[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14479-14490]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3110, which the 
clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

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

  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.


             Remembering Sergei Magnitsky and Boris Nemtsov

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, 7 years ago, in a squalid cell inside the 
prison that once held the political opponents of the Czars and the 
Soviets, Sergei Magnitsky was murdered for defying the tyranny of 
Vladimir Putin's Russia.
  Many Americans are not familiar with the life of this Russian 
patriot, but it was one life dedicated to and ultimately sacrificed for 
principles that we all hold dear.
  Sergei Magnitsky was an unlikely hero in the cause of freedom. He 
didn't spend his life as a human rights activist or as an outspoken 
critic of the Russian Government. He was an ordinary man, but he became 
an extraordinary champion of justice, fairness, and the rule of law--
principles that have lost their meaning in Putin's Russia.
  Magnitsky was a tax attorney working for an international company 
that had invested in Russia. He blew the whistle on tax fraud and 
large-scale theft by Russian Government officials who had looted more 
than $230 million from the Russian state, but the Russian Government 
blamed the crime on Magnitsky and his company.
  He was thrown into one of Russia's harshest prisons without trial. 
Russian officials pressured Magnitsky to deny what he had uncovered, to 
lie and recant. He refused. He was sickened by what his government had 
done, and he refused to surrender principle to power. For his refusal, 
he was beaten and tortured. He was denied medical care. After 358 days 
in prison, he died in excruciating pain on November 16, 2009. He was 37 
years old. Even after his death, Russian courts convicted him of tax 
evasion in a show trial.
  Sergei Magnitsky's torture and murder is an extreme example of a 
problem that is unfortunately all too common and widespread in Russia 
today--the flagrant violations of the rule of law and basic human 
rights committed by the Russian Government and its allies.
  Today I also remember my friend Boris Nemtsov, a true Russian patriot 
who committed his life to fighting against Putin's tyranny and 
corruption, and fighting for freedom, human rights, and the rule of 
law.
  In 2015, Boris was murdered on a bridge in the shadow of the Kremlin 
in one of the most secure parts of the Russian capital--another victim 
of the culture of impunity that Vladimir Putin has created in Russia, 
where individuals are routinely persecuted and attacked for their 
beliefs, including by the Russian Government, and no one, no one, is 
ever held responsible.
  It has been said that in a time of universal deceit, telling the 
truth is a revolutionary act. My friend Boris Nemtsov was a 
revolutionary and, without a doubt, Sergei Magnitsky was a 
revolutionary. He told the truth, and he gave his life for it.
  That is why, when the circumstances of Magnitsky's death became known 
to the world, Congress acted to protect those still under attack for 
the crime of telling the truth in Putin's Russia.
  In December 2012, Congress passed and the President signed the Sergei 
Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, which gives the Federal 
Government the ability to ban entry to and freeze the American assets 
of anyone ``responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or other 
gross violations of internationally recognized human rights'' committed 
against whistleblowers or human rights activists in Russia.
  This important piece of legislation is a fitting tribute to Sergei 
Magnitsky, and it is a foundation on which we must continue to build. 
We must fully implement the Magnitsky Act by expanding its reach to 
more individuals

[[Page 14480]]

who fit the criteria in the law, and we must pass the Global Magnitsky 
Human Rights and Accountability Act, which will provide new tools to 
hold perpetrators of corruption and human rights abuses accountable for 
their actions around the world.
  The Senate has already passed this legislation, and I hope the House 
and Senate will soon have an opportunity to send Global Magnitsky to 
the President's desk when we consider the conference report on the 
Defense authorization bill.
  Our message must be clear. If you violate the human rights and civil 
liberties of others, the United States will hold you accountable. By 
living up to that principle, we honor the life and memory of Sergei 
Magnitsky. Our Nation and free people everywhere must continue to draw 
strength from his example and, with that strength, renew our commitment 
to stand by those who carry on the fight for freedom around the world.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in morning business on a matter related to privacy 
protection, to be succeeded by Senator Ron Wyden and, if he arrives 
during the time of our remarks, by Senator Daines.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Coons, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Daines pertaining to 
the introduction of S. 3475 are printed in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I am here to speak about the American 
Energy and Conservation Act, which we will be voting on today. I thank 
once more my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their hard work 
on this American Energy and Conservation Act of 2016.
  Yesterday, the senior Senator from Florida made some statements, and 
I would like to address some of those.
  The senior Senator from Florida suggested that developing America's 
energy resources off our coast is incompatible or somehow conflicts 
with Department of Defense activities.
  Let's be honest. Let's just be honest. There have been oil and gas 
operations in the Gulf of Mexico for almost 80 years. Through all of 
this activity, industry and the United States military have been able 
to coexist. As for future production off the Atlantic, I personally sat 
with representatives from the Department of Defense to discuss this 
issue. Their analysis showed that in President Obama's original 
Atlantic Draft Proposed Program, less than 2 percent of the acreage was 
recommended to not have oil and gas development because of operation 
conflicts.
  Now, here sometimes it is ``he said, she said'' or ``she said, he 
said.'' This is objective. This is the DOD Mission Compatibility 
Planning Assessment regarding the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas 
Leasing Program from October 30, 2015. That is where that 2 percent 
number comes from. The American people deserve honesty. We should not 
mislead them. The senior Senator from Florida can vote as he wishes, 
but, again, Department of Defense operations are not an excuse.
  Secondly, the senior Senator from Florida suggested that he is 
looking forward to working with the new administration. Although he did 
not support President Trump, he is looking forward to working with the 
new administration on behalf of the American people. Again, let's be 
honest. If there is one thing that came out of this last election, it 
is that Americans want better jobs with better benefits. The last 8 
years have been hard on working families. That is why they are 
desperate for these better paying jobs. It is fitting in that regard 
that we are voting on the American Energy and Conservation Act. This 
has been studied and is said to incentivize the creation of 280,000 new 
jobs by 2035. This legislation is expected to trigger $194 billion in 
new capital investment in our economy, creating $51 billion in 
cumulative government revenue for our Federal Government and for 
States.
  Now, let's be honest. If you are going to work with the new 
President, let's work on programs that will create hundreds of 
thousands of good-paying jobs for Americans who need those jobs, as 
well as revenue to address debt, deficit, and other issues in our State 
and Federal Government.
  Now, let's also be honest. If America does not develop our natural 
resources, the vacuum will be filled with the likes of Iran, Venezuela, 
Russia, and Cuba--Cuba, which would like to drill off their coastline. 
Now, the choice is either to create good-paying jobs in the United 
States--off States like Virginia and North Carolina--or to forfeit 
these jobs abroad.
  By the way, the senior Senator from Florida gave the reason why 
Senators from mid-Atlantic States should vote for this. He spoke 
specifically about the billions of dollars in revenue that would come 
to States. He complains about it. If I were from Virginia and North 
Carolina or a Middle Atlantic State, I would say: My gosh, I get 
hundreds of thousands of new high-paying jobs and billions of dollars 
to address our States' needs? I would be all about this.
  Now, there are different ideas about the future of energy in the 
United States, and this legislation does not discriminate. It includes 
language introduced by two Democrats and two Republicans--Senators 
Heller, Heinrich, Risch, and Tester--that streamlines the process for 
developing renewable energy on public lands and establishes the first-
ever revenue-sharing paradigm for renewables.
  For those who say we need to do something for carbon-free energy as 
well, this bill does so. The change would incentivize the production of 
27,000 megawatts of carbon-free energy that the Bureau of Land 
Management estimates could be provided for these projects.
  Additionally, we bring offshore wind into the mix, by creating the 
first-ever revenue sharing for offshore wind, incentivizing the 
development of 4,233 gigawatts of carbon-free generation that, again, 
the Bureau of Land Management estimates will be available for 
development off our coast. Now, some say they don't want to look at 
development off their coastline. This would be 50 miles out--at least 
in the case of the oil rigs, 50 miles out. Your sight line stops 
somewhere around 25 miles, at most. So this would not be seen by anyone 
who is otherwise enjoying the beach.
  This legislation makes investment and conservation projects across 
the country. We included another bipartisan provision that provides an 
estimated $807 million for projects that increase access to public 
lands for hunting, fishing, and other outdoor recreational activities. 
This provision was included in Senator Murkowski's Bipartisan 
Sportsmen's Act of 2015, which 24 Senators have cosponsored. The 
legislation makes investments in a variety of important programs--
important to Western States--including the Payment in Lieu of Taxes 
Program.
  The bill also restores the traditional 50-percent onshore oil and gas 
State and Federal share for production on public lands, which the Obama 
administration had reduced since 2010 to pay for spending elsewhere. 
Again, all of this is of particular importance to Western States.
  The American Energy and Conservation Act of 2016 is supported by over 
50 important stakeholder groups, including the National Association of 
Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry 
Council, the American Petroleum Institute, the Western Energy Alliance, 
and the Consumer Energy Alliance.
  There is one more thing. It has been suggested by implication by the 
senior

