James Lankford

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, it is not uncommon for me when I am at home in Oklahoma to have a mom approach me at a townhall meeting or in conversations or even at a store or restaurant. What she will want to talk to me about is very interesting. Almost always the moms who approach me lately want to talk to me about national security. They want to talk to me about the fear they have that the world is spinning out of control, and they are very concerned about their kids. They are concerned about terrorism coming to the United States. With a lot of moms in Oklahoma, there is a sense of a loss of trust that this is a safe world and a safe place. I can't say that is isolated. As I have talked to other Members in this body, I seem to find the same theme coming up over and over again. As I talk to people at home, they want to know: Is the American government performing its primary responsibility of maintaining security and protecting American citizens around the world? I would love to be able to tell them yes, but quite frankly this has become a very chaotic world, and the challenges we face need clear messaging about what we plan to do and our intent to actually follow up on that plan. We need to have a national policy plan for defense, and then we need to follow through on that. That seems straightforward and simple. Well, the national defense authorization is one of those areas where Congress and the President have for decades agreed on a national policy for defense. They have laid out that perspective, and then it is the President's responsibility as Commander in Chief to fulfill. That is the primary responsibility of the U.S. Government. The challenge is, our world is in utter turmoil and that primary responsibility is not being fulfilled. Passage today of the National Defense Authorization Act by 70 to 27-- which is a rare vote in the Senate, to have that much bipartisan agreement on something--is a significant next step. It has passed the House already, it has now passed the Senate with a veto-proof majority, and it is headed to the President's desk, and he has threatened a veto, of all things, for a national plan for defense. There is a sentiment, an emotion from Americans: Please get a clear national policy. We feel like the world is on fire, and somebody needs to provide a clear path. That is what this is, and I am astounded by the conversation about a possible veto threat from the President of the United States, even when it passes the Senate by a veto-proof majority. Where are we and what is really going on right now? Let's take a look at the world and what is happening in real time. The Middle East is absolutely rocked to its core with violence, and there is this perception that the United States is disconnected from it. I would say that is untrue. We are just not providing clarity in the plan. At a time when we have men and women in harm's way across the entire Middle East, I am astounded that the President is talking about a veto, which will provide even more instability. Let me give an example. When I talk about men and women in harm's way, there are many Americans who don't hear about the ongoing battle happening now in Iraq and Syria and how our sons and daughters are already very engaged in what is happening there. There is this belief--I believe fostered by the President--that we are really not there because we never talk about it. So let's talk about yesterday. This is yesterday over Iraq and Syria and what happened. Near Abu Kamal, there were three strikes from the Americans on two separate ISIL crude oil collection points. That was in Syria yesterday. In Iraq, one strike destroyed two ISIL rocket rails. Near Kirkuk, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed two ISIL heavy machine guns and an ISIL fighting position. Near Kisik, three strikes suppressed two ISIL rocket positions, an ISIL mortar position, and an ISIL sniper position. Near Makhmur, one strike suppressed an ISIL heavy machine gun position. Near Mosul, three strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed three ISIL heavy machine guns and three ISIL fighting positions and suppressed an ISIL rocket position and an ISIL mortar position. Near Ramadi, five strikes struck four separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed three ISIL fighting positions, three ISIL weapons caches, two ISIL buildings, an ISIL bunker, and denied ISIL access to terrain they were pursuing. Near Sinjar, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL heavy machine gun and two ISIL fighting positions. Near Sultan Abdallah, one strike suppressed an ISIL rocket position. Near Tal Afar, two strikes destroyed an ISIL fighting position, an ISIL trench, and an ISIL berm, and suppressed an ISIL mortar position. Near Tikrit, one strike destroyed four ISIL obstacles. That was yesterday. Americans have this belief that we are disconnected. We are a nation that is engaged, but the challenge is that there is no clear plan, there is no end game that is being laid out. In a moment when we have this many strikes that are happening in Syria and in Iraq--and I can go on and on about what is happening with our Special Forces in Afghanistan and across the rest of the region, as I will describe in a moment, but at this moment, with this going on, the President is going to veto a national defense authorization with this kind of bipartisan support, when the whole Nation is saying: Give us a plan because we feel insecure. Currently, we are trying and failing to train and equip moderate opposition forces against ISIL in Syria. Currently, we are trying to give Kurds all the equipment they need to hold the line against ISIL. There are millions of displaced people who are fleeing across Europe, who are trying to find some place of respite. In Yemen, we are supporting the Saudi-led coalition as the Iranians are causing a coup to become a reality in Yemen by the Houthi rebels. In Libya, there is still an unbelievable vacuum left by the incomplete campaign, which resulted in ISIS getting a foothold in Libya and a bloody civil war in a very divided Libya. They have not been able to form a central government in several years now. Egypt is facing a growing terrorist threat in Sinai. There are all kinds of tit-for-tat violence happening right now in Israel between the Palestinians and Israelis. In Africa, we are still hunting Joseph Kony--a despicable madman--but with no success. AFRICOM is also trying to assist forces working to kick al-Shabaab out of Somalia. Bloody sectarian violence is breaking out in the Central African Republic. South Sudan has an extremely fragile peace agreement. Boko Haram continues to rapidly grow in West Africa. In Mexico and other parts of Latin America, drug thugs are running rampant, and they are pushing drugs into the United States in record amounts, destabilizing many of our cities. In Afghanistan, a new offensive by the Taliban threatens to roll back the progress we have made. DNI Clapper testified that the world is still facing an emerging and rapidly growing cyber threat. It is not just a cyber threat to the American Government, it is a threat to every American citizen, as many American citizens have personally experienced in recent days. Let's look to the future and some of the plans that are ongoing. Iran. We heard from Secretary Kerry and this administration that a nuclear deal with Iran would lead to a more peaceful Middle East. Since the agreement was announced, we have seen Iran continue to arm the Houthi rebels in Yemen, continue to support Hezbollah and their expansion, and continue to aggressively prop up the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Some of us have stated quite blatantly our suspicion that this deal would make the region less stable. Indeed, in just 5 years Iran could begin importing large amounts of conventional weapons under this deal. So an Iran that is already supporting large amounts of terrorism will only become better equipped in the days to come. China. They had a state visit here recently with lots of broad promises about cooperation. Meanwhile, we know that much of the cyber threat emanates from China. They are building islands in disputed waters--airfields capable of hosting military assets there. They are beginning to build a world-class navy that could threaten our closest allies in the region. China continues to be one of the world's leaders in human rights violations. Russia. We have heard several of our top military commanders say there is a long list of threats, but the threat they are most concerned about is a growing Russia. Putin walked into Crimea, and the world watched. He continues to threaten eastern Ukraine, and the world watches. He is now expanding Russian adventures into the Middle East, supporting Iranian-backed Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and attacking the moderate opposition forces attempting to defend their own families. This is not a new vanguard against terrorism; this is an expansion of the ``Russian Bear.'' So what are we doing about it? We are trying to actually put out a clear plan. Where are we going in national defense? What are we going to do to stop terrorism and the expansion of terrorists around the world? Instead of the White House cooperating with us, they are threatening to veto the NDAA. It is unbelievable. It is astounding