Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 627, submitted earlier today.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. 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. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m. on Monday, December 5; 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 House message to accompany H.R. 34; further, that the filing deadline for first-degree amendments under rule XXII for the cloture motion filed during today's session be 4 p.m., Monday, December 5; finally, that the mandatory quorum call under rule XXII with respect to the cloture motion be waived.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Thune substitute amendment at the desk be considered, the Cantwell amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the Thune substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1561 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn, the Burr substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, the title amendment be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 629, S. 2058.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment; and I ask unanimous consent that the motion be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table without intervening action or debate.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate the message from the House to accompany S. 2577. The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 2577) entitled ``An Act to protect crime victims' rights, to eliminate the substantial backlog of DNA and other forensic evidence samples to improve and expand the forensic science testing capacity of Federal, State, and local crime laboratories, to increase research and development of new testing technologies, to develop new training programs regarding the collection and use of forensic evidence, to provide post- conviction testing of DNA evidence to exonerate the innocent, to support accreditation efforts of forensic science laboratories and medical examiner offices, to address training and equipment needs, to improve the performance of counsel in State capital cases, and for other purposes.'', do pass with an amendment.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. 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. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, one of the things I have been focused on--and I know many of my colleagues have been as well, such as the Presiding Officer--in the last couple of years in the Senate is coming to the Senate floor and speaking about this issue, certainly one of the most important issues we can be focused on in the Congress, and that is the economy and the economic growth for the United States. What we have here, shown by this chart, is really a lost decade of economic growth that we have had in America over the last 10 years--a lost decade. This chart reflects the gross domestic product, or GDP growth, in the United States over the last several decades. GDP is essentially really a measure of the health of the economy, the health of the opportunity that we have in this country. By any measure, over the last 10 years we have had a sick economy. So if we look here at the 3-percent GDP growth, this is OK growth. It is not considered that great. The average rate of growth for the United States over the last 200 years--what really has made our country great--has been about 3.9 percent, almost 4 percent. Three percent is not great. It is certainly below average. But we have a President-- President Obama--and an administration that is going to be the first President ever to never in 1 year, even once, hit 3 percent GDP growth ever. Let me cite a couple of recent numbers. In the fourth quarter of 2015, we grew at 0.9 percent of GDP and did not even hit 1 percent. In the first quarter of 2016, it was 0.8 percent of GDP. In the second quarter of 2016, it was 1.1 percent GDP growth. It is true that the third quarter numbers came out estimated just a little above 3 percent for the quarter, but the year will be way off of even 3 percent. Again, traditional levels of American growth are close to 4 percent. So each quarter, when these numbers have come out--these dismal, anemic economic growth numbers--what I have tried to do is come to the Senate floor, talk about the issue, and then ask the question: Where is the Secretary of the Treasury? Where is the President of the United States? What is the plan? Is this really what we expect for Americans? We can't even hit 3 percent GDP growth. Look at every other administration, including Kennedy, Johnson, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan--holy cow--6 percent, 5.5 percent; Bill Clinton, 4.5, 5 percent; even George Bush, well above 3 percent. Not once in 8 years--the lost decade of economic growth under President Obama. That is with low energy prices, and that is with super-low interest rates. So when we ask what the plan is, what the administration is doing to grow the economy, they come back and say: Well, listen, the new normal is about 2 percent, 1.5 percent GDP growth. They don't say we are going to grow the economy. They just dumb down American expectations. Go google the term ``new normal.'' Everybody uses it now in Washington. Essentially, they are saying that 1.5, 2 percent GDP growth is the best we can do. I have a lot of respect for my colleague from Oregon, but if you want to talk about an Ebenezer Scrooge strategy--growing