[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 5 (Monday, January 12, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S136-S146]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1, which the clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 1, S. 1, a bill to 
     approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5:30 
p.m. will be equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to proceed for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I further request that the time not be charged to either side on the 
debate on the Keystone pipeline, if that is necessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I am sorry, 
I was discussing with the staff. If the Senator will please repeat her 
request.
  Ms. COLLINS. I asked unanimous consent to proceed for up to 15 
minutes as in morning business, and since my remarks do not pertain to 
the debate for the Keystone Pipeline, that the time not be charged to 
either side in that debate.
  Mr. DURBIN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Priorities of Senate Special Committee on Aging

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it has been my privilege to serve on the 
Senate Special Committee on Aging since my very first days in the 
Senate, and I am honored to have been elected to chair this committee 
for the 114th Congress. I wish to welcome the Presiding Officer, 
Senator Cotton of Arkansas, to the committee. He will be a new member 
on our committee, and I believe he will enjoy his service as much as I 
have.
  My service on the aging committee is particularly appropriate since 
Maine is the oldest State in the Nation by median age. Many people 
would guess that Florida would have that distinction, but, in fact, it 
is the great State of Maine.
  Throughout its history, the aging committee has spurred Congress to 
action on issues that are important to older Americans through its 
hearings, its investigations, and its reports. This is the first time a 
Maine Senator has chaired the committee since the 1990s, when my 
predecessor, mentor, and friend, Senator Bill Cohen, served as 
chairman.
  I wish to share with my colleagues today my priorities for the 
committee as we begin this new Congress. I have three major priorities 
for the committee's work: first, retirement security; second, 
investments in biomedical research targeting diseases that 
disproportionately affect older Americans, such as Alzheimer's and 
diabetes; and, third, protecting seniors against financial exploitation 
and scams.
  I am increasingly concerned that our seniors will not have adequate 
savings and other financial resources during their retirement years. 
The committee will, therefore, focus on retirement security and, in 
particular, on the need to encourage more savings and better financial 
planning. According to the nonpartisan Center for Retirement Research 
at Boston College, there currently is an estimated $6.6 trillion gap 
between the savings Americans have today and what they should have in 
order to maintain their standard of living during retirement.
  Nationally, one in four Americans has no source of income beyond 
Social Security. In the State of Maine, the number is one in three. 
Social Security provides an absolutely vital safety net. However, with 
an average benefit of just $16,000 a year, it certainly is not enough 
to finance a comfortable retirement for many Americans.
  According to a Gallup survey published in 2012, more than half of all 
Americans are worried they will not be able to maintain their standard 
of living in retirement. That is up sharply from 34 percent two decades 
ago, and the Boston College analysis demonstrates that their concern is 
warranted.
  There are many reasons for the decline in retirement security facing 
American seniors, including the demise of many defined benefit pension 
plans in the private sector; the severity of the recent financial 
crisis, which wiped out much of the net worth of many

[[Page S137]]

seniors, at least temporarily; rising health care costs; the need for 
long-term care; and, most of all, the simple fact that Americans are 
living far longer than we used to. Many Americans reaching retirement 
age also have more debt than retirees of previous generations.
  I remember when my parents paid off the mortgage on their home and 
had a mortgage-burning party. Well, today, people who are the age my 
parents were when they paid off their house are taking on new debt and 
new mortgages. We found in the aging committee that there are seniors 
who are still paying off their student loans or the student loans of 
their children. These are all issues I look forward to the committee 
exploring in depth in this new Congress.
  Another priority will be highlighting the importance of biomedical 
research on diseases such as Alzheimer's and diabetes, which take such 
a devastating toll on older Americans and their families. Investments 
in biomedical research not only improve the health and longevity of 
Americans but also provide benefits to our economy and to the Federal 
budget.
  For example, nearly one out of three Medicare dollars is spent 
treating people living with diabetes. According to multiple economic 
analyses, there is roughly a 2-to-1 return on investment in Federal 
support for biomedical research. This investment at the National 
Institutes of Health and at research centers across the country spur 
job creation and are critical to America's competitiveness in the 
global research environment.
  As the Senate cochair of the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's 
Disease, I am particularly committed to helping to spur breakthroughs 
in Alzheimer's disease, which has had such a devastating impact on 5.2 
million Americans and their families. In addition to the suffering it 
causes, Alzheimer's costs the United States an astonishing $214 billion 
a year. That includes $150 billion in costs to the Medicare and 
Medicaid programs. These costs will only skyrocket as the baby boom 
generation ages.

  Fortunately, there is promising research that holds hope for 
Alzheimer's patients and their families. The research community is 
poised to make important advances through clinical trials and 
investigating new therapeutic targets. But adequate funding is critical 
to advance this research and to achieve these breakthroughs.
  At a time when the United States is spending more than $200 billion a 
year for Alzheimer's patients, we are spending less than three-tenths 
of 1 percent of that amount--about $600 million a year--on research. 
Surely, we can do more for Alzheimer's, given its tremendous human and 
economic price.
  The National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease has as its primary 
goal the prevention and effective treatment of Alzheimer's by the year 
2025. To meet that goal, the chairman of the Federal Alzheimer's 
Advisory Council says that we need to devote $2 billion a year to 
Alzheimer's research. Well, think about that. That is only 1 percent--
in fact, it is less than 1 percent--of what we as a society are 
spending to care for people with Alzheimer's. That investment will lead 
to better treatments and ultimately to a means of prevention or even a 
cure for this awful and expensive disease.
  The aging committee will also continue its focus on scams that target 
our seniors, such as the Jamaican lottery phone scam we exposed in the 
last Congress. This nefarious scheme, which is estimated to have cost 
Americans as much as $300 million a year, particularly targeted seniors 
in the Northeast. Some seniors in my State lost tens of thousands of 
dollars to the scam which involved a con artist calling a victim to 
tell him or her that they had won the Jamaican lottery but needed to 
pay fees to process the winnings. I don't need to tell my colleagues 
that these seniors had won nothing of the sort. But this was a very 
sophisticated scheme.
  In addition to educating seniors to help them avoid becoming victims 
of such scams, the hearing resulted in the Jamaican Government passing 
new laws targeting the scammers and prompted Federal law enforcement to 
make several arrests. The aging committee will also continue its fraud 
hotline to help protect seniors from these kinds of scams and financial 
exploitation, and the phone number for that fraud hotline, which is 
toll-free, is 1-855-303-9470.
  In addition to these three major priorities, it is my hope our 
committee in the second year will also take a close look--really 
scrutinize--Federal programs designed to help our seniors, such as 
those authorized by the Older Americans Act. We want to make sure these 
programs are as effective and efficient as possible and that their 
benefits reach those seniors as intended. So we will be performing that 
oversight function and sharing our findings with the committee of 
jurisdiction--the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--on 
which I am also privileged to serve.
  The Senate Special Committee on Aging has a long history and 
tradition of bipartisanship, and my work on this committee during the 
past Congress was particularly rewarding because of the strong 
partnership I forged with the committee chairman, the senior Senator 
from Florida, Bill Nelson. I look forward to continuing that bipartisan 
tradition with my good friend and close colleague, Senator Claire 
McCaskill of Missouri, who will be serving as the committee's ranking 
member in the 114th Congress.
  Finally, I encourage the Presiding Officer and all of the other 
members of the committee not only to be active participants in the 
committee but also to share with us their thoughts on issues that we 
should pursue.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and seeing no one 
seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to S. 1, 
which will circumvent the administration's official review process for 
projects crossing international borders and approve construction of the 
Keystone XL Pipeline, a pipeline dedicated to increasing production of 
some of the dirtiest, most polluting, and most dangerous crude oil in 
the world.
  Supporters of this pipeline in Congress have been relentless. Over 
the last 2 Congresses they have held 44 votes in the House and Senate 
intended to approve Keystone. On Tuesday, the very first bill the new 
Republican majority introduced, traditionally reserved for a party's 
highest legislative priority, was Keystone. Think about this. Here we 
stand in what people still call the world's greatest deliberative body, 
and the first bill we are taking up is not infrastructure generally, 
not national energy policy, not even national laws as they relate to 
our pipeline infrastructure. No, we are legislating about a specific 
pipeline which will move oil from Canada through the United States to 
be primarily exported from our southern border.
  I understand there are people of good will and good faith, including 
the Presiding Officer, who are on both sides of this issue. But it is 
hard to imagine why this should be the first piece of legislation we 
take up in this Congress. We have yet to seriously consider or to 
clarify our policy with respect to the Islamic State. Income inequality 
is gutting the middle class. Our national infrastructure needs a jolt 
of investment. Our immigration policy is a failure and a mess. I do not 
understand why this would be S. 1.
  Supporters of this bill have stood up three main arguments in favor 
of Keystone and expanding drilling of tar sands oil reserves in Canada. 
One, they say it will increase energy security; two, they think it will 
lower oil and gas prices; third, they say it is a jobs bill.
  Let's examine these claims, because however tenuous they were, they 
have been undermined further by facts over the last couple of years.
  First, the United States has never during the modern age of global 
energy trade been more energy secure. We import far less oil from 
unstable regimes and unfriendly countries than we have in decades. We 
are continuing to build massive amounts of ever cheaper homegrown clean 
energy such as wind