that the White House is spending more time trying to make a deal with Iran than they are trying to actually support our own military. What does this do? What does this agreement really accomplish? For those who aren't familiar with the national defense authorization, let me share a few things that are in this national defense authorization that the President is now saying he is going to veto. Here is one: personal carry of firearms. Post commanders are empowered to permit a member of the Armed Forces to carry appropriate firearms on our posts or bases. After the attack that happened in Chattanooga, this is something the American people have called out for. It is included in this bill, to allow it. It provides for stronger cyber operations capabilities and looks to safeguard our technological superiority. It ensures that military intelligence analysis remains a priority at the national level. The NDAA extends vital authorities for our forces in Afghanistan as we try to deal with what is happening on the ground there. It authorizes the Iran military power report for 10 additional years, reflecting Congress's view that Iran's illicit pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability and its malign military activities constitute a grave threat to regional stability and U.S. national security interests. The NDAA reinforces the mission against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL. Congress authorizes through this the European Reassurance Initiative to address Russia's employment of conventional and unconventional warfare methods to counter U.S. and Western interests, whether it be in the Ukraine or across the area--bicameral, bipartisan efforts to provide assistance and sustainment for the military forces in Ukraine. The NDAA allocates $30 million for DOD-unique capabilities to address the threatening levels of violence, instability, illicit trafficking of drugs, and transnational organized crime in Central America. Dealing with the Pacific region, this conference remains concerned about America's strategy in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region, and the NDAA requires the President to make a clear strategy for this ``pivot to Asia.'' The Defense Department has also placed greater emphasis--under this agreement, the NDAA--on security cooperation with all parts of the world to make sure we have a consistent strategy. If we want to talk about individual members of the military, this NDAA changes how retirement is done. Now, 83 percent of the individuals who serve in our military don't receive any kind of retirement at the end. This allows those individuals to actually be able to participate in retirement benefits, in their retirement from the military, even if they don't make it all the way to 20 years. This is a dramatic shift not only in supporting the warfighter but in actually setting a strategy for where we need to go to provide some clarity to individuals at home and to our troops in the field. The President's statement that he is going to veto this has come under two areas. He said he is going to veto this because the funding mechanism comes from the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund, OCO. Because the funding is coming from OCO, he is going to veto it. The second thing he said: I am going to veto it because I don't like what it says about Gitmo--about Guantanamo--and keeping those individuals who are terrorists who have attacked our Nation at Guantanamo. The ironic part is that when I started to pull this to be able to look at the figures--let me just give the last several years. In 2013, the OCO funding was $89 billion. The President signed that. In 2014, OCO funding was $81 billion. The President signed that. In 2015, OCO funding was $64 billion. The President signed that. This year's OCO funding is $89 billion, which is right there in the same range as the previous 4 years, but this year he is saying: I can't sign it; it has OCO funding. Can somebody tell me the difference on this? This is very similar to what has been done the last 4 years. His statement about Guantanamo Bay and preventing funding--moving the terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to the United States--I can tell you that in my State people are adamantly opposed to moving the terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to the United States. Going all the way back, let's say, to 2011, that NDAA prevented moving prisoners from Guantanamo; 2012, prevented it; 2013, prevented it; 2014, prevented it; 2015, prevented it. All of those, the President signed, but for some strange reason, this year the President has said: It has OCO funds and it deals with Guantanamo--just like every other year in the past. This is the season when we need to bring clear voices and a clear mission, not politics. This is the primary mission we have as a federal government: Take care of our national defense and provide a clear messaging. I am proud of this Senate for finishing the conference report on the NDAA and sending it to the President's desk. Now I would ask the Commander in Chief to stand with the troops, to sign this, and let's get on to providing some clarity in the days ahead. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do object to this bill moving forward by unanimous consent today. The issue is that this bill needs reform. I enjoy our national parks. My children enjoy our national parks. Twenty-nine percent of the United States is already under Federal ownership. Twenty-nine percent of all of the United States is under Federal ownership. A significant portion of this--in fact, last year $306 million was spent from the LWCF, and $178 million of that was for new land acquisition. So the bulk of what this program is used for is for new land acquisition. But the real issue to address here is not only what happens if we allow it to lapse but what happens with it day to day. The day-to-day operation of the LWCF is for new land acquisition or for putting money into a State grant to be able to have them buy new facilities, not to maintain them. We are not setting aside the money to be able to maintain this. We have an $11.5 billion deferred maintenance backlog at our national parks right now. The new additional dollars that are used for land acquisition are used to be able to pick up new properties and not to be able to maintain what we currently have. So the challenge that I have is this: Why don't we look at this fund in a new way? Why can't we take care of what we already have and not just focus on acquiring new properties? To leave the LWCF as it currently is would be something akin to saying: I want to buy a new car, but I don't want to set aside money to actually put gas in it. I just want to have the new car. Well, if we are going to have that property, we better take care of it. Currently, the Federal Government is a terrible steward of the land we have. Now, as far as this program and reauthorizing it right now, we checked with the Congressional Research Service. If this program is not reauthorized currently, the program continues. The program currently has $20 billion in reserves right now--$20 billion. Last year, $306 million was spent. The year before, $306 million was spent in LWCF, meaning in current status, right now, if we do not put a single dime into LWCF for the next few years, we will only have 65 years of reserve left in this program. It is not a crisis that we need to fix immediately. This authorization does not keep the program going. This authorization means we are not adding new money to the $20 billion already in reserve. I think we have at least 64 years to be able to work this out and a 65-year reserve. I can't imagine it would take that long, but with the Senate, everything seems to take too long. What we are looking for is pretty straightforward and simple. Let's spend some of these dollars to be able to focus on not just buying new properties but on actually taking care of properties that the U.S. Government has the responsibility to actually be able to maintain. It is to reform this program in the days ahead and to make sure that we are managing land well, not just adding new land all the time. So with that, I do object.