tv US Senate CSPAN November 17, 2016 10:00am-12:01pm EST
a senator: i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call are sus spoanldzed. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, seven years ago this week, in a cell inside the prison that once held the political opponents of the czars and soviets, sergey was murdered defying vladimir putin's russia. many americans are not familiar with the life of this russian patriot but it was dedicated to, it was one life dedicated to and ultimately sacrificed for principles that we all hold
dear. he was none like the hero in the -- unlikely hero in the cause of freedom. he didn't spend his life as a human activist or 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, princeles that have -- principles that have lost their meaning in putin's russia. he was a tax attorney working for an international company that invested in russia. he blue the whistle on tax fraud 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 unoffered, to
lie and recant. he refused. he was sickened by what his government had done, and he refused to surrender principle to power. and for his refusal, he was beaten and tortured. he was denied medical care. after 358 days be 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 unforfortunaty 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 nemsov, a true russian patriot who committed his life to fighting putin's tyranny and corruption and fighting for freedom, human rights and the rule of law. in 2016, 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's been said that in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. my friend boris nemsov 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. december, 2012, congress passed and the president signed the sergei magnitsky act rule of law accountability, which gives the federal government the ability to ban entry to and freeze the american assets of anyone -- quote -- responsible for extra judicial killings, torture or other gross violations of the internationally recognized human rights committed against whistle-blowers or human rights activists in russia. this important piece of legislation is a fitting tribute to sergei magnitsky, and it's a foundation on which we must continue to build. we must fully implement the
magnitsky act by expanding its reach to more individuals 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 will soon have an opportunity to send global magnitsky to the president's desk and 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
a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. a senator: mr. president, are we currently in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. a senator: mr. president, i ask the proceedings be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to address the senate as if 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. mr. coons: mr. president, i rise to address a pending change to privacy protection contained in the federal rules of civil procedure, but before i proceed to the details, the sometimes wonky details of what we actually do here, let me just start by speaking to concerns i've heard. as early as this morning from my train ride down from wilmington, delaware, by e-mails, texts and
by from my friends in the state of delaware and all over the country, folks are concerned about what this election means and if we can work together in ways that defend the fundamental liberties on which this country rests. i want to start by remarking that senator wyden and i are here on the floor today talking about a bill that we have crafted and we are introducing in partnership with other senators, with senators mike lee and steve daines and al franken who represent literally the farthest edges of this chamber in terms of ideology. if you just looked at a sort of top five issues on which we agree, we agree on relatively little. but as a group of republicans and democrats, we've agreed to work together, to restrain and attempt frankly initiated by the current department of justice, to modify the federal rules of criminal procedure in a way that we are concerned implicates or
invades our 4th amendment constitutional protections. and i hope those who watch what happens on this floor find encouragement in the fact that republicans and democrats before this election's outcome had come together to craft this bill and this approach and to move forward in a way that shows that bipartisan commitment to protecting our constitutional liberties remains alive and well here in this chamber. let me briefly address what it is i'm talking about because i think it has serious and far-reaching implications for the privacy of ordinary americans. these rules, the federal rules of criminal procedure, govern the procedures for investigation and prosecution of individuals within our american criminal justice system, and it's essential these rules strike a careful balance giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate crimes and keep us safe while also protecting americans' constitutional rights to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, our right
to privacy. earlier this year on april 30, the supreme court approved changes to the federal rules that would shift this balance, potentially greatly expanding the scope of search warrants. neither the senate nor the house held a hearing or a markup on the relevant committees to evaluate these changes. the body of government closest to the people has failed to way in at all on this issue. if we the congress do nothing, the proposed rule changes will go into effect december 1 of this year. while the proposed changes are not necessarily good or bad, they are serious, and they present significant policy concerns that i think warrant careful consideration and debate. let me quickly outline two of them today. one change would allow any magistrate judge in any district in america to issue a warrant for information outside that magistrate's district. if the location of the information that law enforcement is seeking has been concealed.