[[Page S138]]

and solar, even as we use our energy more efficiently.
  The United States will add nearly 10 gigawatts of wind and solar 
capacity in the next year. Not including hydro, the United States has 
over 85,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity and continues to 
build on that number year over year. The prices for solar have dropped 
80 percent since 2008 and prices for wind power, which are already 
competitive with fossil fuels, have dropped 30 percent since 2008.
  These trends are creating jobs right here at home. For example, the 
wind industry has over 500 manufacturing facilities across 44 States 
that are responsible for making wind turbines with over 66 percent 
domestic content.
  Second, the recent collapse of crude oil and gasoline prices 
demonstrates two things. In my home State of Hawaii, energy prices 
remain far too high. But on the mainland, oil and gas prices are 
currently very low. The idea that Keystone would make a significant 
difference was never based in reality, but now it is just obvious. We 
have low prices and the project has not even started.
  Gasoline is now $2.21 a gallon. Crude oil prices have slipped below 
$50 a barrel. The last time gasoline prices were this low was in the 
aftermath of the financial crisis. As a practical matter, it is not 
clear to me, and it is certainly not clear to most energy experts, how 
moving oil from Canada through the United States and exporting refined 
crude from the Gulf of Mexico would significantly reduce energy prices 
for us in the United States.
  Finally, this is called a jobs bill by some. This is many things. It 
is anti-clean air; it is anti-clean water; it is anti-public health. It 
is a regulatory earmark. But it is not a jobs bill. It is not deserving 
of being the No. 1 priority of the 114th Congress.
  We have heard estimates ranging as high as 42,000 indirect or induced 
jobs during the construction phase. We know, and everyone seems to 
agree, that Keystone will employ approximately 35 full-time employees 
when construction is finished. That is not 3,500 employees. That is not 
35,000 employees. That is the 35 full-time employees when construction 
is completed.
  If we want to do a real jobs bill worthy of the Senate, we should do 
a real jobs bill. An infrastructure bank, a highway bill, Shaheen-
Portman--all would create orders of magnitude more jobs than this.
  The American economy added 353,000 jobs in November alone, which made 
2014 the strongest year for job growth since 1999. If we pass a highway 
bill, we get millions of jobs. If we pass an infrastructure bank, we 
will get hundreds of thousands of jobs. If we pass the bipartisan 
Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill, we will also get hundreds of 
thousands of jobs. Look, even one new job is a good thing. But if we 
want to do a jobs bill, let's do a jobs bill.

  There is plenty of room for us to work together on infrastructure, on 
energy efficiency, and create hundreds of thousands and even millions 
of jobs. But this is an energy bill. It moves us in the wrong 
direction. There are colleagues, with whom I agree, who are arguing 
against this legislation primarily saying they want to allow the 
administration's process to play out and that we should not supersede 
the State Department review. I agree.
  It is fair to say this is unprecedented, even a little strange, for 
the Congress to legislate the specifics of a particular infrastructure 
project. But I want to be clear. This is not a process argument for me. 
I oppose Keystone because it is a bad idea. Whether it is done through 
the regular order or in an expedited fashion, whether it is done 
through the administrative process or the legislative process, I oppose 
any action, whether through legislation, litigation, or administrative 
action, that will enable the extraction of Canadian tar sands oil.
  My reasons are very simple--climate change and math. Climate change, 
because it is the greatest and most urgent challenge to the health of 
our families, to the economy, and to our way of life. I want to 
preserve the American way of life, not endanger it. Math, because we 
have crunched the numbers and we know we simply cannot afford to burn 
the oil from tar sands and put its pollution into the air.
  It is simple. We have a budget. Just as every family in this country 
must stick to its budget and live within its means, we have to do the 
same as a planet when it comes to carbon pollution. A new study 
published last week in the scientific journal Nature makes this clear. 
The authors asked the question: If we want to stay within our carbon 
budget and limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius, which is the limit 167 
countries agree we must meet to avoid catastrophic effects of climate 
change, how much more coal, gas, and oil can we burn?
  The study finds that in order to meet this goal, the majority of the 
world's known reserves of fossil fuel must stay in the ground between 
now and 2050. This includes one-third of the world's current oil 
reserves and 80 percent of current coal reserves. It also finds, and 
this is critical, that:

       Any increase in unconventional oil production--

  Which includes Canadian tar sands.

     --is incommensurate with efforts to limit average global 
     warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

  As we learn more about climate change amidst a clean energy 
revolution, we find that moving toward clean energy, taking control of 
our future, is good for business. Our economy will do better. It will 
grow faster and it will be more resilient if we embrace the 
technologies and solutions at our fingertips and end our reliance on 
fossil fuel. We have a chance to embrace the future here. Our future is 
not tar sands oil. Our future is wind and solar and geothermal and 
energy efficiency. Our future is not in adding carbon pollution. Our 
future is in innovating our way out of this problem. Throughout our 
history, America always leads when we are needed the most. That is what 
we have to do, not in the direction of more carbon pollution but toward 
a clean energy economy.
  A report by New Climate Economy, a group chaired by former Mexican 
President Felipe Calderon, and including Bank of America chairman Chad 
Holliday, among others, marshals quantitative evidence to show that 
action on climate change is a requirement for future global economic 
growth. In other words, those who warn about the EPA regulation or 
prices on carbon killing jobs have it exactly backward. The truth is 
that in order to avoid major disruptions to our economy, we have to 
reduce carbon pollution and work with other countries such as Canada to 
ensure that they do the same.
  I am looking forward to the open amendment process on this bill that 
the majority leader has promised. It will be an opportunity for the 
American public to see where Members of the Senate stand on the facts 
of climate change. Anyone who looks at the facts and does the math 
ought to oppose this bill and oppose construction of the Keystone XL 
Pipeline. For me and for many Americans, a vote against this bill is a 
vote to preserve and protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. 
It is a vote to ensure that we continue to reduce carbon pollution and 
fight climate change. It is a vote to leave our children a healthy 
world.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose cloture on the motion to proceed.
  I yield the floor and 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. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Entry-Exit Visa System

