[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 12 (Monday, January 26, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S449-S460]
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 assistant 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.
       Vitter/Cassidy modified amendment No. 80 (to amendment No. 
     2), to provide for the distribution of revenues from certain 
     areas of the Outer Continental Shelf.
       Murkowski (for Sullivan) amendment No. 67 (to amendment No. 
     2), to restrict the authority of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to arm agency personnel.
       Cardin amendment No. 75 (to amendment No. 2), to provide 
     communities that rely on drinking water from a source that 
     may be affected by a tar sands spill from the Keystone XL 
     pipeline an analysis of the potential risks to public health 
     and the environment from a leak or rupture of the pipeline.
       Murkowski amendment No. 98 (to amendment No. 2), to express 
     the sense of Congress relating to adaptation projects in the 
     United States Arctic region and rural communities.
       Flake amendment No. 103 (to amendment No. 2), to require 
     the evaluation and consolidation of duplicative green 
     building programs.
       Cruz amendment No. 15 (to amendment No. 2), to promote 
     economic growth and job creation by increasing exports.
       Moran/Cruz amendment No. 73 (to amendment No. 2), to delist 
     the lesser prairie-chicken as a threatened species under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973.
       Daines amendment No. 132 (to amendment No. 2), to express 
     the sense of Congress regarding the designation of National 
     Monuments.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I came to the floor to speak about a 
measure that is supported by Members of both sides. I was listening to 
the remarks by the minority whip on who commemorated the life of Ernie 
Banks.


                        Remembering Ernie Banks

  I began school in Chicago in the early 1960s, when Ernie Banks was 
playing, and it is to be noted for the record that my grade point 
average would have been higher had I not spent so many afternoons at 
Wrigley Field watching the Cubs play. During that time all the games 
were played during the day, and

[[Page S450]]

as such I missed a few classes to watch our beloved Cubs.
  But our beloved player--perhaps the most beloved player in baseball 
history--Ernie Banks was a true delight.
  I wish I had time to speak more on that particular issue, but what I 
would like to direct my attention to is a bipartisan-supported measure, 
S. 1. The American people, in November, said: Get back to Washington. 
Work together, and get things done. And one of which was the Keystone 
Pipeline. It has bipartisan support. In fact, on the motion to proceed 
to this measure, 10 Democrats joined Republicans in this effort. And 
that is what we are debating here.


          Medical Device Access and Innovation Protection Act

  But I am here to talk about a second bill that certainly deserves to 
be in the top five of pieces of legislation that have bipartisan 
support and will hopefully result in passage and then sent to the 
President. And, hopefully, with a number of Democrats joining 
Republicans in these efforts, the President will take a second look at 
his veto threats on measures that have bipartisan support.
  It was Winston Churchill who said that a nation trying to tax itself 
into prosperity ``is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift 
himself up by the handle.''
  Unfortunately, one of Indiana's most vibrant, growing industries is 
stuck in the bottom of the bucket because of a small provision tucked 
away in the 2,000-page ObamaCare law, which imposes on them an excise 
tax, a 2.3-percent excise tax on every sale they make of medical 
devices, hindering innovation and job creation.
  Medical device manufacturers in my State directly employ over 20,000 
Hoosiers and indirectly support thousands of additional jobs. These are 
jobs that pay well above the average--56 percent higher wages than the 
average wage rate in Indiana. So these are top-quality jobs, providing 
significant employment for a significant number of Hoosiers.
  We have more than 300 FDA-registered medical device manufacturers in 
our State, and this is true of many other States. This industry is 
boosting our State's economy, our Nation's economy, and producing 
technologies that are changing and saving lives.
  Products ranging from wheelchair van lifts to artificial knees, hips, 
and shoulders, to catheters used in heart procedures, have improved or 
saved the lives of many Hoosiers and countless others not only in my 
State, not only in America, but across the globe.
  Since the implementation of this excise tax--passed in the ObamaCare 
Act in 2010, imposed in 2013--this destructive tax has caused companies 
to freeze hiring, lay off workers, and shelve plans to expand and build 
new facilities.
  A survey by the Advanced Medical Technology Association found that 
the device tax forced manufacturers to let go of or avoid hiring 33,000 
workers in 2013.
  Look, I thought we were trying to get people back to work. I thought 
we were working to pass bipartisan legislation that would benefit this 
country and benefit those who are seeking employment.
  Cook Medical of Bloomington was forced to table plans for a major 
expansion because of the device tax.
  In 2013 testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, Cook Medical 
chairman Steve Ferguson stated:

       Cook has made the difficult decision that without repeal 
     [of the medical device tax], we will move important new 
     product lines outside of the U.S. Our previous plans to open 
     up five new manufacturing facilities in American towns are 
     now on hold as we use capital intended for these projects to 
     pay the device tax.

  The negative impact of this tax is not only felt by large employers 
such as Cook Medical, it also hurts gross sales of companies that are 
not making a profit but are developing innovative new ways to find 
benefits for the health and safety, and even the life, in many cases, 
of those who need these medical devices.
  As a result, these companies are not profitable because they are 
having to pay the tax. They are struggling to launch new innovations to 
save and improve lives. For instance, a small Warsaw, Indiana-based 
manufacturer, which develops and sells orthopedic implants for 
children, had to shelve two important projects simply because it had to 
use its resources to pay the medical device tax.
  After the tax was implemented, an employee of that company shared his 
story with me. Because of this tax, he said, the manufacturer is now 
largely inhibited from working on important new products, such as a 
device that reduces a wheelchair-bound child's discomfort.
  How ironic that ObamaCare, which the President said would increase 
the health benefits for Americans in coverage, is actually a barrier to 
improving lives and health outcomes.
  Last week, I joined nine of my Senate colleagues, including five 
Democrats, to introduce the Medical Device Access and Innovation 
Protection Act. Our legislation would eliminate this tax and has strong 
bipartisan support.
  During the last session of Congress, 79 Senators voted to pass a 
bipartisan amendment to the fiscal year 2014 Senate budget resolution 
that called for the repeal of this device tax--79 Members, 34 Democrats 
and 45 Republicans. It does not get much more bipartisan than that.
  So we are hoping that while this may not be labeled S. 2, it 
certainly stands in the top three or four issues that have strong 
support and will respond to the call of the American people in November 
to get back to Washington, get together, work on things with bipartisan 
support that are going to improve our economy and get people back to 
work, and get it up to the President.
  I hope my colleagues will see that this egregious, harmful tax, 
tucked-away in the Affordable Care Act, will force us to move forward, 
repeal it, and result in the kind of improvements the American people 
are asking us to address. It is long past time for Washington to stop 
punishing medical device innovators in Indiana and across the country. 
I am urging my colleagues to support this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, we are trying to figure out how to do a 
fair division of the time that remains. I ask unanimous consent that 
Senators Stabenow and Peters have 5 minutes between them to discuss an 
amendment they have been working on, followed by Senator Cardin, who 
would have 3 minutes to explain his, followed by myself having 2\1/2\ 
minutes to discuss my amendment, then Senator Heitkamp would have 5 
minutes after that, and then the remaining time for Senator Sessions. 
Because that would be equal. That would add to our having as much time 
as Senators Sessions or Murkowski, whoever at that point wants to 
speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am seeking clarification. Is the 
Senator from California asking that these respective Members have an 
opportunity to speak to amendments or to get their amendments pending?
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, some will ask for amendments to be pending. I know 
I will. Some will not ask that; they just want to be heard. But there 
is 30 minutes left in the debate. Your side just finished. Obviously, 
if we do not want to be fair, somebody could grab the time on our side 
now and talk for 30 minutes. We do not think that is right. We are 
trying to divide it up between our side and your side. So I have 
divided about 15 minutes on our side and given 15 minutes to Senator 
Sessions, who wanted to be heard on the matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, again, I am seeking clarification here, 
because up until this point in time, what we have done, in order to get 
amendments pending, is the ranking member and I have kind of worked 
back and forth in terms of what it was that would come up as far as 
pending.
  As far as Members just seeking to speak to amendments, I certainly do 
not have a problem with what the Senator from California has proposed. 
I am trying to get some other understanding. I was also--my 
understanding is that I had the time beginning at 5:15 p.m. reserved. I 
think there is a little bit of confusion here.