this change ensures investigators have a jurisdiction to go to where they can seek a warrant particularly for enter information that is -- cyber information that is concealed and it is impossible to know the district in which the attack originated. another change would allow a judge to issue a warrant for information on devices located in five or more judicial districts. and while the department of justice argues this change will improve the efficiency of investigations, by eliminating the need to seek multiple warrants to reach all the devices that are suspected of being the same cyber criminal network, this represents a sweeping change to how search warrants are traditionally reviewed, issued and executed. i think all americans should want criminal investigations to proceed quickly and thoroughly, but i'm concerned that these changes could remove important judicial safeguards by allowing one judge -- one judge -- to decide on a search that would give the government the ability to search and possibly alter
hundreds or even thousands of computers owned by innocent americans across the country. these changes would also incentivize investigators to forum shop, to seek a multijurisdictional warrant from the official most likely to improve a sweeping search. so in october a bipartisan group of 23 members of congress wrote attorney general lynch to request more information about these changes to rule 41, and we're still waiting for a response. so many con flicks and questions unanswered, it is important the department of justice and this body have time to carefully answer these questions. so today we're introducing legislation that gives congress that time. senators daines and lee and franken joined senator wyden and me to delay these changes until july 1 of next year. we all want to ensure the american people are kept safe from cyber hackers and online criminal activity. we all want law enforcement to have the tools they need to keep
us safe. but our desire for safety and our desire for an efficient criminal justice system should not require us to forfeit our fundamental constitutional rights to privacy and protection from searches and seizures. so let me now yield the floor to my friend and colleague, senator wyden, who has been such a tireless and effective and engaged advocate on exactly these issues. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i want to thank senator coons for his work and his very thoughtful statement. i particularly appreciate your emphasizing the fact that this effort began long before november 8. this has been a bipartisan effort for some time. democrats and republicans across the political spectrum saying, look, the country wants policies that make us safer and
protect our liberties. and if we're not careful, we're going to get policies that don't do much of either and in fact set us back. so i very much appreciate what my colleague is doing. it is a simple proposition that senator coons advances today, and that is when you're talking about a monumental change, one judge with one warrant making it possible to hack thousands of computers, this is not kind of a modest alteration in the way business is done in washington, d.c. this is a enormous public policy shift. and the idea that the congress, without even one hearing, without even one debate, without even one opportunity for
members to weigh in formally, in my view, just defies common sense and our responsibilities. and i very much appreciate what my colleague is doing. and suffice it to say, this was important before the election, but right now when we have scores of americans wondering about the very future of the core constitutional protections they rely on, your bill, senator coons, in effect makes it clear that those basic values and the sanctity of the courts and due process and the rule of law, these are not going to be values that are going to be set aside because of what happened on november 8, and that there are going to be democrats and republicans working together
here in the senate. i remember when senator paul, who's made very valuable contributions on this and other issues, began to discuss some of these matters with me. i was on the intelligence committee. we in effect said it's almost like around here we've got a ben franklin caucus. ben franklin famously said anyone who gives up their liberty to have security doesn't deserve either. it seems to me you're picking up on those principles. i will just, mr. president and colleagues, be brief. the coons bill addresses the cold fact that without urgent action this month, the government is going to have unprecedented authority to hack in to the personal phones, computers or tablets, whatever devices that americans use. and this would be a massive expansion of government hacking
and surveillance powers, a vast expansion of executive power, and to do it without even a congressional debate just would be a monumental mistake. what ought to be done, as senator coons has suggested, is allowing the congress and the american people to have a chance to weigh in on the very substantial constitutional questions surrounding government hacking. now, i sit on the senate select committee on intelligence. i think now having joined before 9/11, i am, i believe, the longest serving member in history along with, with senator feinstein. we can tell you there's no question it is a dangerous world. you go into the intelligence committee, and it is pretty clear there are a lot of people out there that do not wish the
people of our great country well. and it is obvious, as you've noted, senator coons, that law enforcement faces very substantial challenges because technology is constantly evolving. so we want to make it clear, those of us that are supporting the coons bill, we don't take a back seat to anyone in giving our agents the tools they need to demonstrate that security and liberty are not mutually exclusive. we can have both. and that's why i wrote section 102 of the freedom act which actually expanded the government's ability to move when there was an emergency. we've had a lot of discussions about our ability to protect our country in the advent of an emergency situation. that was a provision that i added that i felt particularly strongly about because i wanted
to amplify on what you've said, senator coons, that we're interested in both liberty and security and coming up with policies that are compatible. what we have seen and why the coons review is so important is that too often government agencies have cast too wide a net and swept up information from millions of americans instead of focusing on the real threats, the criminals, the terrorists, the hackers, and that our point with respect to this review bill is that our job consists of more than just having a trust-us policy from the justice department. our job is to ask the tough questions. my late father was a journalist, and that's what he said. he said nobody wants to ask the tough questions.
it takes more time. it makes people uncomfortable. but that's what we're supposed to do, and particularly right now when so many americans are concerned about the threats to their liberty and the security of our personal information. what senator coons is talking about this morning is a more important check on the executive branch than we have had to debate in the past. and that's why your work is so timely this morning. this change would also effectively, if it were to go through in its current form, rule 41 turn innocent victims of computer attacks into the victims of additional government hacking. now, again, this was alarming before november 8. now we need to consider the prospects of an administration led by someone who openly said he wants the power to hack his
political opponents exhibited by theussians. it's troubling how little congress knows about how the federal government currently uses its hacking authority and what it plans to do with expanded powers under rule 41. is it going to clean all the bot nets in the world like the one that recently attacked the internet backbone company? if that's the case, what's the software going to look like? this kind of guy-guy hacking is risky, incredibly risky, even when you have the individuals with the best of motivations in your corner. so as senator coons indicated, we put together a letter late in october before the election -- this is a thoom -- theme members are going to hear. before the election. so many of these concerns were raised. and we said to the attorney
general, attorney general lynch, we've got some basic questions such as how does the government intend to prevent forum shopping by prosecutors seeking court approval to hack into america's devices? how is the government going to prevent collateral damage to innocent americans' devices, electronic data when it remotely searches devices such as smartphones or medical devices? what the latest numbers indicate is a major source of cyber attacks on our wonderful medical facilities, and the questions we asked in that october 27 letter speak to that. we want to know whether the government intends to use its new authority to search and -- quote -- "clean american computers." how is the government going to maintain a chain of custody when searching or removing evidence from a device? how is the government going to notify americans who are the subject of remote government searches? and i'm very troubled by the language in the current proposal
which suggests that the notice process will be very different than what americans have traditionally thought about in kind of the physical world with respect to notice. so the coons bill is important business because we have not yet, our group, our bipartisan group of 23 have not gotten answers to these questions. and we are going to keep trying to learn more about why it might or might not be necessary for the government to have the authority. and i'm going to close with just two requests. first, consent that sophia vott and emily douglas, legislative fellows in my office be given floor privileges for the remainder of this congress. i would ask unanimous consent, mr. president, to have them be able to be given floor privileges. the presiding officer: without objection.
