[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 138 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5963-S5981]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT OF 2014--Resumed
Pending:
[[Page S5964]]
Reid motion to concur in the House amendment to the bill.
Reid motion to concur in the House amendment to the bill,
with Reid Amendment No. 3923 (to the motion to concur in the
House amendment), to change the enactment date.
Reid Amendment No. 3924 (to Amendment No. 3923), of a
perfecting nature.
Reid motion to refer the House Message on the bill to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, with
instructions, Reid Amendment No. 3925, to change the
enactment date.
Reid Amendment No. 3926 (to (the instructions) Amendment
No. 3925), of a perfecting nature.
Reid Amendment No. 3927 (to Amendment No. 3926), of a
perfecting nature.
Motion To Concur
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business
for up to 10 minutes; that following my remarks Senator Warren be
recognized for 2 minutes; that Senator Landrieu then be recognized to
speak for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Tribute to Former Congressman Lane Evans
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in this week of Veterans Day, I would like
to take a few moments to speak about a very brave marine who was a
great friend of mine and a true champion of America's veterans.
Congressman Lane Evans of Illinois passed away last Wednesday. He was
only 63 years old. Lane had been battling Parkinson's disease for
nearly 20 years. A few years ago, another illness, Lewy body disease,
began attacking his memory. One cruel disease ravaged his body as the
other assaulted his brain. But his spirit and his quiet courage
remained unbroken to the end.
Lane Evans and I were both elected to the U.S. House of
Representatives in 1982, two surprised Democrats who were elected in
traditionally Republican, conservative, downstate congressional
districts. We were both sons of blue-collar families. We both learned
our values from our parents, our neighbors, the nuns and priests at
school. We both learned from politicians who were leaders in our State,
such as Senator Paul Simon.
Lane and I worked closely together in Congress. Parkinson's forced
Lane Evans to retire from Congress in 2007, long before his time. We
remained friends. I used to visit him. When I did, we would share our
favorite stories about political adventures. Lane Evans was a kind and
good person. He was funny, with a razor-sharp intellect, and he was
courageous.
He joined the Marines 2 weeks after graduating from high school. It
was 1969. Lane was 17 years old. Military service was a tradition in
the Evans family. Lane's dad had served in the Navy. One of Lane's
brothers was already serving in Vietnam so Lane was stationed stateside
and then in Okinawa. After 2 years in the Marines, he came home and
used the GI bill to earn a college degree, graduating magna cum laude
from Augustana College in Rock Island. Then he earned a law degree from
Georgetown. He came home again and started a successful law practice in
Rock Island serving children, the poor, and working families.
In 1982, Lane Evans decided to make a run for Congress. He may have
been the only person in the beginning who thought he had a prayer of
winning. He had never run for office before. He was all of 31 years of
age. He looked as though he was 21 on a good day. History was against
him. Voters in that district had only elected a Democratic Congressman
once in the previous century. That had been only for 2 years.
Lane Evans worked hard. He got lucky when the incumbent Congressman,
a lifelong Republican and moderate, lost to a hard-right challenger. On
election night in 1982, Lane Evans and I were both elected to the U.S.
House of Representatives for the first time. It was my third try to get
elected. It was Lane's first. He never lost after that. He served 24
years in the House. His voting record was often to the left of many of
his constituents, but he was unapologetic. Voters reelected Lane over
and over because they knew he was honest, forthright, and he cared
about them. He was straightforward and sincere. People knew he was a
man of principle who would always vote his conscience no matter what.
When it came to constituent service, Lane Evans set the standard.
Lane and his staff were so good at cutting through bureaucratic redtape
that the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee
once joked that ``two-thirds of the people in his district think that
he signs their Social Security checks.''
Lane's speeches were always packed and not because he was a great
speaker. People came to Lane's speeches because of what happened after.
He never left a speech until everyone in the audience who wanted to
speak to him had their chance. Lane's dad was a firefighter, his mom a
nurse.
In the blue-collar neighborhood where he grew up, their steady
incomes made the Evans family better off than most of their neighbors.
As a young lawyer and Member of Congress, Lane Evans fought for people
such as the parents of his childhood friends who worked shifts in
factories and fire houses. He was a champion of blue-collar workers and
senior citizens.
Lane fought for fair trade, a fair minimum wage, and the right to
collectively bargain. He worked for a cleaner environment and
protection of family farmers. He fought to give students from working-
class families the same chance he had to get a good college education.
He was a giant on the House Armed Services Committee. He understood the
Rock Island Arsenal was more than just an arsenal for our Nation's
defense, it was a major, important employer in his district. Most of
all--most of all--Lane Evans fought for veterans. This week of Veterans
Day is a good time to remember how much Lane Evans of Illinois meant to
America's veterans and their families. He made veterans's concerns the
cornerstone of his congressional career. He was the first chairman of
the Vietnam-era Veterans Congressional Caucus and the first Vietnam-era
veteran to serve as ranking member of the House Veteran's Affairs
Committee.
He was also the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.
During his time in Congress, there was no Federal program for veterans
that did not bear Lane Evans' mark. Veterans today enjoy increased
education benefits, improved health care, strengthened home
loans, judicial review of their benefits, additional opportunities for
veteran-owned businesses, and a host of other improved benefits because
of the leadership, determination, and heart of Lane Evans.
From his earliest days in Congress, Lane Evans pushed for action on
issues helping Vietnam veterans. He was an outspoken advocate to
address the problems and embarrassment of the homeless and substance
abuse among Vietnam veterans. In his first term he led the effort to
create a pilot tram establishing community-based veterans centers to
help with job and marriage counseling and post-traumatic stress
syndrome long before it was a popular term.
The program has since grown to include veterans centers all across
America. Lane Evans led the fight to give compensation for Vietnam
veterans exposed to Agent Orange and for their kids born with spina
bifida as a result of that exposure. It was not just his war that
concerned him. He was one of the first Members of Congress to push for
more information about the Gulf War Syndrome. He supported increased
opportunities for women in the military, an early supporter for full
civil rights for gays in the military.
Paul Rieckhoff, the CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America,
here is what he said about Lane:
In the early days of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Lane
was one of the first members of Congress to take on issues
like PTSD and TBI.
Traumatic brain injury.
He helped put our issues on the map.
Lane Evans worked to include Parkinson's research as part of funding
for the VA, to make sure veterans suffering from this disease received
the best possible care. He worked with Senator Leahy, then-Senator
Hagel, and the Vietnam Veterans of America to push for a U.S. and
international ban on the production of antipersonnel landmines.
He was awarded the Vietnam Veterans of America's first annual
President's Award for Outstanding Achievement in 1990. In 1994, the
AMVETs gave him the Silver Helmet Award, known as the ``Oscar'' of
veterans' honors.
[[Page S5965]]
This is how Lane explained his commitment to veterans. He said:
Our veterans--those returning from Iraq, those who scaled
the cliffs above the beaches of Normandy, those who walked
point in the jungles of Vietnam, those who survived the
brutality of Korea and other battlefields, all who honorably
served or who are now serving, have earned the assurance that
VA--their system--will be there when they need it. ``Just as
we practice on the battlefield that we leave no one behind,
we should not slam the door on any veteran who needs the VA
system.''
The best way we can honor Lane Evans' memory is by more than just a
speech on the floor of the Senate, it is to continue his work on behalf
of America's veterans, continue to work to make the VA responsive to
the massive number of disability claims that have been filed since Iraq
and Afghanistan, and make sure every veteran receives respect, health
care, job training, and the opportunities they have earned.
There is another way we can honor this champion of veterans; that is,
by naming the year-old VA medical center in Galesburg, IL, the Lane A.
Evans VA Community-Based Outpatient Clinic. This center is in the heart
of what was Congressman Lane Evans' congressional district for so many
years.
Nearly 4,000 veterans a year seek services there. I am honored it is
a bipartisan effort to name this center after Congressman Evans, led in
the House by Congresswoman Cheri Bustos. Lane used to say he loved the
Marines because the Marines salute their lowest members. I hope my
colleagues will join me in honoring one of the Marines' finest members
by supporting this proposal to name the VA outpatient clinic in
Galesburg, IL, in honor of Congressman Lane Evans.
Lane Evans was laid to rest at the Rock Island Arsenal on the date of
the 239th anniversary of the Marine Corps. I remember so many years
ago--18 years ago--when Lane and I were in a Labor Day parade in
Galesburg, IL. I did not think much of it at the time. It was just
another parade in another campaign. Lane told me later that he noticed
something was wrong on that date. As he was waving his left hand, he
realized it was numb and he had no feeling.
He continued to work even after he had been diagnosed with early
Parkinson's. It made it difficult for him to stand without pain or to
even smile easily. He never, ever complained. When his legs locked up
when he was in terrible pain, he would tell his closest friends: I am
so lucky. I couldn't carry mail, I couldn't be a meat cutter, but I can
still do my job as a Congressman.
As we say in Illinois, thank heavens for Lane Evans, and I thank the
good Lord he devoted so much of his life in Congress to the people he
loved in his district and to the veterans of America.
I offer my condolences to Lane's family, especially his three
brothers, to his brothers and sisters in arms, and to all of us who
loved him and were touched by his gentle life.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Remembering Tom Menino
Ms. WARREN. I rise today to honor a departed friend and committed
public servant, Tom Menino. He was a devoted husband to Angela, loving
father to Susan and Tom Junior, and adoring grandfather to six
grandchildren.
For 20 years Tom served as mayor of Boston and led the resurgence of
our city. He believed in economic growth and building communities,
fighting for hospitals, scientific research, and innovation, while
simultaneously strengthening our neighborhoods, expanding our parks,
and knitting diversity into a community of equals.
Mayor Menino succeeded because he knew all along that our fortunes
depend on our working together as one people, one community, one
Boston, and he did everything he could to create that united Boston.
Reports are that Mayor Menino had personally met more than half the
residents of Boston, and we believe it. In our happy moments--Red Sox
championships--and in our darkest moments--when smoke arose at Copley
Square--we knew we could always count on Tom Menino to be there.
Mayor Menino's Boston lived up to the vision of its founders: a city
that all eyes can see is a model for the country and for the world.
On behalf of a grateful people, I urge my colleagues to come together
to pass a resolution that was introduced only yesterday by Senator
Markey and me celebrating the life of Mayor Tom Menino.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Keystone Pipeline
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank my colleagues for allowing a 10-minute
discussion today by unanimous consent on an important issue the
Congress is taking up today.
On the House side, debate on the Keystone Pipeline is starting, and I
understand there could potentially be a vote as early as tomorrow. I am
so pleased to have been one of the spark plugs that helped to get us
moving not in the next Congress but in this lameduck session of this
Congress.
The American people spoke loudly and clearly not only in my State of
Louisiana but around the country, wanting us to work together to get
the job done.
I was very pleased that the Republican leadership brought to the
floor the early childhood education bill that Senator Lamar Alexander
has been leading. It is a very important bill. I, frankly, don't think
it is more important than the Keystone Pipeline, however. So I was
pleased yesterday to come to the floor and offer, as chair of the
energy committee, my own priority list of what I think is most
important. I say that with sincerity because I actually support both
very strongly.
I have several amendments to Senator Lamar Alexander's bill which
have not been adopted and which I understand, unfortunately, will not
be allowed for debate. So I don't know if I will be able to vote for
cloture on his bill, although I strongly support it. My record is as
strong as anyone's in this Chamber. So I will be interested to see if
amendments to the Lamar Alexander bill will be allowed on the floor. I
am hoping they will. If I can get at least a vote on the amendments I
have pending to that bill, I will absolutely--whether my amendments
pass or fail--vote for it because it is the will of the body and we
must do something. We must invest more money. We must have more quality
programs for early childhood education. It is an absolute cornerstone
of strengthening and building the middle class.
In my State, that is what we are focused on, and I can't go anywhere
without people telling me: Senator, thank you for your fight for
education. Senator, thank you for your fight for early childhood
education. Senator, thank you for fighting to take student loans down
from 11 percent--the rate on student loans--to 3 percent.
On almost every day of this last election cycle, that is what I was
talking about at home, and I know Members who were in elections or even
not in elections heard clearly from the American people, during the
time we were home working, how much what we do in Congress can matter,
can make a difference in their lives. They don't want government
intrusion, but they do want government to function so they can get a
good college education, so they can get good job training, so they can
start businesses that can grow profits for themselves and their
communities.
I look forward to that debate, and I am very happy the Republican
leadership rushed to the floor to put down a bill on early childhood
education because I think they heard from the American people that just
talking about tax cuts for the wealthy, tax cuts for people making over
$1 million a year, and tax policy--yes, it is important, but what is
very important is fighting for the middle class.
I say congratulations to Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. That
is the first bill the Republicans have put down in this lameduck, and I
look forward to working with him.
But the first bill that we put down and I put down as chair of the
energy committee--unusual for Democrats because we don't have our whole
caucus supporting it, but we have a good strong part of our caucus
supporting it--is a bill that is going to actually create immediate
high-impact jobs for this country today, soon, as it is being built. As
soon as this bill passes and as soon as the President signs it into
law, there will be an immediate, dramatic push from the oil and gas
industry and
[[Page S5966]]
from the energy industry broadly--alternative energies, wind, solar,
coal, and clean coal technologies--because the vote on Keystone and the
President's signature on Keystone is a signal, a strong signal, it is a
green light that America is ready to go, that we are following the
science, that we are following our process, that we are respecting
private property rights. And, yes, we are respecting States in their
views of where these pipelines should be sited. No State--not Nebraska,
not West Virginia, and not Louisiana--wants to be told by the Federal
Government where pipelines are coming through on private property. No
State. So Nebraska does have an issue that has to be resolved. They
have an issue that has to be resolved about where that pipeline should
be laid, and the Republican Party should most certainly respect States
rights on where that pipeline should be laid.
The bill Senator Hoeven and I have acknowledges that process. It also
acknowledges private property rights, and it says it is time to build
the Keystone Pipeline.
This was not a last-week election wake-up call; I have been working
on passing the Keystone Pipeline before I was the chairman, all during
my chairmanship, years ago, as a senior member of the committee, and
now as chair. I have not stopped and came very close to getting a vote
on this floor before the election. Frankly--and the reporters should
know this--it was really held up by the politics of both sides. That is
not what is said, but that is the actual truth--the politics of both
sides. I see Senator Manchin on the floor, who is a strong supporter,
and he might talk a little bit about that. Both sides have some blame
as to why we couldn't get to a vote, but I will let the record speak
for itself.
