[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 3 (Thursday, January 8, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S85-S94]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. 
on Monday, January 12, the motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 
1, a bill to approve the Keystone Pipeline, be agreed to, and that 
Senator Murkowski be recognized to offer a substitute amendment that is 
the text of the committee-reported bill.
  Before the Chair rules, for the information of all Senators, it is 
the intention of the chairman and the leadership on this side of the 
aisle to ask that the two bill managers or their designees offer 
amendments in an alternating fashion to allow for an open amendment 
process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed to S. 1.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending 
     motion to proceed to S. 1, a bill to approve the Keystone XL 
     Pipeline.

         Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Chuck Grassley, Richard 
           Burr, Tim Scott, John Boozman, Ron Johnson, Lindsey 
           Graham, James Lankford, James M. Inhofe, Dean Heller, 
           Rand Paul, Kelly Ayotte, Bill Cassidy, John Cornyn, 
           David Vitter, John Hoeven.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the 
provisions of rule XXII, the mandatory quorum be waived and the vote on 
the motion to invoke cloture occur at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, January 12.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Now, Mr. President, we had hoped to begin working on 
the bipartisan Hoeven Keystone jobs and infrastructure bill today. We 
had hoped to continue offering amendments tomorrow. Unfortunately, some 
of our colleagues across the aisle objected to proceeding to this 
bipartisan legislation so that forces a few changes to the schedule.
  First, it means we will have to file cloture on the motion to 
proceed, which I just did; and then, as a result, it means under the 
rules of the Senate we won't be able to begin offering amendments until 
next week.
  Frankly, it is unfortunate. Many Senators on both sides had hoped to 
use tomorrow to work on the bill, and I did as well. But we will work 
through this because we are determined to get bipartisan jobs 
legislation on the President's desk as soon as we can.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S86]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know we are all concerned right now with 
the progress that is going to be made on the pipeline, and I would like 
to make a few comments about it.
  I have three charts. Let us look at this one from Oklahoma. I want to 
remind everyone that we had a visitor to the State of Oklahoma--the 
only time, I understand, the President has been in Oklahoma. President 
Obama came to Cushing, OK.
  Let me explain where Cushing, OK, is. It is in the central part of 
the State, and it is the hub of all the pipelines--all the way from 
Canada down to New Mexico. Of course this is the pipeline in question 
here that we have been talking about over and over now for months and 
months and months, and it is one we understand just how great it would 
be. So the President, knowing this is very popular--and this trip was, 
in fact, actually before the election--made a trip to Oklahoma and 
talked about how good--well, I will actually read the quote. Keep in 
mind this was in Cushing, OK, right in the middle of the hub of the 
pipelines going through. The President said he was directing his 
administration ``to make this project a priority, to go ahead and get 
it done.''
  That sounded real good. The problem was everyone in Oklahoma knew he 
wasn't telling the truth. I don't like to stand here and use the ``L'' 
word, because nothing really gets done by it, but he has done 
everything since that time to destroy the pipeline.
  The President was making the statement then that he was not going to 
stand in the way of furthering the production of this pipeline to go 
down south through Texas. Well, there is good reason for that, because 
he couldn't do anything about it. It doesn't go across any 
international borders. But where he has blocked this is where he can do 
so, because it crosses the international border between Canada and the 
United States.
  I want to mention that there is a person who has been very active in 
the political realm. His name is Tom Steyer. He has been very much 
involved. Quite frankly, I don't object to people who are right forward 
and honest about what their intentions are. This is the man--Tom 
Steyer, who is a billionaire--and he has had several meetings and said 
that he was going to put up $50 million of his own money and raise an 
additional $50 million--that is $100 million--to put in races in the 
coming election, meaning this last November.
  It is my understanding that, in the final analysis, he wasn't able to 
raise the extra money, but of his own money--and these are his words, 
not mine--he put in $70 million. Mr. Steyer said:

       It is true we expect to be heavily involved in the midterm 
     elections . . . we are looking at a bunch of . . . races . . 
     . . My guess is that we'll end up being involved in 8 or even 
     more races.

  So we are talking about some $70 million that was going to be 
involved, and I would say that wasn't a real good investment because he 
didn't win any of those 8 races and actually netted out a loss of 9 
races.
  So again, he has a stated goal to try to do two things with his 
influence and his money. Again, I don't criticize him for this. He 
believes in his cause. His two causes are No. 1, to try to stop any 
further development on Federal land--in other words, to try to do what 
he can with some of the suggested pollution and all these things that 
are supposed to go with it--and another thing is to stop the pipeline.
  Again, he was the one who made the statement. He also has been very 
influential in this administration. It has been reported--this was 
about 2 weeks ago--that he had visited the Obama White House some 14 
times, which led a member of the watchdog group Public Citizen to say: 
``Tom Steyer has not just got the ear of the President, but he clearly 
has the President's attention.''
  Now, these White House meetings were often with President Obama's 
counselor and chief environmental adviser John Podesta. We all know 
John Podesta. We have known his background for a long time. Personally, 
I have known him. He has lobbied for Mr. Steyer to be the U.S. 
Secretary of Energy, saying, ``I think he would be a fabulous choice 
for energy secretary, and I've let my friends in the administration 
know that.'' The reports also show that Mr. Steyer and Mr. Podesta have 
met with George Soros, one of the liberal billionaires.

  So this effort is going on, and I think it is necessary to remind the 
American people because it has probably been about 6 months since 
anyone has even talked about some of the obstacles we can look forward 
to that are in the way of getting the things done that need to be done.
  The President tries to downplay the job numbers. We talk about the 
42,000 jobs. The President said a couple days ago: Wait, those are just 
temporary jobs. Well, all jobs are temporary, but these jobs will be 
there for a number of years and will lead to others.
  The President tries to downplay the numbers by using rhetoric that 
has earned his statements multiple Pinocchios. The Washington Post has 
a program where they check the facts, and several times he has been the 
recipient of these Pinocchio awards.
  Unfortunately, his attitude toward construction and manufacturing 
jobs is one that would stop jobs for hard-working Americans.
  So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--and this is very 
significant. We are talking about jobs. We are talking about important 
jobs. We are talking about high-paying jobs. I am a little biased 
because in Cushing, OK, we are the hub of these pipelines going through 
America. So what is going to positively affect our economy nationwide 
will probably be even more in my State of Oklahoma.
  The President has done a lot of talking about the transportation 
infrastructure. Of course, this pipeline is part of it. We think about 
transportation infrastructure as roads, highways, and bridges. I 
applaud every time I hear him saying we need to do something about our 
transportation infrastructure. Unfortunately, it is always just words. 
He never follows through. He had a program on two different occasions 
that was going to be very ambitious and was going to start constructing 
new highways. He was very specific about where they were going to go. 
But then that was the end of it. He got the word out there, and 
everyone heard about it and agreed that he must be for highways, but 
then he forgot about it.
  I am pretty biased here because I chair the Environment and Public 
Works Committee that deals with all the infrastructure. I would say 
this: We are embarking on a very ambitious transportation 
reauthorization bill, and it is one that is going to include lots of 
modes of transportation. Of course, it would all be a part of this 
pipeline and the benefits that are coming through it. So I would say he 
does a lot of talking about that, but we are going to really have to 
get down and do it.
  I often wonder what could have happened 6 years ago. Just to refresh 
our memories, the first thing this President did was his $825 billion 
stimulus bill. How better could you stimulate the economy than having 
an ambitious transportation bill? I remember my colleague on the other 
side of the aisle, Barbara Boxer, and I offered amendments on this 
amount. I, of course, vigorously opposed the $825 billion--that was a 
checkbook given to the President in the opening months of his office. 
But the fact was that it was going to pass, and we knew they had the 
votes to pass it right down party lines--which it did--and then he was 
going to be in a position to say: We are now going to be doing these 
things. So Barbara Boxer and I thought, well, let's get a percentage. I 
think our amendment was 8 percent would be reserved--a modest amount--
for highways. If we really want to stimulate the economy, there is no 
better way to do it than that way.
  That is kind of a background of what has been happening.
  I really believe, now that we have a majority, that we are going to 
get busy and try to get this done and will be successful in doing it. 
We have a lot of critical infrastructure projects. This is supported by 
the chamber of commerce and by labor unions. Almost everyone out there 
is in support of this.
  Yesterday, I think it was, in one of the committee hearings--I wanted 
to