mr. wyden: and second, to wrap up senator coons' discussion which i thank him for leading, by way of saying that i think, colleagues, and i have issued warnings before on the floor and have seen what happens when those warnings aren't heeded. and i just want to say this morning that i believe if the senate fails to stand up for our constituents now and do what senator coons is talking about, which is our job -- vigorous oversight, asking the hard questions, getting the facts about new questions that are evolving, technological questions -- i believe there are going to be problems with rule 41. i believe there are going to be problems at hospitals, at power
grids, at major american institutions, and that if we do nothing except what congress does best -- which is nothing -- and let this go through, i think our constituents are going to come back when there are problems and they're going to say to each of us what are you thinking? why did you vote to allow policies that would permit hacking in this fashion? and what colleagues are going to say is, gee, we didn't vote at all, and they're going to say, you didn't vote at you will? you must have had some meetings? well, we didn't have any meetings. we didn't have any debates. we didn't have any discussions. and they're going to say, you allowed mass hacking by just kind of dropping the ball and saying you had other stuff to do?
i think the american people are going to react very badly, if that is in fact what happens. so i commend you, senator coons. you consistently come to the floor and appeal across the aisle. i so appreciate it. and i hope that we will see action on your very thoughtful bill, and i'm proud to be a cosponsor. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. khasbulatov mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from -- mr. cassidy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator louisiana. mr. cassidy: mr. president -- thank you, mr. president. thank you -- i'm here to speak about the american energy and conservation arctic which we'll be voting -- conservation act, which we'll be voting on today. i want to 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'd like to address some of those. the senior senator from florida suggested that developing america's energy resources off the -- off of our coast is incompatible or somehow conflicts with department of defense activities. let's be honest. let's just be honest. there is a 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. and 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% of the acreage was recommended to not have oil and gas development because of operations conflicts. now, here sometimes it's he said, she said and she said, he
said. this is the planning assessment regarding the outer continental leasing program for oil an gas from september 20, 2015. that's where the 2% number comes from. the american people deserve honesty. we should not mislead them. now, the senior senator from florida can vote as he wishes, but the department of defense operations is not an excuse. the senior senator from florida suggests that he is looking afford to working with the new administration -- although he did not support president trump, he is looking afford to working with the new sphretion on behalf of the american people -- new administration on behalf of the american people. americans want better jobs with better benefits. the last eight years have been hard on working families. that's why they are desperate for these better-paying jobs. it is fitting in that regard
that we're voting on the american energy and conservation act. this has been studied and said to incentivize the creation of 280,000 new jobs by 2035. the legislation is expected to trigger $194 billion in new capital investment in our economy, creating $51 billion cumulatively in government revenue for our federal government and four states. now, let's be honest. if you're going to work with the new president, leat work on programs -- 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 develop -- to address debt, deficit, and other you iss in our -- and other issues in our state and federal government. let's also be honest -- if america doesn't develop our natural resources, the vacuum will be filled with the likes of
iran, venezuela, and cuba, cuba were i would like to drill -- which would like to drill off their coastline. the choice is to create good-paying jocks off the united states -- good-paying jobs off the united states or to forfeit those jobs. 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 mid-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, senator 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. but those who say we need to do something for carbon-free energy as well, and this bill does so. the change would incentivize the production of 27,000 mega-the watts of -- megawatts of free energy. 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 be, 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 15 miles out, at
least in the case of the oil rigs, 50 miles out. your sightline stops somewhere around 25 miles at least. so this would not be seen by anyone who is otherwise enjoying a 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 bein activities. fl this was included in -- this provision was included in senator murkowski's sportsman act of 2017. this is important to western states, including the payment in lieu of taxes program. the bill also restores the traditional 50% on-shore oil and gas state federal share for production on federal lands
which the obama administration had reduced since 2010 to pay for spending elsewhere. again, all of this of particular importance to western states. the american energy and conservation act of 2016 is supported by over 50 important stakeholder griewrp including the national association of manufacturers, the chamber of comerkchamber ofcommerce, the am institute, the western energy alliance and the consumer energy alliance -- all energy-producing states deserve -- oh, one more thing i should say. it has been suggested by implication by the senior senator from florida that we're trying to open up acreage off the coast of florida, that we're 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, that there would be a certain model
of revenue sharing. but we absolutely do not open up new acreage. again, that sometimes seem 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 on-shore and offshore. responsible revenue sharing allows states hosting energy production to mitigate for the historic and prospective infrastructure deed manneds of energy production. just -- demands of energy production. just makes sense. helps states build the roads. the allow states to make strategic investments to ensure for future generations the resiliency of the infrastructure and for the 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 refuse knew with states. -- it is about sharing revenue with states. it is not about opening up new
acreage and is thoroughly combatable with the department of defense's mission to protect our country. thank you, mr. president. i yield back. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: america is concerned that we're overspending. we're overspending by more than half a trillion dollars a year. that's more than $500 billion a year. $500 billion sounds a lot more than half a trillion. well, as chairman of the senate budget committee, one of the most important things that we focus on is oversight on exactly what the federal government spends its money on. this critical over-siewght has been missing -- oversight has been missing. it's critical that we follow the money because, as we say in the budget w0r8d, yo world, you cant the numbers but the numbers never lie. you know, 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've only had four times that the budget process has been finished by october 1. the budget process ha for this year, which started october 1, still is not finished. we're under a continuing resolution for that. so that would leave it up to the administration. any administration, any business is supposed to efficiently manage their area of responsibility. that hasn't been happening. just to give you 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'll lose my job.