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I also wish to speak to the issue of the objection on this, the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Twenty-nine percent of all the land in the United States is already under Federal ownership. Let me clarify. This is not Federal control-- Federal ownership, 29 percent of the land. There is $20 billion in deferred maintenance on that land--$20 billion. So there is a significant issue we face where a tremendous amount of land that is owned by the Federal Government is not being managed properly, including over $11 billion of that just in our national parks. The issue here is, what is this Land and Water Conservation Fund going to be used for? Continuing to acquire new land. It is actually prohibited under the structure of this account, to actually do any of the maintenance. So we are continuing to acquire new land constantly, expanding landholdings, already at 29 percent of the total property in the United States, but we are not doing maintenance on what we already have, and we continue to complain there is not enough money to be able to go around and get this done. If only this was the only program that actually did land acquisition in Federal control. In the past several years, there have been 130 conservation banks also set up by the Fish and Wildlife Service. These 130 different conservation banks that are scattered around the United States actually take private land and set it aside for what they call perpetual--perpetual--set-aside. This is land that is still in private ownership, but that is under conservation that can never be changed from its current status. Just in the recent decades, 160,000 acres have been moved into what they are calling these conservation banks. To reiterate, we have a growing amount of land that is being taken in Federal ownership through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and then we have a separate set of programs--and this is only one of many programs--that is moving other land into Federal control and mitigation, and we have this expanding control of the Federal Government. We should have National Parks. We should have land that is set aside for public use. That is not the issue, but we are not taking care of what we currently have. The key issue is, what do we do with this program, and how do we reform it. As has already been mentioned, it is the key issue. If the Land and Water Conservation Fund has a reform, there are ways to be able to handle some of our deferred maintenance and the backlog that is there. If it doesn't have any reform at all, we are continuing to purchase new land, but one key thing that is in this as well, as it currently stands right now, the Land and Water Conservation continues to function. Nothing changes about it. The only thing that changes, as of tomorrow, is that we are not adding new dollars into it. Twenty billion dollars is already sitting in that fund, enough money to fund this program at current rates for 65 years'--65 years'--worth of savings that is already built up in this program. I think it is fairly safe at this point. Strangely enough, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is more stable than Social Security is. So the argument is that there is some urgent emergency here to be able to take care of it, and to continue to add dollars to it without reform I think will not work. We need to reform this program. We need to manage carefully the land we have, and we can do that. I would highly suggest that the committees continue to do their work to be able to continue to reform this program. With that, I would also join in the objection to extending it as it currently exists today. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. I ask unanimous consent that the Vitter amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 140, S. 1109.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 257.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, we as a Nation treat bugs in a very unique way. There is a little bug called the American burying beetle. They are in many areas of the country. They are all over Oklahoma. In southeastern Oklahoma, in a lot of areas where there is commercial construction, we have to wait through the early part of the spring because, in the springtime, the American burying beetle lays little eggs and those eggs multiply in the ground and little bugs start crawling up. The folks at the Fish and Wildlife Service tell us not to step on those bugs because they could possibly be threatened, and construction needs to stop during the springtime so the Earth is not disturbed during that time period. We don't want to disturb the Earth because those eggs might be damaged, and we will have fewer of the American burying beetle. I bring that up not because I am so enamored with that bug, but because our Nation has a history of protecting life--life wherever it may be--whether it is a burying beetle in southeastern Oklahoma or whether it is a child. For some strange reason, in this room, the conversation tends to go more towards the American burying beetle and their eggs and protecting that bug than it is about protecting children. So I bring up today something that I don't think should be that controversial. What are we going to do with children who can feel and experience pain? Will we as a Nation guard children? That would be a pretty straightforward thing, I would say. In 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States struggled with how to be able to define life. This whole conversation the Supreme Court had behind closed doors as they struggled with a decision that we now know as Roe v. Wade. In January of 1973, after struggling behind closed doors, the Supreme Court came out with a decision that was brand new to American law, coming from actually common law, and that was viability. What used to be in common law when they would discuss quickening, when the child could kick and move, they would now consider this child a child worthy of protection. They asked the question: When is it possible for a fetus to be alive? In January of 1973, they said they would have to leave it up to medical technology as to when that child would be viable. Fast forward up to today. Let's talk about when a child is considered viable. Let's talk about what happens now. We know at 20 weeks that child can respond to different stimuli. That child feels pain. That child can respond to normal things that are happening around it. I can distinctly remember, with both of my daughters, my wife and I went in at 20 weeks to be able to look at the sonogram because at 20 weeks, that was the first time the doctor could say whether we were going to have a boy or a girl, and we could see the health of my two daughters. That was a big day for us, to be able to go in and see the sonogram and to know it is a girl and to be able to watch them move around in the womb, to dream about what her name would be and what they would look like. Now one daughter is in college, and one is in high school. But the first time I ever laid eyes on them, they were 20 weeks old, when we got a peak into the womb with the sonogram. This bill asks a simple question, this bill that deals with pain- capable. This pain-capable bill asks the question: Is the child alive at five months, when the baby can kick, suck its thumb, stretch, yawn, make faces; when medical science tells us they can experience pain, is that child alive? Recently The New York Times did a report studying this one issue about children that are born extremely early--at this exact time we are discussing right now--how many of the children that are born even that early make it. The New York Times' latest study said more than 25 percent of them make it. Let me tell my colleagues about one of them. Her name is Violet. She is the daughter of a friend of mine. She is a pretty amazing young lady. She was born at this exact date we are discussing, and she was born at 14 ounces. She would fit into your hand, less than a pound. That tiny little girl who had such a tough start is a 1-year-old now. She is not 14 ounces, she is 15 pounds and--thanks for asking--she is doing great. She is healthy and strong and she is beautiful. You ought to see her beautiful face with the bow on the top of her head--a sparkling little girl. She was born at 14 ounces. I am asking our Nation to think about this again. The discussion in 1973 about viability needs to catch up to the science of today. At 14 ounces and at 5 months of gestation, that little girl is doing great. Yet in many places in our country--not all but in many places in our country--that child can still be executed in the womb and no one would bat an eye. This is a conversation our Nation needs to have. I can't imagine it would be controversial to make a simple statement. When a child can feel pain, when a child is viable--even the Supreme Court from 1973 would look at this time period and say that is viability--at that moment, should we as a nation step up and protect children? This shouldn't be about whether a child can feel pain. We know that child can feel pain. It is not even about viability. We know that child is viable. In fact, I know her name. It is about when our laws catch up to our morals and to our science. Late-term abortions in many areas of our country are already illegal. Let's address this. As a people and as a nation, I am asking a simple thing. When we know the child can feel pain, when we know they are viable, let's treat them as a child. Let's honor that child as alive, and let's say we don't do abortions when we know that child is viable. It is a straightforward issue that I hope will not be controversial. This is not about women's health. This is about the health of little boys and little girls who need our Nation to stay with them. This bill we can pass. A lot of important things we are dealing with--the budget, the Iran nuclear negotiations--but can we not stop for a moment and say our Nation will guard our most vulnerable? Can we not protect our children? I think we can do both. I yield back.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 260, submitted earlier today.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading, and I object to my own request, all en bloc.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, September 22; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 36, with the time until 11 a.m. equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to, that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 231, H.R. 2051.

