[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 21, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S311-S338]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                        KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT

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

       A bill (S. 1) to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

  Pending:

       Murkowski amendment No. 2, in the nature of a substitute.
       Fischer amendment No. 18 (to amendment No. 2), to provide 
     limits on the designation of new federally protected land.
       Schatz amendment No. 58 (to amendment No. 2), to express 
     the sense of Congress regarding climate change.
       Murkowski (for Lee) amendment No. 33 (to amendment No. 2), 
     to conform citizen suits under the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973.
       Durbin amendment No. 69 (to amendment No. 2), to ensure 
     that the storage and transportation of petroleum coke is 
     regulated in a manner that ensures the protection of public 
     and ecological health.
       Murkowski (for Toomey) amendment No. 41 (to amendment No. 
     2), to continue cleaning up fields and streams while 
     protecting neighborhoods, generating affordable energy, and 
     creating jobs.
       Whitehouse amendment No. 29 (to amendment No. 2), to 
     express the sense of the Senate that climate change is real 
     and not a hoax.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are back again with the Keystone XL 
Pipeline, S. 1, the bipartisan 60-sponsor bill in front of us. We had a 
good day yesterday debating three amendments and ultimately disposing 
of them. We have a half dozen of them in front of us this morning and 
this afternoon.
  I think it is worth noting, there have been several Members who have 
come to the floor to give comments about the State of the Union last 
evening delivered by President Obama. It was his sixth official State 
of the Union Address. It marked the sixth address that he has given to 
the Congress and the Nation while this project has been under review 
the whole time throughout his entire administration. Every one of those 
State of the Union Addresses has happened at a time when the Keystone 
XL application has been pending. It puts into context how long we have 
been considering this legislation.
  The President didn't really speak much to the demerits or the 
opposition to Keystone XL--it was basically a quick reference--but he 
did in a manner attempt to compare this bipartisan, subsidy-free bill 
to major taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects. Whether it is our 
highways or bridges, the need is clear. But I think we also recognize 
those are projects that are taxpayer-funded that will require millions 
and perhaps billions of dollars a year. What we are talking about with 
the Keystone XL is something where we don't have any Federal subsidies 
going in. It is not taxpayer-funded. I think it is important to make 
sure that we understand the difference.
  What we didn't hear last night was how this project could be 
advanced. Once again, there was no indicator. I would like to remind 
everyone that we are sitting at over 2,300 days where we have not had a 
Presidential decision. I think the good news for us here on this floor 
is the debate on this issue is not going to last that long, thankfully.
  Again, we moved into regular order, and I think it was helpful for 
Members of the body to not only know that there was a series of 
amendments that were called up, but that we were able to have debate on 
them, and then we were able to dispense with them.
  The majority of the Senate voted to table two of those proposals, but 
then when it came to the Portman-Shaheen bill, the energy efficiency 
provision, we were able to move that by a vote of 94 to 5, 
demonstrating again a great deal of support for this small energy 
efficiency provision. I wish it had been bigger, in fairness to the 
bill sponsors who have been working so hard for years on that. We just 
advanced a very small piece of that. I think we have more to do in the 
area of energy efficiency, and I am looking forward to working with 
them on that.
  What we have in front of us now at this point in the process is we 
have a bill that will approve the cross-border permit for the Keystone 
XL Pipeline and we will work to deal with some aspects of energy 
efficiency. I think that is some good progress.
  Once again this morning I will encourage Senators. We have called for 
an open amendment process, but as the leader has reminded us, it is not 
open-ended. We are not going to be on this bill indefinitely. So move 
to file your amendments. If you want a vote on them, you need to be 
filing them now and talking to us now.
  We are at 77 amendments that have been filed and that was as of last 
night. So there is clearly already a line, and my hope is we will be 
able to dispense with this half dozen today.
  Briefly speaking to the measures that we have from each side, we have 
Senator Fischer's amendment 18; Schatz amendment No. 58; No. 33 is the 
Lee amendment; we have Senator Durbin's amendment 69; we have Senator 
Toomey's amendment 41, as well as the Whitehouse amendment No. 29.
  I spoke a little bit on a couple of these measures yesterday, and I 
will be speaking more this afternoon before we move, hopefully, to 
votes.
  I do want to take a minute before I turn it over to Senator Cantwell 
to be recognized and then to Senator Hoeven. There have been several 
sense-of-the-Senate amendments that have been filed--presented on the 
issue of climate change. I think it is important for people to note 
that in order to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, as the legislation 
itself lays out, there is no climate change provision that is required. 
I find it a little ironic that in neither of the two pending amendments 
that we have before us--Senator Schatz's and Senator Whitehouse's--
neither of them actually quotes the parts of the State Department's 
final EIS that explains, I think in pretty fair detail, that this 
project will not significantly contribute to climate change. In fact, 
the State Department found that without the Keystone XL Pipeline 
greenhouse gas emissions associated with transporting Canadian oil 
could actually increase, and the estimate is increasing somewhere 
between 28 and as high as 42 percent. One might ask, how can that be? 
The reality is that not only is a pipeline less costly and more 
efficient, but it has the least environmental impact in terms of any 
additional emissions.
  So I think it is important to recognize that when we are talking 
about the oil coming from Canada, oil that Canada is producing for lots 
of different reasons that benefit Canada, that that oil is going to 
move. So our challenge is, is that oil going to move in a manner that 
benefits Americans with increased jobs and opportunities? Is it going 
to help fill our refineries in the gulf coast? Is it going to help from 
a safety perspective in terms of transporting a product in the safest 
manner as well as providing the least environmental impact?
  The State Department also provided in the EIS that:

       Approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, 
     including the proposed project, 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 based on expected oil prices, oil sands supply 
     costs, transport costs, and supply and demand scenarios.

  I think we are going to have some discussion this afternoon about 
what is contained in the State Department EIS. At 1,000 pages the full 
EIS is substantive. There is an executive summary that helps us all out 
and distills all of this. But I think it is important that Members look 
at what that report outlines.
  I previously mentioned that we have about 77 amendments in front of 
us that have been filed at this point in time. We have nine, as of this 
morning, separate sense-of-the-Senate or sense-of-the-Congress 
amendments relating to climate change.
  I have noted that this is the first time we have had an energy-
related bill on the floor in a while where there has been an 
opportunity for debate. You will recall that this same measure was on 
the floor in December when the Democrats were in charge. The floor was 
managed at that point in time by the Senator from Louisiana, obviously 
very passionate in her support of the Keystone XL Pipeline. But in that 
debate there was no opportunity for amendments. You didn't see 
colleagues on either side of the aisle able to offer any amendments. We 
didn't see any amendments on climate. Now we have nine climate-related 
amendments here. So when you think about the urgency, we are having 
folks coming down and saying we must act on this now. I will remind 
people the reason we are able to

[[Page S312]]

have this debate and the reason we are able to have votes on this issue 
is because we are operating under a regular order process where we are 
allowing for amendments, whether it is on issues such as climate change 
or whether it is on issues such as dealing with exports as we took up 
yesterday. We are not going to agree in many of these areas, but at 
least we are going to get back to being a deliberative body that not 
only talks about issues, but has an opportunity to vote on them.
  So, again, I think we are probably going to hear a lot of different 
conversations about climate change.
  I want to point out an article before I conclude this morning. This 
is an article that ran November 27, 2014, just a few months ago. It ran 
in the Financial Post, and it is entitled ``New emissions from Canada's 
oil sands `extremely low,' says IEA's chief economist.'' The article 
has some interesting quotes that I think are relevant to our 
discussion.
  The first line of that article states:

       As an energy advisor to some of the world's most developed 
     economies, Fatih Birol worries about critical issues 
     including security of energy and the impact of fossil fuels 
     on the climate. One issue he does not spend any time worrying 
     about, however, is carbon emissions from oil sands.

  Mr. Birol is quoted as saying: ``There is a lot of discussion on oil 
sands projects in Canada and the United States and other parts of the 
world, but to be frank, the additional CO2 emissions coming 
from the oil sands is extremely low.''
  So here we have a statement by IEA's chief economist. If we combine 
that with what we have contained in the State Department's final EIS--
again, I think these are important statements of support or fact to 
have on the record.
  As we are debating these amendments today, I encourage everyone to 
keep in mind that oftentimes much of what we hear can be a little 
amped-up. I understand the passion that goes on, but we need to make 
sure we are looking critically at the facts as they exist.
  I am just going to conclude my comments this morning by saying that 
what is happening in Canada--the simple facts are that Canada is 
producing its oil and it will move that oil to markets. Canada is our 
strongest partner, and they supply us with more oil than any of our 
other trading partners. So Canada is going to continue to produce oil, 
and they will move that oil.
  The question is, Who will ultimately benefit from that production of 
oil? Will the United States gain the benefit of those construction 
jobs? Will the United States gain the benefit from the crude that will 
come down through the line and go into the gulf coast and benefit from 
the refineries that are built to handle and process that heavy crude 
coming from the north?
  I want the United States to be a participant in this important 
project for a lot of different reasons, and I am encouraged that more 
than 60 of my colleagues seem to share that view.
  We will continue the discussion through the series of amendments we 
have before us today. I know my colleague from North Dakota is prepared 
to speak, but at this time I will turn it over to my ranking member, 
the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Alaska 
helping us to work through this process and being down here to talk 
about how we move forward. I heard her say we are obviously thinking 
about how we move through the amendment process, and I am sure she and 
I will get a chance to talk about the potential votes we will have 
later on as we continue with this amendment process.
  Like her, I wish to add a few comments to this morning's comments 
about the State of the Union Address last night because I do feel as 
though it was the first time we heard a speech from a President of the 
United States that was all about an innovation economy.
  As someone from Seattle and the Pacific Northwest, I know a lot about 
innovation, and I was glad to hear he basically spoke about the whole 
perspective of what it takes to have an innovation economy and how we 
have to think about research and development and investing in our 
workforce. He mentioned trade and a variety of things that are all 
components of an innovation economy and how we can continue to move 
forward. I was very glad to hear that level of innovation, including 
his community college effort because it is about training the workforce 
for the future.
  I also heard him talk about making improvements in infrastructure. 
The one thing I didn't hear him talk about was the issue of plug-in 
vehicles or electric cars. The reason I bring that up is because I 
think for most of the Bush administration, and maybe even some of the 
earlier days of this administration, I constantly heard talk about how 
we had to get electric vehicles and plug-in cars so we could get off 
our dependence on foreign oil.
  We should take pride that in last night's speech we didn't have to 
listen to that because we have made progress in plug-in electric cars. 
Plug-in electric cars are in the marketplace, and we are making great 
progress in that area. We are also making progress in getting off 
foreign oil, and we are seeing how fuel efficiency is having a positive 
impact on our savings.
  The President of the United States was asking what is the next level 
of innovation we have to do and how do we move forward while still 
protecting ourselves from what has been the deterioration of our 
environment from the greenhouse gases and the threat it makes to our 
planet.
  Again, being from the Pacific Northwest, I consider those threats to 
be very real. The shellfish industry has been almost ruined due to the 
lack of oxygen in the water and the amount of carbon that basically 
sinks into our oceans and causes damage to the shellfish.
  I see the Presiding Officer is also from the great State of Alaska.
  When it comes to sources of feeding for Pacific Northwest salmon, 
there are not a lot of great food sources for the salmon. Climate 
change is having an effect on the ecosystem and the economy, so you can 
bet that climate issues are very important to our State. Those issues 
are no longer hidden and there is no longer a way to escape from that. 
It is on our plate right now.

  The President of the United States said: Let's deal with that and 
move forward, and instead of talking about one pipeline, let's talk 
about an energy plan and an infrastructure investment for the Nation.
  I will point out to my colleagues: You are becoming dangerously close 
to saying we can't do something like Portman. How many times were my 
colleagues from Ohio and New Hampshire held up on energy efficiency 
because no one would let us vote on that? How long--1 year, 2 years? 
Then yesterday we finally had a vote, and 95 of our colleagues voted 
yes on moving forward on energy efficiency.
  I will also point out that energy efficiency is, I believe, key to 
our economy of the future. If the United States is a leader in making 
energy--no matter what source it comes from--more efficient, we will 
write the playbook around the globe because so many people will want to 
make very dear energy resources more usable, better utilized, and have 
lower costs to their individual businesses and consumers.
  Energy efficiency is incredibly important, but we never got to energy 
efficiency. It is almost as if the other side of the aisle is saying: 
You will only get energy efficiency if we pair it with other 
legislation where we are rolling back environmental rules, and that is 
the objection I have and the people from the State of Washington have 
as well.
  People want people to play by the rules. They want to know that if 
you propose a pipeline, you will actually follow the laws to protect 
the environment, such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and 
follow the process of what is in the public interest. We should be 
having that debate. We should not usurp the President of the United 
States in determining what is the national interest of this country.
  At the very time the State Department was saying to this company, 
TransCanada, you have a pipeline proposal we don't like because it goes 
right through an aquifer, at the very moment when the State Department 
was telling them we don't like the proposal and you need to adhere to 
the environmental laws, the same people were in Congress trying to get 
Senators and House Members to vote on

[[Page S313]]

legislation that would have said pass the pipeline right through the 
aquifer.
  I believe the President should be given the due diligence to drive 
home with this foreign company the fact that we have a national 
interest, that this national interest will be met, and that we will set 
the standard for whether these environmental laws are going to be 
complied with. I don't believe we should be usurping them. I think my 
colleagues are now offering amendments on the other side that also 
usurp other environmental laws.
  I hope my colleagues will think about this because it will certainly 
give the Senator from Alaska and myself something to think about. As we 
try to move forward on energy legislation, we are going to have to 
think about how we are going to pass something that has bipartisan 
support.
  Since I have been on the energy committee--and I have been on the 
committee now the entire time I have been in Congress--I have had the 
opinion that you should not hold up good energy legislation just to try 
to get bad energy legislation. I have the opinion that we should pass 
energy bills every year. That is the transformation our country is 
going under.
  I wish we would have helped the Senators who wanted to usher in 
energy efficiency 2 years ago, but it is telling that 95 of our 
colleagues have always thought that was an easy lift. We should keep 
moving forward on those issues that are easy lifts and ensure the 
businesses that need predictability and certainty that we can move 
forward on that.
  Another example is the clean energy tax credits. While we are trying 
to overwrite environmental rules to give a foreign interest a pipeline 
through our country--I should say, people thought the pipeline that 
went through Yellowstone was safe, and we just had a big spill there 
this past weekend. It is not as if these spills don't happen.
  We had a colleague from Michigan talk about the spill that happened 
in Kalamazoo. I just saw the Commandant of the Coast Guard again last 
night at the State of the Union Address and we talked about how we 
don't have a solution for cleaning up tar sands in the water, and that 
is why we in the Pacific Northwest are so interested in this issue.
  Let's not hurry through a process of special interest when we can do 
things that we need to give predictability and certainty on, such as 
the energy tax credits that are germane and are within the boundaries 
of what Congress is supposed to be deciding on. The American people are 
asking us to debate those issues and to come up with a resolution on 
them. I don't know that the American people are asking us to override a 
process and usurp what is the right of the President to make sure our 
national interests are considered in this policy debate.
  I do appreciate the Senator from Alaska working through this process, 
and I do appreciate the fact that I think she is serious about she and 
I sitting down and talking about a larger energy bill. I pride myself 
on having a Pacific Northwest view; that is, there are things that are 
good for both Alaska and Washington and we should work on them 
together. Maybe there are some things that are well and good for Alaska 
and Washington but maybe the rest of the country doesn't agree with, 
but we will work through a process together.
  I say to my colleagues, as we look at these next tranches of votes, 
we should consider what the President said last night. We need a 
broader innovation strategy for our economy. I believe there are ways 
to get there. I think these amendments we are considering--I don't 
think we need to change the Antiquities Act. I am a big believer in the 
fact that there are some tremendous national beauties that have been 
established through the Antiquities Act both--actually by lots of 
Republican Presidents, and I don't feel we have to change the 
Antiquities Act. I certainly don't think we need to change the 
Endangered Species Act, and I don't think we need to overrule the Clean 
Air Act, as the amendment does of the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  We will have more time to talk about these amendments on the floor, 
but I hope my colleagues will understand that we want environmental 
rules to be followed, and we want people to follow a process. We want 
these issues to move forward from an energy policy that will move 
America to a 21st century energy policy and not continue to hold on to 
the 19th century pollutions that are challenging our economy.
  I am sure we are going to hear from our colleagues when they come 
down to debate these issues as it relates to greenhouse gases and other 
things. Again, I appreciate my colleague from Alaska helping us to work 
through this process. I appreciate that it is a debate and that all of 
my colleagues will have a chance to come down and express their 
opinions.
  With that, I yield back to my colleague on whatever process we are 
going to follow to go back and forth on amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the great State of Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the comments of 
the ranking member of the energy committee and her focus on energy 
innovation. I think we can look to that as not only a bright spot in 
our economy where we have seen great progress in recent years, but we 
have also seen great enthusiasm and an optimism about the future of our 
country when we allow our great minds to work on some of the problems 
of the day to get us to these advanced solutions.
  The Presiding Officer and I come from an energy-producing State. We 
are also a State that has some of the highest energy costs in the 
country. Right now in the village of Fort Yukon, they are paying $7.25 
for a gallon of fuel. Up in Kobuk--in the northwest part of the State--
they are paying $10 for a gallon of fuel. The rest of the country is 
enjoying a price break because of the drop in fuel, but in Alaska, when 
there is no neighborhood filling station that is connected to a road 
that is connected to someplace that brings people somewhere, people 
have to bring in their fuel by barge or by plane. The contract for that 
fuel in July--July's prices were not what they are now. Folks are 
locked in. Talk about being frozen in someplace--well, their prices are 
also frozen in.