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the attacks on the people of France 
demonstrate in the most chilling terms the threats posed to Western 
nations by those who are imbued with Islamic terrorism. While there are 
many factors that play into the spread of this jihadist ideology in the 
West, it is time for an honest and plain admission that our open 
immigration policies are ineffective and have failed to meet the 
minimum standards that are set by existing law in the United States.
  This is something I have been dealing with for quite a number of 
years--a decade really. We have laws that would improve dramatically 
our ability to identify and block terrorists from entering and staying 
in the country, but they are not funded and they are not

[[Page S139]]

carried out and it is unacceptable, as I will point out.
  Dozens of terrorists and terror plotters have been admitted to the 
United States on visas or are relying on broader networks to simply 
enter into our country, taking advantage of lax immigration policies. 
For instance, the 9/11 attackers all came here on visas. A visa is a 
document that allows an individual to come for a limited period of time 
and then return to their home country. This visa system is essential in 
a modern world, but it needs to be managed and carried out in an 
effective way.
  The Boston bombers came as asylees, people seeking asylum, while 
their mosque was linked to foreign nationals tied to ISIS and foreign 
terrorists.
  The individual behind the attempted Christmas bombing in Oregon was a 
refugee. We have a class of individuals we accept each year who claim 
to be refugees from foreign countries. This one was from Somalia.
  The recently foiled plot to bomb a courthouse and school in 
Connecticut was attempted by a Moroccan national who had a revoked 
student visa. Many individuals have visas to be students in the United 
States. We are not managing that well at all. This one had a revoked 
student visa. It was revoked because of information that came to the 
attention of officials, but no one made an effort or successfully 
attempted in any real way to find the individual so he might be 
deported.
  Al Qaeda operatives who were apprehended in Kentucky were on visas 
from Iraq.
  These are only some of the examples that are out there. These 
individuals use lax visa policies, flawed asylum policies, flawed 
refugee policies, and flawed border protection policies. In addition, 
we are not organized in a way that works effectively. In addition to 
that, the President of the United States has directed his ICE officers, 
his Citizenship and Immigration Services officers, and his Border 
Patrol officers, who are the key individuals in this system, to conduct 
their business in a way that guarantees failure. That is just the fact.
  The 9/11 Commission--we all remember that great Commission after the 
terrible attack on 9/11--zeroed in on our lax immigration policies. 
Among other things, the Commission demanded implementation of a 
biometric entry-exit visa system. What does that mean? That means a 
biometric system where people are identified effectively through 
fingerprints or some other identifier.
  I have been through this for years. Back when President Bush was 
President and we worked with Homeland Security, Governor Ridge was the 
Secretary of Homeland Security. I think at the end he was finally 
convinced, and I worked on him very hard. But he volunteered, the last 
day in office, to use a fingerprint biometric system. It should have 
already been done by the time President Bush left office, but it 
wasn't, and it hasn't been done yet. We need a system that works.
  By the way, police officers have in their cars all over America 
computer-type screens where they can stop someone on the road, they can 
ask them to put their hand on the screen, and it reads their 
fingerprints. It checks the National Crime Information Center to find 
out whether the person is wanted for murder in New York. He might have 
caught him in Texas. It lets the officer know whether there are 
warrants out for these individuals. This is the way the system works in 
our country, and we need to use it with regard to people who come here 
on visas.
  It is an outrage that this hasn't been done, completed fully, and 
made operational years ago. It is an outrage. It is in the law of the 
United States. Congress has funded money for this project and it has 
not yet been done. It will cost us in the future, as the 9/11 
Commission has so warned. The 9/11 Commission demanded this system, and 
it is designed to track those entering and departing the United States 
on visas.
  By the way, almost half of the people, at least 40-plus percent now 
of individuals unlawfully in America entered on a visa. In other words, 
they didn't come across the border unlawfully. They came lawfully--
perhaps using false documents, but they got a visa. They came to the 
United States maybe lawfully, but they just did not return to their 
home country when the visa expired.
  My colleagues have to know no one is checking. We have no idea 
whether they left the country or stayed in the country. We do not have 
an operable exit visa system. This is so bizarre because it is not 
expensive. It can be implemented rapidly. It will work and give us 
valuable information that we must have if we are serious about this 
process, and we must be serious about the process.
  The individuals in France--I mentioned the ones in the United 
States--left the country, went through Yemen, apparently, were trained 
in some sort of terrorist camp, and came back and executed their 
violent acts in France. So we have to do a better job of this, and we 
can do it.
  President Obama's administration has refused to implement the entry-
exit system as required by law. We have talked about this publicly and 
debated it for years. Just last year the co-chairs of the 9/11 
Commission, in an evaluation of how well the recommendations they made 
back after 9/11 have been carried out--a 10-year review of how their 
report had been received and how much of it had been accomplished--
issued this written statement.

       Without exit-tracking, our government does not know when a 
     foreign visitor admitted to the United States on a temporary 
     basis has overstayed his or her admission.

  Here is the language. We put it on a chart because it is important 
that we understand this.

       Without exit-tracking, our government does not know when a 
     foreign visitor admitted to the United States on a temporary 
     basis has overstayed his or her admission. Had this system 
     been in place before 9/11, we would have had a better chance 
     of detecting the plotters before they struck. . . . There is 
     no excuse for the fact that 13 years after 9/11 we do not 
     have this much capability in place.

  Amen. That is exactly correct. That is from ``Reflections on the 
Tenth Anniversary of the 9/11 Commission Report,'' Thomas H. Kean and 
Lee H. Hamilton, in 2014.
  In fact, the original report said this:

       The Department of Homeland Security, properly supported by 
     the Congress, should complete, as quickly as possible, a 
     biometric entry-exit screening system.

  That was the report from 2004. It is a very important report. They 
went to great length to help this Nation figure out what is the 
responsible thing to do to protect ourselves better from those 
attackers on 9/11, many of whom were visa overstayers. They didn't come 
across the border unlawfully; they came across on a lawful visa. Some 
of them I think had false documentation to get that visa, but they came 
on a visa, for the most part lawfully, and did not go home as they were 
required to go home. They overstayed their visa. Nobody knew they had 
overstayed. Nobody made an inquiry about it.
  The ``Tenth Anniversary Report Card: The Status of the 9/11 
Commission Recommendations,'' by Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, 
2011, said this:

       Full deployment of the biometric exit component of US-VISIT 
     should be a high priority. Such a capability would have 
     assisted law enforcement and intelligence officials in August 
     and September 2001 in conducting a search for two of the 9/11 
     hijackers that were in the U.S. on expired visas.

  This would have helped. Indeed, of course, those of us who have some 
experience in law enforcement know that when you get to one or two of 
the guys, the whole scheme may get disrupted, and we can penetrate the 
organization and break it up and stop crime from occurring. To me, it 
is mind boggling, as the commission leaders have told us, that we 
haven't completed this.
  I am told there are forces that don't like the exit visa system. They 
think it might slow things down a little bit. First, this is not 
correct. When you come into the country, you are clocked in and you are 
biometrically fingerprinted. What would you have to do when you leave? 
Go to the airport, go in a certain line, go through, show your ticket, 
show your passport, put your hand on a biometric screener, you are 
read, and you are approved to leave. It is not going to take any 
massive amounts of time. One excuse after the other has slowed this 
down, and it is not acceptable. We have to do better.
  In fact, the administration has suspended enforcement of the visa 
system almost entirely. We have to understand, colleagues: If we don't 
have even an exit visa system where we know

[[Page S140]]

who left the country, how do we know who overstayed and who stayed in 
the country? Unless somebody overstays their visa and they are caught 
for speeding and the police officer identified that, I will ask 
colleagues, what happens? Under the policy of this President of the 
United States, directed to the lowest officers in America, nothing 
happens. If the individual does not commit a serious felony, they will 
not be processed for deportation, even though they have come to the 
country on a promise to leave on a certain date and flatly refused to 
do so.
  This is not acceptable. If we don't have a system that has integrity, 
then everybody gets the message pretty soon: Just get a visa, come to 
America, you never have to leave. If you don't get a felony charge 
against you, you are never going to be deported.
  This is the policy of this government at this very moment. It is hard 
for anybody to believe, but that is the truth. We have approximately 5 
million visa overstays in the United States. But as the National ICE--
Immigration Customs Enforcement--officers Council president Chris Crane 
has explained:

       ICE agents are now prohibited from arresting illegal aliens 
     solely on charges of illegal entry or visa overstay.