This is the pipeline. This is what has to be built. As you can see,
it doesn't come into Louisiana, but it most certainly impacts my State.
It impacts the entire country.
These are already pipelines that we have in America. This is just
another important pipeline because it connects Canada--our greatest
ally and our great economic partner--with the refining strength of
America, which is not only in Louisiana and Texas but primarily in
Louisiana and Texas. It begins to move a great product, produced with
the highest environmental standards in the world, approved by this
administration's environmental department saying it meets the
environmental standards of transportation, et cetera, and it meets the
standards of this administration's State Department when it comes to,
is it in America's interests. They said yes, it is in America's
interests. That standard has been met. So let's build the pipeline.
I came to the floor yesterday. The Republicans brought their early
childhood education bill to the floor. I am so proud they did. I
brought Keystone Pipeline. Because I did, it seemed to have moved lots
of things, which I am pleased about, and I think the Senator from West
Virginia may wish to comment. But it seemed to have shaken up a few
things and moved a few things, and that is good because Senators who
are energetic and motivated and can build coalitions--like Senator
Manchin and I do every day when we are here--can actually get things
done.
Mr. MANCHIN. Will the Senator yield?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia for a
question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Let me say to all of our colleagues and all of my
friends on the Republican side and my friends on the Democratic side
that this is the greatest opportunity we have had in the 4 years since
I have been in the Senate to have truly a jobs bill, a quality jobs
bill that pays high wages. Almost every State in the Nation benefits by
the Keystone Pipeline.
If you want to take politics out of this, take all of our names off.
Senator Landrieu says take her name off. Take my name off. Take
everybody's name off, and let's find out who really rises to help
Americans.
This is one bill that we have been trying to bring to the forefront.
Senator Landrieu has brought it how many times? She was the first
person--I said yesterday--who, 4 years ago when I came to the Senate,
explained to me how important it was and how it interconnected all of
us. I am very appreciative of that.
Now Mary is in the political fight of her life. I pray to the good
Lord that the good people of Louisiana understand the fighter she is
and what she produces for America every day.
With all that being said, she is willing to take her name off if this
piece of legislation will move forward so that the Presiding Officer in
Montana and I in West Virginia can get some high-quality jobs. We all
benefit from this.
Next, it makes our Nation secure. If you want to protect your people,
have a secure nation and don't go chasing energy all over the world. It
takes us places we don't want to be and shouldn't be. This does all of
that as far as securing our energy and making us energy independent.
But I just saw after the election--and we accept that. I am on the
Democratic side. I heard loud and clear the people of West Virginia and
the changes they want. What they really told us is: We want you all to
do something. If you have a chance to help us with a good job, do it.
Don't argue over your politics. It seems as if you are more concerned
about your own status of being a politician or being an elected
official than you are about mine, which is basically paying my bills,
taking care of my family, and being able to be a good American.
What we are saying, we thought we heard that loud and clear. So I
will say to all of my friends on the Republican side and all of us on
the Democratic side, take a moment and listen to what was just told to
us. What was told to us is to do our job--that is what Senator Landrieu
was trying to do--move this important piece of legislation forward and
do the job we are supposed to.
The best politics is good government. If we do something good as a
Republican and as a Democrat, we all get credit for it. We do something
bad, and then we try to blame each other--who did it worse than the
other. We all get blamed for it. This is the best thing we have had for
the last 4 or 5 years. We have had a hard time getting to this point,
to almost get a vote for it, and now they want to say: Well, one-
upmanship--we will see if it can come over from the House side with a
person who is involved in a race against Senator Landrieu. Forget about
those people.
Forget about all of us who cosigned and cosponsored this bill,
apparently.
Just pass it. Give us a vote and pass it. That is all we are asking
for. I think if we do that, the people will say: I think they heard us,
and I think they are starting to do something. That is why I am on the
floor with Senator Landrieu and the people willing to fight for the
jobs that Americans need--not just in Louisiana but in West Virginia,
too, and also in Montana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 10 minutes
Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to close.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I think the Senator pointed out some key points--not
only how important this pipeline is for the middle of America but for
the economy of the whole country.
The pipeline and the supplies that are coming and the workers to
build this pipeline come from all over the country. The businesses that
supply the gadgets, the widgets, the steel, the trucks, the forklifts,
the equipment, the cranes that come to build this pipeline come from
all over the country.
But more important than the pipeline itself, which is going to move
hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil from Canada--which we
would much prefer to deal with and trade with, than, let's say,
Venezuela or some other countries that don't share our values. More
importantly than that, it is going to transport it in the safest way.
Without this pipeline, this oil will be produced. We cannot stop
Canada from producing it. They are going to produce it, and it is going
to be moved east and west by rail or moved south by truck. We cannot
put any more trucks on our highways, and we can't crowd our rails.
I know there are people, like my good friend from Massachusetts,
Senator Markey, who is going to surely speak against this pipeline and
why, from his perspective, it is not the right thing to
[[Page S5967]]
do. And I respect those views. I strongly disagree with him, but I
respect him. I strongly disagree with his arguments--and we will have
this debate in the coming days--and I respect him.
But the point is this. Whether you support the Senator from
Massachusetts' or you support the Senator from Louisiana's views, the
point is we need to vote. That is the process. I believe we have the 60
votes on this floor to pass this bill. I believe we have always had the
votes to pass this bill, if we can just get it to a vote.
Now, as is the process, the Senate has to pass the bill, it has to go
to the House, and then it has to go to the President. He can sign it or
he can veto it. I do not have at this date any indication that he will
veto this bill. He could issue a veto warning on it in an hour, he
could do it tomorrow, he could do it next week. That is not the point.
The point is the Senate must begin to be the Senate again. Let the
President worry about being the President. Let the House worry about
being the House. Let the Senate be the Senate.
I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered
Ms. LANDRIEU. Let the Senate be the Senate. That is what my voters
said. I think that is what voters in Tennessee said. I think that is
what voters in North Carolina said, and I think that is what the voters
in Massachusetts said. Let the Senate be the Senate.
We are the greatest deliberative body in the world. Let's debate.
Let's vote. Let's get the work done. Let the chips fall where they may.
The public can accept that. They cannot accept--and they should not
have to accept--gridlock, game playing, and raw politics on the great
floor of this Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I respect the Senator from Louisiana, and
there is no more fierce advocate for this pipeline in our country. She
has been a relentless advocate for that pipeline. I am not going to
speak on this issue today, but I look forward to a much more extensive
debate that we will have next week. But there is no one more vulnerable
than the Senator from Louisiana in her advocacy.
Remembering Tom Menino
I rise today to speak about Tom Menino, our great mayor from the city
of Boston who just passed in the last month. He always looked out for
the little guy. He always stayed true to the people who elected him,
and he stuck by his principles.
In every neighborhood across the city, Boston mourns the loss of our
great mayor, Tom Menino. We mourn along with his wife Angela, his
family, and everyone who ever was touched by Mayor Menino. But we will
fill that void with the love and respect that we have for the life and
the legacy of this extraordinary man.
Boston loves Tom Menino because Tom Menino loved Boston with all of
his heart. Tom Menino wasn't satisfied with leading the best city in
America. He wanted Boston to be the best city in the world. He was an
urban architect without equal, attuned to every detail in every
neighborhood. He forged a more inclusive Boston, where diversity is
embraced. Tom Menino was everyone's mayor.
In a poll a few years back, half of all Bostonians in the poll said
they had personally met Tom Menino. That really captures how Tom Menino
approached his job, but we all know how he viewed those poll results--
that his job was only half done.
Yet Mayor Menino's vision for Boston was global, and he pushed the
city into a new era of innovation. He helped our shining city on a hill
illuminate its light of innovation across the world, building a beacon
of entrepreneurship and ingenuity. He laid the foundation for Boston's
economic leadership in the 21st century, including spearheading
Boston's Innovation District and developing the seaport area.
The Innovation District is supporting the companies and industries
that are creating jobs today, and Mayor Menino has ensured that Boston
will continue to be a national leader in biotechnology, clean energy,
and health care for generations to come. He did all of this while
keeping Boston's historic character alive. Tom knew what potholes
needed filling, but he also knew when to leave the cobblestones alone.
So today, if you take a drive around Boston--or, as Tom would want
you to do, take a bike ride--you would see there is no place in Boston
that hasn't felt the caring imprint of Tom's hand: kids playing on new
playgrounds in safer neighborhoods; poor communities with better access
to life-saving health care; entrepreneurs and investors collaborating
on the next big thing.
Boston will move into the future a stronger, brighter, safer, and
healthier city because of Tom Menino. So today we honor his life and
his legacy. Tom Menino is a man and a mayor for the ages.
Rest in peace, Mayor Tom Menino.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2650
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will be asking a unanimous consent
request to bring up S. 2650, the Corker-Graham-McCain-Ayotte-Rubio
legislation. Senator Murphy, I think, is going to speak here in a
second, but if I may do two things: I wish to reserve 20 minutes of
time to be divided between myself, Senator Corker, and Senator Rubio to
speak about the topic. But I would now like to make a unanimous consent
request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined
by the two leaders, but no later than November 24, 2014, the Committee
on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S.
2650, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill
be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of
the bill with no intervening action or debate. Further, if passed, the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, just to
make a few brief comments prior to my colleagues speaking on their
request on the underlying bill, it is my understanding that the request
is to bring a bill to the floor that would create an
extraconstitutional process by which the House and the Senate would
convene on a possible statement or resolution of disapproval on an
agreement that has heretofore not been negotiated between the United
States and our allies and Iran with respect to that country's nuclear
program and nuclear ambitions.
I think we are all of one mind in that we are hopeful that these
negotiations are concluded successfully, that we are able to stand
together and say that we have used diplomacy rather than military might
in order to dislodge from Iran any prospect of obtaining a nuclear
weapon. But we are at an absolutely critical moment in these
negotiations, and I believe the underlying bill which is being asked to
be brought to the floor today would undermine those negotiations by
sending a message that Congress does not stand with the President as he
and his team negotiate these final agreements.
There is going to be a legitimate question as to what Congress's role
is, but we won't know that until we see the agreement. We won't know
whether it rises to the level of a treaty. We won't know whether we
need to pass legislation to immediately repeal sanctions versus having
them temporarily suspended. This bill has not gone through the
committee process.
While it raises, I think, some legitimate questions of what
Congress's role is going to be, if there is ultimately an agreement
worked out between the P5+1 and Iran, it is premature at this point to
set into law a process by which we would vote an agreement up or down
until we understand what the agreement is in the first place.
That is my primary reason for standing here and ultimately
registering an objection. I do worry as well that it would send a
fairly chilling message to our negotiators and to those who are in the
room if the signal is that the Congress is not giving the full
authority to
[[Page S5968]]
this President under the Constitution in order to negotiate an
agreement which is ultimately going to be, we hope, to the benefit of
the United States and global security.
I know my colleagues have time constraints and want to speak on this
underlying bill. So, with that, I object to the unanimous consent
request
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). Objection is heard.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague very much for
speaking in a way so we can all have time on the issue.
No. 1, about the chilling messages, this is a chilling message from
the Supreme Leader of Iran about 3 days ago: Nine questions about the
elimination of Israel. In this tweet--and I will read some of it
later--the Ayatollah, the Supreme Leader in Iran, talks about how to
annihilate the State of Israel during the negotiations.
Also, recently an IAEA inspector was talking about elements of the
Iranian nuclear program that have been hidden that would make it larger
than we all suspect.
What are we trying to do? I would like to bring the Iranian nuclear
program to an end through peaceful means, and by an end, I mean the
following: I would welcome a deal that would allow the Iranians to
produce peaceful nuclear power but without the capability of turning
that program into a weapons program.
I fear that we are on the road to a North Korean outcome, where the
international community gave a rogue regime a small nuclear program to
be monitored by the United Nations--and the rest is history regarding
North Korea.
I have asked several times to the administration: Tell me the
safeguards that exist in these negotiations with Iran that did not
exist in North Korea, and I have yet to get an answer.
It is pretty openly known that the administration and the P5+1 have
conceded a right to enrich uranium as part of any deal with Iran. To
that I say: Of all the nations on Earth, given their behavior, name one
country that you would put in the category ahead of Iran when it comes
to denying them the ability to have a centrifuge that one day could be
used to make a weapon. The idea of giving an enrichment capability to
the Iranians, given 30 years of lying, deceit, American blood on their
hands, and recent tweets about annihilating Israel to me is insane.
So all we are asking is that any deal negotiated between the P5+1
come to this body for a discussion and a vote. Senator Corker is the
primary author of this legislation.
Here is what I can tell the world: Nobody wants any more war. But we
do not want to allow the Iranians, given their behavior, the capability
one day to develop a nuclear weapon, and that is exactly what they have
been trying to do. They have lied about their program. They have been
deceptive about their program. They have blood on their hands when it
comes to killing Americans in Iraq. They are one of the largest state
sponsors of terrorism in the world.
The idea that we would give them an enrichment capability just
astounds me. We are telling our allies--South Korea, and the UAE: If
you want a nuclear program, fine--don't enrich the uranium.
There are 15 nations in the world that have nuclear programs without
an enrichment capability. To concede one to the Iranians is the
ultimate act of throwing the Mideast into further chaos, because the
Sunni Arabs, the mortal enemy of the Shia Persians, will want a
capability of their own of like kind or greater. The worst possible
outcome is to give a regime this dangerous the capability or the
potential to one day make a bomb. One centrifuge in the hands of people
with this mentality is one too many.
To the Iranian people, my beef is not with you. My beef is with your
leaders who have taken the world down a dark path.
This legislation is pretty simple. Bring the deal to the Senate. We
will have a right to file a motion of disapproval. We will have a vote,
we will have a debate, and if it is a good deal, it will be approved.
If it is a bad deal, we will stop it.
I cannot imagine the Senate and the House sitting on the sidelines
and ignoring something this important.
To Senator Corker, who will soon be the Chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, this was his original idea. We have tried to
perfect it, but what I really believe is what he tried to do months ago
to make sure the Congress would have a check and balance over any deal
with the Iranians was smart. It would enhance the administration's hand
when it comes to negotiating because they would have to tell the
Iranians, it is not just us you have to please, you have to go before
the representatives of the American people. That would lead to a better
outcome. If it truly is a North Korea in the making, we will have a
chance to stop it.