[[Page S87]]

make sure this was properly answered in the committee hearing because 
it was in a committee that I am not on, the energy committee.
  One of my good friends on the Democratic side of the aisle made the 
statement: We are very proud of the President because our production 
has dramatically increased during the 6 years he has been President of 
the United States.
  Yes, that is true, but it has been in spite of the President. Let me 
give a couple statistics that people are not aware of. In the shale 
revolution taking place in this country, we have increased, during that 
period of time, our production--we are really talking about shale 
production--by 61 percent. So 61 percent in 5 years. That is what it 
has been. But all 61 percent of that has been on private and State 
land. On Federal land--over which President Obama has jurisdiction and 
can stop it--while the rest has increased by 61 percent, it has 
decreased by 6 percent.
  I think we need to make sure to remind people because we don't want 
the public thinking that somehow the President is not involved in a war 
on fossil fuels. He is definitely involved in a war on fossil fuels.
  Let me mention one other thing about the shale revolution. Because of 
the Marcellus, what is happening back East--people have always 
historically thought about the West and the State of Oklahoma as being 
kind of where all the oil is and where the production is. That really 
was true for a long period of time, but with the Marcellus coming in, 
Pennsylvania, New York--the Northeast has been a heavy production area. 
In fact, I have heard figures that in Pennsylvania, the second largest 
employer right now is people involved in the shale production that is 
taking place there. I don't know that it is the second largest, but 
that has not yet been refuted.
  So very important things are happening there, but the key to making 
all of this happen is the pipeline. We know that eventually we are 
going to be there, but there has already been a veto threat. We are 
going to pass a bill. I know we are going to pass a bill. It is going 
to pass the House and the Senate. The President will probably veto it. 
He said he would. I am inclined to think that a lot of my friends on 
the Democratic side are going to stop and think ``Wait a minute, this 
is good for everyone,'' and there will be a bunch of people overriding 
a veto. I really believe something like that is going to happen, this 
is so significant.
  People have said: The reason we don't want this is because it is 
dirty. This is up in Alberta, Canada. This is going to affect the 
environment.
  First of all, it won't. People understand that is just not a true 
statement. But if it were true, it is something that is ridiculous 
because China is already making their deal. It has been made public 
that China wants to have transportation across Canada that would go to 
the west coast and be able to be sent over to China. If that should 
happen, in terms of the pollution, since they don't have any safeguards 
over there, that would result in increasing, not decreasing, any 
pollution that would be associated with this production.
  I know a lot of people want to talk about this. To give an idea of 
what all is there in moving this production around, this is a very 
significant chart because it shows what is out there today and what can 
be produced. A minute ago I talked about the Northeast. That is the 
Marcellus we are talking about. It is a huge benefit out there. Yet a 
lot of the people who represent that part of America are not even aware 
that this is not just the Western United States. Just look at that, and 
we can see.
  We have an opportunity here. I feel very strongly that our friends up 
there with the pipeline coming down--everyone is going to benefit. We 
have seen the charts. Certainly the Presiding Officer has many times 
pulled out the charts that show the great benefits that are going to be 
there for the entire country, along with our rapid path to be totally 
independent of any other country in our ability to produce our own 
energy.
  This is a win-win situation. We are eventually going to get it but 
the sooner the better. I applaud the Chair and others involved in the 
legislation we are going to be considering.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we have begun the new year of the 114th 
Congress with a Republican majority and a fresh commitment to get 
Congress working again.
  Overwhelmingly, Americans supported the progrowth ideas of the 
Republican Party in the polls in the November election, sending a 
strong message about their frustration with the gridlock we have 
experienced in the Democratic-led Senate.
  So it is time to get to work, time to return to regular order and to 
debate openly legislation, to move bills through committee, to allow 
Members on both sides of the aisle to offer amendments, and to get the 
Senate back on track passing bills the way it should be. The American 
people deserve a Senate that works, and the new Republican majority 
intends to deliver.
  That is why it is so disappointing that President Obama would 
threaten to veto the very first bill Republicans plan to bring to the 
Senate floor for a vote--a bipartisan vote to authorize the Keystone XL 
Pipeline, a bill that was introduced here in the Senate with 60 
cosponsors.
  The Keystone XL Pipeline enjoys widespread public support, and that 
is not surprising. Polls have demonstrated that the American people are 
concerned about jobs and the economy, and they want to get the country 
working again and to strengthen our energy independence. The Keystone 
XL Pipeline will help do just that. Yet President Obama would rather 
hold the economy hostage to the far leftwing of his party than put 
American workers first. His war on energy runs counter to what this 
country needs--jobs and the affordable energy that will support them.
  I have shared time and time again on the Senate floor what President 
Obama's own State Department has said about the project. The State 
Department has concluded the pipeline will not only support 42,000 jobs 
during construction, but it will do so without significant impact on 
the environment--and, I might add, without spending a cent of taxpayer 
money.
  The Keystone XL Pipeline has been stuck in limbo for over 6 years and 
has become more than just an energy issue. In my own State of South 
Dakota, rail backlogs have caused tremendous delays for farmers trying 
to get their harvests to market. The Keystone XL Pipeline will help 
alleviate this backlog by taking 100,000 barrels of Montana and North 
Dakota oil off the rails, freeing up nearly two unit-trains per day of 
capacity that is sorely needed by other rail shippers.
  The pipeline will also bring tax revenue to South Dakota. The State 
Department estimates that in my home State of South Dakota alone, the 
construction of the pipeline will support 3,000 to 4,000 jobs during 
construction and generate well over $100 million in earnings. It will 
bring more than $20 million in annual property taxes to South Dakota 
counties. Places like Jones County, where I grew up, could greatly 
benefit by having this added tax revenue for their schools.
  The Keystone XL Pipeline will also decrease our reliance on oil from 
dangerous countries such as Venezuela. Yet President Obama and some 
Democrats continue to downplay all these benefits. They say the jobs 
are mostly temporary. Well, construction jobs are temporary by nature, 
but that doesn't mean they don't matter. Rather, it means we need to 
keep new projects such as Keystone XL coming to spur growth and to 
develop new infrastructure. By shutting down what would be a routine 
energy infrastructure project, President Obama is creating a difficult 
environment for future development and projects.
  The far leftwing of the President's party claim the pipeline will 
increase greenhouse gases, but reports from the

