[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 27, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S497-S503]
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 legislative 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.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                International Holocaust Remembrance Day

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today is International Holocaust 
Remembrance Day, commemorating the genocide that resulted in the murder 
of nearly 6 million Jews by the Nazi regime. On this day in 1945, the 
allied forces entered Auschwitz, a complex of concentration and death 
camps in Nazi-occupied Poland. They liberated more than 7,000 
prisoners. Auschwitz was made up of 3 main camps and more than 40 
subcamps covering over 15 square miles. Between 1940 and 1945 nearly 
1.3 million people were deported to Auschwitz and at least 1.1 million 
were murdered.
  By January 1945 the allied forces were closing in. To eliminate 
witnesses to their crimes, thousands of prisoners were killed at 
Auschwitz, and 60,000 were forced to march west days before the 
liberation.
  During these marches SS guards shot anyone who fell behind or could 
not continue. More than 15,000 died in that march. In the months prior 
to the liberation, an elderly French inmate urged a young Jewish 
prisoner named Olga to watch everything she saw, and when the war was 
over, to tell the world what she had seen. Olga wrote her memoirs in 
the years that followed and gave voice to those who could no longer 
speak.
  Yesterday, the Washington Post featured the horrific stories of four 
Auschwitz survivors, including those who suffered under the sadistic 
Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, known as the Angel of Death. GEN Dwight D. 
Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of the allied forces in Europe also 
understood the importance of documenting what he saw. After visiting a 
recently liberated Nazi camp, General Eisenhower urged Washington to 
send a congressional delegation to witness Nazi crimes firsthand so in 
the future there could be no attempt to dismiss these allegations as 
mere propaganda. With the remaining eyewitnesses in their twilight 
years, the responsibility to ensure that future generations never 
forget these atrocities falls to us. Recently I joined my colleagues 
Senators Mikulski, Cardin, Kirk and others and introduced a resolution 
commemorating this important anniversary. This resolution calls on us 
to be witnesses to the 1.1 million innocent victims murdered at 
Auschwitz and honors the legacy of the survivors of the Holocaust.

[[Page S498]]

  Last Congress I chaired the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, 
Civil Rights and Human Rights. Although I am disappointed that the 
Republicans chose to change the name of that subcommittee under their 
leadership, I am going to continue to focus on protecting human rights 
and civil rights.
  When I chaired the subcommittee, I tried to give a platform to voices 
that are not often heard and to examine what needs to be done to 
protect human rights. Our responsibility in Congress is to focus on 
legislation, not lamentation. So we wrote legislation and passed bills 
to hold the perpetrators of serious human rights violations accountable 
for their crimes.
  In 2007 my Genocide Accountability Act was enacted, allowing 
prosecution of genocide committed outside the United States or by 
someone other than a U.S. national outside the United States. The 
following year President Bush signed the Child Soldiers Accountability 
Act, which I also introduced. In 2010 the Child Soldiers Accountability 
Act was used to deport Liberian warlord Dr. George Boley.
  I have also authored the Trafficking in Persons Accountability Act, 
the Human Rights Enforcement Act, the Child Soldiers Prevention Act, 
the Child Marriage Prevention Act, Congo Conflict Minerals Act, all 
legislation aimed at protecting human rights in terrible situations, 
all of which became law.
  Our hearts go out to the survivors who mourn their families and the 
millions of others murdered in the Holocaust. Today many of the 
survivors will return to Auschwitz. They will recall that moment when 
they first arrived more than 70 years ago and passed under a sign that 
mockingly read, in German, ``Work makes you free.'' Standing before 
them was Josef Mengele to await their fate. Turning right meant death 
in the gas chamber, turning left may have meant survival, for a few 
weeks at least. So many voices were silenced that now we have to tell 
their stories.

  As the memory of the Holocaust passes from those who were there to 
the generations that were not, we cannot forget the importance of 
remembrance and speaking out against intolerance whenever and wherever 
it occurs. Unfortunately these horrible crimes still take place. 
Consider Boko Haram in Nigeria, ISIL in Syria and Iraq, and the 
barbaric systems of gulag in North Korea. We cannot be silent.
  As Holocaust survivor Ruth Eglash said in yesterday's Washington 
Post:

       I used to be an optimist until a few years ago, but the 
     situation in the Middle East has changed and the world does 
     not notice anything. . . . The bottom line is, it can happen 
     again and it is happening again in many places, not 
     necessarily to the Jews, but to anyone.