  So we know and understand the challenges when it comes to energy. We 
know and understand the challenges when it comes to paying to keep your 
house warm or your lights on. We have every interest--every interest--
to make sure that we are pushing out, that we are being innovative, 
that we are being as efficient as we possibly can be when it comes to 
energy use and consumption. I want to urge us, to push us, to be really 
aggressive in pushing us toward those technologies that will allow us, 
in a small-population State that has no real energy grid, so to speak, 
to figure out how we can be more self-sufficient, get us off diesel, 
get us off $10-a-gallon oil in Kobuk, AK. We have to figure this out.
  We are talking about the challenges we face, but as we begin this 
good, robust debate on issues such as the climate, I think we need to 
be careful about what we are doing in response to the issue of a 
changing climate. If the answer is to increase energy costs, if it is 
to implement a carbon tax, if it is to make it more expensive, if it is 
to cripple our economy, then we don't have the ability to move out on 
these technologies because they are expensive.
  We need to have a strong economy. We need to figure out how we can 
address climate through adaptation, mitigation, and new technologies 
that are going to take us to cleaner fuel sources, to renewable energy 
sources we have in great abundance in Alaska and elsewhere. But it 
takes money. It takes a strong economy. So I am not willing to do 
anything that is going to put the brakes on our economic strength and 
viability.
  This is a good part of the discussion. It is very germane to where we 
are right now.
  I mentioned in my comments that we currently have six amendments 
pending to the bill. Our side would like to set up votes on these 
amendments, with a 60-vote threshold required for any amendment that is 
not germane. We are working on a side-by-side right now on the Schatz 
amendment as well as a potential modification to the Fischer amendment. 
But I don't think there is any reason why we wouldn't be voting on 
most, if not all, of the pending amendments shortly after lunch today. 
Once we have gotten through those amendments, Senator Cantwell and I 
will queue up the next batch of

[[Page S314]]

two to three amendments from each side so we can continue to make 
progress on this bill.
  At this time, I turn to my colleague Senator Hoeven, the sponsor of 
S. 1, who has been waiting to address the body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Hoeven be followed by the Senator from Vermont to speak for 10 minutes 
about an amendment he has filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to verify that I have 10 minutes 
before my time expires. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is not aware of a limit on the time 
of the Senator from North Dakota.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I don't know how much time the Senator 
from North Dakota is seeking this morning. Maybe that would help the 
Senator from Vermont in understanding the schedule.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, that is fine. I will use 10 minutes at 
this point, and I will use more later.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Vermont 
is just going to speak to an amendment he has filed. He is not seeking 
to call up the amendment; is that correct?
  Mr. LEAHY. That is correct. I will probably need about 5 or 6 
minutes.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. No objection, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, if the Senator from Vermont is only going 
to speak for 5 minutes, then I will defer to him. I may go longer than 
10 minutes, so I will defer to him if we would like to proceed at this 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his usual courtesy, 
and I appreciate it.
  As the most senior Member of this body, I have served in both the 
majority and minority numerous times, under three Democratic 
Presidents, four Republican Presidents, and Democratic and Republican 
majorities. Throughout that time, I learned that the Senate can be 
productive. The Keystone Pipeline legislation we are considering today, 
though, is not one of those productive topics.
  I hoped we would begin the 114th Congress by showing the American 
people that Congress is putting the needs of hard-working American 
families over those of powerful special interests, from job creation to 
charting a sustainable energy future for this country. We ought to be 
considering legislation that supports the highway trust fund. That 
would create tens of thousands of jobs across the country. We should be 
considering tax legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor at this time.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to respond regarding the 
legislation that is currently on the floor in several regards. I would 
like to discuss some of the environmental arguments that have been 
brought up. I wish to also reference the issue of export as well as 
touch on some of the comments of the President relative to this project 
and comments others have made regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline 
approval bill, S. 1, being the first bill we brought up.
  One of the things we hear is, well, this is a private investment, it 
is $8 billion, but we should somehow be doing something else. The 
reality is this is an $8 billion shovel-ready project, good to go. It 
is vital energy infrastructure for this country. So it is important in 
its own right. To compare it to the highway bill, which is all funded 
by Federal tax dollars, whereas this is a private investment which is 
going to generate revenues in addition to providing vital 
infrastructure and providing jobs--that is not a fair comparison.
  The point in bringing up this bill first was not only because this is 
important energy infrastructure but also because we wanted to try to 
get the Senate back to regular order, to an open amendment process. We 
just spent the last session and even before where we couldn't get 
amendments offered. Whether Republican or Democrat, we could not come 
to the floor of this body--the most deliberative body in government--
and offer amendments, have the debate, and get a vote.
  So understand that bringing up this legislation is important in its 
own right, particularly as we consider how we best build the energy 
future of the United States and have this important energy debate.
  Look what is going on at the pump right now. We pull up to the pump 
and gas is down more than a dollar. I think the national average price 
of gasoline is $2.05, when it was up between $3 and in some cases $4 in 
some markets. That is a huge savings. That is hundreds of billions of 
dollars in consumers' pockets. That didn't just happen; that happened 
because we are building the right energy future for this country.
  We are working to create energy security for the United States by 
producing more oil and gas in this country, along with other types of 
energy, and working with Canada to produce more oil and gas so we don't 
have to get it from OPEC, so OPEC doesn't get to dictate terms to 
American consumers and American businesses. And why don't they get to 
dictate terms? Because we are producing more energy. As we produce more 
energy and we get more energy from Canada, our closest friend and ally 
in the world, we become energy secure. That is more energy, that is 
more jobs, that is economic growth, that is national security, and that 
is what the American people want.
  So when we talk about why this bill is up first, it is because we 
want to build an energy plan that works for this country. We want our 
Nation to be energy secure. This is how we do it. This kind of 
infrastructure is a vital part of building that energy plan where we 
produce more energy than we consume. So, together with Canada, we truly 
have North American energy security. That means lower prices, that 
means a stronger economy, and that means we don't have to depend on 
OPEC for our energy.
  Now look what is happening. OPEC is pushing back, aren't they? We are 
now in this market fight, a fight for market share. So what do we do? 
Do we continue to build our energy resources here in this country or do 
we say: No, we are not going to build the infrastructure. We are not 
going to continue to produce more oil and gas in this country. We are 
not going to work with Canada. We are going to have Canada send that 
oil to China because they want it.
  Then we will go right back to where we were before, where our energy 
shrinks back down and we don't work with Canada, and OPEC is right back 
in business. That has to be music to OPEC's ears. They probably love it 
when they hear that the President is going to block our efforts to 
build vital energy infrastructure--and private investment, mind you, 
not taxpayer dollars--that will create hundreds of millions of dollars 
of revenue for all of these States as they collect property taxes and 
payment in lieu of taxes. OPEC is doing great.
  When we shrink our industry back down and Canada sends its energy to 
China, who is back in business? Who is back in the driver's seat? OPEC 
and the other petro-dependent countries, such as Russia. Russia 
finances virtually 50 percent or more of their economy on what? Petro 
dollars. Iran is a petro-dependent state. Do we want to be in the 
driver's seat or do we want to keep them in the driver's seat? Do we 
want to repeat history or do we want to take control of our own 
destiny? That is why this is an important issue.
  It is also an important issue because it is about getting this body 
back to a regular order so we break the gridlock. We are offering 
amendments. We are saying to Republicans and Democrats: Come down and 
offer amendments.
  We voted on three amendments yesterday. We have six pending 
amendments right now. We are looking for more. This is about breaking 
the gridlock and getting the important work of the country done.
  It is the difference between the President giving a speech wherein he 
outlines all of his initiatives--OK, everybody, do it my way--and then 
spends the second half of the speech talking about how if we do it his 
way, somehow that is a compromise--that is not the case. That versus a 
project he has talked about vetoing.

[[Page S315]]

  Let's take a look at whether this is a bipartisan project where 
people have come together.
  No. 1, it has been reviewed by the administration for more than 6 
years. How long do we have to hold up private enterprise before we let 
them build the vital energy infrastructure we need--infrastructure that 
will not only move Canadian crude to our refineries but will move light 
sweet Balkan crude from my State and from Montana to other refineries 
as well. So it is moving domestic crude as well as Canadian crude. If 
we can't move it on this pipeline, it will be 1,400 railcars a day. How 
do we move our agriculture products and other goods when we have that 
kind of congestion on our railroads?
  The whole point is that the President talks about coming together on 
issues that have broad bipartisan support. Let's think about it. We 
have broad bipartisan support in the House. This bill has already 
passed the House. We went through cloture in this body with 63 votes. 
The last time I checked, 63 votes out of 100 is a pretty strong 
majority. So we have bipartisan majority support in the Congress.
  Second, in the polling over the 6 years that this project has been 
under review and under study, the public has overwhelmingly supported 
it. They said: Yes, we want to be energy independent in this country. 
We don't want to get our oil from OPEC. We would rather get it from 
Canada and produce it here at home, and we need the infrastructure to 
move it around. So in the polls, 65, 70 percent of the people 
consistently said: Build it. Build it.
  By the way, all six States on the route, including Montana, South 
Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, have all approved it. It 
wasn't as though they had to rush because they had 6 years to do it, 
but they have all approved it. Is the U.S. Federal Government the only 
entity that can make a good decision around here? All of these States, 
their legislatures, their Governors--they don't know what they are 
doing? The only one who can make a decision about whether this works or 
not is the administration?
  What are we saying to our friends in Canada? They are our largest 
trading partner in the world. Think about our relationship with Canada. 
What if the situation were reversed and Canada wanted to work with us 
on a project of this importance to them and we said: No, go work with 
China.
  When we think about all of these things, it brings home the reality. 
People can have their opinions on all kinds of issues, but those are 
the facts as they relate to this project.
  So now I just want to take a few minutes and reference a couple of 
specific things, both on the environmental aspects that have been 
brought up and then also on whether this oil will be exported or used 
here at home. Again, this is an open-amendment process. So people can 
come down and offer amendments on climate change or all those other 
things. Everybody is entitled to their opinion and to advocate for 
whatever they want to advocate for. But at the end of the day, we are 
going to keep bringing them back to the facts on this project. Those 
facts were laid out in not one but five reports, three draft 
environmental impact statements and two final impact statements done by 
the Obama administration's Department of State.
  When we come down and people want to use different discussions and 
talk about their views on climate change and all these other things, 
they can do that and we can vote on amendments in regard to those 
things. They can come down and talk about their views on whether oil 
should or shouldn't be exported and all of those kinds of things. They 
can offer amendments on them, and that is the process. But at the end 
of the day, we are going to work to bring them back to the facts. The 
facts are this is the finding in the Obama administration's 
environmental impact statements--three draft statements and two final 
statements done over 5 years. The Keystone XL Pipeline will have no 
significant environmental impact according to the U.S. Department of 
State environmental impact statements.
  There is one thing I want to add to that. I talked about the fact 
that if we don't build a pipeline, if we are going to get the oil, it 
is going to have 1,400 railcars coming in here on a daily basis. The 
environmental impact statements point out that we get more greenhouse 
gas without the pipeline than with it because without the pipeline we 
are either going to move that by railcar or it is going to China. And 
if it goes to China, it goes in tanker ships, and they produce more 
greenhouse gas. It is refined in Chinese refineries, and they have 
higher emissions than our refineries. And we still have to bring our 
oil in from the Middle East. So now you have more greenhouse emissions 
from those tankers. The environmental impact statement itself points 
out that we have more emissions without the pipeline than if we 
actually build it.
  I also want to take a minute to talk about the effort going on in 
Alberta for carbon capture and sequestration. In other words, one of 
the things I have always talked about in terms of building the right 
kind of energy plan for this country is that instead of holding up the 
investment, we empower the investment. If we empower private 
investment, we not only produce more energy here at home and with our 
closest ally in the world, we not only produce more energy, we not only 
get the infrastructure we need to move it--now understand, I am talking 
about private investment, just getting the government out of the way 
and letting the private sector do what they do. If we empower that 
investment, we not only get the infrastructure we need to move energy 
around, we not only get the new technologies that develop that energy 
more cost-effectively and more efficiently, we get better environmental 
stewardship.
  New technologies produce better environmental stewardship. We are 
seeing that over and over. Take directional drilling in my State of 
North Dakota. We now drill down 2 miles off one ECO-Pad. We can put as 
many as 16 wells on one ECO-Pad. We drill down 2 miles, and we go out 3 
miles and more in all different directions underground. Whereas before 
we would have seen wells all over the terrain, now we see one spot 
where there is a well for miles, and it is producing for miles around.
  Think how much you reduced that environmental footprint, right? It is 
the same with carbon capture sequestration. People talk about clean 
coal technology. They talk about carbon capture sequestration. There 
are other fossil fuels such as oil and gas. The only way we are going 
to get to that is by stimulating private investment and encouraging not 
only the research and development that creates those technologies but 
actually getting them to deploy those technologies. That is exactly 
what is happening right now in the oil sands up in the Province of 
Alberta.
  Since 1990 the greenhouse gas footprint of oil produced in the oil 
sands has gone down 28 percent. Because of better drilling techniques, 
because of cogeneration, because of other processes that have been put 
in place, the greenhouse gas emissions on a per-barrel basis for the 
oil producing oil sands has gone down by almost a third, 28 percent. 
Right now major companies are continuing not only to produce more oil 
in the oil sands but to find ways to reduce the greenhouse gas and do 
what is called carbon capture and sequestration--carbon capture and 
storage.
  I will just touch on two of those for a minute and then relinquish 
the floor to the good Senator from Vermont, because there is more that 
I will pick up on related to this environmental aspect as we debate 
this legislation, as well as this whole issue of making sure that we 
get our country to energy security. But let me just touch for a minute 
on two projects. Exxon is one of the companies that produces oil up in 
the oil sands region, and they are investing on the order of $10 
billion in that oil development and production. Their Kearl project, 
which is a huge part of it, will use cogeneration for steam and low-
energy extraction processes to recover oil and heat integration between 
the extraction and the treatment facilities to minimize energy 
consumption. As a result, oil produced from Kearl will have about the 
same life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions as many other crude oils 
refined in the United States as a result of technologies which 
significantly enhance environmental performance.
  Other environmental innovations for Kearl include onsite water 
storage to

[[Page S316]]

eliminate river withdrawals and low-flow periods and progressive land 
reclamation which will return the land to the boreal forest.
  The plan is this. They are developing these new technologies so the 
environmental footprint is the same as conventional drilling. That is 
what they are working to develop. How else are we going to develop this 
technology to reduce the carbon footprint if we continue to block these 
investments? That is what we have heard from opponents of the project 
is: Oh, well, gee, we don't want to have oil from Canada if it has 
higher greenhouse gas emissions or a higher environmental footprint.
  Yet we pointed out that oil produced in California, oil that produced 
in Venezuela right now has the same level of carbon emissions, and we 
have huge projects going on up here to actually reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions and develop that technology that will not only reduce the 
environmental footprint up here and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions 
up here but technology that we can use in the United States and around 
the globe.
  That is how we get better environmental stewardship, by developing 
those technologies that help us do it. And who better to accomplish it, 
who better than the ingenuity of American companies and Americans--
American entrepreneurs. That is how we make it happen. So the reality 
is--another one is the Quest project that Shell is undertaking. They 
are working right now with the Provincial government in Alberta on 
carbon capture and storage. So the Province of Alberta actually has a 
program where they work with these companies on carbon capture and 
storage. This is a tremendous opportunity to develop those technologies 
we hear talked about on this floor so often if we are willing to work 
with these companies and allow them to make the investments to do it.
  My question to opponents or critics to the project is: How in the 
world are we going to develop these new technologies to improve 
environmental stewardship if we block the very projects that are trying 
to do it?
  I see the Senator from Vermont is here, and so I want to provide him 
with his time to introduce his amendment, as well as the Senator from 
Louisiana. I will stop at this point. We will continue this debate, but 
I want to end on this very important subject by saying, again, the 
environmental impact shows we will have higher greenhouse gases without 
this project versus with it. Again, I understand people can come down 
and talk about their opinions, but that is what the reports determine--
five reports done over 6 years. Furthermore, what I am pointing out is 
that doesn't even take into account the kind of carbon capture and 
other projects that are being done in a huge way up here to develop 
really the technologies that are not only going to help us in terms of 
reducing emissions and the environmental impacts of energy production 
in the oil sands but will help us in the United States and technology 
that can be adopted in other countries around the globe.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friend from North Dakota for his usual courtesy 
shown earlier. Unfortunately, I had a nose bleed, and I had to stop my 
speech. I think I am not used to the elevation--the altitude of the 
Senate--but after over 40 years I should be.
  I was saying earlier, I had hoped we begin this 114th Congress by 
showing the American people that Congress is putting the needs of hard-
working American families first. I wish we were considering legislation 
to support the Highway Trust Fund. That supports tens of thousands of 
jobs around the country in every one of our States. I wish we were 
considering tax legislation to bring investments to our small local 
businesses and encouraging energy efficiency in construction and 
investment. I wish we were finding places to support the educational 
pursuits of our children. I would like to maintain our status as a 
premier leader on the world stage.
  Instead, we are considering legislation that puts Canadian tar 
sands--which are intended for export, not to be used in the United 
States--as our priority. The pipeline will support 35 permanent jobs--
just 35--not hundreds, not thousands--35. I would like to be 
considering legislation that creates thousands of jobs. It is hard not 
to question whether the new Senate majority is truly focused on the 
needs of hardworking Americans.
  Some who support the legislation claim the pipeline is truly ``shovel 
ready.'' They claim the project has been thoroughly studied and 
analyzed, and that the Administration sat for 6 years with no decision 
on the permit.
  Even before the Nebraska Supreme Court recently released its decision 
on the location of this pipeline, the Republican leadership said this 
should be our priority even ahead of that decision. The decision did 
not clarify lingering questions about the process. In fact, the 
majority of the justices said the decision to circumvent the public 
process and block Nebraskans' ability to raise concerns about the 
pipeline was unconstitutional. Four of the seven justices said that it 
is unconstitutional under State law. But in their state procedure, you 
need a supermajority of 5 of the 7 justices to halt this project, so 
the landowners' appeal was rejected.
  What bothers me is not only that the majority opinion is being 
ignored in Nebraska but that the legislation approved last week by the 
House in consideration here would remove consideration of all appeals. 
You have to take them out of local Federal courts and put them before 
the DC Circuit. In other words, if you are in a State where this 
pipeline goes through your community and you have a question, you would 
have to make an appeal to the DC Circuit. What that is saying is that 
Congress believes that Washington knows best. Frankly, the people in my 
State of Vermont--and I suspect in States across the country--would 
prefer to trust the courts in their States.
  We ought to be showing the American people that Congress cares more 
about the public process and the public's access to their courts, than 
about the wishes of foreign special interests. That is why I have 
offered an amendment that would strike the judicial review provision 
and restore the role of local federal district courts in reviewing 
challenges arising from the Keystone Pipeline.
  The majority leader promised an open debate and open amendment 
process. I appreciate that. I certainly have concerns about 
circumventing what would be normal court procedure and the President's 
approval process, and I want to be able to address that. But more than 
that, I hope this debate can be an open and honest conversation, not 
about a pipeline that supports special interests but about the 
direction in which our country is moving on sustainable energy, on job 
creation, and on issues as fundamental to all Americans--Republicans or 
Democrats--as who will have access to our courts. Will it just be 
special interests or will it be the American people? I prefer the 
American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I have an amendment on this important 
bill at the desk, amendment No. 80. I am not going to offer that 
amendment now because the minority side is blocking the offering and 
calling up of additional amendments until we dispose of those presently 
called up. I want to do that right now. But hopefully, I will be doing 
that in the very near future. I look forward to a full debate and a 
vote on this amendment, probably in the next tranche of amendments on 
the bill.
  My amendment is about energy. It is about a very crucial part of the 
domestic policy, something I believe will absolutely be a huge positive 
incentive and factor to allow us to produce even more American energy, 
to become even more energy independent, and to provide an even greater 
boost to our economy; that is, through revenue sharing, sharing the 
revenue produced by domestic energy production with the producing 
States.
  That is fair for two reasons: one, because those producing States do 
bear costs and burdens and impacts, including environmental impacts, 
and, two, providing that incentive is the most important way we can 
boost even further important domestic energy production. That energy 
production is vital for our country and our economy. In fact, we are 
not in recession right now because of those U.S. energy jobs.

[[Page S317]]

  If it were not for those oil and gas and related jobs in America, we 
would still be in a technical recession right now. Last night President 
Obama talked glowingly of the state of our economy. I think he 
exaggerated that significantly. However, we would be in a technical 
recession and we would be in a far different and worse place were it 
not for those domestic oil and gas and energy jobs. That is what this 
amendment would boost and would improve even further.
  Again, the heart of this amendment is revenue sharing, establishing 
and expanding revenue sharing for producing States. So rather than all 
the royalty and revenue produced by this domestic production just going 
to the Federal Treasury, we need to share that. A lot will go to the 
Federal Treasury. Most will go to the Federal Treasury. But we need to 
give producing States a fair share.
  Again, as I stated, that is for two reasons--two very important, very 
basic reasons. First of all, those States bear a burden. They have 
impacts from that production, including environmental impacts. They 
need funds to deal with those impacts. It is manageable and it is worth 
doing, but there are impacts.
  Secondly, and maybe even more importantly, providing that revenue 
sharing for producing States--host States--is the most important way 
that we will get more producing States, that we will get more host 
States, that we will have more American energy. So that is what this is 
all about.
  My amendment, again, will be amendment No. 80. I look forward to a 
vote on the Senate floor soon. It is simple and straightforward. It 
does several important things. First, it would expedite Outer 
Continental Shelf lease sales and move forward with a positive OCS 
lease plan. By expediting leasing and opening up more areas to 
production, we can create jobs and further enhance and build our 
manufacturing renaissance and our American energy revolution.
  In recognizing concerns for production in the North Atlantic Planning 
Area as well as the North Aleutian Planning Area in Alaska, this 
proposal excludes lease sales in those particular regions. Secondly, 
the bill would increase revenue sharing for Gulf States, and it would 
establish revenue sharing for brand new production in other areas, such 
as Alaska and the east coast.
  Again, revenue sharing is fair, and it is the most powerful, positive 
thing we can do to get more States into the act in a positive way of 
producing American energy, helping our economy, and helping our energy 
independence. So that would provide revenue sharing for the first time 
for the Atlantic States of Virginia, North Carolina, and South 
Carolina. It would provide that revenue sharing for the first time for 
new production we would be authorizing for Alaska--a clear net gain for 
North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina, and Alaska.
  This is critical. I know my colleagues from those States are all very 
supportive of that offshore energy activity. So again, for Alaska, for 
the first time, Alaska would enjoy revenue sharing with the potential 
for significant dollars from offshore production going to Alaska. Now, 
one might ask: What about the Federal revenue impact? What about the 
fiscal impact? This amendment is fully offset in terms of the Federal 
Treasury. It is fully offset with revenue from two sources: No. 1, 
expedited and increased lease sales in our OCS that will produce more 
Federal revenue, and No. 2, trimming our Federal workforce by 
attrition, a policy laid out by the Simpson-Bowles Commission--
bipartisan, straightforward, and exactly what we need to do in a 
fiscally responsible way.
  Now, on that piece, the legislation would not fire anyone. It would 
simply reduce the Federal workforce through attrition. For every three 
Federal workers who retire, only one could be hired. That is exactly 
what Simpson-Bowles proposed. Two exemptions exist to this rule that 
could be used by the President in a state of war or extraordinary 
emergency--again, exactly the Simpson-Bowles proposal.
  This amendment is very important in the area of energy and to be fair 
to producing States and to be a powerful incentive--the single most 
powerful incentive possible to get more producing States, more American 
production into the act. That is vital for our energy independence. It 
is also vital for our economy. This amendment, No. 80, would be a big, 
positive boost over time for our economy.
  As I said, right now we would be in a recession still were it not for 
those American energy jobs. That energy renaissance has led the way in 
our economy. But for those jobs, we would still be in a recession. This 
can make a good thing better. This can provide more incentives to go 
further in a powerful, responsible way. It will also be a responsible 
way on the environment.
  Let me note that in Louisiana, you know what we do with our revenue 
sharing? We spend all of it on environmental concerns, mostly coastal 
restoration. We are losing our coastline. We are losing a football 
field of Louisiana costal area every 38 minutes--every 38 minutes, 24 
hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. That is the biggest 
environmental issue we have by far. That is what this money goes to in 
Louisiana--proper environmental stewardship.
  So with that, I urge bipartisan support of this important amendment. 
I look forward to formally calling it up soon, after we vote on the 
pending amendments early this afternoon. I look forward to a vote on 
this on the Senate floor--hopefully, a strong bipartisan vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                            Amendment No. 58

  Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, yesterday I offered an amendment to the 
Keystone XL bill which is really straightforward and will not affect 
the underlying legislation. I do think it has the potential to get 
strong bipartisan support. That is because my amendment states a simple 
set of facts--that climate change is real and humans are contributing 
to it.
  This is an opportunity for people on either side of the Keystone 
debate to agree on something; that is, the facts. It will inform, I 
think, what happens next in energy policy. As intense as this debate 
over this pipeline is, the real question in front of us, after we 
dispose of this legislation and it goes to the President's desk for a 
certain veto, is that then we have to contend with our national energy 
policy.
  We need to agree on the set of facts that everyone outside of this 
Congress agrees on. These claims require evidence, and my amendment 
provides those pieces of evidence. It cites the final supplemental 
environmental impact statement prepared for the Keystone Pipeline by 
the State Department, which says that ``human activities . . . have 
added to the greenhouse gas accumulation and exacerbated the greenhouse 
. . . effect, resulting in greater amounts of heat being trapped in the 
atmosphere.''
  Now, this is not controversial. It also states: ``These climate 
change shifts can . . . affect other processes and spark changes that 
cascade through natural systems to affect ecosystems, societies, and 
human health.'' Only in the halls of Congress is this a controversial 
piece of legislation.
  This impact statement, in turn, cites the work of thousands of 
scientists who have contributed to reports by the IPCC, the National 
Research Council, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. These 
independent factfinding bodies have conducted decades of research on 
questions related to climate change. They have been subject to intense 
scrutiny both internally and externally. Their work has held up to 
repeated concerns about impartiality and accuracy.
  This scrutiny helps. It has forced these organizations to improve 
their methodology and be increasingly deliberate as they develop their 
findings and present the facts and only the facts. Human-caused climate 
change is accepted by Fortune 500 companies, school teachers, religious 
groups, and the U.S. Department of Defense. It is accepted by nurses 
and doctors, professional sports leagues, the majority of other 
countries, more than 97 percent of scientists, and many of my 
colleagues in the House and Senate.
  For most people, climate change existing is not a controversial 
issue. Certainly, the Keystone Pipeline is a controversial issue. Once 
we together set the premise of climate change facts, there is plenty to 
argue about. What approach ought we take with respect to

[[Page S318]]

solving this problem? Is a carbon tax the right approach? Is the 
President's clean powerplant the right approach? Ought we to wait for 
or accelerate our actions with respect to international coalitions and 
agreements?
  Those are legitimate debates to have. But we have to agree on the 
facts. That is why a vote on my amendment is so important. The Senate 
has before it a bill to approve a pipeline and an environmental impact 
statement touted by Keystone supporters as a comprehensive, accurate 
document that impartially assesses the environmental impacts of the 
pipeline. Within that impact statement is a comprehensive review and an 
acknowledgment of the reality of the facts of climate change.
  Many of my colleagues who support Keystone might be the same ones who 
question the reality of climate change, but I want to try to create a 
political space where one can be for Keystone XL and still want action 
on the climate. Now, I think Keystone XL is the wrong direction to move 
in. I think it is absolutely doubling down on fossil fuel energy and 
the tar sands oil. So I will be voting against Keystone.
  But I understand there are people of good faith and plenty of 
knowledge who are going to be supporting the pipeline. What we need to 
do after this legislation is disposed of--and it will be relatively 
quickly--is agree on a set of facts and move forward with intelligent, 
bipartisan climate policy.
  Last week, we learned that 2014 was the hottest year on record 
according to two separate studies by our Nation's brightest scientists 
at NASA and NOAA. That means that the 10 hottest years on record have 
all occurred since the year 2000. A warmer planet means big changes in 
weather patterns, rising sea levels, and increases in extreme weather 
events.
  Sea level has been rising more than twice as fast since 1990 as it 
did over the previous century, nearly doubling the likelihood of storm 
surges such as the one we experienced during Hurricane Sandy. Over the 
years, the issue of climate change has, unfortunately, become a 
partisan issue. It did not used to be that way. It does not need to be 
that way going forward.
  We may not agree on the solutions, on the path forward or even on 
some of the details, but I do believe it is time for us to begin to 
agree on a basic set of facts. The purpose of my amendment is to take a 
step back, to take a deep breath on a very contentious issue, and to 
give the Senate an opportunity to come together and state with no value 
judgment that we accept the work of thousands of the world's brightest 
and most dedicated scientists, including those working at U.S. agencies 
and for U.S. companies; that we accept the reality our farmers, our 
fisherman, and our families see with the every passing season.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It is an 
opportunity to restate a set of facts with which a majority of 
Americans already agree. It makes no presumptions about where we go 
from here.
  I am hopeful that we will have a big bipartisan vote this afternoon 
on this amendment. I think there is an opportunity for common ground.
  Obviously, Keystone XL is dividing not just this Congress but the 
Democratic conference, so I understand that. But agreeing on the set of 
facts related to climate change is a good predicate for all of us 
moving forward.
  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.
  Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I rise today to speak on behalf of my 
amendment to the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline bill. I thank Senators 
Bennet, Carper, Leahy, Menendez, Warren, and Whitehouse for 
cosponsoring this amendment.
  My amendment is extremely simple. It is about 1\1/2\ pages, and I 
think it is easily understood by anyone who reads it. It says:

       It is the sense of Congress that Congress is in agreement 
     with the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific 
     community that--
       (1) climate change is real;
       (2) climate change is caused by human activities;
       (3) climate change has already caused devastating problems 
     in the United States and around the world;
       (4) a brief window of opportunity exists before the United 
     States and the entire planet suffer irreparable harm; and
       (5) it is imperative that the United States transform its 
     energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy 
     efficiency and sustainable energy as rapidly as possible.

  That is it. That is the entire amendment.
  What this amendment does is simply ask the Members of the Senate 
whether they agree with the overwhelming majority of scientists who 
have told us over and over and over again that climate change is real, 
that climate change is caused by human activity, including the emission 
of carbon, that climate change is already causing devastating problems 
in the United States and around the world, and that if we are going to 
leave our children and our grandchildren a planet that is habitable, we 
must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels.
  Progressives, conservatives, and people in between have many 
disagreements on issues--and that is called democracy. There is nothing 
to be ashamed about that; that is the democratic process. We all have 
differences of opinion. But what is not a good thing is when we make 
public policy in contradiction to what the scientific community tells 
us. That is not a good thing.
  When we look at medical issues such as cancer or heart disease, what 
we do is look at the scientific communities and medical doctors for 
their opinions as to how we should proceed.
  When we look at infrastructure issues, the issues of roads and 
bridges, we look at engineers for their opinion as to how we should 
proceed.
  When we look at education and try to understand how best kids can 
best learn, we look at educators and those people who know most about 
education for advice as to how we should proceed.
  In terms of the issue of climate change, the process should not be 
any different. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, 
is the leading scientific body that deals with the issue of climate 
change. I will very briefly quote what the IPCC said last fall:

       Warming of the climate system is unequivocal as is now 
     evident from observations of increases in global average air 
     and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice 
     and rising global average sea level.

  More than 97 percent of the scientific community in the United States 
and across the globe agrees with these findings, including the American 
Chemical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of 
Science, the American Meteorological Society, and the American 
Geophysical Union, to name just a few.
  In fact, at least 37 American scientific organizations, 135 
international scientific organizations and national academies of 
science, and 21 medical associations, all agree that climate change is 
real and is significantly caused by human activities.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the names of 37 American scientific organizations, 135 
international scientific organizations and national academies, and 21 
medical associations which all have gone on record as stating that 
climate change is real and is significantly caused by human activity.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Virtually every major scientific organization in this 
     country and throughout the world have said that climate 
     change is real, climate change is caused by carbon emissions 
     and human activity, and that climate change is already 
     causing devastating problems in the United States of America 
     and around the world.
       This list includes at least: 37 American scientific 
     organizations, 135 international scientific organizations, 21 
     medical associations, 4 religious organizations.


                  37 American scientific organizations

       American Anthropological Association, American Association 
     for the Advancement of Science, American Association of 
     Geographers, American Association of State Climatologists, 
     American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, 
     American Fisheries Society, American Geophysical Union, 
     American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Institute 
     of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American 
     Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, American 
     Society for Microbiology, American Society of Agronomy,

[[Page S319]]

     American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical 
     Association, Association of American Geographers, Association 
     of Ecosystem Research Centers, Botanical Society of America.
       California Academy of Sciences, Crop Science Society of 
     America, Ecological Society of America, National Academy of 
     Engineering, National Academy of Sciences (USA), National 
     Association of State Foresters, New York Academy of Sciences, 
     Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Society for Industrial 
     and Applied Mathematics, Society of American Foresters, 
     Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of 
     America, The Geological Society of America, The Wildlife 
     Society, United States National Research Council, University 
     Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Woods Hole 
     Oceanographic Institution.


               135 international scientific associations

       Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil), Academia Chilena 
     de Ciencias (Chile), Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa 
     (Portugal), Academia de Ciencias de la Republica Dominicana, 
     Academia de Ciencias Fisicas, Matematicas y Naturales de 
     Venezuela, Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales 
     de Guatemala, Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Academia 
     Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia, Academia Nacional de 
     Ciencias del Peru, Academia Sinica, Taiwan, China, Academie 
     des Sciences et Techniques du Senegal, Academie des Sciences 
     (France), Academy of Athens, Academy of Science for South 
     Africa, Academy of Science of Mozambique, Academy of Sciences 
     Malaysia, Academy of Sciences of Moldova.
       Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Academy of 
     Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Academy of 
     Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt, Accademia dei 
     Lincei (Italy), Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems 
     Science, African Academy of Sciences, Albanian Academy of 
     Sciences, Amazon Environmental Research Institute, Australian 
     Academy of Science (Australia), Australian Coral Reef 
     Society, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Australian 
     Institute of Physics, Australian Marine Sciences Association, 
     Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, 
     Bangladesh Academy of Sciences, Botanical Society of America, 
     British Antarctic Survey, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 
     Cameroon Academy of Sciences, Canadian Association of 
     Physicists, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric 
     Sciences, Canadian Geophysical Union, Canadian Meteorological 
     and Oceanographic Society.
       Canadian Society of Soil Science, Canadian Society of 
     Zoologists, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Center for 
     International Forestry Research, Chinese Academy of the 
     Sciences, Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural 
     Sciences, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research 
     Organisation (Australia), Croatian Academy of Arts and 
     Sciences, Cuban Academy of Sciences, Delegation of the 
     Finnish Academies of Science and Letters, Deustche Akademie 
     der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany), Ecological Society of 
     Australia, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European 
     Federation of Geologists, European Geosciences Union, 
     European Physical Society, European Science Foundation, 
     Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological 
     Societies.
       Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of 
     London, Georgian Academy of Sciences, Ghana Academy of Arts 
     and Sciences, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian 
     Academy of the Sciences, Institute of Biology (UK), Institute 
     of Ecology and Environmental Management, Institute of Marine 
     Engineering, Science and Technology, Institution of 
     Mechanical Engineers, UK, InterAcademy Council, International 
     Alliance of Research Universities, International Arctic 
     Science Committee, International Association for Great Lakes 
     Research, International Council for Science, International 
     Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological 
     Sciences, International Research Institute for Climate and 
     Society, International Union for Quaternary Research, 
     International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International 
     Union of Pure and Applied Physics, Islamic World Academy of 
     Sciences, Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
       Kenya National Academy of Sciences, Korean Academy of 
     Science and Technology, Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts, 
     Latin American Academy of Sciences, Latvian Academy of 
     Sciences, Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, Madagascar National 
     Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences, Mauritius Academy of 
     Science and Technology, Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and 
     Arts, National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural 
     Sciences, Argentina, National Academy of Sciences of Armenia, 
     National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic, National 
     Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka, National Council of Engineers 
     Australia, National Institute of Water & Atmospheric 
     Research, New Zealand, Natural Environment Research Council, 
     UK, Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences, Nigerian Academy of 
     Science, Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, 
     Organization of Biological Field Stations.
       Pakistan Academy of Sciences, Palestine Academy for Science 
     and Technology, Polish Academy of the Sciences, Romanian 
     Academy, Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium 
     (Belgium), Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural 
     Sciences of Spain, Royal Astronomical Society, UK, Royal 
     Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Royal Irish Academy, 
     Royal Meteorological Society, Royal Netherlands Academy of 
     Arts and Sciences, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea 
     Research, Royal Scientific Society of Jordan, Royal Society 
     of Canada, Royal Society of Chemistry, UK, Royal Society of 
     New Zealand, Royal Society, UK, Royal Swedish Academy of 
     Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences, Science Council of 
     Japan.
       Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Slovak Academy of 
     Sciences, Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Society of 
     Biology, UK, Society of Systematic Biologists, Sudanese 
     National Academy of Science, Tanzania Academy of Sciences, 
     The Geological Society (UK), The World Academy of Sciences 
     (TWAS) for the developing world, Turkish Academy of Sciences, 
     Uganda National Academy of Sciences, Union der Deutschen 
     Akademien der Wissenschaften, World Meteorological 
     Association, Zambia Academy of Sciences, Zimbabwe Academy of 
     Sciences Sudan National Academy of Sciences.


                        21 medical associations

       American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of 
     Occupational and Environmental Medicine, American College of 
     Preventive Medicine, American Lung Association, American 
     Medical Association, American Nurses Association, American 
     Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society, 
     Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, 
     Australian Medical Association, Children's Environmental 
     Health Network, Health Care without Harm, Hepatitis 
     Foundation International, National Association of County and 
     City Health Officials, National Association of Local Boards 
     of Health, National Environmental Health Association, 
     Partnership for Prevention, Physicians for Social 
     Responsibility, Trust for America's Health, World Federation 
     of Public Health Associations, World Health Organization.


                       4 religious organizations

       Interfaith Power and Light, National Association of 
     Evangelicals, Presbyterian Mission Agency, The Pope.


                          Other Organizations

       American Association for Wildlife Veterinarians, American 
     Society of Civil Engineers, International Association for 
     Great Lakes Research, Institute of Professional Engineers New 
     Zealand, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization 
     of Biological Field Stations, The Institution of Engineers 
     Australia, The World Federation of Engineering Organizations, 
     World Forestry Congress.

  Mr. SANDERS. I know that recently a number of my colleagues have made 
the point that they are not scientists and they cannot formulate an 
opinion on this subject. Well, let me be clear: I am not a scientist. I 
had a lot of problems with physics when I was in college. I am not a 
scientist.
  But these are scientists. These are 37 American scientific 
organizations and 135 international scientific organizations. These are 
scientists who tell us that climate change is real, it is caused by 
human activity, and that it is imperative we transform our energy 
system away from fossil fuel.
  I will read an excerpt from a letter sent to the Senate in 2009 
signed by virtually every major scientific organization in this 
country:

       Observations throughout the world make it clear that 
     climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research 
     demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human 
     activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are 
     based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary 
     assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of 
     the vast body of peer reviewed science. Moreover, there is 
     strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad 
     impacts on society, including the global economy and on the 
     environment. For the United States, climate change impacts 
     include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of 
     extreme weather events, and increase risk of regional water 
     scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and a 
     disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The 
     severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase 
     substantially in the coming decades.

  Once again, I am not a scientist, but that is what the scientific 
community overwhelmingly in the United States and around the world is 
saying. It is imperative the Senate goes on record in saying we agree 
with science.
  Climate change is one of the great threats facing our country and the 
entire planet. It has the capability of causing severe harm to our 
economy, to our food supply, to access to water, and to national 
security.
  According to NASA and NOAA, 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded. 
The most recent decade was the Nation's warmest on record. Across the 
globe, the 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1997. We 
know that the Earth's climate is warming and doing so quickly.

[[Page S320]]

  According to NOAA, October, August, June, and May were the hottest 
October, August, June, and May months ever recorded.
  The consequences of this rapid and dramatic rise in global 
temperatures will have a profound impact on billions of people 
throughout the world. What we can expect are more severe weather 
disturbances, more flooding, more heat waves, more droughts, more 
forest fires, and saltwater inundation of water supplies and 
agricultural land.
  As the New York Times reported in August, droughts in the Western and 
Southwestern United States appear to be intensifying as a result of 
climate change:

       Over the past decade, droughts in some regions have rivaled 
     the epic dry spells of the 1930s and 1950s . . . The country 
     is in the midst of one of its most sustained periods of 
     increasing drought on record.

  China's heat wave 1\1/2\ years ago was the worst in at least 140 
years. As ClimateWire reported in November, the Sao Paulo region in 
Brazil is suffering from its worst drought in 80 years. In the United 
States, fire suppression costs have increased from roughly $1 billion 
annually in the mid-1990s to an average of more than $3 billion in the 
past 5 years.
  Our oceans are not only getting warmer, they are also becoming more 
acidic, threatening fish, coral reefs, and other sea life. As a study 
published in the journal Science reported, carbon dioxide emissions in 
the atmosphere are driving a rate of change in ocean acidity that is 
already thought to be faster than any time in the past 50 million 
years. The authors warned that we may be ``entering an unknown 
territory of marine ecosystem change.''
  Extreme storms, weather disturbances, are also becoming more common 
and more intense with extraordinary impacts. When Typhoon Haiyan struck 
the Philippines over 1 year ago, it displaced more than 4.1 million 
people, killed thousands, and cost that country at least $15 million in 
damages.
  The situation clearly is bad today in the United States and around 
the world, but--according to the scientific community--if we do not get 
our act together, if we do not cut carbon emissions, it will only get 
worse in years to come.
  The IPCC estimates--and I hope people listen to this--that without 
any additional efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions--in other 
words, if we continue to go along our merry old way of dependency on 
fossil fuels--``warming is more likely than not'' to exceed 4 degrees 
Celsius, which is 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit, by the end of the century.
  Let me repeat that extraordinary observation. If we continue along 
our present course, ``warming is more likely than not'' to exceed 7.2 
degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.
  Similarly, just last year the White House released the National 
Climate Assessment warning that global warming could exceed 10 degrees 
Fahrenheit in the United States by the end of this century. Take a deep 
breath and imagine what it will mean to this country--the huge impact 
on every aspect of our life, on our economy, on agriculture, on 
health--if the temperature of the United States rises, as some are 
predicting, by 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. It is 
almost unthinkable. Yet that is what the scientific community is 
telling us.
  The World Bank is by no means a radical institution. It is a very 
conservative institution. It tells us that temperature increases by 
even just 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit would bring about unprecedented heat 
waves, severe drought, and major floods in many regions, with serious 
impacts on human systems, ecosystems, and associated services.
  The IPCC reports that sea levels are likely to rise by another 10 to 
32 inches by the end of this century. As the New York Times reported, a 
sea level rise of less than 4 feet--less than 4 feet--would inundate 
land on which some 3.7 million Americans live today. We are talking 
about Miami, New Orleans, New York City, and Boston all being highly 
vulnerable to rising sea levels. Similarly, of course, this problem 
will impact people all over the world.
  According to the IPCC:

       Many small island nations are only a few meters above 
     present sea level. These states may face serious threat of 
     permanent inundation from sea-level rise. Among the most 
     vulnerable of these island states are the Marshall Islands, 
     Kiribati, Tuvalu, Tonga, the Federated States of Micronesia, 
     and the Cook Islands.

