking 
us to reauthorize and permanently authorize the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund--to fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In 
fact, recently there was a letter which was sent to me but was also 
sent to the chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--to the 
chair and to the ranking member, the good Senator from Washington. It 
was signed by dozens of businesses saying: Hey, this is important to 
our bottom line. Please extend the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 
Please continue to support this bipartisan legacy of standing up for 
our natural resources in this country.
  My good friend from Montana mentioned the scale of what that means in 
his State, and it is not a dissimilar story in New Mexico. In fact, 
over $6 billion annually comes from outdoor recreation activities, and 
68,000 jobs in our State are directly related to outdoor recreation.
  In fact, when I go home this weekend, we are going to be celebrating 
the Valles Caldera National Preserve and its management by the National 
Park Service. That was a property that for decades my constituents 
could not access. They could not hunt; they could not fish. It was 
private property. It was because of the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund that this place, which had really been on the radar screen of the 
National Park Service since the early part of the last century--
probably since the 1930s--could come into public ownership and now be 
one of the true gems in the entire Nation of our public lands.
  We are going to be celebrating that with our constituents on 
Saturday. The Secretary of Interior is coming. There are literally 
100,000 acres of some of the most spectacular high-elevation grasslands 
and conifer forests and trout streams and elk habitat that we have ever 
seen, and there are businesses that rely on that. Tourism is an 
enormous part of our economy in New Mexico. So this is something which 
has been absolutely crucial to our State's economy, especially in the 
midst of the last decade and the challenges we have had economically. I 
know one of the groups who will be there on Saturday are the sportsmen, 
who care about utilizing the outdoors.
  I would ask my colleague from Montana if in Montana he hears from 
people who hunt and fish, as I do in New Mexico, about the importance 
this particular legislation has had in protecting habitat and 
protecting access to the places that regular, blue-collar folks can go 
to hunt and fish.
  Mr. TESTER. Absolutely. We hear from sports men and women nearly 
every day, if not every day.
  Here is where the problem is, and this is why we need to get the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund authorized and funded--and funded at $900 
million, I might add. If you want to go hunting and fishing today in 
this country, things have changed from the way they were 30 or 40 years 
ago. You used to be able to access private lands and go hunting and 
fishing, and you still can, but there are many fewer acres. So the real 
opportunity to go hunting and fishing in this country is on our public 
lands, whether those are State or Federal, and this Land and Water 
Conservation Fund allows access to those public lands.
  There are some in this body and there are some in this country who 
don't think the Federal Government should own one stitch of land. Well, 
without those opportunities and our outdoor economy, No. 1, our way of 
life would change forever in States such as Montana, and No. 2, our 
economy would be severely distressed.
  So, you bet, I hear from sports men and women, because when they want 
to go hunting and fishing, they go to those Federal public lands. That 
is where the good habitat is that they can access, and that is where 
the good fisheries are that they can access.
  So this is very important. For those in this body who want to see 
this program go away, they are literally driving a nail in the coffin 
of rural America's economy.
  Mr. HEINRICH. I would ask my colleague from Montana--we have heard a 
lot about reform. When we had the hearing in front of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, we heard people on both sides of the aisle 
talking about how well this program works.
  Does the Senator think the opposition that is holding this up, that 
is holding back the majority of this body--a bipartisan majority, I 
would add--does the Senator from Montana think that reform is really 
what this is about or is it about a more basic, more ideological 
opposition to public lands and the current efforts to either sell off 
or transfer those public lands that our constituents rely on for access 
to go camping, to go hunting, to go rock climbing, to recreate, to 
spend time with their families?
  Mr. TESTER. It is hard to say what the agenda is. I do know that 
earlier this year there was a proposal put out to use the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund for fighting forest fires. Now there is a 
proposal put out to use the Land and Water Conservation Fund to manage 
forests.
  The fact is, the Land and Water Conservation Fund works. It works to 
create habitat, and it works to access that habitat. It also works for 
playgrounds and parks and ball fields all across this country.
  If we take a look at our overall budget and what we spend on a lot of 
stuff around here, $900 million for a nationwide program that impacts 
so many people, that impacts our economy in such a very positive way--
there must be some agenda out there that I cannot see to do away with 
this fund. It makes no sense to me. And it is particularly frustrating 
to see folks on the other side of the aisle come down here to the floor 
and bring their friends in and say: I am going to make this glorious 
speech about this Land and Water Conservation Fund, and then I want you 
to stop the unanimous consent.
  The bottom line is that things get done in here when we work in the 
middle. As I told some folks the other day in Montana, we need to bring 
these folks around who think this is just excess government spending 
because, quite frankly, there are a lot of places where there is excess 
government spending in our budget. This is not one of them. This is a 
good program that helps promote a great way of outdoor life and also 
helps promote our economy.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Ironically, the money in the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund is not tax dollars. It is literally a deal that goes 
back five decades now where we opened up large swaths of our natural 
resources, our oil and gas offshore, and took a percentage of that and 
invested it back into protecting our natural resources. Obviously, 
those are natural resources that