President Obama wants a deal too badly, in my view; but at the end of
the day, let's wait and see what happens. I just want to let the
Iranians and the administration know beforehand, we will not sit on the
sidelines and watch you go it alone. This is one decision the President
will make that the Congress has to be read in on and have a say about.
This is not the time to let President Obama go it alone. The stakes are
too high for Israel, for the United States, for the world at large.
What do I fear the most? I fear that over time we will give the
Iranian ayatollahs the capability to develop a nuclear weapon. Name one
technology they developed that they haven't shared with terrorists. And
it will surely come our way.
To our friends in Israel: No Israeli mother can ever go to sleep at
night thinking her children are safe and the future of that country is
secure if the Iranians have a nuclear capability. When the ayatollahs
say openly they wish to destroy the State of Israel, to annihilate the
State of Israel, I believe they mean it. When the Jewish people say
never again, they speak based on past experience.
Of all the scenarios in the world that could throw this world into a
chaotic situation beyond what you see today, it would be to allow the
ayatollahs a nuclear weapon. The Sunni Arabs will have one of their
own. Israel will never know a minute's peace, and I fear that it would
come our way.
I would like to now yield to Senator Corker who can explain the
details of the legislation, why we are asking this to be taken up
before the end of negotiations.
A week from Monday the deadline comes to an end. I want everybody at
the negotiating table to know this deal is so important to the United
States and the world that the Congress needs to have a say. Barack
Obama should not be able to make any deal with the Iranians that is
binding unless the Congress approves, and the Iranians should never be
allowed to have a nuclear capability, period, that could be turned into
a weapon.
With that, I yield to Senator Corker.
Mr. CORKER. I thank the Senator. I want to thank the Senator from
South Carolina for his distinguished leadership on so many national
security issues. I understand his frustration with our inability to
actually take a vote on something that is such a commonsense measure. I
also respect the committee process, as you could imagine, with the role
I play and wished that our committee would actually take up this piece
of legislation.
I actually tried to offer something very similar to this in
committee, and I actually did offer it, and the bill that was being
offered, too, was taken down and no votes taken, because, again, of not
wanting to deal with this issue.
So I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for desiring to make
something happen on this. As he mentioned, all of us want to ensure a
successful negotiation. I cannot imagine there is a person in this body
who doesn't want the negotiations between the P5+1 to end up with a
good long-term conclusion. I agree based on the signals that are being
sent. There are a lot of bipartisan concerns that have been expressed
on this floor by people of both sides of the aisle, because people
understand that this body, along with working with the House, put in
place the sanctions that have actually gotten us to the place where we
are in the negotiations. The initial agreement that was put in place
was so much weaker than even the U.N. security resolutions that passed
over and over and over relative to Iran.
So I agree that by having us making the final say on this negotiation
that it gives the administration some added
[[Page S5969]]
strength that they were unable to show in the beginning. Obviously Iran
is trying to tilt toward those within their own body, their own
citizens, who certainly are concerned about negotiations and continue
to bring that out throughout the negotiations. It seems to me that
Congress would be an outstanding countervailing force. And obviously
something of this magnitude--especially when Congress brought us to the
table--this is the kind of thing that should be weighed upon.
What the bill would do is obviously give us the opportunity within a
defined amount of time to vote up or down on whether we agree that this
should be put in place. It also puts in place some enforcement
mechanisms. Then it also puts a clock on the negotiations, so, again,
we cannot have these continual extensions.
I recently read the newest book Henry Kissinger wrote. It was a great
book to read, but it put in place one of the chapters that focused on
these Iran negotiations and lays out the fact--and I know the
distinguished Presiding Officer today knows this well because he
focuses so much on nuclear issues and, like me, is very concerned about
proliferation around the world. I have enjoyed working with him on the
Foreign Relations Committee. Interestingly, one of the chapters lays
out the progression that occurs. And Iran, just by stalling each time
these negotiations take place, ends up in a better place. Again, I
think all of us were very shocked with the interim agreement that was
put in place first. I think this is a very commonsense piece of
legislation.
Let me point out something my friend from South Carolina did not
point out. Without this, this is what is going to possibly happen--I
hope it doesn't, but possibly happen. The administration can enter into
a deal. The way we have crafted the sanctions, no permanent--no
permanent--arrangement can be made to undo the sanctions. Only Congress
can do that. But the way the sanctions regime has been put in place,
the President in many cases does have the ability on a temporary basis
to do away with the sanctions. It is evident that the administration
very much wants something to happen. I want to see something happen,
but the way this has gone, it appears they want something to happen
that possibly will not stand the test of time.
Let's say they enter into an arrangement by November 24. They undo
the sanctions temporarily. If that happens, basically the work that has
been done around here for years is over. It is done because it will be
impossible from a practical standpoint to ever get those sanctions back
in place, especially sanctions with the many other countries that are
involved.
So if the President enters into an agreement and temporarily does
away with sanctions, I think everybody in this body understands it is
going to be almost impossible for those to be put back in place. So the
damage is already done. And that is why it is so important from my
perspective, with Congress having played the role that Congress has
played to help put us into this position, very important for Congress
to have the opportunity to have the congressional review this bill lays
out.
Look, I think it is pretty evident with the denying, if you will, of
this bill coming to the floor, which was expected, I think it is very
evident that Congress is not going to have the opportunity between now
and the 24th to weigh in. It is my hope that somehow if these
negotiations unfortunately end up putting us in a very bad place--I
hope that doesn't happen. I hope the outcome is much better than what
is anticipated. But if it ends up unfortunately being something that is
not good for our country, I hope what will happen is the next time we
ask to bring this bill up--because of time being of the essence, the
next time it would be brought up, hopefully Members of this body would
agree that Congress would weigh in in a rightful manner. Congress would
weigh in to make sure we don't enter into a deal as a nation that puts
us in a very bad place in the longer term relative to what Iran is
doing.
I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to speak. I do not see
Senator Rubio here in the body.
I yield the floor. It is my sense that Senator Rubio may come down
and want to speak to this.
But I do want to say in closing, all of us here hope the
administration puts our Nation and the world in a place to know that
Iran will not have the capability of developing nuclear weapons. That
is what this piece of legislation is about. Without it, I hope the
administration still does that, obviously, and that we wake up on
November 25 surprised--but happily surprised--that we ended up in a
place that will stand the test of time.
I yield the floor and it has been a while, but I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded and that I be allowed to speak for up
to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Keystone Pipeline
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as you know--and many know--I have come
to the floor now on several occasions since we arrived back here at 2
p.m. yesterday to talk about an important piece of legislation I have
cosponsored with Senator Hoeven. I understand Senator Hoeven is going
to be speaking about the Keystone Pipeline in a few moments, and the
Republicans have reserved some time to speak this afternoon. I will
only take 5 minutes and will stay as the discussion on the Keystone
Pipeline goes forward.
Yesterday at 2 o'clock I came to the floor of the Senate when the
Senate opened to say how important I thought it was that we listen and
hear what the voters said not only in my State but in Kentucky, Texas,
South Dakota, North Dakota, and all over the country. Regardless of
whether the people were Democrats, Republicans, left or right or
center, they want us to get our job done.
I think one of the most important jobs we have as Senators is to
vote, and I have been frustrated, along with many Members on both sides
of the aisle, about why we have not been able to vote on some very
important pieces of legislation.
This is one of the most important pieces of legislation, and that is
why I came down at 2 o'clock to claim time at my seat. I have been here
for 18 years. This is Louisiana's seat. One of the things we have to
talk about right now--not next year or not next week--is the Keystone
Pipeline.
I know the Presiding Officer and other Members of this body, mostly
on the Democratic side, are not strong supporters and have expressed
that view. I understand it, I respect it, but I don't agree with it. It
is time for us to have a vote.
Because of the advocacy yesterday when the Senator from West Virginia
and the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Heitkamp--she has been a
very strong and effective advocate. I wish to give a shout-out to both
of my colleagues from West Virginia and North Dakota. They have been
tireless in their effort to try and build a 60-vote margin.
In the old days we could pass bills with just 51 votes, and some
people want to go back to that. I have mixed feelings about it, but it
would be great if we could pass things by a simple majority. But the
rules of the Senate which we operate under--and have not requested to
change, and I don't believe will change any time in the near future--
requires us to have 60 votes.
We worked and worked and worked to try to get 60 votes. Since May, if
we could just get this vote to the floor, I believe we have the 60
votes to pass it. It looks like that is going to happen, and I could
not be happier. I could not be more grateful to the House of
Representatives for taking up not their bill but Senator Hoeven's bill
and my bill. They are debating it right now, and I believe we will pass
it.
I don't know how many Democrats will vote for that bill, but I think
there will be some Members who will vote for that bill. I don't know
how many, but I believe there are 60 votes in this Senate to pass the
Keystone Pipeline bill and send it to the President's desk.
What President Obama does with it, I don't know. I am urging him to
sign it. Seventy-five percent of the people in our country want this
Keystone Pipeline built. There are jobs at stake. It is
[[Page S5970]]
a signal that America is ready to be energy independent.
When I say ``energy independent''--to my good friend, the Presiding
Officer from Massachusetts--I, of course, mean more oil and gas. I am
from an oil-and-gas State. We have coal States, but we also have States
that have solar and wind and drop-in fuels and new technologies.
This pipeline is a symbol that America is ready to do what it takes
to become energy independent and to use our resources so we can create
jobs for the middle class.
I see the Republican leader, and I appreciate that signal. So I will
just conclude with my statement, but I do wish to be a part of this
colloquy today, if allowed, so I may continue to talk about the
importance of this issue.
I am happy the House has taken up the Hoeven-Landrieu bill--the exact
language of the bill. We can call it whatever they want. They can put
any name they want on the bill as long as it gets passed because that
is what we need to do for the American people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for 6 long years the Obama
administration has been dragging its feet on the Keystone Pipeline. For
as long as anyone can remember one Senator has worked harder than any
other to ensure that those feet are always held to the fire; that is,
our friend the senior Senator from North Dakota.
Senator Hoeven has been a tireless advocate for the shovel-ready jobs
project. The people of North Dakota are lucky to have him in their
corner. Similar to the experts, Senator Hoeven knows the Keystone
Pipeline will create literally thousands of jobs, and similar to the
experts, Senator Hoeven knows the Keystone Pipeline would have almost
zero net effect on our climate, and similar to the people we represent,
he understands that the Keystone Pipeline is just common sense. He has
done just about everything possible to make the administration come to
grips with that obvious point.
Senator Hoeven, along with leaders in the House, such as Congressman
Cassidy, succeeded in assembling and leading an impressive Keystone
coalition that literally crossed party lines. That is why the opponents
of Keystone have been so afraid to allow the Senate to take a free and
open vote on it, because they feared Senator Hoeven and Congressman
Cassidy were right; that there is overwhelming bipartisan support for
ending the President's blockade of these very good jobs.
After so many years of obstruction, we finally get the vote. After 6
years, we finally get the vote. We can credit the people's choice of a
new Senate majority for finally getting these gears turning. But we
never would have gotten to this point without the tireless leadership
of Senator Hoeven in the Senate and Congressman Cassidy over in the
House.
I wish to thank Senator Hoeven for all of his great work on this
matter. We hope we can soon celebrate a well-deserved victory for the
American people.
I understand we have colleagues on the floor as well, and I will be
happy to yield at this time for any thoughts or questions they may
have.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I have a question, if I could ask the Republican
leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Does the Senator from North Dakota have a question? I
believe I have the floor, and I believe Senator Hoeven is going to ask
a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the minority leader, but I
ask him to repeat his question.
Mr. McCONNELL. As the Senator from North Dakota was engaged in
conversation, I was talking about his leadership role in this endeavor
the last 6 years and the difficulty of getting action here in the
Senate. It almost seems to me as if it took an election by the American
people to choose a new majority for next year to begin to get the
attention of the current majority to go forward on the issue that
Senator Hoeven has been talking to us about on a virtually daily basis
here for 6 years.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the minority leader.
That has been the case, that we have worked for some time to get a vote
on this important issue. We actually had passed a measure back in 2012
attached to a payroll tax holiday. At that time the President turned
down the Keystone XL Pipeline project on the basis of the route in
Nebraska. So that work has been done. It has been rerouted.
Some time ago, we put together a bipartisan bill. It is a bill I
drafted and wrote. Senator Landrieu from Louisiana agreed to cosponsor
it. We have all 45 Republicans on the bill, and we have 11 Democrats.
We have 56 cosponsors on the legislation, but we have not been able to
bring the bill to the floor. So I really had anticipated that we would
have to wait until the new Congress in order to get a vote on the bill,
because as the minority leader said, the American voters spoke. And
particularly with the new Members we have coming, we will have more
than 60 Senators who support the legislation. So I had anticipated that
we would have to go into the new Congress to get a vote on the bill.
However, the cosponsor on the bill, Senator Landrieu, yesterday
requested that we call the bill up, and she worked on her side and we
have worked on our side to get unanimous consent to get a vote on the
bill. So we are certainly happy to vote on this important issue for the
American people. We will have a vote in the House on the very same
bill. They now have taken up the very same bill. I believe it will pass
easily tomorrow in the House. And then on Tuesday, we will have a vote
on our bill here, S. 2280. We will have 45 Republicans, and we hope to
have 15 Democrats. And if we do, we will pass the bill and send it to
the President for signature.
If we don't get to the 60 votes, I believe we will still be able to
bring the bill back in the new Congress and have the 60 votes. So I
believe we will now be able to advance this bill to the President. The
question is, What will the President do? The indication was from one of
his spokespersons traveling with him yesterday that he may well veto
the legislation. If that happens, I still think, again, based on the
fact that the American people overwhelmingly support this legislation,
that we will be able to come back, work with our colleagues on a
bipartisan basis and perhaps make this legislation part of a broader
energy bill, or attach it to an appropriations measure. But I think we
will be able to find other legislation that we can attach approval of
the Keystone XL Pipeline--this bill--to. That makes it very likely that
we could either override a veto or maybe the President wouldn't veto
it. Because at the end of the day, what this is all about is more
energy for this country, produced here and working with our closest
friend and ally, Canada.