  The Army Corps of Engineers has predicted that the entire village of 
Newtok, AK, could be underwater by 2017 and that more than 180 
additional Native Alaskan villages are at risk. Parts of Alaska--one of 
our great and beautiful States--are already vanishing as a result of 
climate change.
  The evidence is overwhelming, and it is no longer good enough for 
people to say: I am not a scientist; I don't know. We may not be 
scientists, but we can read and we can listen to what the overwhelming 
majority of scientists are telling us. That is our job--to listen to 
the experts who know something about this issue.
  As we debate the Keystone Pipeline, what disturbs me very much is 
that in the face of this overwhelming evidence from the scientific 
community, in the face of deep concerns about climate change all over 
the world, what is the Senate going to be doing in the next week or two 
as part of the Keystone Pipeline? Are we going to be voting to impose a 
tax on carbon so we can break our dependence on fossil fuel? Is that 
what we are going to be voting on? No, I don't think so. Are we going 
to be voting to pass legislation that moves us aggressively toward 
energy efficiency and weatherization and such sustainable energies as 
wind, solar, and geothermal? Is that what we are going to be voting on 
as we listen to the scientific community? No, I don't think so. Are we 
going to be passing a bill investing in research and development so 
that we can make our transportation system more energy efficient? Is 
that what we are going to be voting on? No, we are not. In fact, what 
we are going to be voting on is a bill that will allow for an increase 
in the production and transportation of some of the dirtiest oil on 
this planet. That is what we are going to be voting on. What we are 
voting on is a proposal that moves us in exactly the opposite direction 
from what the scientific community wants us to do.
  Let me conclude by saying this: Honest people can and do have 
disagreements on many issues, but it is not a good thing for the United 
States to reject what the scientists and the experts are telling us. 
That is not a good thing. So I hope very much that on the amendment I 
have brought forth--which says nothing more than to listen to the 
scientists on this important issue; do not reject science--that we can 
get widespread bipartisan support for the amendment.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                            Amendment No. 33

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, excessive litigation under the Endangered 
Species Act has become an obstacle to the act itself and the good it 
promises to do for the American people.
  According to the Department of Justice, more than 500 Endangered 
Species Act-related lawsuits have been filed or opened against the 
Federal Government since 2009. As a result, Federal agencies have to 
spend their time, their energy, and taxpayer-funded resources fighting 
lawsuits instead of protecting endangered species.
  One of the primary reasons for this excessive litigation is the 
potential for massive awards of attorney's fees under section 11(g)4 of 
the Endangered Species Act. These awards can be granted regardless of 
whether the parties seeking the attorney's fee award prevails, and 
there is no limit on the hourly fee that can be collected. These 
attorney's fees can reach upward of $700 per hour. In one case 
involving a series of lawsuits related to the operation of 
hydroelectric power facilities in the Northwestern United States, 
attorney's fees were awarded in an amount totaling nearly $2 million--
in one case lasting just a few years. Such lofty levels of compensation 
would be high even in a private law firm setting, even in a big city, 
but they are completely indefensible when one considers they are paid 
for by American taxpayers, often to well-funded activist organizations.
  Excessive awards of attorney's fees also create perverse incentives 
for cottage industries of lawyers to sue the Federal Government in 
order to advance specific policies--policies that cannot be achieved 
through the legislative process and are therefore sought

[[Page S321]]

out by these very same lawyers in the courts. This is what many call a 
sue-and-settle strategy: Sue the Federal Government and then settle 
with the Federal Government. Achieve what you want to achieve and then 
get paid by the court without limit. Sue-and-settle is the dishonest, 
distorted practice of suing the Federal Government not to achieve a 
judicial outcome in court but to resolve the suit in a settlement with 
terms that advance narrow political ends, narrow political goals. The 
recent decision by the Fish and Wildlife Service to grant Gunnison 
sage-grouse protected status under the Endangered Species Act is the 
result of this precise sue-and-settle strategy.
  Congress must put an end to policymaking by litigation, and it must 
do so by removing the incentives to engage in this kind of litigation. 
My amendment would do just that by bringing a citizen's suit provision 
of the Endangered Species Act into harmony with a similar provision of 
the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Equal Access to Justice Act limits 
awards for attorney's fees to $125 per hour and allows those awards to 
be granted only to prevailing parties. Any departure from this limit 
has to be approved by the judge based on some unique circumstance in 
that case. If such terms are acceptable for nearly every other type of 
lawsuit against the Federal Government, certainly they should be 
acceptable as applied to the Endangered Species Act. This simple fix 
would deter the frivolous lawsuits that so often end up in closed-door 
settlements with Federal agencies.
  There is a lot of work to do to reform the implementation of the 
Endangered Species Act. This amendment is just one of many reforms I am 
developing with my colleagues in the Senate and our counterparts in the 
House of Representatives.
  I ask for support on this amendment. Again, this is something that 
just brings into harmony section 11(g)4 of the Endangered Species Act 
with requirements that are already in existence, already on the books 
in connection with the Equal Access to Justice Act. We need those same 
limitations in this Endangered Species Act that already exist in the 
Equal Access to Justice Act. I ask all my colleagues to support this 
amendment and to help us resolve this problem that has crept into 
Federal law based on an inequity and imbalance in these two statutory 
regimes.
  Madam President, 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. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed 
as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Before I begin my comments, let me commend the Presiding 
Officer on her excellent presentation last night. The Presiding Officer 
did an extraordinary job and made all of us very proud.


                      Forty Hours is Full Time Act

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, 2 weeks ago Senator Joe Donnelly and I 
reintroduced bipartisan legislation that we call the Forty Hours is 
Full Time Act. It would correct a serious flaw in the Affordable Care 
Act that threatens the hours and pay of part-time workers all across 
America. Our bill would change the definition of ``full-time'' work 
under ObamaCare from 30 hours a week to the standard 40 hours a week, a 
commonsense threshold that has always been the standard for full-time 
work. In fact, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, it is 40 hours a 
week that defines ``full time,'' after which workers are eligible in 
many cases for overtime.
  Information I received from the Home Care & Hospice Alliance of Maine 
demonstrates that this illogical definition of ``full-time'' work could 
result in hundreds of home health care workers losing their jobs and 
1,000 seniors losing access to home care services in the State of Maine 
alone.
  The impact would be just as severe outside of Maine, a point driven 
home by a letter I recently received from the National Association for 
Home Care & Hospice, an organization that represents caregivers who 
provide in-home health and hospice services to chronically ill, 
disabled, and dying Americans. The association just conducted a survey 
of its members that reveals the devastating impact this definition will 
have on home care and hospice services around the country if Congress 
does not act to change it. Let me share with my colleagues just a few 
of the key findings of this survey.
  Nationally, four out of five home care and hospice providers are 
unable to provide health benefits to their employees because they rely 
on government programs such as Medicaid, with its low reimbursement 
levels, and because they provide services to people with limited 
incomes.
  So it is not as if they can simply boost their rates. In many cases 
their rates are set by Medicaid and at a very low level. In other cases 
they are serving people with limited incomes who simply cannot afford 
more expensive home care.
  Another finding: Three out of four providers will have to cut the 
hours of their caregivers. That means those caregivers who are engaged 
in such compassionate and skilled work will have smaller paychecks on 
which to live.
  Nine out of ten providers expect patients to lose access to home care 
in their communities.
  One in five providers of home care and hospice services will actually 
have to close their doors. Think of the impact closing one in five home 
care and hospice agencies would have on America's seniors and our 
disabled citizens. In my view, taking action to spare this vulnerable 
population would, by itself, justify restoring the threshold for full-
time work to the standard 40 hours a week.
  But this is not the only reason to do so. Reforming the law would 
also help protect the caregivers who provide the services as well as 
their patients, and ironically it would protect taxpayers as well. Data 
from Maine's Medicaid Program shows that home care services are 
extremely cost-effective compared to alternatives. If access to these 
services is restricted because of the application of the 30-hour rule, 
those in need of these services will be forced into costlier forms of 
care paid for by Medicaid and Medicare, such as hospitals and nursing 
homes, driving up both Federal and State costs. In addition, the 
patients now served by home health care providers would no longer be 
able to receive vital care in the comfort, privacy, and security of 
their own homes.
  So whether we look at it from the perspective of the patients served 
or the caregivers employed or the taxpayers who pay for the Medicare 
and Medicaid Programs, this hurts all three groups. Of course, there is 
obviously a lot of overlap among those groups.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, immediately 
following my remarks, an excellent letter from the National Association 
for Home Care & Hospice which elaborates on the problems created by 
this definition under ObamaCare.
  Of course, the justification for using the standard definition of 
full-time work extends far beyond the field of home care services to 
the full breadth of our economy. Raising the threshold for full-time 
work to 40 hours a week is necessary not only to protect the paychecks 
of workers employed by private sector businesses, such as restaurants 
and hotel staff, but also to protect those who work in the public 
sector, such as substitute teachers, ed techs, and schoolbus drivers, 
to name just a few.
  The 30-hour rule will not only harm school staff who want and need 
more work, but it will also hurt our students by causing unnecessary 
disruption in the classroom. It does not make sense to have to limit 
substitute teachers to 29 hours a week because of the definition of 
``full-time'' work under ObamaCare. That means there will be a 
revolving door of substitutes in our classrooms and lower paychecks 
once again for those substitute teachers.
  I have also heard of a school district that has been forced to cut 
field trips and transportation to athletic events and employees who 
used to work more than 30 hours total in two jobs who have been forced 
to give up one of their

[[Page S322]]

jobs, thus hurting their financial security.
  Several Maine municipalities have described to me the impact on their 
workers, particularly volunteer and oncall firefighters, emergency 
medical technicians, and employees of the parks and recreation and 
public works departments.
  Although the IRS adopted regulations last year in an attempt to 
exclude volunteer firefighters from the calculation of the employer 
mandate, these regulations do not give our towns and cities the level 
of protection provided by the Forty Hours is Full Time Act.
  In most Maine communities, the fire department is staffed by 
volunteers and oncall firefighters who typically have health care 
coverage through their regular day jobs. In fact, in Maine, oncall 
firefighters for our smaller communities often serve as full-time 
firefighters--receiving full health care benefits--in a neighboring 
community. They help the smaller towns by serving as on-call 
firefighters. Unfortunately, under ObamaCare it doesn't matter that 
these on-call firefighters already have health care coverage; the towns 
that employ them for more than 30 hours a week may still face the 
$2,000 penalty per on-call firefighter for doing so. This makes no 
sense whatsoever.

  For example, one town in southern Maine has told me that the 30-hour 
rule will require it to offer health care coverage to more than a dozen 
volunteer and on-call firefighters who do not qualify for coverage from 
the town today. The cost of doing so will drive up that town's health 
care budget by 20 percent at a time when its budget is already 
stretched to the breaking point.
  Another Maine community has employees who work part time but year-
round performing various tasks, including plowing and salting the roads 
in the winter. These employees typically work 30 to 34 hours a week, 
and they do not qualify for health benefits under the town's plan. 
Since the town cannot afford to add them to its health care plan, it 
simply will have no choice but to cut their hours back to 29 hours a 
week. The town doesn't want to do that. The workers don't want to have 
their hours cut. As anyone who has lived in Maine or any Northern State 
can tell you, snowstorms do not keep to a schedule. Mother Nature seems 
not to have heard about the 30-hour workweek under ObamaCare. So it 
will be a challenge for this town to keep its roads safe, clear, and 
passable in the winter while making sure its part-time employees don't 
exceed 29 hours a week. So, once again, what is the result? Reduced 
hours, a smaller paycheck for part-time workers, and more costs for the 
town and more disruption in the services it provides.
  Winters are long in Maine and summers are short. Towns have to manage 
their workers' schedules to match the season, but the 30-hour rule will 
make it very difficult for them to do so.
  For example, one town in central Maine told me that a number of its 
employees work full time in its parks and recreations department in the 
summer, and then they work part time in the winter. Because of the 30-
hour rule, however, this town won't be able to stagger the schedules of 
these employees in the winter the way it used to and will have to lay 
them off instead and then, adding insult to injury, pay them 
unemployment during the layoff period. So here we have a case where the 
law is actually going to force the town to lay off part-time employees 
who want to work. This makes no sense.
  Part-time workers who are hired to help with snow removal are often 
shifted to other departments in the spring and summer months to assist 
full-time employees or to take their place when they are on vacation. 
But the 30-hour rule once again takes away the flexibility towns need 
to do this.
  For example, one town in northern Maine has told me that the part-
time workers it has relied upon to help cover vacation time for its 
firefighters in the summer months will have to be cut back to 29 hours 
a week because the town cannot afford to pay the $2,000 penalty it will 
face for each employee if they work their usual hours. Raising the 
threshold for full-time work to 40 hours a week would restore the 
flexibility this town needs to manage its workforce, give these part-
time workers more hours and the bigger paychecks they need, and help 
full-time firefighters get a break after a long, tough winter.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed 
for 1 more minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Today I have described just some of the damage the 30-hour rule is 
doing to municipal employees, to providers of home health care and 
hospice services, and to those who work in our school systems. 
Nationwide, 100 school systems have had to scale back the hours of 
their workers already. Employees in all industries--for-profit and non-
profit, private sector and public sector--are similarly affected.
  Regardless of the varying views of Senators in this Chamber on the 
Affordable Care Act, surely we ought to be able to agree to fix this 
problem in the law that is hurting workers' paychecks and creating 
chaos for employers. Senator Donnelly has introduced bipartisan 
legislation with Senator Joe Manchin and Senator Lisa Murkowski that 
would do just that. It is the Forty Hours is Full Time Act, and I urge 
all of my colleagues to join us in supporting it.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              National Association


                                      For Home Care & Hospice,

                                  Washington, DC, January 6, 2014.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Joe Donnelly,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Collins and Donnelly: I am writing to offer 
     our support for the ``Forty Hours Is Full Time Act.'' The 
     National Association for Home Care & Hospice (NAHC) is the 
     leading association representing the interests of the home 
     care and hospice community since 1982.
       Currently the provision in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) 
     that imposes penalties on employers with more than 50 full-
     time equivalent employees for not providing health insurance 
     for their ``full time'' workers defines an employee working 
     just 30 hours a week as full time. This definition of full 
     time is entirely out-of-keeping with standard employment 
     practices and could cause irreparable harm to many home care 
     agencies and the patients they serve.
       The great majority of the estimated 25,000 home care 
     agencies are small businesses under the standards of the 
     Small Business Administration, but most are considered 
     ``large employers'' subject to the employer mandate under the 
     ACA because of the number of workers they employ. All told, 
     there are over 2 million persons employed in home care. These 
     home care agencies are innovative job creators that provide 
     much needed compassionate, high quality care to elderly and 
     disabled individuals in their homes and communities.
       The majority of personal care home care workers do not 
     receive employee health insurance because home care agencies 
     have three problems that are fairly unique: reliance on 
     government programs such as Medicaid where payment rates as 
     low as $11 an hour won't cover the increased costs of 
     providing health insurance; consumers of private pay home 
     care who are often elderly and disabled with fixed, low 
     incomes; and a home care workforce with widely varying work 
     hours primarily to accommodate the needs of their infirm 
     clientele.
       Home care agencies that are unable to provide health 
     insurance or absorb the ACA penalties will have to restrict 
     their employees to no more than 29 hours per week to ensure 
     their workers are considered part-time under the ACA. A 
     survey that NAHC concluded in December 2014 showed that the 
     employer mandate would weaken patient access to care, reduce 
     wages and working hours of home care staff, and require home 
     care companies to restructure their operations to rely on 
     part-time caregivers. Home care companies that primarily 
     provide Medicaid services and those that service private pay 
     personal care clients were most susceptible to these adverse 
     outcomes as Medicaid funding is already stretched and seniors 
     on limited incomes are unable to spend more on home care.
       Our survey showed:
       1. 82.54% of home care and hospice companies do not provide 
     health insurance to all of their employees because of 
     reliance on government program payments and service to 
     individuals with limited incomes
       2. 46.2% of those companies face a financial penalty under 
     the employer mandate ranging as high as $4.5 million
       3. 73.3% of the companies would reduce the working hours of 
     employees to under 30 per week in order to avoid the cost of 
     health insurance or financial penalties that they cannot 
     afford
       4. 22.16% of the businesses expect to close because of the 
     financial penalties

[[Page S323]]

       5. 83.2% of the companies expect that access to home care 
     in their community would be reduced with fewer providers of 
     care, more restrictive patient admission criteria to fit a 
     part-time workforce, and restrictions on service areas.
       6. 88.46% expect that access to Medicaid home care will no 
     longer be sufficient to meet client's needs
       Home care agencies are an essential part of the network of 
     services that our growing population of elderly and persons 
     with disabilities rely on. The last thing we need is an 
     obstacle to helping them grow and create much needed jobs. 
     Simple common sense solutions are often the best answers to 
     complex problems. As far as most people are concerned 40 
     hours a week equates with full time employment.
       Thank you for offering this important legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                          Val J. Halamandaris,

                                   President, National Association
     for Home Care & Hospice.
                                  ____

                                                December 19, 2014.
     Hon. Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of AASA: The School 
     Superintendents Association, the Association of Educational 
     Service Agencies, the National Rural Education Association 
     and the National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition, I write 
     to express our support for the Forty Hours is Full Time Act. 
     Collectively, we represent public school superintendents, 
     educational service agency administrators and school system 
     leaders across the country, as well as our nation's rural 
     schools and communities. We have followed closely the 
     Affordable Care Act and stand ready to implement the law, and 
     see your proposed legislation as one way to alleviate an 
     unnecessarily burdensome regulation.
       The Forty House is Full Time Act would change the 
     definition of 'full time' in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to 
     40 hours per week and the number of hours counted toward a 
     'full time equivalent' employee to 174 hours per month. The 
     current ACA arbitrarily sets the bar for a full work week to 
     30 hours. This is inconsistent with how most Americans think: 
     full-time is a 40 hour work week. The current definition 
     causes confusion among employers who struggle to understand 
     and comply with the new requirements, especially ones that 
     are in conflict with long-standing practices built on the 
     long-standing 40-hour work week premise.
       We welcome the opportunity to ensure our employees have a 
     positive work environment and we remain committed to 
     providing a robust set of work benefits. We are concerned 
     that the ACA, as currently written, puts additional, undue 
     burden on school systems across the nation, many of whom will 
     struggle to staff their schools to meet their educational 
     mission while meeting the strict 30-hour regulation.
       We applaud your continued leadership on this issue and look 
     forward to seeing the Forty Hours is Full Time Act move 
     forward.
           Sincerely,
                                               Noelle M. Ellerson,
          AASA, The School Superintendents Association, Associate 
      Executive Director, Policy & Advocacy, AESA, NREA and NREAC 
                                              Legislative Liaison.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise today to propose three 
important amendments to S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act.
  First of all, I want to make it very clear that I strongly oppose the 
Keystone XL Pipeline plan. I have serious concern about the effects 
this project would have on our health and safety; I have serious 
concerns about the environmental impact; and I am skeptical of the 
real, permanent jobs it could create.
  This project has many risks and very few advantages, and I will be 
voting against it. But if this legislation does pass the Senate, we 
should at least try to make it a better bill. There is no excuse why we 
cannot turn the Keystone XL Pipeline Act into an opportunity to protect 
our clean drinking water and ensure that polluters have to pay to clean 
up their own messes.
  First, I have offered amendment No. 48, which would remove the 
Halliburton loophole from the Safe Drinking Water Act and finally 
require gas storage and gas drilling companies to comply with our clean 
water laws. Every other industry has to do it. Our farmers have to do 
it. Construction companies have to do it. Yet our gas companies have 
been exempt for years.
  It should give my colleagues pause that fracking companies are 
allowed to ignore our clean water laws when they pump chemicals deep 
into the ground. In this country, when we turn on the tap for a glass 
of water, we need to know that our drinking water is safe. So let's be 
fair and hold the gas industry to the same environmental and public 
health standards as everyone else.
  Second, I worked with Senator Menendez on amendment No. 65, which 
would make oil companies financially responsible for the damages they 
cause when they spill on our land and leak into our waterways. Under 
current law, when an onshore oilspill occurs, the company that causes 
the spill is only liable for $350 million in damages, including cleanup 
and compensation. Yet a major oilspill into a river or lake, such as 
the one this week in Montana, could easily result in damage well above 
that arbitrary limit.
  Hard-working taxpayers should never be stuck paying for an oil 
company's mess, and local property and businesses should not have to 
slog through endless litigation just to get the compensation they 
deserve from a negligent oil company. This amendment would finally 
place the burden on companies to clean up after themselves.
  Third, I have proposed amendment No. 76, which would allow our 
homeowners and business owners whose property has been damaged by 
natural disaster to use Federal disaster assistance funds to upgrade 
their property's energy efficiency. Under current law, the disaster 
assistance can only be used to replace what was lost even if that 
property was antiquated and not up to current standards. We need to 
have much more forward-looking policies that actually make sense.
  Due to the effects of climate change, we have seen a growing number 
of natural disasters in recent years, from blizzards, to hurricanes, to 
raging fires, to endless droughts. When we pick up the pieces after a 
major storm, we want to make sure that when we rebuild, we rebuild in 
the smartest way possible, and that includes not only protections 
against the next disaster but also proactive measures to save energy, 
reduce emissions, and lower costs.
  As I said, I don't support the construction of the Keystone XL 
Pipeline, but if this new Congress is intent on sending this bill to 
the President, then we need to make sure the bill keeps our drinking 
water safe, holds companies accountable for their own messes, and 
encourages efficiency in our economy.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNET. 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. BENNET. I congratulate the Presiding Officer for sitting in that 
chair.


