the punch line. surveying our bases and installations across the world, g.a.o. found that weather and climate change pose operational and budgetary risks to infrastructure. g.a.o. recommended that d.o.d.'s climate planning be increased, specifically that the secretaries of army, navy, and air force require defense installations to, and i quote, system mat cali track the costs associated with extreme weather events and climate change, end quote, and recommended that d.o.d. better coordinate addressing climate change risks across d.o.d. installations. this picture in the g.a.o. report shows an unnamed military facility in the pacific that has at times been cut off by flooding from access points to its mao nices storage -- munitions storage complex. if you have a military facility that can't get access to its munitions storage, you have a problem. this is the picture of the flooded entryway, and this is the picture of a similar entryway under normal circumstances able to be traveled. a 2014 caused flash flooding here that trapped and imperiled american personnel. the point is when climate change affects, inhibit military base operations, defense preparedness requires climate preparedness. naval station norfolk, the largest navy base in the world, is a poster child for the devastation that awaits our coastal military bases if we continue to pump out the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving sea level rise. a tide gauge operated at the basins 1927 has shown nearly 15 inches of vertical sea level rise so far. in the broader hampton roads metro area, home not only to the navy but also to facilities of the air force, the marine corps, the coast guard, nasa, and noaa, high tides are already regularly forcing sea water back through storm drains and flooding roadways. d.o.d.'s own environmental research programs, strategic environmental research and development program, use norfolk as its case study for sea level rise and extreme storm risks to coastal d.o.d. installations. the study found a tipping point of about half a meter, 1.6 feet of sea level rise at which point, and i quote here, the probabilities of damage to infrastructure and losses in mission performance increased dramatically, end quote. this is mapping of the flood hazard around naval station norfolk. this tipping point at which point the mission performance losses increased dramatically is only a few decades away. retired rear admiral david tedly, a former navigator of the navy and leader of its climate change task force said norfolk has about 10 to 15 years to get serious about sea level rise in the region before, to use his words, we're really cutting it close. in 2017 captain dean vanderly who leads infrastructure engineering at the norfolk naval base admitted sea level rise is, and i quote here, something where i don't know that we fully defined the problem and we have definitely not fully defined the solution. end quote. retired captain joe bouchard told inside climate news that naval station norfolk would need significant improvements to nearly every piece of infrastructure from electrical and drainage systems to pier improvements not to mention a sea wall. he estimated this work could cost more than $1 billion and take as long as a decade to complete. and that's just one base. a billion dollars of work, a decade's worth of work, one base. and remember that d.o.d. has identified 128 bases that would be at significant risk with 3 feet of sea level rise. i think noaa's current estimate is for 6 feet of sea level rise globally by the end of the century. even though our president is clueless about the basics of climate change, his secretary of defense understands and acknowledges the risks. in response to congressional questioning last year, secretary mattis said, and i quote, climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today. it is appropriate, he said, for the combatant commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning. well, for political reasons, the white house can't acknowledge the problem so the recently published national security strategy totally disregards all of these recommendations. it won't even mention the forbidden words. we know these words are forbidden in the trump administration, because over and over again the memos leak out about people being told don't say the words climate change. instead, with all these warnings from g.a.o., from senior military officials, from the national intelligence council, from a decade of quadrennial defense reviews and the testimony of secretary mattis, instead of listening to that, trump parrots, climate change denial talking points that come from the phony fossil fuel front groups. it's pathetic. calling this deliberate ignorance energy dominance may be a fine fossil fuel flourish, but it is completely disconnected from actual safety, security, and military readine readiness. and don't get me started on what the fossil fuel industry's systematic corruption of our democracy means for america's fabled status as that city on a hill. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: i ask unanimous consent that summer lockerby and steven pavock be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: i rise to express my thoughts on the recent protests in iran and the jcpoa. while i am mindful that we have limited sreublt into iran -- visibility into iran and continue to learn more about the circumstances and motivations of the recent protests, one thing is clear. a significant portion of the iranian people are not satisfied with their government and are increasingly willing to make their dissatisfaction heard. it is important that we support their right to peacefully express their views and demand that the iranian government respond with constructive dialogue. it was notable the iranian president denied the validity of the protests earlier this week when he reportedly said it would be a misrepresentation an insult to the iranian people to say they only had economic demands. people had economic, political and social demands according to president rouhani. acknowledging the need for reform, rouhani continued, we cannot pick a lifestyle and tell two generations to live like that. it is impossible. the views of the young generation about life and the world is different than ours. now is the time to support the iranian people in their quest for a government that