[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 27, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S503-S537]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Guantanamo Detainees
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise in support of S. 165, which
restores many of the terrorist detainee transfer safeguards that were
weakened in the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, as
well as imposes a 2-year bar on the transfer of detainees to Yemen.
This legislation has been authored by Senator Kelly Ayotte, one of
the Senate's foremost leaders on national security, and its cosponsors
include the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator John
McCain, and the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence,
Senator Richard Burr, as well as the Senate's preeminent expert on
military law, Senator Lindsey Graham.
I am honored to add my name to the list of Senators who have
cosponsored this legislation.
Mr. President, the effect of this legislation is to preserve the
ability of the
[[Page S504]]
United States to detain at our facilities at Guantanamo Bay members of
Al Qaeda and the Taliban--the organizations responsible for the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Why is keeping Guantanamo open so important?
Simply put, Guantanamo affords our military a safe and secure
location to detain those individuals held under the law of war or for
violations of the law of war.
If an enemy combatant is captured during an armed conflict, that
individual can be held under the law of war. It is a generally accepted
legal principle, affirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court, that enemy
combatants can be held at least until a conflict is concluded.
If an individual is held for a violation of the laws of war, that
means they are being detained until they can be prosecuted for a war
crime they are alleged to have committed.
The detainee population of Guantanamo contains battle-hardened
terrorists. Indeed, the threat they pose is amply demonstrated since 29
percent of Guantanamo detainees released so far are confirmed or
suspected of rejoining the fight against the United States.
Now, Mr. President, Cliff Sloan, who was the State Department's envoy
for closing Guantanamo Bay, recently wrote in a New York Times
editorial that this nearly 30 percent recidivism rate was ``deeply
flawed.'' It appears Mr. Sloan only wants the Congress and the American
people to consider the confirmed rate rather than the combined
confirmed and suspected recidivism rate.
Mr. President, if Congress and the American people are truly to
understand the risks inherent in this administration's insistence on
releasing Guantanamo Bay detainees, we must consider this combined
number. How can that be deeply flawed?
Mr. Sloan goes on to state that the level of recidivism is much lower
since 2009. However, this lower rate, if accurate, undoubtedly does not
include the five senior Taliban leaders who were illegally released to
Qatar and whose 1-year travel ban is about to expire. Unless the Qatari
Government prevents it, soon these terrorists will be free to go
wherever they wish.
I am also concerned that this new number might not fully incorporate
the activities and future actions of those detainees who have been
transferred in recent months. One of the major advantages of locating
our detention operations at Guantanamo Bay is that it is well-settled
law that the United States can hold individuals held under the law of
war or for violations of the law of war at our facilities there.
Now, I personally believe current Supreme Court precedent would
enable us to hold both law of war and violations of law of war
detainees in the United States. However, if these detainees are moved
into the United States, every attorney representing detainees would
rush to federal court and file new lawsuits seeking their clients'
release. Indeed, there exists a very real possibility that a court
might release a detainee into the United States, especially in light of
the Obama administration's unwillingness, in some cases, to defend
against detainees' habeas petitions to the fullest extent. As such, the
risks of transferring these detainees into the United States are great.
Guantanamo Bay also affords us a much better environment to bring and
hold newly apprehended terrorists. Inside the United States, the
Supreme Court has mandated that criminal suspects be read their
rights--including their right to remain silent and right to a lawyer--
subject to only a narrow public safety exception. Such limits on
interrogations severely hinder our ability to gather information from
captured terrorists, who have time and again proven to be the source of
vital intelligence.
Consider, for example, how officials were only able to interrogate
the Boston Marathon bomber for just 16 hours before he was read his
rights and immediately stopped cooperating. As one of the longest
serving members ever of the Intelligence Committee, I can assure you
that it takes far longer to gather all of the important information we
can from most terrorists.
Moving detainees into the United States also presents serious
domestic security concerns. A number of terrorist groups such as Al
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula have become quite adept at jailbreaks.
Bringing a concentration of terrorist detainees into the United States
therefore could create a particularly appealing target in the homeland
for jihadist radicals, whereas at Guantanamo Bay they are essentially
isolated in a facility well secured by the U.S. military.
Clearly there are ample and compelling legal and national security
reasons to maintain our detention operations at Guantanamo Bay. That is
why Senator Ayotte's legislation is so important. It ensures we will
continue to use this vital facility by restoring the transfer
restrictions that have enabled us to keep these individuals in such a
secure location.
A little over a year ago, there was a profound change in the laws
governing the transfer of Guantanamo detainees overseas. Before fiscal
year 2014 legislation, the Congress had repeatedly enacted provisions
in the annual Defense Authorization Act which all but prevented the
transfer of Guantanamo detainees.
Specifically, these previous laws required the Secretary of Defense
to certify in writing, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State
and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, that
certain criteria had been met before the transfer of a detainee abroad
could occur--in particular, that the foreign entity receiving a
detainee has ``taken or agreed to take effective actions to ensure that
the individual cannot take action to threaten the United States'' as
well as ``taken or agreed to take such actions as the Secretary of
Defense determines are necessary to ensure the individual cannot engage
or reengage in any terrorist activity.''
Despite this, with few exceptions, the law prohibited the transfer of
detainees to countries to which detainees had previously been
transferred and subsequently reengaged in terrorism. Yet the law did
afford the Secretary of Defense a national security waiver that negated
the requirements if other standards were met.
So the bottom line here is that under the old law it was very
difficult--as it should be--to transfer Guantanamo Bay detainees
overseas.
But the Obama administration, bent on an ideological crusade to empty
Guantanamo no matter the cost, successfully lobbied to relax these
restrictions in the Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Authorization Act. The
newly weakened provisions permitted the transfer of detainees overseas
as long as the Secretary of Defense determined that ``the individual is
no longer a threat to the national security of the United States.''
This is, of course, a lesser standard than requiring a certification
that the individual cannot threaten the United States or reengage in
terrorist activity.
In addition, under the Fiscal Year 2014 law, the Secretary could even
authorize the transfer of a detainee as long as the Secretary
determined the transfer was in the interest of the United States and
action had been or was to be taken which will substantially mitigate
the chance of recidivism.
While the statute does require the Secretary of Defense to take into
consideration a number of factors before making this decision, the
reality of the new regime is that the Secretary has far more ability to
transfer detainees overseas.
The Obama administration quickly seized on this new power. In the
past year the number of Guantanamo Bay detainees has been decreased
from 155 to 122. And despite this new transfer authority, the Obama
administration had the audacity to violate even the relaxed transfer
restrictions less than 6 months after the law's enactment--specifically
by transferring five senior Taliban commanders to Qatar without
providing Congress 30 days of notification. Since then, the
administration, after a brief lull, has continued and even increased
the pace of detainees being transferred overseas.
These deeply troubling moves by the Obama administration demonstrate
the vital importance of Senator Ayotte's bill. It restores the previous
transfer restrictions. Specifically, it requires the Secretary of
Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in
consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, to certify
that certain safeguards are in place and that threat of recidivism is
very small before a transfer can be undertaken.
Furthermore, this legislation also places a 2-year ban on the
transfer of detainees to Yemen. This restriction is especially
important because approximately half of the remaining detainees at
Guantanamo are from Yemen.
[[Page S505]]
Yemen is one of our most critical partners in the fight against
terror, and we cooperate closely with the Yemeni Government in the
fight against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. But because of the
presence of this menacing group within Yemen's borders, the security
situation there is dire, and it seems to be deteriorating as we speak.
Just last week the Houthi, a Shia rebel group, seized control of
Yemen's Presidential palace, forcing the resignation of the President,
Prime Minister, and Cabinet. In December of 2013 AQAP launched a well-
coordinated assault on the Yemeni Ministry of Defense that left 52
dead, not to mention a number of jailbreaks from the Yemeni
correctional facilities in which, according to press reports, numerous
members of AQAP were freed.
The unvarnished truth is that it will take many years and much effort
to bring about the security improvements in Yemen needed before we can
be confident that detainees returned there will not return to the
battlefield. That is why this section of Senator Ayotte's legislation
is so important.
Our policies must be based on defeating the real threats facing our
Nation, not pacifying the ideological passions of an extreme few, which
is why I was so disappointed by another recent New York Times editorial
about this legislation. The Times called Senator Ayotte
``opportunistic,'' if you can believe that, for citing the very real
threat of a Paris-style attack on the homeland and termed her
description of Yemen as ``the wild, wild West,'' as ``odd.'' I cannot
imagine a better way to describe the disturbing security situation in
Yemen. And based on years of evidence, one can only conclude Senator
Ayotte is right. Frankly, I believe the New York Times owes Senator
Ayotte an apology, and I hope they will be big enough to do that.
We need this legislation because it restores proper protections from
the threats posed by released detainees. I hope the rest of my
colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.
I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I would like to make a statement about the
Keystone XL Pipeline. This first came before this body some 4 years
ago. I said at the time that the pipeline was a good idea. Why? Because
it would create construction jobs. It would reduce America's reliance
on Middle Eastern oil for our energy. I said also that the pipeline
must be built right. What does that mean? It means two things. First,
Keystone must be built to the highest of safety standards. That only
makes sense. And we must have respect for private property rights when
that pipeline is built.
Just like everything else in Washington, the Keystone was eventually
made into a political football, and it has dragged on for 4 years. It
has taken on a life of its own. And to be straight and level with you,
folks on both sides of the aisle have turned it into something much
bigger than it really is.
At the start of the 114th Congress, I was hopeful that there would be
enough momentum behind the pipeline to finally get it done and begin
construction. But since the swearing-in ceremony 3 weeks ago, my faith
in our ability to have a deliberative debate has been shaken. Last
week's political stunts were simply unacceptable. We can't tell the
American people we are going to responsibly govern when in fact we
stopped Senators from even speaking on the floor about amendments they
have offered.
The majority decried these kinds of practices last Congress. Many of
us agreed. But to start with these kinds of actions in the new Congress
is discouraging, to say the least. I hope this week we can have an open
debate, make this bill better, pick up a few more votes, and finally
approve the Keystone Pipeline for building.
Ten days ago an oil pipeline burst in eastern Indiana. It spilled
about 40,000 gallons of oil into and around the Yellowstone River. Six
thousand residents in Dawson County, MT, had their water cut off for 5
days after oil got into the local water treatment plant. Cleanup crews
are slowly making progress removing oil from an ice-covered river.
This oilspill was unacceptable. What is worse, it was completely
preventible. The pipeline that burst last week was nearly 60 years old.
It had not been inspected in at least 2 years. Pipelines, just like
roads and bridges and railroads, get old and they wear out. If we want
pipelines to operate properly, they need to be regularly inspected and
upgraded.
In December, during the lameduck, Congress plussed up the budget for
PHMSA--the agency that does pipeline inspections--giving PHMSA the
resources to hire more than 100 pipeline safety inspectors. It is clear
we need to get these folks hired, trained, and working on the ground.
We also need to look at how PHMSA spends those dollars and whether
resources are adequate to inspect the Nation's 2.6 million miles of
pipeline.
Despite the criticisms, pipelines are still the safest way to
transport oil. We have seen the headlines--we have all seen them--in
recent years of oil trains exploding, trucks running off the road that
carry oil.
In 2013, one explosion in Canada leveled an entire town. It killed 47
people. Months later, another oil train traveling in North Dakota burst
into flames and caused an entire town to evacuate.
In northwestern Montana, the resort town of Whitefish is situated a
few miles west of Glacier National Park. The town is home to a world-
class ski hill and one of the world's most pristine lakes. Every day
oil tank cars run past Whitefish Lake carrying thousands of gallons of
oil. The environmental impact of an explosion or spill on that railroad
would devastate that lake, and it would devastate that region, its
water supply, and have serious impacts on the State's economy.
In fact, in 1989, a freight train derailed as it was circling
Whitefish Lake and four cars slid into the water and leaked out some
fuel. Twenty-three years later--just 2 years ago--they finally finished
the cleanup. Imagine if those cars were carrying crude as they do
today.