  What a dramatic statement that is. And not only visa overstays, they 
are prohibited from arresting and removing people who came across the 
border illegally. That is what he means by illegal entry or visa 
overstays.
  This of course removes a cornerstone of integrity in any law system. 
If we can't look people in the eye and say: We give you a visa, you 
have a 6-month visa, but at 6 months you have to return to your home 
country, and mean it, and say: Eventually you will be apprehended and 
deported if you don't--then the system has no integrity. That is where 
we are today.
  Unsurprisingly, ABC News reported that the Obama administration had 
lost track of 6,000 foreign students who had overstayed their visas and 
were of ``heightened concern.''
  In other words, these 6,000 had some special concern in their 
background that made us worry about them, whether it was drugs or 
terrorism or whatever. Of course they have lost sight of them. They are 
not attempting to find them.
  So the head of the union representing U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services officers, one of the three major components of the 
Department of Homeland Security dealing with immigration, Mr. Ken 
Palinkas, was explicit in his warning to us. It is remarkable what Mr. 
Crane has said and now what Mr. Palinkas has said:

       There is no doubt that there are already many individuals 
     in the United States, on visas--expired or active--who are 
     being targeted for radicalization or who already subscribe to 
     radicalized views. Many millions come legally to the U.S. 
     through our wide open immigration policy every year--whether 
     as temporary visitors, lifetime immigrants, refugees, asylum-
     seekers, foreign students, or recipients of our ``visa waiver 
     program'' which allows people to come and go freely. Yet our 
     government cannot effectively track these foreign visitors 
     and immigrants.

  This is the man whose officers do this job. They are the ones who 
approve the visas and manage this system.
  He went on to warn that the President's so-called Executive amnesty 
would make the situation radically worse, saying:

       I write today to warn the general public that this 
     situation is about to get exponentially worse--and more 
     dangerous. . . . Express your concern to your Senators and 
     Congressmen before it is too late.

  It is a national security imperative to stop this Executive amnesty. 
It sends exactly the wrong message. What it says is that if you can get 
into America--through the border, by boat, by plane, on a visa--any way 
you get into this country and pass the border, you are not going to be 
asked to leave unless you commit some felony--some serious felony, for 
that matter. Many felonies don't qualify. And we have over 100,000 
people who have committed serious felonies who have been released into 
America. We don't know where they are, and they are not going to be 
deported.
  We have to restore immigration enforcement, establish better controls 
and screening on immigration from high-risk regions of the world. We 
really should give more attention to that. It is perfectly legitimate.
  The visa system, the immigration system of the United States, should 
serve who? It should serve the interests of the American people. 
Somebody doesn't have a constitutional right to come to America. The 
decision is whether America feels like it is in its interests. We have 
always accepted a large number of people. In fact, we have the largest 
immigration numbers of any nation in the world. We admit 1 million a 
year lawfully. When they come from high-risk areas of the world, 
terrorist states, we should indeed give more scrutiny to those 
applicants.
  Census data shows that legal immigration to the United States from 
the Middle East is one of the largest and fastest growing categories of 
new admittances. For the national security of the United States, it is 
imperative that Congress block Executive amnesty and restore essential 
enforcement, basic bread-and-butter law enforcement. Anyone who claims 
to be concerned about our national security should be resolutely 
focused on this task. There is so much that can be done with relatively 
little difficulty if we have the leadership and will to get it done.
  It would be unthinkable for the President to veto the Homeland 
Security appropriations bill in order to continue this illegal and 
dangerous amnesty scheme during a time of growing threats abroad.
  Again, let me say that this: the entry-exit visa system is an 
unappreciated, important part of American immigration law. It is 
critical to the national security of the United States, as the 9/11 
Commission has so stated on more than one occasion. We can do this. Why 
is it not being done? What forces, what special interests, are 
interceding between the people of the United States, the national 
interests, and their special interests that block this kind of system?
  We can make it work. It is not that hard. We need a biometric system, 
and that system should be founded on the fingerprint. It took us a 
number of years, but I think the government has finally concluded it 
must be the fingerprint for a lot of reasons, one of which is if 
somebody got a visa to the United States and they committed a murder, 
an armed robbery, a terrorist act, a major fraud, and a warrant was 
issued for their arrest--if you don't clock it in at the airport, who 
knows when they are leaving? So this would pick it up and would pick up 
any warrants that might be outstanding for those individuals anywhere 
in the United States that are put in the NCIC, National Crime 
Information Center.
  That is the way the system should work. It is long overdue. In the 
course of the discussions we will have in the weeks and months to come 
about the necessity of fixing a broken immigration system, the entry-
exit visa system has to be implemented. It is long overdue. We can make 
it happen. It is not that expensive. It is relatively inexpensive, 
actually, and it will make us much safer in the process.
  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. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the time allotted to each 
side and utilized be counted against both sides equally during quorum 
calls.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. COATS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, here we are at the beginning of a new 
year and a new Congress, and I think we all feel a responsibility to do 
what the American people voted for in the November 2014 election, which 
is to come together in this body and in this Congress and work together 
to find sensible solutions to the very real problems facing Americans.

[[Page S141]]