[[Page S88]]

President's own State Department undermine his claim. In its final 
supplemental environmental impact statement, the President's State 
Department noted that the Keystone XL Pipeline is ``unlikely to 
significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands or the 
continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the United 
States.''
  In other words, the emissions associated with the oil sands 
extractions will not change whether or not the pipeline is built. While 
oil prices may impact the production rate of oil sands, the State 
Department also found that ``the dominant drivers of oil sands 
development are more global than any single infrastructure project'' 
and that ``the industry's rate of expansion should not be conflated 
with the more limited effects of individual pipelines.'' And mind you, 
this is again from one of the five exhaustive reports we have seen from 
the State Department about this project.

  In fact, the State Department's final environmental impact statement 
also compared the operational greenhouse emissions that would result 
from the pipeline to those that would result from various 
transportation alternatives such as rail, rail and pipeline, and rail 
and tanker. The report found that the annual emissions from these 
alternative transportation modes would be anywhere from 28 percent to 
42 percent greater than if the oil were shipped through the pipeline. 
Plus, a pipeline is safer than truck or rail.
  The American people have been clear on their feelings about this 
project. Poll after poll has shown their strong support for it. 
Republicans support the pipeline, Democrats in both Houses of Congress 
support the pipeline, and unions support the pipeline. The only people 
who seem to oppose it are President Obama and members of the far 
leftwing of the Democratic Party.
  After the Senate passes the bill, it will have one final hurdle to 
clear--the President of the United States. I very much hope he will 
reconsider his veto threat and listen to the voices of American workers 
and the bipartisan majority in both Houses of Congress.
  If the pipeline's economic benefits, the support of the American 
people, and five successful environmental reviews have not yet 
convinced the President to approve this project, I am pretty skeptical 
that he ever will approve it, but I hope I am wrong.
  I hope even more Democrats here in the Senate will join us and send a 
message about their readiness to work with Republicans in this 114th 
Congress.
  My colleagues can help show the American people that Congress has 
heard their demands for change in Washington and that their economic 
priorities will be addressed.
  I am sorry American workers have had to wait years for this project, 
but I am hopeful we can resolve this issue once and for all. The new 
Republican Senate majority is about creating jobs and economic 
opportunities for the American people, and it starts right here, right 
now with the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  We hope Democrats and the President will join us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, even during moments of intense 
polarization here in Washington, especially over the past 6 years, it 
is really kind of refreshing to find a topic--maybe a handful of 
topics--on which there appears to be bipartisan consensus, and that 
includes the topic du jour, the Keystone XL Pipeline. I wish to share a 
few reasons why I believe that is the case.
  First, the Keystone XL Pipeline will be good for our economy, and it 
will be good because it will create jobs. I know there is some 
hairsplitting out there. Some people say: Well, these are not really 
good jobs; they are only temporary jobs or some such thing. But the 
truth is--I will tell you what the President's own administration said 
about that.
  The State Department--President Obama's State Department--said that 
roughly 42,000 American jobs would be created directly and indirectly 
from the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  Now, it is true that some of these would be temporary construction 
positions, but by there nature, construction positions are such that 
you go to work on one job, finish that job, and move on to the next 
job. If the President has a problem with that, I am not sure what he or 
anybody else can do about it. There are also other permanent jobs that 
will be created by this Keystone XL Pipeline related to refining and 
transporting this oil, and many of them will be in Texas.
  As a matter of fact, this pipeline--which will go from Canada into 
North Dakota and across the United States--will end in southeast Texas, 
where we have most of our refining capacity here in the United States. 
It will then be refined into gasoline and other types of fuel.
  By the way, one of the blessings of having a plentiful supply of oil 
as a result of what has happened here in the United States is lower 
gasoline prices. Boy, those came just in time for the Christmas 
holidays and put money in people's pockets. It was like a pay raise for 
hard-working American taxpayers.

  The President has also tried to downplay the job-creation impact of 
the Keystone XL Pipeline by saying it would have a ``nominal'' impact 
on consumers and the Nation. I am curious. At a time when the national 
labor participation rate is hovering at its lowest point in three 
decades and we are coming off of the financial crisis that we have had 
since 2008--which has finally, after all of these years, recovered many 
of the lost jobs that were lost as result of that crisis--does the 
President truly feel that any additional jobs--especially 42,000 
additional jobs--are just nominal and not worth the candle? Well, for 
those people who don't work and are now able to find work, those jobs 
are not nominal. For the people who are working part time and want to 
work full time, those jobs will not be nominal. When we need to grow 
the economy so we create more opportunity for more hard-working 
taxpayers, no job, in my view, should be deprecated as just a nominal 
job and not worth having. That is what the President is saying.
  I would also ask that the President visit the Texas leg of this 
pipeline. As a matter of fact, the President did go to Cushing, OK. The 
irony of that is, once again, the President seems to be taking credit 
for something he didn't have anything to do with because this domestic 
portion of the pipeline from Cushing, OK, down to southeast Texas 
didn't require his approval at all. But what does he do? He holds a 
press conference there. It is just like the President taking credit for 
this renaissance of American energy. He has had absolutely nothing to 
do with it. All of that has happened as a result of private investment 
on private lands and not on public lands.
  As a matter of fact, the Federal Government continues to make it 
harder and harder to produce more American energy, which, again, 
according to the laws of supply and demand, as we have seen, will bring 
down gasoline prices for American consumers. At a time when wages have 
been stagnant for so long as a result of the policies of this 
administration, why wouldn't we do something to put more money into the 
pockets of hard-working American families? Why wouldn't we do that?
  Well, I would ask the President to visit the Texas leg of the 
pipeline, which was constructed and went operational about a year ago 
this month and is already transporting about 400,000 barrels of oil a 
day to gulf coast refineries. Of course, again, this does not require 
his approval, but that didn't stop him from claiming credit for it. I 
think he would find it edifying and educational to go there.
  In Texas alone more than 4,800 jobs were created to construct that 
gulf coast portion of the pipeline. That includes heavy equipment 
operators, welders, laborers, transportation operators, and supervisory 
personnel. When our friends across the aisle spend so much time and 
effort trying to argue for a minimum wage increase, they turn around at 
the same time and deny hard-working Americans from earning these high-
paying wages and these high-paying jobs.
  I was reading an article today about a welder in Texas who went to 
school to learn how to be a welder. Now, it was not a 4-year liberal 
arts education such as many of us have had. He didn't go to law school 
or medical school, but he is earning $140,000 a year as a welder. Those 
are good jobs. Those are the