the U.S. economy at 1.5 percent and not even trying to grow at traditional levels of American growth--that is the ultimate Ebenezer Scrooge strategy because the entire country, especially middle class families, are hurt by it. So this answer that, no, we can't even hit 3 percent, that the new normal is 1.5, 2 percent, that is an answer that we get from the Obama administration. The Secretary of the Treasury never comes out and tells us how we are going to get back to traditional levels of growth. That is an answer that consigns millions of Americans to lives where they no longer believe in economic opportunity, no longer believe in strong wages and in terms of growth for our wages, and no longer believe in a future in which their kids are going to do better than they did. We talk a lot about stats, which are important to understand. So let me give my colleagues some of the numbers behind them. In the last 8 years, we have now had, in terms of people working in the workforce, the lowest labor-force participation rate since 1978. What does that mean? Again, that is a health issue of our economy. It means that millions of Americans have just quit looking for work. Can we imagine being that discouraged because the economy is not growing and so you just quit looking? The percentage of Americans below the poverty line has grown by almost 4 percent over this period, where we see no growth. Real medium household income during this period sank by almost $2,000. Food stamp participation in this period--again, 8 years--has soared by almost 40 percent. The percentage of Americans who own homes, which is one of the ultimate markers of the American dream, is the lowest it has been since 1965. So we were talking about Ebenezer Scrooge. My colleague was just talking about him. Those are Ebenezer Scrooge numbers, and those are Americans who are hurting because we can't grow the economy. We need to change that. The Obama administration has not been focused on this issue. We never hear the Secretary of the Treasury come out--or even the President--and talk about how we get back to traditional levels of American growth, like every Republican and Democratic President has done for decades. They don't talk about it. They haven't been focused on it. But I think on November 8, we saw that the American people are very focused on this issue. Millions and millions of Americans rejected the idea that, because of these growth rates, they had to give up on the American dream and a strong U.S. economy and good jobs. They did not want to give up on it. We do not want to give up on that. In essence, Americans saw that the idea of the new normal--which is this, peddled by the Obama administration--is a surrender, and they didn't want to surrender. We shouldn't surrender. We need to grow this economy. So what now? Well, I find it very encouraging that the President- elect and his team, including his nominee for the Secretary of the Treasury, have been talking very regularly about this issue. We need to grow the economy--not at new normal rates of 1.5 percent or 2 percent but at 3, 3.5, or 4 percent GDP growth. That is what we need to do. We in this body need to help them do that because that is what the American people want. In fact, with the exception of having a strong military and keeping this country safe in terms of national defense, growing our economy, creating economic opportunity for all Americans is certainly one of the most important things we can do in the Senate. But we need a partner in the executive branch. We need a partner in the executive branch that is actually focused on the issue, that actually cares about these numbers, and we haven't had it in 8 years. So where do we start? I think we need to start on this issue of the overregulation of our economy. Again, the incoming administration has talked a lot about this issue. When we ask people outside of Washington what is keeping our economy down, they refer to this. This chart is a chart of the cumulative number of Federal rules that have come out of this town onto American businesses, small businesses, and working-class families. That is what we see--pure growth, pure growth. President Obama has enacted more than 600 new major regulations, totaling close to $800 billion or $2,300 per American. What is really interesting is that, despite the fact that the American people on November 8 said they want to grow the economy and they don't want to see this continue, this administration is putting its pedal to the metal on trying to see how many more regulations they can issue and promulgate to crush our economy and opportunity. My State has been ground zero for a lot of these regulations. We are a resource development State in Alaska. The President just last week came out with a new regulation that said: I know that the vast majority of Alaskans want to responsibly develop their resources, but I am going to take the entire Outer Continental Shelf off the table for Alaska. Sorry, Alaska. Sorry, workers. Sorry, American energy independence. I am taking it all off the table. That was a regulation the President put on the table and issued last week that is going to hurt our economy, that is going to hurt American energy independence, that is going to hurt jobs, that is going to hurt our national security, and he did it anyway. There are no leases in my State because the President, in Executive order, issued that. That is not what