Richard Burr

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. I would also like to thank my colleagues, particularly Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and Senator Sanders, for their partnership in working with me to reauthorize the Older Americans Act. I am pleased that our efforts have resulted in sending a strong reauthorization of the Older Americans Act to the President's desk. The reauthorization of these critical support programs for seniors has been a process that each of us has been actively involved in over the last few years, and I am proud to see this bipartisan piece of legislation on its way to becoming law. I want to focus on a key aspect of this reauthorization for my constituents--the change in the funding formula. In 2010, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, determined that the formula responsible for the allocation of State funding in the OAA was broken. It took us 6 years to act, and I am pleased to see this important change included in the OAA reauthorization, allowing funds to be directed where they are most needed. This is a commonsense, but critical change for better ensuring that the dollars are following the needs. This change is especially important for North Carolina's seniors. The change in the formula calculation will increase resources for these programs in North Carolina and other States where seniors have moved since the last reauthorization of the Older Americans Act, a decade ago. As more and more seniors make North Carolina their home, this will help ensure that resources are being more fairly allocated based on the needs of seniors today and in the future, which is a key aspect of helping some of our most vulnerable seniors age with the dignity and respect they deserve. I often hear from my constituents--area agencies on aging, PACE program directors, and North Carolinians themselves--about the benefits that come from the programs authorized by the Older Americans Act. The continuation of these programs, which provide meals, caregiver supports, and help seniors stay in the comfort of their homes and local communities longer positively impacts the lives of millions of seniors every day. With the passage of this legislation, almost 2 million North Carolina seniors may be able to benefit from State and local programs that provide needed support for them and their families. I am proud to have fought on behalf of North Carolina's seniors for the improvements reflected in this reauthorization bill, and I look forward to continuing to work to improve the quality of life for my constituents.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I want to take a moment today to recognize the Montagnard community in my State of North Carolina and in other places across the Nation. I am proud to say that North Carolina is home to the largest population of Montagnards in the Unites States and home to the largest population of Montagnards outside of Vietnam. Many Americans may not know about the history behind the United States's special relationship with the Montagnards, which is a history that goes back to the days of the Vietnam war. The Montagnards are an indigenous tribespeople of the central highlands of Vietnam, and during the Vietnam war, it was the Montagnards who were trained by the CIA and Special Operations Forces to fight alongside our troops against the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. At their own great risk, the Montagnards provided critical intelligence support to our troops on the ground, no doubt saving countless American lives. After the war, the United States took in hundreds of Montagnards into our country as refugees because of the severe persecution they faced from the Vietnamese Government for that very reason. While this indeed is a long overdue recognition, I will be submitting later this week a Senate resolution recognizing their service and sacrifice. However, I believe our recognition of the Montagnards should not stop at what took place decades ago because even today, in 2016, the government of Vietnam continues to discriminate against them for the loyalty and assistance they provided to the United States some 40 years ago. The government of Vietnam continues to persist in its oppression of the Montagnards' basic human rights: the freedom to practice their Christian faith freely without fear of persecution and the right to education, land ownership, and a decent standard of living. This kind of persecution is well documented in the latest human rights and religious freedom reports published by the State Department and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The United States of America has an obligation to stand up for the thousands of suffering Montagnards in Vietnam--some of whom were once our comrades-in-arms. I have heard from many Vietnam war veterans in my State who can tell you how much their military assistance and friendship had meant to them. We should not look the other way; we must continue pressing the Vietnamese Government to respect their fundamental human rights. With this Senate resolution, we send a loud and clear message to the Montagnard people: you are not forgotten. The United States can do better--we must do better--to support this marginalized tribespeople in Vietnam with whom we share a unique and historic bond. I would ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution. Thank you.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be equally divided between both sides.