[[Page S451]]

  Mrs. BOXER. Reclaiming my time, we have already wasted 4 minutes of 
the 15. The Senator can object if she does not want to allow us to have 
an amendment pending, but I am going to start off here. Is the Senator 
still objecting? Instead of Senator Sessions, I will give--now it is 
about 12 minutes to you at the end. Is that all right with the Senator?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, again, I am trying to understand. If 
Members just want to speak to their amendments, there is not a problem 
with what the Senator has suggested. It is just the question of whether 
we are getting amendments pending, because we have been going back and 
forth, side to side, up to this point in time.
  I will be happy to put the microphone down and let the Senator from 
California speak to her amendment while Senator Cantwell and I talk 
about how we get more amendments pending. That way she can get talking.
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, if I might say this: Every Senator has a right to 
ask unanimous consent on anything. If the Senator does not like it, she 
can say, ``I object.'' I do intend to--I cannot speak for anybody else. 
I want to make my amendment pending because it is germane. I want to 
make sure it is heard. It is about public health. So if my friend does 
not want to agree to this unanimous consent, then I think what we will 
do is I will hold the floor and I will yield to colleagues for 
questions and they can make their points.
  I do not understand my friend's objection to the way we have it laid 
out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. There continues to be objection. I would like to meet 
with the ranking member to continue a process of back-and-forth to make 
amendments pending. I have no objection to the Senator from California 
speaking to her amendment at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, I am going to take the time now--the entire time--
and yield to colleagues for them to ask me questions. So I will speak 
for 2 minutes or less and then I am going to ask unanimous consent on 
my amendment.
  We want to have a study of the significant human health impacts of 
the Keystone Canadian XL tar sands pipeline. I do not believe they were 
adequately addressed in the supplemental environmental impact report or 
completely analyzed.
  I held a press conference with doctors from Canada who spoke about 
the adverse impact on the health of people living near the pipeline. We 
have had spills along the pipeline in Michigan, in Arkansas. Those 
spills are not adequately cleaned up as we speak.
  As Senator Cantwell informed me, there have been an additional two 
spills since the new Congress came into session. From extraction to 
transportation to refining to waste storage, misery follows the tar 
sands. We know there are dangerous air pollutants and carcinogens that 
have been documented from tar sands refining--all of this to help a 
Canadian private company make a whole bunch of money, and we cannot 
even keep the oil in this country.
  Are you kidding me? Thirty-five permanent jobs. The least we can do 
is have an in-depth health impact study before we approve this 
pipeline.
  I am very sad to say--you know, we still have this kind of gag-athon 
going on from the other side. They would not even let people speak for 
1 minute on their amendment. That is why I am grabbing the floor here. 
I could not even get agreement to divide up the time, so I am taking 
the time.
  I will be happy to yield to my friend from Michigan, through the 
Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Thank you very much to my friend and colleague and 
leader from California.
  I first want to say thank you to Senators Murkowski and Cantwell who 
have worked so hard with Senator Boxer moving forward a process that, 
until Thursday night, was working very well going back and forth.
  Before we authorize the building of a new oil pipeline in America, it 
is important for us to consider the safety of pipelines we already 
have.
  In 2010, a pipeline that runs from Canada through Michigan spilled 
nearly a million gallons of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River, 
causing the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history.
  That cleanup cost $1.2 billion.
  Nine days ago, another pipeline broke in Montana, and for the second 
time in 4 years, tens of thousands of gallons of oil emptied into the 
Yellowstone River, making that water unsafe to drink.
  Right now in Michigan, we have a 61-year-old pipeline which runs 
along environmentally sensitive areas and goes beneath the Straits of 
Mackinac and our magnificent Great Lakes.
  That pipeline carries 1.2 million gallons of tar sands oil per day 
and has undergone only a few upgrades since it was first installed in 
1953. A spill would be devastating, not only to the region but to all 
Americans--because the Great Lakes are a vital source of our Nation's 
fresh water supply.
  Yet none of the companies transporting heavy tar sands crude are 
required to pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which would 
ensure that taxpayers are not footing the bill.
  When we offered an amendment to fix that, the Republicans said no.
  America's economy is only as strong as our natural resources, and 
those resources are threatened every time a pipeline breaks.
  Making matters worse, Republicans said no to amendments that would 
keep the oil in America, guarantee the pipeline be built with American 
steel and use American workers.
  So Americans take all of the risks with very few, if any, rewards.
  Because Republicans refuse to make this Canadian oil company pay into 
the oil spill fund, American taxpayers may have to bailout the company 
if the pipeline breaks.
  So, before our Colleagues vote on behalf of the oil companies to 
approve the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, it is critical 
that we pass the amendment that my friend and partner from Michigan and 
I have introduced.
  This amendment ensures that we address the safety of the pipelines 
that we have now--before beginning construction on Keystone. And it 
would ensure that the heightened safety standards being applied to 
Keystone exist in pipelines around the Great Lakes.
  The Republican majority has promised an open amendment process, so I 
certainly hope that when my colleague from Michigan offers this 
amendment in a few moments, the Republican majority will allow a vote 
on this critical pipeline safety amendment--even though Big Oil may not 
like it.
  Again, the American people are taking all of the risks when the oil 
will not even stay in America. The least Congress can do is guarantee 
the pipelines are safe.
  I would ask my friends to join with Senator Peters and me in saying 
that before we authorize the building of a new oil pipeline in America 
that we have to consider and strengthen the safety of pipelines, the 
pipelines we already have. In 2010, a pipeline that runs from Canada 
through Michigan spilled nearly 1 million gallons of tar sands oil into 
the Kalamazoo River--this has been talked about before--causing the 
largest inland oilspill in U.S. history.
  So we need to vote on Senator Peters' and my amendment. The cleanup 
itself cost $1.2 billion. Nine days ago, another pipeline broke in 
Montana. For the second time in 4 years, tens of thousands of gallons 
of oil emptied into the Yellowstone River, making that water unsafe to 
drink. So would my friend from California agree with me and share 
concerns that under the Straits of Mackinac--and our gorgeous, 
beautiful Great Lakes--we have a 61-year old pipeline that runs through 
environmentally sensitive areas, goes right under the water, and has 
only been upgraded a couple of times since 1953?
  Before we pass this Keystone Pipeline bill, we should make sure our 
Great Lakes have the pipeline safety we need, as well as all of our 
pipelines across the country.
  Would my colleague agree with that?
  Mrs. BOXER. I could not agree more with my friend. Her question is 
pertinent and to the point of this debate. We are giving permission to 
a Canadian company to come through and use America as a passthrough. 
They are going to leave behind petcoke, leave behind spills--they have 
already done it before with the tar sands pipeline. This is the hardest 
oil to clean up.

[[Page S452]]