is more representative and supportive of their interests. unfortunately, some have suggested that our response should be to withdraw from the jcpoa, an action that i believe would only serve to embolden the hard-liners in iran and leave the u.s. more isolated from our allies. withdrawing from the jcpoa and reimposing nuclear-related sanctions on iran would immediately change the narrative inside of iran. uniting reformists and hard-liners alike in their opposition to what they view as a hostile united states. while some have argued that the recent protests in iran are symptomatic of what they view as jcpoa i would suggest otherwise. the nuclear deal supposed one of the regime's central vulnerabilities, namely, the regime can no longer blame sanctions imposed by the u.s. and the international community for its economic woes at home. it is becoming clearer to the iranian people that it is actually the regime's corruption, financial mismanagement, funding of maligned activities and hegemonic activities at the root of their government's inability to enable job creation and ensure necessities like food and gasoline remain affordable. in the coming days the president has several important decisions to make with respect to the jcpoa. in octo enemy october, president trump acknowledged that iran is meeting the obligations under the jcpoa but not that the sanctions relief is appropriate with the actions taken by iran. by the end of this week president trump is again required to decide whether to issue such a certification. i suspect he will again choose not do so. the more consequential decision for the president this week is whether to continue waivers of nuclear-related sanctions as he's required to do under the jcpoa. choosing not to continue such waivers would immediately snap back u.s.-nuclear related sanctions, thereby putting the united states in violation of the jcpoa. let me be clear. this would be a unilateral action on behalf of the united states that would put us in violation of an international agreement not just with iran but with the united united kingdom,, germany and russia as well. by all accounts the jcpoa is working as intended and iran is meeting its commitments under the deal. it is important to remember what the jcpoa was designed to do and what is it now achieving. the jcpoa commits iran to never seeking to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon. effectively cuts off all pathways for iran to achieve a nuclear weapon during the period covered by the agreement. increase the time for iran to require enough material for one one -- for a nuclear bomb. they were within months of having that capacity. dramatically it reduces iran's stockpile of enriched uranium. it has prevented iran from preventing plutonium and has had robust monitoring by the iaea. withdrawing from the jcpoa would leave us more isolated and less able to deal with the various challenges posed by iran. the crippleling sanctions regime only worked because the international community was united in its determination to keep iran from achieving a nuclear weapon. if we withdraw from the jcpoa unilaterally and in the absence of a clear violation of the deal by iran, there is no reason to believe that our partners in the p-5 plus one will join us. in fact the french president said there is no alternative to the jcpoa and told the u.n. general assembly that renouncing it would be a grave error. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said that i believe that the u.s. would incur damage if we unilaterally withdraw from the jcpoa. our allies would be less likely to cooperate with us to prevent iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. other sanctions may snap back but not those imposed by the rest of the world. many of whom have begun building economic ties to iran since the jcpoa was signed. our international partners would then blame us, not iran, for the failure of the deal. some, including president trump, had argued that we can and should desolve the jcpoa. this is highly unrealistic. we were only able to achieve the jcpoa after years of sustained multilateral diplomatic efforts and the imposition of aggressive sanctions. it will likely be impossible to replicate that if the united states unilaterally withdraws from the jcpoa. contrary to president trump's belief, threatening to walk away from the deal weakens our ability to address the jcpoa's perceived flaws by alienating our partners. instead, we should remain committed to the jcpoa and lead the international community in imposing additional sanctions where necessary to change other iranian behaviors, namely, the respect for human rights, ballistic missle development efforts, and other malign activities. we must seek to help enable the iranian people have their voices heard including adopting social media and other means of communication many we could start by general licensing designed to encourage the export of communications technology to iran. as secretary mattis told the armed services committee at his confirmation hearing, quote, when america gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies. close quote. if the president decides this week not to continue nuclear-related sanctions relief for iran, he will effective choose to restart the nuclear program thereby making conflict with iran more likely. withdrawing from the deal would also be a devastating blow towards our efforts of diplomacy with north korea and any future diplomatic efforts. why would any nation engage with us in serious dialogue to resolve differences if they fear we will withdraw unilaterally even when other parties are complying with the agreement. regardless of whether you supported the jcpoa before it was signed, the truth is it has removed the greatest threat we have faced from iran while addressing all other iran's malign activity. iran continues to be a sponsor of state terrorism and an abuser of human rights. iran continues to destabilize the region through the development of ballistic missle and support of yemen, syriaa, lebanon and elsewhere. if iran behaves this way without a nuclear weapon, imagine how much worse a nuclear-armed iran would be. fortunately our nonnuclear sanctions on iran remain in place and are unaffected by the jcpoa. in fact, congress authorized additional sanctions in july to help deal with these issues. the administration should