Mr. BURR. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Explanatory Statement for Division M--Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Explanatory Statement for Division N--Cybersecurity Act of 2015 be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring my constituent Robert Dick Douglas, Jr. Mr. Douglas earned Eagle Scout rank 90 years ago today, making him the longest serving Eagle alive. The Boy Scouts of America recently highlighted Mr. Douglas' life in their magazine, which I think would impress anyone who reads it. I am pleased to highlight some of the points in the article. A native of Greensboro, Mr. Douglas eagerly joined the Boy Scouts the very same day that he celebrated his 12th birthday. After earning his Eagle Scout award on December 8, 1925, Mr. Douglas was one of three scouts selected for an African safari with famed photographers and adventurers Martin and Osa Johnson. Upon his return from this journey, Douglas coauthored the best selling documentary ``Three Boy Scouts in Africa,'' which went on to sell 125,000 copies in its first year of publication. The book afforded Douglas the opportunity to tour the Nation speaking with the likes of Amelia Earhart at school and civic assemblies. The publisher was evidently so impressed with Douglas' work that he sent the young Eagle Scout to Alaska to write another adventure book titled ``A Boy Scout in the Grizzly Country.'' From that experience, Douglas became an advocate of land and wildlife conservation and, when he returned home, began sharing his newfound knowledge with the Nation through public appearances. Douglas' successes continued well into adulthood, going on to graduate from law school at Georgetown University and to become a labor and employment law attorney at his father's legal practice. Mr. Douglas served as a lawyer for over 70 years and managed to make his way before the Supreme Court. Douglas also served in the FBI, where he had the chance to work under J. Edgar Hoover for a time. Mr. Douglas retired at the age of 96. In recognition of his longevity and commitment to scouting and his community, the 103-year-old Douglas was presented with the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award on September 24, 2015. During the ceremony, Mr. Douglas extolled scouting as a significant influence on his life. He insists to this day that scouting taught him that he could do just about anything that he wanted to undertake. It is with great pleasure that I pay tribute to Robert Dick Douglas, Jr., today on his 90th anniversary of attaining Eagle Scout.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the author of this unanimous consent request to modify the unanimous consent request to allow an amendment to be considered in the TSCA debate, where we would take up the Cantwell-Murkowski bipartisan language on the reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Mr. BURR. I object to the underlying unanimous consent request.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURR. I thank the Presiding Officer. Let me stand and take all the blame. I am the guy holding up the chemical bill, TSCA. This is the greatest deliberative body in the world. This is an institution that has never shied away from any debate or any vote, and we proved it last night as we passed a very technical, difficult cyber security vote. We can take on tough issues and we can weed through them, but what we are doing today is a charade. We said that at 12 we would come down here and that there would be competitive unanimous consent requests. It is a joke. It is an absolute joke. We forced the Presiding Officer to be here to object, knowing he strongly objects to the legislation. There is one guy who has been trying to facilitate this, and that is Senator Inhofe. Throughout the whole process he has tried to work it out, but the fact is maybe we are at a stalemate. To suggest that I shouldn't have the opportunity to amend any piece of legislation is to take every right I have as a U.S. Senator. To come to the floor and chastise any Member because they would like to amend legislation--that is why we were sent here by our constituents from our States. If we look back at over 200 years of history, we know this body doesn't allow the biggest State to win. It allows every State to have their voice heard and every Member has the right to provide input on behalf of their constituents. Let me say to the authors on both sides that I am going to hold up the chemical bill until there is an opportunity for me to either amend it or to offer the Land and Water Conservation Fund and permanently extend it on another piece of legislation. It is plain and simple. We can come and do these unanimous consent requests, we can feel good and go home and look and say: Here is what I did. I am on both sides of an issue. If that works, then do it. I will be brave enough to tell everyone I am the guy holding it up. I am holding it up because I am an equal Member of the U.S. Senate. I am not scared to debate TSCA, and I am not scared to debate the Land and Water Conservation Fund because that is what this institution was created to do. I sort of get the impression that we set this up to determine who is more committed to something. That is what the vote is for. It is not about the talk or the debate, it is the vote. If we can't get to the vote, it is difficult to determine who is for something and