  It is no secret that the last 6 years have been pretty tough for a 
lot of people who are out of work or doing part-time work; kids 
graduating from high school, graduating from college, graduating from 
community schools, 2-year schools; going back and getting new training 
and still unable to find meaningful jobs; finding jobs that are part 
time, two or three of those together; parents trying to save money, pay 
the mortgage, save money to send the kids to postgraduate school. It 
has not been easy. So we have come to a point where we have legislation 
in a new session of Congress, with commitments on a bipartisan basis to 
stand together, to work together, to try to find solutions, to get 
people back to work and get our economy moving again. Now we come to 
the very first issue up for discussion and debate and hopefully passage 
in this new Congress--the Keystone Pipeline.
  This is an issue that has been going on for 6 years. The President 
has been obstinate in his obstruction in letting this go forward, in 
making a decision. Yet here we are, finally, with an opportunity to not 
only pass legislation which has passed the House of Representatives, 
again, just last week with very significant bipartisan support--but now 
in the Senate to take up this legislation and to move it forward 
tonight with this vote, to start the process to allow amendments, to 
allow debate, and to move forward and hopefully enjoy bipartisan 
support with over 60 votes and then move it to final passage and then 
send it to the President for, hopefully, signing.
  This project is the largest, ready-to-build infrastructure project in 
the United States. It supports tens of thousands of jobs. The estimate 
has been well over 42,000. It invests billions of dollars in the 
American economy. It increases revenue to States and local governments, 
all without spending one dime of taxpayer money. This is a private 
sector initiative that can be of great benefit to our country. It can 
provide meaningful jobs and has many benefits for us in the future.
  It is supported by Democrats, by Republicans, and by a number of 
labor unions. For instance, the Indiana State Building and Construction 
Trade Council, which represents 75,000 working Hoosiers in my State, 
reached out to me recently and asked me to support construction of the 
Keystone Pipeline, calling it ``an important job creation and energy 
security issue.'' They are right on the mark. They know I have been a 
longtime supporter of this effort, but they wanted to put it in 
writing. I am not sure it was necessary, and they weren't weighing this 
on the basis of Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative; they 
were saying that this is good for us and we hope all of our Senators 
can support it. We hope it passes. This is an initiative that puts our 
people to work. Other labor unions, including the North America's 
Building Trade Unions and the Laborers' International Union of North 
America support this project.
  I mentioned the President, for 6 years, has come up with more feeble 
excuses in terms of why he believes this should not go forward. The 
last excuse was: We are in a process here and the process has to go 
forward. That process was waiting, apparently, on the Nebraska Supreme 
Court approval of the pipeline route through Nebraska, and that was his 
excuse for why he would have to veto it. I am sure my colleagues now 
have the word that the Nebraska Supreme Court has upheld State approval 
of the Keystone Pipeline. In fact, the President's own State 
Department, in response to numerous calls for environmental studies--
all of which were used as an excuse for not going forward--the 
President's own State Department has repeatedly approved this, saying 
it will not have a negative environmental imprint.
  So what could possibly be the reason the President remains 
intransigent on this particular issue, because every other box has been 
checked? We have to come down to the inevitable conclusion that it is 
all political, that an extreme environmental wing of the President's 
own party is simply putting untold pressure on him to not go forward 
with anything having to do with fossil fuels or providing energy 
security for America from our own resources. After all, a significant 
portion comes from Montana and North Dakota--and the last time I 
checked they are in the United States--and from our friendly neighbor 
to the north, Canada. If this doesn't go through, we will keep 
importing large quantities of oil from the Middle East. We know what 
complications there are in terms of securing that oil and how much 
volatility occurs there based on what is happening today in the Middle 
East.
  So getting this product from our Northern States of North Dakota and 
Montana and getting this product from our friend to the north, Canada, 
simply makes a great deal of sense in terms of our energy security, our 
energy supplies, and lessening our reliance on the volatility that 
comes from getting oil from other sources.
  To conclude, let me just make it clear what it is we are trying to 
do. This will help the United States diversify its energy supply. It 
will offset our dependence on Middle East oil. It will support tens of 
thousands of American jobs in construction. It will invest billions of 
dollars in the American economy. It will increase revenue to State and 
local governments. It will not harm our environment, as numerous 
studies have indicated--all these benefits without spending a dime of 
taxpayer money.
  So after 6 years of delay, procrastination, and evermore feeble 
excuses, it is time for the President to make a decision. Soon he will 
have an opportunity to use that pen he so famously talked about not to 
sign a veto or to declare a veto but to sign a bill approving the 
Keystone Pipeline into law.
  I strongly support construction of this pipeline and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his request?
  Mr. COATS. I certainly will. I didn't see my colleague. I am happy to 
do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I am happy I was here for the comments of 
my colleague from Indiana on the Keystone Pipeline and, similar to the 
Senator from Indiana, I am also happy to finally have this debate. The 
comments he made are very sincere and passionately believed. I accept 
that. I only challenge one aspect of the comments, which is the 
suggestion that opposition of Keystone is feeble or only for political 
reasons.
  I am a pro-energy Senator. The first bill I introduced in the 114th 
Congress was a bill I am cosponsoring with Senator Barrasso of Wyoming 
to expedite American exports of liquid natural gas, but I am an 
opponent of Keystone on environmental and economic grounds, and I wish 
to spend a few minutes describing why.
  To begin with, it can probably be summed up in a question: Why 
embrace dirty energy when America is in the midst of a clean energy 
revolution? That is a primary reason I oppose Keystone. The United 
States, thank goodness, is on a clean energy roll. Not only are we on a 
clean energy roll, we are on an energy production roll that is helping 
our economy, helping our trade deficit, and hurting some of our most 
significant global adversaries, notably Russia and Iran.
  We have embraced over the last few years a set of conservation and 
efficiency investments, probably most notably the increased CAFE 
standards that have saved energy use in the vehicle sector as well as 
helped the American auto industry significantly rebound. Our natural 
gas revolution, of which I am a strong supporter, has enabled American 
industry and consumers to get lower priced energy, and it has enabled 
us to lessen our dependence on dirtier fuels in the production of 
electric power and other aspects of our power usage. Wind and solar and 
other noncarbon energy developments have rocketed ahead. Nearly one-
third of the energy that has been added to the American electricity 
grid since 2005 has been in the wind and solar area. We are one of the 
few nations in the world that in the period from 2005 to 2012 actually 
saw a reduction in our carbon emissions.
  We are on a clean energy roll. We are innovating for the world and we 
are selling technologies to the rest of the world and that is good for 
our economy as well as good for the environment.
  We are also asserting American energy leadership not just in the 
advances in clean energy but also in the significant advances in 
American energy production. I think we should feel

[[Page S142]]

good about the fact that we are a country that has gone from being one 
of the greatest net importers of energy in the world to now a country 
that is going to be one of the greatest energy producers in the world, 
and in many energy areas we are now a net exporter. So emissions are 
going down. Production and exports are going up.
  The other thing that is great for Americans is that prices are going 
down. A barrel of oil right now is in the $50-a-barrel range, which is 
putting about $1,000 a year back into the pockets of an American 
family. It is helping American businesses, and it is imposing, as I 
mentioned earlier, some significant harm upon two of our most 
persistent global adversaries--Iran and Russia--that rely on energy 
exports to drive their economy.
  This energy revolution--higher production, greater economic 
efficiency, greater cleanliness--has all been happening without the 
Keystone Pipeline. It has all been happening without the United States 
embracing tar sands oil. We are going in the right direction now. I 
oppose the Keystone Pipeline because accelerating the use of tar sands 
oil turns us around. Instead of going in the right direction to more 
production, more national security and greater emissions control, the 
Keystone Pipeline accelerates tar sands oil and takes us in the wrong 
direction. Simply put, tar sands oil and the exploitation of that 
resource is a bad bet for the environment and, I believe, a bad bet for 
the economy.

  Last month, December 2014, a magazine I really like that normally has 
a lot of articles about the outdoors, Outside magazine, ran a lengthy 
article on the area of Canada in Alberta where tar sands are mined. The 
article is called ``The High Cost of Oil.''
  To anyone who is interested in this debate--pro, con or undecided--go 
online to Outside magazine, December 2014, ``The High Cost of Oil,'' 
and read what the mining of tar sands oil does to this part of Canada 
and to this planet.
  Tar sands oil is not like conventional gas or petroleum. Tar sands 
oil, the mining and refining and production of it, produces about 15 to 
20 percent more greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy than 
conventional petroleum. Natural gas produces dramatically less 
CO2 than conventional petroleum, but tar sands oil produces 
dramatically more. If you care about the emissions of CO2--
and I think we should all care about the emissions of CO2 
because I accept the science that says CO2 emissions cause 
significant climate effects--if you care about CO2 
emissions, then tar sands oil is absolutely the worst thing that can be 
done.
  Over the 2 years now that I have been in the Senate, I have had a lot 
of folks come to me and talk to me about Keystone. They never say a 
word about greenhouse gas or CO2 emissions--not a word. 
Senator Coats didn't say a word in his comments about CO2 or 
greenhouse gas emissions. I ask individuals, when they come and talk to 
me about Keystone: What do you think about CO2 emissions? 
What do you think about the fact that tar sands oil is significantly 
more carbon dense than normal petroleum? The response I find myself 
getting is: I don't know; I am not a scientist. In fact, I heard that 
from an energy CEO who employs tons of scientists in his organizations: 
I don't know; I am not a scientist.
  The scientific consensus I believe is very clear. We have to do what 
we can--not drastically and dramatically but in an incremental way--
every day to bring down our CO2 emissions. I believe we need 
to do that in smart ways. Yet, from an emissions standpoint, tar sands 
oil goes exactly in the wrong direction. It is not just CO2 
emissions. Tar sands oil also involves the mining of it. I would 
encourage you to read this article. It involves scraping up vast 
acreages of an arboreal forest in Alberta to get to the tar sands 
underneath. So far, an area about the size of the State of Rhode Island 
has been completely despoiled to look like a moonscape to get to tar 
sands, and this will significantly accelerate the more tar sands are 
built.
  In the area of Alberta where the mining and refining is taking place, 
there has been a dramatic increase in respiratory illness and other 
illnesses associated either with airborne emissions or with the 
contamination of the area's water supply.
  Probably one of the most powerful things about the article is not the 
lengthy analysis, not the words, it is the pictures. The pictures in 
that article are staggering. When you see what has to be done to these 
arboreal forests to mine tar sands oil, you come back to this question: 
Why would we embrace a dirtier technology when America is on a clean-
energy revolution that is driving down prices, driving up production, 
and also driving down emissions.
  Tar sands oil takes us in the wrong direction. It is not so much 
about the pipeline. We rely on pipelines in this country, but it is 
about the acceleration of the development of a resource that, frankly, 
just doesn't need to be developed.