Pipelines are the fastest way to transport oil. Until this body can
agree that climate change is real and start making smart investments in
alternative energy sources, our economy still needs traditional ways.
I have said many times I still power my farm equipment with diesel
fuel. I don't have any options. So it is clear to me we need a way to
transport oil, and Keystone is that way. And, yes, in Montana, it will
create jobs. According to the State Department's analysis, construction
of the pipeline would create 3,700 jobs. Over $700 million worth of
construction materials and support costs would come to eastern Montana.
That is not to mention the tax base that would be increased. But safety
must come first. We need the best materials; we need more inspections.
We simply cannot afford another spill.
Finally, I want to talk about eminent domain. Everyone in this body
should agree that a foreign corporation should not be allowed to seize
private property here in America. That is a fact. Unfortunately, we
couldn't agree on that last Thursday. There was an amendment offered by
Senator Menendez stating that TransCanada can only acquire land from
willing sellers. But there are Members of the U.S. Senate who put
profits of a foreign corporation above the constitutional rights of
American citizens. If someone had told me in January of 2007, when I
was first sworn in, that my colleagues would one day vote against such
an amendment, I simply would not have believed it, but that is exactly
what happened. I am disappointed that amendment failed, but I do
believe we can improve upon this bill by including commonsense
reporting requirements that would ensure this pipeline is built in a
transparent way.
Senator Cardin has an amendment to do just that, and I for one
support it. Private property rights should not be a partisan issue, and
I would hope my colleagues would join me in supporting this measure.
Let's not race to cloture. Let's not race to trample private property
rights of Americans. Let's get this bill passed, and let's do it in the
right way.
This pipeline is not a long-term solution for our energy problems,
but it is one piece of the puzzle. We must make meaningful investments
in research and development so we can make carbon-neutral energy
sources more accessible and affordable. Until we do that,
[[Page S506]]
the reality is that this economy still runs on oil.
This pipeline helps get us to the next step. I still believe in this
pipeline. I believe Keystone can boost our energy independence and will
create jobs in the short term and over the long haul, but we need to
debate this bill. We need a chance to make it better, to make the
pipelines safer, and send a message to the American people we are
serious about investing in our long-term energy future. If we don't do
that, we won't build the Keystone.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I would like to speak about the Keystone
XL Pipeline. At the outset this Senator wants to say the conclusion of
this Senator is that this is much more about politics than it is about
energy policy, than it is about the economy of this country,
particularly so since the price of oil has gone from something in
excess of $100 a barrel down to the range of $46 a barrel.
Likewise, the fact that the United States is now the No. 1 producer
of oil in the world--in large part because of our brethren and sistren
in the Senate who represent those Northern Plains States as well as the
Southwestern States where they are producing all of this newly found
oil from the shale rock which has strengthened the economic position of
our country. Think about it, No. 1 producer in the world. That is us.
As a result, we do not have to be nearly as dependent on the Middle
East, from where we used to get at least 50, 60 percent of our oil or
from other areas such as Nigeria or Venezuela.
I have just mentioned three very unstable parts of the world. Yet
that is the position we have been in, but that has changed. It is now
the 21st century. As a result of new technologies, we are the No. 1
producer of oil in the world. So back when we were not, when we were
still dependent on foreign oil, there was a discovery in Canada--
Western Canada--the ability to extract oil from the heavy tar in these
tar sands.
The Canadians wanted an outlet for that. It made it much more
appealing to us, to the United States back then, when oil was over $100
a barrel and we were still importing a lot of it from abroad. But
interestingly, the Canadians wanted and suggested a pipeline that would
come right through the middle of the United States, from the north in
Canada, through the middle of the United States, down to the gulf
coast, to the refineries.
Why didn't they go west from the western States of Canada to the
Pacific to have an outlet? They had to cross the Rocky Mountains. Of
course that was going to be expensive. It was also going to roil up a
bunch of the Canadian environmentalists. So the idea of the Keystone XL
was born.
What does XL stand for? Extra large. Well, if it was extra large, it
implies there is an existing pipeline. Indeed there is. I want to show
it to you. This orange line is an existing pipeline coming from
Alberta, northeast of Calgary, across Saskatchewan into Manitoba, and
then it comes down through North Dakota, South Dakota, eastern
Nebraska, and there it forks right at the Kansas line. One line goes
east all the way into Illinois, and the other line goes south through
Kansas into Oklahoma.
I said at the outset this is much more about politics as opposed to
energy policy, as well as economics because this all heated up--XL,
extra large--during the last Presidential election. Of course those who
raise this issue were trying to say: Unless you embrace this XL you are
against the United States being energy independent.
Well, an interesting thing happened along the way. From Cushing, OK,
there was no line directly going to the gulf coast, where the
refineries are in Houston and Port Arthur. The President approved that.
That has been constructed. I am advised that has just opened in the
last few days--so the existing line, all the way from Alberta, Canada,
through the heartland of America, all the way to the gulf coast. That
is that.
But XL, extra large, to carry more oil, was proposed. The route that
is now proposed is here. That looks like it makes sense because it cuts
off the dogleg and does a straight line. But originally it had come
much further to the west, right over the environmentally sensitive
lands of the aquifer in central Nebraska where so much of the water
resources for the entire Midwestern United States come from.
This Senator said, back in the Presidential election of 2012: If you
really want a bigger pipeline and you want to avoid all of the
controversy over the environment, which this proposed route certainly
has since it is extra large, why do you not just run it along the
existing pipeline? The right of way is already there. Indeed, it is now
complete all the way to the gulf coast. Why do you not run it just
right along and you would have a lot less opposition?
But no. This Senator comes back to his main point: This is all about
politics. It is all about trying to make some look as though they are
anti-energy and others look as though they are pro-energy. But it is
what it is. It is 2 years later, and here we are.
The proposal is to still come across parts of Montana, South Dakota,
further east in Nebraska, and join with the existing pipeline. So what
is confronting a Senator such as this who certainly wants us to be
energy independent? Well, then, if we are going to have additional oil
supplies as a backup, maybe that would be a good consideration. So
let's make sure this new source of foreign oil--that we have a chance
to use it in this country, since it is going to come right down the
middle of America.
No. No. No can do. This foreign oil, for those who are proposing what
we are about to vote on, is going right down the gullet of America,
right down the middle of America to the gulf coast, and it is going to
be exported to foreign countries. So a little old country boy such as I
wonders: Now, wait. Let me get this straight. You want foreign oil to
build a big oil pipeline to run right through the middle of America as
a conduit to send right out to other foreign countries and not be
utilized in this country?
Sadly, the answer to that is yes. That is what we are confronting. We
had an amendment that Canada could not export it. We could use it here
for American purposes. But sadly that amendment was defeated by the
purists who want it to be exactly as they want it to be, a tool of
foreign oil to send through the middle of America in a conduit to other
foreign nations.
This Senator does not think that is in the interests of this country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I come first of all in celebration, in
celebration that the Senate is finally working again. In just 27 days
we have seen more amendments voted on on the floor of the Senate than
under the Democratic majority in the entire year of 2014. We once again
have a Senate where Republicans and Democrats can offer their
amendments, can debate their amendments, and can vote them up or down.
One of the resounding consequences of the election in November is the
American people were tired of the Democratic do-nothing Senate. We have
a Senate that has shown up to work.
The bill we are voting on, the underlying bill, is an example of what
the priorities should be in the Senate. The Keystone Pipeline bill
ought to be a no-brainer. It ought to be an example of bipartisan
cooperation.
Indeed, one of the very first things I did 2 years ago when I was
newly elected to this body was join with 10 Senators, 5 Democrats and 5
Republicans, in sending a bipartisan letter to the President saying
approve the Keystone Pipeline now.
Why? No. 1, it will produce jobs, tens of thousands of high-paying
jobs. No. 2, it will increase tax revenue. It will increase revenue for
the Federal Government, for State and local governments. That revenue
can be used to pay down our national debt to provide for our vital
needs.
No. 3, it will enhance our national security by allowing us to move
toward North American energy independence
[[Page S507]]
rather than being dependent on foreign nations for oil, nations whose
interests are very different and sometimes hostile to our own.
No. 4, building the Keystone Pipeline is unequivocally better for the
environment.
Indeed, I have joked: If you are a bearded, tattooed, Birkenstock-
wearing, tree-hugging, Green Peace activist, you should love the
Keystone Pipeline, because if the pipeline is not built, it means we
will continue to bring our oil in on overseas tankers and on rail, both
of which are far more dangerous for the environment than a pipeline,
both of which we know to a certainty that as long as there are tankers
on the oceans there will be spills, as long as there is rail there will
be spills.
Moreover, if the pipeline is not built north-south, it is not as
though our friends the Canadians are simply going to leave the oil
where it is, they are going to build the pipeline east-west, and
instead of allowing it to be refined in America where it produces high-
paying jobs here up and down the gulf coast, the alternative is it
would be refined in Asia and China in far dirtier refineries that
pollute the environment even more.
So this ought to be a no-brainer. This ought to be an example of
where Republicans and Democrats come together in agreement. But, sadly,
it is not, and it is not because the modern Democratic Party has made a
decision between two traditionally favored children of the Democratic
Party. The modern Democratic Party has made a decision that they care
more about the campaign donations from California environmentalist
billionaires than they do about the jobs for union members.
I suggest that the 100 Senators who are elected to the Senate ought
to be fighting for the hard-working men and women. We ought to be
fighting for the union members, for all of the men and women who want
good, decent-paying jobs, who want to provide for their kids, and who
are tired of the stagnation of the Obama economy.
Only last week we heard the President give his State of the Union
Address, where he talked about how swimmingly the economy is going.
Well, you know, he was right. If you happen to be one of those
California environmentalist billionaires, if you happen to be in the
top 1 percent--the millionaires and billionaires whom the President
demagogues--then you have indeed become richer under President Obama.
Today the top 1 percent earn a higher share of our economy than in
any year since 1928. Those who walk the corridors of power in the Obama
administration have gotten fat and happy.
Yet for working men and women, union members, their lives have gotten
harder and harder and harder. We have, today, the lowest labor-force
participation since 1978. Median income in this country has stagnated
for two decades.
Yet what is the Democratic Party doing? Marshalling every vote it can
to vote against union members, to vote against hard-working men and
women, to stand with the big dollars coming out of California. What a
sad, sad statement of priorities that is.
So let me commend majority leader Mitch McConnell for bringing up an
open process, allowing Democrats amendments. I would be happy to vote
on Democratic amendments all day long and Republican amendments on the
merit. Let me commend the majority as well for focusing on the issues
that matter to the American people--namely, bringing back jobs and
economic growth and opportunity.
Now, in the course of this open amendment proceeding, I have
submitted three different amendments. One would get rid of the
longstanding anachronistic ban on exporting crude oil that was put in
place in the 1970s. It makes no sense in the current environment and is
hurting jobs and economic growth.
A second would obviate the need for having this fight every time a
cross-border pipeline was built. It would streamline the process for
building pipelines so we could move ahead with economic growth.
Both of those amendments, I believe, are sound policy. I think they
are supported by the interests of Americans across this country.
After long conversations with my friends and colleagues, Senator
Murkowski and Senator Hoeven, we have agreed that we are going to have
committee hearings in the coming months focusing on both of those
issues, laying out the facts and the data to make clear that these are
unambiguously good--whether you are a Republican or a Democrat or an
Independent or a Libertarian--if you want jobs and economic growth.
These reforms are sound reforms to bring back jobs, economic growth,
and opportunity.
Amendment No. 15
The third amendment I have submitted, which I am hopeful we will vote
on either today or tomorrow, is an amendment to expedite exports of
liquid natural gas. That is what I wish to speak about for just a few
minutes.
The amendment that I am presenting will expedite LNG exports to World
Trade Organization members, removing unnecessary delays that have been
caused by the arbitrary Department of Energy approval process.
Currently, countries under free-trade agreements with the United
States enjoy a streamlined, expedited approval process to import our
LNG. For projects to FTA countries, current law deems those ``in the
public interest'' and they get a permit ``without modification or
delay.''