Mr. LANKFORD

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

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I do have concerns as well. Typically we reward people for a change of behavior; that is good behavior, going from bad to good--not static, old, bad behavior. The concern I have is with Iran. We have seen no change in behavior. The same battles are happening in Yemen as they are leading a coup. The same issues are happening in Syria where Russia and Iran are working together to prop up Bashar al-Assad. They are causing trouble in Bahrain. There is the same behavior in Lebanon with Hezbollah. There has been no change in behavior. Yet, the administration is determined to make an aggressive nuclear deal to change the status quo on our sanctions on Iran based on the hope of some future new good behavior when we have seen no present change in the behavior of Iran. This doesn't line up with some of the statements from our own administration. For instance, in November of 2013, Secretary Kerry said that ``there is no inherent right to enrich. . . . We do not recognize a right to enrich.'' In December 2013, President Obama said, ``we know [fully that] they don't need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordow in order to have a peaceful nuclear program.'' At the same time, in December of 2013, President Obama said, ``They don't need some of the advanced centrifuges that they currently possess in order to have a limited, peaceful nuclear program.'' But under this deal, not only are we giving them the right to enrich, not only are we allowing them to have fortified underground bunkers, we are also allowing them to have advanced centrifuges that the President has stated there is actually no reason for them to have, unless they are not using them for peaceful purposes. I have heard over and over again for the last several days in this Chamber the conversation: If someone has a better deal, you should propose it, but this is the best deal that has been proposed. Well, let me just throw a few ideas out there as a better deal for a proposal. First, why don't we do this as a proposal: Why don't we actually have the opportunity to read the agreement? We would like to be able to see it. No one in this Chamber has seen all aspects of this agreement. No one in the House has seen all aspects of the agreement. It is not that we will not read it, we can't read it, because even the administration has said they have not read the entire agreement. Now, I will state that we don't allow secret side deals between a bank and a car dealer when one is buying a used car. We certainly don't allow secret side deals that no one can see between the U.N. and Iran. I am astounded that this body is OK with signing off on an agreement that absolutely no one has read in its entirety. In fact, the administration has said they haven't even seen it. The White House wants to have it both ways. They don't want to turn over the documents which the statute requires, but they also want to keep the part of the law that says Congress has only 60 days to review it. They want to say that by the end of this week it is done--but, no, we are not ever going to turn the documents over that the statute requires. How about this for a different idea of what we can do for an agreement: They don't keep the advanced centrifuges. Since even the President has said there is no peaceful purpose for those centrifuges, if we are going to have a good, solid agreement, they do not keep the advanced centrifuges. Not only do they keep them, they keep them in cascade, they keep them running, they keep them spinning. There is no change in behavior on those centrifuges other than the promise that they won't put uranium in them. How about this for an idea for a better agreement: We have onsite inspections that would actually allow Americans on the inspection team. How about this for a better agreement: We don't lift the ban on missile testing and research on Iran which allows Iran to start missile testing and R&D again on ballistic missiles. We don't lift the ban on conventional weapons sales to Iran, which will allow Iran to start buying large supplies of conventional weapons and surface-to-air defense systems. How about this change for a better agreement: Iran turns over their previous military dimensions of their nuclear program. They stated over and over again they don't have a nuclear weapons program or ambitions. What would be the problem, then, in inspecting their research facilities and their technology if nothing existed? How about this for a better agreement: We don't agree to defend Iran in case in some future time they are attacked in their nuclear facilities by Israel. I think that is absolutely absurd to have in this agreement. How about this: We at least allow Iran the opportunity to publicly acknowledge that Israel has the right to exist--and they currently don't acknowledge that Israel even has the right to exist--or we get our American hostages back, since we are lifting the sanctions on the individuals who personally killed hundreds of American soldiers. Those sanctions are lifted. Why can't we have our American hostages back? Here is one simple idea: Why don't we have the same nuclear agreement with Iran that we had with Libya? When we negotiated the agreement with Libya years ago, their program actually ended. They actually turned their centrifuges over. They turned their nuclear material over. They allowed anytime inspections. While this administration continues to say over and over again that what we are asking for is not possible, it was actually done by the last administration in Libya. This is not asking for something new or radical or different. This is asking for something enforceable and clear. Why can't we have the same nuclear agreement with Iran that we made with Libya and actually stop Iran from advancing toward a nuclear weapon? I am convinced we can do better--we must, for the security of the Nation as a whole. With that, I yield back. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment and recap the day and some of the issues I heard on the floor. I have been on the floor quite a bit today and heard a lot of the debate. As I processed through some of the debate, I heard--and we will see if some of my colleagues agree with this--a lot of conversation on the details of the agreement in trying to walk through the actual process. What does the text say? There seem to be two very different opinions about this. I will share what I am hearing. There are key things that Iran needs to be able to complete a nuclear weapon, and it doesn't seem that this agreement stops them in the process, and it seems that the goal of this agreement was to stop them from acquiring a nuclear weapon. What does Iran need? Well, they need time. This agreement gives them time. It lays out a schedule, backs up and slows down the process of inspections. It allows them time to be able to finish their research. It allows them money. That is a key aspect that they need not only for their funding of terrorism but to actually be able to complete the technological research they have to have in those facilities. Billions of dollars are released to Iran almost immediately in this agreement for them to be able to complete their research. It allows them ballistic missile capability, which is shocking to a lot of people I talked to in my State. They assume this deal actually slows down their ballistic missile research and capability. It actually doesn't. It actually paves the path for them and gives them permission to continue their ballistic missile research. It allows them to be able to continue toward highly enriched uranium. Again, a lot of people I talked to have been surprised at that because the assumption was, after hearing about it from the President so many times, they shouldn't be allowed to have uranium and shouldn't be allowed to do that. That was the conversation 5 years ago, but now the conversation is, how much uranium can they enrich and what does that look like? There have been some conversations today by individuals who have said that this will decrease the number of centrifuges they have. That is entirely correct. It does decrease the number of centrifuges, but let me give an illustration. If your company had 20 computers that were built in 1995 and you were told you could replace those 20 computers from 1995 with 3 computers from this year, would you take that deal? I bet you would. That is the deal we are giving to Iran. We are telling them they will have to get rid of two-thirds of their oldest centrifuges--their oldest, originally built--but they can still keep 5,000 of even their oldest centrifuges and they can install 1,000 of their newest technology centrifuges and keep those going. I would certainly think that is a deal they would take--and by the way, they are taking it, and they are asking us to take it as well. They have time, they have money, they have ballistic missile research, they have highly enriched uranium and the permission to be able to continue their work on their most advanced centrifuges, and they have additional defensive capabilities. They are allowed to continue to stockpile conventional weapons under this agreement and to even add things such as surface-to-air defense capabilities to be able to defend their military sites. So you tell me, does Iran have what it needs to be able to complete a nuclear weapon under this deal--time, money, ballistic missiles, ability to be able to complete