[[Page 14481]]

Senator from Florida that we are trying to open up acreage off the 
coast of Florida--that we are trying to open up acreage in general. We 
don't open up any acreage at all offshore in this bill. All this does 
is say that if a new President--President Trump--decides to have Outer 
Continental Shelf drilling, there would be a certain model of revenue 
sharing. But we absolutely do not open up new acreage. Again, that 
sometimes seems to be implied. We need to be honest with the American 
people.
  All energy-producing States deserve to share the revenue derived from 
energy developed both onshore and offshore. Responsible revenue sharing 
allows States hosting energy production to mitigate for the historic 
and prospective infrastructure demands of energy production. It just 
makes sense. They need more roads. It helps those States build the 
roads and allows States to make the strategic investment needed to 
ensure for future generations the resiliency of the infrastructure and 
for vital natural resources.
  I urge my colleagues to support proceeding to the legislation so the 
Senate's voice can be heard on this important topic.
  Let's be honest with the American people. This is about creating 
great jobs. It is about sharing revenue with States. It is not about 
opening up new acreage. It is thoroughly compatible with the Department 
of Defense's mission to protect our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                          Government Spending

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, Americans are concerned that we are 
overspending. We are overspending by more than half a trillion dollars 
a year. That is more than $500 billion a year. Now, $500 billion sounds 
a lot more than half a trillion.
  As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, one of the most important 
things that we focus on is oversight on what exactly the Federal 
Government spends its money on. This critical oversight has been 
missing. It is critical that we follow the money because, as we say in 
the budget world, you can lie about the numbers, but the numbers never 
lie.
  Now, Congress evidently doesn't have the time to allocate to see how 
the money is spent because it takes us so much time to allocate the 
money to be spent. In fact, in the last 40 years we have only had four 
times that the budget process has been finished by October 1. The 
budget process for this year, which started October 1, still is not 
finished. We are under a continuing resolution for that. So that would 
leave it up to the administration. Any administration, any business is 
supposed to efficiently manage its area of responsibility. That hasn't 
been happening.
  Just to give an example of some responsibility, I had one young man 
come to me and say: You know, the job that I do in the Federal 
Government doesn't make any difference. Nobody ever uses what I 
produce. He said: I probably shouldn't tell you this because I will 
lose my job.
  I said: Well, I will do everything I can to see that you get promoted 
for doing what you are supposed to be doing.
  I want to give one small example of what I am talking about on 
oversight. Last October, a little known Federal agency called the 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration hired a big-
time public relations agency to ask reporters for help ``refining their 
agency messaging.'' This PR firm asked the reporters to ``keep the 
conversation confidential'' and not to ``report anything discussed in 
the interview.'' Naturally, that caught my attention.
  I immediately reached out to the Director of the President's Office 
of Management and Budget to get more information on the individual 
agency's contract and other such ``messaging'' activities conducted by 
the executive branch entities.
  Simply put, agency spending on advertising, public relations, and 
media relations is largely a black hole, according to the recent 
Congressional Research Service report. No one really knows how much 
these agencies spend on trying to influence the American public about 
what a great job the government is doing. Well, I can tell you that 
America is not buying it. It is hard to tell how much is spent and 
where the money is going, according to the CRS, which reports that 
agencies tend to have great discretion over how such funds are spent. 
Well, why do they have all that discretion?
  To my surprise, President Obama's Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget not only did not know how much the government 
spends on public relations and advertising activities, but he also 
didn't seem to care. That is because they don't want the oversight 
responsibility. Remember that President Obama's administration was 
supposed to be the ``most transparent administration'' in history. As 
Congress and the American people have now learned, it has been anything 
but.
  But the bigger question was now raised: How much do Federal agencies 
spend on public relations and advertising? As Lewis Carroll famously 
wrote in Alice in Wonderland, ``How far down does the rabbit hole go?'' 
The reason this is so important is that Federal law prohibits the use 
of appropriated Federal funds for publicity or propaganda purposes.
  It was this pursuit of fiscal transparency that resulted in my 
request to the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, to investigate 
how much the Federal Government actually spends annually on advertising 
and public relations. What we found is a cautionary tale of how little 
Congress and, possibly, the administration actually understand about 
what the Federal Government spends its money on.
  It turns out this administration spends $1.5 billion annually on 
public relations and advertising. President Obama added hundreds of PR 
staffers between 2009 and 2011 to the thousands who already worked in 
these agencies, which cost hardworking taxpayers more than $500 million 
a year in employee expense. These employees have an average salary of 
$90,000. This contrasts with the average household income in America at 
almost $54,000.
  This information is crucial for policymakers because America's 
overspending problem has created a mammoth national debt of more than 
$19 trillion, on its way to almost $29 trillion in a few short years. 
We hardly have any years where overspending in that year doesn't exceed 
half a trillion dollars--$500 billion.
  GAO notes that these salary and advertising figures do not include 
the $100 million spent on private PR consultants to bolster the 
government's PR efforts. The government also spends more than $800 
million on contracts with outside advertising firms in 2015 alone to 
promote the administration's policies, which when you total these 
numbers equals almost $1.5 billion. That is with a ``b.'' This is real 
money we are talking about. The question is, What do hardworking 
taxpayers get for this money? Some of it probably is essential 
advertising signs, military recruitment, et cetera, but is all of it 
essential and really needed? If they are doing a good job, will people 
not know?
  Certain agencies spend much more of their budgets on public relations 
and advertising than others. In fact, the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau spent a higher percentage of its total budget on public 
relations and advertising than any other agency. I called it an agency. 
It is really not an agency of the Federal Government. We don't have any 
oversight. We don't have any review of the agency's budget or Director. 
That money comes from the Federal Reserve before their money goes to 
the Federal Government so it truly comes out of the money that can be 
spent on projects, but it is taken out so there can be no oversight 
over that agency.
  We got an inspector general appointed to that agency, and he came 
back to say that we don't have the right to take a look at anything 
there. How can that be a government agency? Recently, the Court said it 
is not.
  Why am I concentrating on $1.5 billion? Remember the old saying: A 
billion here, a billion there, and pretty quickly it runs into real 
money?
  Next year I look forward to holding additional hearings on this 
oversight

[[Page 14482]]