Yet those without such an agreement must, instead, submit to an
arduous case-by-case nonstandardized process that ends up discouraging
LNG trade and related investments. It ends up killing jobs.
For projects to non-FTA countries, right now there are no time limits
and no standardized process by which the Department of Energy
determines whether or not the project is ``in the public interest'' for
receiving a permit. The amendment I have offered would open the doors
of trade to more than 160 countries in the World Trade Organization to
receive this same expedited treatment that we currently have in place
for free-trade countries.
This is particularly important not only for economic development, not
only for jobs, not only for growth but also for the enormous
geopolitical advantages that it will present to the United States.
In the past several years we have seen the consequences of the Obama-
Clinton foreign policy. We have seen the United States receding from
leadership in the world, and we have seen other nations--foreign
nations--step into that void and use energy as a weapon, as a cudgel--
whether it is Venezuela or Iran or Russia.
Allowing expedited LNG exports strengthens our hands against those
who would be enemies of America, and it strengthens the hands of our
friends and allies. Here at home, according to a 2013 study, in the
United States LNG exports could create up to 450,000 new jobs by 2035.
So we will see, when Republicans and Democrats vote on this
amendment, where each Senator stands on whether we should allow the
private sector to create up to 450,000 new jobs. Every Democrat who
votes no can expect to go back to his or her State and face
constituents--face the union members who would like to get some of
those 450,000 new jobs--and explain why he or she voted against that
hard-working man or woman having a job.
Over the same time, GDP growth could generate anywhere from an
additional $15.6 billion up to $73.6 billion. By 2035 the net gain in
manufacturing jobs could mean up to 76,000 new jobs. A lot of the
Members of this body like to talk about manufacturing, like to talk
about the steel industry, the car industry. It used to be that the
backbone of the American middle class was the blue-collar jobs where
you could work with dignity, where you could provide for your family,
and where you could provide for your kids.
Every Senator who votes no to LNG exports because they want to
continue receiving money from the California billionaires had better be
prepared to return home to their States, look into the eyes of the
manufacturing workers, and explain why he or she voted against 76,000
new manufacturing jobs.
Geopolitically, let's take Ukraine. All of us sat not long ago in the
House of Representatives for a joint session when the President of
Ukraine addressed us both. We stood over and over--standing, quite
literally, alongside Ukraine. If we want action to match those words,
then every Senator should vote yes on this amendment.
[[Page S508]]
Ukraine currently relies on natural gas for 40 percent of its energy
needs. More than 60 percent of the natural gas that Ukraine gets and
depends on comes from Russia, and Russia uses that natural gas as a
club to extract economic blackmail on Ukraine.
Last spring I traveled to Ukraine, Poland, and Estonia. As I visited
with leaders throughout Europe, these friends of ours said over and
over: Help us free ourselves from energy blackmail from Russia.
As of today, the Department of Energy has approved nine export
permits to non-free-trade agreement countries within the past 2 years.
Twenty-eight applications are currently pending stacked up on the desk,
going nowhere.
The increased energy production from allowing us to export the
resources we have to friends and allies who want and need it would spur
investment and create thousands of jobs for America. It would be a boon
to countries such as Ukraine. It would be a boon to Europe, and it
would be a boon to the Baltics, which are watching what is happening in
Ukraine and wondering: Are we next? It would be a boon to friends of
ours, such as Germany, who likewise depend on Russia for significant
energy needs.
Today this body faces a pivotal question. Will we lead the world into
a new generation of American prosperity and energy prosperity led by
the American energy renaissance we are experiencing or will we instead
shut off our borders, erect walls, and allow our friends and allies to
be dependent on tyrants such as Putin or Maduro.
We need to come together in a bipartisan manner to say we support
jobs, we support economic growth, and we support standing united
alongside our friends and allies in defense of freedom.
I urge my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to support this
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from Texas.
Justice For Victims of Trafficking Act
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we all know, there is a big game this
weekend, and I wouldn't be surprised if our friends from Washington and
from the New England area find themselves a little bit distracted
beyond the ``snowpocalypse,'' I guess they call it, all the big
snowstorms.
In anticipation of the big game, I am told that 100 million Americans
will actually tune in to the Super Bowl this weekend. And here is a
shocking statistic. Some 1.25 billion chicken wings will be consumed--
1.25 billion chicken wings--and, of course, millions of pizzas,
celebrating what has, of course, become in many ways an unofficial
American holiday. I am still stuck on the 1.25 billion chicken wings.
Well, while many of us will tune in to cheer our favorite team in the
Super Bowl, unfortunately--and what I am on the floor to talk about--
there is the dark underbelly of events such as the Super Bowl that
don't get the attention they really deserve. Most of us would, perhaps,
prefer to avert our gaze or think about other, more pleasant, positive
things, but what I want to talk about briefly is the practice of human
trafficking.
When many people hear about human trafficking, they think about
something that doesn't happen in America; it happens somewhere else.
They might envision brothels in foreign cities or girls being smuggled
across other borders. But the sad reality is human trafficking is a
problem all across the United States and at all times of the year. But
it is especially a problem surrounding big, public events such as the
Super Bowl.
Yes, human trafficking is happening in our own backyard, and more
than 80 percent of sex trafficking victims in America are U.S.
citizens. They are not some person who has been brought to the United
States from some foreign country. Eighty percent are U.S. citizens.
As the father of two daughters, one of the most disturbing facts is
that the average age of a child who first becomes a victim of sex
trafficking is 13 years old.
As I said, recent years have shown an uptick in human trafficking
surrounding large events such as the Super Bowl. For example, in Dallas
a few years ago, there was a 300-percent increase in sex-for-sale
Internet ads. That was in 2011, of course. In 2012, in Indianapolis,
police made 68 commercial sex arrests and recovered two human
trafficking victims.
One of the worst problems associated with human trafficking is that
many of the victims don't actually consider themselves victims yet
because they are so young and so vulnerable that they don't actually
realize they are being used and their future is literally being
destroyed.
In 2013, in New Orleans, police made 85 arrests for suspected human
trafficking. Of course, this year the Super Bowl is in Phoenix, and no
doubt law enforcement in Phoenix will have a vigilant eye in an effort
to identify and crack down on the perpetrators. But the truth is most
of this is happening right under our nose and we don't even see it.
We know the police are doing the best they can, but it won't be
enough--it won't be enough--to stop each one of these crimes. Indeed,
staggering numbers of these crimes will continue to be committed. The
Super Bowl will be done and gone next Sunday, but after the confetti is
cleared from the field and the fans catch their flights home, the work
to end this heinous crime known as human trafficking will continue.
As a matter of fact, January is National Slavery and Human
Trafficking Prevention Month. Human trafficking is a form of human
slavery. We thought that was eliminated from our history following the
terrible Civil War that took the lives of 600,000 Americans. If you
extrapolate the Civil War to today, in terms of population, that would
be 3 million Americans who gave their lives. We had the Civil War in
large part because of the bane and the scourge of slavery, but the
truth is human slavery still exists in the form of sex trafficking.
Awareness is important. As we are driving around our city streets--
particularly people driving around in Phoenix this weekend--we may
actually see some underage girls or others who are actually victims of
this crime, and so we need to be vigilant. We need to do what we can to
be the eyes and ears of law enforcement and to call in suspicious
circumstances. We simply need to do everything we can to stop human
trafficking by all means necessary.
This is something that strikes close to home, in Texas, where I come
from. Sadly, Texas, in part because of our proximity to the U.S.-
Mexican border, sees more human trafficking than many other States. One
out of 10 tips received by the National Human Trafficking Resource
Center in 2013 involved incidents occurring in Texas--1 out of every 10
tips. And Texas reported more than 1,000 suspected human trafficking
incidents in 2007.
So this is a big challenge and a big problem, and it is not going
away. According to law enforcement authorities, sex trafficking is the
fastest growing business of organized crime and the third largest
criminal enterprise in the world.
And here is something I really don't understand. When we talk about
the criminal organizations--the transnational criminal organizations
that smuggle people across the border--most recently in the context of
these unaccompanied minor children who came from Central America whose
parents paid human smugglers--the cartels, really--let's say $5,000
apiece, these parents have no knowledge of what will happen to their
children once they turn them over to these cartel members. Indeed,
these criminal organizations are engaged in the money business,
anything that will make a buck. They will traffic in children, they
will smuggle immigrants, they will smuggle drugs.
With regard to these same criminal organizations, somehow, some way,
we tend to compartmentalize our brains and say: Well, sex trafficking
is different from illegal immigration and smuggling. But it is not. It
has the same corridors funded by the same people and operated by the
same transnational criminal organizations.
Now, back to sex trafficking after that parenthetical comment. This
is one of those bipartisan subjects where there has been a lot of good
work by Members on both sides of the aisle, and one of the things we
have needed the most is to have the help of many nongovernmental
organizations--these are faith-based organizations, these are
[[Page S509]]
local community organizations--that are designed to help victims of
human trafficking escape, with the aid of law enforcement, and then
somehow helping victims to rebuild their lives.
Earlier this month, I partnered with the Senator from Oregon, Mr.
Wyden, Senator Klobuchar from Minnesota, and Senator Kirk of Illinois
to introduce a bill we call the Justice For Victims of Trafficking Act
of 2015. I have talked to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
Senator Grassley, and have urged him to give this bill an early markup
in the Judiciary Committee so it will be eligible to come to the floor
as soon as we can get it here, because I am going to be asking the
majority leader to schedule floor action so we can have a debate and a
vote on this important legislation.
What does the legislation do? It provides additional funds for human
trafficking support victims, with tens of millions of dollars of
additional funds each year, and it would be financed entirely by
criminal fines and fees. This wouldn't be tax dollars, this would be
taking basically the fines and the fees paid by people who plead or are
convicted of other crimes and putting those funds into a crime victims
fund that could be used to help these organizations--these human-
trafficking victims support programs.
Again, this legislation would be financed entirely by fines on
predators convicted of child pornography, human trafficking, child
exploitation, and commercial human smuggling.
This legislation would also assure that victims would have greater
access to restitution by requiring the Department of Justice to use
criminally forfeited assets to compensate them through a process known
as victim restoration.
It is no secret the victims of this terrible crime end up with a lot
of psychological baggage and other challenges. We need to help them get
on with their lives and to address the terrible things they have
experienced.
This legislation would also enhance law enforcement tools to target
both sophisticated criminal networks that engage in human trafficking
and the predators who increase demand for sex slavery by purchasing
innocent children.
This bill now has 20 bipartisan cosponsors. So don't believe the
cynics who say that nothing happens up here on a bipartisan basis. It
is just not true. There are some things--and this is one of them, and
perhaps one of the most important things--that happen on a bipartisan
basis.
The good news is the House of Representatives is voting on companion
legislation today, so this legislation should be ready for Senate
action, I hope, soon. I hope we can work with our House colleagues and
get it to the President as soon as we possibly can.
The bottom line is we need to take a stand against this modern-day
slavery and lift up the victims of these crimes whoever and wherever
they may be. Again, this is obviously not a political issue. This is
something we have the power to address and we must take action to
combat this human trafficking all around the world, and the place to
start is in our own back yard.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me first commend my colleague from
Texas. We sit on opposite sides of the aisle, but there are many things
that bring us together, and I certainly support what he has said about
the impact of human trafficking.
In a hearing before the subcommittee on the Constitution, which he
now chairs, during this session of Congress, we brought in law
enforcement victims and talked about some of the outrageous things
which are occurring in exploiting young people, particularly young
women. One of the points which my colleague has made, and I have
listened carefully, is that we should consider these human trafficking
victims as victims.
Many times, sadly in the past, they have been prosecuted as if they
were complicit, and many times they are children. They have no
knowledge of their rights or obligations and are being exploited and,
as a consequence, they are very reluctant to cooperate with law
enforcement if they feel they too might end up in jail, having been
victimized twice in the process.
