Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would like to make brief comments concerning the status of the Energy and Water appropriations bill, following the actions of the majority leader. I said most of what I had to say earlier.

Here is my view of it. Tonight, and for the third time, the Senate voted not to end debate on the Energy and Water appropriations bill, even though we have virtually finished all of our work on it. We have one difference of opinion, and it is a big one. It is provocative. It is the Cotton amendment that would prohibit U.S. tax dollars being used next year to purchase heavy water from Iran.

The majority leader has filed cloture on the Cotton amendment, which means that after tomorrow--the intervening day--we will have a vote on the Cotton amendment on Wednesday. We will dispense with it the way we usually dispense with issues about which we have large differences of opinion: We vote on them. Sometimes we can work them out, sometimes we can withdraw them, and sometimes we can't. So we are going to vote on it. Senator Cotton has said that if he should not win the amendment, he will withdraw it. That will dispose of the Cotton amendment, and then we can move on and finish the Energy and Water appropriations bill.

I said earlier today, and I will reiterate, that while I have defended Senator Cotton's right to offer his amendment--it is germane and it is relevant--I will vote no on his amendment for two reasons. One reason is I believe it raises the possibility that if the United States is not allowed to buy heavy water from Iran, then it puts it on the international market and it could be purchased by other countries, such as North Korea, for use in making nuclear weapons.

This is not a vote for or against the Iran nuclear agreement. I am opposed to that agreement. This is a question about what to do about the heavy water that Iran has, which it has to get rid of, which can be used either for peaceful purposes, which we use it for in the United States when we have it--we use it for the neutron microscope at the Oak Ridge Laboratory, we use it for fiber optics, we use it for MRI imaging, we use it in a variety of ways--or it can be used to make plutonium and nuclear weapons. Now is not the time to be increasing the possibility that heavy water from Iran could be put on the international market and sold to a country such as North Korea, which might use it to make nuclear weapons. That is No. 1.

No. 2, while the amendment is relevant and germane, this is an amendment that ought to be considered first in the Foreign Relations Committee or the Armed Services Committee. I get a lot of lectures sometimes in our Republican lunches about appropriators making decisions that ought to be in the authorizing committee. Well, this is one of them. If there were an issue that raises more such complex national security issues, it would be hard to think of one. Might this heavy water be used by a country to make nuclear weapons or, on the other hand, if we purchase it, does it create a market or an incentive for Iran to produce more heavy water? What happens to India, which produces heavy water? What happens to Argentina? What happens to the need of the United States for heavy water, since we don't produce it at all, yet we need it? Iran produces it. We don't want them to have it. We don't produce it. We need it. We don't want North Korea to have it. These are complex national security issues that ought not to be decided on an amendment to this bill.

I will be voting no on the Cotton amendment because of the fear that it might create the possibility that putting it on the international market would put this distilled water, which could be used peacefully, in the hands of those who might make a bomb with it, and because I think an appropriate way to handle it is to first allow the Foreign Relations Committee or the Armed Services Committee to deal with it.

This is a sincere amendment. I have defended the right of the Senator from Arkansas to offer his amendment. My friends on the other side don't like the amendment. They see it as provocative. They see it as a poison pill. That is a difference we will just have to work out over time.

This is the U.S. Senate. The right way to work out differences we can't otherwise work out is simply to vote. The majority leader has made sure we will have a vote on the Cotton amendment by Wednesday.

My hope is that as important as this Energy and Water appropriations bill is, that Senator Feinstein and I could work with the Democratic leader and the Republican leader and others to see if we might not agree tomorrow on a way to vote on the Cotton amendment and finish the bill.

As I have said earlier, 80 different Senators have important provisions in the bill. I know that. I know they are important because many of my colleagues went home over the last week and took credit for passing them, even though we have a little more work to do.

So while we have one difference of opinion left--and it is a big one--I think the majority leader has put us on a path to come to resolution by Wednesday, and I hope by tomorrow.

Let me conclude by thanking Senator Feinstein. She feels as passionately about this as Senator Cotton does. Maybe she feels more passionately about it. I respect and understand that, but I also respect the fact that she and I are bringing the first appropriations bill to the floor, and it is our basic constitutional duty to do so. We haven't had an Energy and Water appropriations bill make it all the way across the floor under regular order since 2009. That is not the way the railroad is supposed to run around here. We need to show the American people that we can resolve our differences and come to a result, so we will do that. We will have a vote, and then we will finish the bill. I hope we can do it tomorrow.

I look forward to continuing my discussions with the Senator from California and other interested Senators to get it resolved.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source