[[Page S89]]

kinds of jobs we ought to encourage, and they are the kinds of jobs 
that the Keystone XL Pipeline would help pay for.
  Well, perhaps these kinds of jobs don't count in the President's book 
because they are not funded by the taxpayer. In other words, they are 
not a result of stimulus funds. The President seems to believe that the 
only jobs worth having are those that are paid for by borrowing money, 
increasing the debt, and having the Federal Government pay for them. We 
have recently been down that road once before when we had the nearly $1 
trillion stimulus package. Remember that? The President said these were 
shovel-ready jobs.
  I remember at the time Speaker Pelosi said they were targeted, 
temporary, and timely, I think it was. It was the three t's. The 
President came back later on--when the stimulus did not have the 
desired effect and the $1 trillion of borrowed money, including 
interest, didn't create the kind of economic recovery he had hoped 
for--and said: Well, I guess shovel ready didn't really mean shovel 
ready, as if it were a joke.
  Well, this Keystone XL Pipeline is paid for as a result of private 
investment and not as a result of tax dollars--your money and my money 
going into this pipeline. The Texas portion of the pipeline was a $2.3 
billion private sector investment. The taxpayer funded infrastructure 
project seemed to be the only kind of investment the President actually 
wants to see and encourage. There are many examples, and perhaps the 
most notorious of which was Solyndra, where the Federal taxpayer was 
asked to sink a bunch of money into a project that basically flopped 
because there was no market for what they were making. It was not 
economically viable. But that is the kind of investment the President 
wants to encourage while discouraging private investment that creates 
jobs.
  Now, in Texas we are proud of that portion of the Keystone XL 
Pipeline, and like so much of what makes my State successful, it was 
not built by the government. I am proud of the fact that my State is 
doing better than the rest of the country. I wish the rest of the 
country would do as well when it comes to job creation and opportunity 
because I worry, as I think many parents worry, that we are somehow 
losing the hope and the aspiration for the American dream. When young 
men and women graduate from college and can't find jobs so they end up 
living with their parents, we here in Washington say, that is OK, 
because we will let your parents keep you on their health insurance 
coverage until you are 26, as if that is supposed to be some kind of 
answer to their inability to find work commensurate with their 
education and training.
  Well, this is not a government solution. Of course, we all remember 
the President notoriously said to the private sector: Well, you didn't 
build that. That certainly doesn't apply here because the private 
sector did build the Texas portion, and what we would like to do is 
complete the Canadian-U.S. portion so we can get even more of this oil 
down to Texas and refine it into gasoline so it is available to 
consumers here in the United States.
  The President acts as though if we don't complete this pipeline, this 
oil is not going to be produced. That is malarkey. We know that China 
is starved for natural resources, and Canada is not just going to sit 
on this valuable natural resource. They are going to build a pipeline 
to the Pacific Ocean, put it on a tanker, and send it to China or other 
countries that need those natural resources.
  Well, I am beginning to think the one reason why the Texas leg of the 
Keystone XL Pipeline was so successful is because the Federal 
Government didn't have anything to do with it. That seems to be the 
test. If the Federal Government has something to do with it, it ends up 
not delivering as promised. But if the private sector does it, it has 
the potential of living up to expectations.
  Well, we all know the President has continued to delay making a final 
decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline. I know last year the 
distinguished Presiding Officer sponsored the bill in the House that 
approved the Keystone XL Pipeline. Over here in the Senate, I remember 
the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, was urging--in almost 
desperate terms--that Senator Harry Reid allow a vote on the Keystone 
XL Pipeline after denying it for many months, even years.
  Well, we know what happened. It failed because very few Democrats on 
that side of the aisle decided to support the Keystone XL Pipeline. 
Perhaps it was because even at that time the President said he was 
undecided whether to sign it or to veto it. There have been times when 
the President has said--of course, he says lots of things, but I have 
learned one thing around Washington, DC: We can't just listen to what 
people say, we have to watch what they do. The President indicated, 
with the start of this new Congress following the November 4 election, 
that he was looking forward to working with the new Congress in a 
constructive way. I just have to ask you, Mr. President: Is it 
constructive to issue a veto threat on a piece of legislation before it 
is even voted out of the energy committee and isn't even on the floor 
for consideration by the Senate?
  The majority leader, Senator McConnell, the senior Senator from 
Kentucky, has said we are going to have an open amendment process, a 
procedure many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and 
actually many on this side of the aisle, haven't experienced under the 
former majority leader--an open amendment process. I anticipate there 
are going to be a number of amendments offered, some of which will 
succeed and some of which will not succeed. I don't know anybody who 
can tell us right now exactly how this bill will leave the Senate, 
although I am confident it will pass since there are at least 63 
Senators, on a bipartisan basis, who said they will vote for it. As we 
know, 60 is the magic number in the Senate, so we have a pretty good 
idea it will pass. But we don't know what other measures will be 
attached to it, some of which may command more Democratic votes, some 
of which may make the President more interested in taking another look 
at this legislation. So to prematurely issue a veto threat before the 
Keystone XL Pipeline is even voted out of committee, much less comes to 
the Senate floor, does not strike me as wanting to work with the 
Congress; just the opposite.
  I say enough is enough. That is what we heard from the voters on 
November 4: Enough is enough. They are sick and tired of the 
dysfunction in Washington, DC. I heard that story daily back in Texas 
and around the country as I traveled: Enough is enough. We want 
Congress to function. We want our elected representatives to work 
together to find solutions to the problems facing our country, and the 
No. 1 problem is not enough jobs. There are not enough good jobs for 
hard-working Americans.
  So now the President has, in spite of this, said: I am not going to 
sign that legislation once it reaches my desk. He said this before the 
Senate has even acted on it. It is just breathtaking. Is that within 
the President's authority under the Constitution? Yes, it is. The 
President can either sign legislation or he can veto legislation. The 
Constitution gives him that authority. But I think the President ought 
to have to explain to the American people his reasons for saying he 
will not sign this legislation. Again, this is the same project his own 
State Department said would create 42,000 jobs, again at a time when 
the percentage of people in the workforce is at a 30-year low. While 
unemployment is coming down, unfortunately a lot of it has to do with 
the fact that people are not looking for work and have dropped out of 
the workforce. They have given up. Hopefully, in spite of the Federal 
Government--and I say it is in spite of the Federal Government--the 
economy seems to be strong enough to be growing, finally, but we need 
to continue to have our economy grow. We need to continue to let this 
American economy create jobs for hard-working American taxpayers.
  I say in closing that I hope the President makes his decision not 
wearing ideological blinders, not just listening to the hard left base 
of the Democratic Party that thinks we can somehow survive and prosper 
with only wind turbines and solar panels. By the way, Texas actually 
produces more electricity on wind energy than any other State in the 
Nation. We do believe in an ``all of the above'' policy. The President 
says he does but apparently does