[[Page 15801]]

are one-time. You only get to drill for oil and produce natural gas one 
time. So the idea was that we would invest that in something to protect 
our environment, to protect our conservation lands, and to make a 
permanent contribution to that level of conservation.
  Mr. TESTER. That is absolutely correct.
  One of the things that makes this moment in time so important when it 
comes to the Land and Water Conservation Fund is that we are losing 
habitat, we are losing fisheries every day. There will be limited 
opportunities to keep these pristine lands available for hunting and 
fishing in the future, but the habitat will be gone if we don't deal 
with it. That is why it is very important not only to reauthorize the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund but to fully fund it so we can take 
care of these landscapes that help support incredibly great elk and 
deer and trout fisheries. It is very important. Plus, there are a lot 
more opportunities in our great outdoors, and the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund really helps people enjoy life and have quality of 
life. And I am not just talking about the folks who have incredibly 
thick wallets; I am talking about everyday, average Americans who work 
for a living and work darned hard for a living and want to be able to 
enjoy some of the great things this country has to offer.
  Mr. HEINRICH. That is absolutely right. I hear from constituents all 
the time who will never be able to afford one of those $5 or $10,000 
elk hunts on private land but who can enter the lottery every year and 
who do and oftentimes rely on that to get their family through the 
winter and to also just pull their family together in a tradition they 
have had as a part of who they are for years and years.
  On Saturday, when we go to celebrate the Valles Caldera National 
Preserve, I am going to be taking my fly rod, and I am looking forward 
to spending the dollars that will go back into our State's game and 
fish coffers to make sure that resource is there again and again and 
again. That is what this Land and Water Conservation Fund is all about.
  

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                           Religious Freedom

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, a few weeks ago I inaugurated a series of 
speeches about religious freedom. In the first speech, I said that the 
rights of conscience and religious exercise go to the very heart of who 
we are as human beings and how we make sense out of this world. No 
decisions are more fundamental to human existence than those regarding 
our relationship to the Divine, and no act of government is more 
invasive of individual liberty than compelling a person to violate his 
or her sincerely chosen religious beliefs. This is why religious 
freedom in and of itself is so important and must be specially 
protected.
  Last week I spoke about religious freedom in practice here in 
America. At no time in world history has religious freedom been such an 
integral part of a nation's origin and character. As Congress said when 
we unanimously enacted the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998, 
the right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and 
existence of the United States.
  Professor Michael McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law 
Center at Stanford, describes how, by the time the Bill of Rights was 
ratified, America had ``already experienced 150 years of a higher 
degree of religious diversity than had existed anywhere in the world.''
  Together, those two speeches told some of the story of religious 
freedom in America. Today I will build on that foundation and examine 
the status and the substance of religious freedom. More fully 
understanding these three aspects of religious freedom--its story, its 
status, and its substance--will help us better evaluate where we are 
today and inform where we should go in the future.
  The status of religious freedom can be summarized as inalienable and 
preeminent. James Madison repeatedly identified the free exercise of 
religion according to conviction and conscience as an inalienable 
right. To America's Founders, as they expressed in the Declaration of 
Independence, inalienable rights have two dimensions. They come from 
God, not from government, and these rights are endowed--that is, they 
are inseparable from us and part of our very humanity. Government did 
not provide them, and government cannot take them away.
  When Virginia developed its Constitution in 1776, George Mason's 
draft of a declaration of rights said that the exercise of religion 
should receive the fullest toleration by government. Madison objected 
and offered language that became section 16 of the Virginia Declaration 
of Rights, setting what one scholar calls a new standard for freedom of 
conscience. Here is Madison's language. He said:

       That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and 
     the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason 
     and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all 
     men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, 
     according to the dictates of conscience.