                            Amendment No. 18

  I wish to speak about the Fischer amendment which is slated to be 
voted on at some point. While I respect where my neighbor from Nebraska 
is coming from with this effort, the proposal unfortunately misses the 
mark by a mile.
  The amendment would set up a new and unprecedented process for 
protective land designations. It says the Secretary of the Interior or 
Agriculture has to publish in the Federal Register two findings before 
any congressional protections on public lands would go into effect. 
First, the Secretary has to find that new, protected land would not 
adversely affect our efforts to administer existing protected land. 
Second, the Department has to have ``sufficient resources''--whatever 
that is--to implement plans for existing protected land. While perhaps 
innocuous sounding, these would be huge changes in how we do business 
around here.
  Coming from a State that is over a third Federal land, I prefer that 
drastic reform proposals such as this at least have the benefit of a 
committee hearing before we vote on them on the floor. That way, we can 
hear expert testimony as to whether this is a good idea or consider 
ways we might be able to improve the measure. But as far as I know, 
this language hasn't had a hearing in this Congress, or any other 
Congress, for that matter.
  Proponents of this amendment are going to argue it simply ensures 
that our land agencies can afford to keep up with the maintenance of 
new protected lands. Listen, I am the first--and I have been on this 
floor year after year after year talking about the fiscal condition of 
this country--to believe we need more fiscal discipline around

[[Page S324]]

here, but this is not the way we should get it. I am also a huge 
believer that we shouldn't be overburdening these agencies, and we 
shouldn't be overregulating through them, either.
  Unfortunately, this amendment takes a hatchet when the absolute most 
that is needed, if anything, is a surgical fix. In fact, under the 
amendment, the opponents of protected lands could reduce funding for 
our land agencies through the appropriations process and then turn 
around and say the Secretary got a veto of the new proposals because 
sufficient resources aren't available. As one of my friends from 
Colorado said in the paper this morning: ``This amendment would be a 
one-two punch--first starve conservation agencies of needed funding and 
then block any new protections.''
  This amendment is drafted in a way that it leaves huge discretion to 
a future Secretary to approve or veto protections that Congress has 
seen fit to create. If the amendment passed, nothing would stop a 
future Secretary from finding that every single conservation bill this 
Congress has passed should not take effect, all because he or she 
failed to publish the vague set of findings laid out in this proposal.
  Historically, we don't give a member of the executive branch any 
discretion as to whether they implement the laws that Congress passes 
and that the President has signed. Yet, this measure would do just 
that.
  I think keeping that historical precedent--where the legislative 
branch makes the laws and the executive branch implements them--is 
important. We have heard a lot about that on this floor recently, 
particularly in a case such as this where we are talking about our 
national heritage.
  Coloradans, and all Americans, love their public lands and want to 
see more done to protect them. Instead, this amendment creates new 
layers of redtape and makes enacting protective designations even more 
difficult than it has been.
  Once again, I wish to say on this floor that I appreciate the effort 
of the Senator from Nebraska and I would be happy to work with her to 
address some of her concerns. But I would argue that the investments we 
make in our public lands are worthwhile ones, and I would invite anyone 
in this Chamber to come to Colorado and see what I am speaking about.
  Protected lands and wide-open spaces are a huge driver of economic 
growth all across our country. They help sustain a $600 billion outdoor 
recreation economy, and a lot of those businesses, for obvious reasons, 
are headquartered in Colorado. On top of the economic benefits, 
wilderness areas, national monuments, and national parks are a 
fundamental part of the fabric of our country and of our country's 
history. It is important to preserve these lands for our kids and our 
grandkids, just as our grandparents preserved them for us. It is worth 
investing some money to do that so the next generation and the one 
after that can experience the greatness that all Americans feel when 
they first visit the Grand Canyon or Rocky Mountain National Park, or 
Chimney Rock National Monument, or the Everglades, or wherever we find 
the next beautiful or historically significant area that Congress or 
the President decides to protect.
  This discussion is actually a timely one because just this past 
December we passed a large package of conservation measures into law on 
a bipartisan basis. That package included a bill that we worked on in 
Colorado called the Hermosa Creek Watershed Protection Act. Let me say 
at the outset that our office may have introduced that bill in 
Congress, but it was really the people I represent in southwest 
Colorado who wrote that bill. This legislation grew from the grassroots 
up from day one--Republicans, Democrats, Independents working together 
to cement a long-term plan for their community's future. Not only was 
it bipartisan at the local level, but also in Congress. My friend Scott 
Tipton championed the bill on the House side.
  The Hermosa Creek Watershed deserved to be protected. That is why the 
community came together to keep it just as it is. That was the plan in 
the community, and that is what our bill finally accomplished at the 
end of the last Congress. However, if we were to pass the amendment in 
front of us today, all the hard work that went into passing the Hermosa 
bill could be undone by the Secretary of the Interior. Every single 
meeting that took place in southwest Colorado, every single 
conversation that led to the improvement of this legislation--all of 
that could be gone in an instant, not because the Congress undoes the 
law but because some administrator, using their fiat, is able to undo 
the law. It is unlikely--I can't say this for sure, but it is unlikely 
that person is going to have any idea what is in the Hermosa Creek bill 
or any of the other bills we have worked on in the past. That is just 
simply not how we do business around here, and there is a good reason 
for that.
  I am compelled, therefore, to urge other Senators in this body to 
please oppose the Fischer amendment so we can avoid such a scenario. 
Rejecting the amendment will preserve our conservation legacy--a legacy 
that goes straight back to President Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, who 
signed the Antiquities Act into law in 1906. It includes the formal 
establishment of the national park system almost 100 years ago.
  This is an extraordinarily beautiful country that we all have the 
privilege to represent. We ought to encourage conservation efforts, not 
make them harder to achieve. We ought to build on the legacy of 
generations of Americans and generations in this body of Republicans 
and Democrats working together to preserve our natural heritage.
  I will, therefore, oppose the Fischer amendment when it comes up for 
a vote, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. President, 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. GRAHAM. 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. GRAHAM. I would like to share some thoughts about the debate we 
are having on the Keystone Pipeline, climate change, and how the two 
intersect. The concept that climate change is real, I completely 
understand and accept. To the point of how much man is contributing, I 
don't know, but it does make sense that manmade emissions are 
contributing, and the global warming effect, the greenhouse gas effect, 
seems to me scientifically sound. The problem is how we fix this 
globally is going to require more than just the United States to be 
involved.
  This deal with China where they have to do nothing for 20 years is 
probably not exactly where I want to be. The bottom line is that the 
solutions coming from our Democratic friends about how to deal with 
greenhouse gas emissions turn our economy upside down and do more 
damage to the economy and to the welfare of the American people than it 
will in terms of helping the environment.
  Our liberal friends give us a false choice. You have to reorganize 
the economy in a draconian fashion to help the environment. Some people 
on my side believe that the whole climate change experience is 
scientifically unsound. I am not a scientist, but I have heard enough 
regarding those who make it their life's work to be convinced that 
manmade emissions are causing the problem and contribute to the overall 
warming of the planet.
  About the Keystone Pipeline, my Democratic friends are making an 
argument that is just absolutely false. The product that Canada will 
produce from the oil sands is going to be used by us, the world 
community through the gulf port or by China.
  Those who believe denying the building of the pipeline protects the 
planet from fossil fuels do not understand what Canada is about to do. 
Canada is going to sell the product to somebody. The question for us 
is, Would we benefit from building a pipeline that will create American 
jobs and help us put oil into that pipeline within the United States in 
a joint venture with Canada or we will say no to the Canadians and they 
will go build a pipeline and send it to China?
  The product is going to be burned. It is going to be used. The only 
question for this Congress is, Do we want the pipeline to go West and 
export the product to China or do we want to

[[Page S325]]

build the pipeline so we will have more product from a friend rather 
than enemies?
  Dirty oil is oil that comes from people who hate your guts. The 
sulfur content of oil sands product is higher than Mideast sweet crude 
but no different than the oil we find off the coast of California. The 
actual carbon content is no different than the oil we find off the 
coast of California. To lock this country and the world into buying 
more Mideast product seems to me to be a very bad idea at a very 
dangerous time. So when I hear Members of the Democratic Party take the 
floor and say: Don't build this pipeline because it will help the 
environment, you obviously don't realize what Canada is about to do. 
Canada is going to sell the oil to another customer, build a new 
pipeline, and the only question for you is, How do you justify that? 
How do you justify destroying the ability to create thousands of jobs 
in the country at a time when we need them? How do you justify not 
building a pipeline that could be used to help us with product from 
North Dakota and other places within our own country?
  You can justify it, but you can't say it is based on climate change 
because the product you are talking about is going into the 
environment. It is going to be used. It is either going to be used 
coming to America to our benefit or the pipeline will be built west and 
it will go to China.

  To our friends in Canada, I imagine your patience is about to run out 
with us, and I don't blame you one bit if you get tired of dealing with 
an American Government that seems completely out of sync with reality. 
In terms of the lawsuits, it is a procedural issue. In Nebraska the 
pipeline is one of thousands of pipelines we already have in America.
  To the President last night, instead of one pipeline, why don't we 
have a comprehensive infrastructure strategy? I am all for that. But 
you are threatening to veto building this pipeline. Why? Because your 
judgment has been taken over by the environmental community which is 
hell-bent on no fossil fuels anywhere, anyway, anyhow.
  That is not the world in which we live. I embrace the fact that a 
lower carbon economy will be beneficial over time. My view is: Find 
more fossil fuels from friendly people, including our own backyard--
Canada, the United States--to replace fossil fuels we have to buy from 
foreign entities that do not like us very much. That concept is a 
reality. We are not going to be able to replace fossil fuels any time 
soon.
  We can invent technology to make it cleaner. We can find 
alternatives. But at the end of the day it comes down to this: If you 
are using climate change as a reason not to build this pipeline, you 
are kidding yourself or you are misleading the public because the 
product is going to be used. They are going to build a pipeline in 
Canada. The question is, Do they build a pipeline that we get no 
benefit from or do they build a pipeline in collaboration with us that 
helps us with our job problems and our energy needs?
  I don't understand how you can justify voting against the Keystone 
Pipeline based on a concern about climate change because it has 
absolutely nothing to do with the issue in this regard. The product is 
going to be used by somebody, and they are going to build a pipeline 
somewhere. For you to deny us the ability to build this pipeline that 
would make us more energy independent from overseas' fossil fuels is 
shortsighted and does not advance the cause of climate change.
  To the people who believe in climate change, it is gimmicks such as 
this and tricks such as this that hurt your cause. You are undercutting 
a real genuine debate. You made climate change a religion rather than a 
problem. It is a problem, but you are taking a draconian approach to 
the problem to the point that you are denying our country the ability 
to build a pipeline that we would benefit from economically and energy 
security-wise. The alternative you are leaving this country is that the 
same product will go somewhere else, and the next pipeline will not 
benefit America. So it is stunts like this that undercut your overall 
efforts.
  I wish you would change your mind about the pipeline and work with 
Republicans who are willing to work with you to deal with emissions in 
a realistic way and stop selling what I think is a fraud when it comes 
to this debate.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wicker). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 29

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am on the floor to say a few words 
about my amendment No. 29, which we will be voting on shortly after 3 
o'clock, I am told. That is the simple amendment that says it is the 
sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax.
  It is, perhaps, a telling coincidence that we are having this 
conversation on the floor of the Senate now on the fifth anniversary of 
the Citizens United decision, because before Citizens United came 
along, there was actually a pretty robust conversation between 
Democrats and Republicans about carbon pollution, climate change, and 
what needed to be done about it.
  For instance, Senator John McCain ran for President on a robust 
platform of addressing the carbon that causes climate change.
  Senator Collins worked with the current energy ranking member, 
Senator Cantwell, on a very robust climate bill that would have put a 
cap on carbon pollution and paid a dividend back to the American 
people.
  Senator Mark Kirk voted for Waxman-Markey when that bill was on the 
floor of the House, the famous cap-and-trade bill.
  Senator Flake wrote an article in his home State paper expressing the 
value and merit of a carbon fee when it is offset by reductions in 
other taxes as a way to help workers and address the pollution problem.
  Over and over again there were these joint actions all the way back 
to when I first came to the EPW Committee and Senator John Warner of 
Virginia was its then ranking member. He wrote Warner-Lieberman with 
our colleague, then Senator Lieberman.
  Then came Citizens United. Then came the massive influx of polluter 
money into our political system, much of it dark money. At about the 
spring of 2010--and Citizens United was decided in January of 2010--
that was the end of the conversation.
  So here we are today. We are just now reaching agreement on several 
votes by which I believe our Republican colleagues will, for the first 
time since Citizens United--some of them, at least--acknowledge that 
climate change is real.
  Indeed, we just heard my friend Senator Graham come to the floor and 
speak--right there--saying that climate change is real, that humans had 
a significant role in causing it, and it was something we ought to pay 
attention to.
  This is new. Today, after 5 years of more or less silence. I have 
spoken on this floor, as everybody knows, a great deal on this subject, 
and nobody has ever come from the other side of the aisle to respond to 
me, except for the now-chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, to maintain his view that climate change is actually a hoax 
that is perpetrated by the scientific community in order to get grants 
and funding.
  So it has been a long drought. It has been a long, long drought. 
Frankly, it has been a drought that does not reflect the best 
traditions of this body.
  This body has taken on big issues in the past. It took on civil 
rights. It tried to hold this country together over the issue of 
slavery.
  This body has been significant in the history of the United States at 
important junctions, and here we are at this important junction where 
our energy policy needs to change and half of the body basically was 
mute.
  Today that seems to have changed.
  That, to me, is very significant. I look forward to a vote on my 
amendment. As I said, it is very simple. Climate change is real and not 
a hoax. I hope that is something we can agree on as a body. If we do, 
then it becomes a predicate for beginning to advance an important 
conversation.
  I am not going to agree with all of my Republican colleagues about 
their views on how to respond to this problem, and I don't expect my 
Republican

[[Page S326]]

colleagues to agree with all of my views on how we should respond to 
this problem. But the dark days of denying that there actually is a 
problem may very well have seen their first little break of dawn right 
now.
  If that is so, that is exciting news because, as many Republicans 
have noted--Republicans such as Secretary Schultz, Republicans such as 
Secretary Paulson, Republicans such as Ronald Reagan's economic 
adviser, the economist Arthur Laffer--there are smart, conservative 
ways to address this problem.
  I continue to think that the idea that Senator Flake signed off on 
all those years ago is still the right one to do: Raise a fee by 
putting a price on carbon that reflects the economic fact that it 
creates harm for so many other folks, the so-called externalities, what 
the economists would say. The costs that burning carbon causes to 
fishermen, to foresters, to homeowners, to people who live near the 
sea, those costs--build them into the price of the product. That is 
economics 101. Then take every single dollar that we raise and lower 
working people's taxes.
  I am completely comfortable with that notion. That is one that has 
been over and over again brought up in the context of Republican and 
conservative discussions, including a very good recent paper jointly 
authored by a writer from the American Enterprise Institute.
  I see the deputy minority leader on the floor. I had the pleasure of 
traveling with him and with our ranking member on the Judiciary 
Committee and other colleagues to Cuba. When we spent time with Cuban 
officials, Cuban religious leaders, Cuban--just regular folks on the 
street, over and over again we heard the same phrases coming at us, 
that it was a time of hope and it was a time of promise.
  If there is going to be a time of hope and a time of promise in Cuba, 
let's hope it can be a time of hope and a time of promise in this body 
on climate change. It starts with admitting that you have a problem, 
just like in so many other areas of human life. So I hope that, 
frankly, every Member of the Senate will vote for my amendment. We 
appreciate the opportunity to work with the new majority on ways that 
we can address this telling problem.

  I will close by saying this. I am never going away on this subject. 
It is too important to my home State of Rhode Island. There is no 
Senator in this body who, if they had an issue as important to their 
home State as this issue is to Rhode Island, I would not expect and 
respect to fight all the way through to the bitter end for the 
interests of their State. My fishermen are not finding the fish where 
they have been for generations. People who have built homes on the 
shore are losing them into the sea in big storms. These are real 
consequences, and we--I promise you one way or the other--are going to 
do something about it. I hope this is the dawn of that new day.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Rhode 
Island. He and I did travel to Havana, Cuba, earlier this week. 
Interestingly enough, we sat down with the scientists and the people 
responsible for the oceans and other natural benefits in Cuba to 
discuss global warming, and the conversation started at the same place. 
Even with these scientists, there is no question they can see the 
impact, and they started their predictions about the rise of the ocean 
levels--and the Senator from Rhode Island knows this far better than I 
do--with their anticipation that the ocean levels will rise over a foot 
in just 10 or 20 years and then twice that over a period of 50 years or 
more. That will have a profound impact on the island, the archipelago 
of Cuba, and the United States.
  Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island, more than any other Senator, has 
really brought this issue home--not just to his home but to the 
Atlantic Coast States--and has reported on the impacts they face. Now, 
I live smack dab in the middle of the country--in Illinois. I can tell 
you we appreciate there are changes taking place on this planet that 
are not in our best interests--nor will they leave our children and 
grandchildren a better place to live.
  The obvious question we face is what will we do in this generation. 
This bill, S. 1, which has been chosen by the Republican majority, has 
given us a venue finally to raise some important environmental issues 
which have been ignored for too long.
  I know the object of this bill was to build a pipeline. TransCanada, 
a Canadian company, wants to build a pipeline through the United 
States. They may or may not sell any oil from it in the United States. 
We had a vote on that yesterday, and the Republicans overwhelmingly 
said they would not require them to sell their oil in the United 
States. They may or may not use American steel to build their pipeline. 
We had that amendment yesterday, and the Republicans voted 
overwhelmingly that there is to be no requirement to use American steel 
to build this pipeline. Yet it is characterized as an American jobs 
bill. It is hard to understand that characterization.
  If nothing else, whatever happens to this bill--and it may not have a 
great fate ahead of it, if it is not changed significantly because the 
President has already threatened to veto it--what the Senator from 
Rhode Island said is significant. After years of denial from the other 
side of the aisle about the issues of global warming, we may have just 
reached a point where we are finally, on a bipartisan basis, going to 
acknowledge the obvious--the scientific facts which have been given to 
us over and over and over. That is a step in the right direction, and 
so I want to thank my colleague from Rhode Island.


                            Amendment No. 69

  Let me take 2 minutes to say a word about my pending amendment, which 
may come up for a vote shortly. It is amendment No. 69.
  What I have said on the floor is there is a dirty little secret about 
the Keystone Pipeline. You don't take Canadian tar sands and turn them 
into gasoline and diesel fuel without filtering and refining out some 
pretty horrible things. What is filtered out is called petcoke, and 
petcoke is going to be produced in the refining process if this 
pipeline is ultimately built--over 15,000 tons a day of petcoke, the 
byproduct of this refining process.
  If you look at it and you think to yourself what impact will that 
have, it could have a very negative impact. In my city of Chicago, 
which I am very proud to represent, as well as in other communities, 
petcoke piles have become a challenge to the public health and the 
people in the community. I am asking in my amendment that we establish 
a standard of safety when it comes to petcoke--that we establish a 
standard of transportation and storage of petcoke to protect American 
families and children from the hazards of breathing petcoke dust.
  This is a simple public health amendment, and I hope my colleagues 
will support it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. May I inquire of the Senator--we will be shortly 
voting on a number of measures. One is a side-by-side to the Schatz 
amendment which includes a quotation from an environmental impact 
statement, and the quotation is as follows:

     . . . approval or denial of any one crude oil transport 
     project, including the proposed Project, 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 based on expected oil prices, oil-sands 
     supply costs, transport costs, and supply-demand scenarios.