who is against it. Let me say to my colleagues that the Land and Water Conservation Fund was set up over 50 years and receives its funding off the royalties of the exploration on offshore oil and gas; 87.5 percent of it goes to the general revenue fund of the Federal Government and 12.5 percent goes to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Land and Water Conservation Fund was never set up to handle maintenance at any State or Federal facilities. It was set up to allow individual treasures to be preserved by leveraging Federal dollars against private and State dollars to take in parcels, such as the Appalachian Trail, to take buffer pieces against things like the Blue Ridge Parkway, to protect a certain treasure in a State where the Land and Water Conservation Fund went in and matched with private dollars and then turned around and turned it over to the State for a State park. The benefit is if it is private land, there is no access, but when it is public land held by the State, fishermen and hunters can access it for recreational use and can now use that State park. I am exactly where the Presiding Officer is. I don't want to increase the Federal footprint of what we own, whether it is land or buildings. I want to get out of the business of ownership. I only want to preserve those things that up to this point we have determined are valuable to future generations, and that is not by increasing the size of those Federal holdings, it is just about protecting those Federal holdings. And when we talk about protecting and providing for maintenance, let me suggest that it is a conversation we need to have with appropriators because they are getting 87.5 percent of the royalty split. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, when we originally conceived it--I admit I was not here 50 years ago; I think John McCain was the only person who might have been around--it was envisioned when that fund was created that when we take something from the land, we put something back. So when we take resources, we are going to protect something over here. It was also the direction of the legislation that $900 million a year go into this Land and Water Conservation Fund. We have averaged over those 50 years somewhere in the neighborhood of about $385 million a year. The Presiding Officer stopped me one day and he said: What about the $20 billion in the fund? There isn't any $20 billion in the fund. Appropriators spent that every year. They get the royalty split 100 percent, 20 percent goes over into this fund, they appropriate X, and what is left over they spend, along with the other 87.5 percent. Do we want to do maintenance in national parks? Appropriate it. The money is there, and it is not taxpayer money. We are collecting it off of royalties on expirations. And it is very important that we do that maintenance. It is also important that the National Park Service prioritize maintenance over every other thing that is funded when maintenance is eliminated. But I think we have to understand it is not an either/or. We can be good stewards and invest in how we leverage Federal dollars with private dollars and also invest in the maintenance of existing facilities. If that wasn't the case, States would be up here crying for more money, more money, more money to maintain their parks. But they understand that is their responsibility and they budget for it. As I sat here a little while ago, I thought this was more reminiscent of an episode of ``Star Trek.'' I was waiting for somebody to say, ``Beam me up, Scotty.'' This is crazy. I will agree with my good friend from New Mexico--maybe it does take leadership making a decision that we are going to do both of these, but the leader doesn't control things when we get the debt ceiling from the House. He doesn't control what legislation we have to do. Let's face it--we don't have to do either one of these. If we did, the Land and Water Conservation Fund after 50 years would not have expired. I might say I came to the floor and I begged at the time that I would be satisfied if we just extended for 60 days the Land and Water Conservation Fund in TSCA. We could have debated it and voted on it with just one amendment. But some said: No, not a 60-day extension; we want it to expire. Well, it has expired, and the price to bring it back is permanent reauthorization. It is no longer 60 days or 90 days, it is permanent reauthorization. Why? Because this may be the best Federal program we have ever run. It is not funded with taxpayer money. It takes those royalty moneys and it leverages against State and private dollars to maximize the preservation for the next generation. Name another program that does that. Name another program that doesn't stick their hand in the taxpayers' pocket, that leverages it with private dollars to maximize the impact of it. This program does it day in and day out in all of the States in the United States. I could argue today that I would love to see as part of the amendment that North Carolina gets a bigger share of that. But, as the Presiding Officer knows, with me, that is sort of left up to appropriators because they are the ones who decide where the money goes. I am not here to prosecute them, but I am here to say to my colleagues: Let's quit being foolish. Let's have an honest debate on two different bills or put them together. I have heard that we can't amend TSCA and put permanent