[[Page S90]]

not, at least his actions would so indicate.
  So we are missing out on a golden opportunity to further enhance 
North American energy security with one of our strongest allies, and 
that is another very important reason for this. Why in the world would 
we continue to import oil from Saudi Arabia and other countries in the 
Middle East that have their own problems, in an unstable region of the 
world, when we could import that oil from our best ally and next-door 
neighbor, Canada, and in a way that benefits our economy and creates 
jobs.
  I believe what the American people said on November 4 is they want 
effective, efficient, and accountable government and one that benefits 
all hard-working Americans and especially hard-working American 
taxpayers.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                        Tribute To Jeanne Atkins

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to recognize Jeanne Atkins, my 
Oregon State director, who is retiring from team Merkley this month. 
Jeanne is a long-serving member of my team, and she is an outstanding 
public servant, an individual who has dedicated her life to making the 
world a better place.
  Jeanne Atkins and I first began working together a decade ago after I 
took up the post of Democratic leader in the Oregon State House. It was 
a challenging but exciting time as my leadership team worked to build 
our policy agenda and get our caucus operations up to speed. A key 
component of that effort, of course, was to hire a superb caucus 
director. Thus, it came to pass that four members of my leadership team 
were seated in the Old Wives' Tale restaurant brainstorming over 
candidates for the position. That group consisted, in addition to 
myself, of Diane Rosenbaum, who is now majority leader of the Oregon 
Senate; Dave Hunt, who became majority leader of the house and then 
speaker of the Oregon House; and Brad Avakian, who is now Oregon's 
labor commissioner. As we were brainstorming, Diane spoke up and said: 
I know someone who would be tremendous, but I am sure she would never 
take the position. Dave Hunt encouraged Diane to put the name forward 
anyway, and when Diane said the person is Jeanne Atkins, Brad Avakian 
responded: Jeanne? I know her, and she would be great.
  We immediately called Jeanne, and by that evening I was sitting in 
her living room attempting to persuade her that she would be just the 
right person for the position and that, moreover, she would enjoy the 
challenge. Fortunately for us, Jeanne did take the position, and thus 
began a decade of close collaboration.
  The leadership, conviction, and hard work Jeanne Atkins brought to 
our team allowed us to make a big impact as the minority party during 
the legislature and an even bigger impact when we won the majority 2 
years later. At that point I became speaker of the Oregon House and 
Jeanne became my chief of staff.
  Few legislative sessions in Oregon history have seen the passage of 
as many major bills as that 2007 session, and no individual was more 
important to the success of that session than Jeanne Atkins.
  We passed domestic partnerships and a broad-based civil rights bill 
that outlawed discrimination against LGBT Oregonians in employment, in 
housing, and in public accommodations.
  We passed legislation setting ambitious renewable energy standards 
and making Oregon a national leader in the transition to green energy. 
We cracked down on predatory payday lenders that were bankrupting our 
working families. We passed the Access to Birth Control Act requiring 
insurance plans in Oregon to cover contraceptives just as they do other 
medication, a law that is now helping to shield Oregon women from the 
misguided Hobby Lobby decision.
  Through this all, we worked across the aisle, encouraging bipartisan 
cooperation, and were able to put together a session that a major 
newspaper, The Oregonian, deemed the most productive in a generation.
  After I was elected to the U.S. Senate and took that office in 
January of 2009, Jeanne stayed on in the Oregon House as chief of staff 
to the new speaker, Dave Hunt, who had helped to hire her 6 years 
earlier. In that role, Jeanne played a pivotal role in expanding health 
care to Oregon children. As Dave relates, after Oregonians rejected a 
ballot measure in 2008 that would have raised the cigarette tax to 
expand health care to low-income children, the Oregon Legislature was 
seeking an alternative strategy to fund that expansion. Jeanne was the 
key staff member who brought a contentious dialogue among legislators 
to a compromise funding strategy that was successfully passed into law. 
That achievement brought health care to an additional 90,000 children 
per year. Well done, Jeanne. That was an extraordinary accomplishment.
  After the completion of that Oregon legislative session, I was hoping 
I would have the opportunity to bring Jeanne back onto team Merkley. 
The stars aligned and she became my Oregon State director in August of 
2009.
  Oregon's House loss was the U.S. Senate's gain. In her more than 5 
years as State director, Jeanne has overseen hundreds of townhalls, 
thousands of meetings, and has made sure the millions of Americans who 
call Oregon home have a voice in the U.S. Senate. I wrote the day I 
hired her as Oregon State director that ``Jeanne is greatly respected 
by Oregonians of all political stripes for her hard work and her 
dedication to this State.'' Today, that statement is even more true 
than 5 years ago.
  Jeanne is known across the State as an honest broker who works hard 
to bring the voices of all Oregonians into our office. She is a tough 
advocate for our State and has never hesitated to stand up for what she 
thinks is right and what she thinks is best for Oregon.
  Of course, over the last 5 years, we have also had the chance to get 
into a few adventures--and a few misadventures--traveling around the 
State. On one memorable townhall swing, we were on our way between 
rural townhalls when I suggested an impromptu revision of our route. I 
thought it would be interesting to take a shortcut via a minor 
semipaved road. That road turned out to have been abandoned so long ago 
that after a few miles it was no longer even visible. So there we were 
traveling off-road in a van that was not designed for off-road 
navigation, wondering if we were choosing the right path through the 
field or between the trees. To make matters worse, we quickly lost cell 
phone communication and couldn't alert the advance team that we were 
going to be late to the townhall. In fact, we were wondering whether we 
might be out there in the woods for a night or two as we worked to walk 
our way out should we break an axle or blow a tire.
  Through this all, though I could tell Jeanne's blood pressure and 
distress were elevating, she displayed the same unflappable demeanor 
that made her so effective in contentious policy dialogues with 
overwrought legislators. In that moment and in so many others, Jeanne 
was grace under pressure personified.
  Jeanne is not someone who got into politics to be important or 
powerful. She got into policy and politics because she believed in 
public service and she believed that each person has the power to make 
a difference. It is one of the attributes I most value about having her 
on my team. It is an attribute that has allowed her to make a huge 
impact in many of the different positions she has held.
  Today, as Jeanne looks forward to the next chapter of her life in 
retirement, it seems only appropriate to reflect back and look at the 
huge difference Jeanne has made not just in our office but over the 
course of her career. She has been a longtime advocate for women's 
rights. This comes from her childhood growing up in Bremerton, WA, in 
the 1960s. Her own experiences also shaped Jeanne's steadfast 
determination for equality.
  She told me a story about her first job out of college as a bank 
teller in Seattle, WA. During that first job, the women in the bank, 
regardless of their position, were required to take turns making lunch 
for the entire bank every Friday. Jeanne worked hard to shine at this 
task, just as she worked hard to shine at all her other tasks, but she 
knew it was wrong that all the women in the office were treated 
differently than the men, and she carried her passion for that 
throughout her career.
  Jeanne went to work for the Women's Equity Action League here in

[[Page S91]]

Washington, DC, and when she and her husband John went back to Oregon 
she worked for the Oregon Women's Rights Coalition, the United Way of 
the Columbia/Willamette, Planned Parenthood of the Columbia Willamette, 
and then as manager of the Women's and Reproductive Health Section of 
the Department of Human Services. Her long and storied career has been 
powerfully connected to equality and an unshakable commitment to 
women's health.