the American people voted for on November 8. So several Senators, led by Senator Gardner, are going to be sending the President a letter very soon saying: Mr. President, the American people have spoken. The American people are tired of this. You are on your way out. Please, respect the results of the election and quit issuing these regulations that are stifling economic growth and crushing middle-class families. I hope he will abide by that. I hope he listens to us. I hope he listens to the American people. But, somehow, I think we are going to see even more of these in the next month or so. I wish to conclude by noting something that I think most Americans understand intuitively. When it comes to our Nation and the comparative advantages that we have over other countries--and I am talking about the major countries in the world, whether it is China or Russia or the EU or Brazil or Japan--we have so many incredible comparative advantages relative to anyone. We have energy. We have great entrepreneurs. We have world class universities. We have agriculture and fisheries that literally feed the world. We have some of the brightest young people, like our pages here. We have a military that is the most professional and lethal in the world, by far. We have alliances all over the world where countries want to be close to the United States. Our adversaries and potential adversaries, such as China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, have very few, if any, allies. We have so many advantages, and yet the majority of Americans think we are heading in the wrong direction. I believe they think that because we can't grow the economy. So what we need to do is for all of us to work closely with the new administration, and I would encourage all of my colleagues here in the Senate to focus back on this issue. We need to return to traditional levels of American economic growth, and we can do it with the right policies. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 628, submitted earlier today.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6014 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3492, introduced earlier today.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I commend my colleague Senator Murkowski, who occupies certainly one of the most important positions in the country with regard to energy as the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for her leadership on this bill and so many other bills. I am proud to be a cosponsor, with a number of other Senators, of the American Energy and Conservation Act, which will be taken up here in a few minutes. I echo what Senator Murkowski said about this bill. It is a commonsense bill. We already have revenue sharing for onshore oil and gas production, so it only makes sense--really it is only fair, as she noted very articulately--that the States closest to the impacts of OCS drilling also receive their fair share of revenues from resource extraction off their coast. Again, as Senator Murkowski mentioned, this is not going to open up development where States don't want it. It is just providing a fair share to the communities that bear some of the impact of development in the States that do want it, like my State. That is what this is about. I am hoping all of my colleagues will vote favorably for this very important bill. Senator Murkowski also talked about how this bill does not open new areas. At the same time we certainly should not be shutting down areas that exist right now for responsible resource development in this country. In addition to focusing on this bill, which I certainly hope we pass soon, we also--I just want to mention we are hearing indications that despite the fact that our country needs more energy and more jobs to grow the economy, the President might move to close the OCS development off the coast of my State to further oil and gas exploration and production before he leaves office. This would not only unilaterally harm Alaska's economy and kill thousands of good jobs, but it also fundamentally misunderstands what is going on in the country right now. It fundamentally misunderstands the enormous opportunity of energy for America. For 8 years we watched the Obama administration delay, disrupt, and block energy development for America, certainly for Alaska but also for the whole country. It shows an incredible lack of understanding of what a great opportunity this is. Let me give some examples: making sure that we have our own energy, that we produce our energy, that we can be energy independent, that we can create jobs. These are great jobs, by the way, for our country. Also, something that is never really acknowledged is that in Alaska and other places in the United States we have the highest standards on the environment, the highest standards of developing our natural resources offered anyplace in the world. So when the Obama administration has been delaying projects year after year--tiny cuts-- Shell had to spend 7 years and $7 billion to get permission from the Obama administration to drill one exploration well in 100 feet of water. Eventually they just said: We give up. We are leaving. What does that do to the country? It harms our energy independence. It kills jobs. But here is something else it does. It doesn't help the environment as some claim, as the Obama administration claims. What it does is take capital to develop energy resources from America, from