issue and others in order to help American families understand where 
their taxes are being spent and what they are getting for their money. 
If American taxpayers see waste out there, I hope they are calling my 
office or other offices to let them know about it. Evidently, we are 
going to have to have it come from the bottom up because it is not 
coming from the top down.
  It is time for the Federal Government to become more efficient, 
effective, and accountable. If government programs are not delivering 
results, they should be improved, and if they are not needed, they 
should be eliminated. Americans who work every day to provide for their 
families and pay their taxes understand it is time for the Federal 
Government to live within its means, just like they do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, we are going to vote on a very important 
piece of legislation later on this afternoon. This is a bill that is 
going to move revenues from 46 States to 4 States. This is no small 
thing. Let me just tell you a little bit about what this bill will do.
  The revenue generated from oil and gas drilling on Federal lands 
offshore is one of the largest nontax revenue streams for the Federal 
Government. These oil and gas resources on public lands offshore belong 
to all of the American people. They are public resources that belong as 
much to someone living in Massachusetts, Kansas, or California as they 
do to someone in Louisiana or in Texas. These are resources that should 
help every American, not just a select few.
  The revenue generated from these public resources goes to the Federal 
Treasury to help pay for Medicare, Medicaid, education, our Defense 
Department. It helps to pay for everything, including reducing our 
Federal deficit. However, in 2006, the four Gulf States--Louisiana, 
Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas--succeeded in passing a law that is 
going to direct an ever-increasing share of these offshore drilling 
revenues away from the Federal Treasury to just those four States. By 
redirecting this revenue, that 2006 law is going to take money that 
should benefit taxpayers in all 50 States and send it instead to just 4 
States.
  How much money are we talking about? In that 2006 law, over the next 
60 years, it is projected to send $190 billion away from the Treasury, 
away from the 46 other States, other than the 4 that are Texas, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. That is the problem. Those are the 
numbers from the Department of the Interior--$190 billion. Now the Gulf 
States are coming back for more. The legislation we will vote on today 
would divert an additional $5.4 billion over the next 40 years away 
from 46 States and to the 4 Gulf States. That is on top of the $190 
billion, which they are already going to get.
  If you come from one of these four States, you should absolutely vote 
for this bill today. You should put out a press release today touting 
your support for this legislation. If you can pass legislation to take 
an additional $5 billion directly from the pockets of the taxpayers in 
the other 46 States and send it to your States, that will be one of 
your greatest legislative victories of your career.
  If you come from the other 46 States, there is no reason in the world 
that you should support this legislation to take even more money from 
your taxpayers and send it to Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, and 
Mississippi. That is all we are talking about--a massive wealth 
transfer from 46 States to those 4 States.
  At a time when my friends on the other side of the aisle are saying 
we need to cut spending to crucial programs that help our seniors, help 
low-income Americans, and help students, we simply can't afford to 
divert $190 billion away from our national priorities and to the Gulf 
States. We certainly can't afford to divert $5 billion more as the 
legislation before us today would do.
  The proponents of this legislation argue this revenue is needed to 
pay for past and future infrastructure demands and to ensure the 
resiliency of natural resources. The Gulf States have already been 
getting revenue from offshore drilling in waters near their States for 
decades, and now most of the fines--$20 billion from the BP oilspill--
are, rightly, going to the Gulf States that were affected by this 
catastrophe.
  We should fund coastal restoration and climate resiliency as a big 
issue for all States, but this legislation is not about our eroding 
beaches and wetlands; it is about eroding our ability to pay for our 
national priorities.
  This legislation would go even further by trying to bribe other cash-
strapped States into allowing expanded drilling off the east coast and 
in other areas offshore. We haven't passed a single law to improve the 
safety of offshore drilling following the BP oilspill, but this 
legislation would try to incentivize new areas to drill in and to risk 
ultimately a spill off one of those States' coasts.
  Fishing off the east coast produces roughly $1.75 billion in direct 
value for our States and more than $4 billion in total economic 
activity each year. Tourism on the east coast generates hundreds of 
billions of dollars in additional economic activity and supports an 
estimated 800,000. That is what we would be putting at risk on the east 
coast, as this bill would do. As we learned from the BP oilspill, 
offshore spills don't respect State boundaries. We would have no 
protections whatsoever.


                              Opiod Crisis

  Mr. President, I would like to take the remainder of my time and talk 
about what I believe is the most important task facing this Congress in 
the lameduck session--providing funding to combat the opioid crisis 
that has spread all across our country.
  Last year, Senator McConnell of Kentucky and I called on the Surgeon 
General of the United States to issue a Surgeon General's report and a 
call to action on prescription opioid and heroin abuse. We both 
believed the Federal Government needed to document and outline a 
national effort to address this opioid crisis.
  Today, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy released a new report, ``Facing 
Addiction in America,'' and I thank him and his staff for their 
efforts. This report should serve as a call to all Americans to change 
the way we address substance misuse and substance use disorders in 
America.
  As a nation, we must approach and treat addiction like the disease it 
is. The physical toll addiction takes on Americans makes this a health 
imperative. The costs of addiction to society make this an economic 
imperative, and the human duty to provide care and hope for those 
suffering from addiction makes this a moral imperative punctuation. In 
order to get help for all of the families who are suffering from opioid 
addiction, the Federal Government needs to invest in funding treatment 
and recovery programs now. So far, I am sad to report that Congress has 
failed in this task.
  When I am home in Massachusetts, I hear enormous frustration from 
people who don't feel adequate resources are being brought to bear on 
this epidemic of prescription drug, heroin, and fentanyl addiction. 
Countless individuals and families suffering with addiction cannot find 
a bed for detox. Then, when they are at their most vulnerable, they 
cannot find a place, a provider, or a behavioral support team for long-
term treatment and recovery.
  To our everlasting credit, this past May, my colleague Senator Jeanne 
Shaheen introduced legislation to infuse a one-time payment of $600 
million in emergency funding to combat this crisis. We were denied. 
Then, again in July, I and others argued on the Senate floor for the 
need to invest $1.1 billion into opioid treatment and recovery programs 
over 2 years. Again, we were denied. We passed the Comprehensive 
Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA, but a vision without funding is 
just a hallucination. We will not save lives and stop this scourge of 
addiction with just words and promises.
  I stand here again today to call on my colleagues and both parties to 
come together and pass legislation that includes immediate, massive 
funding to combat this ever-worsening opioid crisis. Nearly 30,000 
people in the United

[[Page 14483]]

States died from an opioid overdose in 2014. Over the last few years 
Massachusetts, which is mirrored in numbers across the rest of the 
country, has seen a dramatic increase in the number of deaths related 
to opioids.
  In 2014, 1,400 people were estimated to have died in the State of 
Massachusetts from an opioid addiction. Last year the number went up to 
1,700 people who were estimated to have died from an opioid addiction. 
In 2016, it is estimated that that number is going to go up to 2,000 
people who will die this year from opioid overdoses, heroin, fentanyl, 
carfentanil. Here is the interesting number. Just from last year to 
this year, the number of deaths that are estimated to be related to 
fentanyl has risen to 1,500. Out of those 2,000 people, it is estimated 
that 1,500 people in Massachusetts alone will die from opioid 
overdoses. That is a dramatic rise to 75 percent of all opioid deaths 
in our State in 1 year. That is up from 57 percent of the deaths last 
year that would be related to fentanyl in the blood system of those who 
had toxicology exams after they died from an opioid overdose.
  Let's take those numbers and project them. If 2,000 people die in 
Massachusetts this year--and Massachusetts is 2 percent of the 
population of the United States of America--and all you did was 
multiply that number by 50 to get the entire country, that would mean 
that 100,000 people will die this year from an opioid overdose in 
America--100,000.
  This problem is not as huge in the rest of the country as it is in 
Massachusetts and several other States, but we are a preview of coming 
attractions. We have to make sure we put in place the programs that are 
going to help these families deal with this issue.
  Let's put that number in context for the entire country. We have 
41,000 women who die each year from breast cancer. If we don't stop 
this, we are on pace to having as many as 100,000 people die from 
opioid overdoses every single year, which is the same as having two 
Vietnam wars worth of people dying in our country every single year. We 
need to declare war on this epidemic. We need to put the treatment and 
prevention programs in place. Thus far we have not provided the 
resources to the States, cities, towns, families, and community health 
care centers to be able to deal with this issue.
  Right now in America there are more than 2.5 million people who are 
dependent upon opioids, but only a very small percentage of them will 
get the treatment they need and deserve. Our country should be 
providing for those families.
  I believe history is going to judge this Congress on the question of 
how well we responded to this epidemic, on whether or not we heard the 
cries of these families across the country to provide them with the 
treatment they need. This is an epidemic that began because the 
pharmaceutical industry sold a bill of goods to the Food and Drug 
Administration and the American people that these prescription drugs 
were not, in fact, addictive.
  Physicians across our country turned a blind eye, and, in fact, 
rejected mandatory training so they could correctly prescribe opioids. 
Now it is 20 years later, and this prescription drug epidemic that 
morphed into a heroin epidemic has now morphed into a fentanyl 
epidemic, and fentanyl is infinitely more dangerous than heroin and 
prescription drugs.
  We have a moral responsibility here on the floor to provide massive 
new funding in any legislation we pass over the next 3 weeks that 
leaves this Chamber. We cannot, on a bipartisan basis, ignore the 
magnitude of this challenge. Otherwise, we are going to come back here 
next year and the year after and the year after, and we are ultimately 
going to see millions of people die from this epidemic, and history 
will wonder why we did not do enough to deal with it. It is the job of 
this Congress to begin to provide the massive funding that the States, 
cities, towns, and families need to deal with this issue.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for my time on the floor, and I yield 
the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the bill 
that is before us today. We hear a lot of nice rhetoric coming from the 
proponents of this legislation. We hear that the bill is about revenue 
sharing. We hear that the funds will be used for conservation and 
coastal restoration. We hear that the bill is about providing parity, 
and at the same time, there is a lot of rhetoric, but underneath the 
rhetoric and the rosy picture being painted, one thing is clear: This 
bill isn't about conservation or infrastructure or environmental 
restoration. This bill is about one thing and one thing only: another 
giveaway to Big Oil. It is about paving the way for oil drilling up and 
down the Atlantic coast. It is about expanding drilling in the gulf, 
even as those communities work to recover from the BP disaster. It is 
about turning the Arctic wilderness from a wildlife haven into an oil 
field.
  We have seen this from the majority before--a legislative agenda 
focused on giving handout after handout to Big Oil no matter what the 
cost to our constituents. The majority party, the party of so-called 
fiscal conservatism, has no problem breaking out the checkbook when it 
is time to give billions of dollars of tax subsidies to oil companies. 
They see no issue with capping the oil industry's liability for the 
economic costs of offshore oil spills at $134 million--for spills that 
we know can cost tens of billions of dollars, but their liability is 
limited at $134 million. They are all too eager to lift the crude oil 
export ban, shipping U.S. resources and refining jobs overseas, and now 
we have a bill before us that is designed to make it easier to drill in 
the Arctic, gulf, and Atlantic. This bill doesn't just line the pockets 
of oil executives; it takes away revenues from the U.S. Treasury and 
increases the deficit by $7 billion in the long term--a $7 billion debt 
that we are signing over to our children and grandchildren, along with 
a shoreline full of oil rigs. We have a responsibility in Congress to 
make better for future generations and not to leave them with a dirty, 
costly legacy based on the fuels of the past, but serving future 
generations doesn't help oil companies in the short term, and the 
majority party has made their choice clear. We have seen this before. 
Yet it is hard not to be surprised by the timing. We are one week past 
an election where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
campaigned on promises to ``drain the swamp'' and break the mold in 
Washington and free government from the powerful special interests. 
What is the first bill we debate on the Senate floor after that 
election? Another giveaway to Big Oil, one of the most powerful special 
interests in Washington.
  Unfortunately for voters who bought into the campaign rhetoric, it is 
very clear who the majority party is here to serve in Washington. It is 
not the people who elected them; it is the same corporations and 
special interests that have set the public agenda for years, and that 
agenda doesn't come without costs.
  Drilling for oil is a risk-reward proposition. All of the risk is on 
the backs of our shore communities, and all of the reward goes to Big 
Oil. For New Jersey, those risks are substantial. An oil spill in the 
Atlantic would devastate our tourism industry, which generates $38 
billion a year and supports nearly half a million jobs--nearly 10 
percent of the State's entire workforce. An oil spill in the Atlantic 
would destroy one of the largest saltwater recreational fishing 
industries in the Nation. Just in our State, it would jeopardize over 
50,000 jobs in the seafood industry. An oil spill would sink the value 
of $700 billion worth of coastal properties, family homes, and small 
businesses.
  The people I have met on the Jersey Shore are some of the most hard-
working, resilient people I have ever known. These are people who, even 
today, are