  This understanding of religious freedom did not end with America's 
founding generation. In 1853 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
approved a resolution asserting that in treaties with foreign nations, 
the United States should secure for our citizens residing abroad ``the 
right of worshipping God, freely and openly, according to the dictates 
of their own conscience.'' The committee report on this resolution 
described religious freedom as fundamental, allowing the ``utmost 
latitude and freedom of conscience'' so that each individual ``is 
absolutely free to act in conformity to his own convictions.''
  The fact that religious freedom is inalienable leads to another 
aspect of its status. In his 1785 ``Memorial and Remonstrance against 
Religious Assessments,'' Madison explained that religious exercise ``is 
precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the 
claims of civil society.'' Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg once 
wrote that to America's Founders, religious freedom was preeminent 
among fundamental rights.
  Presidents and Congress have similarly identified the status of 
religious freedom as preeminent among rights. In his 1941 State of the 
Union Address, for example, President Franklin Roosevelt included 
religious freedom as one of four essential human freedoms. Just 4 years 
later, the United States signed the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights, which asserts that religious freedom is an inalienable right 
universal to all members of the human family.
  The last several Presidents have issued annual proclamations 
declaring January 16 to be Religious Freedom Day. Those proclamations, 
by Presidents of both parties, have said that religious freedom is a 
core value of our democracy, that it is essential to our dignity as 
human beings, and that no freedom is more fundamental than the right to 
practice one's religious beliefs.
  Turning to Congress, the House Foreign Affairs Committee in 1955 
approved a resolution ``reaffirming the rights of the people of the 
world to freedom of religion.'' The committee said that this resolution 
``recognizes that the basic strength of the United States is spiritual 
and that all races, people, and nations of the world share with us a 
dependence on such strength.''
  I mentioned earlier that Congress in 1998 unanimously enacted the 
International Religious Freedom Act. This body passed it by a vote of 
98 to 0. Twenty-one Senators serving today--12 Republicans and 9 
Democrats--voted for this legislation. So did Vice President Joe Biden 
and Secretary of State John Kerry when they served here. That law 
declares religious freedom to be a universal human right, a pillar of 
our Nation, and a fundamental freedom.
  In subsequent speeches, I will explore the responsibility of 
government regarding an inalienable and preeminent right such as 
religious freedom, but I want to note two things at this point. First, 
as the Declaration of Independence asserts, government exists to secure 
inalienable rights. Second, if a

[[Page 15802]]

right is preeminent, it must be properly accommodated when government 
takes actions such as enacting legislation and issuing regulations.
  The status of religious freedom is that it is inalienable and 
preeminent. Let me turn now to exploring the substance of religious 
freedom in terms of both its depth, or what religion freedom is, and 
its breadth, or those to whom religious freedom belongs.
  First, depth. Starting in the early 17th century, religious freedom 
in America has been understood to be grounded in the individual right 
of conscience. Roger Williams established a settlement in 1636 for 
those he described as the distressed of conscience, and subsequent town 
agreements and ordinances restricted government to civil things and 
protected the liberty of conscience.
  This liberty of conscience encompasses not only what an individual 
believes but also how an individual acts on that belief. The Maryland 
Toleration Act of 1649, for example, provided that no person shall be 
troubled ``in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise 
thereof.''
  The Virginia Declaration of Rights was the model for the Bill of 
Rights in the U.S. Constitution. The free exercise of religion is the 
first individual right listed in the First Amendment. That phrase, the 
``free exercise of religion,'' is very important--extremely important. 
The First Amendment protects not simply certain exercises of religion 
or the exercise of religion by certain parties but the free exercise of 
religion itself.
  Religious freedom is more than religious speech, which would be 
otherwise protected by the First Amendment, or attending a worship 
service on the Sabbath. It is, as Madison put it, the freely chosen 
manner of discharging the duty an individual believes he or she owes to 
God.
  This robust substance of religious freedom is described in the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United States signed 
in 1948. Article 18 states: ``Everyone has the right to freedom of 
thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change 
his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with 
others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in 
teaching, practice, worship and observance.''
  That is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  The United States signed the Helsinki Accords in 1975. Section VII 
declares the signatories ``will recognize and respect the right of the 
individual to profess and practice, alone or in community with others, 
religion or belief in accordance with the dictates of his own 