reauthorization in because then it stands a chance of not passing in the House. Bull. I just say bull to that. Give the House a chance. There are just as many people over there who support the permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. They are not all captured in the U.S. Senate. Why? Because a majority of America is for permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Why wouldn't they be? It is their future. It is about their children and their grandchildren. I will end with this. To all of my colleagues, this is not about us. No piece of legislation that we bring on this floor, we debate, and we vote on is about us. If it is, we are nothing better than a crisis management institution. This is about generations to come. This is about our children and our grandchildren. And when we look through that window at the issue, we understand the stewardship we assume. We assume stewardship in the way we spend taxpayers' money, we assume stewardship in the direction of this country, we assume stewardship in the impact we have globally around the world, and we assume stewardship when we talk about taking care of this footprint God gave us. I remember the debate as we got ready to build a visitors' center outside. I remember the history lessons that the more senior Members gave me at the time when I said: It will cost a lot of money. We can build it on top of the ground for about half the cost as we can build it underneath the ground. I was given the history of this building being the byproduct of a bill through Congress called the Residence Act in 1790. Congress appropriated 500,000 taxpayer dollars to build it. When the British came, the building wasn't finished, but they were nice enough to burn what we had built. Most of the exterior was saved. The interior needed to be totally redone. Congress ended up appropriating another chunk of change, and the original Capitol design was not completed until 1823. And by 1823, the footprint needed to increase because the size of the Senate and the House had grown; therefore, we needed more space. I remind my colleagues that at the original time, we had housed in this building the House, the Senate, the Library of Congress, and the Supreme Court. And we started this wing--what we are in--in the Senate and the wing in the House. Outside they look identical; inside they are very different. But when they did that, they doubled the length of the Capitol, and they actually had to then take off the Bulfinch dome of wood and copper sitting on a sandstone base, and they built the dome we know today--cast iron, 9 million pounds, still suspended on that original sandstone and limestone base. Since 1863, when the Statue of Freedom was lowered on top of this Capitol, it has looked exactly the same. I have said for 21 years that my responsibility is to make sure that 100 years from now and 200 years from now, it looks exactly like this on the outside. That was the compelling reason for spending twice as much money to put the Capitol Visitor Center underground where it didn't obstruct what is a historical footprint of America's history. This building--walk around it. It is a museum of American history--to think that an Italian artist could depict scenes in American history probably better than Americans, but he understood why this country was created, and that influenced his artwork throughout the Capitol. Let me just suggest to my colleagues that maybe it is time for us to go back on a tour of the Capitol, to realize that our Founders came here not to accomplish anything for themselves but to make sure their children and their grandchildren had something better. And when we start looking at our jobs the same way they looked at creating this country and the same way they looked at preserving this building, then I will assure my colleagues we will settle issues like this in the way that the Senate functions and functions well, and that is in debate and in votes. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, shortly we will once again begin the process on the cyber security bill. We will start votes hopefully right at 11 o'clock. We will try to work through five amendments this morning and return this afternoon with a short period of debate, and once again, at 4 o'clock, we will take up five additional votes--or possibly four--and be at the point where we could conclude this legislation. Let me say to my colleagues that the Senate has tried for several years now to bring cyber security legislation to the Senate floor and find the will to pass it. With the work of the vice chairman, I think we have been able to succeed in that. We enjoyed a 14-to-1 vote out of the committee, showing tremendous bipartisan support. Thousands of businesses and almost 100 organizations around the country are supportive of the bill. But, more importantly, in the last several days the bill has gained the support of the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post--not necessarily publications that chime in on the need for certain pieces of legislation from the Senate floor, but in this particular case, two publications understand the importance of cyber security legislation getting signed into law. This is the first step, and conferencing with the House will come shortly after. I am proud to say that we already have legislation the White House says they support. So I think we are in the final stretches of