  I absolutely know that my friend Senator Peters has a question as 
well.
  Without losing my right to the floor, I ask unanimous consent to set 
aside the pending amendment so that I may call up my amendment. I will 
wait for the objection to be heard. I am not going to plow through 
this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. BOXER. That was my amendment No. 128. I am very disappointed, 
because what the Senator is talking about, making sure the pipelines 
are safe, and what I am talking about, a health study, are quite 
related.
  I know my friend from Michigan wanted me to yield for a question. I 
am happy to do so.
  Mr. PETERS. I appreciate the Senator from California yielding for a 
question, as I am listening to this debate and hearing from my 
colleague, the Senator from Michigan, as to the importance of pipeline 
safety, as we are now debating a very comprehensive bill to give 
approval for one specific pipeline in this country, which I think is 
very much an unprecedented type of vote in the Senate.
  My question is: Why do we not have an opportunity, or would the 
Senator not agree that we should have an opportunity, to offer 
amendments? I know I am new to the Senate, but I was informed this 
would be an open amendment process. My idea of an open amendment 
process means you can actually offer amendments. It means you can also 
actually debate amendments. That is an open process, particularly 
something as important as protecting our Great Lakes, this incredible, 
immense body of freshwater, one of the largest bodies of freshwater in 
the world. We have a pipeline that goes through there, above the 
lakebed, that could potentially be catastrophic if there is a break.
  As Senator Stabenow mentioned, in Michigan we have already had the 
most expensive pipeline break in history--4 years of cleanup of 
Canadian tar sands oil, oil that sinks to the bottom of the river. It 
is more expensive to clean up--over $1.2 billion in cleanup. So you can 
imagine if we had a pipeline break in the middle of the Great Lakes. It 
would be catastrophic to this country, it would be catastrophic to the 
State of Michigan, but really catastrophic to the entire world. It is a 
risk we cannot take.
  That is why we have authored a commonsense amendment that says we 
should ensure that there is adequate inspection, that PHMSA has the 
resources they need in order to inspect this, and if there are special 
requirements to protect the Great Lakes, as there were special 
requirements for Keystone, it should also be available to other 
pipelines, particularly in sensitive areas such as the Great Lakes.
  That is why, in the spirit of an open amendment process, in the 
spirit of this great deliberative body, where people are allowed to 
debate the big issues affecting our world, I ask unanimous consent to 
set aside the pending amendment so that I may call up my amendment No. 
70.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. BOXER. If I could answer the question posed to me by my friend--
he asked do I think there ought to be an open amendment process. Not 
only do I think there should be, we were promised an open amendment 
process. What occurred here at midnight on Thursday night, before the 
Senate left--some of our colleagues who are running for President went 
out to my beautiful State to make their case, as they have every right 
to do. But instead of staying on Friday, we adjourned on Thursday 
night. It was anything but an open amendment process.
  I see the Senator from Massachusetts on the floor. He had a 
critically important amendment. He asked for 60 seconds to explain his 
amendment. I have been here over 20 years. I have never seen a 
situation, ever, where five Members in a row, five great Senators 
representing their great States, were told: Sit down; we are gagging 
you. That is what happened. This is wrong. So we are going to be asked 
to proceed today and shut down the amendment process even further. I do 
not know how the Senate is going to vote. However the Senate votes, it 
votes. But the bottom line is, this has been anything but an open 
amendment process. My friend is absolutely right.
  I know the Senator from Maryland wanted to ask me a question.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, could I ask my colleague from California 
to yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. The question I am going to ask Senator Boxer to respond 
to is: What are the consequences if we invoke cloture about 15 minutes 
from now when that comes up for a vote on the floor?
  There were many of my colleagues who had amendments they wanted to 
offer. They filed those amendments.
  Unless those amendments become pending, it is my understanding that--
and unless those amendments meet the very narrow germaneness rule--they 
may be relevant to debate--but the germaneness rules are pretty tough 
so that unless we defeat cloture, we may not have an open amendment 
process.
  I know the majority leader talked about an open amendment process, 
but many of my colleagues--including this Member, who has additional 
amendments I would like to have considered--will not be able to get 
those amendments considered, if I understand it, Senator Boxer, unless 
the cloture motion is defeated.
  Let me talk for one moment about amendment 75, which I filed and is 
pending, and I think is critically important.
  What that amendment would do is allow our Governors and our county 
officials to be able to get information about the risk to their 
drinking water as a result of the potential spills on the aquifers. 
This is not a hypothetical question because the Ogallala Aquifer, which 
is the country's largest underground freshwater resource, is crossed by 
the proposed line of the Keystone. Therefore, it is of major concern to 
the Governors and local officials what a potential spill could have 
with regard to their drinking water supplies, to their communities. At 
some of places the aquifer is within 5 feet of the surface. So a spill 
could have a dramatic impact on the supply of safe drinking water.
  As has already been pointed out by my colleagues in Michigan, in July 
2010 there was a pipeline rupture near Marshall, MI, that released 
843,000 gallons of tar sands oil. It had a horrific impact on the 
environment, and it is still difficult to see the end in sight because 
of the cleanup difficulties in this thick, tar sands oil.
  On March 29, 2013, there was a pipeline rupture in Mayflower, AR, 
that caused an incredible challenge to the cleanup.
  So my amendment is pretty simple. My amendment would allow that 
information to be made available to our Governors and our local 
officials so that they could then notify the President that they have a 
concern on the route and allow that to be considered before the 
pipeline is constructed, giving our local governments the opportunity 
to be heard--to have the information and then be heard on this very 
important issue.
  My question to the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, is: If we are 
going to have an open amendment process, how can that be if the cloture 
motion that was filed by the majority leader were to become approved? 
Wouldn't that deny us that full, open amendment process that we had 
heard was going to be used in this Congress?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend for the question.
  Again, we were promised an open amendment process.
  I wish to make a point to my friend who has worked so hard on the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. I am so appreciative of his 
work. Do you know, if an amendment like yours does not pass, what it 
means is that American companies will be treated in a much harsher 
fashion than a Canadian foreign oil company--in other words, because 
the other side is just saying: No more facts, no more information, no 
more environmental impact statement--even though we know there are 
health impacts due to the tar sands.
  The Senator has pointed out the possibility of having a bad impact on 
drinking water. We have seen what has happened in West Virginia when we 
don't worry about that.

[[Page S453]]

  So my friend is absolutely right, and I am honored that he asked me 
to comment on this particular amendment. And I hope that he will ask--I 
know you are pending. I hope that you are going to get a vote on this 
amendment one way or another.
  I know some other colleagues may want to ask a question.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Would the Senator from California yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am pleased to yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. I thank the Senator.
  From the start, let me say that Senator Boxer and I are not on the 
same side on the principal bill. I have long been one of the staunchest 
supporters of the Keystone XL Pipeline bill.
  A lot of what we have heard today is about the consequences of aging 
infrastructure. So the question I have for Senator Boxer is: Would it 
not make sense, as we are talking about this Keystone XL Pipeline bill, 
that we find common ground that we all should agree that we need the 
resources to have the regulatory authority and the regulatory personnel 
to go out and make sure that aging infrastructure--the infrastructure 
underneath the Great Lakes and what happened now in the Yellowstone 
River--that we have a robust and very complete PHMSA organization that 
has the personnel to go out and follow the pipeline, test the pipeline, 
and review the results? But even as important to me is PHMSA's role in 
making sure that our transportation of oil on the railroad is actually 
adequate, that we have adequate regulation.
  So one of my amendments--not pending but filed--is, in fact, an 
amendment that would address directly what I would hope would be common 
ground for everyone in the Senate, which is making sure we are, in 
fact, regulating interstate pipelines.
  I also wish to talk about how we have an ``all of the above'' policy 
that everybody talks about where we somehow don't seem to get to that 
point.
  One of the amendments I have at the desk, which I would dearly love 
to call up and make sure that it gets a vote, is an amendment that 
would provide a long-term--just 5 years--glide path for wind energy.
  I think we have seen, as we have included this in the tax extenders, 
this stop-and-go policy that has, in fact, not only put the companies' 
lives on hold but also their employees' lives.
  I am hopeful. We don't know how the vote is going to turn out. No one 
knows until the vote is done, but I am hopeful that we will be able to 
come back and introduce so many of these amendments that my colleagues 
have advanced--some of which I agree with and some of which I don't.
  But that is the nature of the Senate--that we actually have a vote, 
because I think, as a believer, I have good ideas but my ideas should 
have a debate in the Senate.
  But wouldn't the Senator agree that one common area that we all share 
is making sure that we have a robust regulatory environment to protect 
our waterways, to protect our farmers' soil from any leaks, and to make 
sure that any leaks, to the extent they are preventable, are prevented.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my colleague from North Dakota, of course, I 
agree with her. We don't agree on the tar sands pipeline, but we do 
look for common ground, and she has found it. The importance of 
inspecting the infrastructure can't be overstated.
  I say to my friend, before she leaves the floor, this is a picture of 
a recent spill. Actually, it was 2013. It still has not been cleaned up 
in Arkansas because the pipeline burst--200,000 gallons of tar sands 
burst from the pipeline, and it spilled all over the streets of a 
subdivision. Residents were exposed to high levels of benzene, a known 
carcinogen, and hydrogen sulfite. They suffered from dizziness, nausea, 
and headaches--all classic symptoms of exposure to the chemicals found 
in tar sands.
  Rainfall causes oil to float to the top of the soil and off gas. What 
is happening here is it still has not been cleaned up.
  My friend has an amendment that would say: Let's inspect the 
infrastructure to make sure things such as this do not happen. Of 
course, I support it. I hope she will vote her conscience and hopefully 
vote to keep this amendment process open.
  I know my friend from Massachusetts has a question, and I yield to 
him if he does.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senator has to ask if I would yield for a question.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Senator. I thank the Senator for taking the 
time to have this very important discussion in the Senate this 
afternoon.
  This past Thursday night the majority leader decided they would not 
allow for a debate on an amendment I was propounding that would have 
imposed a tax on the Canadian oil as it is being transported through 
this proposed pipeline. In the eventuality of an oilspill, the 
Canadians would have to have contributed to.
  The majority did not make it possible for me to speak for even 1 
minute on ensuring that the Canadians had to pay the tax in the event 
there was an oilspill with their oil in the United States of America, 
while Americans would have to do so.
  This is the question I am going to propound to the Senator from 
California. Right now we know that there is increasing carbon pollution 
in the atmosphere, which stacks the decks, increasing the chances that 
our country, our planet would draw an extreme weather joker that would 
have catastrophic consequences for our country or for any other place 
in the world. We know that while no one storm can be attributed to 
climate change, scientists agree there is an increase in the intensity 
and the frequency of extreme weather events. In fact, in the 2013 
consensus report bulletin of the American Meteorological Society said: 
``The number of severe regional snowstorms that occurred since 1960 was 
more than twice the number that occurred during the preceding 60 
years'' in the United States of America. So my question to the Senator 
from California is: Shouldn't we be debating this issue of increased 
frequency of snowstorms, of rain storms, of droughts, of extreme 
weather conditions? And isn't this something that Members should be 
allowed 1 minute, at least, to address, if not a full debate of these 
issues that have been triggered by the Republicans deciding they wanted 
to bring this bill onto the floor as their No. 1 priority for the year 
2015? Is that not the subject we should be discussing and should it not 
be an open debate?
  That is the question I propound to the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would say in response to my friend's question, I was so 
shocked when the Senator asked for 1 minute to explain his amendment 
and we heard multiple Republicans saying: No, no, a thousand times no.
  As Senator Durbin said, this is supposed to be the greatest 
deliberative body in the world. I grew up thinking that was true. I 
never saw this before where colleague after colleague after colleague 
after colleague was essentially shouted down. I haven't seen it here.
  It has reached a new low with a Republican majority since. They 
absolutely won a huge election victory. There is no question about it. 
There was the promise that it would be an open process, and then we 
can't even have colleagues talk for 1 minute.
  I know the Senator from New Jersey has a question as well. I yield to 
the Senator from New Jersey, because time is running out at 5:30.
  Mr. BOOKER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I will.
  Mr. BOOKER. I am grateful that Senator Boxer will yield for a 
question.
  This is a question I have of Senator Boxer, and I wish to get her 
feedback because of her years of experience, her wisdom, and her depth 
of understanding on this issue. I think there needs to be an amendment 
for critical protection.
  The need for regulation requires agencies to supplement already 
issued environmental impact statements when significant new 
circumstances come about. When there is information about these new 
challenges to the environmental impact of a project, something really 
has to happen.