conscience.'' Such rights derive from ``the inherent dignity of the 
human person and are essential for his full and free development.''
  In 1992, the United States ratified the International Covenant on 
Civil and Political Rights. Article 18 echoes the same robust 
definition of religious freedom as the right, individually or in 
community with others, in public or in private, to believe and to 
practice one's religion. This robust description expresses the depth of 
religious freedom.
  The second dimension to the substance of religious freedom is its 
breadth or its application across society. Earlier I mentioned the 
Maryland Toleration Act of 1649, which protected the free exercise of 
religion. It did so, however, only for Trinitarian Christians. The 
Puritans of Massachusetts Bay Colony outlawed the Quakers and punished 
heretics. In fact, Roger Williams went to what would become Rhode 
Island after being banished from Massachusetts because of his religious 
beliefs.
  In those days, religious freedom had depth but not much breadth. Yet 
seeds were being planted. In 1657, residents of a community known today 
as Flushing, NY, signed a petition called the ``Flushing 
Remonstrance.'' This petition protested a ban on certain religious 
practices that prevented the Quakers from worshipping, and the signers 
stated they would let everyone decide for themselves how to worship.
  America's Founders were the ones who asserted most directly that 
religious freedom is inalienable and, accordingly, established its 
breadth in the First Amendment. Rather than being limited to adherents 
of a particular faith, this protection applies to anyone acting 
according to the dictates of conscience.
  The status and substance of religious freedom became concretely 
reflected in Supreme Court decisions in the 20th century. In Sherbert 
v. Verner, a woman was fired from a State government job for refusing 
to work on Saturday as required by her Seventh-Day Adventist faith. The 
Supreme Court affirmed that the door to government regulation of 
religious belief was ``tightly shut'' and set a standard that only 
barely opened the door to government regulation of religious behavior.
  The Court said that government limitations on religiously motivated 
conduct could be justified only by ``the gravest abuses, endangering 
interests.'' Therefore, the Court said, Government must have more than 
a mere rational reason for restricting religious practice. In 1981, the 
Supreme Court reaffirmed the Sherbert standard by holding that 
government may ``justify an inroad on religious liberty by showing that 
it is the least restrictive means of achieving some compelling state 
interest.''
  This holding was consistent with the path of American history 
regarding religious freedom. The protection of something, after all, 
goes hand in hand with that thing's value. If religious freedom is 
inalienable and preeminent, then it must be properly protected by law.
  All of that changed in 1990. In a case titled ``Employment Division 
v. Smith,'' two Oregon State employees were fired for using peyote, a 
controlled substance, in their Native American religious ceremonies. 
The law did not single out religious use of this drug, but its 
application to these individuals seriously inhibited the practice of 
their religion. The Court should have applied the Sherbert standard and 
required the State to show a compelling justification for applying this 
law against religious adherents.
  Instead, the Court turned the Sherbert standard on its head. The 
Court did exactly what it had rejected in Sherbert less than 30 years 
earlier, holding that the government needs nothing more than a rational 
reason for a general law or regulation that restricts the practice of 
religion. In other words, so long as the government is not explicitly 
targeting religion, the First Amendment provides no protection at all 
for the free exercise of religion, as that case held. The Court 
effectively demoted religious freedom from a fundamental right to 
little more than an optional fringe benefit.
  In my opening statement at the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing 
in September 1992 on a legislative response to this decision, I said 
the Smith standard is ``the lowest level of protection the Court could 
have afforded religious conduct.''
  In Smith, the Court made it sound as if the Sherbert decision had 
spawned an epidemic of people using religious objections to obeying 
laws. The truth is that Courts had not applied the Sherbert standard 
strictly at all but with what the Congressional Research Service has 
described as a light hand. In the years between the Court's decision 
and Sherbert establishing the compelling interest standard and its 
decision in Smith abandoning that standard, Federal courts rejected 
more than 85 percent of religious exercise claims.
  Government today compromises, burdens, and even prohibits the 
exercise of religion not by overt assault but by covert impact. Zoning 
ordinances can restrict where churches may meet, whether they may 
expand their meeting places, and what services they may offer; 
religious institutions may be forced to hire individuals who do not 
share their faith; and regulations may prohibit individuals from 
wearing items required by their faith or require employees to work on 
their Sabbath.
  If government exists to secure inalienable rights such as religious 
freedom, it must properly respect and accommodate that right even as it 
becomes more and more intrusive. In fact, it is the increasing reach of 
government that makes vigilance about