I thank him for his leadership and I look forward to looking closely
at his legislation and I hope we can work closely together on that.
Amendment No. 67
Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about a pending amendment
which troubles me. I don't know if there will be much time for debate
should we actually consider this amendment, and I want to make my
feelings a matter of public record.
This is amendment No. 67 offered by Senator Sullivan. This amendment
would require--would require--the disarming of Federal law enforcement
officers who work for the Environmental Protection Agency.
There are currently about 180 law enforcement agents working for the
Environmental Protection Agency. They are trained professional officers
and are tasked with investigating and enforcing our Nation's
environmental laws. They conduct investigations, execute warrants, and
make arrests for misdemeanors and felonies under the laws of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
This is law enforcement work and it is dangerous work. Many times
these officers face the same threats as all law enforcement officers
face. According to the Bureau of Justice statistics, there are 73
Federal agencies with law enforcement officers, ranging from the FBI to
the Food and Drug Administration and NASA.
EPA's criminal investigators were given law enforcement powers in a
law signed by President Reagan in 1988. President Reagan stated his
administration actively sought this authority and he was pleased to
sign it into law.
The amendment No. 67 of Senator Sullivan would prevent these EPA law
enforcement officers from being armed while they are carrying out their
law enforcement responsibilities. A lot of what these EPA agents do is
to investigate suspected cases of illegal dumping of hazardous
materials. This can lead to dangerous confrontations. The EPA reports
its agents have frequently encountered weapons and armed individuals
when they have conducted their work.
I took a look at some of these cases. Many people mistakenly believe
the Environmental Protection Agency is a group of government employees
sitting behind desks and computers in Washington and regional offices
who don't get out and about to see the actual violations that are
taking place. They are mistaken.
Let me give a few examples for the record. In Marathon, FL, EPA
special agents, along with local sheriff's deputies, shot and arrested
Larkin Baggett, a Federal fugitive from Utah, after he pointed an
assault rifle at them. Baggett was initially arrested by the EPA on
pollution-related crimes in the State of Utah. During the initial
arrest of Mr. Baggett, a knife and handgun were recovered off his
person. Mr. Baggett was considered armed and dangerous due to the
amount of firepower he had in his possession.
Firearms recovered from Mr. Baggett included an AR-10 assault rival,
a 12-gauge shotgun, several rifles and handguns, and hundreds of rounds
of ammunition. Mr. Baggett was ultimately sentenced to 13 years in
prison for his assault conviction and his environmental crimes
conviction.
The Sullivan amendment would say the environmental officer who was
trying to arrest this man had to be disarmed. In other words, the
environmental law enforcement officer would have no firearm while Mr.
Baggett would be holding an arsenal. That is what the Sullivan
amendment would do.
During a Mississippi search warrant, seven handguns and a sawed-off
pistol-grip shotgun were secured during the warrant. During that same
warrant, two handguns were removed from the sweatshirt pocket and hip
holster from one subject. Another handgun was removed from the purse of
another subject. The sawed-off pistol-grip shotgun was found stored in
the cavity of a desk where a drawer was removed and the weapon was
pointed directly at the agents of the Environmental Protection Agency
when they entered.
If you read the amendment offered by Senator Sullivan, he has removed
the ability and right of these agents to be armed to protect themselves
and to enforce the law, but he continues to require them to do the most
basic things under the law. He requires them--continues to require
them--to execute and
[[Page S510]]
serve any warrant or other process unarmed. He continues to require
them under the statute to make arrests without warrant for any offense
against the United States, including felonies. Under the Sullivan
amendment they are to do so unarmed.
I can go through a lengthy list here of real-life circumstances where
people working for the Environmental Protection Agency literally risked
their lives, and they did it at least with the comfort of being trained
professional law enforcement officers equipped with firearms to protect
themselves and enforce the laws of the United States.
Senator Sullivan wants them to enforce the laws, but he doesn't want
them to carry a firearm. That to me is ridiculous. In fact, it is
dangerous. It is dangerous to send these men and women with the
responsibility of doing their job into circumstances where they could
literally lose their lives because of the Sullivan amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated January 24, 2015, signed
by Jon Adler, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Federal Law Enforcement
Officers Association,
Washington, DC, January 24, 2015.
Hon. Richard Durbin,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Durbin: On behalf of the 27,000 members of the
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), I am
writing to express our strong opposition to the misguided
``Keystone'' amendment put forth by Senator Sullivan that
calls for the disarming of EPA Criminal Investigators.
EPA-CID currently employs approximately 180 sworn Criminal
Investigators, all of whom have completed the mandatory
Criminal Investigator Training Program at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center. These highly trained law
enforcement officers complete the same basic academy training
as their counterparts at the U.S. Marshals Service, the
Secret Service, NCIS, ICE and other credible federal law
enforcement agencies. They receive quarterly tactical
training to ensure firearms proficiency, defensive tactics
capability, and enforcement operation readiness. They should
not be denigrated and belittled like some Barney Fife
aberration gone wild.
Unfortunately, Senator Sullivan has opted to employ
inflammatory language to mischaracterize EPA-CID 's execution
of court-issued search warrants as stampede-styled ``raids.''
EPA Criminal Investigators employ proper law enforcement
tactics and techniques, while wearing the appropriate
protective equipment during field work. They issue proper
verbal commands, and do not scream ``Charge!'' like some
reckless group of bandits. Contrary to Senator Sullivan's
alarmist assertions, EPA Criminal Investigators invoke a
proper command presence in order to protect their safety as
well as those around them.
While Senator Sullivan seeks to minimize the law
enforcement relevance of the EPA-CID mission, it is important
to note that the Criminal Investigators enforce the criminal
statutes of the United States Code, and investigate alleged
violations of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. If Senator Sullivan
takes exception to a particular statute, he should focus on
amending the law and not disarming and jeopardizing the
safety of those who risk their lives to enforce it.
Furthermore, he should respect the fact that there are
criminals who knowingly and willfully harm our environment,
and EPA Criminal Investigator's expertise is needed to
investigate and apprehend these criminals.
Recent current events, both domestic and abroad, have made
clear that terrorist groups are targeting law enforcement
officers. In New York City, a lone-wolf terrorist
assassinated two heroic NYPD Police Officers. In France, a
terrorist cell brutally murdered three law enforcement
officers, as well as civilians. So how does Senator Sullivan
come to any rational conclusion that it's appropriate to
disarm law enforcement officers who are protecting our
homeland? Perhaps Senator Sullivan is unaware of terrorists'
intent to deploy biological, chemical and radiological
weapons to harm our citizenry and institutions? EPA Criminal
Investigators are an integral, indispensable component of our
homeland defense against such attacks. Does Senator Sullivan
maintain in good faith that EPA Criminal Investigators should
conduct their criminal investigations unarmed in support of
the FBI Joint Terrorist Task Force?
Each cabinet entity has an Inspector General's office that
employs highly trained Criminal Investigators to investigate
allegations of excessive force or misconduct. This includes
the EPA. In reaching his ill-advised conclusion to disarm EPA
Criminal Investigators, did Senator Sullivan draw upon any
Inspector General report to substantiate his position? While
there is no evidence to suggest any widespread incidents of
excessive force or misconduct by EPA Criminal Investigators,
a reasonable person is left to question the rational
motivation of Senator Sullivan's amendment.
In closing, I reference a statement a FLEOA member who
serves honorably as a Criminal Investigator with EPA: ``We
conduct search warrants, arrest warrants, and interviews
which brings us into contact with individuals who may be
armed or have access to weapons. There is no way we can
accomplish our mission safely without a means to protect
ourselves.''
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Adler.
Mr. DURBIN. This letter says it all. It spells out how dangerous this
is if the Sullivan amendment passes. To think that, for whatever
reason, a U.S. Senator is going to take a firearm away from a law
enforcement officer of a Federal agency who is putting his or her life
on the line every single day is just plain wrong.
If Senator Sullivan wants to take away the enforcement authorities of
this Agency, so be it. We can argue and debate that. But to require
this Agency to execute warrants and make arrests but require that their
law enforcement officials be unarmed is sending them into dangerous--
even deadly--situations. This Sullivan amendment is not well-thought-
out. To offer this I think is a serious mistake.
The Senator is offering it, he says, because of a 2013 incident in
which EPA agents were part of a law enforcement task force that
investigated a mining operation in Alaska based on allegations of
environmental allegations. I don't know the particulars of that
incident, but there was a review of the incident commissioned by the
Governor of Alaska--a Republican Governor of Alaska--that found no
evidence that these EPA agents broke any laws during the investigation.
Isn't it odd that we have reached the point where, when we try to
introduce an amendment which says that you will not sell a gun, a
firearm, to someone at a gun show who is on the terrorist suspect
list--many argue against that, saying even terrorist suspects have
Second Amendment rights--and then turn around with the Sullivan
amendment, this ill-advised amendment, and say law enforcement does not
have a right to carry a firearm. That is the Sullivan amendment. I hope
we vote against it on a bipartisan basis.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the legislation before
this body, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act. I wish to address three issues
that have been brought up as we have continued this discussion.
I start out by thanking the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from
Washington who are leading this effort to bring forward amendments from
both sides of the aisle. I think they are doing great work. They are
heavily engaged in trying to make sure the people's amendments are
brought forward and that we have a vote. So I thank them for that and
again encourage everyone to work with both these bill managers who I
believe all of us feel are doing an excellent job. So let's get going.
Let's get voting on these amendments. Let's make them pending and have
that vote.
This is again, after all, an effort not only to advance this
legislation but also to reestablish regular order in this body and move
to an open amendment process--which is so important again not just in
terms of people being heard on this legislation, having votes on
amendments, but for other legislation that Senators want to bring
forward for the good of this country, to have the debate, to offer
their ideas, to get a vote, and to get things done for the American
people. That is what it is all about. We have to keep that in mind and
not lose track of that. This is truly about not just this legislation
but getting to regular order, which I think is so important for the
work we do, to accomplish the work we need to do on behalf of the
American people.
Let me touch on three aspects of the current legislation that have
been brought up. One is that it is a bill for Canada rather than for
the United States. It is something that is very much in the interest of
the United States, so I want to address that. I also want to talk about
some of the environmental aspects from the standpoint that there are
hundreds of millions of dollars being invested in new technologies by
major companies in the oil sands in Alberta, Canada, that are going to
help deploy and develop things
[[Page S511]]
such as carbon capture and storage, which can be used not only to
reduce the environmental footprint and the greenhouse emissions of oil
produced in the Canadian oil sands, but that is technology then that
will get adopted in this country and around the world because it
enables us to produce more energy more cost-effectively, more
dependably, and with environmental stewardship. So that is a win on
both counts, and here is a place where it is being developed. So let's
empower that investment that produces more energy with better
environmental stewardship as we go forward into the future.
Then the third area I want to touch on for just a minute is pipeline
safety because some of the recent spills have been brought up. It is so
important that we have the new infrastructure to replace older
infrastructure.
For example, the pipeline spill in Poplar, MO, near Glendive, MO, has
been brought up. It is a pipeline that I think was originally built and
put in place in the 1950s. So we are talking about a 50-year-old
pipeline with 50-year-old technology. Whether it is roads or bridges or
pipelines or transmission lines or any kind of infrastructure--we need
infrastructure for this country, but we have to update it. Think about
building a road 50 years ago and then not putting in a new one to
replace and update it with the new technologies that have been
developed to make it better.
When we talk about trying to get these new infrastructure projects
going--again, paid for 100 percent with private dollars--this generates
revenue for the taxpayer. This doesn't take one penny of taxpayer
money. This is an $8 billion state-of-the-art pipeline. It is important
for all the reasons we have talked about, but it also is the kind of
thing that will replace some of the older technologies and give us that
updated new infrastructure we need.
So I think when we hear about a spill, wherever it may occur, we want
to make sure it is taken care of and fully remediated and take
precautions so it doesn't happen again. But we have to understand we
have to put the new infrastructure in place if we want to reduce the
number of spills we have as we continue to rely on infrastructure that
is 50 years old--when we don't make or allow these new investments to
be made.