[[Page S454]]

  So this pending bill deems that the final environmental impact 
statement issued last January would fully satisfy the NEPA, that this 
would remove the obligation of permitting agencies to supplement that 
EIS if any new circumstance or information is discovered.
  The amendment would change that and would preserve the obligation of 
agencies to supplement--if we had such an amendment, it could really 
protect that.
  I was told by a lot of people that NEPA is sort of referred to as the 
environmental modern day Magna Carta. In other words, it is such a 
critical set of protections. If we have a circumstance in which there 
is a significant change in the pipeline--say they just decide to change 
the direction or move it a little bit and it goes through an entirely 
new area--not to be able to take into consideration new information, 
new circumstances where an environmental impact statement abated, seems 
to be wrong. It actually seems to be giving this company, this foreign 
company, more information, more opportunity than our current American 
companies.
  I would love for the Senator to comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Senator Booker should be proud of this contribution to 
this debate and what he is doing in the environment committee.
  Let me say quickly--because I know we are running out of time--here 
is the deal. You raised the golden standard--NEPA, the National 
Environmental Policy Act. The underlying bill says everything is 
satisfied. All you want to make sure of in your amendment is that if 
there is new information which shows this could harm the public--maybe 
cause more cancer, cause more asthma, and cause other problems--that we 
need a supplemental EIS, that we need a supplemental study before we 
approve this pipeline. Right now, they are not letting you offer that 
amendment.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, today we are voting to end debate on the 
Keystone Pipeline bill.
  I want to be clear right from the start. I do not support this bill. 
I will vote against cloture and against final passage of the Keystone 
Pipeline bill. And I am disappointed about the way it is being jammed 
through to a vote.
  I supported the motion to proceed to this bill for one reason and 
only one reason--because we were assured there would be an open 
amendment process.
  We started that process last week. We have worked back and forth 
between Republican and Democratic amendments. Many of those amendments 
are important. And I believe we should continue until every Senator who 
wants to amend this bill has had a chance to make his or her case.
  I have an amendment for a renewable electricity standard which would 
create hundreds of thousands of 21st-century American jobs in my State 
and across the country. We owe it to all Americans to consider this and 
other amendments that would improve the bill.
  The bill as it stands is not acceptable on many levels.
  First, I am concerned that the new leadership chose to begin with a 
bill mandating a single pipeline for a foreign private company. This is 
a questionable use of the Senate's time and an unprecedented piece of 
legislation. Congress has never gotten involved in mandating a pipeline 
of this nature. But that is where we are. Now we are voting to cut off 
debate. The majority leader moved last week--late in the night--to set 
aside the Democratic amendments and bring an end to debate.
  So we have a bill with a questionable beginning and a regrettable 
ending. The result is a missed opportunity to seriously address the 
energy needs of our country.
  I said at the beginning of this debate that we are faced with a 
choice, a profound choice. We can deny that our climate is warming. We 
can fall behind our economic competitors. We can ignore the danger to 
our planet and to our security. That is one choice. Or we can move 
forward with a clean energy economy, with an energy policy that makes 
sense, that creates jobs, that protects the environment, and that will 
keep our Nation strong.
  We had a good debate on climate change during this bill about whether 
or not humans significantly contribute to it. Many Senators made it 
clear where they stand. Many agree that yes humans are significantly 
contributing to climate change.
  But while that is good for the record, it doesn't do much for the 
reality, because we have fallen short of taking any real action to 
address this great challenge. In fact, we are now compounding the 
problem by trying to pass this bill.
  The bill lacks a comprehensive energy policy; it lacks even trying to 
set one. This is not a ``do it all'' energy bill. This isn't even a 
``drill, baby, drill'' bill. This is a ``drill, Canada'' bill.
  I believe we should continue working on the bill to address serious 
climate solutions, like a renewable electricity standard. The Keystone 
Pipeline is an investment in doing things the old way--importing 
foreign oil. Instead of doubling down on foreign oil, we should be 
talking about how we can move America forward by investing in the 
homegrown energy of the future.
  A national renewable electricity standard would combat global 
warming, while creating hundreds of thousands of jobs across the 
country. It will help maximize our energy potential, while 
strengthening our economy and our energy security.
  Let's vote on that, and let's move forward to meet the real energy 
needs of American families.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. My time has expired. I thank the Chair very much for his 
patience.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum 
calls related to the cloture motions on Senate amendment No. 2 and S. 1 
be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Murkowski 
     amendment No. 2: the Keystone XL pipeline approval act.
         Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Richard Burr, Jerry 
           Moran, John Thune, Marco Rubio, Johnny Isakson, Kelly 
           Ayotte, Ben Sasse, Deb Fischer, John Boozman, David 
           Vitter, Tim Scott, Roger F. Wicker, Richard C. Shelby, 
           Michael B. Enzi, Roy Blunt.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
Murkowski amendment No. 2: the Keystone XL pipeline approval act, shall 
be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from 
Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. 
McCaskill), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from 
Nevada (Mr. Reid), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are 
necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 29 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     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
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott

[[Page S455]]


     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--39

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Kirk
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Reid
     Rubio
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays 39. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the 
cloture vote on the Murkowski substitute amendment No. 2.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 1, a bill to 
     approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
         Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Richard Burr, Jerry 
           Moran, John Thune, Marco Rubio, Johnny Isakson, Kelly 
           Ayotte, Ben Sasse, Deb Fischer, John Boozman, David 
           Vitter, Tim Scott, Roger Wicker, Richard Shelby, 
           Michael Enzi, Roy Blunt.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 1, a 
bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from 
Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. 
McCaskill), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from 
Nevada (Mr. Reid), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 30 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     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
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--39