  I will conclude and say this. Some say--and I made this argument--
well, look, it is going to be mined anyway and refined anyway. If the 
pipeline doesn't go through the United States, it will go westward or 
eastward through Canada or another direction. I am not completely sure 
that is correct. The article in Outside discusses the fact that 
Canadians, who know this better than anybody because they live in the 
neighborhood, are fighting against pipelines being built in Canada. 
There is also the matter with oil now at a significantly lower price 
than it has been. Even the economics of this tar sands oil, which is 
pretty expensive because of what you have to do to refine it, may not 
make any sense. But even if we set those arguments aside and somebody 
says to me, why shouldn't the United States just give the big green 
light to tar sands oil because somebody is going to get it, the reason 
I think we shouldn't is the United States is showing the world right 
now what it means to be an energy leader.
  With increased production, lower emissions, lower prices through 
innovation--through American innovation--we are showing the world what 
it means to be an energy leader. We are a leader because we have 
embraced a simple effort.
  I am not an engineer, but as I look at what happened in innovation in 
the last decade, the ethic we have embraced is: Let's do it cleaner 
tomorrow than today. That is pretty simple. Let's do it cleaner 
tomorrow than today--not dramatically cleaner. It doesn't have to turn 
day and night from today to tomorrow. Let's just get a little bit 
cleaner tomorrow than today.
  That is what we have been doing as a Nation. It has been increasing 
supply. It has been driving down demand. It has been driving down 
prices. It has been helping us control emissions. That is what we 
should keep doing. I am a pro-energy Senator, but I am a deep skeptic 
about the use of tar sands oil. For that reason, I am glad we are going 
to have the debate. I think we should finally be at it. But I am going 
to oppose the Keystone Pipeline because tar sands oil is going 
backwards and not forwards. We are showing the world what it means to 
go forward, and that is the direction we should continue to go.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Without objection, it is so 
ordered
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, we are going to be voting shortly on the 
motion to proceed to S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline. I am here to urge 
my colleagues to vote no on that motion to proceed. We had a couple of 
chances to come to the Senate floor already today and last week and 
talk about the important issue of energy development in the United 
States and how we move our country forward with job creation and energy 
development. The President--we got to hear his remarks and certainly we 
respect people's points of view that this issue is an issue we have had 
a lot of time to discuss.
  Mr. President, the issue is whether the American public and people in 
affected States have had a lot of time to talk about this issue and 
whether they have had a transparent process to talk about this issue.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article that

[[Page S143]]

was in USA TODAY whose headline is ``Permit problems plague Keystone XL 
pipeline's S.D. leg.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From USA Today, Jan. 7, 2015]

         Permit Problems Plague Keystone XL Pipeline's S.D. Leg

                          (By John Hultjhult)

       The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission on Tuesday 
     voted down a move by tribal and environmental groups to force 
     a reboot to the Keystone XL pipeline's state-level permitting 
     process. (http://www
.argusleader.com/story/news/2015/01/06/sd-permit-keystone-xl-
still-question/21359367/)
       PUC commissioners said there are clear questions about 
     whether South Dakota's stretch of the massive and 
     controversial project is still due the construction permit it 
     earned in 2010, given a series of changes to its original 
     scope.
       The 2014 version of the pipeline would be able to carry 
     crude from North Dakota, for example, along with the 
     anticipated crude extracted from tar sands in Alberta, 
     Canada.
       Even so, commissioners ruled that forcing pipeline owner 
     TransCanada to start over without being offered a chance to 
     explain how it could make those changes while meeting its old 
     obligations would be a denial of due process.
       ``We need to go through the process to find out,'' 
     Commissioner Chris Nelson said.
       TransCanada asked for re-certification of its 2010 
     construction permit in September. The company had to ask for 
     re-certification because four years had passed since the 
     permit was granted.
       The pipeline stalled as President Obama chose Tuesday to 
     delay the issuance of a federal permit indefinitely, a move 
     that has frustrated supporters, who say the project will add 
     jobs and boost energy security. If completed, the Keystone XL 
     pipeline would release more than 800,000 barrels of oil a 
     day.
       The GOP-controlled Senate is expected to take up the issue 
     this week.
       In a new application for the 313 miles of pipeline planned 
     for South Dakota, the company notes 30 changes to the 
     original project, including the addition of North Dakota oil, 
     minor route changes, alterations to construction plans and 
     costs.
       The Yankton Sioux Tribe filed a motion to dismiss the 
     company's application based on those changes, saying the re-
     certification process is meant for projects that have been 
     delayed, not those that have altered dramatically in scope.
       The permit was issued with a set of 50 conditions, which 
     were based on the project as approved four years ago.
       Thomasina Real Bird, a lawyer for the Yankton Sioux Tribe, 
     told commissioners that the changes to the pipeline are 
     simply too significant to allow the company to apply for re-
     certification.
       The company isn't just asking to re-certify a stalled 
     project, she said.
       ``They're going a step beyond, and that step is not allowed 
     by law,'' Real Bird said.
       Several others spoke in support of the Yankton Sioux 
     Tribe's motion to dismiss, including Kimberly Craven of the 
     Indigenous Environmental Network.
       ``I would urge the commission to start over,'' Craven said. 
     ``It's a new permit, a new ballgame.''
       Bill Taylor, a lawyer for TransCanada, told commissioners 
     that re-certification is meant to determine whether delayed 
     projects still fall within the scope of an old permit. 
     Dropping a re-certification request because a project changes 
     renders the re-certification process pointless.
       Keystone XL has changed, but Taylor said the company is 
     prepared to prove that it still meets each of the 50 
     conditions attached to its 2010 approval. The pipeline is 
     still a pipeline, the product is the same, and the end result 
     is more energy security for the U.S., Taylor said.
       ``The current iteration of the project can and will meeting 
     the conditions upon which the permit is issued,'' Taylor 
     said.
       The PUC voted 3-0 to deny the motions to dismiss the 
     application brought by the Yankton Sioux Tribe and joined by 
     others. The hearing on the merits of the re-certification is 
     planned for May.

  Ms. CANTWELL. This is an article that just recently appeared in the 
paper about how South Dakota is bringing up objections to the pipeline, 
and they want to do due process with their public utility commission to 
make sure this project meets the criteria of environmental and safety 
concerns and security concerns that State wants to see met.
  The reason this is still an issue in South Dakota is because part of 
the pipeline will go through South Dakota. There have been many changes 
since the original proposal was put forth, and people in South Dakota 
want to know exactly what these changes are and exactly how they will 
go through the process. In fact, one Native American tribe 
representative who was objecting said:

       The company is not just asking to recertify its old 
     project. They are going a step beyond that that is not 
     allowed by law.