Alaska, the places that have the highest standards on earth, and it shifts that capital to places like Russia or Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan or Brazil. Remember when the President said: Yeah, we should drill off the coast of Brazil in thousands of feet of water. He was supportive of that, but he is not supportive of drilling off the coast of his own country. It moves the capital to these places that do not have high standards on the environment. So, overall, the global environment is negatively impacted by these policies. Developing energy in America is a win-win- win for everybody, including the environment. I certainly hope my colleagues will vote in favor of this bill that we are going to vote on in a few minutes. I certainly would urge the Obama administration not to make the shortsighted decision to kill more jobs and energy production in my State by locking up the Arctic OCS before they leave. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, from time to time, I will be coming forward to recognize a small business from Alaska that has made contributions to our community. This month, I wish to recognize Larson Chiropractic, a small business in Wasilla, AK, that does big things. Larson Chiropractic exemplifies the things that small businesses can do to benefit a community, a State, and our country. First, let me say that small business truly is the backbone of our economy and our communities, and we should be doing all we can do in DC to support small businesses and the entrepreneurship and innovation that creates them. Small businesses owners and those who work for them have ties to the community. They know community needs, and they work to fulfill those needs. Larson Chiropractic is a family business committed to improving the health care and lifestyles of Mat-Su Valley residents. Dr. Dan Larson started the company in 1991, and now his son, Dr. Kris Larson, owns Larson Chiropractic and Back in Action Physical Therapy. The company is fully Alaskan-owned and operated, and though it is small, the effect on the local community is anything but. Larson Chiropractic focuses on family-oriented chiropractic health care that emphasizes effective pain relief without the use of drugs and promoting wellness care through prevention, specializing in sports treatment. Their community service centers around their commitment to the area high school athletes. The business is also heavily involved in the annual food drive during Hunger Action Month. Dr. Kris Larson volunteers countless hours at high school sporting events, dealing with injuries on scene, free of charge and, preventing the need for expensive treatment and recovery time later. The staff have also become regular fixtures at sporting events throughout the region, donating time and resources to sporting programs in each high school. Even retired founder Dr. Dan fills in at the clinic when needed and during September assists student athletes and coaches from Wasilla High School every Friday night. From football season, he transitions into basketball season, often traveling with the teams to make sure they are always ready to compete. Dr. Dan also started the Doc Larson Roundball Classic Tournament at the school to give athletes exposure to new people, more basketball, and to give back to the community. Larson Chiropractic and Back in Action Physical Therapy staff a therapy room at Wasilla High for the entire tournament, providing free care to all athletes present, no matter where their team is from. Finally, Larson Chiropractic cares about the community beyond sports medicine. For Hunger Action Month, the business hosts a food drive to help residents of the Mat-Su Valley, covering the cost of admission to the Wasilla High varsity football match-up for anyone who donates two or more food items and continuing the drive in the clinic's lobby and waiting area. They also educate their patients, placing ``Real People, Real Stories'' displays inside examination rooms providing the stories of community members who suffer food insecurity and how food drives help to ensure brighter futures for those in need. Larson Chiropractic cares about the community and cares about the community caring about the community. They have demonstrated a tireless, selfless drive to give back and an inspirational enthusiasm. Their commitment to creating better lives for the residents of the Mat- Su area has benefitted this Alaskan community for many years and hopefully will continue to do so for many more.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Perdue for his leadership on this important colloquy. As some of us have seen down here, as Senator Rounds mentioned, there are a lot of Members of the Senate who are very concerned. But what we are seeing here are a lot of the new Members--12 new Republican freshmen. It is good to see the Presiding Officer, who is one of them. We are very concerned about this. We were concerned because a lot of us ran for office--a lot of us for the first time--because we saw what was going on with this budget process. With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they didn't even attempt to pass a budget for a number of years. They didn't even try. Think about that. You are back home, in a State government such as Senator Rounds was talking about or in a household or a business, and you are not even going to try to pass a budget. That was what was going on