their research, advanced centrifuges, and defensive weaponry to be able to put around their facilities? Yes. Here are some of the things which we don't know, which we really can't discuss, and which we would appreciate being able to discuss today--the side deals. We have the documents that have come in. In fact, I have posted them on my Web site, and many others have done the same. We want Americans to be able to read those things because most Americans, when they read them, are stunned with what this agreement says. But what we can't get is the side deal. Again, I have heard over and over from the President that we are not going to trust Iran, we are going to verify. We don't trust, we are going to verify. Literally, with the side agreements--people keep hearing ``What is the side agreement?'' Here is what the side agreement is. The main agreement gives broad parameters. For instance, it says we will have inspections. Well, that is great. How are the inspections to be done? Well, that is in the side agreement. So we are agreeing that, yes, there will be inspections. When we asked the question about how the inspections were to be done, we were told that we can't read that document, that it is a separate agreement between the U.N. and Iran. Literally I cannot verify how we are going to verify. I have been told to trust and verify. I can't verify how we are verifying. That seems absurd to me, and it is hard for me to imagine anyone in this body would say: Yes, I would sign off on something I have never read and have never seen. In fact, the people in the administration have said they have never read or seen it. Yet we are being asked to sign off on it and to give our authorization to say: Yes, we will support that. I have a problem with that, and it is one of many reasons why I cannot support this deal. What I have heard over and over again by individuals who do support this deal today is that this is the deal, it is in front of us, the President has agreed to it, and it will look bad if we don't agree to it. My problem is not looking bad; my problem is a nuclear-armed Iran. That is the problem. At the end of the day, this is not about saving face as America, this is about protecting U.S. interests and U.S. citizens and those of our friends in the gulf. This is not about saving face for the President. I have heard over and over again: It would be too hard to get the coalition back together to be able to renegotiate this. May I remind everyone that the reason we have this coalition together is because the crippling sanctions are one thing--you cannot do business with America and with Iran. That is the deal. If we continue the sanctions in place, it is not about getting the band back together, it is about leaving those sanctions in place, and if you want to do business with the United States, you will also have to agree to not do business with Iran. It is not about getting everyone back together. Leave them in place and let's finish renegotiating it. I have heard over and over again: It is either war or it is this. Quite frankly, I think this deal in its place takes us closer to a conventional war. Why? Because it allows Iran to begin to almost immediately begin stockpiling conventional weapons. Those in the gulf region are so concerned about that that we are promising them they can get more weapons and buy more advanced weapons from us. How does a conventional arms race in the Middle East take us further from war? Under this agreement, it destabilizes. I have heard over and over again today: What is our message to the world when the rest of the world has signed off on this and yet we say no? Well, here is our message to the world: Iran is screaming ``Death to America,'' not death to other countries, except for Israel. They are chanting ``Death to Israel.'' Israel is also standing up and saying: This is a terrible deal for our nation and the stability of the world. It is not about our message to the world; it is about standing up and being the world's superpower. That is who we are. Let's take responsibility for our position in the world and be able to finish well while we are doing it. I have also heard multiple times today: Well, let's sign off on this deal and then we will have tougher diplomacy in the future. I have to say that every time I heard that, I smiled and thought, are you kidding me? What do you mean, we will sign off on this deal and then we will do tougher diplomacy in the future? With what leverage? This is our leverage. The sanctions are the leverage. We are not going to get tougher in the future. This is the toughest moment. It gets softer from here. Iran is still the single largest sponsor of terrorism in the world. They made no change in their actions against Yemen and leading the coup in Yemen. They made no change in their actions propping up Assad in Syria. We are giving this away if we sign on to this agreement. This deal is built on hope, not on facts and trust, and I know everyone in this body hopes to get a diplomatic solution. We cannot base an agreement with Iran on hope. If we cannot verify it, if we cannot see the documents, if there has been no change in behavior, I think we should assume we still have status quo Iran. Let's push back. Let's get the better deal. Let's not allow advanced centrifuges to stay in place. Let's not allow them to continue their ballistic missile testing. These are not hard issues to be able to finish. The deal is half-cooked. Let's get it fully baked, and let's finish a diplomatic solution but not just hope that this works out in the days ahead. With that, I yield back.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, in the days ahead, we are facing one of the most consequential issues we will face as a nation--this issue of an agreement with Iran. Some people want to make this into a partisan conversation. It is not a partisan conversation. It is a national security issue, and it is a world security issue. The Senate has already held multiple hearings on Iran and on this particular agreement with the Intelligence Committee I sit on, the Armed Services Committee, and the Foreign Relations Committee. I personally met with Secretary of Treasury Jack Lew, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, and Secretary of State John Kerry. I have been through the agreement and the classified portion of this agreement in every detail. I wish I could also go through the IAEA information about how the inspections will actually occur because the agreement itself gives broad statements. The IAEA agreement will be the narrow, practical version of how they will actually do inspections. I have been told over and over again by the administration and by officials that the United States will not have a role in determining how the inspections will be done and that they will not even see the methods of how we will do inspections before they actually begin. They told me they have been orally briefed on the process, but they have not actually seen it, which means since they haven't seen it, I can't see it. It seems odd to me that the final aspect of the agreement that actually gives the greatest detail of how the inspections will occur none of us can actually see. It is difficult to have this ``trust, but verify'' attitude when we were not given the ability to verify how they are verifying it and to see how much trust is actually being given in this process. The White House has told us over and over again that if you don't like this deal, there are two options--it is either war or provide a better solution. I am telling everyone: Let's slow down. Let's look at both of those things, and let's also back up and see where we are. For years the United States and the United Nations said that Iran should not enrich uranium. In fact, there are six U.N. resolutions saying that Iran should not enrich uranium. Why? Because Iran is the single largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Iran has propped up the Assad regime in Syria. They are paying the soldiers to walk side by side and to fight with Assad right now and hold up that Syrian Government. Iran is paying for and propping up the coup that is in Yemen right now on Saudi Arabia's southern border. They are still chanting in the streets ``Death to America,'' and they are actively pursuing larger and larger weapons. I think there is a reason to take this seriously. Now, back to the statement by the White House. They have said: If you don't agree with this agreement, then it is either war or you come up with a better option. I will briefly touch on those two issues. I think in many ways this agreement actually pushes us faster to a process towards war. Why would I say that? Because the conventional weapons ban is lifted under this agreement, and Iran can freely purchase weapons from around the world that have been banned by a U.N. treaty, and that is now lifted under this agreement. To pacify the Gulf States and Israel, the administration immediately went to the Gulf States and said: We understand the conventional weapons ban is being lifted there, so we are going to provide you greater technology and weapons, and we are going to provide you greater access to weapons and help to be able to get those weapons. So help me understand why encouraging the Middle East to start dialing up with more and more weapons on both sides of this doesn't actually push us towards war even faster? Then there is this statement about providing a better solution, as if this is the only option that is