  So there are people who want them to go through the normal process 
because siting of a pipeline of this nature is of great concern to 
local residents, to property owners.
  I find it interesting that in the debate on this issue, we on this 
side of the aisle are the ones who are advocating and standing up for 
property owners to make sure there is not a taking of their property 
without a transparent process and input for that process because that 
is exactly what transpired here when the company, with the help of the 
State of Nebraska, did not continue to proceed through their public 
service commission, their public utility commission, and instead tried 
to pass a law saying that the environmental review and security issues 
and oversight could be done by the Governor.
  Now, my colleagues who are Governors know that when you are Governor, 
you do not have the most transparent process. It is not as if citizens 
are going to come to hearings in the Governor's office. It is not as 
though all of that is there for review. Certainly those citizens do not 
have the ability to object and make sure they are getting the right 
compensation for their property and make sure issues of safety and 
security are addressed.
  So that is why some private property owners sued. Because the 
legislature and the Governor did not have the right to act; the law 
taking the power away from the utility commission and giving it to the 
Governor was unconstitutional. The separation of powers is divided 
between the Governor and their public service commission. It is the job 
of those UTCs--utilities and transportation commissions around the 
country--to protect the interests of the public in the siting of these 
facilities. That this authority was now moved up through the 
legislature to the Governor to decide all of that was clearly something 
that was not constitutional. I find it very interesting that four of 
the seven supreme court justices said, in fact, yes, that law passed by 
the legislature was not constitutional.
  So my question is, What is the hurry? Now that this issue, based on 
standing and the other justices not deciding, has the process to move 
forward, Congress feels some sort of urgency to be a siting commission 
and site a pipeline that has, No. 1, failed to go through the public 
process in the State of Nebraska; No. 2, has a public process now being 
questioned in the State of South Dakota, raising concern and urgency 
that those issues of the public be addressed; and No. 3, goes over what 
the President of the United States has said he wants to follow as a due 
process and make sure all the issues are brought to the table.
  I will remind my colleagues that if everybody here had their way, the 
President would have approved the original Keystone XL pipeline route. 
Congress thought they should stick their hands in the middle of this 
siting and land use issue and put in legislative language on a passed 
bill by the Congress saying the President, if it was a national 
security interest, must decide and site the Keystone Pipeline. Thank 
God those at the State Department and the White House decided that was 
not such a smart idea because that current pipeline went through a 
major aquifer that served eight States and posed a great deal of 
concern to landowners, farmers, residents, and various individuals 
about that particular proposal.
  So if this body would have had its way before--those who support this 
pipeline--they would have pressured the President to approve what is 
now a defunct, horrible idea of what was proposed by TransCanada. So 
now I ask my colleagues, are you sure all of the issues have been 
addressed here at the local level? Because clearly there are people in 
Nebraska and people in South Dakota who do not think so.
  Last I checked, our job is not to site pipelines; our job is to move 
our country forward on an energy strategy that will produce jobs, 
diversify our resources, and make the United States a leader in energy.
  I know my colleagues feel as if we will get a chance to address a lot 
of issues if we do move forward in a debate, and I am sure there will 
be many on many sides. I question whether we shouldn't be spending our 
time focusing on a bipartisan energy bill with lots of support on a 
whole myriad of

[[Page S144]]

others issues we need to work on, as we did in 2007, to make sure we 
are helping in the transformation of energy policy moving forward that 
will produce a lot more jobs.
  This particular proposal, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, 
while there are some immediate construction jobs, the long-term jobs 
are very few compared to many of the other things we have been doing.
  I would also like to point out that since Keystone has undertaken 
more development in the United States, that part of that development in 
the United States has also come into question lately. The security of 
the welding on the pipeline that has been done in the southern part of 
that pipeline has come into question, even to the point where I think 
the State Department has said to the company: We are going to have a 
third-party validator approve whether you are actually meeting the 
standards we would like to see in the development of this pipeline in 
the United States.

  But there are many issues here about safety and security, as my 
colleagues can point out who have brought up these issues before. My 
colleague from Michigan suffered one of the most devastating oilspills 
in her area. That was a tar sands oilspill. My colleague from Michigan, 
Senator Stabenow, has actually flown over that oilspill and cited that 
it took 4 years and $1.2 billion to clean it up and that the tar sands 
sunk to the bottom of the river and the river had to be dredged.
  So this is something my colleagues may not quite understand, that the 
tar sands, even according to the Commandant of the Coast Guard--we do 
not really have a solution for its cleanup when it spills in water. 
That is why I want to make sure that tar sands pay into the oilspill 
liability trust fund, as any other oil source does, so that we can make 
sure we are planning for the future and for getting help and response 
for any of these oilspills that could occur in the future.
  But needless to say Michigan and the Kalamazoo spill taught our 
Nation how dangerous this oilspill process could be. So why are we 
prematurely trying to cut off the debate on this issue at the local 
government level and say that we in Congress know better than these 
utility and transportation commissions and their transparent siting 
process for the American public? Why do we somehow know better that 
this is where a pipeline should go and how the process should work?
  So I hope my colleagues will stop and think more about how 
TransCanada proposal. I know some of my colleagues like to talk about 
being a good neighbor, and I like to say, you know, we in the Pacific 
Northwest consider British Columbia a very big friend and neighbor. 
There are many times that people talk about two provinces and five 
States working together as an organization on economic issues. So that 
structure has been in place for many years in the Pacific Northwest. 
But the people of British Columbia have not been a big supporter of tar 
sands oil expansion. Something like 60 percent of the public of British 
Columbia opposes having a tar sands pipeline cross their province. 
TransCanada knows they are not going to be successful in getting this 
oil from Alberta across British Columbia out to the Pacific because the 
people of British Columbia do not want it. So, of course, why not come 
to the United States? Why not ask them if they want a pipeline going 
through the middle of their country?
  British Columbia Premier Christy Clark laid out five principles that 
ought to have been met in order to site a pipeline of tar sands. Those 
conditions have not been met, and the province is officially opposed to 
the pipeline. So there was a lot of opposition and concern there.
  I will note for my colleagues that when a public UTC--a utility 
commission or public service commission--when they evaluate a project, 
they have to look at the environmental impact, and that is water 
supply, wildlife, vegetation, plants, and they have to look at the 
economic and social impact. They need to look at alternative routes, 
the impact to future development near the pipeline, and the views of 
cities and counties. Again, I will note that I think all of those are a 
part of having a transparent process instead of a political process on 
siting.
  So I am not for moving forward on what I consider special interest 
legislation, Congress siting for a special interest--this TransCanada 
company--a project that even people in Canada have raised suspicion 
about.
  I hope that we will allow the President to still do due process on 
such an important issue of environmental concern and that we will not 
start setting a standard that if you want to short-circuit the eminent 
domain and protection rights of individuals, we will just bypass all of 
that at the local level and somehow go to Congress and they will get 
that done for you. I think that is a very bad message.
  I hope my colleagues will turn down this legislation, I hope that we 
can move on to other energy issues that will help our country diversify 
and move forward in the future.
  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. HOEVEN. 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. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to again talk about the Keystone XL 
Pipeline approval bill. We will be voting on cloture on the motion to 
proceed in about 15 minutes or so.
  I believe we have a bipartisan majority. We have 60 sponsors of the 
legislation, and we will have some others join us in voting to proceed 
on the bill.
  That is important, not just because this is bipartisan legislation, 
important energy legislation for our country but, as I have said 
before, this is an opportunity for all the Members of this body--
Republican and Democrat--to come forward with their amendments in an 
open amendment process and really have an energy debate.
  Let's talk about the energy future of this country and let's bring 
forward amendments to this legislation that can be good amendments and 
help us build the right kind of energy plan for our country.
  What I would point out about this Keystone Pipeline approval bill is 
that as we work to build an energy plan for this country, as we work to 
produce more energy so we are truly energy secure--a lot of people call 
it energy independence--but the way I define it is energy security for 
our country where we produce more energy than we consume, so we control 
our destiny. If we produce more energy than we consume, then we control 
our destiny when it comes to energy. But to do that, we would not only 
have to produce that energy, we have to have the infrastructure to move 
it safely, cost effectively, and efficiently from where it is produced 
to where it is consumed.
  We have this incredible opportunity with Canada to have North 
American energy security. We are working with our closest friend and 
ally in the world. We together produce more energy than we consume, and 
we have the infrastructure in place to move it from where it is 
produced to where it is consumed in our country. Now we control our own 
destiny.
  When it comes to OPEC or when it comes to Russia or when it comes to 
China, when it comes to geopolitical events that affect the price of 
energy, we are in a strong situation. Look at what is going on in 
Western Europe right now. Look at what is going on in Ukraine. They are 
in a tremendously difficult situation because they are dependent on 
Russia for their energy, for their natural gas, at a time when Vladimir 
Putin is undertaking very aggressive action in Europe. He is invading 
Ukraine. He has taken Crimea. He continues his aggressive efforts. And 
at the same time the European Union is trying to support Ukraine, 
Ukraine is fighting with Russia. This is a situation where Ukraine is 
depending upon Russia for its energy.
  Does America really want to be in that kind of a situation in the 
future when we have real problems in the Middle East, when we have real 
problems with fundamentalists, Islamic jihadists conducting terror on 
our people and other freedom-loving people around the world? Do we want 
to be in a situation where we continue to depend upon the Middle East 
for our oil?
  Well, the answer to that is no. The American people resoundingly 
answer that question--no.