in the Senate--remarkable. So what we are trying to do is to fix that. The first thing we did--and Senator Enzi was on the floor a little bit ago--is we came here and we passed a budget. It hadn't happened in years. We passed a budget resolution. That was an important start. Then we started to pass appropriations bills. As a matter of fact, this year, to the majority leader's credit, we started working on appropriations bills at an earlier time than at any time in decades. We got 12 appropriations bills passed out of the Appropriations Committee. Then what happened? We tried to start bringing them to the floor to vote on them, to move them. The vast majority of those bills--all of which were very bipartisan--were filibustered by the minority leader of the Senate. Again, I am new here. I still don't understand why they did that. A lot of us who came down to the floor were really upset when the minority leader of the Senate filibustered the Defense appropriations bill--the bill that funds our troops--six times in the last year and a half--six times. That is a disgrace, in my view. So what are we doing here? More delay. More delay. We just got through a continuing resolution, which is not how to run the government, and they were looking at opportunities for more delay. For example, at the very end of this discussion, there was the idea of maybe adding additional funds for Flint, MI. Well, nobody cares about clean water as much as I do. My State has huge challenges with communities that not just have aging infrastructure, like Flint, MI, but no infrastructure. I have over 30 communities in the great State of Alaska that don't have clean water and sewer and don't have flush toilets--Americans--if you can believe that. So I certainly wanted to focus on that. That is what we did in the regular order through the EPW Committee with the WRDA bill--for Flint, MI, the State of Alaska, and other communities that have challenges with clean water. We are going to address those through the regular order. That is what Senator Perdue is leading on right now in the Senate-- the regular order and getting back to a budget process that can handle the enormous challenges that we have heard about on the floor here--$20 trillion in debt and exploding deficit. That is what we need to do, and I commend Senator Perdue for his leadership. What he did is something that takes a lot of courage here--a whiteboard approach. We just need to look at everything anew. With his leadership and his experience, a number of us lead by Senator Perdue have been working on this for months. This is what we need to do to finally get ahold of these enormous budget challenges. I encourage all of my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats--to join in this process, to bring their ideas to fix what is clearly, clearly a broken process that is not helping our Nation, that is driving up the deficit, that is saddling the next generation with trillions of dollars of debt. We have the beginning of a way to start fixing this. Again, I thank Senator Perdue and Senator Daines for their hard work on this. I am certainly going to be part of their important efforts as we look to put our country on a fiscal path of sustainable economic growth and budgets, which we are not on right now.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. I say to Senator Daines, I again thank you for your leadership. All of my colleagues, the Presiding Officer, you, the other colleagues we have seen on the floor--your leadership has been outstanding, my good friend from Montana. It begs the question. Why have we, the Republican freshman class-- really for weeks, we have all been coming to the Senate floor to talk about what is happening. We have been coming to the Senate floor to counter the minority leader's decision to filibuster our troops, as Senator Rounds mentioned, six times. There is no other bill in the Senate, since we have become Senators, that the minority leader wants to focus on and filibuster than the bill that funds our troops. It is pretty remarkable. I think it is a disgrace. So we are here because we want to bring attention to this issue. What is happening here? Sometimes it can be confusing. We have the press that sits above the Presiding Officer's chair, and they watch what is going on. We want them to report this. We want the American people to know what is happening here because it doesn't matter where you are from, what State you are in, what party you are affiliated with in terms of politics, if you knew your Senator from your State was filibustering the spending that supports our troops when they are in combat all around the world right now, you would probably be very disappointed. You would think it was a story the press would want to write about, but they haven't yet, but we are trying because it is a very important issue. I believe the American people really care about this issue. That is why we are here. I will tell you another reason why we are on the floor, why we have spent hours and weeks coming to this floor and talking about this issue, because there is someone else who cares about this issue--the men and women in the U.S. military. They really care about this issue. I know there is this kind of sense in the Senate--when these votes are taken late at night and there are filibusters and procedural issues, I think a lot of my colleagues think that the troops don't know what is going on, that