sitting out there. Well, the agreement itself was written in such a way that the U.N. would approve this first, the European Union would approve it second, and then the U.S. Congress would get it third. That was intentionally done to try to add pressure to this Congress to say: You can't turn away from this. The rest of the world has signed on to it, so you can't turn away from it. This Congress should not process things under fear, and this Congress should not process things by saying: You are the last in line so you better sign up to where the rest of the world is. We have to look at this because we are directly affected by this issue. Remember, Iran has said over and over again that the United States is the great Satan in the world. Anyone who believes that Iran wants to be able to come alongside us and be a peaceful member of the club is not listening to what Iran is actually saying, not to mention this whole theory of, if you don't sign onto this agreement, there is no better deal. Last week Bloomberg reported that the French senior diplomat, Jacques Audibert--the senior diplomatic adviser to President Hollande, the individual who led the French diplomatic team in discussions with Iran in the P5+1 group, and the one who was in the room--earlier this month directly disputed Kerry's claim that a congressional rejection of the Iran deal would result in the worst of all words, the collapse of sanctions, and Iran racing to a bomb without restrictions. The French senior diplomat actually said: If Congress votes this down, there will be saber-rattling and chaos for a year or two, but in the end nothing will change and Iran will come back to the table and negotiate a better deal that will be to our advantage. I will run that by again. He said he thought if Congress votes this down, we will get a better deal. That means two things: He believes, again, that Iran will come back to the table on this, and he also believes there is a better deal out there, and that this is not the best deal we can get. After going through the agreement, I have very serious concerns about it. I am concerned there are loopholes in this agreement that are big enough to drive a truck through. Specifically, this truck is the truck that is big enough to drive it through. I will go through some of my concerns. This agreement assumes that the intelligence community can identify locations in a country the size of Texas--all the locations--for a possible inspection, notify the IAEA which places they should go, and that we would be able to contact Iran and get permission from them to visit those sites, which takes approximately 1 month--I will go into greater detail on that--and that we will actually access those sites and find the information we want there. The IAEA is reporting that they can actually only track for uranium. So all of the other research that goes into building a nuclear weapon, they couldn't actually track that after 24 days, but if there was uranium there, they feel confident they could actually track that. So basically, if we are in the final stages of their assembling something, and we catch them and we are able to get permission to get in there, we could get to it. Not to mention the fact that the Iranian leaders have said over and over again since the agreement was signed that there is no way that the IAEA will get access to military sites in Iran. That is a loophole big enough to drive this truck through. The IAEA has to give 24 hours' notice of its intent to inspect, and then Iran has 14 days to let the inspectors in. Of course, they can stall for 10 more days in the agreement itself. That is 25 days, minimum, to hide whatever they are working on. That is a lot of time to be able to move computer equipment and all sorts of installed things. At the end of it, the IAEA would say, we can actually determine if there were ever uranium there even after 25 days, but basically nothing else. We have incredible people who work for us in the intelligence community that most Americans will never see and never meet. There are some amazing, patriotic Americans, but they can't see everything and they can't catch every needle in the haystack that is in Iran. It would help the intelligence community, and it would help us in our inspections, if we had access to the previous military dimensions for the nuclear weapons program that Iran has had on board. But the agreement itself only says we have to get all things from right now forward, that we don't have to have the documents previous. And if we do, Iran will actually pick the documents that we will see previous in their nuclear practice. So now we have to find a location with no previous documents, with no way to be able to really see what research they have done and how far advanced they are. We are looking for different things, if there are different stages of their research and development on a nuclear weapon. To say in the agreement we are not going to have to get all the previous research they have done in the past is an enormous loophole and it is a definite detriment to what we are doing in our own discovery. Iran has to dramatically decrease the number of centrifuges that are spinning and cascading to enrich uranium. That is true, and I am glad for that. They have to pull out what is a known stockpile and reduce it. I am glad of that, and that is a positive thing. But Iran can continue to enrich uranium with 5,000 cascading centrifuges, just in smaller amounts and using their older centrifuges. Again, that sounds like a win. But there is no reason, if they have peaceful purposes for uranium, to keep 5,000 centrifuges spinning--if they are only doing it for peaceful purposes. Iran can continue testing their advanced centrifuges in small cascades--their IR-6s, their IR-8s. Iran can continue doing research and development on their most advanced form of centrifuges. Worst of all, they can keep over 1,000 of their most advanced centrifuges still in a cascade in their most heavily fortified facility. They just have to promise they won't put uranium in there. But they can continue to do testing and development so when that time comes, they will be ready to accelerate uranium faster. So, basically, they can do everything in the process, except include uranium at that point. We are allowing them time to increase their research, with 1,000 centrifuges in their most advanced level. Why would we agree to that? That doesn't seem to be a pathway to peaceful purposes. That seems to be a pathway to high-grade uranium and the development within country. I have already mentioned that within just a very few years, the conventional weapons ban is lifted in this agreement, allowing additional conventional weapons to flood into the single largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world--not to mention the fact that what is flooding in before all of those conventional weapons are billions of dollars that have been held in sanctions. Now, again, there has been no change on tactics of terrorism. There has been no change of statement from the leadership of Iran, but they are getting billions of dollars. Under sanctions, they used their money to prop up Yemen to form a coup there and to prop up Assad in Syria. What are they going to do with an additional $60 billion, $70 billion? The administration has said they desperately need that money so they can do infrastructure. They are getting billions of dollars. No one is going to tell me a major portion of that is not going to be used for terrorism. As the administration has said, we have built in snapback sanctions so that if Iran violates something, immediately we will snap back the sanctions. But if we actually look at the details of how those snapback sanctions happen, it is months and months in the process of getting everyone back together and forming an agreement that we are going to do that. And if we snap back sanctions, written into the agreement it says Iran can then--if we snap back sanctions--kick out their part of the agreement as well and consider it a violation of the agreement and walk away, and now there are no restrictions on them. So, basically, we are the ones that are punished if we ever snap back sanctions. If we snap back sanctions, Iran could say, see, I told you so, and then immediately kick into the normal process they were into before. By the way, their advanced centrifuges are already spinning. They are still continuing. Nothing was diminished. I haven't even mentioned that their research and development can continue on all of their weapons systems. All of that is unabated. The only limitation seems to be around enriched uranium, but everything else continues the same. I was also appalled as I went through this agreement and saw the leader of the Quds Force, General Suleimani, who personally coordinated the creation, distribution, and installation of improvised explosive devices in Iraq designed to kill Americans. This leader personally was engaged in killing hundreds of American soldiers in the war in Iraq-- hundreds. The sanctions on that general are lifted so he can have normalized relationships worldwide, and four American hostages remain. Can someone tell me why for the murderer-of-Americans general, his sanctions are lifted, but American citizens still remain hostages in Iran? I have to tell my colleagues, I was stunned by many things that were in this agreement and how many loopholes were built into it, but none surprised me more than the part of the agreement that we made as a