  Along the way, Jeanne also engaged in electoral politics. She ran for 
the Oregon house twice in the early 1990s, narrowly losing against a 
well-established incumbent in her second race. As Brad Avakian relates, 
in the process, she restored door-to-door canvassing and relationship 
building in Washington County as a political art form.
  Jeanne Atkins is an Oregon gem. I wish her the best in retirement and 
know that she has many more adventures ahead and many more 
contributions to make.
  Thank you, Jeanne, for working hard to make Oregon, our Nation, and 
our world a better place. We will miss you.
  I yield the floor, and 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.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Affordable Care Act

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today at the start of 
this new year and this new Congress to speak about how we can and why 
we must work together to improve the Affordable Care Act.
  Since work on health care reform really began in earnest in 2009, 
debate in this Chamber and across this country has too often been 
defined by fantastic claims and fearmongering. In the midst of this 
division, I believe that too often the experiences of real people have 
been lost. While politicians on both sides cling to their sacred cows, 
too many Americans become casualties of our divided politics.
  On few issues has this been more true than on health care. Critics of 
the Affordable Care Act seem locked into the belief that it will bring 
about America's demise--despite little evidence to support them. Too 
often they have been unable or unwilling to grapple with the reality of 
those whose lives the law has forever changed for the better.
  Now, on the other side of the aisle, we--mostly Democrats--have often 
shied away from acknowledging some of the law's weaknesses. I know many 
of my colleagues have been eager and have offered fixes to the law. But 
without willing Republican partners, we have not made enough progress.
  As I have spent time in my home State of Delaware in recent months 
listening to families and other folks who have been affected by the 
law--for better or for worse--it has become clear to me that this 
stalemate is unsustainable. On many days, I have met Delawareans who 
love the Affordable Care Act, whose lives have literally been saved by 
it. But in between those encounters, I have also met many, small 
business owners in particular, who want to offer health insurance to 
their workers and are struggling to afford it.
  This much has become clear to me: No conversation about the 
Affordable Care Act and how to improve it can be complete without 
reconciling the reality of the millions of Americans it has helped and 
the many others for whom it falls short.
  Michelle Reed is the Delawarean whom I have come to know and admire 
with breast cancer and who contacted me first about this issue last 
fall. She is an example of why the Affordable Care Act is so important. 
Michelle was first diagnosed with cancer back in 2008 and went through 
month after painful month of chemo and radiation therapy as well as 
surgery.
  Over the next few years since her cancer nightmare began she faced 
problems that were sadly typical of how our health insurance system 
used to work. At the time she was first diagnosed, she and her husband 
received health insurance through her husband's employer. Her husband 
is an auto mechanic and worked for a small auto body shop. But though 
the insurance he got through his work was helpful for routine minor 
health care needs, it was a barebones insurance policy, as she 
explained it to me.
  It left her and her husband with extremely high copays, straining 
their family budget. Naturally her husband began looking for a new job 
to provide better health insurance. But this ended up being much more 
difficult than it seemed, because transitioning to a new job often 
required accepting a large 3-month gap in coverage, a gap Michelle just 
could not afford, as insurance companies would then deny her care 
considering her cancer a preexisting condition.
  At one point during Michelle's years of treatment, her husband's 
employer switched health care plans and in the process missed one 
premium payment. Suddenly, after months of having had steady, positive 
progress in her care, without any warning or notification, Michelle 
started getting bills--not just small bills but huge bills, a bill for 
$23,000 for radiation.
  It took her months of going back and forth between employer and 
insurance company, all the while as she is also trying to overcome her 
disease, before Michelle and her husband got a straight answer about 
why they were suddenly facing these huge costs.
  Now, let's step back for a second. Just imagine where she was. 
Michelle has cancer. She is shuttling from chemo to radiation. Her 
husband is working constantly to try to cover the high premiums, trying 
to get all of the overtime he can. During this, they are also going 
back and forth between employer and insurance company, trying to figure 
out where this new high charge they cannot afford had come from.
  Meanwhile, Michelle's husband was out looking for a new job with 
better insurance, struggling to find one because Michelle would face 
discrimination and could not get coverage. The emotional strain on a 
family and a loved one battling cancer is enormous, almost 
unimaginable. But if you add to that the financial and the emotional 
stress caused by our relic of a health care insurance system of that 
time, that is unimaginable.
  Yet this is the reality that Michelle and her family faced. 
Unfortunately, it is the reality that millions of Americans used to 
face before the Affordable Care Act. These problems all changed last 
year when the ACA exchanges came on line. As Michelle wrote to me: The 
ACA open enrollment began and we could not get signed up quick enough, 
although it did take her a little while because the administration's 
Web site had some problems. She persevered. As she said to me in her 
note: We have no problems now. We have what we need, and we need what 
we have.
  People like Michelle are why Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act 
in the first place. It is because of the law that millions of Americans 
now have access to quality and affordable health insurance that was 
once desperately out of reach for them.
  But the story is not complete, unless we are clear-eyed about where 
this law also falls short. As the President and many have recognized, 
any significant reform such as the Affordable Care Act is going to have 
weaknesses and unintended consequences that only become apparent after 
the law is being implemented. This has been true throughout our history 
with every major event, and health care reform is no different.
  In Delaware, among the many whom the law has helped, I have also seen 
how some of those reforms in the costs they have incurred have hurt 
small business. To the small business owners with whom I have sat down 
and listened to, their employees are not labor costs or rows on a 
balance sheet. They are family. They have worked together for years and 
owners provide health insurance because they believe it is the right 
thing to do for the workers who help their business grow.
  Many of the folks I have sat down and visited with are not required 
to provide insurance because they have fewer than 50 full-time workers. 
They still want to do so because it is the right thing to do. It helps 
them incentivize and support their best employees. Many, though, are 
struggling today because of higher costs and the challenges that come 
with navigating a changed insurance market.