  Our promise to hold accountable those who commit the most unspeakable 
crimes will ring hollow unless we lead the world in punishing those 
responsible for the gravest human rights violations. I look forward to 
continuing working with my colleagues in the Senate to make progress 
toward ending genocide and human rights abuses everywhere they exist. 
We should all proclaim in one voice: Never again.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HIRONO. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              Funding the Department of Homeland Security

  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today on the important issue of 
funding the Department of Homeland Security and to urge my colleagues 
to come together and pass a clean appropriations bill with regard to 
this agency.
  The Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, is charged with border 
security and immigration enforcement. DHS's role extends far beyond 
immigration. The agency is also responsible for aviation security, 
emergency management and response, counterterrorism, and cyber 
security.
  Democrats and Republicans have long worked together to make sure our 
hard-working Federal officers on the border, in our airports, and at 
our ports can continue their critical work that keeps us safe.
  Now the Republican-controlled House would irresponsibly risk shutting 
down the Department of Homeland Security to score political points over 
the President's immigration actions. Today I object to the effort to 
shut down DHS over the President's immigration Executive action because 
it is not only an irresponsible strategy from a security point of view, 
but it comes with a real cost in the everyday lives of students and 
parents.
  Funding for the Department of Homeland Security is set to expire 
February 27. The President has been clear that he will veto any policy 
riders that undo his Executive action and harm millions of students and 
their families. The House Republican bill forces us to choose between 
shutting down the Department of Homeland Security or deporting children 
and families. This is an untenable choice.
  Looking at the votes in the House, it is clear some Members of 
Congress would on the one hand say our immigration focus should be on 
securing our border, while on the other hand they risk turning off the 
lights at Border Patrol stations because they disagree with the 
President's immigration policies.
  Last year I led a congressional delegation to McAllen, TX, and to 
Lackland Air Force Base to see the humanitarian crisis on the border 
firsthand. My colleagues and I were heartbroken after seeing children 
as young as 7 years old in Customs and Border Protection facilities.
  But what we also saw were hard-working border agents doing the best 
they could under difficult circumstances in an already stressed 
immigration system. These agents should know that we in Washington are 
going to give them the resources they need to do their jobs, not 
irresponsibly shut down the Department of Homeland Security, for whom 
they work.
  Instead of threatening to shut down the government's primary homeland 
security agency, we should be working together to once again pass 
bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. Republicans and Democrats 
agree our immigration system is broken.
  With his Executive action President Obama took a step to bring 
millions across the country out of the shadows and keep U.S. citizens 
and their families together. Congressional action that puts families 
first is needed if we are to permanently fix our immigration system.
  The President's Executive action helps millions of people across 
America by allowing certain students and families to register, work 
legally, and pay their taxes. His action is rooted in the reality that 
our immigration enforcement officers need to exercise discretion on 
whom to go after with limited resources and in a broken immigration 
system.
  Those who oppose the President's action, which is reflected in the 
House Republican bill, say that the President and enforcement officers 
must act with absolutely no discretion. This position contemplates and, 
in fact, supports the removal of nearly 12 million undocumented people 
from our country. This is paramount to a policy of mass deportation.
  If mass deportation were enacted, DHS would need an exponential 
increase in funding and resources. Billions in increased spending 
without any permanent fixes or reforms is not a viable option. Even if 
we somehow have the resources to enact the policy of mass deportation, 
doing so would devastate our economy, removing millions of hard-working 
people who would no longer be working, running businesses, buying our 
goods and products. That would lead to over $2.5 trillion of economic 
loss to our country in just a decade.
  Mass deportation is not a serious solution for immigration reform. It 
simply is not possible for DHS to remove every undocumented person from 
this country.
  Passing the House bill would just make life even harder for these 
people, many of whom are already some of the hardest working people in 
our Nation.
  As I mentioned, there are nearly 12 million undocumented people 
living in communities across America. Many have been living here for 
years or decades. They are parents, they are small

[[Page S499]]