country, apparently, that if Iran is attacked, the United States will now come to their defense. Help me understand this. As they continue a nuclear weapons program, if a country steps in and attacks them and says no, you can't do that, that is a violation and we are going to stop that, the United States is now agreeing to come defend Iran as they are advancing their nuclear program? Have we lost our mind? Now, the administration, when asked about this, just said it won't happen. If it won't happen, why did we put it in the agreement? Why is it there at all? There seems to be a struggle to be able to get an agreement more than it is a struggle to say we have to prevent the world's largest sponsor of terrorism from getting a nuclear weapon at any cost. This is not about slowing their nuclear program. It should be about stopping their nuclear program. This cannot come to our doorstep. This cannot come to the Middle East. And while the Middle East further weaponizes to prepare for a more aggressive Iran, we continue to step up and say we will help you weaponize, and I don't see how that is deterring us from war. There is a better agreement out there, and we should push to get it. We should take care of the loopholes that are big enough to drive a truck through. We should resolve this issue. We should not pretend this is a partisan issue. This is not about Republican versus Democrat. This is about peace. This is about trying to work out the differences--and the differences are strong--with all nations and Iran. Let's work that out together, and let's keep pushing until we get this resolved. I cannot support this agreement with Iran. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I come from an energy State--Oklahoma. We truly do all of the above. We have coal, oil, gas, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and we are just missing nuclear. Quite frankly, we probably would have nuclear if the regulations weren't so incredibly high and so incredibly expensive to do. In my State and in my region, we want diverse, inexpensive, healthy, plentiful, and reliable energy. We don't think that should be such a high goal that it is only limited to Oklahoma. Quite frankly, I think just about every area of the country wants that. In fact, that used to be a bipartisan goal. It used to be that Democrats also supported ``all of the above'' energy. At some point, they shifted to the ways of Solyndra and determined if you want to be in that party, you have to commit to a certain environmental orthodoxy. It makes it a tougher conversation to have about real energy policy based around facts. It is another day. It seems to be another day for the EPA to release massive new regulations. People wonder why their paycheck doesn't go as far nowadays, why food costs more, why products cost more, and why energy costs more. I can tell you why. It is this ever-growing regulation on the basic cost of energy. It changes the cost of everything. The EPA stated they are not responsible for determining the benefits of climate change, just that it would happen. As they put out their new Clean Power Plan, they said they didn't have to actually list or abide by the cost. They did determine the cost anyway--$8.4 billion a year to the American consumer; $8.4 billion on top of the energy regulations that already exist. They also said they weren't responsible for having to be able to run through the actual effects on climate change, they just said it is happening and so we need to do something. In fact, it has been interesting for me to hear so many of my colleagues in the past 24 hours say: Republicans, put out your plan. We are doing something. You need to put out a plan to show you are doing something as well. We ran the numbers on it and tried to evaluate it through the EPA models and looked for somewhere where someone who ran the EPA model would note how much change there would be in the environment if this plan is fully implemented. The model came back that it would slow the rise of the sea 0.3 millimeters once this is fully implemented--0.3 millimeters of sea change difference. To give an example, the head of this pen is 0.7 millimeters. So half the head of this pen is what we are going to save in sea level change if we fully implement this plan. This seems to be about fear--severe weather, imminent danger. If you don't change everything in your life to the way we think you should live your life, the whole Earth is going to fall into chaos and ruin. We need to have an energy debate on this floor. I completely agree. We even need to have a climate debate on this floor, but it doesn't need to be out of fear. It needs to be about the facts--what really needs to happen. Let's start with some basic questions about energy policy and about energy future: What will it take to have reliable energy for the United States during a summer heat wave so we don't have rolling blackouts and senior adults suffering from heatstroke during an August afternoon? What will it take to protect our grid so that doesn't occur? What will it take to have reliable energy for the hardest nights of winter to make sure Americans are protected in those coldest nights so their power doesn't go out because of rolling blackouts? What energy sources are plentiful in the United States and what energy sources leave us vulnerable to international pressures? What energy sources do we have that we should export to gain economic benefits and geopolitical power for the United States? What energy sources are economical so we can attract manufacturing to the United States to create more jobs for America? How can we ensure that the energy we use has the least amount of health risks so we can have a healthy nation and a healthy world? How about this question. What is the best way to keep energy diversity and distribution to protect our economy from rapid price swings or localized acts of terrorism? That is how you begin to set an energy policy, which is to ask some general questions and then start answering some of those and asking, What is the best way to accomplish that? Instead, our energy policy is being run by environmental policy and fear of what could possibly happen in the future or protecting ourselves from 0.3 millimeters of sea rise. Over the past 10 years, CO2 emissions have drastically been reduced. Since 2005, CO2 emissions from electric generation has been reduced by 364 million metric tons to 2,051 metric tons. The future goal, by the way, in this new Clean Power Plan is to have 788 metric tons of reduction from 2005, but we are already 364 metric tons there because there has already been a pretty dramatic reduction, much of that from a very slow economy--so 424 more metric tons by 2030. That would mean, even with an ever-increasing population, increasing energy needs, and hopefully a recovering economy, we need to cut much more. Let me try to set this in context. I am going to throw around some numbers for a while, but I think we as a body can handle it. Let me give some perspective on where things are going on this. The last time the United States emitted this target amount for CO2 that has now been laid out as the targeted amount was in 1985, with 237 million people. If you want a little bit of throwback time, that is when Duran Duran, Huey Lewis, and the Commodores had all the big hits. That is when there were no personal computers or cell phones or iPads, cloud computing had never even been discussed, and there weren't all the electric devices we have now. We had 237 million people at the time. The target is to get to that same amount of CO2 usage, but we will have 363 million people at the time. That is the estimate from the Census Bureau. So the plan is to have 126 million more people emit less carbon and use less electricity. That sounds like an interesting plan. If you want the real number by percentage, let me break that down for you. In 1985, every 1 million people used 6.86 metric tons of CO2--6.86 metric for every 1 million people. Now, in 2015, every 1 million people use 6.38 metric tons of CO2. That means, in the past 30 years, we have reduced for each 1 million people about half a ton of CO2 because of energy efficiencies, because of the changes in the way we do energy. We do it much cleaner now than we did it in the 1970s and 1980s. Good for us. We achieved a lot in 1985--a lot of changes--but we have half a ton less CO2 per 1 million people. What the administration is proposing in their plan is that for every 1 million people in the United States in 2030, we would use 4.48 million tons of CO2. That means, in the last 30 years, with the energy efficiency movement, with everything that has been done, with the remarkable shift in renewables, we have gained half a ton. The administration wants us now to get 2 tons of additional amount in the next 15 years. Do you understand why a lot of people say this is just not rational? You can't get to an acceleration that fast with that big a goal. Here is what happens, though. I look at the facts and the requirements and immediately I am called a Neanderthal who just wants dirty air and dirty water. Actually, I have children, too, and I like clean air and clean water, but facts are very stubborn things. A government mandate doesn't create reality. Remember Jimmy Carter in 1979? He declared his policies would create an energy path so that by the year 2000, 20 percent of America's energy would be produced by solar power--20 percent by the year 2000. How are we doing with that? Less than 2 