[[Page 15803]]

protecting religious freedom more, not less, important. Requiring a 
compelling reason to restrict religious practice identifies religious 
practice as important. Requiring only a rational reason to restrict 
religious practice identifies it as worth very little.
  It is hard to overstate the impact of the Smith decision. It stopped 
dead in its tracks the long and steady progress toward real protection 
for religious freedom. Government has its greatest impact on religion 
today not by direct suppression but by indirect restriction. If the 
status of religious freedom as inalienable and preeminent compels its 
protection, then reducing that status, as the Court did in Smith, opens 
religious freedom to restriction and prohibition.
  Congress responded to the Smith decision by enacting the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. We were motivated by the very 
understanding of religious freedom that the Supreme Court had 
abandoned; namely, that religious freedom is inalienable and 
preeminent. RFRA does by statute what the First Amendment is supposed 
to do. Under RFRA, government may substantially burden the exercise of 
religion only if doing so is the least restrictive means of achieving a 
compelling governmental purpose.
  Congress enacted RFRA for one simple reason. While the First 
Amendment protected the free exercise of religion itself, by changing 
what First Amendment means, the Supreme Court in Smith put the free 
exercise of religion itself at risk. The Court made every exercise of 
religion by everyone vulnerable to governmental restriction, 
interference, and even prohibition. RFRA restored religious freedom by 
setting a standard of protection that reflects the true value of what 
it protects and applies that standard across the board.
  This principle is so powerful that RFRA not only passed Congress 
almost unanimously, but it was supported by a coalition of 
unprecedented ideological breadth. That consensus existed because we 
rejected numerous requests to go beyond setting the standard and 
dictate how it should be applied in certain cases. We refused to do 
that in RFRA because the First Amendment does not do that. We set the 
right standard and left its application to the courts in individual 
cases.
  In a 1994 religious exercise case, Justice David Souter urged the 
Court to reconsider its decision in Smith and described what is truly 
at stake. He wrote: ``The extent to which the Free Exercise Clause 
requires government to refrain from impeding religious exercise defines 
nothing less than the respective relationships in our constitutional 
democracy of the individual to government and to God.''
  Properly understanding the status and substance of religious freedom 
naturally puts those relationships in order. Misunderstanding or 
distorting those principles interferes with these relationships and 
imperils this fundamental human right.
  In 1997, the Supreme Court held that RFRA applies only to the Federal 
Government because the Congress did not have authority to extend its 
protection to State and local government. As Smith had done, this 
decision made every religious practice by everyone vulnerable to 
government restriction. By these two decisions, the Supreme Court 
ensured that no one in America had either constitutional or statutory 
protection to practice their faith.
  I introduced the Religious Liberty Protection Act in June 1998 to 
reestablish the religious freedom that the Supreme Court had again 
taken away, having been an author of the Religious Freedom Restoration 
Act. Like RFRA did, this legislation set a tough legal standard 
reflecting the true status and substance of religious freedom and left 
it to the courts to apply this standard to individual cases. 
Unfortunately, although it had bipartisan support, consideration of 
this bill stalled in the 105th Congress.
  I next introduced a Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons 
Act to protect religious freedom for as many and as completely as 
possible. It set the same rigorous standard for government interference 
in the practice of religion, requiring that such actions be the least 
restrictive means of achieving a compelling government purpose. Within 
2 weeks both the Senate and House had passed this legislation without 
objection. As he had done with RFRA, President Bill Clinton signed this 
legislation into law.
  It is shocking how little it took--just two Supreme Court decisions--
to stall America's centuries-long journey of religious freedom. As a 
result, the law today does not adequately protect religious freedom. 
You and I can claim the First Amendment's protection only if the 
Federal Government explicitly targets our religious practice. The First 
Amendment is not available at all when State and local governments 
restrict or even prohibit religious practice altogether. Even the 
legislation passed unanimously by Congress is unavailable when State 
and local governments restrict religious freedom.
  We live in troubled times, and many things we once took for granted 
are being challenged and even attacked. Today the rhetoric about 
religious freedom does not match the reality.
  In his 1810 State of the Union Address, President James Madison said 
that a well-instructed people can alone be a free people. The more we 
understand how religious freedom is inalienable and preeminent, how it 
is deep in substance and broad in application, the better equipped we 
are to promote and defend it. Only then will government not only pay 
lipservice to the fundamental right to religious freedom but will 
provide for and properly accommodate it so that it will be a reality 
for all of us.
  These remarks are very important because a lot of people don't 
realize that religious freedom is not as free as the original Founding 
Fathers expected it to be. Even though we have had some very 
interesting cases, not the least of which was the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act case, we are not there as far as true and noble 
protection of religious freedom throughout this country.
  Fortunately, most States do respect this, and fortunately, hopefully, 
most governmental people respect this as well. But that is not enough. 
We need to change these things and get religious freedom the preeminent 
position it really holds as the first clause of the First Amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The Senator from Oklahoma.


             International Commitments on Carbon Emissions

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we are a little more than a month away 
from the United Nations climate conference in Paris. The countries 
continue to roll out their international pledges to reduce carbon 
emissions in an attempt to control global warming. I can't believe it, 
but this is the 21st year they have done this.
  I wrote a book once about this, and the last chapter is the longest 
chapter. It talks about the motivation and why the United Nations wants 
to get into this thing and what is in it for them.
  I think we all know that every time the United Nations does 
something, it is contrary to the interest of the United States. We 
write a letter, which is usually a threat to withhold funding, and that 
really gets them upset. Of course, what they really want is to have 
something there that they can draw on so that they don't have to be 
obligated to any of the countries that are participating.
  Anyway, this is not the time to get into that, but I am just saying 
that this is the 21st year they have had this conference, and every 
year the same thing happens: The 192 countries get in there and they 
follow the lead of the United States by saying that they are going to 
be reducing their emissions, and of course it doesn't happen.
  In 2009, Copenhagen hosted such a meeting. I remember going over 
there, and some of the people who attended at that time were Barack 
Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry--Clinton and Kerry were in the 
Senate at that time--Barbara Boxer, and Nancy Pelosi. They all went 
over to assure everyone in Copenhagen that the United States was going 
to pass cap-and-trade legislation.
  So I waited until they had all finished their business, and I went 
over. It was the shortest trip to Europe I had