business owners, and they are our neighbors and our children's 
classmates at school.
  They are people such as Bianca, a woman who lives in Hawaii with her 
family. After moving to the United States on a visa over a decade ago, 
Bianca met her husband. They moved to the place where they had always 
dreamed of living--Hawaii, naturally--and began a family there.
  Bianca's work visa and her husband's work visa were temporary, and 
like many immigrant families they faced a tough decision to remain 
after their visas expired and to continue building a life here in 
America. Bianca and her husband started with nothing. Today they have 
two small businesses on Oahu and four American children--children born 
in the United States. Their businesses employ American citizens. They 
pay their taxes, and they work hard to provide for their families and 
be engaged in the community.
  Because of the President's order, Bianca and her family no longer 
live in fear every single day of being torn from the life they have 
built in Hawaii.
  The House Republicans' mass deportation policy is a serious proposal 
in only one respect. It would result in serious, negative consequences 
for our economy, our government, and millions of families in our 
country.
  In contrast, prioritizing deporting felons, not families and 
students, is simply common sense, and that is what the President's 
Executive order does.
  Now is the time when we should be working together on commonsense and 
comprehensive immigration reform that the vast majority of Americans 
support. Comprehensive immigration reform is supported by 70 percent of 
the American people. In the past Congress, nearly 70 percent of the 
Senate supported our bipartisan immigration bill.
  Our bipartisan bill was a compromise. It strengthened border 
security, modernized our system, addressed visa backlogs, and allowed 
millions of undocumented people to step out of the shadows, get in 
line, and work toward becoming American citizens. Comprehensive 
immigration reform would have spurred economic growth in our country by 
over $100 billion per year while helping to bring down the deficit.
  The only thing that kept this bipartisan reform bill from becoming 
law was the fact that Speaker Boehner refused to give the bill an up-
or-down vote in the House. Recklessly shutting down the Department of 
Homeland Security will not fix our broken immigration system. Undoing 
the President's Executive action will not fix our broken immigration 
system. We must work together, and we must fund the Department of 
Homeland Security so that they can continue to protect our country, and 
we must come together to pass commonsense reform that Americans 
support.
  Both sides of the aisle agree that we are a nation of immigrants and 
our immigration system is broken. We don't need to shut down the 
Department of Homeland Security or round up and deport millions of 
families and individuals.
  We can start that process with a clean DHS funding bill, and I urge 
my Republican colleagues to bring one to the floor quickly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I rise this morning to join our colleagues in 
discussing the need for a clean, full-year bill to fund the Department 
of Homeland Security. Just 30 days from today, funding for the 
Department of Homeland Security expires unless Congress acts.
  I know that sometimes in congressional time 30 days may seem like a 
long time, but with a scheduled recess in a few weeks and the certain 
fact that the House-passed bill cannot pass the Senate, we must act 
soon to prevent a shutdown and provide the resources to keep our 
country safe.
  Luckily, there is a path forward to prevent a shutdown. We should 
pass the bipartisan, bicameral, Homeland Security funding bill that was 
agreed to last December.
  Just a few weeks ago, Senator Mikulski, then Chair of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, and Congressman Rogers, Chair of the House 
Appropriations Committee, negotiated spending bills for the entire 
government, including the Department of Homeland Security bill. This 
was a compromise measure. Not everyone got what they wanted, but the 
bill funded the Department at levels that would ensure the Department 
can fulfill its mission to secure the homeland.
  Then, unfortunately, politics came into play. Some House Republicans 
demanded the homeland bill be removed from the larger budget because of 
immigration issues, and now the entire Department is funded on a short-
term basis through February 27. Now we face a fundamental question: Are 
we going to put the country at risk because of an ideological 
disagreement?
  Since Senator Mikulski and Congressman Rogers reached that agreement 
in December, we have seen many threats to our Nation and to our allies. 
The U.S. law enforcement community is on high alert for terror threats 
after attacks in Australia and Ottawa, Canada, and in Paris. Recently, 
an Ohio man was arrested when it was discovered he was plotting to blow 
up the U.S. Capitol in an ISIS-inspired plan. Now is not the time to be 
holding up funding for the Department of Homeland Security because of 
ideological reasons.
  Last week, I had the opportunity to visit the Department of Homeland 
Security's cyber security center in Arlington. The center is where 
officials are working every day to prevent attacks not just against the 
Federal Government or against State governments but against the private 
sector, against U.S. companies such as Sony, and against critical 
infrastructure such as nuclear powerplants and the electric grid.
  Last week, in the Armed Services Committee, former National Security 
Adviser Brent Scowcroft said that he views cyber security threats to be 
``as dangerous as nuclear weapons.''
  We must continue to make important investments in our cyber defenses. 
But if we fail to fully fund their budget--the clean budget that was 
agreed to by the House and Senate--their efforts to identify the newest 
technologies and strategies to protect our cyber infrastructure will be 
put on hold.
  One of the things they talked to me about when I visited the center 
includes two areas I think are particularly important to our national 
security. One is the effort to identify a secure emergency response 
line, which is very critical when we have national emergencies--even 
the snowstorm we are seeing in the northeast in New Hampshire, where we 
have several feet of snow that is being predicted. We also need a 
secure emergency response line so our first responders--the people 
there on the ground when an emergency happens--can communicate with 
each other. That is at risk if we pass a CR rather than a clean funding 
bill.
  The other thing at risk is the effort to identify the next generation 
of cyber threats. There are things being worked on that we don't even 
know yet, and unless we are ahead of that curve we are not going to be 
there to protect our cyber system throughout the country. So we need to 
give the Department of Homeland Security budgetary certainty so it can 
plan and prepare for these kinds of threats. That is why a short-term 
continuing resolution should be off the table. We need to pass a bill 
that funds homeland security for the rest of this fiscal year.
  A short-term budget means the Department is on autopilot. That would 
be extraordinarily bad for business and for our national security. If 
Homeland Security operates under a short-term budget, new projects and 
grants are halted, contracts and acquisitions are postponed, hiring is 
delayed, employee training is scaled back, and grants to our first 
responders--those people on the ground when something happens--are not 
going to be awarded, and congressionally targeted reductions--those 
reductions we want to make in wasteful programs--are also put on hold.
  Yesterday I had the opportunity to visit New Hampshire's fusion 
center. Every State has a fusion center. This is a network of centers 
designed to serve as a focal point in each State to coordinate 
terrorism-related information and threats to our national security, to 
our State security, and to our municipalities. It is a place where 
first responders, local law enforcement, and in New

[[Page S500]]