This is about jobs. By the State Department's own environmental
impact statement, 42,000 jobs. So it is about energy. It is about jobs.
It is about the infrastructure we need to build the right kind of
energy plan for our country. Whether one comes from North Dakota or
Kentucky or Texas or Louisiana or wherever, we have to have
infrastructure as part of our energy plan.
It is also about national security. Americans do not want to have to
depend on getting oil from the Middle East. They want to produce it
here at home, and they want to work with our closest ally, Canada, and
we want the jobs and the economic activity that come with it.
So that is where we are. That is the game plan, to get this important
legislation passed, and that is what this is all about. This is about
moving forward on approving the Keystone XL Pipeline. When asked, the
American people in the polling showed anywhere from 65 up to about 75
percent overwhelmingly support it. So that is what this issue is all
about.
Now is our chance to show that we can move forward, and in a
bipartisan way, and get this done for the people of this great Nation.
We are hopeful that we can get it in the lameduck. That is great. We
have cleared the way to get a vote, and if we can't, then we will be
right back to work on it in the new Congress.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I could, it strikes me that there
was some intervening event here between the difficulty of getting a
vote over the past few years and the apparent ease of getting a vote
now. It strikes me--and I would be interested in the observations of my
colleague from North Dakota--it strikes me this intervening
[[Page S5971]]
event was the election and it could be that the voices of the American
people have already altered the agenda in the Senate even before the
Senate officially changes hands in January. Maybe the voices of the
American people have finally been heard on this important issue that
the Senator from North Dakota has been speaking about week after week
after week for a very long time.
I would say to the Senator from North Dakota, when there is a new
majority here, if we come up short between now and the end of the year,
we will be back and back and back, looking for ways to make sure that
the voices of the American people are heard, and all of these new jobs
are created.
So I hope--the Senator from North Dakota has indicated we will come
to a favorable conclusion sooner, but I assure the Senator from North
Dakota that we will come to a favorable conclusion later, if not
sooner.
I see the Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCONNELL. I will, yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I agree with the Republican leader that
our leader on this issue for years now in the Senate has been the
Senator from North Dakota, and North Dakota is a big energy-producing
State--second, I must point out, to my State of Texas, but they are
making some rapid developments in that area, and a lot of Texans have
gone temporarily to North Dakota to help them with the technology, and
they are doing a great job. Believe me, it is creating a lot of jobs.
These aren't minimum wage jobs, these are high-paying jobs. As a matter
of fact, there are labor shortages, and what we need to do is train
more people to qualify for these good, high-paying jobs.
But I wonder whether the Republican leader--or really I would be
interested in anybody's point of view--beyond the election, I think
there are going to have to be some changes of heart on the other side
of the aisle, because as the distinguished Senator from North Dakota
pointed out, we have gotten close, but never quite achieved that 60-
vote goal. So if we are going to vote on this now as a result of the
intervening election, there are going to have to be some folks on the
other side of the aisle who are going to have to have a change of heart
and vote for the bill, which I hope they do.
But this has been the main impediment--no opportunity for a vote--
because the majority leader, Senator Reid, has refused to grant a vote
up until this point. He has changed his mind. That represents progress.
But I think we have two impediments. One is the need for additional
Democratic votes to actually meet that threshold; and then, as the
Senator from North Dakota points out, we don't know whether the
President has been chastened or has learned anything from the election,
or if he is going to be influenced at all in his decision.
I know the Senator from North Dakota has been a bulldog on this
issue. He is not going to let this one get away from him, nor should
he, for all the reasons mentioned earlier, including the 42,000 jobs.
Also, a lot of this oil, if it doesn't come in this pipeline across
from Canada to the United States, most of it is going to be refined in
southeast Texas and turned into gasoline and jet fuel, which is going
to help bring down prices, because we will see a glut of additional
supply. But if we don't use it in the United States, this is going to
be shipped to China or other places that are rapidly buying natural
resources.
So I would be interested if the Republican leader has a view of how
we get over those final hurdles of getting Democratic votes next
Tuesday to get to that 60-vote threshold. Then, how do we get the
President to sign this, for a President--at least so far--who has
refused to listen to the American people?
Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend, we were both in an election
this year and there is no question that this jobless recovery is the
biggest issue in the country. Here we have had a project which has
cleared all of the environmental hurdles, it has been sitting around
for literally 6 years, and--I don't know what the latest estimate of
job creation is. I would ask my friend from North Dakota, what is the
latest estimate on that? How many new people would be put to work
constructing this pipeline--ready to go to work?
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, there have been a whole range of numbers
offered. But I think to cut through to a number that people should be
able to accept and to agree on is to take the number the State
Department has put forward in the environmental impact statement. As a
matter of fact, I think there have been either four or five
environmental impact statements done on this project over a 6-year
period, going all the way back to starting in September 2008 when
TransCanada initially applied for approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline,
which is the sister pipeline to the Keystone Pipeline, which was
already built--permitted in 2 years and built in 2 years--and that
happened when I was Governor. I actually started working with this
project when I was Governor and it continued when I came to the Senate.
But TransCanada originally applied for their permit back in September
of 2008. So for 6 years this has been going on, and in the final
environmental impact statement, which stated the project will have no
significant environmental impact--it stated that very clearly--they
also said it will create about 42,000 jobs. And these are good-paying
jobs, construction jobs and other types of jobs that are good-paying
jobs.
So here is a project, when we include Canada, about $7.9 billion. It
is not going to cost the government one penny--not one penny. By the
State Department's own admission, it will create 42,000 jobs. It will
generate hundreds of millions in tax revenue to help the States and
help with our deficit and debt, and it is to move oil not only from
Canada, but from my State of North Dakota and Montana to refineries in
Texas and Louisiana and other places that need the crude, and right now
that crude is coming from places such as Venezuela or the Middle East.
It is a job creator, and there are all of these other benefits.
Again, it is an excellent example of the kind of infrastructure we need
to build the energy plan this country needs.
I ask the minority leader if I have answered his question adequately.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I may, it strikes me what the
administration is best at is either destroying jobs or preventing new
jobs from being created. In my State, as a direct result of the
Environmental Protection Agency, we have lost 7,000 coal-mining jobs
during the Obama years. For every coal-mining job, we lose three more
jobs. We have a literal depression in eastern Kentucky, largely caused
by the Obama Environmental Protection Agency. So you begin to get the
picture.
Whether it is preventing 42,000 people from going to work or taking
the employment away from up to 21,000 Kentuckians, what this
administration seems to be best at is either destroying existing jobs
or preventing new jobs from being created. I am happy there was an
energy bill in Texas and an energy bill in North Dakota. I am pretty
darn unhappy we don't have an energy bill in Kentucky. We have a
depression again as a result of this administration and its
Environmental Protection Agency.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, would the Senator yield for another
question?
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, I would be happy to yield.
Mr. CORNYN. I ask the Senator from Kentucky--I think you described
how the administration appears to not just have a war on coal but a war
on hydrocarbons, a war on anything other than wind turbines and solar
panels.
The President said he is for all of the above. We are a big ``all of
the above'' State. We have a lot of sunshine and wind. We actually
produce more electricity from wind energy than any other State in the
country, but it is hard to understand this ideological battle against
coal and oil and gas from anywhere other than just an ideological
perspective.
I think the Senators have pointed out well--both the Senator from
North Dakota and the Senator from Kentucky--that these are good, high-
paying jobs. One of the biggest problems we have had in the country for
the last 30 years has been stagnant wages.
[[Page S5972]]
The middle-class wage earners are not seeing their wages go up. One
of the surefire ways to make them go up is to develop more domestic
energy, whether it is coal or whether it is oil or gas, because these
are good, high-paying jobs.
I can tell you not just in North Dakota, where I am sure it is hard
for restaurants to find people to work there because there is so much
demand in the oil and gas business, but the Permian Basin, in the
Midland Odessa area, where I know the Senator from Kentucky visited
many times, there is a shortage of labor, and wages skyrocketed because
of the demand as a result of taking advantage of this natural resource.
I would just ask--obviously the Members of the Senate who have been
vitally interested in this issue under the leadership of our friend,
the Senator from North Dakota--it has been acknowledged, but I think it
is only fair, wouldn't the Senator say, to acknowledge the leadership
in the House of Representatives of Congressman Bill Cassidy. As a
matter of fact, the bill that the House will pass tomorrow and send
over here is chiefly the work product of Congressman Bill Cassidy.
Mr. McCONNELL. It certainly is. We commend him for his good work and
that bill will be headed over this way. I would also make the
observation with regard to the President's approach to energy, the
announcement in China yesterday which, as I read it, gives the Chinese
16 years to do anything to reduce their carbon emissions while we are
going full speed ahead here, visibly destroying American jobs or trying
to prevent the creation of new jobs in North Dakota.
My goodness, as I said earlier, it seems to me what this
administration is best at is either destroying existing jobs or
preventing new jobs from being created because of this obsession, as
the Senator from Texas pointed out, with hydrocarbons of any kind.
I see the Senator from South Dakota here as well and wonder if he may
have a question.
Mr. THUNE. Yes. I would say to my colleague from Kentucky--and I
appreciate the leadership of our colleague from North Dakota in
constantly, persistently trying to get this in the Senate for a vote.
My State of South Dakota, similar to so many others, stands to benefit
enormously from this. We wish we had the direct energy production that
the Senator of North Dakota has. We have a lot of indirect benefit from
that. In fact, the State Department, the President's own State
Department--not the oil companies--the State Department has said that
in my State of South Dakota it would create 3,000 to 4,000 jobs, add
$100 million to the economy, and generate $20 million in property tax
revenue.
I happen to come from a county through which the pipeline would pass,
a small rural county in South Dakota. My father still lives there. He
is 94 years old. The school district there is very concerned about
staying open. They know that when this pipeline is built, the easement
they will have to get will generate property tax revenue that very well
could keep the school district going. So many of the local governments
out in my area in the State are very supportive of this important
project.
I guess as I have looked at this--we have now had plenty of time to
look at it since it has been kicking around here for about 6 years and
five now environmental impact statements, all of which came back and
said they have minimal impact on the environment.
If we are serious about job creation, and we have all talked on our
side about the jobs this would create, the economic activities it would
create, and the lessening of the dependence we have on foreign sources
of energy--I have to say one other thing about my State; that is, we
have a rail crisis. We have been battling now for a long time with the
limited capacity in rail and much of the oil moving out is going on
rail.
That makes it harder for us to get our agricultural commodities to
the marketplace, and so what is happening is that we are consistently
stressed. The one thing the pipeline would do in addition to moving
Canadian oil down is it would allow for about 100,000 barrels a day of
that--what do you call it--sweet light crude--to be put on the pipeline
and therefore not on the rail car. That saves about a unit train a day,
which is significant.
I guess I would say to my colleague from Kentucky--and I appreciate
the arguments he has made not just with respect to this specific issue
but also with what the administration's policies are doing to energy
production in this country and the cost of energy and what that means
for middle-income families, what that means for businesses, and what
that means for jobs. It is like an all-out assault.
The Keystone Pipeline is one example of many of policies where this
administration is in a position to do something good for the economy,
something good for jobs, and something good for energy development in
this country, lessening the dangerous dependence we have on foreign oil
sources of energy.
I would say to my friend from Kentucky and I would ask him in terms
of--the Senator doesn't have the direct and indirect benefit we have in
North and South Dakota, but I know he has an awful lot of energy
development in his State--what these policies are doing to jobs in a
State such as Kentucky.
I know the Senator hears every day from his constituents about this
administration's assault on the industries that are so basic and so
important to our economy, so important to jobs, and providing a better,
stronger, if you will, future for middle-income families in this
country.
I would be curious to know if the Senator from Kentucky shares the
same concern about the jobs and economy and cost of energy and
everything else that I do and that we do in the northern part of the
country.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from South Dakota. I think the
energy revolution is wonderful and we ought to embrace it. As I was
saying earlier, what has happened in my State as a result of the war on
coal, 90 percent of our electricity in Kentucky comes from coal-fired
generation. We have been among the top five of the lowest utility rates
in the country in any given year for as long as anyone can remember.
The war on coal is not only a war on coal miners. It is a war on all
of Kentucky because our utility rates are beginning to go up, which is
going to make the energy less affordable for people on fixed incomes in
my State and make us less able to compete for other industries.
I repeat. I am thrilled at what is going on in North Dakota and what
is going on in Texas. We would like to have some of that job growth
ourselves and calling off this Environmental Protection Agency which
seems to be just hell-bent to take coal out of the equation.
It is a heavy price to pay for this ideological crusade which the
President seeks to lead on a worldwide basis and says to the Chinese
they don't have to do anything for 16 years while we take away our own
jobs and opportunity.
Mr. CORNYN. I wonder if the Senator would yield for one last
question. I see the Senator from Alaska, and I hope she will join us in
this discussion.
To follow up on a very important point made by the Senator from North
Dakota that hadn't been explored a lot, he talked about the
implications of more North American energy self-sufficiency and what
that might mean in terms of geopolitics.
We know, for example, that Vladimir Putin used his energy as a weapon
in Ukraine and Europe to try to intimidate people and to keep them from
resisting his invasion of independent republics such as Ukraine.
I think it is significant because for so long we have been dependent
on imported energy from the Middle East, which we know has been a real
challenge because of the instability there, millennia old conflicts and
sectarian strife.
I would be interested if the Senator from Kentucky or perhaps other
Senators have observations about what this means in terms of the safety
and the security of the United States as we become increasingly North
American energy self-sufficient. We haven't even talked about New
Mexico. They are just now beginning to open their domestic energy
production to the kinds of things we are already seeing in North
Dakota, Texas and Alaska and elsewhere.
It promises not only jobs but a great opportunity for us to become a
safer
[[Page S5973]]
and more stable source of this necessary energy supply.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, obviously what is happening is
America is on its way to being energy independent in natural gas and
oil. We have the ranking member of the energy committee on the floor as
well. I wonder if she had a question.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, and to our leader on the floor and to
the colleagues who have come together to talk about this important
issue for us as a nation from an energy perspective--and we mentioned
the jobs and the benefits that flow to our Nation's economy. When we
talk about the issue of energy independence, there was a time when
people would scoff at the notion that as a nation we would ever have a
level of independence. I guess I look at it and say energy independence
to me is a place where we are no longer vulnerable for our energy
sources from those who would wish us ill. What has happened to this
Nation in the past half dozen years has been transformational.