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Kirk
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Reid
     Rubio
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 
39. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the 
cloture vote on S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are here this evening, after the 
conclusion of two cloture votes where we have failed to get the 
sufficient 60 votes that are required to cut off debate and move 
forward on this bill.
  As the floor manager, I will be working with my counterpart on the 
energy committee, Senator Cantwell, to define a list of amendments and 
define the universe we are talking about. Perhaps we can work toward an 
agreement that will allow for additional amendments to be processed and 
ultimately allow us to get to passage of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  This measure, S. 1, is a bipartisan measure that will work to create 
jobs for this country and will not only help with our relationship with 
our friends and allies to the north but is also widely supported by the 
American public. I am hopeful that what we will be able to do tonight--
by working with colleagues--is to again define how we will get to the 
final resolution of this very important bill.
  Last week we saw this measure include several important energy 
efficiency bills--including the adoption of the measure of the Senator 
from Ohio--particularly the one provision that relates to water 
heaters, which is very time sensitive. We were also able to add two 
sense-of-the Senate provisions to S. 1. One provision relates to the 
oil spill liability trust fund and the other provision is related to 
the issue of climate change.
  Here we are, more than 2 weeks into debate on the Keystone XL 
Pipeline, and we voted on a total of 24 amendments to the bill. We 
voted on more amendments last week than we did in all of 2014. In fact, 
Thursday was a long day for all of us. We moved out 15 amendments, and 
that was as many as we had voted on in all of 2014. In 2014, this 
Senate voted on 15 amendments. This past Thursday, we voted on 15 
amendments in one day on this Keystone bill. We are now up to 24 
amendments, and we have made some progress.
  I am very aware that not everyone is fully happy with where we are 
right now. We hit our first bump in the road--back to regular order--
but that is the way we have to roll with some things every now and 
again. I hope we are at the point where we will be able to get back on 
track, a track that will allow for again closure of this very important 
measure.
  I wish to remind Senators that we are in this place where we had to 
vote on cloture because we got to a point last week where a unanimous 
consent request to vote on the then-pending 12 amendments was blocked. 
I will also remind colleagues that invoking cloture on a bill does not 
end all debate. We still have up to 30 hours of additional debate time 
left, and during that time amendments that are germane to the 
underlying bill can still be called up, considered, and voted on. We 
have quite a few of those left.
  In fact, at last count the amendments that have been filed to date--
there are 143 amendments that I have on my tally today that have been 
filed. I don't know if that is a current, up-to-the-minute accounting. 
We asked Members to have their amendments in by 3 this afternoon and 
second-degrees filed by 5 p.m. My point to colleagues is that there is 
still much to be done with this bill if your interest is voting on 
amendments.
  I wish to repeat something that the majority leader commented on when 
we came into session just a little bit ago. We were on this bill just 2 
months ago, and at that time there was a grand total of zero amendments 
that we voted on--zero. So now, as I mentioned, we have at least three 
that have been incorporated into the bill already--two sense of the 
Senate, one on climate, one on the oil spill liability trust fund, and 
one on energy efficiency. Again, there are some 140 to 150 amendments 
that have been filed.
  I am glad we have this process going on. I am glad to see these 
amendments. For those who suggest that somehow or other the majority is 
closing down the opportunity for debate or to offer amendments, all we 
need to do is look where we were 2 months ago. Two

[[Page S456]]

months ago this bill had zero amendments. Fast forward to today, and we 
have had votes on 24 amendments to this bill. We have adopted at least 
3 of those amendments, and again there are some 140-odd amendments that 
are out there.
  I want us to get through this measure, and I wish to do so in a way 
that is respectful to the process, respectful to Members, and that 
dignifies this institution. We have a lot out there, and I recognize 
that.
  I have had Members from both sides of the aisle ask me: How do I get 
my amendment pending? How do I get it to the point so it can 
considered? We will be working on that issue tonight and into the 
morning.
  I thank my colleague from Washington because I do think we have truly 
been trying to work in good faith.
  My colleague from North Dakota has a few words on the process, and 
then I would like to reclaim my time for just a few more moments, if I 
may.
  With that, I turn the floor over to the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the bill manager on our side of 
the aisle, the good Senator from Alaska, as well as the bill manager on 
the Democratic side, the Senator from the State of Washington, for 
working together and trying to get a list of all of the amendments and 
do everything possible to get them scheduled for a vote.
  I ask that Members on both sides of the aisle work with the bill 
managers to try and get a list of amendments so they can be scheduled 
for a vote. As the Senator from Alaska said, we have already had at 
least 19 amendments. We know there are more amendments that Senators 
would like to have a vote on, and we appreciate and understand that. 
There has been a real effort to try to get those votes scheduled.
  Again, I thank the bill managers for their hard work and ask that 
Members on both sides of the aisle work with the bill managers to try 
and get those amendments identified where they need to have a vote and 
get them scheduled so we can get to the votes in a timely manner so 
Members can have as much information as possible ahead of time in order 
to consider their respective issues and have a vote.
  We have to remember that in trying to go back to an open amendment 
process and regular order, there is some work on figuring out how to 
get that going and to do so in a bipartisan way, and of course we are 
working through it on this legislation.
  A final point: At the end of the day, we will be discussing more 
about this legislation, but it comes down to how the individual Members 
of this body feel about this underlying legislation. It is about 
energy, jobs, economic growth, and national security at a time when 
energy security for our country is so very important. Again, this goes 
to the underlying merits.
  Let's see if we can't get these amendments scheduled and vote on them 
and move this along as well as we can this week and get that done. It 
is not only important for this legislation, but we want to have that 
same kind of open process with other legislation as well. It is about 
getting the work done for the American people.
  With that, I yield back to the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his 
leadership on this issue. He has been persistent, diligent, and very 
articulate as we have moved through the process, and I appreciate that 
a great deal.
  I thought I was going to be spending the vast majority of my time 
this week going through each of these many amendments that Members have 
presented. As I mentioned, we have 140-plus amendments. But my 
attention on Keystone and the issues in front of us was dramatically 
pulled away because of an announcement by the administration which I 
learned of late on Friday evening, and which was the first announcement 
today.

  The fact is I am not in a very good mood right now. I am not in a 
very good mood, and I think it is probably true to say that most 
Alaskans are not in a very good mood, because folks back home woke up 
Sunday morning to the news that this President effectively declared war 
on our economic future in the State of Alaska.
  I know those are pretty hard words. It has been suggested by some in 
the administration that perhaps I am overreacting. Let me tell my 
colleagues, when our economic opportunities as a State, which lie in 
our natural resources, are denied us as a State and the promises that 
were made when we entered the Union--the compact we made--we are now 
not able to see those promises, then there is nothing else. There is no 
other way to describe it than that it is a war on our economic future.
  We have winter going on in Alaska right now. In my hometown where I 
went to high school, I think it was about 30 below this weekend. Up on 
the North Slope, temperatures are about 60 degrees below zero. It is 
pretty cold.
  The President, in his video where he made his announcement that he is 
moving to put the Arctic Coastal Plain in de facto wilderness, 
described the area in the North Slope as fragile, that the wildlife is 
fragile. I will tell my colleagues, the area in the coastal plain, the 
area in ANWR is an amazing place. It is a special place, as are so many 
places in Alaska. It is an amazing place. I am blessed to call it home. 
But the President decided on Sunday that this was the perfect day to 
announce his unilateral decision to manage the Arctic Coastal Plain as 
de facto wilderness.
  Now the coastal plain--and I don't have my maps, but we are going to 
be seeing a lot of maps of Alaska and ANWR coming up here. The coastal 
plain is the area on the very northern part of the State, and it is 
part of the nonwilderness portion of ANWR. People need to understand 
that ANWR is a huge area. It is 19.7 million acres. It is an area the 
size of the State of South Carolina. There are portions of ANWR that 
have been designated as wilderness and they were designated as 
wilderness back in 1980, along with other areas in the State of Alaska 
that were designated as wilderness. In fact, so much wilderness--close 
to 60 million acres of wilderness designated in 1980--so much so that 
there is actually a provision in the law, in ANILCA, that says, that is 
enough. Alaska has given enough, in the sense that more than half of 
the wilderness area in the United States of America is in Alaska. That 
is, Alaska has more than half of all of the other wilderness in all of 
the remaining 49 states. Alaska has more than half. So the sense was 
there will be no more wilderness declarations in Alaska. Yet, the 
President announces Sunday that, in addition to the coastal plain, 
effectively all of the balance of ANWR will be managed as wilderness.
  So what does this mean to a State such as Alaska? Again, history is 
going to be important in this discussion going forward because the area 
in the coastal plain--the 1002 area--and it is designated as such 
because of a section in the law--the coastal plain was specifically set 
aside in 1980 for further study of its oil and gas potential. So a 
decision was made back in 1980 where we had more than 100 million acres 
in Alaska that were turned into Federal law, but it was recognized that 
this area--that 1.57 million acres--was unique because of its resource 
potential. It was identified in law as such. And it said, We are going 
to reserve this. We are going to study it for its oil and gas 
potential.
  Then, in the 1980s, the Reagan administration did just that. They 
studied the coastal plain and they recommended that it be open to 
responsible energy development. Ever since then we have been seeking 
permission to open up just 2,000 acres on the coastal plain for that 
very purpose--for oil and gas exploration.
  We are not talking about opening up the full coastal plain. We are 
not talking about touching any of the area that was designated as 
wilderness in 1980. We are talking about a development that would have 
an impact on an estimated surface area of 2,000 acres in a 1.57-million 
acre area that has been set aside specifically for this.
  So when we think about what that means, we learn that 2,000 acres is 
.1 percent of the entire 1002 area. It is .01 percent of ANWR. When we 
put it into context, 99.9 percent of ANWR would remain untouched if all 
we were seeking to do was to access the 2,000 acres.
  We also know that if we were able to access this small area within 
the coastal plain that we can gain access to an