So I will touch on all those for just a few minutes.
Again, I know the bill managers are hard at work. They are having
great dialogue. If they come out and are ready to go, I will yield the
floor right away to do that. Again, the priority is to keep the process
moving and get amendments up and have them voted on.
The first issue: It is a Canadian project somehow, not a U.S.
project. The first point I would make, on its face, is it is going to
move domestically produced crude as well as Canadian crude. Everybody
talks about the fact that it starts up in Hardisty and says it is going
to move Canadian oil, and then they stop there. But it is not only
going to move Canadian oil, it is going to move oil from North Dakota,
Montana--light, sweet Bakken shale oil--out of this region of our
country. So it is going to move both domestic crude as well as Canadian
crude. So when somebody says it is just a Canadian project, that is not
true. That would be akin to somebody saying it is only a U.S. project
because it is moving U.S. oil.
For beginners, it is important that people understand it is not just
Canadian oil, it is oil we produce in our country that needs to get to
refineries as cost-effectively and safely as possible.
What is happening is because we are being blocked from getting these
kind of pipelines developed because they can't get through the
regulatory process, the oil production we are producing in our part of
the country, in North Dakota, Montana, and the Bakken area, as well as
other areas of the country is all having to move by rail.
For example, right now my State of North Dakota produces 1.2 million
barrels of oil a day, second only to Texas, and that number has been
growing. That growth I think will slow down right now because the price
of oil has come down so much. But the point is we are having to move
700,000 barrels a day by rail because we don't have the pipelines, such
as the Keystone XL Pipeline, approved.
That creates other problems as well. We produce a tremendous number
of ag commodities and ag products. We actually are the leader of 14
different major ag commodities in the country--things such as wheat,
for example, and many other farm commodities as well. All of those
things get backed up on the rail system because we are trying to move
so much oil on the rail that we can't handle all the congestion.
So it is not just an issue in terms of energy for our country, but it
is affecting our other commerce, our farmers, and other goods that are
trying to be shipped. It is not just goods that originate from our part
of the country but all the goods that go back and forth and are trying
to go through that bottleneck.
But the biggest reason it is very much a U.S. project is because it
is about getting to energy security and energy independence.
Right now the United States consumes about 18 million barrels of oil
a day. We produce about 11 million barrels a day--which is up
tremendously in recent years because of production on private and State
lands in places such as North Dakota. That means we still import about
7 million barrels a day. We use 18 million barrels of oil a day. We
produce 11 million barrels a day. We import 7 million. The amount of
oil we get from Canada is increasing. We are up to more than 3 million
barrels a day that we import from Canada. So if we take the 11 million
we produce plus the 3 million we get from Canada, that is 14. That
leaves us 4 million short of what we use on a daily basis. We get that
from places such as OPEC, Venezuela, and other parts of the world that
have very different interests in many cases than our own.
I think the American people very much want to get to a position where
we don't have to rely on OPEC anymore for the oil we use. In fact, we
are getting there. We are getting there. As I say, we are at the point
now between ourselves and Canada where we have 14 million of the 18
million a day we use covered.
If we can continue to develop our energy resources and work with
Canada, we can truly have North American energy security--meaning we
don't have to rely on OPEC anymore for our oil. That is a national
security issue. It is an energy issue. It is a jobs issue. It is an
economic growth issue. It is a national security issue. Look at what is
going on in the Middle East. Americans do not want to rely on OPEC for
their oil anymore.
Look at the benefit. As we produce more energy in this country and
work with Canada, look at what is happening at the pump. Oil prices are
down more than $1 from 1 year ago because we are producing so much
more. Basic economics: More supply helps bring prices down. So it is
not just about energy independence and energy security for our country,
it is about lower energy costs for consumers, for small business. It is
not only good for our hard-working Americans as they pull up to the
pump and benefit every day from those lower gas prices, but it helps
make our economy grow because energy is a foundational industry.
When we have low-cost energy produced in this country that we know we
can rely on, that makes us competitive in every other industry sector
in a global economy.
So when somebody says: This is just about a pipeline or it is just
about a Canadian issue, it is not the case. This is very much about our
energy future in this country and how we are going to build it, both to
be energy secure and to make our economy go when we have to compete
globally.
The second issue--and I often show this chart because it makes the
second part of that energy security point. If we don't work with Canada
so that this oil comes to us and we control that oil and control our
energy future, Canada is going to make other arrangements. They are
going to build pipelines to their west coast, and that oil is going to
China and we will continue to import oil from OPEC. That is how life
works. We either take advantage of this opportunity with our closest
friend and ally in the world or somebody else will.
The next one I want to touch on for just a minute is the
environmental. We hear about this so much, the environmental aspects of
this project. I have
[[Page S512]]
been on the floor and I have talked about various aspects of the
project based on the science and based on the fact that there have
actually been five environmental impact statements produced. The
environmental impact statements produced by the Obama administration
say there will be less greenhouse gas emissions with the pipeline than
without it because we will be able to move that 830,000 barrels a day
of oil by pipeline, rather than moving it by either 1,400 rail cars or
sending it to China where the refineries have higher emissions than
ours do.
But I would like to go beyond that and talk for a minute in a broader
sense about our energy future and how we not only produce more energy
more cost-effectively from all sources, from all kinds of energy, but
how we can do it with better environmental stewardship. And the way
forward there is really technology. It is the American ingenuity, the
investment in technology, and the creativity of our companies and our
entrepreneurs. That is the real key to success in the future in terms
of producing more energy more cost-effectively, more independently, and
with better environmental stewardship--by leading the way forward with
technology development. We cannot export our regulations, but as we
develop technologies, those, in effect, get exported around the world
because other countries adopt those technologies.
So I will talk just a minute about the technology development that is
going on in the oil sands. Since 1990 the greenhouse gas emissions on a
per-barrel basis in the oil sands have gone down by 28 percent, almost
one-third. On a per-barrel basis they have reduced their greenhouse gas
emissions by 28 percent since 1990. They are engaged in major projects
now to develop and deploy new technologies that will help them produce
oil in the oil sands region with a smaller footprint--which is what I
am showing here--through in situ development and also through carbon
capture and storage.
We talk so often about developing carbon capture and storage in this
country. That is being developed and deployed in the oil sands right
now. The Quest project, which is a project Shell Oil Company is
undertaking--let me read from a bit of a summary on their Quest
project, which is a project for carbon capture and storage they are
developing right now.
This is a picture of it. It is in situ--which means drilling and
using steam to bring the oil out rather than excavation, which is the
old style--so it has a much smaller environmental footprint, but it
also reduces greenhouse gas emissions because they capture the
CO2 and they store it.
A point of inquiry, Mr. President. I would like to ask the bill
managers if they are ready to move forward or make any announcement. If
we have any amendments, I would gladly yield the floor for that
purpose.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota.
As we mentioned earlier, we had a very productive morning trying to
discern the universe of amendments we may have before us. I think it is
very clear that there is genuine interest on both sides of the aisle to
find that path forward so we can come to a conclusion on S. 1 and do so
in an orderly way--a way that respects the legislative process and a
way that allows Members to have opportunities to advance issues they
feel strongly about and issues that merit debate on this floor.
We have encouraged Members over the past couple weeks to present
their amendments to us. At this point in time we have processed 24
separate amendments. We do have some amendments that are pending on the
Republican side--seven to be exact. I do know that there are others
that Members would like to be made pending. I have one myself, and I
know the Senator from Washington will be speaking to several additional
Democratic amendments which they would like to offer on their side. So
I think we have discussed a process here to get us moving in that
direction so that we can get the amendments pending, and then
hopefully, perhaps as early as this evening--I don't want to make any
promises--we can begin voting on these amendments.
What I would like to do at this time is turn to my colleague to not
only speak to the gentlewomen's agreement we have in so far as a way
forward but also to allow for a couple of amendments to be made pending
on her side, and then we will come back and provide that opportunity on
the Republican side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for her
work on this process and for her legislation. As she said, she and I
have a gentlewomen's agreement to move forward, and we would like to do
that so we can finish business on this legislation, and we are working
in good faith on that process. Just as she said, we are going to work
on getting the next amendment before us. I thank the Senator for her
hard work.
I would like to turn to my colleague from California to call up her
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President.
I thank both of my colleagues for working so hard. I am trying to be
a facilitator in this process as well, as the ranking member now on the
Environment and Public Works Committee. I want to remind everyone that
this bill deals with environmental law.
Amendment No. 130 to Amendment No. 2
I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so that I
can call up amendment No. 130.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself and
Ms. Cantwell, proposes an amendment numbered 130 to amendment
No. 2.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To preserve existing permits and the authority of the
agencies issuing the permits to modify the permits if necessary)
On page 2, strike lines 20 through 23 and insert the
following:
(c) Permit Savings Clause.--Nothing in this Act shall
affect the status of any Federal permit or authorization
issued before the date of enactment of this Act for the
pipeline and cross-border facilities referred to in
subsection (a).
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have a very simple amendment. I hope it
will be unanimously accepted. I think anyone within the sound of my
voice who cares about the health and safety of people would support
this amendment because we know this underlying bill facilitates the
building of a Canadian project, with all the benefits going to Canada,
none to America. We have established that there will be 35 permanent
jobs. We have established that we could have oilspills because we have
already had several serious oilspills and this oil is very hard to
clean up. We have established by the Republicans' votes that they will
not vote to keep the oil in America, so it doesn't even help us with
energy independence. They even voted against the amendment to make sure
the steel was from America. They voted against that.
So this is a Canadian bill. This is a wonderful bill for Canadian oil
interests. Frankly, that is not why I was elected. I was elected to
fight for California, fight for American jobs, fight for middle-class
jobs, and not sit by while we see what is happening here, which is that
the very first bill brought to us by this new Republican Congress turns
out to be a bill for Canadian oil.
One of my colleagues--I don't know if it was Senator Cantwell who
coined this or Senator Markey--said it is basically a big straw that
runs from Canada and has the potential to spill all the way down, and
then it is refined here, and all the filth and dirt gets stored here
and goes into the air, and then it goes out of the country. It doesn't
do a thing to help us. So all I am asking for is a little bit of relief
for the people of this Nation.
Right now, S. 1 says that all permits ``shall remain in effect'' for
this TransCanada pipeline regardless of any actions taken in building
the pipeline, even if the company violates the permits.
[[Page S513]]
So we know this company had to go and get a number of permits. What
this bill does is it says: Once you get a permit, TransCanada, no one
can take it away from you.
Imagine. We don't do that for our companies. They have to walk the
walk and talk the talk.
All we say here is, if you violate your permit, it can be revoked.
You cannot willy-nilly get permits from the Commerce Department, EPA,
the Corps of Engineers, or other entities and then violate them and
know that the permit can never be taken away. I was stunned when I
learned this.
So this would very simply say that if, in fact, there is new
information that requires a permit to be changed or modified, it can be
done. We do not waive protecting the health and safety of the American
people.
Let me give an example. Back home I have a bridge that was built,
unfortunately, with foreign parts, and those parts failed. It is a
nightmare to try to fix it.
If TransCanada violates their permit and uses the wrong materials--
let's say the bolts rupture--they still get to keep their permit. We
are saying: No. Your permit can be revoked.
Another example: This is the handling of hazardous waste. We know
this is filthy, dirty oil, and we know what is in this oil. It is
toxic. Peer-reviewed research established significantly higher levels
of carcinogens. We know this. We have met with the people who live in
Canada who have had to breathe in that air. Data collected by the Texas
Cancer Registry indicates that cancer rates among African Americans in
Jefferson County, Port Arthur, TX, are 15 percent higher than for the
average Texans. They live right near the refineries.
We know these permits are only as good as they are enforced. If they
are enforced and we find they haven't lived up to their commitments on
the handling of hazardous waste--by the way, to get their permit from
Commerce, they also have to put out a plan that deals with a spill.
Let's say there is a spill and they don't live up to the permit. They
still get to keep the permit.