somehow they don't know the minority leader of the Senate and his colleagues have filibustered the funding for their mission and their welfare and their training six times in the last year and a half. But the troops do know that. They know it. They read about it. I guarantee you they are concerned about it. I think in some ways they think it is demoralizing, as Senator Perdue mentioned. It doesn't give the military leadership the chance to plan long term. Another reason we are on the floor--you know it--is we need to let our troops know we have their back. There might be somebody in this body who thinks filibustering spending for our troops six times is a policy they can be supportive of. Again, I don't know why the minority leader is doing this. I certainly don't know why my colleagues on the other side are blindly following him. But we need to be on the floor to let the troops know, when they watch this, when they hear about this and it confuses them, that we have their back. We don't think this is appropriate. Yesterday when a number of us were on the floor, we talked about what we are asking--what the President, the Secretary of Defense, and our generals are asking our men and women in uniform to do. They are all over the world keeping us safe--in Iraq, in Syria, in the South China Sea, in Europe. Many of the initiatives undertaken by the President in terms of our troops in these places--many of us are supportive of them, but this is a lot that they are responsible for. They are doing so much. You come back to this body, what is this body doing? Filibustering spending for our troops. They are certainly doing their job; it is time the minority leader let us do our job to fund them. Recently, of all the different things they are supposed to be doing, we learned about something new that they might be doing. In a deal recently negotiated by Secretary Kerry, the men and women in the U.S. military might possibly soon be conducting joint airstrikes and sharing intelligence with the Russians. There was a New York Times article today that makes it clear that our military leaders are very, very skeptical of this deal. So it is another thing we might be asking them to do--share intelligence and conduct joint operations with a country we shouldn't be trusting, particularly in terms of military terms. I will quote from the New York Times today. The result of this deal potentially--and by the way, the State Department has not yet allowed us to see the terms of it. We haven't been able to see it. It kind of sounds like that other deal Secretary Kerry negotiated, the Iran nuclear deal. This is from the New York Times: The result is that at a time when the United States and Russia are at their most combative posture since the end of the Cold War, the American military is suddenly being told that it may, in a week, have to start sharing intelligence with one of its biggest adversaries to jointly target Islamic State and Nusra Front forces in Syria. This is from Gen. Philip Breedlove, the recent NATO Commander, who is very well-respected and who just stepped down. I remain skeptical about anything to do with the Russians. There are a lot of concerns about putting us out there with this kind of agreement. So that is again what we might be asking our military to do soon, yet we are not going to fund them. The Washington Post today, in an editorial about this deal--titled ``Either way, Putin wins''--made it clear this is a deal that is not in our interest. Yet that is what our military might be asked to do. But we will not fund them, and the minority leader continues to filibuster. Mr. President, one of the things we have been asking of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle is to come down here and explain why they are doing this--why, for weeks--six times in a year, year and a half. Why? To the credit of the Senator from Illinois, yesterday he actually did come down. Senator Durbin did. He kind of had to because we made a unanimous consent request to move this funding forward, so somebody actually had to come down and say no and do a little explaining. But at least he did. For those who saw it, the explanation fell way short. It was kind of DC mumbo jumbo, process bureaucratese. It was not convincing at all--at all. So it would be good if they could come down and explain it a little better than the Senator from Illinois did. But at least he gave it a shot. Here is what we know. We need to fund our troops now. They are working so hard for us. It is the right thing to do. The American people want it, our troops need it, and it is our solemn responsibility and our duty in the Senate. I thank Senator Daines again for his leadership on this. This is a critically important issue, regardless of whether the media picks it up. We are going to continue to highlight it because it is an outrage that the No. 1 bill filibustered by the minority leader for the last year and a half in the Senate is the bill to fund our troops. It is an outrage. I thank my colleague again for his leadership.