[[Page 15804]]

ever taken. I was there 3 hours. I was the one-man truth squad. I said: 
You have been hearing from all of these leaders, but it is not going to 
happen. We are not going to pass it. And of course we didn't.
  We are going through the same thing now. While the verbal commitments 
are creating positive press coverage for a lot of people who want to 
believe this stuff--and the President is seeking to solidify his 
legacy--most of these pledges are empty and only place the United 
States in a position of economic hardship, while other countries 
continue on their current trajectory with CO2 emissions.
  Let's start with India. On Friday we received a report from India. I 
didn't see it personally until 2 days ago. It was the most recent 
country to submit its domestic global warming plan. India's plan will 
cost--and I am stating what they have in the plan they have presented--
$2.5 trillion over the next 15 years. Do the math. That is 
approximately $160 billion a year in costs in order for them to do what 
is expected of them as a developing country. Their pledge is based on a 
premise that developed countries--that is us, the United States, always 
picking up the bills--will pick up these costs by financing the Green 
Climate Fund.
  President Obama has pledged $3 billion to go to the Green Climate 
Fund, but the Senate and House appropriators have pledged zero, 
nothing, no money. If you stop and look at one country, such as India, 
with an estimated cost of $2.5 trillion, $3 billion is such a minuscule 
fraction, it is not even measurable. That isn't going to happen, and so 
the President cannot deliver on that promise.
  India's approach to addressing its carbon emissions is a continuation 
of the rich-poor country divide that has plagued the United Nations 
process in achieving climate agreement from the very start. That is 
what prompted the Byrd-Hagel resolution of 1997. I remember it so well. 
I was sitting in this Chamber. I had only been here for 3 years at that 
time. We all agreed to it. It passed 95 to 0. It was unanimous. 
Everyone who was in the Chamber at the time voted for it. It said: We 
are not going to come back. They were really addressing this to Clinton 
and Gore during their administration. Gore had gone down to see his 
friends in Central America, I guess it was--I am not sure--to put this 
thing together. He said: We are going to join you in this commitment to 
reduce CO2 emissions.
  Well, that sounded good until they came back and they had the Kyoto 
Convention. They never submitted it to this body because no treaty can 
be ratified unless it is ratified by the Senate. We never even saw it. 
What is the reason for that? The reason is they knew it wouldn't pass 
because the Byrd-Hagel amendment--and several of us were cosponsors of 
that--said that we won't agree and ratify any convention that comes to 
us and doesn't treat the developing countries like the developed 
countries. Unless it does one of two things, we will reject it: one, if 
it hurts us economically--of course they all do--and two, if China 
doesn't have to do the same thing we have to do. Well, that is what 
happened, and of course none of these things have passed.
  Now the President is trying to do with regulations what he failed to 
be able to do through legislation, and we are seeing that every day in 
the committee that I am fortunate enough to chair, the Environment and 
Public Works Committee. All of these rules are coming before us, and 
these rules are a result of things they tried to do legislatively, but 
they couldn't do--the WOTUS rule.
  If you talk to farmers and ranchers in America, they will say that of 
all the regulations that come from the EPA that are the most damaging 
to farmers and ranchers, it is the WOTUS rule, and that is the waters 
of the United States. The Chair is certainly very familiar with this. 
That means that while we have had State jurisdiction over our water for 
many years, it had one exception, and that is for navigable waters.
  I think all of us who are conservatives would agree that the Federal 
Government should have jurisdiction over navigable waters because that 
affects a lot more than just States. So they tried to do that with 
legislation. That legislation was offered 6 years ago by Senator 
Feingold of the Senate, who is from Wisconsin, and Congressman 
Oberstar, who is from Minnesota. Not only did we overwhelmingly defeat 
their legislation, but we defeated them at the polls in the next 
election, so it gives you an idea of the unpopularity of this. Since 
the President was not able to do it with legislation, he tried to do it 
with regulation. Well, that is the way it is with CO2 
emissions.
  So India sent their plan over. They are the third largest 
CO2 emitter, only behind China and the United States. Its 
demand for coal is expected to surpass U.S. consumption by the end of 
the decade unless the United States helps front India the cash it needs 
to execute its trillion-dollar climate plan, but that is not happening. 
As a Member of this body, we will do everything we can to stop it, and 
we will be successful. We know for a fact that is not what America 
wants to do.
  Now we have China. It has pledged to peak its carbon emissions around 
2030 and increase its renewables to 20 percent of the primary energy 
use. Subsequent to its commitment, China also announced a nationwide 
cap-and-trade system alongside a newfound partnership between U.S. 
cities. While all of these commitments--that is, they have partnership 
cities that say ``We will do it in our State if you do it over 
there''--they sound good to the media, but the facts don't pan out 
because it is nothing more than business as usual. At the end of the 
day, the country gets to increase its emissions for the next 15 years. 
Here is what they call an agreement that is in the best interest of 
reducing CO2 worldwide. Yet they are committing not to 
reduce but to increase their emissions for the next 15 years, until 
2030.
  When they first made their commitment--I called it a nonbinding 
charade because as China's economy has grown, so has its demand for 
electricity. China is the largest consumer and importer of coal in the 
world, accounting for 50 percent of global consumption. Fifty percent 
of the global consumption of coal is in one country--China.
  Over the next decade, China is expected to bring a new coal-fired 
powerplant online every 10 days to give it the electricity it demands. 
Unlike the United States, China does not have other inexpensive energy 
sources. Where we in the United States are benefiting from cheap 
natural gas, China doesn't have the technology and resources to do it, 
so they can't do that. Even though we have this huge shale revolution 
in this country where we are producing oil and natural gas--which 
brings up the other thing we need to do, and that is to do away with 
the export ban on natural gas and oil. But China doesn't have the 
technology to do that, so all they can use is coal. And to continue to 
support the world's largest economy, which China is, China will have no 
choice but to break its promise of hitting its emission peak by 2030, 
and that is not going to happen.
  Russia has pledged to reduce its carbon emissions between 25 and 30 
percent by 2030. Here is the sticking point. Russia made this 
projection based on its carbon emissions baseline of 1990. By playing 
with numbers, Russia's commitment will actually allow it to increase 
emissions between 700 and 900 tons in 2030.
  Then there is Mexico, South Korea, and South Africa. All of them will 
have made pledges not cut emissions but to slow the growth--not to cut 
emissions but slow the growth. In other words, these countries are 
committing to increased emissions through 2030. In the meantime, 
President Obama is committing the United States to cut--not slow the 
growth but cut--its emissions from 26 to 28 percent by 2025. Nobody 
knows how they came to those years. There is no plan that we have seen 
that would do that. But this promise is also just as hollow as what we 
have been hearing from these other countries that I previously 
mentioned.
  Not only does the President not have the backing of the Senate and 
the American people, but outside groups are finding that the 
President's methods to achieve these reductions