This is an extraordinary piece of legislation. I have never ever in
my time here or ever in history known of any American corporation
getting a free pass in terms of the health and safety and the
protection of the air and water that this company is getting. They
could literally avoid following any of the steps they committed to in
their permit, and this legislation gives them a free pass.
My amendment simply says that we are able to revoke a permit if it is
not followed.
I would ask the Senator from Washington if I could at this point
yield the floor. My amendment is pending. I appreciate the work of the
Senator from Alaska in allowing this amendment to be offered, and I
appreciate the work of my colleague from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, before recognizing the Senator from
California, I failed to say that there is no way this legislation would
be where it is today, moving forward in the process, without the
Senator from California. She has been a great adviser all through this
process and a great protector and advocate of the issues we are
interested in on the environment, on security, and on safety. I thank
her for her leadership, and I look forward to supporting her on this
amendment.
I would like to turn to my colleague from Michigan, if I could. We
are going to offer a couple of amendments on our side and go back to
the Senator from Alaska, but at this point in time I would like the
Senator from Michigan, who has had a very devastating personal
experience related to tar sands, to talk about his amendment and call
up that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Amendment No. 70 to Amendment No. 2
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 70, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Peters], for himself and Ms.
Stabenow, proposes an amendment numbered 70 to amendment No.
2.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require that the Administrator of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration make a certification and
submit to Congress the results of a study before the pipeline may be
constructed, connected, operated, or maintained)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. PHMSA GREAT LAKES RESOURCES AND STUDY.
The pipeline described in section 2(a) shall not be
constructed, connected, operated, or maintained until the
Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration--
(1) certifies to Congress that the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration has sufficient resources to
carry out the duties of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration for pipelines in the Great Lakes; and
(2) submits to Congress the results of a study on
recommendations for special conditions on pipelines in the
Great Lakes, similar to the recommendations in Appendix B of
the environmental impact statement described in section 2(b).
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, this is a very commonsense amendment based
on a simple premise. Before Congress intervenes to approve this new
pipeline that is before us, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, PHMSA, the Federal agency which oversees pipeline
safety, should certify that it has the resources required to carry out
its duty.
Specifically, the amendment before the Senate requires PHMSA to
confirm that it has the resources to oversee pipelines in the Great
Lakes and provide recommendations for special conditions for pipelines
in the Great Lakes just as it provided recommendations for special
conditions for the Keystone XL Pipeline.
The people of Michigan know why it is so important that we ensure
these pipelines are safe. We had a pipeline spill in Kalamazoo, MI, in
2010 that spilled over 800,000 gallons of tar sands into the Kalamazoo
River. The cleanup has now taken over 4 years at a cost of over $1.2
billion. A pipeline accident in the Great Lakes, where we have some of
these pipelines located now, would be absolutely catastrophic. We have
to remind folks that the Great Lakes now provide drinking water to over
40 million people and support 1.5 million jobs. It would be a disaster
not just for folks in the State of Michigan, but throughout the Great
Lakes region and throughout the country, if there were a pipeline
break. We know it firsthand from what happened in Kalamazoo, the most
expensive pipeline break in the history of this country.
We have to ensure that the pipelines that operate in the Great Lakes,
particularly in the Straits of Mackinac, which connect the Upper
Peninsula with the Lower Peninsula, have the protections they need.
I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to make
sure we protect the Great Lakes, not just for today but for future
generations.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Collins from Maine
to bring up an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Amendment No. 35 to Amendment No. 2
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 35.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself and Mr.
Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 35 to amendment No. 2.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To coordinate the provision of energy retrofitting assistance
to schools)
After section 2, insert the following:
SEC. __. COORDINATION OF ENERGY RETROFITTING ASSISTANCE FOR
SCHOOLS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
[[Page S514]]
(1) School.--The term ``school'' means--
(A) an elementary school or secondary school (as defined in
section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801));
(B) an institution of higher education (as defined in
section 102(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1002(a));
(C) a school of the defense dependents' education system
under the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978 (20
U.S.C. 921 et seq.) or established under section 2164 of
title 10, United States Code;
(D) a school operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
(E) a tribally controlled school (as defined in section
5212 of the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988 (25
U.S.C. 2511)); and
(F) a Tribal College or University (as defined in section
316(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1059c(b))).
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
(b) Designation of Lead Agency.--The Secretary, acting
through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
shall act as the lead Federal agency for coordinating and
disseminating information on existing Federal programs and
assistance that may be used to help initiate, develop, and
finance energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy
retrofitting projects for schools.
(c) Requirements.--In carrying out coordination and
outreach under subsection (b), the Secretary shall--
(1) in consultation and coordination with the appropriate
Federal agencies, carry out a review of existing programs and
financing mechanisms (including revolving loan funds and loan
guarantees) available in or from the Department of
Agriculture, the Department of Energy, the Department of
Education, the Department of the Treasury, the Internal
Revenue Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and
other appropriate Federal agencies with jurisdiction over
energy financing and facilitation that are currently used or
may be used to help initiate, develop, and finance energy
efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofitting
projects for schools;
(2) establish a Federal cross-departmental collaborative
coordination, education, and outreach effort to streamline
communication and promote available Federal opportunities and
assistance described in paragraph (1) for energy efficiency,
renewable energy, and energy retrofitting projects that
enables States, local educational agencies, and schools--
(A) to use existing Federal opportunities more effectively;
and
(B) to form partnerships with Governors, State energy
programs, local educational, financial, and energy officials,
State and local government officials, nonprofit
organizations, and other appropriate entities to support the
initiation of the projects;
(3) provide technical assistance for States, local
educational agencies, and schools to help develop and finance
energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofitting
projects--
(A) to increase the energy efficiency of buildings or
facilities;
(B) to install systems that individually generate energy
from renewable energy resources;
(C) to establish partnerships to leverage economies of
scale and additional financing mechanisms available to larger
clean energy initiatives; or
(D) to promote--
(i) the maintenance of health, environmental quality, and
safety in schools, including the ambient air quality, through
energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofit
projects; and
(ii) the achievement of expected energy savings and
renewable energy production through proper operations and
maintenance practices;
(4) develop and maintain a single online resource website
with contact information for relevant technical assistance
and support staff in the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy for States, local educational agencies, and
schools to effectively access and use Federal opportunities
and assistance described in paragraph (1) to develop energy
efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofitting
projects; and
(5) establish a process for recognition of schools that--
(A) have successfully implemented energy efficiency,
renewable energy, and energy retrofitting projects; and
(B) are willing to serve as resources for other local
educational agencies and schools to assist initiation of
similar efforts.
(d) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report describing the implementation of this section.
Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank the Senator
from Alaska for yielding to me for this purpose and I commend her, as
well as the Senator from Washington State, for their extraordinary
management of this bill.
I am pleased to report that the amendment I have called up and made
pending is actually a bipartisan initiative. It is cosponsored by my
colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, and its purpose is to help
school officials to learn more easily about Federal programs and
incentives that are available to improve energy efficiency and thus
lower costs for our Nation's schools.
There are a number of Federal initiatives already available to
schools to help them become more energy efficient, but in many cases
schools are not taking full advantage of these programs. The reason for
that is because they are scattered across several agencies and are
difficult to access.
I want to make it clear to my colleagues that Senator Warner and I
are not proposing the creation of any new programs to help schools
become more energy efficient but rather to have more coordination and
to streamline those programs which already exist.
Our amendment would require the Department of Energy to be the leader
of these programs and help schools identify and navigate them, and that
in turn would be a great service to our Nation's schools.
As I said, by providing a streamlined coordinating structure, this
amendment would help schools navigate available Federal programs and
financing without authorizing new programs or funding. Decisions about
how best to meet the energy needs of their schools would appropriately
remain in the hands of States, school boards, and local officials.
Specifically, the amendment would establish the Department of Energy
as the lead agency for coordinating and disseminating information on
existing Federal energy efficiency programs and financing options
available to schools for initiating, developing, and financing energy
efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofitting projects.
The amendment would also require DOE to review existing Federal
programs--scattered at the Departments of Agriculture, Education,
Treasury, the IRS, and EPA--so schools know what is available.
It would also streamline communication and outreach to the States,
local education agencies, and schools and the development of a
mechanism for forming a peer-to-peer network to support the initiation
of the projects.
Finally, the amendment would require the Department of Energy to
provide technical assistance to help schools navigate the financing and
development of such projects to better ensure their success.
Assisting our nation's schools in navigating and tapping into
existing federal programs to lower energy usage and save money makes
good common sense.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the
Collins-Warner amendment No. 35.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Amendment No. 166 to Amendment No. 2
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be set aside to call up amendment No. 166.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski] proposes an
amendment numbered 166 to amendment No. 2.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To release certain wilderness study areas from management for
preservation as wilderness)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. _. RELEASE OF CERTAIN WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS.
(a) Bureau of Land Management Land.--With respect to Bureau
of Land Management land identified as a wilderness study area
and recommended for a wilderness designation under section
603(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
(43 U.S.C. 1782(a)), if, within 1 year of receiving the
recommendation, Congress has not designated the wilderness
study area as wilderness, the area shall no longer be subject
to--
(1) section 603(c) of that Act; or
(2) Secretarial Order No. 3310 issued by the Secretary of
the Interior on December 22, 2010.
(b) Fish and Wildlife Service Land.--With respect to land
administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
that has been recommended by the President or the Secretary
of the Interior for designation as wilderness under the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), if, within 1 year of
receiving the recommendation, Congress has
[[Page S515]]
not designated the land as wilderness, the land shall no
longer be managed in a manner that protects the wilderness
character of the land.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering this
afternoon is pretty straightforward. It would effectively release
wilderness study areas if, within 1 year of receiving the
recommendation, Congress has not designated this study area as
wilderness.
There has been a lot of discussion in the news of late with the
President's announcement on Sunday that he is seeking to put an
additional 12 million acres in the ANWR area--Alaska's North Slope--
into wilderness status, including the 1002 area which has specifically
been designated for oil and gas exploration. I want to make sure people
understand this is not just an ANWR amendment. This is about the
wilderness study areas that we see that are currently on the books.
According to the Congressional Research Service, as of the beginning
of this year, Congress has designated 109.8 million acres of Federal
land as wilderness. Just over half of this wilderness is in my State of
Alaska. We have over 57 million acres of wilderness in Alaska. Ninety
percent of the wilderness under the management of the Fish and Wildlife
Service is in Alaska.
As a practical matter, there is more out there. There are more acres
that are proposed for wilderness designation. For example, the Bureau
of Land Management manages 528 wilderness study areas containing almost
12.8 million acres located primarily in the 12 States in the West as
well as Alaska.
We also have the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which has a
wilderness study process through its land use planning to identify
areas to be proposed as wilderness.
There is some history as to how we got to dealing with these
wilderness study areas. Areas that are identified by agency officials
as having certain wilderness characteristics--as identified under the
1964 Wilderness Act--were classified as wilderness study areas. BLM
received specific direction in the Federal Land Policy Management Act
of 1976 to inventory and study its roadless areas for wilderness
characteristics. By 1980 the BLM completed field inventories which
designated about 25 million acres of wilderness study areas. Since 1980
Congress has taken a look at some of these. Some have been designated
as wilderness and others have been released for nonwilderness uses. The
BLM has also taken it upon itself to designate wilderness study areas
through its land use process.
The point here is that once an area has been designated under the BLM
or the Fish and Wildlife Service study regime, it effectively becomes
de facto wilderness. The designation then limits and restricts the
ability to do just about anything for fear that it might impair the
suitability of the area for preservation as wilderness.
Until Congress makes a final determination on a wilderness study
area, the BLM or the Fish and Wildlife Service manages these areas to
preserve their suitability for designation as wilderness. Even if
Congress has not acted--because it is Congress's purview to do so--the
agencies have designated it as de facto wilderness.
My amendment says we are going to change this, and we have to change
this. Congress needs to reassert itself into this equation. As the
final arbiter of what is or is not designated as wilderness, Congress
can and should make the decisions in a timely manner about the
wilderness status.