work with our international partners and use all tools at its disposal, including by ramping up nonnuclear sanctions where necessary to counter iran's unacceptable behavior in these areas. aggravating the jcpoa only invites another nuclear crisis like we are facing with north korea. a concern echoed by general dunford when he said that it makes sense to me that holding up the agreements we have signed, unless there is a material breach, would have an impact on others willingness to sign agreements. many have criticized the jcpoa as a flawed deal. for example, concerns had been raised that certain provisions sunset after a period of year thereby delaying rather than permanently preventing iran from achieving a nuclear. if the concern is that iran may seek to resume nuclear -- weapons, the action is not to throw out the deal but to work with the international partners to ensure that the necessary restrictions under jcpoa are appropriately extended or supplemented. as i noted before, iran has committed not to develop or seek to acquire nuclear weapons. we should not take them at their word. we should verify their adherence to commitment just as we are doing under the jcpoa. if at any point in the future we have evidence to suggest iran is taking steps that indicate a violation of that commitment, we should use that information to rally the p-5 plus 1 and other international partners to take a unified stand. unilaterally withdrawing from the jcpoa would seriously damage our ability to exert such leadership in the future. again, according to general dunford, in the absence of the jcpoa, iran would likely resume its nuclear weapons program and, quote, a nuclear-armed iran would likely be more aggressive in its actions and more dangerous in its consequences. close quote. he also told the committee the intel community assessment is that iran is in compliance with the jcpoa and therefore i think we should focus on addressing the other challenges, the missile threat they pose, the maritime threat they pose, the support of terrorist threat they pose. our troops in iraq and syria are operating in close proximity to iranian maligned militias, including those that targeted american troops. unilaterally withdrawing from the jcpoa could embolden these hard-line militias and possibly result in iran giving them a green light to target u.s. forces once more. furthermore, while i have full confidence in our military's ability to fight and win wars when necessary, we cannot escape the reality that military contingencies to respond to both a nuclear-armed north korea and iran result in massive loss of life and national treasure and greatly stress our military's capacity and capabilities. in conclusion, i will return to where i began. now is not the time to impose a self-inflicted wound on our foreign policy and standing in the world many unilaterally withdrawing from the jcpoa would empower iranian hardliners and undermined the protest we are seeking to empower. it would leave us more isolated in the international community and by extension less able to address the range of national security challenges posed by iran, north korea, and other potential adversaries. we must not be a i did gate the -- abdicate the jcpoa on these issues. therefore i urge the president to stay the course with respect to the jcpoa while also rallying the international community to take effective actions intended to change other unacceptable behaviors by the iranian regime to suppress dissent at home. we must not squander this opportunity by making the story about the united states rather than the courageous iranians, who at great risk to themselves, have taken to the streets to demand a better future. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: quorum call: quorum call: quorum call: quorum call: mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that at noon tomorrow, all postcloture time on the brown nomination be considered expired, and the senate vote on the confirmation of the brown nomination with no intervening action or debate. further, if complrt is in-- cloture is invoked on the counts nomination, all postcloture time be considered expired at 1:45 p.m. tomorrow and the senate vote on confirmation of the counts nomination with no intervening action or debate. finally, if confirmed, the motions to reconsider with respect to brown and counts nomination be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, for about 20 years now, i've viewed the development and deployment of layered ballistic missile defense shield as probably singularly the most vital thing we could be doing around here, adversaries like north korea. people are aware of that now. and others have ballistic missiles. they're increasing in range, capability. iran is getting almost everything -- one of the problems you have is you get countries like north korea developing capabilities, missile capabilities, and if they have it, then other adversaries have it. talking about yemen, all the rest of them. so, anyway, it's important for us to communicate to the american people that the threat that we face is probably the most imminent threat that we've had in the history of this country. today i think it's the most -- the greatest threat that we've had certainly in my lifetime. i've spoken on the floor on this issue. in 2001, 2009, 2012, and this will be the fourth time this year. over the last 30 years we've witnessed the missile defense programs go through the dramatic investment periods followed by extreme starvation and cancellations. i'm talking about here in the united states. depending on who happens to be president at the time. i remember back, of course, when reagan came in and people made fun of him and said star wars and tried to defame him in any way that they could. yet he was able to be persistent and start on a program that ended up -- we should be thankful that we have today. it was followed in 1989 by president bush. he continued that program. however, when president clinton came in in 1993, the first thing he did was cut $2.5 billion out of the bush missile defense budget request for the fiscal year of 1994. he also terminated the reagan-bush strategic defense initiative and downgraded the national missile defense to a research and development program. he cut five-year missile defense funding by 54% from $39 billion to $18 billion. i say this because these