Hampshire's fusion center, in addition to our State and local folks 
being represented, someone from the FBI is there on hand, someone from 
the Department of Homeland Security identifies potential threats and 
relays that information up and down the chain of command.
  In New Hampshire, the fusion center has also been very critical in 
working to address drug interdiction and to help identify the heroin 
abuse epidemic that, sadly, we have seen not only in New Hampshire but 
in northern New England. If we have a short-term budget, new grants to 
our fusion centers, which are on the front lines of protecting our 
States and municipalities against security threats, and the security 
grants to State and local law enforcement will not be awarded.
  Why would we threaten this important public safety and security 
funding for unrelated ideological reasons?
  Secretary Jeh Johnson recently said:

       As long as this Department continues to operate on a 
     continuing resolution, we are prevented from funding key 
     homeland security initiatives. These include, for example, 
     funding for new grants to State and local law enforcement, 
     additional border security resources, and additional Secret 
     Service resources to implement the changes recommended by the 
     independent panel. Other core missions, such as aviation 
     security and protection of Federal installations and 
     personnel, are also hampered.

  That is a direct quote from the Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson.
  In addition to what he lays out there, I want to highlight a few 
specific examples of why a short-term budget--a continuing resolution--
is problematic for the Department and for our national security.
  Immigration and Customs Enforcement--ICE--could not fund all of its 
current detention, antitrafficking, and smuggling requirements under a 
short-term budget. Under a short-term budget, ICE will not have the 
funding they need to meet their legal mandate to have 34,000 detention 
beds in place for immigration detainees nor funding for a new family 
detention center.
  So for those people concerned about our border security, concerned 
about people coming into this country, why would we want to deny 
funding to address efforts to interdict people coming across the 
border, to interdict surveillance efforts, to build a new family 
detention center so we can find out who these people are and whether 
they should go back to the country they came from? It makes no sense.
  Under a short-term budget, there is no funding to hire additional 
investigators for antitrafficking and smuggling cases to combat the 
influx of unaccompanied children at the southern border.
  Under a short-term budget, no funding is provided to address Secret 
Service weaknesses identified after the recent White House fence-
jumping incident.
  Yesterday we saw concerns about how the Secret Service operates. This 
time I think everybody acknowledged they could not have been expected 
to intervene in the drone that got dropped on the White House lawn, but 
it highlights again the threats that are there and why we need to 
ensure the Secret Service has the resources to reform itself and to 
make sure the President and officials are protected.
  A short-term budget would delay the contract for the Coast Guard's 
eighth national security cutter we need for maritime security.
  In New Hampshire, we have a border with the ocean, so we very much 
appreciate the work of the Coast Guard, but I think it is critical 
throughout the country. And one of the things that would be put on hold 
is upgrading the Coast Guard's ice-breaking fleet.
  Last winter alone, when the Great Lakes froze, $705 million in 
shipping was lost and 3,800 jobs because we didn't have a Coast Guard 
ice-breaker that can open a channel on the Great Lakes.
  Under a short-term budget, aging nuclear weapons equipment will not 
be replaced. That causes gaps in an area where mistakes are simply 
unacceptable and too dangerous even to comprehend.
  A short-term budget would delay upgrades to emergency communications 
for first responders--something I have already talked about--as we 
think about how they respond to local emergencies.
  The best way forward is to provide certainty and stability for the 
men and women who fulfill homeland security's mission to protect the 
United States from harm. To ensure our local communities and our States 
that we are providing the resources they need, we need to pass a clean 
bill--a clean bill that was agreed to last December.
  Lurching from funding crisis to funding crisis is a terrible way to 
govern. It is an especially terrible way to govern when our Nation is 
dealing with major threats. The clean bill that was agreed to by the 
House and Senate last December provides a good budget that strengthens 
our Nation, protects against known threats, properly supports homeland 
security and those who serve on the front lines of protecting this 
country.
  The negotiated agreement includes critical increases in funding and 
support for border security, for cyber security, and for other national 
security initiatives. It maintains strong maritime security operations 
provided by the Coast Guard. The agreement fully funds continued cyber 
security advancements. It invests in innovative solutions for border 
security, for biological defense, and for explosives detection.
  Senators on both sides of the aisle have talked about the importance 
of border security and a clean bill that robustly funds border security 
requirements. The clean bill funds customs and border protections 
requirements to apprehend, care for, and transmit unaccompanied alien 
children, while maintaining 21,370 Border Patrol agents on our borders 
and safely facilitating legitimate travel and trade.
  The agreement also funds enhanced border security technologies as 
well as air and marine surveillance along our land and maritime borders 
to help the Department better interdict illegal crossing of people and 
narcotics.
  It allocates grant funding to train and equip first responders, 
continuing real progress and efficient preparedness, as was so evident 
in New England in the response to the Boston marathon bombing.
  And the agreement fully funds known disaster needs and prepares us 
for the next disaster.
  In closing, let us support our national security funding by passing a 
clean bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security for the rest of 
this fiscal year.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, today I stand in support of the Keystone 
Pipeline project. As an Alaskan, I feel it is important to talk about 
this bill and the importance of American energy infrastructure.
  I live in a State with one of the world's largest pipelines. In 1973, 
after bitter debate--similar to the debate about Keystone--Congress 
passed a bill that led to the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 
System--what we in Alaska call TAPS. It almost didn't happen. The Vice 
President at the time, serving as the President of the Senate, cast the 
tie-breaking vote. Then, like now, opponents howled. They said TAPS 
would be an environmental disaster. They said bird and caribou 
populations would be decimated.
  But none of that happened. In fact, birds and caribou flourished, 
showing we can develop energy infrastructure responsibly with the 
highest standards in the world. Alaska proves this every day. TAPS was 
completed in 1978. It has carried almost 17 billion barrels of oil to 
energy-thirsty American markets. It is a technological and 
environmental marvel and a critical component of America's energy 
infrastructure. It has been a resounding success for this country and 
for my State. It is the engine of growth for Alaska's economy. The 
proven safest, most environmentally responsible way to transport oil is 
through a pipeline. I am certain Keystone will also prove a success.