[[Page S457]]

estimated 10.3 billion barrels of oil. If we produce oil at that rate 
of 1 million barrels a day, it will last almost 30 years.
  Right now we have an oil pipeline in Alaska, the Trans-Alaska oil 
pipeline, which bisects the State 800 miles from the North Slope down 
to Valdez, and it has been doing a fine job of providing resource to 
the country in an environmentally sound and safe manner. It is an 
engineering miracle. It is fabulous. What it lacks right now is more 
oil in the pipe. We are less than half full. So the State of Alaska is 
being aggressive in looking for how we might not only fill up the pipe 
to help Alaska and to help the country and to bring about jobs and 
bring about revenues, but how we can do so in a responsible manner.
  We think we have some pretty high standards in Alaska, and we need 
to. This is extreme environment. It is tough working there right now, 
let me tell my colleagues. They don't shut down because it is cold. In 
fact, this is the only time of the year they can explore out there, 
because the environmental safeguards are such that we can't take 
exploration rigs out on the tundra in the summer where it might leave a 
mark. No. We wait until it is the coldest, the darkest, and the ground 
is frozen as far as it possibly can. So this is the time of year that 
we are hoping to be able to do more.
  But what this President is doing is not only saying no to that 2,000 
acres we are seeking to access that will be bringing us a million 
barrels a day, potentially, for 30 years and allowing for jobs and a 
resource--no to that 2,000 acres--he would say no forever. He would not 
only say no to oil and gas development, but no to anything else. No 
road, no airstrip, no nothing.
  The President is saying the Congress has to make this decision, and 
in fairness, that is true. It is only the Congress that can make that 
decision to convert the coastal plain to permanent wilderness. But the 
reality is he has made this decision, and he has made it without us. 
What happens under this comprehensive conservation plan--this CCP--this 
area is now immediately treated as wilderness, with or without our 
approval. So that designation may not be there, but how is it being 
treated? It is being treated as wilderness.
  I would assert this is in clear violation of the ``no more 
wilderness'' clause--the ``no more'' clause in ANILCA. It is so 
frustrating. It is so infuriating to think that we acknowledged that 
some 30 years ago, when ANILCA was passed, and that recognition--when 
so much of the State of Alaska was put off limits to any form of 
development, to place it in wilderness status and to have the Federal 
Government agree that we had done our part, that we had contributed 
enough of our lands.
  The Presiding Officer is from a State that has wide open spaces. What 
do we do as a State if we have so much of our State--66 percent of the 
State of Alaska that is federally held? And we all know there are 
different aspects to Federal public lands. BLM lands mean something, 
Park Service means something, refuge status means something, and 
wilderness status means something else altogether. So when we 
acknowledged and the Federal Government acknowledged no more in Alaska, 
we thought that would be respected. We thought that might be respected. 
But, apparently, this President is going to choose to ignore it.
  My colleagues can tell this is an argument and a debate I feel very 
strongly about, and I feel very strongly about it because I have been 
living with it my entire adult life. For as long as I can remember, we 
have been talking about how might it be possible to look into these 
extraordinary reserves and resources that we know are in the 1002 area. 
There have been highs and there have been lows. Back in 1995, when it 
was my father and Ted Stevens who were working this issue, they were 
able to successfully get it through the Congress only to have it vetoed 
by President Clinton. And then 10 years later, it was Senator Stevens 
and myself who were able to get it so close; we were one vote shy in 
the Senate. The House has passed ANWR, I believe Congressman Young told 
me today, on 12 separate occasions. Now we are back yet another 10 
years later. So maybe this is an issue that keeps coming back every 10 
years.
  This wasn't the worst part of the news I was dealing with this 
weekend. At the same time I was given a heads-up that the 
administration was going to be releasing this CCP--this comprehensive 
conservation plan that will treat ANWR as wilderness--I was told that 
we are going to see the announcement of the administration's 5-year 
lease/sale plan. That is substantial for us. As folks know, we have 
been trying to advance the leases that have been sold in the Beaufort 
and in the Chukchi for some period of time, and it has been a tortured 
process, as many people know. But what we are told is that with the 
lease/sale that will be announced, portions of the Beaufort Sea and the 
Chukchi Sea will be indefinitely withdrawn from the next 5-year plan 
for the Outer Continental Shelf which, again, is due to be released.
  I think it is important to know we have had deferrals off of our 
coasts in the Beaufort and the Chukchi, but these are no longer going 
to be deferrals. They are going to be withdrawals, which means that not 
only will they not be included in this lease sale from 2017 to 2022, 
but they will stay in place until such time--it is an indefinite 
withdrawal--as the next President, whoever he or she may be, should 
decide to change it. It is different than a withdrawal.
  What it then says to us is, okay, no, we are going to lock up ANWR 
permanently so that the resources that may be available to you--as much 
as a million barrels a day coming down through your pipeline to supply 
this country--no, put that off limits, and, oh, the offshore you want 
to try to advance, we are going to make it a little more difficult 
because we are going to take these areas and we are not going to 
include them in this 5-year lease sale. In fact, we are going to 
indefinitely withdraw them.
  This could have significant impact on our ability to access the 
estimated 23 billion barrels of oil of Alaska's North Slope. Again, 
when we are talking about how we are going to fill up that pipeline, we 
have been working toward those opportunities offshore. But there is a 
third gut punch to Alaska that is coming--a third.
  Remember, all these were supposed to be unveiled this week. What a 
week.
  First, close off ANWR permanently.
  Second, make the offshore that much more difficult.
  And third is in the area where all those who said no to wilderness, 
go over to the National Petroleum Reserve, that is where you should be 
accessing this oil. Well, okay, that is where folks are going. 
ConocoPhillips is trying to access some leases in the National 
Petroleum Reserve. These are leases that were awarded in 1998, so more 
than a few years to be working through all of the issues here.
  What we learned was that the terms and conditions of the mitigation 
that are going to be required by the Department of the Interior to 
allow Conoco to proceed with the alternative that would allow for a 
short road to access the pad, those mitigation costs and other 
requirements are going to be so much that the project will no longer be 
economic.
  Think about it. Years in the process and the permitting and the cost 
that goes into it, years to get there.
  I don't think most people know--do you realize how much oil is 
produced on Federal lands in Alaska? It is a real easy answer because 
it is a big fat zero. There is none. There is no oil that is produced 
on Federal lands. We have been trying to make it happen.
  We have been going to the National Petroleum Reserve because we have 
been put off limits with ANWR. It hasn't been made permanent 
wilderness. We haven't been able to access it because that too takes 
permission from Congress. So the whole area where our State has these 
resources--these reserves, ANWR to the east, Beaufort, Chukchi 
offshore, National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska--what this administration 
is doing is saying this ``all of the above'' strategy for an energy 
plan for America, we are starting to think in Alaska that means 
everybody but Alaska.
  I just can't articulate the anger, the frustration. As I tried to 
convey my thoughts to the Secretary, I said, I am just not sure if this 
administration doesn't care about Alaska and its people at all or 
whether you even think of us. But I have come to the conclusion that 
they still view us as a territory, a