  Does the Senator recall when the EIS was written and what the oil 
prices were that were expected at the time this document was prepared?
  Mr. DURBIN. Until very recently, of course, the price of a barrel of 
oil was high enough to justify tar sands, their extraction, the cost of 
transportation and the additional cost of refining them into a final 
product. Since that time, the cost of oil is almost half today what it 
was when that report was written.
  I don't remember the exact date, perhaps the Senator has it handy.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Indeed, I would say the breakpoint for that study was 
at $75 per barrel, and it was at that point that the environmental 
impact became very real from this harmful tar sands fuel. Not only are 
we not just under $75 per barrel, we have hit as low as below $50 per 
barrel.
  So I just want to make sure, as long as we are voting on this 
language very

[[Page S327]]

shortly, that it is clear in the Record of the Senate that the 
environmental impact statement was hinged on that the ``expected oil 
prices'' were north of $75 per barrel; that they are now well below 
that, around $50 per barrel. And, indeed, I would add that the Canadian 
Research Institute has said the tar sands can't be properly extracted 
at prices less than $85 per barrel.
  So that puts in context what we will be voting on that I thought 
should be in the Record.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.
  It is significant that the first bill of the Senate Republican 
majority is a bill to build a pipeline for a Canadian company to bring 
tar sands across the United States to be refined in Texas and then sold 
overseas. That is the highest priority of the Republican majority.
  There are those who, based on what the Senator just said, question 
whether this is economically viable with the price of a barrel of oil 
today. I am not an economist in energy, but it strikes me there has 
been a significant change in the premise of this whole project.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Indeed, in my remarks earlier, I referred to this 
pipeline as possibly an economic zombie at the current oil prices. I 
have not seen a single report that this pipeline can be built and 
operated properly at oil prices where they are right now.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order for Senator Hoeven or his designee to offer his amendment No. 87, 
as modified; further, that the time until 3:15 p.m. this afternoon be 
equally divided in the usual form; that following the use or yielding 
back of the time, the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the 
following amendments in the order listed: Lee, No. 33; Durbin, No. 69; 
Toomey, No. 41; Whitehouse, No. 29; Hoeven, No. 87, as modified; and 
Schatz, No. 58; further, that all amendments on this list be subject to 
a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption and that no second-degrees 
be in order to the amendments. I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided between each vote and that all votes 
after the first in the series be 10-minute votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, as my colleague from Alaska just said, 
we are making progress. We have another group of amendments we are 
going to be voting on shortly. I would encourage any of the Members on 
our side who would like to take a few minutes to go over their 
amendments before the vote--we have a few minutes between now and 3:15 
p.m.--to do so. During this series of votes coming up, we will be 
working with our colleagues to get the next set of amendments and to 
continue to move forward.
  I will have a little more to say, but I see a couple of our 
colleagues here, so I will give them a chance to talk about their 
amendments.
  Mr. President, 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. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. My understanding is that we have time equally divided 
between now and 3:15, before the votes start.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                            Amendment No. 69

  Mr. DURBIN. Seeing no one on the floor, I would like to say a word 
about an amendment which will be voted on. I believe it is the second 
in the queue, and it is the amendment I have offered relative to 
petcoke.
  Petcoke is the product derived from the refining of Canadian tar 
sands, and if you happen to live in some communities in America, 
petcoke can be a real problem.
  This is the city of Chicago, IL. You can see some of the bungalows 
and houses here, and right across the railroad tracks you can see 
mounds of petcoke coming in from the British Petroleum refinery. They 
generate somewhere in the range of 6,000 tons a day of this petcoke and 
pile it up right here. It is ultimately transported to different 
places, but it sits here. It obviously is a hazard to people who live 
nearby. It blows in the wind, creating public health issues and real 
concern for families with children with asthma, respiratory disease.
  I have an amendment, and it is very basic. No. 1, the amendment talks 
about making sure there are standards and rules for the storage 
enclosure of petcoke. Most of the cities--whether it is Long Beach, CA; 
or Detroit, MI; or Chicago, IL--are trying to find established 
standards to enclose this petcoke so it doesn't blow freely in the 
atmosphere.
  Senator Hoeven spoke earlier and said it was not carcinogenic. Those 
findings related not to the breathing in of this dust but to the 
ingestion of petcoke itself. We have yet to establish that this is a 
benign substance, and we are trying to take care to protect families 
who might be exposed to it.

  I am not surprised to see that there has been a letter issued by the 
National Association of Manufacturers opposing my amendment. They start 
by saying that petcoke is a valuable, essential commercial product that 
is used in a wide array of applications. I am not stopping that at all. 
Anyone who wants to take this petcoke and use it to produce energy and 
power generation, cement kilns, steel, glass, as long as they comply 
with basic environmental standards, be my guest. But to store it in 
such a fashion that it can blow all over and cause public health 
hazards is unacceptable--it should be--in a modern society. Secondly, 
if those who store it end up, we find over the long haul, creating a 
long-term hazard to the environment, they should be held legally 
responsible.
  That is the extent of my amendment. I am not surprised that the 
National Association of Manufacturers would oppose it. But I would ask 
each and every Member to consider the possibility that if they lived 
across the tracks from this kind of petcoke conglomeration--I have seen 
it. It is horrible, and we are fighting it in the city of Chicago. The 
company that owns the petcoke--the Koch Brothers. So it shouldn't be 
any surprise that the National Association of Manufacturers took the 
position they did.
  I hope that all of us who may be subject to this kind of dumping of 
petcoke near a city in our State will think twice. Let's at least have 
some standards for storage and enclosure to protect the people in our 
States, and let's make certain that if there is ultimately 
environmental damage here, that the parties who make the profit off of 
petcoke are ultimately responsible.
  That is the extent of my amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 33

  Ms. CANTWELL. I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the 
Lee amendment, No. 33, which is going to be voted on shortly. I know my 
colleagues are going to have 2 minutes divided before the vote, so 
people can add comments as they wish.
  This amendment makes it very difficult for citizens to retain 
counsel, particularly related to the Endangered Species Act. I don't 
know why we would be handicapping legal cases just because they deal 
with the environment. I mean, I guess if you are not interested in 
protecting the environment, you would want to make it harder for people 
to retain lawyers. But when I think about property rights and clean 
water and clean air and all of those issues, I think that is something 
on which we ought to go the extra mile

[[Page S328]]

and make sure they get representation and counsel, not handicap them 
and make it harder just because we don't want companies to adhere to 
environmental laws.
  I believe this is important because my colleagues should remember 
that the ESA was signed into law in 1973 by then-President Richard 
Nixon and was intentionally drafted to manage and to engage citizens in 
the protection of endangered species.
  Now, in general, litigants in the country must bear their own costs, 
and the prevailing party is not ordinarily entitled to collect his or 
her expenses in a defending suit from the loser. But both the courts 
and Congress have provided an exemption from that rule, and so they 
have allowed in certain circumstances for judges to shift the cost to 
litigants in the interest of fairness and to further protect the public 
interest.
  So that is what is at stake this morning. I think the Endangered 
Species Act is a prime example of why the courts decided they wanted to 
have this kind of leeway and protection. Congress knew when it enacted 
the Endangered Species Act that it would be difficult and the Nation 
would want to make sure that ordinary citizens had the opportunity to 
help ensure compliance with the law. So Congress recognized that when a 
citizen did so, he or she did not do so necessarily by themselves alone 
but with the counsel of a private attorney. Congress recognized this 
reality in statute.
  So this is what we are going to be addressing. In contrast, the Lee 
amendment would weaken the prevailing citizen's request for 
reimbursement under an Endangered Species Act--and narrow those 
restrictions of equal access to justice. This is because the cap on 
fees would include the Equal Access to Justice Act, which often falls 
well below the market-based rate for attorneys. Basically, what the Lee 
amendment does is say you will not be able to recap on the attorneys' 
fees at the cost of doing business, and their hope is that citizens 
will then not have representation before the courts on issues such as 
clean air, clean water, and other environmental issues.

  I say to my colleagues--and I have said this to the now-ranking 
member on the EPW Committee--I don't know why we are not taking up the 
Superfund bill. To me, getting the Superfund reauthorized--these are 
polluters that have polluted our country, and they are not even paying 
the tax that it would cost to clean up the pollution.
  Instead, we are considering an amendment that says: Let's roll back 
the environmental law on this issue and make sure that citizens don't 
have the right to help enforce environmental law.
  I ask my colleagues to defeat the Lee amendment when we get to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


           Amendment No. 87, as modified, to Amendment No. 2

  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to call up my amendment, as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
  The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Hoeven] proposes an amendment 
numbered 87, as modified, to amendment No. 2.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

  (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding climate change)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       (a) Findings.--The environmental analysis contained in the 
     Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement referred to 
     in section 2(a) and deemed to satisfy the requirements of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) as described in section 2(a), states that--
       (1) ``[W]arming of the climate system is unequivocal and 
     each of the last [3] decades has been successively warmer at 
     the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850.'';
       (2) ``The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], in 
     addition to other institutions, such as the National Research 
     Council and the United States (U.S.) Global Change Research 
     Program (USGCRP), have concluded that it is extremely likely 
     that global increases in atmospheric [greenhouse gas] 
     concentrations and global temperatures are caused by human 
     activities.'';
       (3) ``A warmer planet causes large-scale changes that 
     reverberate throughout the climate system of the Earth, 
     including higher sea levels, changes in precipitation, and 
     altered weather patterns (e.g. an increase in more extreme 
     weather events).
       (4) ``The analyses of potential impacts associated with 
     construction and normal operation of the proposed Project 
     suggest that significant impacts to most resources are not 
     expected along the proposed Project route'' (FSEIS page 4.16-
     1, section 4.16.;
       (5) ``The total annual GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions 
     (direct and indirect) attributed to the No Action scenarios 
     range from 28 to 42 percent greater than for the proposed 
     Project'' (FSEIS page ES-34, section ES.5.4.2).; and
       (6) ``. . . approval or denial of any one crude oil 
     transport project, including the proposed Project, 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 based on expected oil prices, 
     oil-sands supply costs, transport costs, and supply-demand 
     scenarios'' (FSEIS page ES-16, section ES.4.1.1).''.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--Consistent with the findings under 
     subsection (a), it is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) climate change is real; and
       (2) human activity contributes to climate change.


                        Vote on Amendment No. 33

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to a vote in relation to amendment No. 33, offered by the 
Senator from Utah, Mr. Lee.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry--I wish to speak on 
the Hoeven amendment and take the 1 minute.
  Excuse me. I withdraw my request.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 7 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

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

                                NAYS--45

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Reid
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CORNYN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Amendment No. 69

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 69 offered by the Senator from Illinois.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is the petcoke amendment. There are 
communities in this Nation--Chicago, Detroit, Long Beach, CA--and it 
may be coming to other areas soon. Petcoke is the byproduct of Canadian 
tar sands when it is refined. This pipeline will

[[Page S329]]

generate 15,000 tons a day of petcoke that has to be stored. We are 
asking that it be stored responsibly so it doesn't blow through towns 
and neighborhoods that I and my colleagues represent, and let's 
establish standards for that purpose. It can still be used legitimately 
for many products, but let's make sure it doesn't cause respiratory 
problems for the people we represent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. When Canadian oil sands are refined, they produce 
petroleum coke, which is this high-energy, mostly carbon, coal-like 
substance, but it does have economic value. It can be used for fuel; it 
can be used for smelting; it can be used for producing dry cell 
batteries and other purposes.
  The EPA's own Web site states--and this is from their Web site--
petroleum coke itself has a low level of toxicity, and there is no 
evidence of carcinogenicity. The EPA's hazard characterization has also 
shown there are no adverse environmental effects associated with 
petroleum coke piles and the EPA's words are ``they are essentially 
inert.''
  I have listened to the comments of my colleague from Illinois, and I 
appreciate the concerns those in neighborhoods have, but I think it is 
important that we recognize we are not trying to skip the science. We 
are not trying to add regulations for the transport and storage of 
something that is apparently not hazardous, according to the EPA.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 58, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 8 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--58

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Reid
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Under the previous order 
requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is 
rejected.


                            Amendment No. 41

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 41, offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, before we proceed to hear from the 
sponsor of this amendment, I would just remind Members that these are 
10-minute votes. It would be good--we have four more that we need to 
do. It would be good if we could stick to our 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I want to thank Senators Casey and Hatch 
for joining me in this amendment. For almost 200 years, we have been 
mining coal in Pennsylvania. Some of it came out of the ground, and it 
turns out it was not suitable for the steel industry for which it was 
intended. The unsuitable coal has been piled up for decades. It forms 
mountains. Pennsylvania alone has 2 billion tons and 180,000 acres of 
contaminated land. These mountains of coal poison our water. They 
poison our air when they spontaneously combust and burn--sometimes for 
over a year--releasing pollutants with no controls whatsoever.
  So we have an industry that is solving this problem, systematically 
turning this coal into electric power. Senators Casey, Hatch, and I 
have an amendment that will simply allow this cleanup to continue, to 
exempt these 19 powerplants from the particularly onerous regulations 
in utility MACT and from the cross-air pollution regulations.
  A vote in favor of this amendment is a vote to continue to clean up 
this environmental disaster that we have on our hands. I would be very 
grateful for Member support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, in speaking in opposition to the Toomey 
amendment, it is an attack on the Clean Air Act. I want to speak in 
favor of making sure that we are doing everything the Supreme Court 
said we need to do, which is to enforce the Clean Air Act.
  While my colleague is making a point, I do not know why we should 
give some powerplants in Pennsylvania an exemption to the Clean Air 
Act. Obviously, there are businesses all across America that have to 
comply with environmental laws. By voting against this amendment, we 
can continue to fight against these pollution issues and make sure that 
special interests are not getting another narrow carve-out in this 
legislation.
  So I would ask my colleagues to make sure that we are not creating a 
special exemption for the mercury and air toxic standards in the Clean 
Air Act and vote against this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Toomey 
amendment.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, is any time remaining at all?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 9 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

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

                                NAYS--45

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

[[Page S330]]



                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Reid
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.


                            Amendment No. 29

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 29, offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. 
Whitehouse.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Colleagues, I almost hate to use my minute because I 
am so eager to hear what will be said during the minute when our energy 
chairman will follow me, but I am hoping that after many years of 
darkness and blockade, this vote will be a first little beam of light 
through the wall that will allow us to at least start having an honest 
conversation about what carbon pollution is doing to our climate and to 
our oceans. This is a matter of vital consequence to my home State, the 
Ocean State, my home, Rhode Island, and to many of yours as well.
  I hope this is a place where we can get together and have a strong, 
positive vote that sends a signal that this Senate, at this time in 
history, is ready to deal with reality.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I yield 1 minute on our side to the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as 
a cosponsor to the Whitehouse amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Climate is changing. Climate has always changed, and it 
always will. There is archaeological evidence of that, there is 
biblical evidence, and there is historical evidence. It will always 
change. The hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant, who 
think that they are so powerful that they can change the climate. Man 
can't change the climate.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for the Whitehouse-Inhofe amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. In the time remaining, I recognize and thank the 
cosponsors on my side of the aisle, Senator Sanders, Senator Manchin, 
and Senator Leahy. Senator Inhofe and I are not alone on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 10 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Wicker
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Reid
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 87, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 87, as modified, offered by the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have an amendment before us, a side-
by-side to the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from 
Hawaii, and what we do within this side-by-side is effectively lay out 
findings contained within the administration's EIS that outline the 
environmental impact of a Keystone XL Pipeline, recognizing the impact 
to the environment will be less if this line is actually constructed.
  We further go into a sense of the Senate that acknowledges--again 
after the vote we just had--that climate change is real and that there 
is an impact.
  With that, I would recommend that folks look at the language that has 
been offered. I will be supporting the Hoeven amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are about to vote on something that I 
think will be recorded as a breakthrough moment in the climate debate. 
For the first time we will go on record saying the following: Climate 
change is real and human activity contributes to climate change.
  What a breath of fresh air this amendment is, and I urge an ``aye'' 
vote very strongly.
  The front part of the amendment accurately quotes the EIS, parts of 
which a lot of us agree with and parts of which we don't. Let it be 
known that the parts we don't agree with are under review by various 
agencies, but this is accurate. This is a quote from the current EIS.
  You are not voting to endorse the EIS, you are just voting to 
acknowledge that is what it says. But you are voting on original 
language written by Senator Hoeven that says climate change is real and 
human activity contributes to it.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the Hoeven amendment, as modified.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 11 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee

[[Page S331]]


     McConnell
     Moran
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Reid
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 
affirmative votes for the adoption of the amendment, the amendment is 
rejected.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. THUNE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Amendment No. 58

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 58 offered by the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Schatz.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. My colleague from Hawaii, Senator Schatz, wishes to 
speak on his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Thank you, Mr. President.
  This has been a surprisingly productive day on the issue of climate 
debate. I know there has been a lot of consternation and discussion, 
but that is a good thing.
  We have one final amendment to consider today, and it simply takes a 
portion of the language from the EIS for the Keystone XL and adopts it. 
That language says, in summary, that climate change is real and that 
climate change is caused by humans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. SCHATZ. That language simply states that climate change is real, 
that climate change is caused by humans and principally by carbon 
pollution.
  So the simple vote in front of us is: Do you agree with the factual 
evidence? Will you concede to the facts? We have an opportunity to set 
a new chapter in this climate debate. Today has been good progress.
  So I urge my colleagues for a big bipartisan vote on this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I urge colleagues to oppose the Schatz 
amendment. There is a distinct difference between this amendment and 
what was previously considered in the sense of the Congress, which 
would refer to human activity that significantly contributes to climate 
change, and the issue of degrees. And I would suggest to colleagues 
that the inclusion of that word is sufficient to merit a ``no'' vote at 
this time.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 12 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Peters
     Reed (RI)
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Reid
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at this time I know Senators are 
interested in coming to the floor and offering their amendments. We 
have been discussing a process forward on this side of the aisle.
  Earlier in the day Senator Fischer had been working on an amendment 
that she has agreed to modify. I understand that the other side has a 
side-by-side that they will ask for consideration on.
  I know the Senator from Louisiana will be on the floor to speak on an 
amendment he would like considered, and I understand there are a couple 
of other Senators on the other side who wish to speak as well.
  There will be no more votes today on these amendments, but again, 
given the interest in this subject, I encourage Members to come down 
and speak to their amendments. We would like to figure out that process 
to get a series of amendments pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from Alaska 
for working through this process and the due diligence given. I think 
we are very close to having the side-by-side language, and once that is 
done, we will give it out to everyone for review. We need to get the 
Fischer amendment and the side-by-side figured out.
  Everybody is asking about the process. If we could get the next set 
of amendments offered by colleagues, it will give us a chance to 
proceed on figuring out when the next votes will be scheduled.
  With that, I understand Senator Sanders wishes to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                  Amendment No. 24 to Amendment No. 2

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Murkowski and Senator 
Cantwell for working on a sensible process.
  I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the current amendment and call 
up my amendment No. 24.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for himself, Mr. 
     Bennet, Mr. Carper, and Mr. Menendez, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 24 to amendment No. 2.

  Mr. Sanders. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding climate change)

       After section 2, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE.

       It is the sense of Congress that Congress is in agreement 
     with the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific 
     community that--
       (1) climate change is real;
       (2) climate change is caused by human activities;
       (3) climate change has already caused devastating problems 
     in the United States and around the world;
       (4) a brief window of opportunity exists before the United 
     States and the entire planet suffer irreparable harm; and
       (5) it is imperative that the United States transform its 
     energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy 
     efficiency and sustainable energy as rapidly as possible.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I especially wish 
to applaud Republican Senators. I believe, for the very first time, a 
number of them stood up and said: Climate change is real and climate 
change is

[[Page S332]]

caused by human activities. This is a significant step forward, and I 
think that in the months and years to come more and more Republicans 
will accept that position because that is the position of the 
scientific community.
  What my amendment does is in fact repeat what we heard today and what 
we voted on; that climate change is real and that it is caused by human 
activities, but it also has three other provisions in it. It says 
climate change has already caused devastating problems in the United 
States and around the world.
  I think it is hard to argue against that. Whether it is drought or 
flooding--in the United States or around the world--increased forest 
fires in the Southwestern United States, rising sea levels or extreme 
weather conditions and the damage that does, it is very hard to argue 
that climate change has not caused severe and devastating problems in 
the United States already.
  This amendment also says that a brief window of opportunity exists 
before the United States and the entire planet suffers irreparable 
harm. Again, that is what the scientific community is telling us. They 
are saying that damage is being done today, now, and it will only get 
worse in years to come. We have a brief window of opportunity to 
prevent very serious problems. I hope my colleagues will support that 
provision.
  Lastly, and what logically follows from the previous four positions, 
is the following: It is imperative that the United States transforms 
its energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency 
and sustainable energy as rapidly as possible. That doesn't mean you 
close down every coal-burning plant in America tomorrow, but it does 
mean we move away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable 
energy as rapidly as possible.
  I think in terms of this bill we have already made some good 
progress. I will look for bipartisan support tomorrow so the Senate 
goes on record supporting the overwhelming percentage of scientists who 
are in agreement with what this amendment says.
  With that, I yield the floor.