actually getting legislation into law that would voluntarily allow companies to partner with the Federal Government when their systems have been breached, when personal data is at risk. I still say today to those folks both in this institution and outside of this institution who are concerned with privacy that I think the vice chairman and I have bent over backward to accommodate concerns. Some concerns still exist. We don't believe they are necessarily accurate and that only by utilizing this system will, in fact, we understand whether we have been deficient anywhere. There are also several companies that are not supportive of this bill, as is their right. I will say this: From the beginning, we committed to make this bill voluntary, meaning that any company in America, if its systems are breached, could choose voluntarily to create the partnership with the Federal Government. Nobody is mandated to do it. So I speak specifically to those companies right now: You might not like the legislation, but for goodness' sakes, do not deprive every other business in America from having the opportunity to have this partnership. Do not deprive the other companies in this country from trying to minimize the amount of personal data that is lost because there has been a cyber attack. Do not try to stop this legislation and put us in a situation where we ignore the fact that cyber attacks are going to happen with greater frequency from more individuals and that the sooner we learn how to defend our systems, the better off personal data will be in the United States of America. This is a huge deal. The vice chairman and I from day one have said to our Members that we will entertain any good ideas that we think strengthen the bill. On both sides of the aisle, we have said to Members that if this breaks the agreement that we have for the support we need, because they don't believe the policy is right, then we will lock arms and we will vote against amendments. We have about eight amendments today. On a majority of those, we will do that. I am proud to tell my colleagues that during the overnight and this morning--we will announce today that we have taken care of the Flake amendment with a modification. We are changing the sunset on the legislation to 10 years, and we will accept the Flake amendment on a voice vote later this morning. We continue even over these last hours to try to modify legislation that can be agreed to on both sides of the aisle but, more importantly, without changing the delicate balance we have tried to legislate into this legislation. I am sure Members will come down over the next 35 minutes, but at this time I will yield the floor so the vice chairman can seek time.

Mr. BURR. We believe we have the right protections in place. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Heller amendment.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I thank my colleagues. We have agreed on this. We can hopefully do this by voice vote.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity before we start the final process to thank the vice chairman. She has been incredibly willing to participate, even when we started in a different place than where we ended. She brought to the table a tremendous amount of experience on this issue because of the number of years she had worked on it. She was very accommodating on areas that I felt were important for us to either incorporate or at least debate. What I really want to share with my colleagues is that we had a wholesome debate in the committee. The debate the vice chair and I and our staffs had was wholesome before it even came to the Presiding Officer or to Senator Wyden. That is good. It is why some of the Members might have said in committee: Gee, this looks like a good amendment. Yet it did not fit within the framework of what the vice chair and I sat down and agreed to. So this has been a process over a lot of months of building support, not just within this institution but across the country. It is not a process where I expected to get to the end and for there to be nothing but endorsements of the legislation. I have never seen a piece of legislation achieve that coming out of the Senate. But I think the vice chair and I believed when we actually put legislation together that we were on the same page. The fact is, it is important that today we are again still on the same page, that we have stuck there. I thank the vice chairman. I also thank Senator Johnson and Senator Carper, the chairman and the ranking member of the homeland security committee. They have been incredibly helpful and incredibly accommodating. We have tried to incorporate everything we thought contributed positively to this legislation, and they were huge contributors. Lastly, let me say to all of my colleagues that it is tough to be put in a situation--the vice chair and myself--where we have Members on both sides who are going to offer amendments--I understand that to them those amendments are very reasonable, and I would only ask my colleagues to understand the situation the vice chair and I are in. We have negotiated a very delicately written piece of legislation, and any change in that that is substantive we feel might, in fact, change the outcome of what this bill accomplishes. We will have votes on amendments this morning. One of those amendments, Senator Flake's amendment--overnight we were able to negotiate a change in the sunset provision to 10 years. We will modify that on the floor and accept it by voice vote. The others will be recorded votes. With that, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2621, as Modified