[[Page 15805]]

through climate regulations--primarily the Clean Power Plan--are 
faulty. According to a recent analysis by the U.S. Chamber, the 
President's intended nationally determined contribution is about 33 
percent short of meeting its stated target. So that is not going to 
work
  On July 8, David Bookbinder, former Sierra Club chief climate 
counsel, testified before the committee that I chair about his own 
analysis that has found an even greater gap. It was in this same 
hearing where it was stated that to close the gap in the President's 
climate commitment, the United States would likely have to consider 
regulating other industrial sectors, including agriculture. So it is 
not just oil and gas and some of these emitters. It is everybody, and 
it is not going to happen because it can't happen. It doesn't work.
  After that committee hearing, I led a letter with 10 other Senators 
to the President requesting a detailed response for just how the United 
States intends to meet the pledge of 26- to 28-percent emissions 
reduction by 2025. It has been 3 months, and we still haven't received 
a response. So they have been saying this. We are saying: How are you 
going to do it? Three months have gone by, and we still don't know how 
he plans to do it.
  When we go to these other countries, they assume that America is like 
they are; if the President says it, he means it, and he is going to try 
to make it happen. With his pledge to the international community, the 
President is setting up the American economy to suffer great pain for 
no gain.
  Now, his Clean Power Plan lacks credibility. The EPA does not even 
bother to assess the minuscule environmental benefits associated with 
the Clean Power Plan and with the cost of the plan. We are talking 
about something that would be upwards of $400 billion a year. That is 
very similar to when they tried to do this with cap-and-trade 
legislation.
  I had the occasion and I do this: Every time I hear a big number, I 
go back to my State of Oklahoma and I do a calculation. I find out how 
many families in my State of Oklahoma filed a Federal tax return, and 
then I do the math. As it turned out, that would cost about $3,000 per 
family. Now, to some people who believe the world is coming to an end 
and global warming is causing it, that might sound like: Well, $3,000 a 
family is not that big a deal. But let's remember--and I would remind 
the Chair--that it was just a short while ago when Lisa Jackson, who 
was the President's nominee and eventually became the Director of the 
EPA, was asked by me on live TV in our committee: If we do pass any of 
these things, either by regulation or by legislation, will that have 
the effect of reducing CO2 emissions worldwide? She said: 
No, because this isn't where the problem is. It is in China. It is in 
India and in these other countries that I mentioned before. So we would 
be doing that. Even if you are a believer in the doom philosophy, we 
would be doing it in a way that is not going to work.
  So despite all the costs they have, the President's climate 
regulations would only reduce CO2 concentrations by 0.2 
percent. Global average temperature rise would be--would be, I say, not 
will be but would be--reduced only by .0016 degrees Farenheit. It could 
not even be measurable. And the sea level rise would be reduced by 0.2 
millimeters, which is the thickness of two human hairs.
  So it is no wonder the President is working so hard to circumvent 
Congress's role in committing the United States to the agreement.
  I only say this because we are now getting close to December and we 
have been through this so many times before, and this isn't going to be 
any different. There is going to be a difference, and that is that they 
are not going to attempt to do it by passing legislation. They want to 
circumvent Congress because they know Congress reports to the people 
and the people don't want this.
  I can remember when global warming--when they had their annual Gallup 
poll every March. It used to be that when asked what were the critical 
concerns about America, global warming was always--in 2002, 2003, 2004, 
and 2005--between first and second place of the greatest concern. Do we 
know what it is today? Out of 15, it is number 15. So the people have 
caught on. They know it will be the largest tax increase in history and 
that it will not accomplish anything.
  Mr. President, what is our timing situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are no time limitations.