[[Page S458]]

place where you could come in and do what you will because you are a 
territory. Well, we are not a territory. We are 1 of the 50 States. We 
are one of those stars on that flag. Last time I checked, we had just 
as many rights as any other star on that flag.
  What is coming at my State and the arrogance with which this 
administration is treating us is unacceptable, and it will not stand. 
Everybody wants to know, what are you going to do about it? What are 
you going to do about it? I am going to make sure that people 
understand who we are, that people understand that there are human 
beings who live in the 1002 area. You are going to take an area and 
declare it wilderness. People live there. Children go to school there. 
Yes, we actually have a polar bear watch to make sure the kids don't 
leave their homes early in the morning to go to school when it is still 
dark, and there might be a polar bear out there.
  Things are different in Alaska, but we still live there. We still 
want a quality of life for the people that is not unlike what we would 
have here. We don't want to have communities where we still have no 
sanitation facilities, where people are hauling their human waste in a 
bucket in the corner of the house and dumping it in a lagoon. We don't 
want to be in that situation. But you know what, it seems as though we 
have to get permission to do anything, and that permission is routinely 
denied. Or if it is denied, they delay it indefinitely so that it adds 
to your cost.
  We pay more for our energy. We pay more to keep warm in the State of 
Alaska than you do anywhere else. You might say, of course, it is 
colder up there. You know, back here it is going to be cold in New 
York. There is nobody in New York who is paying $10 a gallon for fuel 
like the people in Kobuk are paying. There is nobody in Massachusetts 
who is going to get hit by this storm and it is going to be cold and is 
paying $7.50 for fuel like the people in Fort Yukon are paying.
  We live there because we want to live in Alaska. It is an amazing 
place. We make a lot of sacrifices. But one of the sacrifices that we 
won't make, one of the things we will not give up, is to be treated 
like some second-class citizens, to be treated like a territory that 
has no rights. So when we are full participants and we say there are 
special places in Alaska that should be wilderness--and we signed off 
on that in 1980--then negotiate with us. Talk to us about what happens 
next.
  But I made the statement--again, it is harsh words, but I have 
suggested that this administration is one that is willing to negotiate 
with Iran, but they are not willing to negotiate with Alaskans. Those 
days are over. Those days are over.
  We have some issues to deal with in front of us right now as we move 
through the legislation in front of us. We have been focused on energy 
for a good couple of weeks-plus now. I am glad of that. I am glad we 
are going to be able to work through a process where we can move 
through some of these amendments. But know that the words I have spoken 
tonight on the floor are words that come from my heart as an Alaskan.
  This is not about politics. This is not about me being able to wield 
some muscle because I have the gavel in the interior appropriations 
committee. This is about Alaska as a State and our rights as a State. 
This is about a compact that was made with the State of Alaska, about 
how we would be able to use and access our lands, how we would be able 
to care for the people who call Alaska home. This is pure passion that 
drives my comments, and my comments will be echoed not only by the full 
Alaska delegation, as small as we are, but by our Governor, by our 
legislature, by our elected officials, by people who live all around 
the State, including the people who live in the coastal plain in ANWR.
  This is serious, and Alaskans are going to take this very seriously. 
You will be hearing a lot more from us.
  With that, I thank my colleagues for the indulgence of time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. May I first inquire of the distinguished bill manager 
whether I may take a moment to seek to call up an amendment or whether 
they have present business they need to attend to on the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I was going to give some comments in addition to my 
colleague from Alaska about the process and where we are and respond to 
some of the comments she has made. If the Senator from Rhode Island 
could wait a few minutes, is that possible?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Happily.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Point of inquiry: Do I understand that the Senator 
from Rhode Island wishes to make his amendment pending or just speak to 
the amendment?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I simply wish to make my amendment pending, and at a 
convenient time I would like to do that. There was a bit of an aura of 
good feeling on the floor when the distinguished chairman of the energy 
committee and distinguished Senator from North Dakota were discussing 
an orderly approach for getting the amendments pending. Since then, we 
have heard a good deal about frustration and anger and a bad mood, so I 
am not sure--maybe a little time to revert to that previous aura might 
not be in order, but I am only seeking to get my amendment pending.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I do know the Senator from Washington 
and I were hoping to get a plan and a proposal for colleagues so that 
they would better understand how we might proceed tomorrow. And because 
we haven't had that opportunity to do that as of yet, I would like the 
chance to consult with Senator Cantwell here. My concern is that if we 
start getting all these amendments pending right now before we reach 
some kind of a path forward, it could get complicated.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Rather than face an objection to my unanimous consent 
request, I will defer it until the chairman and her ranking member have 
a chance to go through that process, and I will come back at an 
appropriate time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. We are here 
tonight because we haven't ended debate on the Keystone Pipeline bill. 
We haven't ended debate because our colleagues voted to not end debate 
on this important measure, and I think for good reason.
  Our colleagues from both sides of the aisle got to offer amendments 
last week, to discuss them, and have a chance to vote on them. I would 
say this is a very different process from what happened in December, 
where basically an up-or-down vote was going to be given on a process.
  So I am glad my colleagues--like from Michigan where they had a major 
tar sands spill in their State--who want to offer amendments on 
pipeline safety can do so. I want my colleagues to be able to offer 
amendments as it relates to security and safety, particularly when it 
relates to safe drinking water and the issues of the pipeline.
  Since this bill has been introduced, two major pipeline spills have 
been discovered. So just within the time we have been on this bill, 3 
million gallons of brine spilled from a pipeline in North Dakota. That 
was discovered on January 6, the same day we started with this bill 
being introduced.
  On Friday North Dakota officials discovered that the contamination 
from the spill reached the Missouri River. So on January 17, 30,000 
gallons of oil were spilled into the Yellowstone River, a different 
incident, from a pipeline that broke in Eastern Montana. It temporarily 
shut down drinking water services for 6,000 people in Glendive, MT. So 
you bet these issues are important to me, and they are important to my 
colleagues. I hope we do not have to rush through the process of having 
a vote on these amendments. I think all of my colleagues see the 
Thursday night event, where the discussion was, let's get four or five 
amendments or six pending amendments and then coming back 1 hour later 
to table them is not the kind of legislative process we are used to 
here.
  I hope in the next couple of days my colleague and I can work on 
these in a much more productive fashion, with the list of amendments 
that Members want to offer and a timely way to debate them. Hopefully 
my colleague from Alaska and I could actually work

[[Page S459]]

with our colleagues, and either get some of them accepted or work for a 
vote schedule that would actually allow us to have the vote and have 
the debate as opposed to tabling.
  This Senator is not arguing that any side does not have a right to 
table an amendment. I am simply saying: I think colleagues want to know 
what the process is going to be and whether they can discuss this.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a story that is 
about one of those pipeline spills. It is about the Federal Government 
issuing warnings to the pipeline company in November about the concerns 
regarding those spills.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From EnergyWire, Jan. 23, 2015]

          Feds Issued Warning to Pipeline Company in November

                           (By Mike Soraghan)

       Federal officials issued a warning late last year to the 
     owner of the Montana pipeline that contaminated a city's 
     drinking water for keeping poor records about the condition 
     of the system.
       And the owners of the Poplar pipeline have had at least 
     seven pipeline spills since early 2008, records show, along 
     with other spills at production facilities.
       Bridger Pipeline LLC officials say the warning letter from 
     the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is 
     unrelated to the leak of 50,000 gallons of oil into the 
     Yellowstone River.
       ``I don't believe there is a link between that letter and 
     what we're dealing with,'' said Bridger spokesman Bill 
     Salvin. ``That seems to be a difficult connection to make.''
       A thick layer of ice on the river is hampering cleanup 
     efforts centered on Glendive, Mont., where the water 
     treatment plant was shut down after cancer-causing benzene 
     was detected in supplies.
       Crews have recovered about 10,000 gallons of oil from the 
     rupture directly beneath the river, about 50 feet from the 
     south shore.
       The spill's cause remains unclear, but oil sheens have been 
     reported as far away as Williston, N.D.
       The warning letter last year resulted from a 2012 
     inspection by federal officials. Chris Hoidal, director of 
     PHMSA's Western Region, wrote that the company had conducted 
     24 inspection digs for external anomalies, but then employees 
     failed to note the condition of the pipeline as required.
       Salvin said that ``steps have been taken'' to address the 
     concerns laid out in the letter.
       ``We take all requirements very seriously,'' he said.
       Federal officials have undertaken another inspection in 
     connection with the record-keeping, in addition to the spill 
     investigation.
       The warning came about six years after a spill that led to 
     a more serious enforcement action by PHMSA. The agency said 
     that the company failed to accurately update its reports on a 
     May 2008 spill from the pipeline.
       In the same enforcement action, PHMSA charged that Bridger 
     failed to perform a pressure test on tubing installed at a 
     pipeline station in 2007 and 2008.
       The agency also alleged that the company was too slow to 
     review its emergency operations manuals and failed to keep up 
     on inspections. The company paid a $45,000 fine.
       This image was taken from a drone surveying the ice 
     slotting oil containment trench carved in the ice of the 
     Yellowstone River near Crane, Mont. Photo courtesy of Unified 
     Spill Command.
       The company also paid a $100,000 fine in an enforcement 
     action brought in 2005 regarding the qualifications of its 
     personnel.
       PHMSA inspections also led to two other enforcement actions 
     in September 2005 and February 2007 that did not lead to 
     fines.
       Montana records show that Bridger Pipeline had two spills 
     in 2009, another in 2010 and a fourth in 2012. The total 
     released in the four spills was about 3,300 gallons of crude 
     oil.
       In August, a gasket failure caused a Bridger pipeline to 
     spill about 4,000 gallons of crude in Mountrail County, N.D.
       In addition, another company's 6-inch fuel line was broken 
     during excavation of a new pipeline by Bridger on Sept. 1, 
     2014, in McKenzie County, N.D. Dry natural gas was released 
     to the atmosphere, but inspectors noted that it could have 
     led to an explosion.
       Bridger is part of Casper, Wyo.-based True Oil LLC. In May 
     2014, True's Belle Fourche pipeline ruptured, spilling 25,000 
     gallons of crude oil into an ephemeral drainage near Casper, 
     according to federal records. The oil traveled about 3 miles 
     in the drainage.
       True Oil's production operations have had at least 16 
     spills since early 2009 in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and 
     North Dakota, according to state records. The largest was a 
     spill of more than 30,000 gallons of oil and wastewater in 
     2011 in Campbell County, Wyo.