times are changing. to continue with his administration in 1996 he cut the funding and slowed down the development of the thaad and the navy theater-wide systems. the thaad system to remind ourselves of how important that was back at that time and the cut that he made in that, how critical that was. thaad right now is about the only thing we've been able to join forces with south korea and be able to knock down something coming from north korea to south korea. in the aegis system is one of the few things that could be -- defense system that we could share with japan. so without these systems, they would be wide open. that was 1996. then in the -- in 1999, the last of the clinton years, he delayed by at least two years what they called the space-based infrared system which is a complicated system that knocks down incoming missiles. then bush 2000 came in. by the end of 2008 president bush had success steeded -- succeeded in fielding a defense system. one of the things he did was most significant, and this is in the final years of his administration, was recognize the fact that we have had ground-base interceptors in our country for a number of years. in fact, there are 44 groun ground-base interceptor systems. they're all on the west coast because that's where we thought the threat would be. we discovered during that time during the bush administration that the threat was from both sides because we recognized that iran was developing the capabilities as well as north korea and others. so in order to protect eastern united states as well as central europe, we had this system that was set up. it was kind of funny because i remember being over there with one of our strongest allies. the system that they set up was one where they had a radar system in the check republic -- czech republic and they had a rocket system, ground-base interceptor in poland right next door. and i remember when the president of the czech republic, one of our strongest reporters, he said to me at that time, now, in we go ahead and put our system in the czech republic and in poland, can you assure me that if we incur the wrath of russia, that we're not going to end up being able to -- be embarrassed and have the rug pulled out from under us. i said there's not a chance in the world that that would happen. well, that did happen. in fact, it was a total of the 44 ground-base interceptors were -- were actually fielded. that was in alaska, california, on the west coast. so we went through this thing where they pulled the rug out from under poland as well as the czech republic. then in april came our first obama defense cuts which began disarming america and dismantling our layered missile defense system. now, this is critical because we had put this in for the reason that we perceived the threat to be coming in from the east as opposed to the west coast. and the very system that would have protected us was taken down by president obama. so i'd say due to his overall reduced budget request in defense, there were not enough aegis ships. i mentioned how we're using those today in defense of our many of our allies, including japan. and since king jong-un took power in 2009, he's already conducted more than 80 missile ballistic missile tests. that's far more than miz father and -- more than his father and grandfather conducted. north korea has conducted six nuclear tests of increasingly powerful weapons. the latest test being september of this year. now, the major test actually came after that. that was one that was on november 28. on november 28 he demonstrated that he could -- he had the range of the -- of the united states in the central part of our country. in other words, it was stated by others observing that he now has the capability of reaching anything -- any target in mainland united states. there was some scientists did analysis of what they did on the 28th of november. they made it very clear, david wright who is analyst for the union of concerned scientists wrote, yesterday's -- and this is something that happened on the 29th of november. he said yesterday's test indicates that north korea can now hold the united states well within missile range. and so he said further quoting, he said such -- quoting, he said such a missile would have more than enough range to reach washington, d.c. or -- and in fact any other part of the united states. here's the scary part of this. because those who are not wanting to believe that the threat is real and the threat is there are saying, well, we don't know that that missile that he demonstrated on the 28th of november could have reached that range if it had had a full pay load, a load of a nuclear warhead. we don't know if it had one or not but that didn't give me much comfort. they also questioned whether or not it could sustain the reentry back into the atmosphere. the point is they now have that capability and that's something we have to keep in mind as we're making decisions because we have decisions to make. that's what we're doing right now in trying to decide how we're going to keep the government from shutting down and develop some kind of a budget or a plan that is going to serve us well. so let me just mention another thing that i think is very significant because i heard today, a lot of people talking about -- criticizing, not really understanding what happened with the tax plan that was passed. already we're getting the results of it. it's kind of exciting to think -- i don't recall anything in my career where we got the results as quickly as we got -- as we're getting right now. and we heard all -- the minority leader, schumer say -- he called the tax plan a punch in the gut of the middle class. an op-ed piece in the "new york times," senator elizabeth warren and senator bernie sanders said -- and this is a quote -- they said the republican agenda on health care and taxes is widely disliked by the american people and a tax giveaway to the wealthy. well, i think it's important that people understand that not only is middle-class america going to benefit from this, they already have. a million americans are counting on receiving raises and bonuses from this tax reform. now, in my state of oklahoma, thousands of employees will be received and have already received large compensation increases, bonuses. the corporation in actual so, the express employment professionals in oklahoma city, american