                  Amendment No. 80 to Amendment No. 2

       (Purpose: To provide for the distribution of revenues from 
     certain areas of the outer Continental Shelf)

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 80, which I discussed previously today and which is at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter], for himself and 
     Mr. Cassidy, proposes an amendment numbered 80 to amendment 
     No. 2.

  Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')


                     Amendment No. 80, as Modified

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be modified with 
the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end, add the following:

       TITLE--OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING REVENUE

     SEC. _01. REVENUE SHARING FROM OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF WIND 
                   ENERGY PRODUCTION FACILITIES.

       The first sentence of section 8(p)(2)(B) of the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(2)(B)) is 
     amended by inserting after ``27 percent'' the following: ``, 
     or, in the case of projects for offshore wind energy 
     production facilities, 37.5 percent''.

     SEC. _02. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LEASING PROGRAM REFORMS.

       Section 18(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1344(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5)(A) In each oil and gas leasing program under this 
     section, the Secretary shall make available for leasing and 
     conduct lease sales including at least 50 percent of the 
     available unleased acreage within each outer Continental 
     Shelf planning area (other than the North Aleutian Basin 
     planning area or the North Atlantic planning area) considered 
     to have the largest undiscovered, technically recoverable oil 
     and gas resources (on a total btu basis) based on the most 
     recent national geologic assessment of the outer Continental 
     Shelf, with an emphasis on offering the most geologically 
     prospective parts of the planning area.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall include in each proposed oil and 
     gas leasing program under this section any State subdivision 
     of an outer Continental Shelf planning area (other than the 
     North Aleutian Basin planning area or the North Atlantic 
     planning area) that the Governor of the State that represents 
     that subdivision requests be made available for leasing. The 
     Secretary may not remove such a subdivision from the program 
     until publication of the final program, and shall include and 
     consider all such subdivisions in any environmental review 
     conducted and statement prepared for such program under 
     section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)).
       ``(C) In this paragraph, the term `available unleased 
     acreage' means that portion of the outer Continental Shelf 
     that is not under lease at the time of a proposed lease sale, 
     and that has not otherwise been made unavailable for leasing 
     by law.
       ``(6)(A) In the 5-year oil and gas leasing program, the 
     Secretary shall make available for leasing any outer 
     Continental Shelf planning area (other than the North 
     Aleutian Basin planning area or the North Atlantic planning 
     area) that--
       ``(i) is estimated to contain more than 2,500,000,000 
     barrels of oil; or
       ``(ii) is estimated to contain more than 7,500,000,000,000 
     cubic feet of natural gas.
       ``(B) To determine the planning areas described in 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use the document 
     entitled `Minerals Management Service Assessment of 
     Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of 
     the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf, 2006'.''.

     SEC. _03. DISPOSITION OF REVENUES.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 102 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy 
     Security Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 note; Public Law 109-
     432) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through (11) as 
     paragraphs (6) through (12), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) Coastal state.--The term `coastal State' means--
       ``(A) each of the Gulf producing States; and
       ``(B) effective for fiscal year 2016 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, each of the States of North Carolina, South 
     Carolina, and Virginia.'';
       (3) in paragraph (10) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified outer Continental 
     Shelf revenues' means all rentals, royalties, bonus bids, and 
     other sums due and payable to the United States--
       ``(i) received on or after October 1, 2016, from leases 
     entered into on or after December 20, 2006, with respect to 
     the Gulf producing States; and
       ``(ii) from leases entered into on or after October 1, 
     2015, with respect to each of the coastal States described in 
     paragraph (5)(B).''; and
       (4) in paragraph (11) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``Gulf producing State'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``coastal State''.
       (b) Disposition of Revenues.--Section 105 of the Gulf of 
     Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 note; 
     Public Law 109-432) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``FROM 181 AREA, 
     181 SOUTH AREA, AND 2002-2007 PLANNING AREAS OF GULF OF 
     MEXICO'';
       (2) by striking ``Gulf producing State'' each place it 
     appears (other than paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b)) 
     and inserting ``coastal State'';
       (3) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) 50 percent of qualified outer Continental Shelf 
     revenues in a special account in the Treasury from which the 
     Secretary shall disburse--
       ``(A) in the case of qualified outer Continental Shelf 
     revenues generated from outer Continental Shelf areas 
     adjacent to Gulf producing States--
       ``(i) 75 percent to Gulf producing States in accordance 
     with subsection (b); and
       ``(ii) 25 percent to provide financial assistance to States 
     in accordance with section 200305 of title 54, United States 
     Code, which shall be considered income to the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund for purposes of section 200302 of that 
     title; and
       ``(B) in the case of qualified outer Continental Shelf 
     revenues generated from outer Continental Shelf areas 
     adjacent to coastal States described in section 102(5)(B), 
     100 percent to the coastal States in accordance with 
     subsection (b).'';
       (4) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Gulf Producing 
     States'' and inserting ``Coastal States'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4);
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Allocation among certain atlantic states for fiscal 
     year 2016 and thereafter.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), effective 
     for fiscal years 2016 and each fiscal year thereafter, the 
     amount made available under subsection (a)(2)(B) shall be 
     allocated to each coastal State described in section 
     102(5)(B) in amounts (based on a formula established by the 
     Secretary by regulation) that are inversely proportional to 
     the respective distances between the point on

[[Page S333]]

     the coastline of each coastal State described in section 
     102(5)(B) that is closest to the geographic center of the 
     applicable leased tract and the geographic center of the 
     leased tract.
       ``(B) Minimum allocation.--The amount allocated to a 
     coastal State described in section 102(5)(B) each fiscal year 
     under subparagraph (A) shall be at least 10 percent of the 
     amounts available under subsection (a)(2)(B).''; and
       (D) in paragraph (4) (as redesignated by subparagraph (B)), 
     by striking ``paragraphs (1) and (2)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)''; and
       (5) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the total 
     amount of qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues made 
     available to coastal States under subsection (a)(2) shall not 
     exceed--
       ``(A) in the case of the coastal States described in 
     section 102(5)(A),
       ``(i) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 through 
     2025; and
       ``(ii) $250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 
     2065; and
       ``(B) in the case of the coastal States described in 
     section 102(5)(B)--
       ``(i) $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 though 
     2025; and
       ``(ii) $749,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 
     2055.''.

  Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                  Amendment No. 72 to Amendment No. 2

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment to call up my amendment No. 72 to protect private 
property from unjust seizure by a foreign corporation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], for himself and 
     Ms. Cantwell, proposes an amendment numbered 72 to amendment 
     No. 2.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To ensure private property cannot be seized through 
condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned 
                            business entity)

       In section 2 of the amendment, strike subsection (e) and 
     insert the following:
       (e) Private Property Protection.--Land or an interest in 
     land for the pipeline and cross-border facilities described 
     in subsection (a) may only be acquired from willing sellers.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. It 
prohibits TransCanada from using eminent domain proceedings to seize 
private property in order to build the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  As we all know, eminent domain is the power of a governmental entity 
to take private property and convert it into public use subject to 
reasonable compensation. Traditionally, property could only be seized 
for public use, such as a public park or a public road, but 
increasingly the exercise of eminent domain has been used for private 
gain.
  Many, including some of my most conservative friends on the other 
side of the aisle, are outraged by the idea that eminent domain 
proceedings could be used to seize private property for private gain.
  President Bush issued an Executive order restricting the use of 
eminent domain by the Federal Government for ``the purpose of 
benefitting the general public and not merely for the purpose of 
advancing the economic interest of private parties.''
  The senior Senator from Texas introduced the Protections of Homes, 
Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005, which would have 
prohibited the use of eminent domain by Federal, State, or local 
government entities for private economic development.
  I have been working very closely with Senator Cantwell on this 
amendment, and we agree with our conservative colleagues that using 
eminent domain proceedings for private gain is outrageous.
  On the issue of Keystone, a foreign-owned company is using eminent 
domain to seize private property so it can better export Canadian oil. 
The project is not in the public interest, but it is clearly in the 
special interest.
  I do not begrudge the fact that a Canadian company wants its 
subsidiary to build this pipeline so it can export foreign oil to 
distant shores through American infrastructure. They want to make a 
profit, and I understand that. But I do not think we should allow our 
sovereignty to be compromised in order to do it.
  Right now the U.S. Federal Government is trying to build a ferry 
terminal in Canada to serve Alaska, but Canadians are protecting their 
sovereignty and objecting to U.S. steel and other U.S. content from 
being the sole source for the ferry terminal. I disagree with Canada on 
that point, but I understand they want to protect their sovereignty. 
Similarly, we need to protect American sovereignty and American 
landowners from a Canadian-owned company that wants to seize our 
private lands for private gain and force Americans to take a risk of 
Canadian pollution.
  Over the weekend landowners along the route of the Keystone XL 
Pipeline were seeing a pipeline spill on the Yellowstone River in 
Montana. It is happening now. If we were to see pictures of it, we 
would see that the efforts to clean up the spill are being hindered by 
a sheet of ice. Who knows what damage is being done by 50,000 gallons 
of oil in this river. We might not know until spring. Landowners are 
wondering if their family farm will be the victim of a similar spill, 
wondering if property that has been in their family for generations can 
still be passed on to the next generation.
  One landowner who has seen firsthand what can happen when a pipeline 
is put on your property is Lori Collins. In October of 2012 Lori 
Collins walked outside her home to find construction workers for a 
TransCanada contractor trying to clear the way for the southern leg of 
the Keystone Pipeline. They had dug up the lines to her septic system, 
completely destroying it. When she asked the workers to repair the 
damage, they did not. Instead, they piled dirt over the damage and 
clogged the system. The result was raw sewage flooding back into the 
Collins' home, staining walls and carpets, leaving a black mold 
throughout their house, and leaving Lori Collins with severe 
respiratory problems. The Collins family was eventually forced to move 
out of their home. While they were able to get a settlement after suing 
TransCanada, the family says they can never repair the damage to their 
lives.
  Jim Tarnick, a farmer in Nebraska, has heard of TransCanada's track 
record and fears that he might have to suffer similar damage or, worse, 
face an oilspill. TransCanada wants to put the pipeline right through 
his front yard on his property that has been in his family for over 100 
years.
  Mr. Tarnick's farm sits near the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides 
critical freshwater for farmers and ranchers in the heart of U.S. farm 
country. A pipeline spill such as the one on the Yellowstone River over 
the last few days could damage the aquifer and therefore jeopardize a 
resource relied on by Nebraskan farms and ranches. Mr. Tarnick fears he 
will be served with papers invoking eminent domain on his property any 
day now. TransCanada is asking that he and other Nebraskans trust that 
they will protect the Ogallala Aquifer and the livelihoods it supports.
  Instead of forcing Mr. Tarnick to host the Keystone Pipeline against 
his will, let's instead let TransCanada work with landowners who are 
willing to take the risk and will be paid what they feel is fair rather 
than what TransCanada's lawyers can convince a judge is fair.
  Senator Cantwell and I believe this amendment is one of simple 
fairness and should be a no-brainer, an easy amendment every Senator 
can support. In recent years Republicans have insisted on similar 
language prohibiting the use of eminent domain when we establish 
national parks. If eminent domain cannot be used to establish a 
national park in the public interest to conserve our national treasures 
and preserve America's beauty for future generations, then surely it 
should not be used to benefit private interests--in this case, in the 
interest of a foreign-owned oil company seeking to ship its product 
around the world.
  I call on my colleagues to be consistent, stand on principle and 
logic, protect landowners, and support my amendment to protect private 
property from seizure by foreign corporations,

[[Page S334]]

preserve our sovereignty, and preserve the rights of U.S. citizens 
along the way.
  With that, 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. 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. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for such time as I shall consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cap and Trade

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me address what happened 
today because I think it is significant. I think a lot of people are a 
little bit confused over what did happen, and it was somewhat of a 
surprise.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, I have been leading the opposition to 
this whole idea of cap and trade. It originated way back in 2001. Since 
that time, we have voted on it many times. I will always remember that 
back in those days most people believed that manmade gases were 
contributing to global warming and that the world was going to come to 
an end because of manmade gases and CO2 emissions.
  At that time, early on, I was on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. I think at that time I was not chairman, but I was the 
chairman of one of the subcommittees, and I thought, it must be true, 
everybody says it.
  Well, some time went by and we got a report. The first one came from 
the Wharton School where they talked about the fact that if we were to 
pass cap and trade--at that time there were two bills before the U.S. 
Senate--not in the House, just in the Senate--and those bills would 
have been cap-and-trade types of bills. So they calculated what this 
would cost if we in the United States passed cap and trade. This was 
way back in 2002, 2003. They said that the range of the cost to the 
American people would be between $300 billion and $400 billion a year.
  I do something that I don't think very many people do, but I always 
do it. Every time I hear a large number, I go back and get the latest 
figures from my State of Oklahoma as to how many families file a 
Federal tax return, and then I do the math to determine how much it is 
going to cost an average family who pays taxes. It came back in excess 
of $3,000 a year. I thought, that is a lot of money. Let's be sure 
there is science behind this idea, knowing it all came from the United 
Nations. That is what started this whole thing.
  By the way, this IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change, and that is within the United Nations. That is where it all 
started. If my colleagues remember, that was during the Clinton-Gore 
administration, when Al Gore went to South America and came back with 
this idea of the Kyoto Treaty. We were all going to sign it, and if we 
didn't, then we were all going to die because of manmade gases.
  So we started looking at it to see if the science really was there 
because the only science we had heard about was the IPCC. Well, sure 
enough, we started getting phone calls from scientists all over the 
country. This was a long time ago. I started naming the scientists and 
groups of scientists who were calling in. We got up to 100 and then to 
1,000 and then to 4,000. This is all on my Web site even though it was 
a long time ago. We can see all of these renowned scientists.
  Richard Lindzen is with MIT. He is one who is considered by a lot of 
people to be the foremost authority on this, and he is the one who came 
out adamantly and said: No, the science is not there. It is not 
settled.
  So several others started calling in.
  In fact, I will quote him, if I have it here, what Richard Lindzen 
actually said at that time. He said: ``Controlling carbon is a 
bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life.''
  That is what bureaucrats would like to do. The Presiding Officer 
understands that because he has served in the other House and is new 
here in the Senate.
  Lindzen also said, talking about Al Gore--Al Gore at that time was 
Vice President of the United States. He was the one who was really 
pushing this. He said: To treat all change as something to fear is bad 
enough. To do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.
  Of course, what Richard Lindzen of MIT was talking about was the fact 
that Al Gore at that time--they speculated he would be the first 
environmental billionaire. That was speculated in the New York Times. 
Anyway, after that happened, all the other scientists started checking 
in. These are scientists who cannot be challenged--these individuals. 
We have hundreds more, and I have a make on each one of these that I 
would be glad to discuss or debate with anyone. But at the same time, 
other things were happening.
  One of the universities here in Virginia commissioned a poll to be 
done of all of the weathercasters on TV. They came back with 63 percent 
of the weathercasters saying that any global warming that occurs is a 
result of natural variation and not human activities.
  So when I hear people--I have good friends on the other side that 
really believe this, and I think that one sometimes has to open it up 
and realize there is another side to this story. When they say that 97 
percent, 98 percent of the scientists agree, it just isn't true. We 
have the names and things that have actually been said.
  I think one item that people are going to have to remember--let me 
first of all say what happened today because I know they have been told 
I would explain what happened today.
  My good friend, Senator Whitehouse, had an amendment. The amendment 
was one sentence. It says that climate change is real and it is not a 
hoax. There is a ruling against talking about your own votes on the 
Senate floor, so I can't do that. But that hoax came from a totally 
different interpretation. The hoax was the idea that this is 
happening--climate change. That it is due to manmade gases. In other 
words, man is causing it.
  So what I said on the Senate floor today is: How arrogant is it for 
people to say that man can do something about changing climate? Climate 
has always changed. I quoted this morning--I said it has changed. Go 
back and look at the archeological findings. They talk about climate 
from the beginning of time having changed and changed both ways. The 
Scriptures talk about it. This is something on which everyone has 
agreed, and no one would debate that it has always happened. The debate 
is whether man is causing that to happen.
  So here we have a chart that shows--do you remember the hockey stick? 
The hockey stick was the concept that one of the guys with the IPCC 
came out with and said that it is like a hockey stick. We had this 
weather going like this for a long period of time. Then all of a sudden 
it shot up, and it resembled a hockey stick.
  What they forgot was to put these two things in the hockey stick 
where it is supposed to be level. One is the medieval warming period 
that is between 1000 and 1500 A.D. We are talking recently. Then that 
went into the little ice age. Those were left off the chart. We have 
looked back, and everything you look at talks about how many years in 
the past we have had this change that is taking place in climate.
  I am going to do this from memory. There are--in addition to these 
major changes such as you are seeing on this chart, which is a chart 
that--this actually is the IPCC's chart. No one is going to argue with 
that because they are the ones who dreamed up this whole idea. That is 
an intergovernmental panel on climate change. But within that--I can 
remember when I first heard the terms global warming and ice age, it 
was when they went back and they started tracing not long-term trends 
in climate change in weather but short term. Starting in 1895, from 
1895 to 1918, they had what they referred to as a cooling spell, 
possibly another little ice age. Then in 1918, it started getting warm 
again. So from 1918 to 1945 there was a little warming period. That 
took place kind of every 30 years. Then in 1995, from that period until 
1975, for 30 years again, it went into a cooling period.
  Here is the key. No one will argue with the fact that 1945 was the 
year that we had the maximum increase

[[Page S335]]

surge in CO2 emissions. That precipitated not a warming 
period but a cooling period. Then, of course, 1975 came along.
  Where are the charts that showed that in 1974--Time magazine or one 
of those? Here it is. This is Time magazine. This is the front. They 
said: Is another ice age coming? This is 1974. This is making the case. 
Everybody believed it. They talked about global warming before that and 
then another ice age. We are all going to die one way or another.
  Put up the other chart, which is also Time magazine. This is when 
they said: Oh, no, here is the last polar bear and all the ice--so we 
have another global warming period. Both of them are from Time 
magazine. Both are 30 years apart. This is what has been happening for 
a long period of time.
  Recognizing this, we had a little experience that--getting back, I 
made a determination that I would not only support the Whitehouse 
amendment, since it was just one sentence, it said that climate is 
changing, and it is not a hoax, but that I could clarify that and maybe 
become a cosponsor to his amendment. So I did that on the floor just a 
few minutes ago. I said on the floor that, yes, it is changing--no 
question about that. But the hoax is that there are people who are so 
arrogant they think they have the power to change climate. That is the 
hoax--not the fact that climate is changing. So that is what has been 
happening.
  When some of the scientists came out and they started changing back 
and forth and all of a sudden people realized this whole thing was 
cooked up by the United Nations--IPCC was part of that group--then they 
found out that some of the scientists who were behind this were 
discovering that they had some emails that were sent out saying and 
proving conclusively that they were cooking the science, that these 
scientists were lying.
  One of the things that was discovered and came out was an email from 
one of the scientists to another. It was 1999 and it read: I have just 
completed Mike's nature trick, adding in the real temperatures of each 
of the series for the last 20 years.
  In other words, they were cooking the science at that time. This 
thing was such a scandal that throughout the world--we didn't hear 
nearly as much in the United States, but we did throughout the world. 
The UK Telegraph, which is maybe the largest communication in the UK, 
said that it is the worst scientific scandal of our generation.
  What they are talking about is the scientific scandal. They are 
trying to make it sound as if man is responsible for all of these 
things. The Financial Times came out and said the closed-mindedness of 
these supposed men of science is surprising even to me. The stink of an 
intellectual corruption is overpowering.
  One of the IPCC physicists said that climate-gate was a fraud on a 
scale I have never seen before. This went on and on, and we could quote 
Newsweek, the Guardian, and all the rest of them. It was known 
worldwide as a scandal. What was the scandal? It was that they had a 
bunch of scientists who were saying we are going to have to pass 
something like cap and trade because man is causing the world to come 
to an end.
  So that is really what that was all about. We are going to have the 
debate. We want to do that. I chair the Committee on Environment and of 
Public Works. I chaired it 8 years ago. Then when the Democrats got 
control of the Senate--and now I am back in that position. We will have 
a chance to have hearings. We are going to have hearings with prominent 
scientists to come in and talk about this issue because all they say 
now is: Oh, the science is settled; the science is settled.
  The science is not settled. That is the reason my good friend Senator 
Wyden wants to make some remarks. That is the reason I made that 
statement today. I think we will have that very healthy debate. But 
let's keep in mind what the President was suggesting last night. It 
would cost the American people $479 billion a year, and that would 
constitute the largest tax increase in the history of America. That is 
one of his legacies which he is trying during the last part of his 
presidency and which he announced last night that he is going to put as 
a top priority. We will be there to be the truth squad in that and make 
sure that my kids and grandkids--I have 20--are not going to be 
encumbered with the largest tax increase in the world, particularly 
when their own director said: If you pass it, it will not reduce 
CO2 emissions.
  I yield floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                  Amendment No. 27 to Amendment No. 2