We talk about the shale revolution. We talk about a renaissance. What
this means to us is that we are truly approaching that point where we
are more energy secure and from a national security perspective. The
vulnerability we once had is greatly lessened because of our own
ability to produce our own resources for our people.
It is not just within the continental United States. It is Alaska as
we point out, but it is North America. We are talking about North
American energy independence and what that entails and what that means.
When we think about where we have come and the fact that next year we
will be producing more oil than Saudi Arabia, who would have thought
that the United States would be in this perspective. Who would have
thought we would have a conversation about energy abundance rather than
energy scarcity.
It hasn't happened because this oil has just suddenly migrated to
North America. It has always been there. It has been our technology. It
has been our ingenuity that allows us to access it. Think what we can
do when we partner with our friends and neighbors whether it is Canada
to the north or Mexico to the south. So when we talk about energy
independence and energy security, the Keystone XL Pipeline is kind of
that corridor that helps connect us as two nations. The benefits that
derive to both of us are quite considerable.
We are talking about jobs for America and we should be. I think we
also need to recognize that when we are talking about the Keystone XL
Pipeline, it is about a trade relationship with our closest neighbor
and truly our closest ally and the benefits that come to both of us
because of this relationship.
There is a phrase that is used. We say the United States and Canada
are joined at the well--literally joined at the well. This is something
the Congressional Research Service actually says.
There are currently 19 cross-border oil pipelines that are already
operating between the United States and Canada or Mexico. This is in
addition to all of the dozens of natural gas, electric transmission
lines. These are oil pipelines that are crossing the border with Canada
into Montana and into North Dakota, into Michigan, into New York, into
Washington, into Vermont.
One would think this Keystone XL was the first pipeline to ever cross
the border from the north to the south. It is some new precedent
setting. There were 19 cross-border oil pipelines.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Back in 2009 this administration, this Obama
administration, came to a decision about the Alberta Clipper project.
This was yet another pipeline from Canada to the United States. There
were arguments for and against. But ultimately Clipper was approved
just as Keystone XL should be approved. So when we are talking about
plowing new ground here, I think it is important for people to
recognize there is no new ground that we are plowing here. This is just
a reticence and a reluctance from an administration to do what I think
people across the country believe is the right and the reasonable
thing, not only from a jobs perspective, from an economic perspective,
but from an energy security perspective as well as a relationship with
our closest friend and ally.
I know my colleague from Kentucky had an opportunity to serve with
our former colleague here, Senator Ted Kennedy. I am not going to ask
the Senator whether he recalls the quote, but I think it is important
to kind of put this in context. We have not as a nation always been
opposed to importing this crude from Canada. As I mentioned, 19 cross-
border agreements are in place today. But back in 1970 the Nixon
administration announced they were going to place a quota on Canadian
oil exports. This was when things around the country were getting
dicey.
It was Senator Ted Kennedy who led the fight against this. He said--
and this is a quote from a Senate hearing back in March of 1970.
Senator Kennedy said:
The reason why Canadian oil has never been restricted in
the past is obvious. Canadian oil is as militarily and
politically secure as our own and thus there can be no
national security justification for limiting its importation.
So not only is this an issue that has been going on for a long time,
both sides of the aisle recognize that there is an imperative when you
come together with your allies for a resource that we recognize is a
benefit to all, creates jobs for all.
So I ask my colleague from Kentucky, because he has not only served
in this body for considerable years, but he has been through these
debates over the decades. The question is: Why is this Keystone XL
Pipeline being held out to be such a groundbreaking initiative that
this President would put a hold on it for 5 years?
Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend from Alaska, I am as
perplexed by that as she is. The Senator pointed out that having a
cross-border pipeline is not exactly something new. As our chairman,
Senator Hoeven, has pointed out repeatedly, it has cleared every
environmental test. We cannot figure out why this has happened other
than some misplaced ideological crusade the President wants to lead,
not approved by Congress.
We all remember what it was like here in 2009 and 2010. Our friends
on the other side had 60 votes. They could do whatever they wanted to.
They could not pass cap-and-trade when they owned the place. They
passed ObamaCare. They passed the stimulus. They passed Dodd-Frank.
They couldn't pass cap-and-trade.
The President obviously feels so strongly about this, he is willing
to give the Chinese a 16-year pass, ignore Congress and go full speed
ahead. Part of that ideological rigidity is reflected in the challenge
our friend from North Dakota has had here for a number of years in
getting a decision made, which by any objective standard ought to be a
no-brainer. My goodness, this is about as close to a no-brainer as you
will ever run into.
I came out here for the specific purpose of praising the great work
of the Senator from North Dakota. Without him we would not be where we
are today on this issue.
I wonder if the Senator has any further question or observation to
make?
Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I would like to thank the minority
leader. I would like to thank all the Members of our caucus for joining
on this bipartisan legislation. You know, we are continuing to work
across the aisle to get 60 votes. At the end of the day, you have got
to go back to what this is all about. This is about building an ``all
of the above'' energy plan for this Nation. You cannot build an ``all
of the above'' energy plan for the Nation if you do not have the
infrastructure to move that energy around the country. We are seeing
what is happening. Because we have been blocked on building these
pipelines, now we are not able to move our grain to market, because
there are so many rail cars now trying to move crude oil--700,000
barrels a day out of our State alone, and it is growing.
Keystone alone will replace 1,400 rail cars a day that are now
carrying oil. That is 10-unit trains. So, you see, this is about so
many aspects of our economy, strengthening our economy and creating
good-paying jobs that people want. That is why the American people--and
that is who we work for, that is who we represent. That is what this is
about. That is what we heard loud and clear in the election, is that
the American people want us to work together. They want us to get jobs
going,
[[Page S5974]]
get this economy going, build the right kind of energy future, get our
budget deficit under control.
That means we have to do the fundamentals. When we talk about
building infrastructure, we are talking about the fundamentals. That is
what is going on here. This has been 6 years. We need to get this
economy going. That starts with common sense. This is common sense.
This is common sense because it is about energy, it is about jobs, it
is about growing the economy, it is about national security, it is
about not having to get oil from the Middle East, and it is about doing
what the American people overwhelmingly time and again have told us
they want us to do.
Again, I want to thank the minority leader. I will turn to him and
again say: You know, I believe we can find a way, either in this
lameduck or in the next Congress--and I would ask the leader--in the
next Congress, and I believe it to be true, as the majority leader, he
will make this a priority as part of an energy plan for this country.
Mr. McCONNELL. Let me wrap it up by thanking again the Senator from
North Dakota for his extraordinary leadership on this issue and assure
the American people that we will be back. Hopefully it will be approved
and signed by the President sooner. If not, he will have another
opportunity later.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I most certainly have enjoyed this
colloquy and have been down on the floor most of the day. I am
extremely disappointed I could not get any Member of the other side to
recognize me for questions. I see the minority leader leaving the floor
now, although he knows I have many questions for him that he does not
want to answer. But that is his prerogative. You know, I thought we
came here to work together. I am standing here. I have worked with
Senator Hoeven on this bill. Before Senator Hoeven leaves the floor or
Senator Barrasso or Senator Murkowski, if they would stay, I would like
to thank Senator Hoeven for his extraordinary leadership on this bill.
Although the other side does not acknowledge any of the leaders over
here, such as the Presiding Officer or Senator Manchin or Senator
Baucus, who is no longer here but was a strong voice for Keystone many
years ago, or some of the other Democratic Senators, I want to
personally thank Senator Hoeven for his leadership and thank Senator
Murkowski for her extraordinary leadership on this issue.
The Senator has been a real partner to me in the truest sense of the
word and in the greatest spirit of bipartisanship. Of course, she had
an experience that not many Senators have. She was defeated by her own
party in her own State. They chose someone else and ran against the
Senator, which is unusual, and did not support her in her reelection,
even though the Senator and her father have chaired, on and off, the
energy committee for years. I have been a strong partner not only with
Lisa, the Senator from Alaska, but with her father Frank.
But the Republican Party did not support the Senator in her last
election. So the Senator had to sign in on an Independent ticket. I was
one of the first people to call her and say: Go, girl. Let's get it
done. She did. So I have the utmost respect for Senator Murkowski. I
have the utmost respect for the Senator's father. I have the utmost
respect for Ted Stevens. I stood with Ted Stevens until the end, even
though my party went against him. I would fight for him to this day if
he were here, because some of us actually believe in bipartisanship.
Lots of people around here talk about it, but that is really it.
The evidence I am going to give--I am sorry the Senator from Kentucky
is not here to defend himself. I want the quote he wrote down. He might
come back to the floor when he hears what I am going to say. I am going
to speak for 1 hour.
The Senator from Kentucky, who will be the majority leader, has not
left his partisanship in Kentucky because you just saw it on display
here. He cannot help himself. He cannot speak for 3 minutes without
mentioning the President. He had his back turned the whole time, would
not even acknowledge anyone over here. So he does a lot of talking
about bipartisanship. But his statement just yesterday was, ``I am
confident Dr. Cassidy will use his position to succeed where Senator
Landrieu failed.''
I do not necessarily think this is failure to get a vote on the
Keystone Pipeline. I think this is a great victory. I want to share
this victory with Senator Hoeven who is a leader. I also want to have
printed in the Record--the Senator from Kentucky had a lot to say about
everybody else not doing their job. I want to say that on at least one
occasion, he did not do his either. On March 16, there were 15
Senators--March 16 of 2011, not 2012. I mean not 2014, not 2013, not
2012, but 2011. I think that was before the Presiding Officer was here.
On March 16, 2011, when Secretary Clinton was still the Secretary of
State, there were 16 Members of the Senate who signed a letter to her
asking her to approve the Keystone Pipeline. I am going to read those
names because I think it is important. My name is first, amazingly. I
am very proud of that, didn't even remember it. Mary Landrieu. Orrin
Hatch circulated a letter with me. Max Baucus. Kay Bailey Hutchison, my
dear friend from Texas. Pat Roberts from Kansas, another dear friend.
Mike Enzi from Wyoming. Lisa Murkowski--of course her name would be on
here--from Alaska. Senator John Cornyn from Texas. John Barrasso from
Wyoming. Mark Begich from Alaska who just unfortunately lost his race
because of several reasons, one of which is that people talk a lot
about bipartisanship who do not really honor it. Nobody better than
Mark Begich has shown a willingness to work across party lines. He is
no longer with us, but he signed this letter. Roy Blunt from Missouri.
John Hoeven from North Dakota, and Ron Johnson.
But you know a signature that is not on this letter is Mitch
McConnell's. Maybe Mitch McConnell was too busy to sign this letter.
But his name is not on here. Now am I saying Mitch McConnell has not
been a supporter of the Keystone Pipeline? Absolutely not. Senator
McConnell has supported this project. But what I am saying is that
Senator McConnell has not been truthful with the American people about
actually how this has always evolved. To support that claim, which is a
strong one, on May 7, 2014, Senator Reid offered a vote on the XL
Pipeline. Senator McConnell objected. On May 12, 2014, Senator Reid
offered a vote on the Keystone Pipeline. Senator McConnell objected. On
May 12, I offered a vote on the Keystone Pipeline. Senator Flake
objected for Senator McConnell. On June 24, Senator Shaheen offered a
vote on the XL Pipeline. That, of course, I believe, was connected with
the energy efficiency bill with Senator Portman. Senator Inhofe
objected. Senator McConnell did nothing to help. Then on June 25,
Senator Reid offered a vote on the XL Pipeline. Senator McConnell
objected.
I want to underscore this. I am not saying Senator Reid is a
supporter of the pipeline. He has never been. He is not a supporter of
the pipeline, but he has asked for a vote on Keystone a number of times
and Senator McConnell has objected.
Senator McConnell will come to the floor and show a list such as this
when he has asked for votes on the Keystone Pipeline and Senator Reid
has objected. That is the truth of the Congress. The saddest thing
about this is I have believed for over 1 year that if we could actually
get a vote, we have the 60 votes to pass it.
I have said that on any number of occasions. I believe we have the 60
votes to pass Keystone. I believe the coalition of oil and gas and
energy and manufacturing companies that are very strong, with the
coalition of the strongest labor unions and organizations that
represent working people, and with the vote in this last election, and
with the people of the United States--mostly because of the people of
the United States asking us to do our jobs, I, on faith, and with
strong evidence that I have--but on faith in what is right, what is
true, and what is best--we have the 60 votes on this floor. That is why
I came to the floor yesterday--on that faith.
I said that I believed that it was time to vote on the Keystone
Pipeline now. The most important reason is to show the American people
that we are willing to put partisanship aside. I called Senator
Hoeven--the first thing I did.
[[Page S5975]]
The Senator has left the floor because I am not really sure anyone
wants to debate me on this. But that is OK. I am used to it. I don't
have anybody to debate at home in my election because my opponent won't
show up. So I am very used to debating all by myself. So they have all
left the floor.
But when I arrived in Washington, the first thing I did was to call
Senator Hoeven. I spoke to him because I have done that on any number
of occasions. I said to him: John, I think this is a very good time,
and there are several reasons why. I think the politics are cleared up.
I think the people spoke--cleared up, not meaning me. It is not about
my politics, but it is about the politics of some people who lost and
won.
Some people who were opposing the vote have lost. Some people who
supported having the vote are here. I have said it looks to me as if
this is a perfect opportunity to do two things--to get done something
that you and I have wanted to do now for over 1 year.
This letter most certainly suggests that there were a number of us--
not many. There were only 15 of us who signed the letter to Secretary
Clinton asking her to push forward on the pipeline. Other people were
either too busy to sign it or didn't think--whatever--but it is a
bipartisan letter and it was very good.
So I called the Senator, and he said that he didn't think that it
would happen until the next Congress.
So I said: Well, let's try. Maybe we could get it done. He said that
he would talk to his leadership, and that was the last conversation I
have had with him.
I came down to the floor yesterday just thinking: Well, maybe I will
just kick it up a little bit, and sure enough, I did. It got kicked up
pretty high. I was actually here around 2 o'clock because I have been
around here enough to know that if you show up early you actually might
get something done. Don't show up late; don't be late. My dad taught me
to be on time, so I was here at 2 o'clock.