percent of our energy in 2015 is produced by solar power. Mandates don't create realities. If we drastically change all our electric generation to wind, solar, nuclear, and some natural gas, we will hit our annual number, but the amount of decrease per year will amount to approximately what China puts out in 1 month. You see, they are talking about reducing per year about 450-or-some metric tons of CO2 that America would put out. China emits 800 metric tons per month. This is why so many people say this is a very expensive goal for America that will have no effect on the global reality. Just to add a dose of cold water to the reality, it usually takes more than 10 years for a powerplant to even get a permit and start the construction because the Department of Energy, FERC, and EPA restrictions are so high. So this plan that in the next 15 years we are going to have all this rollout, we can't even get through the permitting time in that time period. I haven't even touched on the legal issues of the new mandates of the administration. They haven't been in front of the American people or in front of the Congress. The existing law--the Clean Air Act--does not allow EPA to add another layer of regulations on top of the existing regulations. That is clear in the law. You cannot do that. Even the former Sierra Club general counsel, David Bookbinder, found this new proposal is based on what he called a ``legally dubious ground.'' As a nation, we don't need more pie-in-the-sky energy ideas. We need real solutions and a right direction that will benefit the United States and the world. We lead the world in power and ideas. We should set high goals. But our goals should help us as a nation, not hurt us. Every American pays more at the pump right now because of the increasing regulations in the ethanol mandates. Every American is paying more for gasoline than we should. Every American is paying more for electricity than we should because of the cost of all these mandates. People ask me all the time why their dollars don't go as far; the regulations are the reason. Many people want to talk about our energy future--great, so do I. But I also want to talk about our energy present. The goal of a quarter of America's electricity produced by renewables is a good goal. It is a huge jump. We are just at around 5 percent right now in renewables. But that will still leave us--even if that goal is accomplished--with 75 percent of our energy coming from coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear. That is base power. It is not effective at night or on hot still days in the summer when the wind doesn't blow. It is base power. Solar is more efficient than ever. Let's keep going. It is a good thing. I am glad we are able to harness some of that. It takes a massive amount of acreage. There is a new solar facility that just came into Oklahoma. Great, we are glad to have it. It has 15 acres of solar--15 acres of panels. It powers two neighborhoods--two neighborhoods--and it takes 15 acres to get that accomplished. Windmills are much more efficient right now than they have ever been. In fact, they are efficient enough that we should probably stop subsidizing them. They are not a startup anymore. We started subsidizing utility-grade windmills more than 20 years ago, saying someday this thing is going to be efficient enough that it is going to work. I think we are already there. In fact, there are more than 48,000 utility-scale wind turbines in the country right now--48,000 windmills in the country right now. To give some perspective, there are 36,000 McDonald's in the world. We have 48,000 windmills. There are 36,000 McDonald's in the world. I don't exactly think the windmill thing is a startup anymore. I think maybe that is fairly well established. So maybe the need for the subsidy is not there. Geothermal is a great energy source. We have yet to tap the full potential for heating and cooling our homes and businesses. But we still need natural gas, oil, coal, and nuclear to provide power for the foreseeable future. Even the Obama administration lays out over the next 30 years what they anticipate energy use will be, and they still anticipate we are going to need gas, coal, oil, basic base power. So let's do it the cleanest way we can, the most efficient way we can so the consumer is not punished for using energy. We should keep innovating for the future, but we should make rational choices on energy. Let me give an example of an irrational choice. Can I do that? Here is an example of an irrational energy choice: the Keystone XL Pipeline. Now, I know everyone is going to say we are going to talk about Keystone again. This is day 2,510 of a permit request to build a pipeline. Today is day 2,510 of a permit request sitting on the President's desk for a pipeline. Let me give an example. All of these black lines that we see here are crude oil pipelines in the United States currently there. This is how many thousands of miles? More than 60,000 miles in the United States of crude oil pipeline-- 60,000. It is another pipeline. Why does it take 2,510 days to be able to make a decision on this? Oh, it is an international pipeline. That is right. Well, let me add something to it. We have 19 international pipelines currently running--19 of them. This would be No. 20. This is not something new and radical. We are already buying a significant amount of Canadian oil. That oil is coming from right up here. Look at all of these pipelines already coming from the same spot. Look at that, they cross the border, and it has been safe and reliable. This has not been a big challenge for us. That oil is not just being blocked from Canada. Many people think that if we don't put in a pipeline, it won't come. Actually, it is coming by rail already. It is already moving into the country. This is just cleaner and more efficient to be able to move it that way. Canada is discussing taking a pipeline and bringing it all the way over here, dropping it off and bringing it to the coast, and bringing it by ship over to the U.S. gulf coast. Does someone think that is more efficient than bringing a pipeline in? Now, it is not more efficient by rail. It is not more efficient by this way. If we are going to bring it in and Canada is going to sell it, why don't we have an international pipeline--that No. 20, right there--and be able to bring it in? Now, I have heard multiple people say it is because of the aquifer in Nebraska. Let me try to discuss this because I have heard this over and over: We can't run pipelines because of the aquifer in Nebraska. Here is the aquifer that is being discussed all in the purple here. Every line that we see is an existing pipeline running through that aquifer. This tiny blue line is the proposed Keystone that is to go right through there as well. They make these comments: We can't run it through the aquifer because, oh, my gosh, we can't run a pipeline there. That is how many we already have in that spot. This is not radical. This is not different. In fact, let me give one more image. This is the number of pipelines that we have in America right now of all types. This is both natural gas and crude and all kinds of petroleum products that move through the United States all the time--every single one of those lines. This is irrational energy policy that is knee-jerk that is happening. To say that we can't add one more pipeline because somehow that would go over the top ignores the reality of what we already have in the United States. Moving energy by pipeline is clean and efficient. It is also a rational way to do it. We have to move from fear-based energy policy to fact-based energy policy--to look not only at our energy future but what may happen in the decades to come. I hope my car one day runs on a pinwheel on the hood ornament. That would be great. But that doesn't happen right now. My car still runs on gas. So does everyone else's here. And for every single person here that gets on an airplane every week, it doesn't run on water. It still runs on energy that we pull out of the ground. So for the foreseeable future we need to deal with the facts. Stop hurting consumers for some proposed future hope of what may happen. Let's do it clean. Let's do it innovative. But let's not hurt consumers in the process. People want to know where their money has gone. It is being spent away on regulations. Let's get to work on an energy plan. I am glad to have this conversation, but this should not be a conversation in the hallways of the EPA. This should be a conversation in this room to determine where energy policies go. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I would first like to enter into a colloquy with Senator Daines. This is an issue which many of us here in this body feel extremely passionate about. We will talk about Planned Parenthood and what is going on and the basic issue of children. This has been spun multiple different ways, but really this is not about a lot of other issues other than one thing. This is about children--children who are recognizable outside of the womb, and once they have been carved up and set out on a table to be sold as parts, they can be plainly seen to be children. So my conversation today will circle around a little bit about what we are doing, where we are headed, what this vote this evening is all about, and what this debate is that should begin here in America about what happens with Planned Parenthood. So I would like to entertain a conversation with Senator Daines.