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I want to say to my colleague Senator Heller, I wish we could accommodate all of the amendments. The fact is that even a word here and there changes the balance of what Senator Feinstein and I have tried to put together. Although on the surface it may not look like a big deal--I understand we have two competing bills that were passed in the House, and one has the language. The fact is, our language for the entirety of the bill does not match the House bill. When you change something, we have to look at the cause and effect of it. Here are the realities. This is a voluntary bill. I will start backward with some of the things Senator Heller said. Technology companies are opposed to it. They are. I cannot do anything about that, but I can plead with them: Why would you deprive thousands of businesses that want to have a partnership with the Federal Government from having it because you have determined for your business, even though you are a large holder of personal data, that you don't want a partnership with the Federal Government. I would suggest that the first day they get penetrated, they may find that partnership is worthy. I cannot change where they are on the legislation. The reality is that for a voluntary bill, it means there has to be a reason for people to want to participate. Uncertainty is the No. 1 thing that drives that away. We believe the change the Senator proposes provides that degree of uncertainty, and therefore we would not have information shared either at all or in a timely fashion. If it is not shared in a timely fashion, then we won't reach the real- time transfer of data which gives us the basis of minimizing data loss in this bill. I think it is easy to look at certain pieces of the bill and say: Well, this does not change it that much. But it changes it in a way that would cause either companies to choose not to participate, or it may change it in a way that delays the notification to the Federal Government. Therefore, we are not able to accomplish what we set out to do in the mission of this bill, which is to minimize the amount of data that is lost not just at that company but across the U.S. economy. Again, I urge our colleagues--we will move to amendments shortly. We will have an opportunity to debate for 1 minute on each side on those amendments. I would urge my colleagues to keep this bill intact. If we change the balance of what we have been able to do, then it changes the effects of how this will be implemented, and, in fact, we may or may not at the end of the day----

Mr. BURR. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. BURR. I make a point of order that the Whitehouse amendment No. 2626 and the Mikulski amendment No. 2557 are not germane to amendment No. 2716.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's input. I can only say to my colleagues that it is the recommendation of the vice chair and myself that this not be supported. It does change the balance, it puts uncertainty in the level of participation, and any delay from real time would, in fact, mean that we would not have lived up to the mission of this bill, which is to minimize data loss. I think, though, that there are similarities between the House and Senate bills. Ours is significantly different, and therefore it has a different implication when you change certain words. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, we are going to go to these amendments, and we will have five amendments this morning and possibly up to five this afternoon starting at 4 o'clock. Amendment Nos. 2626, as Modified, and 2557 I want to take this opportunity--there are two pending amendments that are not germane. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to raise those points of order en bloc at this time.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, Senator Feinstein and I have tried to reach a very delicate balance. We think we have done that. Senator Heller raised one specific issue. He said the chamber is supportive of the language. Let me just read: The chamber opposes Senator Heller's amendment for much of the same reason that we oppose comparable amendments being offered. It says: The difficulty with seemingly simple tweaks and wording is that interpreting the language, such as `` reasonably believes'' and ``reasonable efforts'' in legislation, is far from simple. It would create legal uncertainty and is contrary to the goal of real-time information sharing. The chamber will press to maintain NOS as the standard. Hopefully, this shares some texture with my colleagues about how difficult this has been. As I said earlier, I would love to accept all of the amendments. But when it changes the balance of what we have been able to put--when we take a voluntary bill and provide uncertainty, we have now given a reason for either companies not to participate or for the government to delay the transmission to the appropriate agencies.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Flake amendment No. 2582 and the Coons amendment No. 2552 be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, what is the order of business? Amendment No. 2552, as Further Modified