I was very interested to see what Majority Leader Reid would say and
Minority Leader McConnell would say, and the Senator from Texas, who is
usually always with the Senator from Kentucky, what they would say
about what we should do.
I sat here fully expecting the minority leader from Kentucky--soon to
be the majority leader--to say OK, the people have spoken; let's get on
with a bill that is very important. Everyone in the country--not
everyone, but many people--many people in this country, in all regions,
support the Keystone Pipeline--not everyone. There are strong feelings
against it, but every poll I have seen shows people from many different
areas of the country, many different political persuasions. This is not
as if only Democrats are against it and only Republicans are for it.
There are many Democrats in my State that have supported it--poor
people, rich people, black people, white people--Democrats who support
the Keystone Pipeline. I am certain that is true in the State of the
Presiding Officer, North Dakota. I am sure that it is not even a party
issue in the State of North Dakota. This is just a commonsense issue to
get the Keystone Pipeline bill.
At approximately 2:15 yesterday I sat on the floor, ready to go. I
had called my leader and John Hoeven. His name is first on this bill. I
could have asked for my name to be first on the bill because I actually
chair the committee, but I was trying to be bipartisan, gracious, and a
team member. It hasn't gotten me very far, but I just used it as an
example.
I said: John, this means the world to you, although it means the
world to me, put your name first. So it is called the Hoeven-Landrieu
bill. I called him since it is his bill and asked him what he thought.
He said he thought we could do it in the next Congress. I said, I
actually think we can do it now. He said he didn't think so. So I just
came to the floor.
I waited for Mitch McConnell to say something. This is what he said:
Mr. President, last week the American people sent a strong
message to Washington. They voted for a new direction. They
called for a change in the way we do things in the Senate,
and they sent a new team to Washington to carry their wishes
forward, and we plan to do just that.
But several items remain for the outgoing Congress to
consider and that is our immediate focus.
So I am sitting in my chair thinking OK, here we go. I am ready. I
have been ready since we started, but definitely my staff can't find
anything before that which I can show for any evidence, other than this
letter. So I can just say I think I was for it since I heard about it.
But since I can't prove it, let's go back to March 16, 2011, because my
signature is the lead on this letter. So that is some indication that I
have been leading at least since then.
I get a tremendous amount of credit, of course, from my own caucus
because they understand that even though most of my caucus doesn't
agree with me and thinks I have been--and I have really pushed them on
this issue and will continue to, because that is what good Senators do.
We don't represent our caucuses. We represent our States, and we fight
hard for what we believe is right. I have, for the longest time, felt
this was the right thing to do. So that was that letter.
I was sitting and thinking: Here we go. But this is what the minority
leader went on to say:
In the weeks that remain in this Congress, we should work
to accomplish the essential task [not of building the
Keystone Pipeline] of funding the Congress and preventing
retroactive tax increases.
I thought he could say the essential task of funding Congress--which
I will put first, although a lot of people don't think we should fund
ourselves because we are not doing a very good job--but I will give him
that.
The second I would put--and let's show the people that we mean
business by passing a bipartisan bill, the Keystone Pipeline, and
moving it to the President's desk. But he said:
. . . preventing retroactive tax increases. We must address
the expiring authority passed earlier this session for the
Department of Defense to train and equip a moderate, vetted
Syrian opposition [I agree that is very important] and we
must continue to support the efforts to address the Ebola
crisis [equally important].
But then something interesting happened. They brought to the floor a
childhood bill--the majority and minority together. The leadership
brought a bill that has bipartisan support--but so does Keystone. But
the majority leader and the minority leader didn't think Keystone could
get votes or couldn't pass or maybe they didn't want to pass it.
But as long as I am a Senator--I hope to be for many years to come--I
am going to continue to fight for what is right and do it in as
gracious a manner as possible to give credit where credit is due, to
honor the Members on the other side and on my side who work very hard
and just don't talk about bipartisanship but actually work at it every
day.
I am sorry that it doesn't seem possible for the minority leader--
soon to be majority leader--to do that. When he finished speaking, I
just sat here because I can't get leader time because I am not the
leader of the caucus. Then I thought well, maybe Senator Cornyn will
say something.
Senator Cornyn spoke at approximately 2:30, the record says. He spoke
longer than the majority leader. He also talked about dysfunction, but
he never called for a Keystone vote either. So I thought that was
strange.
He said: ``We will pass a budget next year--something our friends
across the aisle have failed to do . . . ''
He said: ``I know Republicans and Democrats will continue to have
policy disagreements.''
He also said:
So last week's election will not change some of the
fundamental policy differences we have between political
parties on ObamaCare, on what we need to do to preserve and
protect Social Security and Medicare and the like . . . but
it will give us a chance to make some steady incremental
progress on issues where we do agree.
He talked about Ted Kennedy, the lion of the Senate. He talked about
Mike Enzi and how Mike Enzi, who is a wonderful Senator--someone I have
worked with very closely--said: Let's work on the 80-20 rule.
He said: What is that? He said: Let's work on the 80 percent that we
can agree on and the 20 percent we cannot.
Then he went on to say:
That strikes me as eminently practical and a way for us to
begin to get back to work again.
When I talk about the easy stuff we can do, I am referring
to the bipartisan majority
[[Page S5976]]
that supports things such as the Keystone XL Pipeline
authorization . . .
I want to repeat that:
When I talk about the easy stuff we can do, I am referring
to the bipartisan majority that supports things such as the
Keystone XL Pipeline authorization . . .
So I thought he would call for us to see what we could do in this
lame duck. We are going to vote on an early childhood education bill.
Most certainly we would have the time to vote on a jobs bill.
Now I believe early childhood education in the long term is the best
jobs bill we can do. I have said that over and over, and my life has
been committed to early childhood education, good schools, excellence
in education, and accountability. I am not saying this to diminish the
bill the Senate is poised to pass, which is for early childhood
education. But if we started today with 2 year olds, it will literally
take us 20 years until they are 22, and the American people want jobs
yesterday. They want jobs now. They don't want jobs in 22 years.
So I was hoping the majority would see that there is a clear path for
the Keystone Pipeline to pass--a clear path. You can see it. You don't
need a magnifying glass. You just need a brain in your head, an
understanding of what happened in the election, and the votes that are
here. It is--yes, what happened in the election, not only that the
American people spoke, but that some Members who were opposed to it and
who didn't want to vote have lost their elections.
The votes are here to pass this bill. It was clear to me; I thought
it should be clear to the majority leader. So people are going to have
to go ask the majority leader. He left the floor, and he will not
answer this question, but I am going to continue to ask it until I get
an answer from him because I think the people of the United States
deserve it. Why didn't he? He has been talking about it incessantly
every day, not only beating up on Democrats, even though about 15 of
us--maybe more--will vote for it, but he has been beating up on the
President incessantly, every day. And when he had the microphone, when
he had the chance, when he was elected overwhelmingly in his State, he
walked to the floor and didn't say a word about the Keystone Pipeline.
Not a word. He didn't even refer to it.
Then the Senator from Texas, who I thought, well--because they do
their scripts together, they coordinate them very well. I thought maybe
the Senator from Texas was going to give the signal. The Senator from
Texas didn't give the signal, either.
So as all Senators here who are elected have the right to stand up at
their desk and ask for recognition--it is about as simple as that. I
didn't even have a script. I was just sort of thinking that they were
going to do it. That is why I was here, because I thought at least I
would like to say I agree with it, and I am prepared to do what I have
done to rally our side to get the votes.
So neither one of them said anything. And we can read it for
ourselves. It is very clear. The Senator from Texas said we should do
easy stuff like the Keystone Pipeline. We will do that. Next time we
will work on workforce training. He said: No. 4, we can work on
infrastructure; No. 5, he said we should discourage abusive, costly
litigation; No. 6, we are going to repeal ObamaCare, particularly
restore the 40-hour workweek; repeal the medical device tax; and No. 8,
we are going to abolish the Independent Payment Advisory Board under
Medicare. Each of these things I have mentioned has bipartisan support.
If we can pass these measures, we will send them to the President for
his signature. So starting with the easy stuff we have already
identified that has bipartisan support.
Well, I lead the bipartisan effort on the Democratic side, and I am
proud to say that I lead it with the Senator from North Dakota who is
presiding, who has been an equally ferocious and sometimes more
effective, I will admit, champion than I have been, and the Senator
from West Virginia, who has also been an absolute bulldog on the issue.
There are other Senators. Max Baucus was a strong supporter of
Keystone. Senator Tester. Is it impossible for Republicans to utter the
words? Senator Tester. Senator Heitkamp. They don't have to say my
name. I am clear about why they are not doing that, but they could at
least be gracious enough to recognize the leadership of the other
Senators here who have worked hard.
When we start this next Congress--and I am going to do everything I
can to be a part of it--I really hope the reporters in this Chamber and
people who are following this will start reporting what really happens
here instead of what happens at press conferences, instead of what
people say in press releases, instead of what people say when they buy
staged television ads. If the reporters would actually just report what
happened, I think that would be a good start.
Sometimes they are going to say: This is what Senator Landrieu did,
and I disagree with her. This is what Mitch McConnell did, and I
disagree with him. But at least they would report what actually
happens.
So when they finished speaking, I stood up and said I think the votes
are there. I have reason to believe they are. I worked for a couple of
days last week just calling around because I am the chair of the
committee, and my job is to pass legislation. I passed some significant
pieces of legislation even before I was the chair of the energy
committee, although you would not believe that listening to some
people. We passed the RESTORE Act. I led the pushback against Biggert-
Waters, although I didn't put my name on it because I knew if I did, it
would never pass because they wouldn't have allowed it under any
circumstance. So Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson were gracious to
step up, and they led the effort, and I just kind of organized behind
the scenes--it is clear that happened--and we passed it. I am grateful
to this day that I didn't put my name as the lead because they never
would have passed it in an election year, and we would have had 5
million people in this country literally turning their homes back to
the banks or telling their children: The home that I built and that we
built together that has $300,000 or $400,000 of equity--I am just
telling you we are bankrupt.
I am so glad that didn't happen. I am thrilled.
So we did that bill. We did the RESTORE Act. I passed early in my
career a revenue-sharing bill that is going to serve the State of
Louisiana and the gulf coast beautifully for years to come.
Harry Truman offered us a portion of offshore oil and gas revenues
even before I was born. When I got through college and read about it, I
thought: Geez, that was a good idea. I liked Harry Truman's idea, and
so I filed a bill and passed it as a junior member of the committee--I
remind people, over the objection of my own chairman, who was a
Democrat at the time, the Senator from New Mexico, Jeff Bingaman, who
was adamantly opposed, adamantly fought every day, not just voted
against me but lobbied against me, fought against me, spoke against
it--not me personally but the bill. He just didn't believe in it--not
me personally but the bill. I passed it over his objection, which is a
very hard thing, for a junior member of the committee to pass it over
the objection of their own chairman. But the reason I did it is because
I figured out the votes, and we drafted it in a way that could secure
the votes and passed it. That is the truth.
So I am happy tonight. I am not sad. I am happy tonight that the
House of Representatives is again--because this is like the third time
this has happened in my career. It is a great honor for a House that I
haven't spent 2 minutes on the floor of--I mean, I know my delegation,
but I haven't spent any time in the House. I wasn't even a Member of
the House. This is the third time in my career that the House of
Representatives has actually taken a Hoeven-Landrieu, Landrieu-Hoeven
bill, stripped their bill--and I didn't even ask them to do it--and put
my bill over there and passed it, and then they are going to move it
over here. I could not be happier because we need to get the Keystone
Pipeline done. They did sort of the same thing with revenue sharing,
the RESTORE Act--well, four times--and the Biggert-Waters bill.
So I could not be happier that I was here at 2:00, that I listened to
my father, who is listening now--he should be happy to say: Show up on
time. You might not ever figure out what could happen if you aren't
there on time.
So I was, thinking absolutely they wouldn't put the early childhood
vote
[[Page S5977]]
on the floor, they would put Keystone on the floor because they talked
about it every single day--every single day in my State, in Alaska, in
North Carolina, in Georgia, and in Kentucky. Every single day.
What was wrong with yesterday? What was wrong with yesterday? It was
a good day. I am going to let that question sit because there are a lot
of people around here who know the answer; I don't have to tell it to
them. What was wrong with Tuesday? So when they didn't mention it, I
thought that I would because, as is the truth, I have been leading it
since 2011. I am not going to stop until we get a vote on the Senate
floor, for as long as I am here as chair, as ranking member--which I
will be, and not as happy as being chair but thrilled to be able to
work with the Senator from Alaska. If I had to pick one person in this
body on that side of the aisle to work with, it would be Lisa Murkowski
without a doubt, not only because she is a woman but because she is an
independent woman. She is strong. And since I was raised by one, I
cotton to them.
So I am a happy camper. It does not bother me because, as I have
said, I have now worked here long enough to have worked in the majority
and in the minority. I have worked with Republicans. I have worked with
Democrats. I have worked with three Presidents of different parties and
six Governors. Why would I be sad? This is kind of like somebody said
to me: This is the gig you signed up for. Yes, it is. It is strange to
many people, and I don't blame our constituents for getting aggravated,
but it is a gig I signed up for because my dad signed up for it, my
brother signed up for it, and my sister signed up for it because it is
what we do, and we do it well. And every single member of my family--
and my husband signed up for it, and his mother signed up for it. I
think it is worth signing up for, is why I am here.
Other people can have their opinions about the people who are here. I
think they are some of the best people in the world. Maybe the
institution is dysfunctional--it is. It is dysfunctional at this
moment, but the people are not. The individual people who are here on
both sides are not dysfunctional individuals; they are some of the most
extraordinary people on this planet. I know I am going to get
criticized for that statement because people will say: There she goes,
just talking about politicians. But I have served long enough to know
there are really some extraordinary human beings who serve in this
Senate--smart, capable, caring--on both sides of the aisle, and I am
proud to be a part of it.
I was not proud of the minority leader from Kentucky on Tuesday. I
was not proud of him today. I was not proud of the Senator from Texas
today. I was very disappointed in the Senator from North Dakota. But
they are my friends. We will get through it, and we will work forward
together.
I am glad the House is debating and voting. I look forward to being
back here on next Tuesday, where our vote will occur, and I am very
hopeful we will have and I believe we will have not 60 but probably 61
votes for the Keystone Pipeline. What the President does is a different
matter, and I would like to challenge the Senators on Tuesday to just
focus on the Senate.