i said, well, i'll do everything i can to see that you get promoted for doing what you're supposed to be doing. now, i want to give one small example of what i'm 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 p.r. firm asked the reporters to "keep the conversation confidential" and not to "report any 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 branchentities. 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's hard to tell how much is spent and where the money is going, according to the c.r.s. -- which reports that agencies tend to have great discretionary over how such funds are spent. why do they have all that discretion? to my surprise, president obama's director of office of management and budget not only did not know how much the government spends on public relations and advertising activities, he also didn't seem to care.
and that's 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 learned, it's been anything but. but the bigger question was now raised: how much do federal agencies spend on public relations and advertising? as louis 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 that the government accountability office, g.a.o., to investigate how much the federal government actually spends annually on advertising and public relations.
and what we found is a cautionary tale of how little congress and possibly the administration actually understands 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 thousands -- added hundreds of p.r. staffers between 2009 and 2011, to the thousands that 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 when overspending in that year doesn't exceed half a trillion dollars, $500 billion. g.a.o. notes that these salary and advertising figures do not include the $100 million spent on private p.r. consultants to bolster the government's p.r. 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 up equals almost $1.5 billion, that's with a b. this is real money we're talking about here. 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're doing a good job, won't people 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 call it an agency. it's 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's taken out so that there can be no oversight over that agency. we got an inspector general appointed for that agency, and he came back to say, you know,
we don't have the right to take a look at anything there. how can that be a government agency? recently, the court said that it's not. so why am i concentrating on just $1.5 billion? remember the old saying, a billion here, a billion there, and pretty quick it runs into real money? next year, i look forward to holding additional hearings on this oversight issue and others in order to help american families understand where their taxes are being spent and what they're getting for their money. if american taxpayers see waste out there, i hope they're calling my office or other offices to let them know about it. we're going to have to come from the bottom up, evidently, because it's not coming from the top down. it's 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're not needed, they should be
eliminated. americans who work every day to provide for their families and pay their taxes understand that it's time for the federal government to live within its means, just like they do. thank you, mr.resident. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: as someone who spent over a decade in the private tech sector, i know firsthand the challenges our country faces when it comes to cyber criminals. technology has made it easier for bad actors to steal identities, distribute malware and commit a whole host of other crimes all from behind a computer screen. law enforcement faces a tremendous challenge in tracking and stopping these criminals. the fact is that our law enforcement policies need to be updated to reflect the reality of the 21st century, but these policy changes need to be made through a process that is transparent, effective and one that protects our civil liberties. the changes to rule 41 of the
federal rules of criminal procedure would allow the government to hack an unlimited number of americans' computers, including innocent victims' computers with a single warrant. this rule change was approved behind closed doors at the department of justice. fundamental changes to the way we allow law enforcement to execute searches need to be made through a process that is fully transparent to the american people. we cannot give the federal government a blank check to infringe upon our civil liberties. if congress does not act, this rule change will automatically go into effect december 1. this bill simply delays the rule change. it's a delay which will allow congress to consider new law enforcement tools to a process that they deserve. i urge my colleagues to join my colleagues in delaying this rule, and i want to associate my comments with the earlier remarks made by senator coons and nor wyden.
mr. president, -- and senator wyden. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, we're going to vote on a very important piece of legislation later on this afternoon. this is a bill that's going to move revenues from 46 states to four states. this is no small thing. let me just tell you a little bit about what this bill will do. well, 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 or 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 to 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 four states. and so how much money are we talking about? well, 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 four that are texas, louisiana, mississippi and alabama. that's the problem. those are the numbers from the interior department, $190 billion. but now, the gulf states are coming back for more. the legislation that we will vote on today would divert an
additional $5.4 billion over the next 40 years, away from 46 states and to the four gulf states. that's on top of the $190 billion which they're already going to get. so 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. but 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. and that's all that we're really talking about here. a massive wealth transfer from 46 states to those four states. at a time when my friends on the other side of the aisle are saying that we need to cut spending to crucial programs that help our seniors and that help low-income americans and that help students, we simply can't afford to divert $190 billion away from our national priorities and to the gulf states, and we certainly can't afford to divert $5 billion more as the legislation before us today would do. the proponents of this legislation argue that this revenue is needed to pay for past and future infrastructure demands and to ensure the resiliency of natural resources. well, 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 b.p. oil spill are rightly going to the gulf states that were affected by this catastrophe. and we should find coastal restoration in climate resiliency as a big issue for all states, but this legislation is not about our erodeing beaches and wetlands. it is about eroding our ability to pay for our national priorities. and this legislation would go even farther 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 b.p. oil spill, but this legislation would try to incentivize new areas to drill in and to risk ultimately a
spill off of those -- 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 jobs. that is what we would be putting at risk on the east coast as this bill would do. and as we learned from the b.p. oil spill, offshore spills don't respect state boundaries. we would have no protections whatsoever. i would like to take the remainder of my time and to talk about what i believe is the most important task facing this congress in the lame-duck session -- providing funding to
combat 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 murphy 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 which it is, the physical toll addiction takes on americans makes this a health