[[Page S145]]

  Also, the American people well know that the reason gas prices at the 
pump today are lower is not because OPEC just decided to give us a 
Christmas present. They know the reason energy prices are low in this 
country, that when they pull up to the pump they are saving money, is 
because we are producing so much more energy in this country and we are 
getting more energy from Canada.
  Unless OPEC cuts back their production, more supply drives prices 
down. So it is not only about low prices now, it is about making sure 
we are able to control our energy destiny in the future. We have to 
take a long-term view. It is working.
  Of the 18 million barrels of oil a day this country consumes, we now 
produce 11 million barrels in this country. We are up to 11 million 
barrels that we produce in this country of the total we consume, so we 
are still importing about 7 million barrels a day.
  Canada is now up to 3 million of those 7 million barrels, so we are 
down to only importing about 4 million barrels a day, but if we keep 
working at this, we can continue to produce more in this country. 
Canada's production is continuing to grow. And if we build the 
infrastructure, we can make sure that we control that energy--North 
American energy security.
  That means not only now do our consumers and small businesses and our 
whole Nation benefit from lower energy prices, lower gas prices at the 
pump, but we have that ability to make sure we control our destiny and 
that we benefit in the future.
  Let's not repeat the mistakes of the past where we return to this 
dependency on OPEC down the road because we haven't built the 
infrastructure, we haven't worked with Canada, and we haven't brought 
our domestic industry to North America so that we truly are energy 
secure. If we don't build the necessary infrastructure, if we block the 
necessary infrastructure, we can't build that energy plan for the 
future.
  I have heard my counterparts, some of the critics, say: Well, it is 
not up to us to issue a building permit for infrastructure.
  Really? So you mean it is the President's job and it is Congress's 
job to block critical energy that will get us to energy security? Our 
job is to block it? Our job is to prevent the very infrastructure we 
need to build energy security for this country, to block the private 
investment, the $8 billion that private companies want to spend to 
build this infrastructure, to create jobs, to produce more energy in 
North America, and to help make this country's energy security? The 
President's job and this body's job is to block the ability of our 
country and Canada to build this necessary infrastructure? Well, I 
don't think so.
  If you want to put it in terms of: Oh, well, we are not supposed to 
issue a building permit--really? So our job is to prevent the building 
of critical infrastructure even when it does not cost one single 
penny--not one penny--of government money?
  This is almost $8 billion of private investment that will generate 
hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue--State, local, and Federal. 
Every State on the route has approved it.
  There is an idea somehow we are jumping the gun after 6 years? Let's 
see, it has been in process for 6 years. Every State on the route has 
approved it. We are not spending any Federal money. We are saying our 
job as a Congress and the President is to block that kind of 
investment, block that kind of job creation, block that kind of energy 
development, and block our ability to get to energy security for this 
country.
  Then there is this argument: Oh, well, it is TransCanada. It is one 
company. It is only one company, so it really doesn't matter.
  Really? Well, if you were a company--a Canadian company or a U.S. 
company--and you were about to build infrastructure so that we could 
continue to produce more energy in this country, would you do it? If, 
in spite of the process that the Federal Government has to approve this 
project, where all of the requirements have been met--not once, but 
over and over again--and Congress and the President continue to block 
your ability to build that infrastructure, are you going to jump up and 
spend billions of dollars and do it? I doubt it.
  And isn't that really what this is all about? That is what it is 
about, isn't it? It is for the folks, for the extreme environmental 
groups that don't want the development of fossil fuels--they are going 
to block it. This is sending the message and making sure they shut her 
down here. That has to be music to OPEC's ears. I have to believe that 
OPEC is going: Boy, that is great; they are not going to build the 
infrastructure in their country to produce the energy.
  That is going to keep OPEC in business.
  There is another country that I think will be very pleased, really 
excited, if this project gets blocked, and that is China. China is so 
anxious to get this oil, they are trying to buy that production in 
Canada. Because, make no mistake, if the energy doesn't come to the 
United States, it is going somewhere else, and it is most likely going 
to China.
  So when we get back in that situation down the road when oil prices 
move back up, energy demand goes back up, and we have prevented our 
industry from growing--and Canada is sending all the oil to China, and 
we have to go back hat in hand to OPEC, Venezuela, and all of these 
countries, remember----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent to continue for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Reserving the right to object. Is the vote scheduled 
for 4 minutes from now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the vote is scheduled for 5:30 p.m.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I am happy if the Senator speaks until the time of the 
vote, but I think we should keep to the vote schedule.
  Mr. HOEVEN. What time is the vote scheduled?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote is scheduled at 5:30 p.m. That would 
leave the Senator 2 minutes.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I note the presence of the chairman of the Energy 
Committee. I defer to her for some time if she wishes to speak before 
the vote. That would be my question, whether we could get maybe a 
couple of minutes for that purpose. I can certainly wrap up in a couple 
of minutes.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I defer to my colleague, the sponsor of 
this legislation, Senator Hoeven from North Dakota, to conclude his 
remarks within the remaining time so that we can begin our vote at 5:30 
p.m. We appreciate his leadership on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I will wrap up on this note.
  Let's not get back into the same predicament we have gotten ourselves 
into before. Let's build this vital energy infrastructure so we can 
develop energy security for our country, together with Canada.
  The other point I want to make is on the environmental point: No 
significant environmental impact. That is the finding of the Obama 
administration's environmental impact statement done by the State 
Department. That is their own report: No significant environmental 
impact.
  I look forward to having more discussion on the environmental aspects 
as well.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will state.
  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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to

[[Page S146]]

proceed to S. 1, a bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Rubio).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Cassidy) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the 
Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) 
are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 63, nays 32, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 3 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     King
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                                NAYS--32

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Warren
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brown
     Cassidy
     Reid
     Rubio
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 63, the nays are 
32.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.

                          ____________________