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up and make 
pending Wyden amendment No. 27 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to clarify that products derived from tar sands are crude oil for 
purposes of the Federal excise tax on petroleum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], for himself, Mr. 
     Bennet, Mr. Brown, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Casey, Mr. 
     Nelson, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Markey, 
     Mr. Merkley, and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 
     27 to amendment No. 2.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that 
   products derived from tar sands are crude oil for purposes of the 
                    Federal excise tax on petroleum)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. CLARIFICATION OF TAR SANDS AS CRUDE OIL FOR EXCISE 
                   TAX PURPOSES.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 4612(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) Crude oil.--The term `crude oil' includes crude oil 
     condensates, natural gasoline, synthetic petroleum, any 
     bitumen or bituminous mixture, any oil derived from a bitumen 
     or bituminous mixture, and any oil derived from kerogen-
     bearing sources.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section 4612(a) 
     of such Code is amended by striking ``from a well located''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to oil and petroleum products received, entered, 
     used, or exported during calendar quarters beginning more 
     than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this amendment closes a tax loophole that 
currently places Canadian tar sands oil ahead of the American taxpayer. 
While oil produced here in the United States, in places such as North 
Dakota and Texas, pays into a cleanup fund for oil spills, tar sands 
does not. The bottom line here is simple--when Canadian tar sands oil 
is spilled on American soil, the American taxpayer pays up. In effect, 
it is possible to state what this is all about in straight forward 
English: right now, our Tax Code is so out of date that it says that 
oil from the tar sands isn't actually oil. Put your arms around that 
for a second. The Tax Code is in a time warp. Under the current policy, 
what concerns me is a judgment that oil from the tar sands isn't 
actually oil.
  All other crude oil product refiners have to pay an 8-cent-per-barrel 
tax to support the oilspill liability trust fund that pays for cleaning 
up the spills.
  This puts our own domestic producers at a competitive disadvantage.
  I see my colleague from Colorado who cares greatly about these 
issues. I am saying to myself, in Colorado or Texas or North Dakota--in 
effect the policy that we have today on tax law--and I am the ranking 
Democrat on the Senate finance committee--as I looked at it, the first 
thing that came to mind is we have a tax policy here that, without the 
amendment I offer with my Senate finance colleagues, Senator Markey and 
others, we are putting domestic American producers--whether it is 
Colorado, North Dakota or Texas--at a competitive disadvantage. While 
domestic producers willingly contribute to clean up the oil spills, 
their Canadian competitors, and the tar sands up north of Edmonton, 
simply do not. This just defies commonsense.
  Oil from the tar sands is just as likely to spill as other kinds of 
oil. Unfortunately, you don't have to look much beyond today's 
headlines to get a sense of what an oil spill actually means for 
communities across our country.

[[Page S336]]

  This past weekend an oil pipeline ruptured in Montana, pouring about 
50,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River, 5 miles upstream from 
the city of Glendive. Now local residents are reporting that their 
water smells like diesel fuel. The officials tested the water in 
Glendive and found oil in the drinking water and along with it elevated 
levels of benzene, a cancer-causing agent.
  That is what is under consideration with this amendment, making sure 
that all of the parties responsible--no matter where they are from--
would pay their fair share when they put our citizens' health and 
safety at risk.
  The double standard--the standard that is much more exacting on our 
domestic producers than it is on the Canadian tar sands producers--
ought to be fixed.
  Tar sands oil producers ought to pay into the same fund as other oil 
producers to clean up the spills. Because, make no mistake about it, at 
the end of the day, without this amendment that closes the tar sands 
loophole, Canadian tar sands oil will keep getting a free ride.
  The last point I want to mention, is just to put this issue in 
context. Before I chaired the Senate Finance Committee in the last 
Congress, I had the honor of chairing the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee. In session after session of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, proponents of the pipeline said: We have got to 
have this to lower gas prices. If we are really going to lower gas 
prices, said the proponents--this was session after session after 
session--we have got to build the pipeline.
  Well, we have all seen that prices have fallen dramatically. To a 
great extent it is due to exciting developments in the Bakken and 
others. We are now essentially the Saudi Arabia of oil production. This 
is good news. This is like a tax cut for working-class families across 
the country.
  One of the judgments I reached in making the decision to oppose the 
pipeline is I did not think it made much sense to tamper with something 
that was such a promising development as real rate relief at the pump. 
A fair number of experts--yes, there is a difference of opinion, but a 
fair number of experts--are concerned that the pipeline, if it is 
built, could actually raise prices, particularly for vulnerable parts 
of the country. The Midwest could be one, but certainly there could be 
others.
  So I had reservations about this from a variety of standpoints, 
including the standpoint that tar sands are a very carbon-dense 
material. But I am particularly concerned tonight about the inequity of 
the tar sands loophole, where the Canadians get a free ride at the 
expense of communities all across the Nation.
  My amendment would close this flagrant abuse, close this loophole, 
help us put our tax priorities in order, and protect American citizens 
and American communities, rather than giving an undeserved advantage to 
foreign oil.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, to reform the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, to clarify that those products derived 
from tar sands are crude oil for purposes of the Federal excise tax on 
petroleum. I hope this amendment will generate bipartisan support. No 
matter how a Senator feels with respect to the pipeline, I do not see 
how you can make the case that you should not correct something that 
defies common sense.
  Before the Presiding Officer came in, I made mention that right now 
the absence of the amendment that I offer puts a disadvantage--a 
serious disadvantage--on all of America's domestic producers. We did an 
awful lot to make it possible for Americans to get relief at the pump. 
That does not make any sense. So I hope my colleagues tomorrow will 
support this amendment on a bipartisan basis to close a flagrant tax 
loophole, to end what amounts to an inequity that hurts at a minimum 
our producers, but puts at risk our communities needlessly.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The clerk will call the roll
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Amendment No. 71 to Amendment No. 2

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment to call up my amendment No. 71.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 71 to amendment No. 2.

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To require a procedure for issuing permits to drill)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS TO DRILL REFORM AND 
                   PROCESS.

       Section 17(p) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226(p)) 
     is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Applications for permits to drill reform and 
     process.--
       `` (A) Timeline.--
       `` (i) In general.--The Secretary shall decide whether to 
     issue a permit to drill not later than 30 days after 
     receiving an application for the permit.
       ``(ii) Extension.--The Secretary may extend the period in 
     clause (i) for up to 2 periods of 15 days each, if the 
     Secretary has given written notice of the delay to the 
     applicant.
       ``(iii) Notice requirements.--Written notice under clause 
     (ii) shall--
       ``(I) be in the form of a letter from the Secretary or a 
     designee of the Secretary; and
       ``(II) include the names and titles of the persons 
     processing the application, the specific reasons for the 
     delay, and a specific date a final decision on the 
     application is expected.
       ``(B) Notice of reasons for denial.--If the application is 
     denied, the Secretary shall provide the applicant--
       ``(i) in writing, clear and comprehensive reasons why the 
     application was not accepted and detailed information 
     concerning any deficiencies; and
       ``(ii) an opportunity to remedy any deficiencies.
       ``(C) Application considered approved.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the Secretary has not made a decision 
     on the application by the end of the 60-day period beginning 
     on the date the application is received by the Secretary, the 
     application is considered approved, except in cases in which 
     existing reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act 
     of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) or the Endangered Species 
     Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) are incomplete.
       ``(ii) Environmental reviews.--Existing reviews under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 
     et seq.) shall be completed not later than 180 days after 
     receiving an application for the permit.
       ``(iii) Failure to complete.--If all existing reviews are 
     not completed during the 180-day period described in clause 
     (ii), the project subject to the application shall be 
     considered to have no significant impact in accordance with 
     section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) and section 7(a)(2) of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) and 
     that classification shall be considered to be a final agency 
     action.
       ``(D) Denial of permit.--If the Secretary decides not to 
     issue a permit to drill in accordance with subparagraph (A), 
     the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) provide to the applicant a description of the reasons 
     for the denial of the permit;
       ``(ii) allow the applicant to resubmit an application for a 
     permit to drill during the 10-day period beginning on the 
     date the applicant receives the description of the denial 
     from the Secretary; and
       ``(iii) issue or deny any resubmitted application not later 
     than 10 days after the date the application is submitted to 
     the Secretary.
       ``(E) Judicial review.--Actions of the Secretary carried 
     out in accordance with this paragraph shall not be subject to 
     judicial review.''.

  Mr. LEE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, let me talk a little bit this evening about 
amendment No. 77 that I filed. This is an amendment I filed to the bill 
that is pending that we are now on, what I would call the oil sands 
pipeline. It has been called a jobs bill, I know, on the other side. 
But, you know, the reality is, there are good construction jobs here. 
But as soon as the pipeline is built, the permanent jobs are really 
very small.
  What we need to do--my belief--in terms of energy, is work to where 
there are larger numbers of jobs. I do not

[[Page S337]]

know whether people know this, but the energy that is being added to 
the system now worldwide and in the United States is renewable energy. 
Sometimes it is wind, sometimes it is solar, to a lesser extent 
biofuels, biomass and things like that. But the renewable sector is 
growing. The new energy is growing. Some of this is rather dramatic in 
terms of the numbers and the size. That is the direction clearly we 
need to head, because we want to in the future be lessening our carbon 
footprint. There is absolutely no dispute that we need to be moving in 
that direction. That is where all the scientists are.
  We are even seeing today in the amendments that we have on the floor 
our friends across the aisle agreeing that we have got a real problem 
with climate change and that human beings are causing this and we need 
to address this. I applaud them stepping forward and saying that. How 
do you do this? How do you encourage more of the renewable forms of 
energy?
  Let me say before I get into that, my hope is to have a discussion 
with the two Senators who are on side who are leading the debate here, 
Senator Boxer and Senator Cantwell, about offering this amendment and 
getting in line in the next tranche of amendments.
  But how do you get moving in the direction of more renewable energy? 
Well, we already know we have got a very good pattern here. We have 
started in the States and started in the District of Columbia, where 
more than half of our States in the United States of America have 
adopted what have been called renewable electricity standards. New 
Mexico has one. We have 15 percent by 2015. Some of our bigger States 
have been more aggressive. States such as California and New York are 
really pushing the envelope. They are saying by about 2025 we are going 
to have 30 percent or close to 30 percent renewable energy. So, really, 
what they are doing by putting a standard in place is they are saying 
to their power companies in their State: This is important to do. We 
know it is cost effective. Go out and develop your portfolio so that 
you put more renewable energy in it.

  The remarkable thing, looking around the country, is how many States 
have done this. We have seen 29 States, I believe, including the 
District of Columbia, for a number of years now that have put a 
renewable electricity standard in place. So that is something that we 
know is working at the State level.
  In fact, my Senator from New Mexico--who retired just a couple of 
years ago, Senator Bingaman--one of the things he did was go out to 
Stanford and study all of these renewable electricity standards that 
were in place and came up with ideas on the best practices and where 
there were disadvantages. He has actually published a report with a 
bunch of other researchers. So there is good wealth of knowledge about 
what is working and what isn't working.
  But the major thing that is working is when we encourage a 
marketplace in renewable energy. We don't necessarily call out winners 
and losers. I know that is something that on both sides of the aisle we 
object to when we said: This is going to be a winning form, that is not 
going to be a winning form.
  What we are doing is saying: Let's try to move toward renewables. 
Let's put a goal out there and then let's let the marketplace work on 
that. Let's see innovation. Let's move forward down that road. We have 
seen the 29 States do it and the District of Columbia.
  My proposal in this amendment--and it is one I have worked on--has a 
good history. One of the things we know is when Senator Bingaman was in 
the Senate and head of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he 
was able to pass through the Senate three times, over his career as 
chairman, a renewable electricity center out of the Senate.
  When I was in the House of Representatives from 1998 to 2008, my 
cousin Mark Udall and I worked on a renewable electricity standard in 
the House. For the first time we were able to get a bill through the 
House of Representatives. So our big challenge always was we were never 
able to match the House bill and the Senate bill and put in place 
something that a President can sign and have a national standard. That 
is where we are today. We have had good support, and really what this 
amendment would do is set up a national marketplace. Many States across 
the Nation, and almost every State, have renewable energy. If you go 
into the South, it may be more biomass than it is of solar. If you go 
to the West and Midwest, it may be more wind and solar, but it depends 
on location.
  What is clear from all of the experts who looked at this is it is 
very easy to focus on when you have a goal, and you say, in the case of 
this amendment, by 2025, let's get 25 percent of our energy from 
renewable sources. So if we have a goal like that, we could get there.
  I am urging everybody to take a look at this amendment to see what it 
is that we should be doing.
  If we are talking about moving down the road with this proposal that 
we have before us, where we are scavenging, in a way, for the dirtiest 
forms of energy, these tar sands--which are much dirtier than the 
environmental impact statement said. Not only are they dirtier by about 
17 percent, but when you tear down all those forests, which are taking 
carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, you are putting yourself in a 
position where you are headed down the wrong road in terms of easing 
our carbon footprint.
  I ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a look 
at this amendment. I will visit with the leaders on the floor about 
this amendment and see if we can't get it in line in terms of being 
considered.
  This is an important debate about our energy future. There is a lot 
of work to be done. I hope we can work together.
  We are at a crossroads in our energy policy. We can lead the world in 
clean energy production with wind, solar, and advanced biofuels. We can 
reduce global warming pollution. We can become energy independent--and 
create permanent American jobs.
  That is our future. That should be our priority. We have the 
technology. We have the resources. We need the commitment. That is why 
we need a national Renewable Electricity Standard. It takes us forward.
  My amendment would require utilities to generate 25 percent of 
electricity from renewable resources--by 2025.
  There are many benefits to a national RES. It would create 300,000 
jobs. Over 50 percent of these jobs are in manufacturing. It would save 
consumers $64 billion by 2025--and $95 billion by 2030--in their 
utility bills. There would be $263 billion in new capital investment. 
It would provide over $13 billion to farmers, ranchers, and other 
landowners in the form of lease payments, creating new economic 
activity in rural communities across the U.S. It would add more than 
$11 billion in new local tax revenues--and revitalize communities, 
especially rural communities.
  I have pushed for this ever since I came to Congress. The House 
passed it. The Senate has passed a version of this three times.
  New Mexico and over half the States already have an RES. The States 
are moving in that direction. The Nation needs to move in that 
direction.
  I have long said we need to do it all, and do it right as an energy 
policy. That includes traditional energy sources. Oil and gas play an 
important role in my State. New Mexico is a leading producer of both. 
We have strong, independent companies. They employ over 12,000 New 
Mexicans. They help pay for our schools and other public services.
  We invested in the oil industry. We also need to invest in wind, 
solar, and biofuels.
  The U.S. has incredible wind energy potential--enough to power the 
Nation 10 times over. My State has some of the best wind resources in 
the Nation--enough to meet more than 73 times the State's current 
electricity needs.
  Wind power has almost no carbon pollution. It uses virtually no 
water. It already saves folks in my State 470 million gallons of water 
a year.
  The U.S. solar industry employs more than 143,000 Americans--more 
than coal and natural gas combined. Solar jobs grew 10 times faster 
than the national average.
  These are well-paying, local jobs. These are permanent jobs, and they 
won't be shipped overseas.

[[Page S338]]

  Now is the time to build on the momentum and invest in a clean energy 
economy. Now is the time to create energy at home and jobs at home--
now, not later. We can't lose this market to our overseas competitors 
in Germany, China, and elsewhere. They can see the future too--and they 
are going after it.
  A national Renewable Electricity Standard gives certainty to 
business, to companies that are looking to invest billions of dollars 
in our economy, to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels, and other 
renewable energy components.
  We have a great opportunity to grow our manufacturing sector, to 
create jobs, and to move toward a cleaner energy future.
  This is a new Congress. Let's find common ground, and let's move 
forward.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Amendment No. 78 to Amendment No. 2

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Blunt, I ask 
unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 78, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski], for Mr. Blunt, for 
     himself and Mr. Inhofe, proposes an amendment numbered 78 to 
     amendment No. 2.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions 
   for the President entering into bilateral or other international 
 agreements regarding greenhouse gas emissions without proper study of 
  any adverse economic effects, including job losses and harm to the 
       industrial sector, and without the approval of the Senate)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING BILATERAL OR OTHER 
                   INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS REGARDING GREENHOUSE 
                   GAS EMISSIONS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) On November 11, 2014, President Barack Obama and 
     President Xi Jinping of the People's Republic of China 
     announced the ``U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate 
     Change and Clean Energy Cooperation'' (in this section 
     referred to as the ``Agreement'') reflecting ``the principle 
     of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective 
     capabilities, in light of different national circumstances''.
       (2) The Agreement stated the United States intention to 
     reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by one-quarter by 2025 
     while allowing the People's Republic of China to double its 
     greenhouse gas emissions between now and 2030.
       (3) While coal fired electricity remains the least 
     expensive energy alternative, the reduction of coal use 
     because of the Agreement would result in a 25 percent 
     increase in electricity prices in the United States in 2025, 
     according to analysis conducted by the Energy Information 
     Administration.
       (4) The people of China will not see similar electricity 
     price increases as they continue to use low cost coal without 
     limit for the foreseeable future, at least until 2030.
       (5) Increases in the price of electricity can cause job 
     losses in the United States industrial sector, which includes 
     manufacturing, agriculture, and construction.
       (6) The price of electricity is a top consideration for job 
     creators when locating manufacturing facilities, especially 
     in energy-intensive manufacturing such as steel and aluminum 
     production.
       (7) Requiring mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in 
     the United States while allowing nations such as China and 
     India to increase their greenhouse gas emissions results in 
     jobs moving from the United States to other countries, 
     especially to China and India, and is economically unfair.
       (8) Imposing disparate greenhouse gas emissions commitments 
     for the United States and countries such as China and India 
     is environmentally irresponsible because it results in 
     greater emissions as businesses move to countries with less 
     stringent standards.
       (9) Union members, families, consumers, communities, and 
     local institutions like schools, hospitals, and churches are 
     hurt by the resulting job losses.
       (10) The poor, the elderly, and those on fixed incomes are 
     hurt the most by the President's promised increased 
     electricity rates.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the Agreement negotiated between the President and the 
     President of the People's Republic of China has no force and 
     effect in the United States;
       (2) the Agreement between the President and the President 
     of the People's Republic of China is a bad deal for United 
     States consumers, workers, families, and communities, and is 
     economically unfair and environmentally irresponsible;
       (3) the Agreement, as well as any other bilateral or 
     international agreement regarding greenhouse gas emissions 
     such as the United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate 
     Change in Paris in December 2015, requires the advice and 
     consent of the Senate and must be accompanied by a detailed 
     explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may 
     be required to implement the Agreement and an analysis of the 
     detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of 
     the United States which would be incurred by the 
     implementation of the Agreement;
       (4) the United States should not be a signatory to any 
     bilateral or other international agreement on greenhouse 
     gases if it would result in serious harm to the economy of 
     the United States; and
       (5) the United States should not agree to any bilateral or 
     other international agreement imposing disparate greenhouse 
     gas commitments for the United States and other countries.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are wrapped up here for the evening 
so far as amendments, and I just want to thank colleagues for the 
discussion we have had today, the opportunity to bring forward some 
issues that clearly generate their own level of passion and emotion, 
and again the chance to bring forth issues we have been waiting for 
some period of time to have before us.
  While some may suggest these are hard issues and hard votes to take, 
nobody ever said voting should be easy here in the Senate. The issues 
that come before us are issues the Nation considers and that we as 
their representatives should take seriously. So sometimes there are 
hard votes, and we will argue and debate over the wording and 
critically, and that is appropriate.
  So again, looking forward to tomorrow, we have an opportunity to have 
now eight amendments that will be pending tomorrow afternoon, and I 
look forward to the continued discussion and a new day.
  With that, Mr. President, 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. 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.

                          ____________________