[[Page 14484]]

rebuilding their lives and livelihoods in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. 
These are the fishermen who wake up at 5 in the morning and spend the 
day working their fingers to the bone to provide for their families. 
These are the shore businesses that depend on a summer tourism season 
to meet their expenses throughout the year. The last thing they need is 
the threat of an oilspill wiping out their businesses, hard work, and 
ability to provide for their families.
  The oil companies that would benefit from this bill don't need our 
help. Large oil companies--even with gas prices as low as they are--are 
making annual profits the likes of which the people on the Jersey Shore 
will not see in a lifetime. Those people have been working to make 
their voices heard.
  I am proud there are currently 11 other Senators who have cosponsored 
my bill to permanently ban drilling in the Atlantic, but I am even more 
proud that thousands of my constituents have taken the time to email, 
call my office, or become citizen cosponsors of the bill. Many of them 
shared their thoughts on why we should ban Atlantic drilling.
  Charles from Toms River wrote: ``We already have shoreline concerns 
thanks to Superstorm Sandy. We definitely don't need another threat to 
our economy.''
  Jeanne from New Brunswick wrote: ``Tourism is a major New Jersey 
business. Our beaches are pristine and must be protected.''
  Leopoldine from Highland Park wrote: ``I would rather give up my car 
to save on oil consumption than give up the Jersey Shore.''
  My constituents are not alone. There are 120 municipalities up and 
down the Atlantic coast that have opposed offshore drilling and the 
seismic blasting used to locate oil deposits. Over 1,200 elected 
officials have done the same. They have been joined by an alliance of 
over 12,000 businesses and 500,000 fishing families. Their opposition 
to offshore drilling transcends political boundaries and geographic 
boundaries alike. It unites local chambers of commerce with 
environmental advocates.
  We are hearing the same message, whether it is from a beach town in 
Georgia, a homeowners association in Delaware, or the North Carolina 
Council of Churches: Not on our shores. The people who elected us have 
spoken clearly, and we in this Chamber should be listening.
  This past March, President Obama made it clear that he was listening 
when he fully removed the Atlantic Ocean from the 5-year oil and gas 
leasing plan. This was an important victory, but it was only a 
temporary victory.
  It is clear by the Senate's consideration of the legislation before 
us today that lining the pockets of big oil executives is going to 
remain a top priority for the majority party. We must do everything in 
our power to stand up to the oil industry, protect our coastal 
communities, and fight for the people whose lives depend on a vibrant 
shore economy.
  That is why today I am calling on President Obama to use his 
authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently 
ban drilling in the Atlantic Ocean. The authority was given to the 
President by Congress to permanently protect coastal waters from oil 
and gas drilling, while still allowing for important economic 
activities such as fishing, shipping, and developing offshore wind 
energy. Unlike a traditional Executive order, this designation cannot 
be undone by a future administration. It would ensure that the rights 
of our shore communities--to run their businesses, to vacation with 
their families, to fish in clean coastal waters--are protected for 
generations to come. It would continue the administration's commitment 
to preserving our environment, to protecting public health, and to 
strengthening global economies.
  It is not just the Atlantic that deserves this protection; I also 
hope that President Obama gives the same consideration to the Arctic 
Ocean. The Arctic is a fragile ecosystem depended on by subsistence 
hunters and diverse wildlife. Extreme cold and harsh weather conditions 
make an Arctic oilspill both more likely and harder to clean up.
  Declaring the Atlantic and the Arctic off limits to Big Oil is a step 
the President can take immediately to show that we as a nation are 
committed to the future of our shore towns, our beaches, and our 
environment, and to being good stewards of the land for future 
generations of Americans.
  Our public lands should be just that--public assets that are part of 
our national heritage. This Presidential action will ensure that we 
treat them that way instead of monetizing them to build profits for the 
oil industry.
  To me, the decision on offshore drilling is a simple question of 
values. I value the generations of families who spend their vacations 
on the Jersey Shore. It is a birthright. I value the small businesses 
and fishermen who have built and sustained a thriving shore economy 
against all odds in the wake of Superstorm Sandy. I value having clean 
coastal waters, which are home to diverse and rich ecosystems. I value 
the commitment New Jerseyans have for a clean energy future. Drilling 
in the Atlantic is antithetical to any of these values. And it is 
because of those values that I intend to stand with the millions of 
Americans who have raised their voices and delivered the message to big 
oil: Stay off our shores.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues and my constituents in 
the coming weeks to secure a permanent drilling ban for the Atlantic 
and Arctic Oceans. It will be a lasting message for future generations 
that we are not willing to sell the future of their economy or the 
future of their environment for short-term profits. It is a fight worth 
having, and it is one I believe we can win.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, soon we will have a chance to vote on the 
American Energy and Conservation Act, a bill that has been championed 
by our colleague from Louisiana--actually, both of them, Senators 
Cassidy and Vitter--and they have done a terrific job of getting us to 
this point where we are voting on this important piece of legislation.
  This bill is about as straightforward as it can get. It incentivizes 
American energy production through revenue sharing agreements with the 
Federal Government. This is important because States like mine--
especially along the gulf coast--spend an awful lot of money investing 
in infrastructure to support an industry that benefits not just our 
States, not just the region, but the entire country. It is time to 
balance these costs with reasonable revenue sharing agreements such as 
we have struck in the past. Given that these States produce a big 
portion of the oil and gas our entire Nation needs to keep the lights 
on, it is only right that these States should benefit from some modest 
revenue sharing. This legislation would make sure that is possible. So 
I hope our colleagues will support it when we vote on it shortly.