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. I thank Senator Daines and all of my colleagues on the floor today, all of the freshman class. The Presiding Officer is part of it. We have a great new class, 12 new freshmen. As you can see, we are very serious about this topic because this is a critical topic not only to the Senate but also to the country. You know, our friends in the media--they often sit above the Presiding Officer's chair--you wouldn't know that the Senate minority leader has filibustered spending for our troops six times in the last year. No one reports on it. It is a disgrace, in my view. Last week we and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle were talking a lot about the Senate doing its job. I think if you polled the American people and you asked them the No. 1 job the Senate, Congress, or Federal Government should be doing, it would be defending this Nation. It would be supporting the troops. That is the No. 1 thing in terms of the Senate doing its job that we should be focused on. As Senator Capito so eloquently talked about, look at where our forces are right now--all over the world. There are 5,000 troops in Iraq. They are in combat. The White House doesn't like to use the word ``combat,'' but those troops are in combat. Our troops in Syria, brave pilots, are bombing ISIS, terrorist groups, on a daily basis. They are in combat. Their families know it. Again, we have a White House that doesn't want to talk about combat. The Press Secretary will not mention the word, but our forces are in combat. We had two aircraft carrier battle groups recently in the South China Sea. It was an incredibly important demonstration of American resolve. We have over a thousand troops who were just put in Europe by the President to reassure our European allies with regard to Russian aggression. A new headquarters was stood up in Poland--an American headquarters. The President ordered 8,500 troops to remain in Afghanistan. These are all initiatives by the President and by our leaders in the Department of Defense just in the last couple of months. Many of us support these. Many of us support these. As the Presiding Officer knows, it is not just the real-world contingency operations--the combat our troops are in. It is real-world training. My colleague from Montana mentioned JBER in Alaska. We have some training exercises, such as RED FLAG-Alaska, one of the best air-to-air combat training exercises anywhere in the world. We had many evolutions of RED FLAG- Alaska this summer. Our troops were training hard. This is what the U.S. military is doing throughout the world and throughout the country to keep our Nation safe. What is the Senate doing? More specifically, what is the minority leader doing? Well, as we have talked about, we came back last week, back in session, and the first vote we took was the sixth time the minority leader of the Senate organized a filibuster to make sure our troops didn't get funding--six times. There is no other bill in the Senate in the last year and a half that the minority leader of the Senate has picked to filibuster more than this bill--the bill that funds our troops. Senator Capito asked a very good question. Why? Why? Why? I have been on the floor asking this question for months. We are freshmen. We are new to this body. But we have not heard one Member of the other party come to the floor and explain why they are filibustering the spending for our troops--not once. This is what our troops need. They watch this, by the way. They understand what is happening. A lot of people think: Oh, it is the Senate. Nobody understands these procedural filibusters and things. The men and women of the U.S. military know exactly what is happening. We will come down here and continue to fight for the funding and support of our troops and their families as long as the other side continues this filibuster. Senator Capito, as I mentioned, asked a very important question: Why? But here is another question for my colleagues. I serve on the Committee on Armed Services. I serve on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I know these are great bipartisan committees with Members of both parties--very patriotic and very supportive of the military. But why are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle following the Senate minority leader? Why are they following his lead in the filibuster? I really, really wish one of them--just one--would come down and explain to the American people why six times--six times in the last year and a half--the minority leader has filibustered spending for our troops and why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have followed him. If you were to poll this question back in any State where you are from, regardless of party--Democratic or Republican--the American people would say: Fund the troops. The American people would say: Bring it to the floor and at least have a debate on the bill that passed out of the Committee on Appropriations unanimously. The American people would say: They are doing their job. U.S. Senate, it is time to do your job. Fund the troops; support the troops. It is remarkable that we are still debating this, and we are going to keep raising this. Maybe the media will focus on it. Again, I want to commend my colleague, Senator Daines, for leading this colloquy because it is so important for the people of the United States to understand what is really happening on the floor of this important body. Senator Daines.