imperative. the cost of addiction to society makes this an economic imperative, and the duty, the human duty to provide care and hope for those suffering from addiction makes this a moral imperative. but 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, and so far i'm sad to report that congress has failed in this task. when i'm home in massachusetts, i hear enormous frustration from people who don't feel that 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. and 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 her 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 to the need to invest $is.1 billion into opioid treatment and recovery programs over two years. again, we were denied. we passed the comprehensive addiction and recovery act or cara, but a vision without funding is just an hallucination. we will not save lives and stop the scourge of addiction with just words and promises. so i stand here again today to call on my colleagues in both parties to come together and to pass legislation that includes immediate massive funding to combat this ever worsening
opioid crisis. nearly 30,000 people in the united states died from an opioid overdose in 2014. in just the last few years, we have seen in massachusetts which is mirrored in numbers across the rest of the country a dramatic increase in the number of deaths related to opioids. in 2014, there were 1400 people estimated to have died in the state of massachusetts from opioid addiction. last year it went to 1700 people died from opioid addiction. in 2016 it's estimated that that number is going to 2,000 people who will die this year from opioid overdoses, heroin,
fentanyl. carfentanil. and here's 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 1500 of the 2,000 people who are estimated to die in massachusetts alone from opioid overdoses. that's a dramatic rise to 75% of all opioid deaths in our state in one year. that's up from 57% 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. so let's just take those numbers and project them. if 2000 people die in massachusetts this year and
massachusetts is 2% of population of the united states of america, and all you did was multiply that number by 50 to get the entire country, that would be a hundred thousand people this year who would die from opioid overdoses in ameri america, 100,000. now, this problem is not as huge in the rest of the country as it is in massachusetts, as it is in several other states, but we are a preview of coming attractions and we have to make sure that we put in place the programs that are going to help these families deal with this issue. so let's put that number in context in the entire country. we have 41,000 people who die
each year, 41,000 women who die from breast cancer. well, we're on pace if we don't stop this to go to a hundred thousand people dying from opioid overdoses every single year. and a hundred thousand people a year, we're talking about two vietnam wars worth of people dying in our country every single year. and we need to declare war on this. we need to put the treatment, the prevention programs in place, and thus far we have not provided the resources to the states, to the cities, to the towns, to the families, to the community health care centers to be able to deal with this issue. in america right now, there are more than two and a half million people who are dependent upon
opioids but only a very small percentage of them get the treatment which they need, which they deserve, which our country should be providing for those families. i believe that 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 that they need. this is an epidemic that began because the pharmaceutical industry sold a bill of goods to the federal -- to the food and drug administration and to the american people that these drugs, these prescription drugs were not in fact addictive. physicians turned a blind eye across our country and in fact rejected mandatory training so they could prescribe opioids
correctly. now it's 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, infinitely more dangerous than prescription drugs. so we have a moral responsibility out here on the floor to provide massive new funding. in any legislation we pass over the next few weeks which leaves this chamber, we cannot on a bipartisan basis ignore the magnitude of this challenge. otherwise we're going to come back here next year and the year after and the year after and we're going to see ultimately millions of people die from this epidemic and history will wonder
why we did not do enough to deal with it. it's the job of this congress to begin to provide the massive funding that the states, the cities, the towns, and the families need to deal with this issue. mr. president, i thank you for the time and i yield back the balance of my time. and, mr. president, i question the presence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president?
the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. a senator: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. a senator: i ask that it be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: 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. mr. menendez: we here that -- we hear that the bill is about revenue sharing. we hear 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's a lot of rhetoric. underneath the rhetoric and the paint being -- picture being painting one thing is clear. it isn't about infrastructure,
or environmental respec restora. this bill is about one thing and one thing only, another giveaway to big oil. it's about paving the way for oil drilling up and down the atlantic coast. it's about expanding drilling in the gulf, even as those communities work to recover from the bp disaster. it's 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 the cost to our constituents. the majority party, the part of so-called fiscal conservatism has no problem breaking out the checkbook when it's 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're all too eager to lift the crude oil export ban shipping u.s. resources and refining jobs overseas. and now we have before us a bill designed to make it easier to drill in the arctic, in the gulf, and in the atlantic. and 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 life better for future generations, 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've seen this before and yet it's hard not to be surprised by the timing. we're one week past an election where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle campaigned on promises to -- quote -- "drain the swamp, to break the mold in washington, to free government from the powerful special interests." what's the first bill we debate on the senate floor after the 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's very clear who the majority party is here to serve in washington. it's not the people who elected them. it's the same corporations and special interests that have set the republican 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 back of our shore communities and all of the reward goes to big oil. and for new jersey those risks are substantial. and oil spill in the atlantic would devastate our tourism industry which generates $38 billion a year and supports nearly half a million job, nearly 10% of the state's entire work force. an oil spill in the atlantic would destroy one of the largest saltwater recreational fishing industries in the nation. it would jeopardize just in our state over 50,000 jobs in the seafood industry. an oil spill would sink the values of more than $700 billion of coastal properties, of family homes and small businesses. the people on the jersey shore that i have met are some of the
most hard-working, resilient people i have ever known. these are people who even today are rebuilding their lives and their livelihoods in the wake of hurricane sandy. these are the fishermen who wake up at 5:00 in the morning and spend their day working their fingers to the bone to provide for their families. these are the shore businesses who depend on a summer tourism season to meet their expenses throughout the year. the last thing they need is the threat of around oil -- of an oil spill wiping out their businesses, their hard work, their ability to provide for their families. the oil companies that would benefit from this bill don't need our help. large oil companies even now, even with gas prices as low as they are are making annual profits the likes of which the people on the jersey shore won't see in a lifetime. and those people have been working to make their voices heard. i'm proud that there are currently 11 other senators who