  In supporting Keystone, I am also standing for a larger, more 
important principle--the ideal that the Federal Government should be a 
partner in opportunity, a partner in progress, not an obstacle. I am 
standing in support of what has defined this country for centuries--the 
idea of the American dream.
  The American dream is still alive in my home State. Yes, we have 
major challenges, like all States. But in Alaska, we still have hope. 
We still dream

[[Page S501]]

big dreams, and TAPS helps fuel these dreams.
  In Alaska, the very air we breathe is bathed in promise. The people 
still speak the language of bold ideas and rugged adventure. It is 
these people of all colors and creeds who make up the tapestry of 
Alaska that give us our strength. It is the enormous opportunities of 
our natural resources--whether world-class fisheries or oil and gas 
reserves--that drive the economic engine of my State.
  But despite this promise and opportunity, I also see anxiety and 
frustration, and even fear, in the eyes of my fellow Alaskans, just as 
I know others are seeing this across the country. Despite what we are 
hearing from this administration, Americans have real reasons to feel 
this way.
  Business startups are at a 35-year low, as is the percentage of 
Americans actually looking for work. More small businesses failed than 
were started this past year. Over three-quarters of Americans now 
believe their kids' future will be less promising than their own.
  Believing that we will leave our children a better tomorrow is the 
essence of the American dream. But for many, that dream is starting to 
fade. This does not have to be. We live in a State and a country with 
so much untapped potential, so many opportunities, and so much promise 
that can bring limitless possibilities for our kids and our grandkids. 
Yet, in Alaska and throughout America, people are feeling that the 
heavy hand of the Federal Government is not working in their interests.
  The boldness of America is being bludgeoned by bureaucrats, with new 
Executive orders and regulations arising everywhere. And every time 
another one of those unneeded, often absurd, regulations is 
promulgated, a little bit of hope dies.
  A little bit of hope dies every time a doctor's office is shuttered 
or someone loses health care because of the complexities and costs of 
ObamaCare.
  A little hope dies when a rural community wants to build a road that 
will protect its citizens and is told by the Secretary of the Interior 
that birds are more important than their lives.
  And a lot of hope dies when the people in my State are told that the 
resources that are rightfully theirs can't be developed, and their 
lands and waters can't be fished and hunted to put food on their table.
  I support the Keystone Pipeline. It will create thousands of jobs. 
That is why it has the overwhelming support of American labor unions. 
It will enhance America's energy infrastructure and contribute billions 
to our economy. That is why it has the support of the American people.
  But just one bill, one pipeline, one project is not enough. It is not 
nearly enough.
  Since the founding of this country we have had important debates 
right here, on this floor, about the role of the Federal Government in 
our lives. Judging from what Americans are telling us, the reach of the 
Federal Government has hit its limits, it has exceeded its limits. Our 
citizens are telling us that their government--and it is their 
government--has gone well beyond deriving its powers from the consent 
of the government. What the American people are telling us, what 
Alaskans are telling me is they want a Federal Government that helps 
ignite their hope, not smother it.
  We have a job to do. We must work to address the anxiety and 
frustration of the people we serve. We must work to once again unleash 
the great potential that is Alaska and America. And we must work to 
reinvigorate faith in the American dream.
  How do we do this? Let me suggest two ideas.
  First, we must stop delaying economic projects that benefit our 
citizens. Purposeful delays and roadblocks have been the hallmark of 
this administration's approach to infrastructure projects that benefit 
Americans, and Alaska has been ground zero for such delays. Bridges, 
roads, mines that take years simply to permit, not to build; oil wells 
that cannot be drilled on Federal lands despite billions of dollars of 
leases from the private sector to the Federal Government; a state-of-
the-art clean coal plant that sits idle for over a decade despite the 
dire need for lower cost energy throughout Alaska.
  The Keystone Pipeline, a project that has been studied for 6 years, 
is just the latest example of the willful delay that has been the 
weapon of choice for this administration for killing projects they 
don't like.
  Enough is enough. We are Americans. We know what we are capable of. 
We built the 1,700-mile Alaskan-Canadian Highway, the Alcan Highway, 
through some of the world's most rugged terrain, in less than a year. 
We built the Empire State Building in 410 days. The Pentagon was built 
in 16 months. There is no reason that Keystone should have been studied 
for 6 years.
  If the executive branch continues to dither on America's economic 
future, Congress can and should act to expedite such projects. That is 
what we are doing with Keystone, and that is what I will be pressing 
the Congress to do for Alaska's and America's next great energy 
infrastructure project--the Alaska LNG project--which will create 
thousands of jobs and provide clean and affordable energy to Americans 
and our allies for decades.
  Second, we need more, not less, access to our Federal lands. As 
Americans, these are our lands. We own them. They are not the 
Department of the Interior's or BLM's lands. Yet this administration is 
adamant on keeping us from responsibly developing them. Once again, 
Alaska is ground zero for their efforts.
  Through Executive orders of various dubious legal merit, this 
administration locked up half the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. 
This isn't a national park. NPRA is an area specifically set aside by 
Congress for oil and gas development. And just this weekend, in another 
brazen action, the Obama administration announced they are working to 
lock up millions of acres of land on Alaska's coastal plain, some of 
the Nation's richest oil and gas prospects.
  This is an affront to Alaskans and Americans who cherish security--
energy security--the rule of law, and the strength of our Nation, and 
it is an affront to Members of Congress regardless of party. How we 
develop Alaska's lands is an area where Congress, not the Executive, 
has preeminent authority.
  I think the Obama administration needs a reminder of what article 4, 
section 3 of the Constitution states:

       The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all 
     needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or 
     other Property belonging to the United States . . .

  This brings me to my third point: We must get back to the rule of 
law. The rule of law, carefully built up and nurtured for centuries in 
America, is a fundamental pillar of our great Nation. Most countries 
don't have it. We do. It is a gift. But if we continue to erode this 
rule of law, we ultimately undermine what it means to be an American, 
and it will be hard to get it back.
  But I hope, because there are still enough of us here who respect the 
rule of law and see the Constitution not as a mere suggestion but as 
the foundation for the structure of our government and our individual 
liberties. There have been cracks in the foundation recently, but the 
people sent us here to repair those cracks.
  Fourth, while I believe in a limited Federal Government, it is 
important to recognize where the Federal Government does not have 
responsibilities, it needs to carry out its duties with more efficiency 
and compassion, particularly toward the most vulnerable in society. 
This is especially true when it comes to honoring the sacred trusts of 
responsibility we have toward our veterans.
  That is why I cosponsored the Clay Hunt suicide prevention bill. I am 
confident my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will quickly vote on 
this important measure and move it on to the President's desk.
  It is also why I will support effective programs where the Federal 
Government and States can work together to address our problems 
throughout this country with regard to sexual assault and domestic 
violence.
  Fifth, and finally, we must challenge the conventional wisdom that 
has existed in this town for decades that the Federal Government's 
power and intrusiveness should always be expanding like some inevitable 
force of nature. Nowhere is this more important than reforming the 
overgrown regulatory thicket that strangles our future.

[[Page S502]]