[[Page S92]]

  This year the biggest issue they face is how higher quality standards 
have also caused premiums to increase--often to unaffordable levels. 
This has been especially true for a small State such as like Delaware, 
where there is not a lot of competition in the provision of health care 
or in our insurance market. Unfortunately, some of the increases are 
also due to insurance companies using the health care law as an excuse 
to charge more.
  Some of this is simply the result of plans that now cover more are 
costing more. For the most part, that is not a bad thing. But the 
Affordable Care Act was designed to compensate for increased quality 
with financial assistance to those who cannot afford it. In Michelle 
Reed's case, this increased quality was great--almost literally life 
saving. For people such as her, those insurance plans now need to meet 
certain standards, and in particular, that they can no longer 
discriminate against preexisting conditions.
  But we have also seen that even though there is assistance to many, 
some individuals and some small businesses have fallen into gaps where 
they have to deal with higher costs and they are not getting the help 
they deserve.
  Here is where we are. The Affordable Care Act has helped millions of 
Americans. It also can be improved to help many more. When we talk 
about health care, it is simply dishonest to leave one side out when 
talking about others.
  In this new Congress, I know many of my Republican colleagues are 
eager to continue the efforts of their colleagues in the House. In 
their majority, I know many will seek an opportunity to vote on 
repealing or dismantling the Affordable Care Act. But I ask them for an 
answer to Michelle Reed and to the many Americans such as her who have 
had their lives changed or even saved by this law.
  I know many of my Democratic colleagues are as well eager to work 
together to improve our health care system, to ensure small businesses 
do the right thing and can be successful and to ensure that no American 
gets left behind. We know this is possible. There is no reason to 
believe that we as a body lack the creativity, the drive, and the 
ability to work together across the aisle on these important issues.
  Surely there is much we can do to reduce the costs through more 
competition, to develop new and more efficient delivery systems and 
innovative payment models. The Affordable Care Act took critical steps 
to move forward in each of these areas. Millions more have health 
insurance and costs across our health care system have actually 
increased at the slowest rate in decades. For most, costs have been 
manageable or even decreasing. But critical work remains. We now have 
the opportunity, to take the next step to build a health care system 
that works for every American. It is my sincere hope that we can come 
together and seize that opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Urgent Priorities

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, these will be my first remarks of the 
114th Congress. I am encouraged by the commitment of many of my 
colleagues, including the majority leader, to restoring the Senate as 
one of America's great institutions. It is time for us to get to work. 
We begin this Congress with a number of urgent priorities--not the 
least of which is job creation.
  More than 9 million Americans are still unemployed. More 
significantly, perhaps, millions more have given up looking for work. 
The latest jobs report from the Department of Labor shows that the 
labor force participation rate is only 62.8 percent--one of the lowest 
levels in 36 years. This number matters because it reflects the size of 
the U.S. workforce. It reflects how many working-age Americans have a 
job or are actively looking for one.
  Now, some people have suggested we should take heart in the latest 
job figures, that this points to an improving economy. I disagree with 
that. I am not at all satisfied with these employment numbers, 
particularly with the fact that only 62 percent of eligible members of 
the labor force actually are choosing to participate.
  To me, a shrinking workforce points to a weak economy. Boosting the 
job market is important to boosting future economic growth. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues to advance job-creating 
legislation that has a positive impact on American's daily lives. 
Fortunately, dozens of job bills were passed during the last term of 
Congress by the House of Representatives.
  These ideas deserve consideration and debate in this Chamber. I think 
in the new Congress, these ideas will receive that consideration. I am 
aware that there is likely to be disagreement about the details, 
disagreement about the merits of some of the progrowth ideas that have 
come over to us from the House of Representatives, as well as proposals 
concerning energy and health care, to name a few. But resolving our 
differences is part of what make this Chamber and our country unique. 
In a floor speech early last year, Leader McConnell said: I am certain 
of one thing. The Senate can be better.
  I think that is one of the messages from the American people in last 
November and last December's election. The American people believe the 
Senate can be better. We each have a responsibility and a role in 
making the Senate better. We could start by legislating through the 
committee process. We have begun doing that already. Instead of 
backroom deals, pushed through at the last minute, which has been the 
order of the day in past years, bills should be thoroughly debated and 
vetted--first in committee and then on the Senate floor.
  The issues of our day deserve that attention. Forging consensus takes 
effort, but that is how the Senate is supposed to work. Our 
consideration next week will demonstrate that this is a new day in the 
Senate. I look forward to being a part of the debate and the amendment 
process on the Keystone XL Pipeline proposal.
  Offering amendments is a way in which each of us can have input on 
the legislation at hand--input on behalf of our constituents, the 
people who sent us here. For too long the amendment tree has been 
filled by the majority leader, essentially limiting the right of every 
Member to voice the concerns and opinions of the people they represent, 
essentially limiting the our right to represent the people of our 
States who sent us here.
  Instead of a series of continuing resolutions, we should return to 
the process of 12 separate appropriations bills. In doing so, we could 
carefully assess Federal spending and reduce waste, and I think the 
American people sent that message to us also in November and December. 
The Federal debt has reached unprecedented levels, forcing us to make 
tough decisions on how to do more with less.
  With regard to national defense, I look forward, during the 114th 
Congress, to serving as chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
Subcommittee on Seapower. Our subcommittee has a wide range of 
oversight responsibilities, including the procurement, sustainment, and 
research and development needs of the Navy and Marine Corps.
  From classified briefings and other hearings with senior officials in 
the Navy and intelligence community, I am well aware of the imminent 
and emerging threats facing our sea services. America should maintain 
its ability to project power around the world while upholding our 
obligations to our friends and allies.
  Our Navy is now the smallest it has been since World War I, 
demanding, I believe, a robust investment in sea power.
  In the coming weeks the Seapower Subcommittee will hold hearings to 
determine whether the President's budget proposals for the Department 
of the Navy are sufficient to meet our national security requirements. 
Following these hearings, we will draft the Defense authorization bill 
to deliver important capabilities and support for our sailors and 
marines. This support includes funding for construction of various 
types and classes of ships, such as aircraft carriers, amphibious 
ships, submarines, and large and small surface combatants.
  I wish to note that supporting the Department of Defense is best done 
when Congress legislates under regular order. The Republican-led Senate

[[Page S93]]