have cosponsored my bill to permanently ban drilling in the atlantic, but enemore proud that -- but i'm even more proud that thousands of constituents have taken time to e-mail, call my office and become citizen cosponsors of the bill. many shared their thoughts on why we should ban atlantic drilling. charles from toms river wrote, -- quote -- "we already have shore line concerns thanks to superstorm sandy. we don't -- definitely don't need another threat to our economy." jean from new brunswick wrote, "tourism is a major jersey business. our beaches are pristine and must be protected. and leo 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. 120 municipalities up and down the atlantic coast 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're hearing the same message, whether it's 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 at language particular ocean -- the atlantic ocean from the five-year oil and gas leasing plan. that was an important victory but it was only a temporary vick trivment it's clear by the
senate's consideration of the legislation before us today that lining the pockets of big off oil executives -- of big oil executives going to remain a 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's why today i'm calling on president obama to use his authority on the outer continental shelf lands act to permanently -- 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 like 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 and 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 local economies. and i.t. not just the -- and it's not just the atlantic that deserves this prefntle i also hope -- this protection. i also hope that president obama gives the same protection to the pacific ocean. extreme cold and harsh weather conditions make an arctic spill 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 shea that we as nation are committed to the future of our shore towns, of our beaches, of our environment 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 would 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's a birthright. i value the small business fishermen who sustain a thriving shore economy against all odds. 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's because of those values that i intend to stand with the millions of americans who have raised their voices and deliver 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. we are not willing to sell the future of their economy or the future of their environment for short-term profits. it's a fight worth having, and it's one i believe we can win. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, soon we'll have a chance to vote on the american energy and conservation act, a bill, i should say, that's been championed by our colleague from louisiana -- actually both of them -- senators cassidy and vitter, and they've done a terrific job of getting us to this point where we're 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, by the entire country. and it's time to balance these costs with reasonable revenue-sharing agreements such as we have struck in the past. and given these states produce a big portion of the oil and gas our entire nation needs to keep the lights on, it's only right that these states should benefit from some modest revenue sharing. this legislation would make sure that that is possible. so i hope our colleagues will support it when we vote on it shortly. this legislation is a good example of the kind of n.r.c. policy -- 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've observed about the obama administration is while the president claims to be all of the above in terms of his outlook on energy, he really isn't. he's into picking winners and losers. one of the reasons why 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. i think in west virginia, for example, mrs. clinton got 27% of the vote -- in a state that had previously been predominantly a democratic state. that's because many people felt their very livelihood had been taken from them as a result of the regulatory overreach and frankly what they call -- and i think it's appropriately so -- the war on coal.
but, as i said, all of the above is actually the right policy. it's just that i don't think president obama ever really meant it. a lot of folks try to paint with broad strokes about energy. either yo you're on the side ofe environment, climate change, or you're on the side of innovation and new technologies, or you're on the side of traditional oil and gas development. well, 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're known as an oil and gas state, and that's true, but we really do embrace an all-o all-of-the-above strategy and i think it's helped our state stay above the national economy even during tough economic times for the country. so you can have literally an
all-of-the-above policy, one that works good for the environment -- as a matter of fact, because of fracking and whhorizontal drilling and the ability to produce more natural gas in the united states, we've actually seen emissions into the environment come down dramatically because more -- more people are opting for natural gas rather than other sorts of 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 this last week when the u.s. geological survey announced that one shale formation near midland, odessa contained the largest estimate of continuous oil that they've ever surveyed in our country. now, this should give us a little bit of humility when it comes to making long-term pre-ducks back -- i don't know -- predictions.
back i know whether it was 10-15 years ago, there was discussion about something called peak oil. the argument was that we had basically discovered all of the oil and gas that there was to discover and there wasn't anymore out there. well, this just shows how time and time again people underestimate the initiative and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs and the people who work hard, our scientists, to create new technologies to help us move forward. that's why i'm optimistic about our country as long as we don't stand in the way of those innovators and those entrepreneurs. well, in texas, we've learned 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. frankly, letting the experts do their jobs with limited bureaucratic influence. that's something the whole country can benefit from, and
i'm hopeful during this new administration under president trump working with majorities in both houses, we can begin to untangle the stranglehold imposed on much of our economy. i see the chairman of the banking committee here. he knows this topic well. the regulations put on our small businesses, on our energy producers -- all of this has stunted the sort of normal economic rebound that you'd see following a recession like we had in 2008. so i'm 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 rye sources as a -- resources as a tremendous benefit and a comparative advantage one nation has over another. but i have to tell you, we've
squandered those natural advantages we've had in this country by not unleashing this sleeping giant of american energy. i thinit's not -- it's not just important to our economy. it's important to our national security and the world order, because, as we all know, in europe and elsewhere, people like vladimir putin use energy as a weapon. the when people have a sole source of energy and it's from russia, and he can turn it off and on at his whim, that's -- 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 -- cheap, liquefied natural gas, that 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 build on the energy renaissance occurring in states like south dakota and texas, north dakota -- i should say -- and texas. i'm proud of the energy-friendly environment in my state. the texas example proves that you can take advantage of the natural resources that god has blessed us with to help consumers, to help seniors, 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 with that. so it's 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. number one it creates jobs. it creates benefits for families who are provided for by those jobs. and it takes daily commuters out -- helps daily commuters out on the road with affordable energy, and it helps small businesses do what they can do to keep the lights on, not to mention an industry created by -- not to mention the jobs, as i said a moment ago, created by a healthy energy industry. with the election that occurred on november the 8th, with republicans in the majority in both houses and now wit -- now h president trump coming into the white house, we can make real strides in energy production. 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 have two
requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they've been approved by both the majority and minority leaders. i'd ask consent -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. shelby: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: mr. president, i rise today to honor the life and the legacy of an alabama patriot, an american hero, johnny michael span. nearly 15 years ago on november 25, 2001, while fighting on behalf of our grateful nation, mike made the ultimate sacrifice for our country in northern afghanistan. mike span served as u.s. marine officer and then later with the c.i.a. when his became the first u.s. combat casualty in the war on terror in afghanistan. as americans, we honor the sacrifices made by those who have served and defended our nation on veterans day last
week. mike span is one of the heroic americans that ran towards danger, putting his life on the line to fight for our freedom. spike spann was dedicated to -- mike spann was dedicated to combatting tyranny, oppression and terror that would be inflicted on the world by the taliban and others who shared their goals. he gave his life in a noble undertaking and our nation will forever be 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 exemplifies honor and courage and he will always be remembered for his great sacrifice. as the director of the central
intelligence said at mike's funeral -- and i quote -- "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. quorum call:
ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i request proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i come to the floor this morning to speak in strong support of s. 3110, the american energy and conservation act. i'd like to thank my colleague from louisiana for introducing it, and i would also like to thank all members who are cosponsoring it with us. i certainly thank leader mcconnell for scheduling a vote on this this morning. i'd like to start my comments by
providing a little bit of context for why this legislation is necessary before i move into the specifics of what it contains. for literally centuries in alaska, we have relied upon balanced and environmentally responsible resource development, whether it's fish, whether it's our game, whether it's our mineral resources like copper or gold, our timber, our marine mammals, even oil that was used to water proof ocean-going vessels, these resources have been extracted or harvested relatively lightly for thousands of years, more intensely harvested or extracted over the last 100 years, and this resource extraction has fed us. it has housed alaskans. it has allowed us to sustain a life in oftentimes a very harsh
environment but without question an extraordinarily beautiful environment. in the last 50 years resource extraction has become strategically and economically important to the livelihoods of all americans because we have carefully regulated our resource extraction and protected our environment, today we have millions of tourists from all over the world who come to alaska to view nature, to look at the amazing landscapes, landscapes that are hard to find anywhere else in the world. and some might say that that seems like it's a contradiction that you could have resource extraction to the level that we have in alaska, providing oil resources, mineral resources and still have this be an
amazing place that people want to visit as tourists, as individuals from, again, around the world who want to see an amazing place. so we have in our state, i think, truly managed to balance that opportunity to access 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'm about to say should not surprise people, should not amaze people, but a majority of the residents living in alaska's arctic, a majority of the tribal governments, a majority of the alaska native
corporations representing alaska 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 wholeheartedly support oil and gas development in the beaufort and in the which you in the chu. i know the president and the team 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 heard this support. so i am hoping -- i am hoping that the news reports, just as i was walking to the floor here just now, i was asked by a reporter about the rumors that the administration will put off limits in this upcoming
five-year leasing, put off limits. the bow further and the chukchi -- the beaufort and the chukchi. i hope these 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. but this is not the only step that this administration should take. when responsible resource production does begin in the alaska o.c.s., the 96-year-old federal policy of sharing resource revenues in the states hosting the 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 within 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 impact of these activities. and this policy has nationwide benefit. from the east to the west, from the north to the south, just in the past ten 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.
and i have full confidence that these states and these counties put those dollars to productive use, tremendously productive use, and certainly don't have any interest in giving them up, in parting with them. so what we are considering today with the legislation that we will vote on shortly is an effort to expand federal revenue sharing to federal offshore areas. it's time to do just that. it's time to expand the federal government -- federal revenue sharing to federal offshore areas. this is a matter of simple fairness. at its core, it's a matter of simple fairness. offshore production should be no different than onshore production. and 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, that's what they're going to see. but those who will host that development, we bear that burden of development. and in alaska we are willing to bear that burden of development. so with this legislation, we have carefully crafted this measure to apply only to states where responsible o.c.s. development is supported. and i think that's important to reinforce. we're not pushing this on those who don't want the development. the legislation applies only to states where responsible o.c.s. development is supported. so if a senator was not interested in this development, what we've done is we've respected their view. we left their state out of this legislation. and 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 that pandora's box, that's not what we're talking about here. we're talking about the revenue sharing that will come to those who support the development in their offshore. it will not force any state to develop its resources if that state does not want to. so, mr. president, florida is a pretty good example here. florida would see no different treatment after the passage of this bill. what the american energy and conservation act will do is make our policies equitable so that the states that bear the burden of development are finally allowed to share in the government's reward from it. and this is true for both conventional energy such as oil and gas as well as the renewables that so many members of this chamber claim to
support. so in addition to allowing offshore revenue sharing for alaska and the midatlantic states, we've also incorporated a number of priorities that i think the senate would do well to approve. some of these priorities are pretty important for us. we have a small funding stream to increase sportsmen's access to federal areas for hunting and fishing and similar activities. we've included additional streams for energy research, to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog at the national park service. this is something that so many of us have talked about, is how we get the funding to reduce the backlog at the national park service. well, this will help for this. it will also provide for a stream of, a funding 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 impacting, whether it's the water infrastructure in a place like barrow, whether it's the need for an emergency evacuation route for a community such as issish mesh, they can help facilitate this. we've designated resources to the kilt program which has become a chronic funding challenge. mr. p -- mr. president, if you vote for this bill, what you're voting for is a more rational energy policy for our country. you're also voting for sportsmans' 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're doing is you're voting to continue an unfair practice towards coastal-producing states, and you're voting also against the priorities of thousands of your constituents. those of us who have assembled this bill have respected those who don't want development off of their shores. now we would ask those members to respect those of us who do support development for our states, and we ask you to support this legislation. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. i see my colleague from alaska. i think it is fair to say that not only is our congressional delegation very unified on this, the support from our state and an understanding as to why