                             Energy Policy

  This legislation is a good example of the kind of energy policy that 
a new Congress can put forward next year and actually have the prospect 
of being signed into law under a new administration, under a new 
President.
  One of the things I think I have observed about the Obama 
administration is that while the President claims to be ``all of the 
above'' in terms of his outlook on energy, he really isn't. He is into 
picking winners and losers. One of the reasons many people in coal-
producing regions in our country felt betrayed by his policies and by 
the President was reflected in the outcome of the vote. In West 
Virginia, for example, I think Mrs. Clinton got 27 percent of the vote 
in a State that previously had been predominantly a Democratic State. 
That is because many people felt as though their very livelihood had 
been taken from them as a result of the regulatory overreach and, 
frankly, what they call--and I think appropriately so--the War on Coal.
  But, as I said, ``all of the above'' is actually the right policy; it 
is just that I don't think President Obama ever really meant it.

[[Page 14485]]

  A lot of folks try to paint with broad strokes about energy: Either 
you are on the side of the environment, climate change, or you are on 
the side of innovation and new technologies, or you are on the side of 
traditional oil and gas development.
  I would dare say--and this may come as a surprise to some of my 
colleagues--that Texas actually produces more clean energy from wind 
than any other State in the Nation. I know we are known as an oil and 
gas State, and that is true, but we really do embrace an ``all of the 
above'' strategy. As a result, I think it has really helped our economy 
stay ahead of the national economy, even during tough economic times 
for the country. So we can have literally an ``all of the above'' 
policy, including one that works well for the environment. As a matter 
of fact, because of fracking and horizontal drilling and the ability to 
produce more natural gas in the United States, we have actually seen 
emissions into the environment come down dramatically because more 
people are opting for natural gas rather than other fuel sources. So 
this is, frankly, a win/win proposition.
  We know that, as I said, Texas is known as leading the way in oil and 
gas production, and this fact was underlined and emphasized just this 
last week when the U.S. Geological Survey announced that one shale 
formation in the Permian Basin near Midland-Odessa contained the 
largest estimate of continuous oil that they have ever surveyed in our 
country. This should give us a little bit of humility when it comes to 
making long-term predictions. I don't know whether it was 10, maybe 15 
years ago, there was some discussion about something called peak oil. 
In other words, the argument was that we had basically discovered all 
of the oil and gas there was to discover and there wasn't any more out 
there. This just shows how time and time again people underestimate the 
initiative and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs and the people who 
work hard, including our scientists, to create new technologies to help 
us move forward. That is why I am optimistic about our country as long 
as we don't stand in the way of those innovators and those 
entrepreneurs.
  In Texas we have learned that the best policies sometimes are just to 
get the government out of the way, off our back, out of our way, with 
its hand out of our pocket, and frankly, let the experts do their jobs 
with limited bureaucratic influence. That is something the whole 
country can benefit from, and I am hopeful that during this new 
administration under President-Elect Trump, working with Republican 
majorities in both Houses, we can begin to untangle the stranglehold 
the regulatory state has imposed on so much of our economy, whether it 
is in the banking industry--I see the chairman of the Banking Committee 
here, and he knows this hot topic well. The regulations put on our 
small businesses, on our energy producers--all of this has stunted the 
sort of normal economic rebound we would see following a recession like 
we had in 2008.
  I am looking forward to getting a lot done to help free up our 
Nation's economy and in particular by promoting our Nation's energy 
resources. We used to think of natural resources as a tremendous 
benefit and a comparative advantage one nation has over another, but I 
have to tell my colleagues that we have squandered those natural 
advantages we have had in this country by not unleashing this sleeping 
giant of American energy.
  It is not just important to our economy, it is important to our 
national security and the world order. As we all know, in Europe and 
elsewhere, people like Vladimir Putin use energy as a weapon. When 
people have a sole source of energy and it is from Russia and he can 
turn it off and on at his whim, that creates a lot of problems for them 
and, frankly, keeps them from asserting themselves in the world order. 
But by providing export capacity like we did with lifting the export 
ban on oil in December and, hopefully, doing the same thing with 
liquefied natural gas--something we have an abundance of, cheap, 
liquefied natural gas--we can provide an alternative energy supply to 
countries in Europe and around the world.
  So we need to seize this opportunity to reform the regulatory 
process. We need to address the renewable fuel standard, which is not 
working for anybody, and we need to build on the energy renaissance 
occurring in States such as North Dakota and Texas and States that take 
a pro-growth, pro-energy outlook.
  I am proud of the energy-friendly environment in my State. The Texas 
example proves that we can take advantage of the natural resources that 
God blessed us with to help consumers, to help seniors, to help people 
on fixed incomes, and we can do this without damaging the environment. 
We can actually do it and improve the environment, as we have seen in 
the case of natural gas production and use taking the place of other 
forms of energy production, and a reduction in emissions occurring 
consistently as well.
  So it is time we take this know-how to the rest of the country.
  I want to make it clear that making our energy sector stronger is so 
essential because it benefits everyone. No. 1, it creates jobs. It 
creates benefits for families who are provided for by those jobs. It 
helps daily commuters out on the road with affordable energy. It also 
helps small businesses do what they can do to keep the lights on, not 
to mention the jobs, as I said a moment ago, created by a healthy 
energy industry.
  With the election that occurred on November 8, with the Republicans 
in the majority in both Houses and now with President-Elect Trump 
coming into the White House, we can make real strides in energy 
innovation and production. It is really a historic opportunity, if we 
think about it. I look forward in the future to discussing even more 
ideas about how we can capitalize on our Nation's energy resources for 
everyone's benefit.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                     Honoring Johnny Michael Spann

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and the 
legacy of an Alabama patriot and American hero, Johnny Michael Spann.
  Nearly 15 years ago, on November 25, 2001, while fighting on behalf 
of our grateful Nation, Mike made the ultimate sacrifice to our country 
in northern Afghanistan. Mike Spann served as a U.S. Marine officer and 
then later with the CIA, when he became the first U.S. combat casualty 
in the War on Terror in Afghanistan.
  As Americans we honored the sacrifices made by those who have served 
and defended our Nation on Veterans Day last week. Mike Spann is one of 
the heroic Americans who ran towards danger, putting his life on the 
line to fight for our freedom. Mike Spann was dedicated to combating 
the tyranny, oppression, and terror that would be inflicted on the 
world by the Taliban and others who share their goals. He gave his life 
to a noble undertaking, and our Nation will be forever indebted to him 
and his family for his service.
  It is my honor to offer my deep appreciation and gratitude to Mike 
Spann for his willingness to put himself in harm's way to protect the 
values and freedoms that we hold dear. His life exemplified honor and 
courage, and he will always be remembered for his great sacrifice.
  As the Director of Central Intelligence said at Mike's funeral, ``May 
God bless Mike Spann, an American of courage, and may God bless those 
who love and miss him, and all who carry on the noble work that he 
began.''
  We should not forget Mike Spann and others like him.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak in strong 
support of S. 3110, the American Energy and Conservation Act. I would