  According to the President's own Small Business Administration, 
Federal regulations impose an annual burden on our economy of close to 
$2 trillion. That is roughly $15,000 per year per American family. 
Federal regulations are sapping our strength as a Nation. So many of 
them don't make sense, and others are not authorized by law or the 
Constitution as they must be. And, increasingly, those who promulgate 
and enforce them are showing less and less restraint for the well-being 
of our citizens.
  The recent Obama administration ANWR assault is the latest example, 
and I will use all of my power to protect the economic growth and 
prosperity of Alaska. That is why I have already filed amendments with 
Senator Murkowski to rescind the Obama administration's ANWR order.
  I have also filed an amendment that seeks to check another abuse of 
Federal power. When the EPA was initially authorized in 1970, no one 
thought it necessary to arm its employees with weapons. But today, in a 
classic case of Federal Government power creep, close to 200 armed EPA 
agents are roaming our country. It is a disturbing fact.
  But it was particularly disturbing for a small group of miners who, 
during the summer of 2013, prospecting for gold in Chicken, AK, were 
swarmed by armed EPA agents.
  This wasn't some huge mining conglomerate. This was a small mining 
operation in interior Alaska--sluice boxes with specks of Alaska gold, 
and EPA agents armed with rifles, body armor, a helicopter overhead, 
looking for Clean Water Act violations. They found none. And apart from 
terrifying the miners, they accomplished nothing.
  As Alaska's former attorney general and commissioner of Natural 
Resources, I have worked with many fine Federal agents, and I 
understand the importance of sensible regulations that are based on the 
directives of Congress. But problems arise when regulations become 
excessive--and big problems arise when regulators are given guns to 
enforce these regulations. It is our responsibility to say: Enough; to 
stand up for those we serve, and to roll back Federal power when 
necessary.
  I am all for a country with an armed citizenry. As a marine, I have 
taken an oath to defend and fight for this critical constitutional 
freedom. However, I am not for a country with an armed bureaucracy.
  Let's give my State and the rest of the country a little hope that we 
are doing the jobs they sent us here to do. One concrete step in that 
direction would be to pass this simple amendment I am offering to 
disarm the EPA. They can certainly do their job without having guns. 
They have done so in the past, and they should be able to do so in the 
future.
  Finally, I will close with a few words on how I view my mission here. 
I suspect it doesn't differ greatly from what most of us hope to 
accomplish. We all want the best for the people we serve and the States 
we represent. We want to be strong here at home, which will help us be 
respected once again by our allies and feared by our adversaries. We 
want our children to be safe and secure, and we want the same for our 
neighbor.
  We want to live in a country of unlimited opportunity--a country of 
Alaska-sized dreams. We want a government that holds dear what our 
Founding Fathers knew--that all powers are derived from the consent of 
the governed. I think most of us can agree that we must unleash our 
country's enormous economic potential once again.
  I believe our government should be helping us, not hindering us from 
achieving these efforts. I believe unlocking our country's vast energy 
potential is one of the best ways to reignite the American dream.
  Despite challenges, despite big government's creep into our lives, 
and despite armed EPA agents, we continue to live in the greatest 
country in the world--in the history of the world. There is no doubt 
about that. The people who sent us here still have big dreams and big 
hopes. Let's help those dreams grow and their hopes flourish.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate our new 
colleague from Alaska on his initial address to the Senate and just 
comment that it could not be more timely, as his State is obviously 
under assault by this administration. His prescription for the way 
forward, both for Alaska and America, strikes me as entirely 
appropriate for our country, and I congratulate our colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. I wish to thank the majority leader for his kind words 
and all my other colleagues who came to witness a new Senator's maiden 
speech.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I also wish to congratulate our new 
colleague from Alaska. Well said, and welcome. The two Senators from 
Alaska have dominated the start of this new session, and we are glad 
they have because they are bringing very important legislation and 
decisions to this body. So I congratulate both the senior and junior 
Senators from Alaska for their efforts, and I look forward to working 
together to accomplish what we all want to accomplish--a growing 
economy and better opportunities for Americans. The Senator from Alaska 
is certainly an important component of that in leading the way to that 
goal.


                          Indiana Health Care

  Mr. President, this morning we received the announcement that after 
nearly 2 years of negotiations, the State of Indiana and the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services have reached a major 
breakthrough, an agreement that approves Indiana's Healthy Indiana Plan 
2.0 waiver application by allowing it to move forward and be 
implemented.
  This agreement is great news for hundreds of thousands of low-income 
Hoosiers and a testament to the effectiveness of the current Healthy 
Indiana Plan. Now an expansion of that will be made possible through 
this waiver. It solidifies Indiana's position at the forefront of 
Medicaid reform and the advancement of consumer-driven health care. 
Those are key words--reforming a current dysfunctional and broken 
Medicaid system, advancing consumer-driven health care, getting 
consumers into the role of making decisions about their health and not 
just having a government agency say: This is what you can get, and this 
is what you cannot get or this is what makes you healthy. The Healthy 
Indiana Plan incentivizes consumers to determine what is best for their 
own health.
  The Healthy Indiana Plan was originally crafted under Indiana's 
former Governor Mitch Daniels. He extended health care coverage to 
lower-income residents who earned too much to qualify for Medicaid but 
too little to afford quality health coverage.
  The guiding principle of the original plan was simple. Individually 
owned and directed health care coverage has a positive effect for 
individual citizens and the health care system as a whole. We have 
proven that giving people a stake in their own health care decisions 
works.
  Governor Daniels put it well in a 2010 Wall Street Journal article, 
stating:

       Americans can make sound, thrifty decisions about their own 
     health. If national policy trusted and encouraged them to do 
     so, our sky-rocketing health care costs would decelerate.

  The original plan had three main objectives: individual control of 
health care spending, taxpayer protection based on the stipulation that 
enrollment could not grow faster than available funding, and disease 
prevention by incentivizing preventive care.
  Then in 2013 our current Governor, Mike Pence, announced plans to 
reform and expand the original Healthy Indiana Plan to cover more low-
income Hoosiers. Today, after more than a year and a half of 
negotiations, the Healthy Indiana Plan 2.0 has received a green light 
from the Obama administration. Coverage will begin on February 1 of 
this year.
  I applaud Governor Pence, and I applaud Health and Human Services 
Secretary Sylvia Burwell for working together to move forward to 
continue Indiana's successful consumer-driven approach that empowers 
members and provides access to quality care.
  This agreement will expand an existing proven program to more than 
350,000 low-income Hoosiers and allow the State of Indiana to end 
traditional Medicaid for all nondisabled adults between the ages of 19 
and 64. They will

