[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.
____________________