Let the Senate's will work. Let us pass this bill. We will then send
it to the President, and under the Constitution--which is read to us on
a frequent basis--the President has the right to sign it or to veto it.
If he vetoes it, it is going to take 67 votes to override his veto.
Mine will be one of them if he vetoes this bill. If I am here, my vote
will be there to override his veto. I don't believe there are 67 other
votes in the Senate to do that. There might be. I don't know what
mindset people will have, but let's cross that bridge when we get
there.
Stop talking about the White House and talk about the Senate. If the
Senate can function, then maybe the House will do a little bit better,
maybe the White House will do a little bit better. My mother taught me
if you want to criticize others, start with yourself first. Get
yourself straight before you start criticizing everybody else. All I
hear around here is what this one didn't do and what that one didn't do
and what the President didn't do. Let us work as a Senate. Let us show
the American people how the Senate works.
The House is going to do their job on Keystone. We are going to do
our job on Keystone, and that will break the gridlock, which we
desperately need on a significant--not an easy bill, not an easy bill--
but easier, such as early childhood education. Who could be opposed to
that? But let's break the gridlock on a tough bill that is hard on our
Members to vote on. There are Members here who think it is the worst
thing in the world. I understand that. I think there are things that
have passed here that I thought were the worst things in the world and
I didn't like them, but voting is important. Senator Durbin has said
this and others have said this over and over again; Senator Leahy, who
has been here a long time. Let us vote and let us stop criticizing
everyone else, and do our job, and I am proud that I helped to get us
moving in that direction.
I am going to ask--Senator Carper is seeking to speak on another
matter. I understand my hour of postcloture is about to expire. I don't
need any additional time. I note that Senator Carper is here, but
before that, Senator Heitkamp, I would respectfully say to the Chair, I
think may have some comments she would like to make, and I yield the
floor, but if Senator Heitkamp could go now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). For the information of the
Senate, cloture having been invoked, the motion to refer falls.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my very good
friend Mary Landrieu for everything she has done for our country, for
her State, for her tenacity, and for her willingness to shepherd this
through at a very critical time.
We talked yesterday on the floor about how important it is to send
the right messages to the American public. A lot of people will say,
well, they pick this agenda or this agenda. They just want us to start
working together. And they want us to turn on the television and watch
C-SPAN and say, there they are in the sandbox again, fighting about
things that don't matter to the American public. You know, picking
fights with each other, bad-mouthing each other, as opposed to working
together.
It is a little tough right now, because I think that if we are going
to set the tone today, yesterday, today and in the days that follow
during this lameduck, the tone that will establish the relationships
and the courtesies we are going to have going forward in the next
Congress, we need to make sure we are communicating when the tone goes
a little wrong.
To me, I have fought this issue. I have been in favor of the Keystone
Pipeline ever since I looked, and I somewhat famously likened it to
caring about a reality TV show that has nothing to do with people's
lives, and wondering why we care so much about Keystone, because it
doesn't have a whole lot to do with carbon. It doesn't. Keystone
Pipeline is about transportation of oil. That oil is going to get
transported, it is going to get produced, and it is going to move. It
is going to move on rail or it is going to move on pipe someplace. When
you look at all the studies that have been done, the environmental
studies, you turn it around 100 different ways, you come to the same
conclusion, that the Keystone Pipeline makes an incredible amount of
sense.
It is a job-ready project, shovel-ready project, with good trade
union jobs. That is something you don't see every day in America. New
things coming--it will help us transport 100,000 barrels of oil. That
is less than 10 percent of what we produce every day but it will take,
as my senior Senator said, a lot of unit trains off the rails so we can
move grain, and it will be state of the art in terms of the quality of
the pipeline. I have seen the pipeline. I have seen the oil sands. I
have been there. We are headed for North American energy independence
if we don't get in our own way.
Keystone has taken a role larger than life, and it has been this hot
button issue that doesn't belong in this debate. It should have been
approved, in my opinion, years ago, absolutely years ago. It has taken
us longer to analyze Keystone than what it has taken us to beat
Hitler--by far, almost 50 percent more time spent analyzing the
Keystone Pipeline.
[[Page S5978]]
The people of the United States are tired of this issue. They are
tired of our gridlock, and they are tired of the partisan bickering
back and forth. So I would ask as a way to move forward on a lot of
very difficult energy issues that we are going to have here, whether it
is what I believe, we need to begin to lower the barriers and eliminate
the barriers for exportation of crude oil. It has been something I have
talked about a lot. I believe we need to export and to facilitate the
exportation of natural gas. I believe we need to do everything we can
to continue to develop our renewables. I believe we should have a
renewable fuel standard that encourages--encourages--the development of
renewable fuels. I believe a lot of things on energy, and we frequently
hear in this body we are all of the above and people start talking and
you know they are not. They are not all of the above. They are
polarizing this issue.
At the heart of it, as I said yesterday, one of the reasons why the
United States of America has not experienced an economic downturn or
the slowdown that you see globally is because of this energy
renaissance. This is what the American public has sent us to do, to set
public policy, but more importantly, to get out of the way of private
invention and entrepreneurship.
So I would respectfully, very respectfully, ask that when our
colleagues from the other side come to the floor, think about how we
can use language that brings us together, that doesn't tell the
American public, there they go again. You know, here we are again in
the sandbox trying to figure out who gets credit. You know what, when
this place works, we will all get credit. And more importantly, when
this place works, the American public will have their faith in their
government restored.
So let's be very careful with language. Let's recognize everyone for
the commitment they have made, and for the leadership they provided.
And I have said many times in my home State, Senator Hoeven has led
this effort. He talks about it. He has been a champion for the Keystone
Pipeline. I hope I have been a champion. But I certainly have not done
the time that he has done on this issue. Senator Hoeven deserves an
incredible amount of credit; but equally, Mary Landrieu deserves an
incredible amount of credit for moving this issue right at this point
of time and moving this issue forward. We who are working on this side
to gather the number of votes that we know we are going to need to pass
this--that is not easy work. Trust me, that is not easy work, but we
are making tremendous progress. We are making tremendous progress.
Now what happens next week? We hope we pass it. And we will cross the
bridge of a Presidential veto when we come to it and if we come to it.
But let's not presuppose what people are going to do and let's not
stand here at a time when the American public wants to see us all come
together, let's not stand here and worry about who gets credit. Let's
not stand here and call out people for what you consider past wrongs.
Let's move forward on behalf of the American people.
I wanted to personally say thank you, Senator Landrieu, for your
leadership, for your tenacity. And if I could add one point, and I will
say this because I was with you every step of the way on flood
insurance. Flood insurance would not have happened without Mary
Landrieu. We had great support on the other side, great bipartisan
effort, but she sounded the alarm before anyone knew we were going to
have this problem and had already built that groundwork.
You know, I am sure there are a lot of things her opponents and her
detractors can say about the positions she has taken over the years. Be
honest about it. She has been a leader on Keystone. She has been a
leader on oil and gas. She has been a leader on flood insurance. She
has been a tenacious voice for all of those issues. And she has in her
heart the best interests not just of the people in this country, but
particularly the great people of the great State of Louisiana. So,
thank you, Mary, for everything you do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Nominations
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I did not come to the floor to praise
Senator Landrieu, but while I am at it, I would like to say a few
words.
I have the privilege of chairing the committee on governmental
affairs. Senator Landrieu chairs the appropriations subcommittee that
deals with Homeland Security. She is also a member of the authorizing
committee. So she works both vineyards. She is as tenacious and
tireless in her defense of our country against cyber attacks, against
terrorist attacks, against all kinds of ills that would otherwise be
visited on our country. She still finds time as chairman of the energy
committee to focus not only on issues that are important to her State--
and this is one of them--but also issues that are incredibly important
to our country.
I said to my wife the other night--we were talking about Senator
Landrieu and her tenacity. That word has been used tonight a couple
times about her, as an unrelenting advocate for her State and the
causes she believes in. Others have mentioned that she is a tireless
advocate not only for Louisiana but for the causes that she sees that
are just.
There is no quit in this one, as I said to my wife this week. She
said, ``How is Mary?'' I would never want to run against this woman,
and fortunately I would never have to. And for those who have to, good
luck and God bless. But I am proud to be here with Mary, and with
Senator Heidi Heitkamp as well.
The reason I come here tonight is to discuss a number of nominations
that have been considered and approved by the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee that both Senator Landrieu and Senator
Heitkamp and I serve on. Senator Coburn, our colleague from Oklahoma,
is the ranking Republican on that committee, and we have worked
tirelessly ourselves for the better part of the last 2 years to try to
make sure there is a full complement of leadership in the Department of
Homeland Security to provide the leadership for one of the most
important agencies in our government. I have spoken with people on this
floor and wherever else I could find a venue about the large and very
troubling backlog of nominations in this Senate. I call it executive
branch Swiss cheese. Executive branch Swiss cheese.
There are a couple of ways you can cripple an administration. No. 1,
you can refuse to provide appropriations and funding. Another way to
cripple an administration is to not approve the nominations of people
who fill key leadership positions. The most important ingredient I
found in any organization--I don't care if it is a legislative body
such as this, a State such as Minnesota or Delaware or Louisiana or
North Dakota--I don't care if it is a college or a business, a church.
The most critical factor in all of those is leadership.
When we deny a President or a Governor or a mayor, for that matter,
the ability to put his or her leadership team together--even when they
are nominating well-qualified, competent people, people of integrity--
we do not do just a disservice to that person who has been nominated
and has gone through the process, but to the State or the county or the
country in which they have been nominated to serve.
I think it is every Senator's constitutional role to provide advice
and consent on the President's nominations in a thorough and timely
manner as part of the Senate confirmation process. I have exercised
that constitutional role and our right and our obligation. I think we
do our country no service and do ourselves no honor when we leave
critical agencies--and Homeland Security is certainly one of those--
without proper leadership and leave honorable men and women who are
willing to serve in the government twisting in the wind.
I am a big believer in the Golden Rule, as our Presiding Officer
knows: treat other people the way we want to be treated. How would we
like it if we were nominated, and we have a job--maybe it is an
important job, maybe it is a job that pays a lot more than what they
have been nominated to do in service to our country. All too often
people are asked to put their lives and their family on hold. They
don't know if they are going to be uprooted from wherever they are in
the country to come here and live or for their spouse or father or
mother to work. It is not fair.
In some cases, it is just to put people before committees and berate
them
[[Page S5979]]
publicly for sins of omission or commission that may be fabricated. No
wonder it is hard to get good people to serve.
In this case, I have several people that I will talk about tonight.
These people deserve not just our consideration but our strong support.
During my 2 years as chairman of the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee, I have made it one of my top priorities
to work closely with our ranking Republican, Dr. Tom Coburn, who is a
physician and also a Senator, and to vet the President's nominees that
we have jurisdiction over and move them in a timely manner when they
meet muster, scrub them good, make sure we have drilled down on what
they believe in, their credentials and competency for serving, and when
they do pass muster, try to move them along and bring them through our
committee--almost every time--with a bipartisan vote and then bring the
nomination to the floor.
Tom Coburn and I try to do that religiously with respect to our
nominees. We try to do the same kind of bipartisan approach with our
legislation. We have had a lot of success and we are grateful to our
colleagues for supporting what we have done in our committee. We are
grateful to Majority Leader Reid and Senator McConnell and their
staffs. They have been valuable partners in this effort. Gary Myrick,
who works on the floor for the Democratic side, and Laura Dove, who
works on the Republican side for Senator McConnell, have been terrific
to work with, and we thank them for their stewardship.
Just yesterday our committee reported out three more outstanding
nominees, one of them, Sarah Saldana, to be head of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security. It is a big
job, it is an important job, and it is a tough job. Russell Deyo has
been nominated to be the top management official at the Department of
Homeland Security. Mickey Barnett has been nominated by the President
to serve another term on the Postal Services Board of Governors.
I believe Ms. Saldana and Mr. Deyo will almost certainly be confirmed
in short order. I urge my colleagues to review their qualifications and
work with Dr. Coburn and me to fill these two vacancies at the
Department of Homeland Security in the coming days.
I wish to spend a few minutes of my time tonight discussing the
nomination of Mickey Barnett, who is already serving on the Postal
Board of Governors. He is a Republican and nominated again by the
President. I will then talk about a couple of lower profile nominees
that I think we urgently need to confirm as quickly as we can--
certainly this year during this lameduck session.
Mickey Barnett is among a group of five partisan nominees to the
Postal Board of Governors. His nomination was submitted by a Democratic
President. Two of the nominees are Republicans, and Mickey is one of
those, and three of them are Democrats.
If we don't confirm Mr. Barnett and his colleagues by December 8--a
little more than 4 weeks from now--Mr. Barnett, who is currently the
Board's chair, will be forced to leave the Board. If that happens, the
Postal Board of Governors will no longer have enough members to achieve
a quorum and will not be able to conduct business.
At a time when the Postal Service is struggling to address a number
of financial challenges and adapt to the digital age and the Internet
world we live in, being unable to conduct business would not be good
for the Postal Service. In fact, it would be very bad. We need to avoid
that from happening. I think if it does happen, we will be inviting a
disaster.
Today, because of our inability in Congress to come to a consensus on
postal reform legislation--and they are actually creeping closer--the
good work by Dr. Coburn and a number of other people to actually
develop a bipartisan consensus around the legislation that was reported
out of our committee--I believe in a 9-to-1 vote earlier this year--the
Postal Service will continue to twist in the wind, able to only do so
much to address the financial challenges they face and to transfer
themselves in a digital age. They need to figure out how to make
themselves relevant--a 200-some-year-old establishment--in delivering
that work that goes to every business and every residence in this
country, for the most part, 6 days a week.
How do we enable the Postal Service to make money? They are figuring
it out, and we can help them with our legislation.
Meanwhile, the customers of the Postal Service are left with
uncertainty about what the future holds for the Postal Service. Are
they going to be around? Are they going to be able to do the job? Are
they ever going to modernize their fleet? Are they ever going to
modernize their processing centers and the post offices themselves? We
can answer that question and enable them to be financially viable once
again. We would make that uncertainty that surrounds the Postal Service
even worse if December 8 comes and goes and our five Postal Board
nominees are still waiting for us to act.