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the bill we are debating, the Water Resources Development Act. I will begin by commending the chairman of the EPW Committee, Senator Inhofe, and the ranking member, Senator Boxer, for their leadership on this legislation. Sometimes it is important to just look at what these bills are doing. The Water Resources Development Act--WRDA, we call it here--the title says: To provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes. One of the things I have come to the floor of the Senate to speak on a number of times is one of the most important things I think we should be doing in the Senate, and that is focusing on our economy. With all due respect to the minority leader with regard to the economy in the United States, things are not going well. Just over the past two quarters, we again had numbers that were dismal by any historical measure in the United States. Last quarter, I think we had 1.5 percent GDP growth, and the quarter before that, we had 0.8 percent GDP growth. As a matter of fact, President Obama will be the first President in U.S. history who never hit 8 percent GDP growth in 1 year--never. No President has had such a dismal regard in terms of growing the economy. What should we be doing? First of all, we need to focus on the economy. One of the critical things we should be doing in the Congress--one of the things we need to unleash to the private sector is better infrastructure for this country. Again, I commend the chairman of the EPW Committee and the ranking member because they have been leaders on this issue. Last year, we passed the first long-term highway bill in many years with the FAST Act. That is infrastructure for the country. Right now, hopefully, the Senate will pass the WRDA bill. These aren't perfect pieces of legislation. No piece of legislation ever is. For example, I think both of them could have had provisions that streamlined the permitting process to build bridges, roads, and ports. Right now in this country, it often takes years to cut through the redtape to get permission from the Federal Government to build infrastructure. We need to do a better job on that. But the FAST Act and now the WRDA bill are important bills. They are important bills to help us grow our economy, and that is why I am supporting the WRDA bill we are debating here on the floor. There are many provisions in this bill that are going to benefit different parts of the country. It will certainly benefit the State of Alaska. We are a young State. We are infrastructure poor, for sure, in terms of roads, ports, and harbors. One provision I wish to highlight is section 7106, the Small and Disadvantaged Communities Grant Program. This is a new program that I had the opportunity to work on with my team, Senator Inhofe's team, Senator Boxer's team, and Senator Wicker. We are all focused on this issue. It stemmed from an important topic we were discussing. I know my colleague and friend, Senator Peters from Michigan, is going to talk about Flint, MI, and what happened there and the topic of our aging infrastructure. I certainly respect his advocacy for his constituents on this topic. We have been talking about our aging infrastructure, but one topic we didn't talk a lot about in the Senate--and I certainly tried to raise it a lot--is not just aging infrastructure, but how about the topic of no infrastructure for communities in the United States? I know a lot of Americans don't know this, but there are a lot of communities in our great Nation that have no clean water, no sewer, and no toilets that flush--entire communities in America. Think about that. They have no running water and no toilets that flush. They have what we call in Alaska honey buckets. Sounds sweet, of course, but it is not sweet; it is literally American citizens having to haul their own waste from their house to a lagoon and dump it there. Can you believe that in America we have entire communities--in my State over 30--that have that problem? What this causes is often very high rates of disease, such as skin disease, ear infections, and sometimes at third-world disease rates. Again, this is happening in America. I think it is unacceptable, and I think most of my colleagues believe it is unacceptable. It is not right. That is where the new provision, the Small and Disadvantaged Communities Grant Program, comes in as part of this bill. It prioritizes assistance to small communities throughout our country that don't have basic drinking water or wastewater services. This is a 5- year program that is in the bill. It authorizes $1.4 billion to address what I think the vast majority of Americans would agree is an unacceptable condition in certain communities throughout our great Nation. No American community should have to rely on honey buckets. No American community should have Third World disease rates because they don't have water and sewer. So this WRDA bill is a serious start to address this issue. It is a significant challenge. It is not going to be addressed overnight, but I think everybody in this Senate can agree we shouldn't have communities of hundreds of people in our great Nation who don't have basic services that the vast majority of Americans take for granted and assume that every community in our great country has, but we don't. This is a good start to do what one Governor of Alaska put out as a vision and a goal, which is to put the honey bucket in a museum, and that is what we are going to try to do beginning with this program. I encourage my colleagues to support the WRDA bill that is being debated on the floor. I again wish to thank Chairman Inhofe and Senator Boxer for their leadership on this important piece of legislation. I yield the floor.