                  National Defense Authorization Bill

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to make some other comments because 
something very good happened, and it is not normally the case. We 
passed the Defense authorization bill. Here we are in the midst of over 
two decades of wars and we are being challenged on all fronts--from 
national states to terrorist organizations and extremists to cyber and 
lone-wolf attacks. Our military is directly engaged in Asia, Africa, 
Eastern Europe, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and the demands that this 
country is placing on them continues to increase. It is greater than 
anything I have ever seen in the years I have been here and probably 
the greatest in history in terms of the numbers of threats to America 
from different countries.
  Yesterday we voted to pass the National Defense Authorization Act, or 
the NDAA, for the 54th consecutive year. I have been worried. The last 
few years we ended up passing it not this early but passing it in 
December. If we had gone to December 31 in those years or even in this 
year, all of a sudden our people wouldn't get hazard pay and they 
wouldn't get reenlistment bonuses and we couldn't let that happen. So I 
am glad we did it earlier this year. I think it is the most important 
bill we pass every year.
  It is our constitutional duty to provide oversight over the President 
and his administration. There is an old wornout document that nobody 
reads anymore. It is called the Constitution. If we read article I, 
section 8 of the Constitution, it tells us what we are supposed to be 
doing--No. 1, defending America, and No. 2, roads and highways. I am 
very glad we passed the highway bill. It is over in the House, and I am 
optimistic they will be able to pass it over there as well.
  So the Constitution says the most important thing we do is defending 
America. It is our constitutional duty to do it.
  The NDAA contains provisions that take care of military men and 
women--the pay, the benefits, the bonuses, the new starts, the 
reenlistment bonuses, military construction, and all of this stuff. 
This bill addresses things such as additional protections for victims 
of sexual assault. It is a good bill, and most of the members of this 
committee have been to the floor today and have talked about.
  I just wanted to mention a couple of things that may have been 
overlooked by some of the other speakers. They should be focusing on 
accomplishing their missions instead of wondering if this bill 
authorizes spending priorities critical to our national security and 
supports the resources requirement of the Department of Defense. While 
this bill does not contain every provision that the Senate wanted, that 
I wanted, that the House wanted, and that the President would like to 
have, the final language is overall good policy for our national 
defense. It provides authorizations in a timely manner. This vital 
piece of legislation sets the course for our national security and 
provides for our Nation's nearly 2.1 million all-volunteer force.
  I was a product of the draft many years ago. I have often said that 
is one of the things that this country probably ought to go back to. We 
wouldn't have a lot of the problems today if we had to have kids go 
through the discipline and the appreciation for our country. But 
nonetheless, this is an all-volunteer force, and it has worked 
beautifully.
  I make it a point, when I go to Afghanistan or Iraq or Africa and 
these places where we have troops stationed, to sit down in the mess 
halls, to go out in the field and eat with them or listen to the 
problems they have and try to

[[Page 15806]]

boost them up a little bit because they know that under this 
administration, which I have called the disarming of America, defending 
America is not the high priority that it should be. This is a time when 
each service chief, secretary, and combatant commander has testified 
that no service will be able to meet the wartime requirements under 
sequestration.
  The President and many people in this body wanted sequestration to 
take place but only for domestic purposes as well as military, and we 
are saying this is where the problem is. Let's look at Secretary 
Carter, our Secretary of Defense. He said recently:

       Readiness remains at troubling levels across the force. 
     Even with the fiscal year 2016 budget, the Army, Navy, and 
     Marine Corps won't reach their readiness goals until 2020 and 
     the Air Force until 2023.

  At a time when former Secretary Hagel says--listen to this. I don't 
know why more people in America didn't hear this. This is the Secretary 
of Defense, Secretary Hagel, who said: ``American dominance in seas, in 
the skies, and in space can no longer be taken for granted.'' This is 
America, and people are thinking that the President might even veto 
this bill.
  Admiral Winnefeld, who is Vice Chief of Staff, said: ``There could be 
for the first time in my career instances where we may be asked to 
respond to a crisis and we will have to say that we cannot.''
  General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says we are 
putting our military on a path where ``the force is so degraded and so 
unready'' that it would be ``immoral to use it.''
  General Dempsey labels it ``unlike any in his lifetime.''
  So the passage of this legislation is absolutely necessary. We have 
passed it. We have done the responsible thing. And I think we need to 
be sure that we use full pressure to make sure the President does not 
veto this bill, because he is toying with a veto.
  We have never seen anything like this in the history of this country. 
We have a level of threat to America, and we are going to have to make 
sure that we pass this bill. I am very proud that it was passed by the 
majority in the Senate.
  I know I am the last speaker tonight. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum, just to see if there is any last message that has to be given.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________