[[Page S503]]

be transitioned into the new plan just approved through this waiver.
  The answer to our Nation's health care problems is not the broken 
status quo of ObamaCare. Indiana has shown, and will continue to show, 
that reforming traditional Medicaid and offering innovative health care 
solutions is the right way to empower individual citizens as they seek 
access to quality health care. Once again, Indiana is leading the way 
nationally by creating State-based innovative ideas for governing.
  As I serve individuals and Hoosiers here in Washington, I have often 
turned to what I call the Indiana model as a blueprint for a more 
efficient and fiscally responsible Federal Government. I developed a 
legislative roadmap that I call the Indiana Way--a 10-point plan that 
takes the model of Indiana, which it has put in place and proven over 
the last 10 years, and the ideas that I have gathered from Hoosiers as 
I travel about the State--ideas and plans that will make our State and 
Nation stronger. Innovative and effective solutions put forward in 
Indiana are what is desperately needed in Washington today to put our 
country back on a path to economic growth and opportunity.
  I congratulate Governor Pence and our State on this terrific news, 
and I look forward to continuing to highlight Hoosier's success stories 
and the Indiana way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge my colleague from 
Alaska, and I appreciate the comments he made this morning in his first 
speech on the Senate floor and in choosing to clearly focus on the 
opportunities that we have as a State and the challenges we face.
  I do feel it is unfortunate that, as a State, it seems that our 
largest battle is against our own federal government. How unfortunate 
is that? I feel very fortunate to have him as a partner here in the 
Senate as we take on these initiatives that have such impact and are of 
such import to our State and to how we fit with the other 49 States. We 
have no shortage of issues to take up when it comes to Federal 
overreach and the impact it has on our Nation and our State and how we 
will be able to develop our resources. I look forward to working with 
the Senator in these different areas.
  I do have to comment, given where we are in the discussions here on 
the Senate floor about the Keystone XL Pipeline and what benefit that 
infrastructure will provide to this country by way of a resource that 
will help us with our energy security and truly helps us with our 
national security, is it not better to receive oil from our friend and 
our ally Canada than it is from Venezuela? To me these are subjects 
that should not even merit that level of discussion because it is just 
common sense.
  Yet this President and his administration have taken 6 years to get 
to a point where they may decide on this issue. It has taken 6 years to 
decide whether it is in our country's best interest to receive oil from 
a friend and neighbor rather than from those who would do us ill. And 
then in a stunning act on Sunday--in one breath--this administration 
has taken an area that has been identified as the greatest source of 
oil potential that we have in this country, outside of Prudhoe Bay, 
with an estimated mean average of 10.3 billion barrels, which could 
provide 1 million additional barrels a day that would come down the 
Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which my colleague has talked about, and would 
help us to provide our Nation with the resource we need and would not 
only help us from a jobs and energy perspective but also from a 
security perspective.
  On one hand, the President is saying, nope, I think I would rather 
continue to receive oil from Venezuela and Nigeria and all these other 
countries, and then on Sunday he just decides to put it off limits--the 
greatest source of oil we have identified in this country to date.
  Just this morning, the President released his 5-year lease-sale plan, 
which is putting off--not deferring but withdrawing--areas in the 
Beaufort and the Chukchi, which will limit our opportunity for the 23 
billion barrels of potential in the offshore there.
  As my colleague has noted, the President has taken off half of the 
national petroleum reserve--the area we have designated for accessing 
our oil and gas resources. There is a move underfoot right now where 
this administration, I believe, is going to make the first production 
in NPRA and push it to a place where it will be uneconomic.
  We have a stunning situation. This administration says they want an 
all of the above energy policy, except maybe in Alaska. We can't do it 
in ANWR. We are going to push you off of NPRA, and offshore we are 
going to make it that much more difficult for you. We are going to put 
the throttle on Alaska's energy opportunities for this country. We are 
going to put the throttle on Canada and say: Don't run it through the 
United States--not down into the gulf coast where we have these 
refineries.
  What is he doing? He is putting our national security at risk with 
actions such as these.
  So when we talk about Keystone XL, this is more than just a pipe or 
piece of infrastructure crossing the border. We are talking about 
energy security and national security. Then we have actions from this 
administration this week that choke off Alaska's energy opportunities. 
This is why I need my colleague in this fight. Believe me, the Alaska 
delegation is prepared for it.
  It just causes us to wonder why. What are they thinking? What about 
energy security and national security for this country? We have the 
potential to be secure. North American energy independence is not a 
myth. It is real. But we have to have the will to make it happen--we 
certainly have the resources. We just need the ability, the opportunity 
to be able to develop them. So get out of the way and let us do that.
  My colleague from Washington and I have been working all morning 
trying to see if we can't identify a series of amendments that we might 
be able to move to this afternoon. We would like to give colleagues a 
sense of how we are going to be advancing through these additional 
amendments, get some additional amendments up pending, and really lay 
out that process. I think we have had really constructive conversation 
this morning, and I am encouraged. Obviously, we have a few more issues 
to work out, but I am hopeful we will be able to announce--hopefully in 
the short term--a glidepath that will give Members a little more 
certainty.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. Murkowski. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________