What my amendment does is pretty simple. If Congress doesn't act
within 1 year to designate as wilderness an area recommended for
wilderness, the designation is released. It just goes back to multiple
use. That way the agencies are not managing areas to preserve a
possible wilderness designation as an option for Congress. Instead,
they can get on with looking at a broader range of options for how to
manage that land with the local people and other interested
stakeholders through the land-use planning process that applies to each
of the agencies.
Some may argue that Congress needs more time on this. I would say we
have had plenty of time to review these areas. Some of the wilderness
study areas have been pending since the 1980s. That is plenty of time
to figure out whether they should be put in wilderness status. Congress
needs to make decisions.
I ask my colleagues to support my amendment and take a look at what
is contained and not just think about the ANWR situation but think
about the applicability within their respective States.
I know that Senator Sessions was seeking recognition. As Members are
seeking to come to the floor to get their amendments pending, we would
like to allow them to have recognition.
At this point, I believe we need some clarification from the Senator
from North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. I will wrap up in 2 minutes and will then yield the floor
to the Senator from Alabama.
I have been talking about a number of different points, but right now
I would like to defer. I will be back on the issues as we continue this
debate. Again, I thank the bill managers, and I am very pleased to see
that Senators are coming down and making these amendments pending. That
is what we need do now. I thank Senators on both sides of the aisle for
doing that.
With that, I yield the floor to the Senator from Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hoeven for his hard work
on this Keystone XL Pipeline bill, as well as Senator Murkowski and
others who have worked together on it on both sides of the aisle.
Climate Change
Mr. SESSIONS. We have been talking about global warming and climate
change. I have been on the Environment and Public Works Committee for
some time, and we have had a number of good hearings on the subject. I
wish to share some thoughts on climate change because so much of what
is driving our energy policies in America today is entirely dependent
on a fear of the impact of global warming in the years to come.
There have been a number of votes on global warming. I was asked by a
reporter today: You voted with the Whitehouse amendment; why did you do
that? Well, I just have this to say. It is true, to my understanding,
and according to the best science we have, that the Earth has warmed by
a degree in the last 100 years, and exactly what is causing that, we
are not so sure.
If that were to accelerate, then, to a significant degree, it would
be a cause for concern. It would be a cause for America and the entire
world to really begin to evaluate what our future is and what action
might be taken. That is what has happened.
The world has been engaged mightily in the effort to drive up the
cost of electricity, drive up the cost of gasoline, drive up the cost
of the production of products that use energy, and drive up the cost of
transported items that you go to the grocery store and buy.
I will just say this. The scare tactics we have been hearing are not
coming to fruition. Over a time period, they were predicted to come to
a fruition, but they just are not. As public servants--as elected
officials who represent 320 million Americans--we need to ask
ourselves: Should we press down an excessive, increased burden of
energy costs on the backs of working Americans to meet the fears that
we have been hearing about? And if we do that, how much can we afford
to do? How much can we afford to ask of them?
We are reducing CO2 emissions in the United States and
doing a pretty good job of it. But the fear is--at least the concern
from so many of us--is that we are now projecting--the President is
projecting massive increases in regulations that will significantly and
further hammer coal and hammer the price of energy in America.
Many Members of Congress want to take drastic action that would
increase the cost of electricity and gasoline from fossil fuels. It
would do that. There is no doubt about that. And it would virtually end
coal production in the United States, a product we have a lot of.
They claim the science of global warming is settled, but I suggest
questions remain. Global climate change advocates have, over many
years, relied upon a number of climate models. These models are
designed to predict the temperature over time, and they
[[Page S516]]
have done that, and I will show my colleagues the result of these
models in a minute. They predict not only increasing temperatures but
increasing droughts, increasing flux--droughts and flux--increasing
severe weather events such as hurricanes and tornadoes. These models
have long predicted this. So we have a history of how well the models
have performed over time. An easy measure, a critical measure, of the
validity of any model is how well it compares to actual data. So the
actual weather data, I tell my colleagues, is proving that the models
have not been accurate.
There are other facts we are dealing with that give concern to those
of us who are less than certain about what the climate will do in the
future.
Last week, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies claimed that
2014 was the hottest year on record. Perhaps my colleagues heard that.
It was based on their analysis of 3,000 ground-based thermometers
around the world. They backtracked on that claim the very next day,
however, because the increase was so small that the ground-based system
fell within the margin of error.
There are other problems with those assertions. Data gathered at the
Earth's surface has limitations in measuring the temperature. It is a
relatively small sample influenced by human construction. Instead, the
best data, I think most scientists agree, for determining warming of
the atmosphere is a method that can objectively gather far more data,
and that is satellites.
There are two research groups that track atmospheric data, one
satellite and one balloon. They both show temperature data that has
barely risen for 35 years. The balloons validate the accuracy of the
satellites and the satellites tend to validate the accuracy of the
balloons. So there is a wider and wider divergence over the years from
what the models claim and what the actual temperature is doing. There
just is.
Other evidence can be seen in the Earth's ice coverage. A few years
ago former Vice President Al Gore claimed the Arctic might be ice-free
in the summertime by 2014. That was last year. That was a prediction.
Another study said it would be ice-free by 2029. But this past summer,
the ice coverage in the Arctic Ocean was 43 percent greater than it was
in 2012.
Senator Murkowski, that is an increase the size of the State of
Alaska, which is a pretty sizable State, for heaven's sake. It has
become well-known that ice coverage in Antarctica is also at its record
recorded levels.
There have been dire predictions made about extreme weather events.
On the Weather Channel on our TV, they love to talk about storms, and
it is exciting, and people watch it. I have had people call from
Alabama and tell me, Have you gotten your food in? You are going to
have a big storm. You are going to be shut in.
When temperature data stopped supporting the applicants' claims of
warming, they started claiming that storms and droughts would worsen;
we would have more of them. We all heard that many times. It is hard to
know what to think about it when we heard that over the years.
It has now been nearly 3,400 days since the last major hurricane hit
the United States. This is no little matter to me. I remember moving to
Mobile in 1979, and that year we had Hurricane Frederic that slammed
the city. Trees were down everywhere. Power was off for weeks. I
believe it was a category 3 hurricane. Earlier we had Hurricane Camille
hit, and that was in the 1960s. Then we had Hurricane Katrina that hit
New Orleans and hit my hometown of Mobile a very significant blow. But
it has been nearly 3,400 days since the last major hurricane hit the
United States. That is a category 3, 4, or 5. That is almost 10 years.
I think that is the longest period maybe this century.
According to Dr. Roger Pielke, a professor at the University of
Colorado-Boulder, who testified before our EPW Committee last year, he
said hurricane seasons in the United States are 20 percent less intense
and have seen 20 percent fewer landfalls than in 1900.
We have received testimony in the Environment and Public Works
Committee from Dr. Roy Spencer, who said this:
There is little or no observational effort that severe
weather of any type has worsened over the last 30, 50, or 100
years.
He said that in his testimony before the committee.
The IPCC, the International Panel on Climate Change, fifth climate
assessment released in 2013, what did they say about these predictions?
Quote:
Current data sets indicate no significant observed trends
in global tropical cyclone frequency over the last century.
So I suppose they have acknowledged that prediction to be incorrect.
That same report talked about floods. We have been told we will have
more floods.
The IPCC says:
In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and
thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the
magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.
According to the Palmer Drought Index, there is a statistically
insignificant decrease in global droughts from 1982 to 2012.
So, remember, CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. It is a
small part of the atmosphere. It is a clean gas. There is no damage to
us. It is a gas that is plant food. If we understand photosynthesis,
plants breathe in CO2, grow, and create carbon stalks and
emit oxygen, which is good for us. So in itself, CO2 is not
an inherently bad product.
From 1982 to 2012, when we had some of the greatest increase in
CO2--I guess the greatest increase in CO2 in the
history of the planet, unless there was some volcano or some event--we
have seen actually a decrease in droughts. Small, but a decrease
nonetheless.
Last July, the Budget Committee, which I was the ranking member of,
had a hearing on the cost of climate change to the economy and the
Democrats called that hearing. The Republican witnesses were Dr. Bjorn
Lomborg and David Montgomery. Professor Lomborg, from the Copenhagen
Institute in Denmark, said this:
While some warming may have occurred, it will not mean the
end of the world. The total, discounted cost of inaction--
not doing anything on global climate change--
over the next five centuries is about 1.2 percent of
discounted GDP. The cumulative cost of inaction towards the
end of the century is about 1.8 percent of GDP. While this is
not trivial, it by no means supports the often apocalyptic
conversation on global climate change.
It goes on:
The cost of inaction by the end of the century is
equivalent to losing one year's GDP growth.
Last year we had, what, 2 percent GDP, using an average of 2.5
percent, 2 percent, 1 year's worth; not 100 years' worth, 1 year's
worth, the equivalent, he said, of a moderate 1-year recession. The
cost of inaction by the end of the century is equivalent to an annual
loss of GDP growth on the order of .02 percent, or two-hundredths of 1
percent--not 2 percent; two-hundredths of 1 percent.
Professor Lomborg, who believes that human activity has contributed
to some global warming--he said that--also pointed out that climate
control policy, based on current data, will cost far more than the
``benefits'' it delivers.
Isn't that the question we have to ask ourselves? When we impose a
cost on the American people, shouldn't that cost produce more benefit
than the cost in currency?
He continues:
A slightly warmer Earth means net benefits through the
first half of this century, until 2065.
So until 2065 it will benefit America, warmer temperatures. After
that, these models and other projections--he is taking them from the
IPCC's own data--find that costs do begin to occur.
He continues:
However, an aggressive government response to warming now
can wipe out the benefits we can expect to receive.
Plus we will have higher taxes; more spending, more regulations will
cut jobs, reduce incomes, hurt savings, and, thus, set us back more as
a nation.
Dr. David Montgomery, who testified at the hearing, said: It is far
from clear that recent weather events are anything more than normal
variability in storm frequency and intensity and the nature, timing and
extent of damage from climate change remains highly uncertain. This
does not imply that no action is justified, but it does imply that
costs and avoided risks must be balanced carefully.
I think that is what we need to do, balance the cost and the risk.
[[Page S517]]
In sum, these experts before the Budget Committee highlighted that
the climate change could be happening and it could be a part of human
action, but its costs in the near term certainly are not great. This
compares to the cost of trying to stop climate change by reducing human
activity as very large indeed.
Congress considered legislation in 2009 and 2010 to put a price on
carbon through a cap-and-trade system that President Obama supported.
The cost was deemed too high. Congress said no. The bill that passed
the House would cost $161 billion--it was in Democratic hands at the
time--would cost $161 billion in the first year, and it increased in
additional years. How much is $161 billion? Well, we are desperately
trying to find $10 billion, $12 billion a year for the next 6 years to
fund the highway bill. That is $10 billion a year. This is $160 billion
a year. The amount we spend on education in America is about $100
billion a year. This would be $161 billion a year. Over a decade, we
are talking $2 trillion hammered onto the American economy.
This is a serious matter and, fortunately, Congress did not yield.
Congress rejected the legislation. So the President decided to pursue
the same results, not through the elected representatives but through
the regulatory process. In 2007, the Supreme Court sided with the State
of Massachusetts in a critical case. It empowered EPA--if it chose--to
regulate greenhouse gases, based on the Clean Air Act of the 1970s,
when global warming was never dreamed of and nobody ever considered
CO2 to be a pollutant. This was an activist Supreme Court
decision, in my opinion. Congress would never pass this law. There has
never been one time in the last 30 years, or certainly before that,
that Congress would pass a law recommending huge regulatory powers to
the EPA over CO2.
So the Court did not require EPA to regulate gases, but the Court
allowed that under the Clean Air Act. So now the EPA is developing a
rulemaking called a Clean Power Plan. This regulation will cost between
$41 billion and $73 billion annually, more than the road bill and
almost as much as the educational bill according to analysts.