[[Page 14486]]

like to thank my colleague from Louisiana for introducing it, and I 
would also like to thank all of the Members who are cosponsoring it 
with us. I certainly thank Leader McConnell for scheduling a vote on it 
this morning.
  I would like to begin by providing a little bit of context for why 
this legislation is necessary before I move into specifics of what it 
contains.
  For literally centuries in Alaska, we have relied upon balanced and 
environmentally responsible resource development. Whether it is fish, 
game, our mineral resources such as copper or gold, timber, our marine 
mammals, or oil that was used to waterproof ocean-going vessels, 
resources have been extracted or harvested relatively lightly for 
thousands of years but more intensively harvested and extracted over 
the last 100 years. This resource extraction has fed us, it has housed 
Alaskans, and it has allowed us to sustain a life in oftentimes a very 
harsh but, without question, an extraordinarily beautiful environment.
  In the last few years, resource extraction has become strategically 
and economically important to the livelihoods of all Americans. We have 
carefully regulated our resource extraction and protected our 
environment, and today millions of tourists from all over the world 
come to Alaska to view nature and look at the amazing landscapes that 
are hard to find anywhere else in the world.
  Some might say that it is a contradiction to have resource extraction 
on the level that we have in Alaska--providing oil resources, mineral 
resources--and still have this amazing place that people from around 
the world want to see. Our State has truly managed to balance accessing 
our resources while still maintaining the environment and the natural 
beauty that makes us who we are.
  I think many here are aware that Alaska is this amazing place, but 
what I am about to say should not surprise or amaze people. A majority 
of the residents living in Alaska's Arctic, a majority of the tribal 
governments, a majority of Alaska's Native corporations representing 
Alaska's Natives who live in the Arctic, a majority of residents 
statewide, a supermajority of our State legislature, our Governor, and 
every Member of the Alaska congressional delegation whole-heartedly 
support oil and gas development in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.
  I know that the President, the Secretary of the Interior, and the 
team that is responsible for developing a leasing program for Alaska's 
Outer Continental Shelf have all heard this support because, believe 
me, we have made sure that they have. So I am hoping that the news 
reports I have just heard--as I walked onto the Senate floor--from a 
reporter about rumors that the administration intends to put off-limits 
the Beaufort and Chukchi in this upcoming 5-year OCS lease plan. I hope 
the news reports are wrong. I hope they are nothing more than a rumor. 
I hope the administration will see reason and that it will allow new 
lease sales to proceed in the Arctic as is clearly the desire of the 
vast majority of Alaskans.
  This is not the only step that this administration should take. When 
responsible resource production does begin in the Alaska OCS, the 96-
year-old Federal policy of sharing resource revenues with the States 
hosting this development must also apply.
  The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 established this policy for Federal 
onshore revenue sharing at a time when there was very little offshore 
production occurring in our country. That policy has not forced 
resource development on States that are not interested, but instead it 
recognizes that the development requires infrastructure that counties 
and State governments pay for.
  Congress realized in 1920 that we need to share the revenues from 
resource development to help local and State governments with the 
impacts of these activities. This policy has nationwide benefits from 
the east to the west, from the north to the south. Just in the past 10 
years, residents of Michigan have received $5.7 million of shared 
Federal revenues. Missouri residents have received $30.6 million. 
Residents of Nevada have received $108.6 million. I have full 
confidence that these States and counties put those dollars to 
tremendous productive use and certainly do not have any interest in 
parting with them.
  What we are considering today with the legislation that we will vote 
on shortly is an effort to expand Federal revenue sharing to offshore 
areas. It is time to do just that. This is a matter of simple fairness. 
At its core, it is a matter of simple fairness. Offshore production 
should be no different than onshore production. No other State will 
bear the burden of development like we will. Most will only see the end 
result of it. They will see the benefits that come from it--the 
benefits that come with affordable fuel coming out of the pump at their 
local gas station, for instance. But those who host the development 
will bear the burden of development, and in Alaska we are willing to 
bear that burden.
  This legislation has been carefully crafted to apply only to States 
where responsible OCS development is supported. That is important to 
reinforce. We are not pushing this on those who do not want 
development. The legislation applies only to States where responsible 
OCS development will support it. So if a Senator is not interested in 
this development, we have respected their views and left their State 
out of this legislation. This is only about revenue sharing. Our bill 
will not open any new offshore areas to energy development. So those 
that would suggest that this is a Pandora's box, well that is clearly 
not the case. We are talking about the revenue sharing that will come 
to those who support the development offshore. It will not force any 
State to develop its resources if that State does not want to do it. 
Florida is a good example. Florida would see no different treatment 
after the passage of this bill.
  What the American Energy and Conservation Act will do is to make our 
policies equitable so that the States that bear the burden of 
development are finally allowed to share in the government's rewards. 
This is true for both conventional energy such as oil and gas as well 
as the renewables that many Members of this Chamber claim to support.
  In addition to allowing offshore revenue sharing for Alaska and the 
Middle Atlantic States, we have also incorporated a number of 
priorities that this Senator believes the Senate would do well to 
approve.
  Some of these priorities are pretty important to us. We have a small 
funding stream to increase sportsmen's access to Federal areas for 
hunting, fishing, and similar activities. We have included additional 
funding streams for energy research and to reduce the deferred 
maintenance backlog at the National Park Service. This is something so 
many of us have talked about--how to achieve the funding necessary to 
reduce the backlog at the National Park Service. This will help them. 
It also provides a funding stream for TIGER grants at the Department of 
Transportation.
  We fund a tribal resilience program. This is very important to us in 
my State of Alaska, to ensure that our Native communities have the 
ability to adapt to a changing climate and to invest in critical 
infrastructure. If coastal erosion is impacting this, whether it is the 
water infrastructure in a place like Barrow, whether it is the need for 
an emergency evacuation route for a community such as Shismaref or 
Kivalina or relocation, this can help to facilitate this with our 
Tribal Climate Resilience Program.
  We have also dedicated revenues to the PILT program, which has become 
a chronic funding challenge. If you vote for this bill, what you are 
voting for is a more rational energy policy for our country. You are 
also voting for sportsmen's rights, for renewable energy, for the 
health of our national parks, for better infrastructure, and for our 
native communities and their ability to be more resilient and adaptable
  On the other hand, if you vote against this bill, you are not voting 
to halt or even limit offshore development. What you are doing is 
voting to continue an unfair practice toward the

[[Page 14487]]