  Ms. CANTWELL. To me this is an issue where we have had some debate 
about the pipeline and the oilspill liability trust fund. I would hope 
we would come back to that issue because these issues about spills and 
safety and security should be part of the debate. But I go back to the 
larger issue which is I hope we turn down this legislation overall.
  To me all of the issues we are talking about, whether it is about 
safe drinking water, whether it is about oilspills and the requirements 
on these companies or if it is about whether TransCanada can take U.S. 
property under eminent domain or whether it is about the route itself, 
all of these questions in my mind are premature for us, the Congress, 
to decide.
  Over 60 percent of the American people say they want this pipeline 
decided in a normal process. They want the State Department, in this 
instance because it crosses a border, to be the entity that determines 
national interest. So I do not want to predetermine that when there are 
so many important issues to be negotiated. The very company that wanted 
to negotiate with the State Department on this pipeline was negotiating 
some of the original routing. Yet at the very time the State Department 
was telling them the original routing would not work, they were here 
trying to persuade Members to vote for the authority to override the 
President and to give that routing, which we now know was flawed.
  I do not want to be premature about this. I do not want to be 
premature about cutting off debate. I want to get to these amendments 
before us and get the bill done with the input of my colleagues, given 
that the debate was brought up to the floor.
  If you ask me what I want to debate, I would be debating some other 
legislation because I do not think this bill is going to be signed by 
the President of the United States.
  I would be debating energy tax policy on clean energy items. I would 
be debating other things that I think would be impacting more our 
energy strategy for the future, our economy, and job creation. I think 
there are a lot of those out there. I hope my colleague from Alaska and 
I, once this debate is over with, will be able to sit down and talk 
about these issues, in a bipartisan fashion, and work with the 
committee.
  In 2007, we passed the Energy Independence and Security Act out of 
the energy committee on a bipartisan basis. It was landmark legislation 
that unleashed a lot of investment. It unleashed investment in making 
sure we had higher fuel efficiency cars in our country, which was good 
for the consumer because they got a car that got more mileage. It made 
investments in things such as the smart grid and other energy 
infrastructure.
  I hope that is what we will get back to, because when I look at what 
is happening--I know my colleague from Alaska just talked about some of 
these issues as it related to Alaska. I know she means what she says 
when she says she is speaking from the heart and working hard for 
Alaskans. I visited Alaska with her and my colleague, then-Senator-
from-Alaska Mark Begich. I visited many parts of Alaska.
  I understand. Alaskans want to have an economic opportunity. They 
want their energy to be cheaper. I would say I am empathetic to the 
issue because we have five refineries in the State of Washington. We 
are the fifth largest refining State in the Nation. A lot of our oil 
comes from Alaska. So I can tell you that people in the Northwest are 
furious that even though we have those refineries--so a lot of refining 
capacity and the oil comes from Alaska--we still have some of the 
highest gas prices in the Nation. Many times we have asked for various 
investigations about why we have the highest gas prices in the Nation 
and why this issue continues to plague us.
  I know my colleague, when she speaks about the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge or ideas about more drilling, that it is about getting 
more oil supply. But more oil supply from Alaska has not helped 
Washington consumers have cheaper gasoline prices.
  So I want to continue to diversify our economy off of fossil fuels 
and onto other things. I hope we will get a chance to work on an energy 
bill that does that. If I could just address for a couple of minutes 
the issue of the President's decision to move forward on a plan that 
would help preserve the Arctic wildlife refuge as wilderness. My 
colleague from Alaska mentioned this issue is something that has been 
going on for some time. She is right.
  The predecessors that she and I--the former chair of the energy 
committee, Scoop Jackson, and the former late Senator Ted Stevens--
everybody has

[[Page S460]]

been a part of this. I actually was here at a pretty dramatic floor 
debate on this issue in 2005, in which some people wanted to open the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, even to the degree that 
they put that as a rider on the Defense bill. We were able to stop 
that. I think that was the will of Congress, that they did not want to 
see drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  But we have had this discussion since 1960, when Dwight Eisenhower 
set aside originally 9 million acres, and in 1980, thanks to the work 
of Scoop Jackson, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act, which expanded the refuge to 19 million acres.
  I have visited the refuge. I do believe it is a critical habitat for 
wildlife and the Gwich'in people who called this the sacred place where 
life begins. It is truly special. I do think we have had many 
discussions about this. This action probably will not be the last of 
them, but I do applaud the President for taking the Arctic refuge, 
which is habitat for 45 different species of land animals, 36 different 
species of fish, 180 species of birds--and has the greatest variety of 
plant and animal life of any park or refuge in the polar Arctic. I do 
believe it is an ecosystem and an ecosystem that is unlike anything 
else we have in the United States.
  So I am proud the President has taken what has been a refuge that was 
lacking a plan and has now put a wilderness plan in place or the 
elements of what it will take to preserve those various species and 
animals and that very special place.
  I know my colleague feels very strongly about the President's 
announcement. I think a refuge plan that is based on science and public 
comment--we have had a plan, but this is the first plan to say we are 
going to protect this area. It recommends 12 million acres of refuge, 
including the coastal plain as wilderness. It is one of the most 
pristine and unique public places.
  I am confident America can meet our energy needs without opening the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I am convinced we can come up with an 
energy strategy that is much more compelling for the future of the 
United States, one in which we can lead and one in which we can help 
other countries, whether it is what the President did with China in 
getting an agreement or working with India or all the things we are 
doing to try to be a leader in what is energy efficiency and ways to 
impact the marketplace so consumers can look for cleaner, more 
efficient uses of fuel.
  So this is going to be a continuing debate in this Congress between a 
19th century view of energy policy and a 21st century view of energy 
policy. I would ask my colleagues to think about these countries the 
President has just recently visited. He went to China. No one thinks 
China's air standard is what we should have in the United States. India 
has had its own challenges. They have hundreds of millions of people 
who are without electricity needs.
  So the question is whether these sources of energy are going to be 
that solution, whether a dirty source of fossil fuel is going to be the 
solution or whether we can work together on cleaner energy solutions. I 
think we can do that.
  In fact, I am excited the United States can be a leader in these 
technologies, which will result in more job growth, just as those 
previous energy bills did when we worked together for higher fuel 
efficiency standards, for more energy efficiency, to come up with more 
sources of diversified fuel. I am very confident we are going to, in 
the next few years, usher in a new era of aviation.
  We have already proven we can fly airplanes with a 50-50 drop in jet 
fuel. We now have to prove we can manufacture those large sources and 
get planes flying on that. What a great accomplishment that will be in 
reducing carbon emissions and giving the flying public and those 
airlines something that is much more affordable than what we have been 
dealing with for the last 10 or 15 years.
  I look forward to my colleague and I working tomorrow--some tonight 
and a little bit starting early tomorrow--on how we move forward with 
this legislation. I know my colleague and I see a path forward. Similar 
to any two people who are trying to manage a bill on the floor, we also 
know we have all of our colleagues to work with because nothing in the 
Senate operates unless it operates through our process and working 
collaboratively or, I should say, it can work, it is just going to take 
a very long time.
  So we pledge to work in the next few days to try to get an amendment 
process that will not be prematurely cut off after 1 hour of a pending 
bill but will come to terms, and hopefully our colleagues will work 
with us to limit the number of those amendments and we can move forward 
to legislation that we think will help our economy grow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I know our colleague from Delaware is 
wishing to speak. If I may just proceed to do the closeout and he would 
be able to speak after that.

                          ____________________