revenue sharing for alaska and other coastal states who seek this development is so critically important, and i appreciate all the good work that he has done on this issue to help advance. and with
that, i yield the floor. mr. sullivan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: thank you, mr. president. i just want to 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'm proud to be a cosponsor with a number of other senators on the american energy and conservation act, which will be taken up here in a few minutes. and i just want to echo what senator murkowski said about this bill. it's really a commonsense bill. we already have revenue sharing for onshore oil and gas production, so it only makes
sense, really, it's only fair, as she noted very articulately that the states closest to the impacts of o.c.s. drilling also receive their fair share of revenues
from resource extraction off their coasts. but again, as senator murkowski mentioned, this is not going to open up development where states don't want it. it's just providing the fair share to the communities that bear some of the impact of development in the states that do want it, like my state. so that's what this is about. and i'm hoping that all of my colleagues will vote favorably for this very important bill. and, you know, senator murkowski also talked about this bill does not open new areas. at the same time, we certainly shouldn't be shutting down areas
that exist for responsible resource development in this country right now. and in addition to focusing on this bill, which i certainly hope we pass soon, we also -- mr. president, i just want to mention that we're hearing indications that despite the fact that our country needs more energy and more jobs to grow the economy, we're hearing indications that the president might move to close the o.c.s. 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, it fundamentally misunderstands what's going on in the country right now. fundamentally misunderstands the enormous opportunity of energy for america. you know, mr. president, for eight years, we have watched the
obama administration delay, disrupt, block energy development for america. certainly for alaska, but for the whole country, and it shows an incredible lack of understanding of what a great opportunity this is. let me give some examples. making sure we have our own energy, that we produce our own energy, that we can be energy independent, that we can create jobs. these are great jobs, by the way. for our country and also something that is never really acknowledged, but 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 of anyplace in the world. so when the obama administration has been delaying projects year
after year, tiny cuts, shell had to spend seven 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're leaving. now, what does that do to the country? it harms our energy independence. it kills jobs. but here's something else it does. it doesn't help the environment, as some claim, as the obama administration claims. what it does, it takes capital to develop energy resources from america, from alaska to 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
we should drill off the coast of brazil in thousands of feet of water, he was supportive of that, but he's not supportive of drilling off the coast of his own country. and 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-win for everybody, including the environment. and i certainly hope that my colleagues will vote in favor of this bill that we're going to vote on in a few minutes, and 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 o.c.s. before they leave. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from florida.
mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask consent that major lieutenant colonel-select chivis, our defense fellow, be granted privileges for the floor for the rest of the session. the presiding officer: without objection. 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. so in many places so in many places and certainly the gulf coast, such as the gulf coast of mexico off of florida, it is the largest area of training for the united states military in the world, and two republican secretaries of defense have said you cannot have drilling
activity off of the coast where this restricted military area is. you look at a map of what the military has suggested off of virginia, it's the same thing. it's no oil and gas activity at all, and then no permanent oil and gas activity in a remaining portion off of 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. so this senator certainly doesn't have an objection to oil drilling off of the coast of louisiana. last time i checked, they didn't have a lot of beaches.
but that's what this bill does. it gives the incentives for states because they get additional federal revenue. by the way, c.b.o. says that is is $7 billion over a ten-year period that would otherwise go to the federal treasury is now going to go to the states. it gives them that incentive to have drilling off their coast. and for those reasons alone, i would suggest that the right vote is to vote no on this legislation. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you, 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, who we have just heard from one, senator nelson. we'll hear from another, senator cantwell, are very knowledgeable about the risks to coastline communities posed by offshore drilling, and they're opposed to this legislation, and 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 counts for tens of millions of dollars of revenue. from the pristine beaches of florida to 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 deep water horizon and other disasters. and when it comes to protecting our unique and nearby atlantic ocean habitats, we must guard against policies that can best be summed up as spill, baby, spill. it's a risk we don't need to take. domestic energy production has grown significantly over the past eight years. our dependence on foreign oil is at a 40-year low. and i'd 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 whom the market would be tilted even more in their favor. i think it's telling. one of the first bills the republican majority puts on the floor is a boon to special interests. i urge my colleagues to not --
to vote no on the bill. i ask unanimous consent that the 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: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, 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, because i know my colleagues from a variety of states throughout the united states presented a different viewpoint and have a viewpoint because of their own economic interests of their state, but the larger question here is what is in the economic interests of the united states. all of the lands submerged beneath the territory and sea 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 new -- a few of these coastal states tried to claim these submerged
lands and the 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, to the whole nation. the -- their response was -- quote -- "the national interest, the national responsibilities and national concerns are involved," the court said. in spite of the supreme court's decision, congress voted to give away the submerged lands between our territories and seas to adjacent states in 1963. in a sub merged land act was dubbed the oil giveaway. the law give the coastal states the submerged lands of a distance of three nautical miles from the coastland. 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 land and retain all the royalties for themselves. thus this big discussion here about whether we're 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 the coastal states the first three nautical miles of the continental shelf, congress made it clear, though, 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 out continental shelf lands act enacted just three minutes after the lease giveaway gave the federal government exclusive ownership and control over the mineral and wealth of the outer continental shelf. so we're here because states not satisfied with the generous gifts, alabama, mississippi, louisiana, texas, they persuaded congress to give them even more revenue in 2006, 37.5% of the federal government royalties. again, some of my colleagues may have supported this, but also added to our federal deficn
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on