coastal producing States, and you are also voting against the 
priorities of thousands of your constituents. Those of us who have 
assembled this bill have respected those who do not want development 
off their shores. Now we would ask those Members to respect those of us 
who do support development for our States. We ask you to support this 
legislation.
  I see my colleague from Alaska. I think it is fair to say that not 
only is our Congressional delegation very unified on this, but the 
support from our State and an understanding as to why revenue sharing 
for Alaska and other coastal States that seek this development is 
critically important. I appreciate all of the good work he has done on 
this issue to help it advance.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I commend my colleague Senator 
Murkowski, who occupies certainly one of the most important positions 
in the country with regard to energy as the chairman of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, for her leadership on this bill and so 
many other bills. I am proud to be a cosponsor, with a number of other 
Senators, of the American Energy and Conservation Act, which will be 
taken up here in a few minutes.
  I echo what Senator Murkowski said about this bill. It is a 
commonsense bill. We already have revenue sharing for onshore oil and 
gas production, so it only makes sense--really it is only fair, as she 
noted very articulately--that the States closest to the impacts of OCS 
drilling also receive their fair share of revenues from resource 
extraction off their coast.
  Again, as Senator Murkowski mentioned, this is not going to open up 
development where States don't want it. It is just providing a fair 
share to the communities that bear some of the impact of development in 
the States that do want it, like my State. That is what this is about.
  I am hoping all of my colleagues will vote favorably for this very 
important bill. Senator Murkowski also talked about how this bill does 
not open new areas. At the same time we certainly should not be 
shutting down areas that exist right now for responsible resource 
development in this country.
  In addition to focusing on this bill, which I certainly hope we pass 
soon, we also--I just want to mention we are hearing indications that 
despite the fact that our country needs more energy and more jobs to 
grow the economy, the President might move to close the OCS development 
off the coast of my State to further oil and gas exploration and 
production before he leaves office. This would not only unilaterally 
harm Alaska's economy and kill thousands of good jobs, but it also 
fundamentally misunderstands what is going on in the country right now. 
It fundamentally misunderstands the enormous opportunity of energy for 
America.
  For 8 years we watched the Obama administration delay, disrupt, and 
block energy development for America, certainly for Alaska but also for 
the whole country. It shows an incredible lack of understanding of what 
a great opportunity this is. Let me give some examples: making sure 
that we have our own energy, that we produce our energy, that we can be 
energy independent, that we can create jobs. These are great jobs, by 
the way, for our country.
  Also, something that is never really acknowledged is that in Alaska 
and other places in the United States we have the highest standards on 
the environment, the highest standards of developing our natural 
resources offered anyplace in the world. So when the Obama 
administration has been delaying projects year after year--tiny cuts--
Shell had to spend 7 years and $7 billion to get permission from the 
Obama administration to drill one exploration well in 100 feet of 
water. Eventually they just said: We give up. We are leaving. What does 
that do to the country? It harms our energy independence. It kills 
jobs.
  But here is something else it does. It doesn't help the environment 
as some claim, as the Obama administration claims. What it does is take 
capital to develop energy resources from America, from Alaska, the 
places that have the highest standards on earth, and it shifts that 
capital to places like Russia or Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan or Brazil. 
Remember when the President said: Yeah, we should drill off the coast 
of Brazil in thousands of feet of water. He was supportive of that, but 
he is not supportive of drilling off the coast of his own country. It 
moves the capital to these places that do not have high standards on 
the environment. So, overall, the global environment is negatively 
impacted by these policies. Developing energy in America is a win-win-
win for everybody, including the environment.
  I certainly hope my colleagues will vote in favor of this bill that 
we are going to vote on in a few minutes. I certainly would urge the 
Obama administration not to make the shortsighted decision to kill more 
jobs and energy production in my State by locking up the Arctic OCS 
before they leave.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, this Senator, who has a great stake in 
this legislation, is certainly not opposed to drilling off the shore, 
unless it happens to threaten the interests of the United States. In 
many places on the Atlantic coast and certainly the gulf coast, such as 
the Gulf of Mexico off of Florida, it is the largest testing and 
training area for the U.S. military in the world. Two Republican 
Secretaries of Defense have said: You cannot have drilling activity off 
the coast where this restricted military area is.
  You looked at a map of what the military has suggested off of 
Virginia. It is the same thing. It is no oil and gas activity at all, 
and then no permanent oil and gas activity in a remaining portion off 
the State of Virginia.
  In the State of Florida, of course, we have all the other 
considerations, the economic ones, a $50-billion-a-year tourism 
industry that depends on our beaches being clean.
  This Senator certainly does not have an objection to oil drilling off 
of the coast of Louisiana. The last time I checked, they did not have a 
lot of beaches. But that is what this bill does. It gives the 
incentives for States because they get additional Federal revenue. By 
the way, CBO says that is $7 billion over a 10-year period that would 
otherwise go to the Federal Treasury that would go to the States. It 
gives them that incentive to have drilling off their coasts.
  For those reasons alone, I would suggest that the right vote is to 
vote no on this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the bill before us would incentivize 
offshore drilling for vast swaths of the Atlantic coast, in Virginia, 
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, putting one of our most 
precious natural resources and drivers of economic growth at risk in 
order to enrich a few big oil companies. The two Democratic leads on 
the relevant committees--we have just heard from one, Senator Nelson, 
and we will hear from another, Senator Cantwell--are very knowledgeable 
about the risks to coastline communities posed by offshore drilling. 
They are opposed to this legislation. I agree with them.
  It should be readily apparent to everyone in this Chamber why this 
bill is a bad idea. Fishing and tourism on the Atlantic coasts accounts 
for tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue. In my home State of 
New York, commercial fishing accounts for tens of millions of dollars 
of revenue.
  From the pristine beaches of Florida, from Daytona to the Outer 
Banks, to Virginia Beach, the Atlantic Seaboard is home to some of our 
most visited and beloved vacation spots. A drastic increase in offshore 
drilling, as this bill intends, comes with drastic risks, risks that 
are not imagined or even hypothetical any longer. We know that after 
Deepwater Horizon and other disasters.
  When it comes to protecting our unique and nearby Atlantic Ocean

[[Page 14488]]

habitats, we must guard against policies that can best be summed as 
``spill baby, spill.'' It is a risk we don't need to take. Domestic 
energy production has grown significantly over the past 8 years. Our 
dependence on foreign oil is at a 40-year low. I would also call into 
question the revenue sharing proposals of the bill. Over the long term, 
it would direct $7 billion--billion, that is, not million--away from 
the Federal Treasury. States would see some of that money, but the real 
winners would be the big oil companies for which the market would be 
tilted even more in their favor.
  I think it is telling that one of the first bills the Republican 
majority puts on the floor is a boon to special interests. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on the bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that our leader on our Energy Committee, the 
Senator from Washington, be given the time she needs, even if it delays 
the vote for a couple of minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to join my 
colleagues who have already spoken on this issue, but maybe to give a 
little bit more of a historical context.
  I know my colleagues from a variety of States throughout the United 
States have presented a different viewpoint and have a viewpoint 
because of their own economic interests in their State, but the larger 
question here is what is in the economic interests of the United 
States? All of the land submerged between the territory and seas beyond 
our shores and the oil and gas resources they contain belong to the 
Nation as a whole and to the people of the United States. More than 60 
years ago, a few of these coastal States tried to claim the submerged 
lands and their resources, but the Supreme Court rejected that, 
rejected the coastal States' claims, and held that submerged lands and 
their resources did belong to the Nation--the whole Nation. Their 
response was: ``National interests, national responsibilities, national 
concerns are involved.''
  In spite of the Supreme Court's decision, Congress voted to give away 
the submerged lands beneath our territories and seas to the adjacent 
States in 1953. That Submerged Lands Act was dubbed the ``Oil Give-Away 
Law'' by its opponents. The law gave the coastal States the submerged 
lands to a distance of 3 nautical miles from the coast land.
  For these historical reasons, Florida, Texas, and others were 
included. But in the ``Oil Give-Away Law,'' they also gave coastal 
States the right to develop oil and natural gas resources beneath the 
submerged lands and retain all of the royalties for themselves; thus, 
this big discussion about whether we are going to give Federal 
resources away to these States and put a hole in our Federal deficit to 
the tune of $7 billion. In giving away to the coastal States the first 
3 nautical miles of the Continental Shelf, Congress made it clear at 
that time that it was retaining for the Nation as a whole the Outer 
Continental Shelf, the rest of the Continental Shelf. So the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act, enacted just 3 months after the lease 
giveaway, gave the Federal Government exclusive ownership and control 
over the minerals and wealth of the Outer Continental Shelf.
  We are here because States not satisfied with the generous gifts--
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas--persuaded Congress to give 
them even more revenue in 2006--37.5 percent of the Federal Government 
royalties. Again, some of my colleagues may have supported this--but 
also added to our Federal deficit and blew a big hole into what were 
Federal revenues at that time.
  Senator Cassidy's bill would compound this huge loss to the Federal 
Treasury. It begins by raising the $500 million annual cap on the 
payment of Federal royalties to the Gulf States from $500 million to 
$835 million from 2027 through 2036 and then, in addition, $705 million 
from 2037 to 2055.
  But this bill doesn't stop just there, it extends the payment of 
royalties to five more coastal States--Alaska, Georgia, North Carolina, 
South Carolina, and Virginia--and gives 37.5 percent of the Federal 
revenues from oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf to the 
coast of Alaska, and it gives 37.5 percent of Federal revenue from the 
Outer Continental Shelf to the Atlantic coast: Virginia, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.
  I get that my colleagues would like this money grab out of the 
Federal Treasury. I am sure many of our colleagues would write Federal 
legislation that would also give their States revenue. But all of these 
amounts, in addition to the State royalties by the coastal States for 
oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf, are in contrast, I 
believe, to our national interest.
  This may be a great deal for the nine States and the Senators who 
represent them, but it is a terrible deal for the Nation as a whole and 
the other 41 States that will not have the revenue. What will they do 
about the raid to the Federal budget of over $7 billion that will be 
absent from the Federal Treasury? Are my colleagues going to raise 
taxes on the other side to supplant that revenue, that $7 billion loss? 
Again, those revenues belong to the Nation as a whole, to our citizens, 
not just the nine coastal States.
  President Truman said when he voted on an earlier version of the oil 
giveaway bill:

       The vast quantities of oil and gas in the submerged ocean 
     lands belong to the people of all States. They represent a 
     priceless national heritage. This national wealth, like other 
     lands owned by the United States, is held in trust for every 
     citizen of the United States. It should be used for the 
     welfare and security of the Nation as a whole.