airlines, southwest airlines, at&t. in fact, this is happening all together. senator roy blunt was coming back on a plane, the same one i was on and the flight atten attt was talking about -- she already received $1,000 bonus. the rest of them chimed in and said we have too. that's already happening. right now we have a list of 123 major corporations that have already given an average of $1,000 per every employee that they have predicated on the assumption that the tax plan is going to increase the economy and that is exactly what's going to happen. so i'm really confident that this is actually happening today. i have to say this, though, because more people still try to say well, we can't be -- give the tax reductions to people and still increase revenue to do all these things we need to do with our national defense and with our infrastructure programs. and that's not true. i'm going to repeat one that i have done before on this but people seem to not understand. it's easy to say well, if you reduce tax, you're going to reduce revenue and that isn't the way it works. i remember very well what happened. i was not in this position, of course, but in 1981 when ronald reagan was president, at that time he had the most far-reaching reduction in taxes. i remember the top rate was reduced from 70% to 30%. the other brackets came down proportionately. and yet at the time that he did that in 1981, the total amount of revenue coming into the united states was $469 billion. and as a result of that, that increased revenue -- that increased revenue to $750 billion. that's incredibly -- that's a huge thing and that shows that it really happened. the reason it happens is for each 1% increase in the economy, that produces revenue of -- increased revenue of some $3 trillion. that's what happened then. that's what's going to happen now. people are rejoicing today. i ask unanimous consent that the sheet that i have that outlines all these companies that are giving large bonuses as a result of the tax bill be made a part of the record at the conclusion of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: thank you very much. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: mr. president, every member of this body is only a few generations removed from the immigrant experience. at some point in the recent past each of our ancestors made the courageous decision to leave their homes in search of a better life in america. each of them took a risk. they didn't know what awaited them in this country but they believed that through their own hard work and determination they can succeed. my mother took a huge risk when she brought my brothers and me to this country leaving her entire family behind. she packed our belongings into one suitcase and we set sail for hawaii. we grew up poor, but mom worked so hard every day to build a life for us in this country. she worked minimum-wage jobs with no health insurance. we moved apartments and schools every few years. eventually we were able to bring my grandparents to hawaii from japan, so i understand as an immigrant how important family unification is to immigrant families. i share my story not because i think it's particularly extraordinary, but it's a story that millions of families in our country share. the same hopes that drove my mom to risk everything to bring us to america are reflected in the stories of millions of immigrant families across the country. and they are reflected in the lives of dreamers whose futures are now at risk because of the president's decision to end the daca program. more than 15,000 young people have already lost their protection from deportation as a result of the president's decision. 122 more will lose daca protection every single day. it was with this sense of urgency in mind that i joined a bipartisan group of my colleagues at the white house yesterday to find a path forward to protect the dreamers. the president took great pains to appear reasonable and eager to make a deal, but we left yesterday's meeting without much calculator about where -- without much clarity about where he stood. only a few days ago the president threatened to hold dreamers hostage until he got $18 billion to build the wall. i would call that his vanity project. in reis responsible to my question -- in response to my question at yesterday's meeting, the president appeared to demonstrate some flexibility on this issue. but after the freedom caucus spent yesterday afternoon warning of a potential betrayal on so-called amnesty, the president reaffirmed in a tweet his hard line position that funding for the wall must be part of any deal on dreamers. between insisting on building an unnecessary wall, demonizing family unification and peddling misinformation about the diversity visa lottery, the president lost track of what's really at stake here. the inspiring young people whose lives he left hanging in the balance. before the holidays it was heartening to see so many dreamers from all across the country taking direct action in the halls of congress to fight for their futures. i spoke with a number of these young people, like victor from houston who traveled for days to make his voice heard in congress. victor's parents were seasonal farm workers who traveled to the strawberry fields of florida every year. they settled down in houston and saved money for a car and an apartment. they sent for victor and his sister when he was only four years old. victor spent most of his childhood not even knowing his immigration status. it wasn't until he came home one day with a permission slip to join his middle school class on a trip to spain. it was then that his mom told ms undocumented. learning what it meant to be documented, that if he traveled to spain he couldn't come home was really hard for victor, but he trade to put it from his mind. as the years passed it got harder for victor to grapple with his status. he loved going to school, but he knew as an undocumented immigrant, his options after he graduated from high school were li

Related Keywords

Japan , United States , Iran , Alaska , Lebanon , Rhode Island , Czech Republic , Yemen , California , Syria , Oklahoma City , Oklahoma , Russia , Germany , Iraq , North Korea , Houston , Texas , Poland , South Korea , France , Spain , Hawaii , Americans , America , Iranian , French , American , Iranians , King Jong , Bernie Sanders ,