The same goes for our nominees to fill vacancies, not on the Postal
Board of Governors, but on something called the Postal Regulatory
Commission. It is a five-member commission. It is the regulator, if you
will, for the Postal Service. The two people who have been nominated by
this President are Nanci Langley and Tony Hammond. They have been
waiting since the spring of 2013 to be confirmed. As a result, the
commission has been working with only three commissioners out of five.
We need to do something about that as well, and waiting for another
year--waiting for another month is foolhardy.
These people deserve a vote. We ought to vote them up or down. They
have been unanimously approved and confirmed by our committee, and I
think they need a vote. When they get a vote, I am sure they will be
confirmed.
Also pending before the Senate are two nominations to the District of
Columbia Superior Court, Judge William Nooter and Judge Steven Wellner.
They are both well-qualified nominees who, like the Homeland Security
and Postal nominees I have discussed, won bipartisan support in the
committee and are needed to fill vacancies on the District of
Columbia's very busy trial court.
Judge Nooter and Judge Wellner were reported out of our committee
with unanimous bipartisan support months ago. In Judge Nooter's case,
it was more than a year ago.
As I have discussed, these men are not alone in waiting so long for
confirmation, but the problem is particularly unfair when it comes to
the District of Columbia's court system. Earlier this fall during the
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Hearing on DC
statehood, the current vacancies on the DC Superior Court were included
as just one of many injustices the District faces simply because it
serves our Nation's capital.
The District of Columbia already suffers from not having control over
its laws or even its own local dollars. The citizens of this city
should not have to face a compromised legal system as well. While we in
Congress may not be able to fix everything, I do think this is one of
the few issues we can and must address now.
The DC Circuit Court is a local court. It hears primarily local
matters. Most nominees are entirely uncontroversial and used to go
through the Senate without a recorded floor vote. But because these
local judges go through Senate confirmation, they have been caught up
in a broader political stalemate of the Senate floor. I hope that is
going to come to an end.
Meanwhile, no other local or State jurisdiction must have its non-
Federal judges approved by the Congress. If we are talking about
Federal District judges or Circuit Court of Appeal judges or Supreme
Court Justices, of course they should come through and be debated and
approved here. These are local judges, and it is only by a quirk in the
law that they have to come here for a confirmation at all. They are
local judges in the District of Columbia.
How would we like it if we had been nominated and held up for over a
year--particularly in courts where there are huge backlogs. We are
talking about caseloads of tens of thousands of people, and they don't
have a full complement of judges because of us. How fair is that? Well,
it is not.
No other local or State jurisdiction must have its non-Federal judges
approved by Congress, and no other State
[[Page S5980]]
or locality is without a vote in the Senate to help push for action on
nominations of concern to that community.
The DC Superior Court is operated by the Federal Government and its
judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for
15-year terms. It is important to note that although this court is
operated by the Federal Government, it is separate from the Federal
Government. Instead, the Superior Court is the local trial court for
the District of Columbia. It handles matters such as local crime and
domestic and civil disputes.
Nevertheless, because this court is operated by the Federal
Government, the President nominates candidates for judicial vacancies
from a slate prepared by a nonpartisan nomination commission and the
Senate must confirm the nominees.
Currently, there are four vacancies on the Superior Court. Due to
planned retirement and medical leave, this number will rise by the end
of the year, and it is going to get worse. These vacancies hinder the
Superior Court's ability to administer justice for DC residents. The
Superior Court judges already carry, as I said earlier, enormous
caseloads. The existing vacancies--the majority of which are in the
family court division--threaten to undermine the judge's ability to
give proper attention to each case, including those cases in family
courts that affect the welfare of families, and particularly the
welfare of children.
Recently the chief judge of the Superior Court and the Bar
Association in the District of Columbia sent to both Senate leaders and
Dr. Coburn and myself a letter raising these concerns and ultimately
seeking a Senate vote on Judges Nooter and Wellner. They are preaching
to the choir.
Judge Nooter is currently the presiding magistrate judge on the
Superior Court and has served as a magistrate judge for the past 14
years. As presiding magistrate judge, he manages 23 fellow magistrate
judges and serves on the leadership team of the chief judge of the
Superior Court.
Meanwhile, Judge Wellner currently serves as an administrative law
judge for the District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings.
Since 2011, he has led the unemployment insurance division, and by all
accounts skillfully coordinates a team of 10 administrative law judges
and support staff to adjudicate over 3,000 unemployment insurance cases
per year.
Given the caliber of these nominees, the lack of controversy over
their nomination, and the unanimous bipartisan support they have
received from the committee of jurisdiction, I urge--and I am sure I
urge with the full support of Dr. Coburn, our ranking Republican member
of the committee--this body to move their confirmations forward as soon
as possible. Justice delayed is still justice denied. It has been that
way for centuries and these delays are insufferable.
I will close by saying that what we are doing is not just bad
judgment, it is not just bad form, I think it is shameful, and we need
to fix it.
With that, I am finished, and I am looking around to see if there is
anybody else seeking recognition. I don't see anyone, so with that, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Affordable Care Act
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, after the election, I have heard a number
of my colleagues in the House of Representatives and in the Senate say
they are going to come to the floor of the Senate and to the floor of
the House and again try to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
I said last night on the floor that it strikes me that during an
election I would think Members of Congress would hear from their
constituents, whether it is in Minnesota or Ohio--the Presiding
Officer's State or mine, or around the country--and once we start
talking to real people--not campaign rallies, not a country club
dinner, not a fundraiser, but real people--about their lives, we would
understand what the Affordable Care Act has meant to a whole lot of
people.
In my State, there are a lot more than 500,000 people who have health
insurance today who did not have it 1 year ago because of the
Affordable Care Act. In addition, there are 97,000 and counting young
people--18--20--25-years-olds--who are on their parents' health care
plan who wouldn't have insurance without it. There are a million
seniors in my State, from Gallipolis to Troy to Toledo to Zanesville,
who have gotten free--meaning no copay, no deductibles--free cancer
screenings, preventive care, diabetes checks--all of these kinds of
preventive care, including when their doctor prescribes getting a
physical for seniors that is free, all because of the Affordable Care
Act. There are thousands and thousands of people in Ohio who have a
child with diabetes or a son or a daughter with asthma, and that family
has been denied coverage year after year, but now, because of the
Affordable Care Act, they have coverage. So we know what this has
meant.
I heard Pope Francis say a few months ago, speaking to his parish
priests--he exhorted them to go out and listen to people and understand
their lives, as should others, before they come to the floor and try to
repeal the Affordable Care Act. There is something a bit untoward where
people of privilege--we are Senators; we have great titles, we are paid
good salaries, most of us dress well, most of us have nice haircuts--we
come to the floor with government-paid insurance, and we say we are
going to repeal the Affordable Care Act and take insurance away from
500,000 Ohioans and tens of thousands of Minnesotans, and take away
young people's and their parents' plan, and take away these benefits
for seniors.
I came to the floor to share a handful of letters because I want to
put a face on some of these, what this actually means, if we were to--
if Congress, thinking that is what the voters want--come to this floor
and say we are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Let's talk
about what that means.
Connie from Hamilton County, in Cincinnati--the Presiding Officer has
been in that city a couple of times--writes: As one of your
constituents, I want you to know the deleterious impacts of the DC
Circuit Court's ruling on my well-being. Because of a change in both my
employment status and marital status, I have looked at the Affordable
Care Act as a godsend. I worked full-time in a well-paying job for more
than 35 years when I was organized out of a position at the worst time
during the recession. I have been able to maintain limited and
temporary part-time contract work since. But the income I net is
substantially reduced from what it was.
She said she worked for 35 years, so I assume she is at least in her
fifties.
As an older worker, I'm having a difficult time securing
permanent employment. I believe strongly in the importance of
health care. I have recently qualified for a catastrophic
health plan with tax credits on healthcare.gov. Paying for it
is a stretch, but I have willingly bit the bullet.
As you know, Ohio is one of those States that has opted out
of establishing its own state plans. That wasn't a problem
until recently. Now, facing a plan that may be ineligible for
the Federal tax credit, I face a dire financial situation. If
I were the only one caught in this Catch 22, I would not be
writing. I understand there are approximately 5 million
Americans in similar straits.
Living in a State where the Governor did not want to set up an
exchange, and the Supreme Court--nine privileged men and women who are
lawyers, who get government health insurance--may take these benefits
away from these 5 million people. That was my editorial comment.
She writes:
Please, please, help find a way to ameliorate the impact of
this circuit court ruling. Many of us are dependent upon it
so we don't become burdens on the health care system.
So the question: Why do people who dress like this, who have titles
such as ``Congressman'' and ``Senator, who get health insurance paid by
taxpayers, why do they want to take it away from so many other people?
Why do they want to take these benefits away? Why do they want to
cancel these consumer protections? So when they cast these votes on
repeal of the Affordable Care
[[Page S5981]]
Act, they should be thinking about the Connies of the world.
Sharon from Franklin County in the middle of State, Columbus, is a
lupus patient. She writes:
I urge you to maintain the health care reform that helps us
afford coverage. Before Congress starts gutting the health
care reform, please visit a support group for any chronic
illness, and listen to the stories of people struggling to
pay their medical bills, about people being denied insurance
due to preexisting conditions, cutting their meds in half to
try to stretch them to the end of the month.
My wife was in a drugstore not too long ago. Right in front of her,
somebody was trying to figure out: Can I skip, take half this number of
pills so they last twice as long? That happens all the time. If more of
us would get out to a drugstore, if more of us would get out and talk
to people, we would learn that.
Sharon writes:
I have got a good education, a good job, good insurance,
but I know I could be wiped out in a matter of months if my
job were outsourced or discontinued. Since I work at home and
telecommute due to my illness, my chances at a new job and
new health insurance are grim. The health care reform bill
isn't perfect, but when it was passed, a collective sigh of
relief went up for millions of Americans who are struggling
to maintain their jobs, their families, and their lives while
suffering with chronic illnesses like lupus. Please don't
play politics with our lives. Please don't gut the health
care bill.
Again the question is, Why do my colleagues--almost all of whom have
health insurance provided by taxpayers--why do they want to take these
benefits away from Sharon and Connie?
A couple more.
Rose from Hamilton County writes:
Senator Brown, please vote no to repeal the health care
law. My family and friends appreciate the added benefits we
are getting from the current health care law. My son's
fiancee is currently finishing her graduate degree.
She is 25.
Thank God she is able to remain on her parents' insurance;
otherwise she would not be able to afford the high cost of
private insurance.
This a young woman about whom Rose is writing. This is a young woman
who wants to get more education, wants to do better in life, wants to
further her career, but what will happen? If she cannot stay on her
parents' plan, if my colleagues are successful in repealing the
Affordable Care Act, what will happen to her? Why should we even be
asking that question?
My niece graduated last year from college and has not been
able to find a full-time teaching job.
She is doing what we need more of--good teachers in our country.
Fortunately, she too can now stay on her parents' insurance
because of the health care law. In addition--
She has an illness--
the current health care law ensures that when it's time for
her to get her own health insurance, she will not be
discriminated against.
This woman, Rose's niece, is in this situation. She is right out of
school. She wants to teach. She does not have a job yet. She is on her
parents' health insurance plan. Then when she gets a job, if it were
not for the Affordable Care Act, she probably would be denied coverage
because she has a preexisting condition. So she is a perfect example of
two things about this law that my colleagues for whatever reason want
to take away.
I will close with this. Chris from Fairfield County--kind of
southeast of Columbus--writes:
Senator, I just wanted to thank you for standing by the
health care law. I now have insurance after 4 years without
it. I am now receiving treatment for my knee after 3 years of
pain and swelling. Turns out I have arthritis and I go to an
orthopedic surgeon next week for further diagnosis and
treatment. Without the insurance I purchased through the
exchange, the x-ray that discovered the arthritis would have
never been possible because I could not afford it.
So, again, why would my colleagues--almost all of whom have health
insurance--why would they want to take those benefits away? Why would
they say to this person in Fairfield County--why would they say to
Chris: Well, sorry, you are not going to get that x ray.
In the end, what would happen? Chris would not get the x ray, would
not know about the arthritis until it gets worse, and then it would
cost the health insurance company more money.
Part of what the Affordable Care Act does--and the Presiding Officer
played a role in writing many provisions of this law--part of what it
does is it encourages and gives people incentives to get preventive
care.
So if we repeal this law, if my colleagues--again, I know I said this
over and over, but almost all of whom have health insurance provided to
them by taxpayers--if they have their way, all of these people--Chris
and Rose and Sharon and Connie--where do they turn? Where do they turn?
Their lives end up worse. They end up being sicker. They possibly die
younger. They end up costing the health care system more money. They
are less productive as citizens. The niece and the son-in-law and the
fiancee one of these ladies talked about would not be able to get an
education, get ahead--all of the things we say we value in this
country.
How can any anybody think in good conscience that repealing the
Affordable Care Act makes sense for our families, makes sense for our
communities, makes sense for the States of Minnesota and Ohio, makes
sense for our country?
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Order of Procedure
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 p.m.,
Monday, November 17, all postcloture time be considered expired with
respect to the House message to accompany S. 1086; that the motion to
concur with amendment No. 3923 be withdrawn; and the Senate proceed to
vote on the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 1086; that
upon the disposition of the House message, the Senate proceed to
executive session and vote on cloture on Executive Calendar Nos. 856,
Abrams; 857, Cohen; and 858, Ross; further, that if cloture is invoked
on any of these nominations, that on Tuesday, November 18, following
the Senate's action with respect to S. 2280, as provided under a
previous order, the Senate proceed to executive session, that all
postcloture time be considered expired, and the Senate proceed to vote
on confirmation of the nominations in the order upon which cloture was
invoked; further, with respect to the nominations in this agreement,
that if any nomination is confirmed, the motions to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table and the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action; that upon disposition of
the Ross nomination, the Senate resume legislative session and the
motion to proceed to S. 2685; that there be 30 minutes of debate
equally divided between the two leaders or their designees on the
motion to proceed; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the
Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to
proceed to S. 2685; further, that with any sequence of multiple votes
there be 2 minutes for debate prior to each vote and all rollcall votes
after the first vote in each sequence be 10 minutes in length; and,
finally, that the time in opposition to S. 2280 be under the control of
Senator Boxer or her designee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________