  I ask my colleagues, please do not blow a $7 billion hole in the 
Federal Treasury and give it to a few States, when these lands and 
resources belong to all of us. If we want to help our coastal States in 
some other economic way or some way, let's discuss that, but blowing a 
hole of $7 billion in the Federal budget and then trying to make it up 
later on the backs of the rest of our constituents is an unfair deal 
for the American taxpayer.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this proposition.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Pursuant to rule XXII, the 
Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the 
clerk will state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 543, S. 3110, a bill to provide for 
     reforms of the administration of the outer Continental Shelf 
     of the United States, to provide for the development of 
     geothermal, solar, and wind energy on public land, and for 
     other purposes.
         Bill Cassidy, John Cornyn, Pat Roberts, Mike Crapo, Lamar 
           Alexander, Shelley Moore Capito, Daniel Coats, Mike 
           Rounds, Richard Burr, John Barrasso, John McCain, Orrin 
           G. Hatch, Thom Tillis, Johnny Isakson, John Boozman, 
           David Vitter, Mitch McConnell.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 3110, a bill to provide for reforms of the 
administration of the outer Continental Shelf of the United States, to 
provide for the development of geothermal, solar, and wind energy on 
public land, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alabama (Mr. Sessions.)
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
is necessarily absent,
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?

[[Page 14489]]

  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 153 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--47

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Boxer
     Sessions
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 
47.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. 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. PETERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Bringing America Together

  Mr. PETERS. Madam President, the United States of America has a 
number of defining characteristics: our diversity, our commitment to 
free enterprise, our ingenuity, and our creativity. American ingenuity 
has given us phones, automobiles, airplanes, and the Internet. Our 
creativity has made us the world's biggest exporter of culture, movies, 
television, and music ranging from Motown to Nashville and beyond.
  While these characteristics are central to who we are as a nation, I 
believe it is our democratic system of republican government that truly 
defines who we are. The American experiment began with the casting off 
of the British monarchy as American patriots spilled blood for the 
right to control their own destiny.
  I am proud to be standing here today as a member of the Sons of the 
American Revolution, and one of my ancestors served with General George 
Washington at Valley Forge.
  Our ancestors learned firsthand that freedom is not free, and it is 
not easy. If you survey the systems of government in place across the 
planet since the advent of democracy in Greece over 2,500 years ago, it 
is clear that democracy is the exception and not the rule.
  We live in a world that in 2016 has theocracies, monarchies, and 
autocracies. The creation of a democracy can require revolution, but 
its preservation requires constant commitment and sacrifice. We must 
hold onto this commitment if we want to keep our democracy healthy. We 
have worked toward the more perfect union envisioned by the Framers of 
the Constitution. We have abolished slavery and expanded the franchise 
to make sure that Americans can vote and have an equal say in our 
future.
  We have also welcomed new generations of Americans from every corner 
of the globe. Just as I am proud to be a member of the Sons of the 
American Revolution, I am also proud to be the son of an immigrant. My 
father served in World War II and met my mother in France. She 
immigrated to the United States, started a family with my father, and 
found opportunity working as a nurse's aide and an SEIU union steward.
  My parents are part of the greatest generation--a generation of 
Americans who defeated Nazism in Europe, struggled to advance equality 
here at home during the Civil Rights Movement, and saw women move from 
home to the factory floor, to the company board room.
  Our memories can be short as we can become consumed in recent 
turmoil, but we cannot forget the challenges and successes of the past. 
We are fortunate to still have living veterans who liberated German 
concentration camps. Millions of Americans still remember the horrors 
of Jim Crow laws.
  As Martin Luther King, Jr., famously said, ``The arc of the moral 
universe is long, but it bends toward justice.'' We have made progress 
in fits and starts, and we have done so, in significant part, due to 
our constitutional democracy. Every democracy is different, and our 
country continues to evolve, but successful democracies share two 
common traits: One, they have fair, vigorous, and participatory 
elections where citizens passionately support candidates of their 
choosing, and, two, when the election is over, all parties accept the 
outcome and facilitate a peaceful, orderly transition of power.
  As long as these traits persist, we will remain a successful 
democracy. While I am deeply disappointed by the outcome of last week's 
Presidential election, I accept it, and so do President Obama and 
Secretary Clinton.
  I hope Americans of all political stripes can acknowledge President 
Obama's commitment to put President-Elect Trump in a position where he 
can begin working for the good of the country. I also hope that all 
Americans are able to appreciate Secretary Clinton's strength and 
resolve since the election and her acceptance of the electoral college 
result, once again showing that a person who receives the most votes 
does not necessarily win, even though she received well over 1 million 
more votes than President-Elect Trump nationally.
  The weeks after elections generally are a time for healing. While 
President Obama and Secretary Clinton have done their part, we remain a 
very polarized country. This has been a particularly contentious, 
abnormal election. I have never seen anything like it in my life.
  During a campaign season, we need to engage in vigorous debates about 
the future of our country and vigorously advocate for our preferred 
candidates. But when it is all said and done, and the election is over, 
we must come together as a country and do what is right for America. We 
must seek a common good, especially at a time when the country is 
nearly equally divided. We need to think about the dreams that unite us 
and not the nightmares that could tear us apart.
  Michiganders from across the ideological spectrum want the same 
things: a job that pays a fair wage, the chance to send their children 
to good schools and live in safe neighborhoods, affordable, quality 
health care, and, after they have worked their whole life, the ability 
to retire with dignity. While our economy continues to grow and create 
jobs, too many families find themselves unable to get ahead. We need to 
take a step back and ask some serious questions about whether our 
policies are helping everyone. Are American trade deals working? Are we 
doing enough to support American manufacturing?
  While he tapped into some of these legitimate concerns over the past 
2 years, it is no secret that President-Elect Trump, unfortunately, ran 
a divisive campaign that stoked deep-seated fears and anxieties in many 
Americans. Much of the rhetoric of the Trump campaign far exceeded the 
acceptable norms of political discourse.
  We cannot have a mainstream political dialogue that demeans women and 
disabled Americans or that advocates for conversion therapy for LGBT 
Americans. It is dangerous, it is unacceptable, and it is not normal. 
It must never, ever be normal. We can never accept or normalize hatred. 
Trafficking in racism, misogyny, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and anti-
Semitism is dangerous, it is unacceptable, and it is not normal. It 
must never be normal.
  What is now happening with the appointment of a White House Chief 
Strategist with ties to the White nationalist movement is dangerous, it 
is

[[Page 14490]]

unacceptable, it is certainly not normal, and it must never be normal. 
I am deeply alarmed that President-Elect Trump has appointed Mr. Bannon 
to such an important position, and I urge him to reconsider this 
decision.
  I am proud that Michigan is a diverse State. I have heard from over 
1,000 Michiganders about Mr. Bannon's appointment. Yes, some are angry, 
but more are scared--scared that the America that had welcomed them and 
welcomed my mother is at risk of disappearing. I have heard from 
mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, Muslim Americans, Jewish 
Americans, African Americans, and Latino Americans. They are asking 
what their place will be in President Trump's America as our American 
experiment enters into an unprecedented new era.
  As our Nation continues to move forward, I would urge President-Elect 
Trump to look back and consult the namesake of the city in which he 
will soon be living--President George Washington. In a letter written 
in 1790 to the Newport Hebrew congregation, at the time the largest 
community of Jewish families in America, President Washington 
succinctly addressed their fears of religious oppression, and he wrote: 
``The government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no 
sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who 
live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens.''
  He added that ``every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and 
fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.''
  President-Elect Trump won, and the people are afraid. It is now his 
job to bring our Nation together. It is his job to give bigotry no 
sanction and persecution no assistance. The appointment of Mr. Bannon 
is clearly a large step in the wrong direction. If this is indicative 
of how the President-elect is going to run his administration, he can 
expect me and my fellow Democratic colleagues to fight him every step 
of the way. On the other hand, if the President-elect is prepared to be 
a ``President for all Americans'' and to ``bind the wounds of 
division,'' as he pledged in his victory speech just last week, I 
certainly hope that we can find common ground.
  Whether it is making trade policy work for American manufacturers, 
supporting small businesses, bolstering cyber security, establishing 
meaningful paid and parental leave policies, or investing in 
infrastructure, if the President-elect is ready to roll up his sleeves 
and do what is right by American workers and American families, I will 
work with him.
  We don't have Democratic bridges or Republicans roads; we don't have 
Democratic ports and Republican railroad tracks. They are truly 
nonpartisan. Improving our country's infrastructure is something we can 
come together on and show Americans we are ready to do the people's 
work.
  Democracy is a wonderful thing, but history shows us that it can also 
be fragile. We must preserve our democratic institutions and show the 
people of America that these institutions and their elected officials 
are working for all Americans. I intend to spend the next 4 years 
working for what is right for our country and what is right for 
Michigan, and I hope our President-elect joins me.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.

                          ____________________