should take up a defense authorization bill and a defense 
appropriations bill, and we are committed to doing so. Regular order 
will help provide our military planners with valuable budget 
predictability--something they have suffered without in past years.
  I was very pleased to learn this week that Chairman McCain plans for 
the Armed Services Committee to mark up a defense authorization bill 
before Memorial Day. Our committee did that under the leadership of 
Senator Levin last year, but where this Senate fell down on its 
responsibility is that we didn't get the bill to the floor until 
December, and then it was in a rushed and unamendable form.
  Our goal under regular order is for us to take up the bill on the 
floor this summer and have a conference report between the House and 
the Senate reported before August. I am heartened that Chairman McCain 
intends to do this. I am heartened by the commitment of the 
distinguished majority leader that we will indeed take up that 
legislation before the end of the fiscal year.
  I should also observe that, absent congressional action, budget 
sequestration will return to the Defense Department in October of this 
year. Sequestration remains one of the greatest challenges facing our 
military. Unless we take action, the ability of our military and our 
industrial base to react to unforeseen contingencies will be severely 
eroded, and there will undoubtedly be unforeseen contingencies. There 
are always unforeseen contingencies, and we will be unprepared for them 
unless we take action to prevent sequestration.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee and the Budget Committee, 
I will work to help forge a bipartisan path so we can avert a return to 
the across-the-board defense cuts under sequestration. I am so pleased 
that a bipartisan task force within the Armed Services Committee is 
already taking shape to discuss this issue. We will begin to have 
discussions beginning Monday and Tuesday of next week.
  With regard to commerce, I also look forward to assuming the 
chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the 
Internet. My chief focus will continue to be the deployment and 
adoption of broadband in rural America--something I am interested in as 
a Senator from Mississippi and something the distinguished Presiding 
Officer is interested in as a Senator from Louisiana.
  Broadband has become a vital economic engine in this country and 
around the world. In many ways, the proliferation of the Internet is 
like the construction of the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s. We 
need to ensure that people in rural areas have the same quality 
broadband as those in urban areas. To that end, our committee will 
continue to examine ways to foster broadband growth and development. We 
also need to find ways to make more spectrum available for wireless, 
which can help spur innovation and economic growth in the mobile 
broadband space.
  I also expect the Senate this year to deal with legislation regarding 
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Obama administration's 
environmental executive overreach. The administration has proposed a 
litany of costly environmental rules, targeting everything from coal-
fired powerplants, to small streams, to small ponds. Many would cause 
significant economic harm, while providing little or no help to the 
environment--no help to the environment but significant economic harm. 
By EPA's own estimates, its recently proposed ground-level ozone rules 
could cost taxpayers as much as $44 billion per year, making it the 
most expensive rulemaking to date. Meanwhile, EPA's clean powerplant 
rule could lead to a loss of 224,000 jobs each year. These costs are 
staggering.
  I am pleased that the final omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 2015, which was passed in December, included limits on the 
controversial waters of the United States proposal, which regulates 
small ponds, streams, and puddles. However, I remain committed to 
ensuring that this rule will not be implemented at all. By broadening 
the definition of ``waters of the United States,'' Washington 
bureaucrats would potentially regulate puddles and ditches on farms and 
in backyards. Is this really what is necessary to protect the 
environment? Is this really what the American people require?
  These regulations would have significant impact on the State of 
Mississippi. Our economic growth depends on agriculture, and it depends 
on manufacturing and other energy-intensive industries.
  With each new environmental regulation, the administration is 
compounding the financial burden on the American people without 
delivering any environmental benefits. We can have clean air and we can 
have clean water without losing 224,000 jobs. We can have clean air and 
water without the cost of $44 billion per year for one single 
regulation.
  Low-cost and reliable energy is at the core of economic growth. 
Economic gains from the abundance of affordable energy could be lost if 
these rules are allowed to be put into place. In an economy desperate 
for growth, a regulatory onslaught is the worst way to encourage jobs 
and investment.
  The American people also want us to address the Affordable Care Act, 
ObamaCare. I was particularly interested in the thoughtful remarks of 
the Senator from Delaware, who spoke immediately before me. The remarks 
of my distinguished colleague suggests that Members on both sides of 
the aisle heard the message from the American people in November and 
December in the elections. I think both sides recognize that the 
Affordable Care Act is not affordable and as a matter of fact is 
causing great hardship and pain to the majority of the American people. 
So I am pleased to hear Members on the other side of the aisle at least 
acknowledge that many major, significant changes need to be made to 
ObamaCare.
  Overall disapproval of the President's health care law is at an 
alltime high of 56 percent. Americans are suffering under the law's 
mandates and taxes. Many are faced with the financial burden of higher 
copays and higher deductibles. This is a reality.
  I must say that I appreciate the remarks of the distinguished senior 
Senator from New York recently when he acknowledged that passing 
ObamaCare in the way previous Congresses did was a mistake, that most 
Americans were satisfied with their coverage and it was a mistake to 
turn that entire system on its head to solve a problem which we very 
much needed to solve with regard to the uninsured and underinsured.
  There was a better way to provide health insurance to those 
individuals without disadvantaging the vast majority of people who were 
satisfied with their health care and who now find themselves in a much 
worse position.
  Congress has the responsibility to ease the burden of ObamaCare by 
repealing the law's most onerous provisions. I would like to repeal the 
entire act and start over with some good aspects that we could 
incorporate into a better bill but also start off with a better way to 
provide health care for Americans and provide those who were uninsured 
with the opportunity to get insurance.
  At the very least, we should pass legislation restoring the 40-hour 
workweek. I hope this is one of the things my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are talking about. I note that the President of the 
United States has threatened to veto Affordable Care Act amendments 
that would restore something that has become very traditional in the 
United States--the 40-hour workweek. It is very surprising to me that 
it would be on that proposal that the President of the United States 
would say: No, I will not even sign legislation to restore something as 
traditional as the 40-hour workweek.
  We need to repeal the medical device tax, and clearly there are well 
over 60 votes in this body today to do just that. We need to exempt 
veterans from the employer mandate, to provide relief to rural 
hospitals, and we need to repeal the health insurance tax. I hope we 
can do that, and I hope the sounds I hear from the other side of the 
aisle indicate that we can reach bipartisan consensus and send 
legislation to the President persuading him that there is such broad 
support for that and he should sign it.
  We can do better for the American people than the higher copays, the 
higher deductibles, and the broken promises they received under the 
ACA.

[[Page S94]]

Americans were flatly told: If you like your doctor, you can keep your 
doctor. That turned out to be a promise the administration could not or 
would not keep. They were told: If you like your health care plan, you 
can keep your health care plan. It turned out the administration was 
not able to make good on that promise. We can do better.
  With regard to the Federal budget, the national debt now exceeds $18 
trillion. During the next 10 years, interest payments on the debt will 
be the fastest growing budget expenditure. Interest on the debt will be 
the fastest growing expenditure, more than tripling to $800 billion. 
Put in perspective, one out of every seven tax dollars taken in by the 
government will be used to service the Federal debt.
  Why is regular order important in this regard? In returning to 
regular order, the Senate Republicans will enact a budget resolution 
each year as required by law. We haven't done this. The law requires 
it, but somehow Congress has waived this requirement for themselves. 
This contrasts sharply with the past 5 years, during which the 
Democratic-led Senate passed only one budget. As a result, Congress has 
not adopted a joint budget resolution since 2009. This will change in 
this new day of Congress.
  Under the previous majority, spending bills were not brought to the 
floor to be debated. Budget laws were routinely waived or ignored, and 
there has been no plan whatever for finally bringing the Federal budget 
under control. These are facts. We need to change that, and I hope we 
will do so in this Congress.
  In conclusion, we have plenty of work to do. People in my State of 
Mississippi, like most Americans, expect results from this Congress. 
The challenges of our economy, the importance of our national defense, 
and the negative impact of intrusive executive overreach are too great 
not to address. We need to meet the expectations of the American people 
in this regard.
  The distinguished majority leader reminded us earlier this week that 
Americans want a government that works, one that functions with 
efficiency and accountability, competence and purpose.
  I believe we can do that, but it will take a return to regular order. 
It will take faith in the committee process. It will take faith in 
returning this institution to functioning the way the Founders 
intended. And it will take meaningful legislation. It is time to put 
the priorities of the American people first.
  Mr. President, 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.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________