On top of this, consumers will have to spend hundreds of billions
conserving electricity. Electricity rates are going to increase by
double-digit percentages throughout most of the country. These are the
costs of only one of the regulations EPA is pursuing. In total, the
Heritage Action expects the President's Climate Action Plan will cost
$1.47 trillion in lost GDP by 2030. The costs of action far outweigh
the cost of inaction, it seems to me. That is the basis of my concern
about many of the extreme actions we are taking. The Nation is
crisscrossed with pipelines. They are all over it.
In my home State of Alabama, we are not having complaints about that.
This idea that we shouldn't have a pipeline to bring oil from our ally
and friend Canada to drive down further, hopefully, the cost of energy
in the United States is an erroneous idea. It is all driven at the
bottom by this global climate change idea. I am not a climate denier. I
don't know what the truth is and what history will teach. I have
assumed over the years scientists are on to something when they claim
that CO2 will be a blanket effect in our atmosphere and
temperature might increase. I do know that if we burn fossil fuels,
burn plants, it creates CO2. I know that. It increases it in
the atmosphere. The models which are predicted increasing temperatures
from this steady rise in CO2 that has been occurring for
over 100 years as the planet's population increases have been wrong.
Let me show this chart. It is prepared by Dr. John Christy, who
worked at NASA and the University of Alabama at Huntsville. The red
line represents from 1975 to 2025, a projection average of all the
models--and there are many of them; I think about 30 people doing
modeling of the temperatures and the average shows this rise. This is
an alarming rise. It was based on those predictions, those modeled
effects, that people have demanded we change what we do with energy in
America and we reduce fossil fuels and we pay more for energy to avoid
this trend.
We are getting not too far from 2025. That is a 50-year trend. Look
at the reality though. These are the numbers, satellite data, and
balloon data around the world. We basically had very little increase
from 1980 to 2015. For 18 years or so it is basically totally flat. So
what does that mean?
I am not sure. Maybe it will start surging next year. Maybe we will
see more. But at this point, as reasonable Congressmen and Senators, I
don't believe we can conclude that we should burden this American
economy weak as it is--high unemployment, December wages dropped 5
cents an hour. The President kept talking about how great things are.
Wages dropped 5 cents an hour in 1 month alone--December. We have the
lowest percentage of Americans in the working ages actually working in
America today since the 1970s. Things aren't going so well. We don't
need to be driving up costs for our businesses, making them less
competitive in the world marketplace, making gasoline more expensive
for working moms, making electricity more expensive for our elderly who
are at home and cold. We just don't.
So who cares the most? I say we need to care about the people we
represent. We need to care about their welfare.
Mr. Steyer, with his tens of millions of dollars in contributions,
demands we don't pass Keystone Pipeline, to carry out his theory--this
billionaire that he is--and he doesn't care apparently about what is
happening to jobs in America, competitiveness in America, and the
welfare of the citizens of this country.
Congress represents the interests of 320 million people. We need to
defend their interests, not ideological activists. It is almost a
religion to them. We have to be objective and realistic as we evaluate.
So there can be no doubt that this agenda will increase energy prices,
it will shrink the middle class, it will eliminate jobs, it will
increase costs across the board, it will reduce wages, and it will
throw millions of Americans out of work. It just will if we carry out
this agenda.
It is not being done in China. It is not being done in Russia. It is
not being done in Brazil. So it is of utmost importance that the
American people know about these claims and the effects of regulations
before we go headlong into enacting them.
The blocking of Keystone Pipeline is a clear example of what has
happened. We will be denying struggling Americans and businesses
another source of energy that will put further downward pressure on
energy prices. We can have only one effect to produce the greatest
supply and to help contain the price of oil. Whatever the price of oil
is, it will be less with Keystone Pipeline than if we didn't have that
source from the Keystone Pipeline in Canada.
This will make us more dependent on foreign suppliers, many of which
are not our friends. Canada is our friend, our best trading partner in
the world, perhaps our best ally in the world. It is already causing
great frustration with our friends in Canada.
I met with the Canadian parliamentarians. Last year we had a meeting.
I was surprised how deeply they felt about this. They were hurt. They
cannot understand why we can't get this done. It is such a commonsense
thing to them.
Some of our Democratic colleagues argue our economy will not be
affected by the agenda, the President's Climate Action Plan. Others
acknowledge the cost but justify this as a speed bump and not
significant. Congress represents most closely the people of the United
States, and Congress has never voted to give unelected bureaucrats and
officials the power to regulate CO2. We are not close to
doing that today. It would never pass this Congress, either House or
Senate. There is zero chance it would pass if it was actually voted on.
As long as Congress has decided not to act, how can EPA act? It is
acting against the wishes of the American people and the interests of
the country. It takes the consensus of the American people to move
large and costly legislation such as this, hundreds of billions,
trillions of dollars. That consensus is not formed. It is not there.
On Keystone and other key issues, the consensus is against government
excess, not for the government to do more. Talk to the American people.
Look at the polling data. Someday maybe things will change, it is true,
I will acknowledge. Temperatures could start to rise significantly and
storms
[[Page S518]]
could begin to worsen. But as long as the measured data fails to match
the alarmists' climate models, I believe Congress should approve this
pipeline and reject the agenda of the climate alarmists and conduct a
policy that is beneficial to the people of our Nation.
I thank the Chair, and I yield floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I know the ranking member had
intended to offer an amendment on behalf of one of her colleagues, and
she is off the floor right now. I want to respect the understanding we
had, but I also want to respect that the Senator from Vermont is here
and I believe prepared to speak to his amendment. I just want to
acknowledge that Senator Cantwell intended to offer a couple of
amendments.
I yield to my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Amendment No. 23 to Amendment No. 2
Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment to call up my amendment, amendment No. 23, the Ten Million
Solar Roofs Act, and it be made pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for himself, Mr.
Menendez, and Mr. Whitehouse, proposes an amendment numbered
23 to amendment No. 2.
Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To increase the quantity of solar photovoltaic electricity by
providing rebates for the purchase and installation of an additional
10,000,000 photovoltaic systems by 2025)
After section 2, insert the following:
SEC. ___. REBATES FOR PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Photovoltaic system.--The term ``photovoltaic system''
includes--
(A) solar panels;
(B) roof support structures;
(C) inverters;
(D) an energy storage system, if the energy storage system
is integrated with the photovoltaic system; and
(E) any other hardware necessary for the installation of a
photovoltaic system.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
(b) Rebates for Purchase and Installation of Photovoltaic
Systems.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a program
under which the Secretary shall provide rebates to eligible
individuals or entities for the purchase and installation of
photovoltaic systems for residential and commercial
properties in order to install, over the 10-year period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, not less than
an additional 10,000,000 photovoltaic systems in the United
States (as compared to the number of photovoltaic systems
installed in the United States as of the date of enactment of
this Act) with a cumulative capacity of not less than 60,000
megawatts.
(2) Eligibility.--
(A) In general.--To be eligible for a rebate under this
subsection--
(i) the recipient of the rebate shall be a homeowner,
business, nonprofit entity, or State or local government that
purchased and installed a photovoltaic system for a property
located in the United States; and
(ii) the recipient of the rebate shall meet such other
eligibility criteria as are determined to be appropriate by
the Secretary.
(B) Other entities.--After public review and comment, the
Secretary may identify other individuals or entities located
in the United States that qualify for a rebate under this
subsection.
(3) Amount.--Subject to paragraph (4)(B) and the
availability of appropriations under subsection (c), the
amount of a rebate provided to an eligible individual or
entity for the purchase and installation of a photovoltaic
system for a property under this subsection shall be equal to
the lesser of--
(A) 15 percent of the initial capital costs for purchasing
and installing the photovoltaic system, including costs for
hardware, permitting and other ``soft costs'', and
installation; or
(B) $10,000.
(4) Intermediate report.--As soon as practicable after the
end of the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress, and publish on the website of the
Department of Energy, a report that describes--
(A) the number of photovoltaic systems for residential and
commercial properties purchased and installed with rebates
provided under this subsection; and
(B) any steps the Secretary will take to ensure that the
goal of the installation of an additional 10,000,000
photovoltaic systems in the United States is achieved by
2025.
(5) Relationship to other law.--The authority provided
under this subsection shall be in addition to any other
authority under which credits or other types of financial
assistance are provided for installation of a photovoltaic
system for a property.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, it goes without saying I disagree with
my good friend from Alabama in terms of his assessment of the climate
situation. To my mind, the scientific community, the overwhelming
majority of scientists have made it clear that climate change is real,
caused by human activity, is already causing devastating problems in
our country and around the world, that we have a limited opportunity to
try to transform our energy system so a bad situation does not become
much worse. One of the ways we transform our energy system is by moving
to such sustainable energies as wind, solar, geothermal, and others.
What this amendment does is propose to create over the next 10 years
10 million solar rooftops in this country--a massive effort to expand
solar energy in this country by giving a rebate on new solar systems.
As we all know, the solar industry is booming. We are seeing
significant increases in the number of people who are using solar.
Today there are more than 13,000 megawatts of operating solar capacity,
nearly half a million photovoltaic systems.
We have made real progress in recent years. But we have a long way to
go, and that is what this legislation would do. I wanted to say a word
about an article that appeared in many of the papers today which I
think is pretty scary stuff.
It talks about the Koch brothers being prepared to spend almost $1
billion in 2016 in order to bring forward their very rightwing agenda.
When we hear these numbers about one family--the second wealthiest
family in America, extreme rightwing family--prepared to spend almost
$1 billion in the coming elections, I think the American people have to
ask whether the foundations of American democracy have been uprooted
and whether in fact we are moving to an oligarchic form of society. As
many people know, what oligarchy is about is when you have very wealthy
and powerful people controlling what goes on.
What the history of America presumably has been about is ordinary
people determining what happens in our country. Ordinary people elect
Members of the House and elect Members of the Senate. Now what we have
is one family worth some $85 billion prepared to spend in the next
election almost as much as Obama spent and almost as much as Romney
spent in the last Presidential election.
My guess is in the coming years what we are going to see is the major
and most effective and most powerful political party in America is not
the Republican Party. It is not the Democratic Party. It is the Koch
brothers party. They already have assembled, as I understand it, a
political database which has more information than the Republican Party
database.
We have to take a very hard look at what is going on and determine
whether this is what we believe our democracy should be--a billionaire
family with more power than either the Democratic or Republican
Parties.
In the last election the Republican candidate for President, Mitt
Romney, spent about $446 million from his campaign committee--about
half of what the Koch network plans to spend next year. President Obama
spent $715 million in 2012 from his campaign committee. The difference
is that Obama and Romney raised significant sums of money from people
all over the country, people who may have contributed 50 bucks or 100
bucks, and now we have one family preparing to spend almost as much
money as either Obama or Romney spent, and that is a frightening
situation. It tells me loudly and clearly that we must overturn this
disastrous Supreme Court decision called Citizens United.
Rebuild America Act
Madam President, today I have introduced legislation that calls for a
$1 trillion investment to rebuild our collapsing infrastructure; that
is, our
[[Page S519]]
roads, bridges, wastewater plants, water systems, dams, levees, rail,
airports.
Everybody in the Senate and I hope everybody in America understands
that our infrastructure is collapsing. We can't avoid dealing with this
issue. We can't turn our backs on this issue. I am a former mayor, and
what I can say is that infrastructure does not get better when we
ignore it. It gets worse, and it becomes more expensive to fix.
For most of our history the United States proudly led the world in
building innovative infrastructure, from inland canals to the
transcontinental railroad. We implemented huge flood-control projects
and embarked on an ambitious rural electrification program. We built
modern airports and the Interstate Highway System. In terms of
infrastructure, we were the envy of the world. Sadly, that is no longer
the case.
Today the United States spends just 2.4 percent of GDP on
infrastructure--less than at any point in the past 20 years. Europe
spends twice that amount, and China spends close to four times our
rate. We are falling further and further behind, and that is not where
the United States of America should be.
Today we are 12th in the world in terms of the quality of our
infrastructure when we used to be No. 1. One out of every nine bridges
in our country is structurally deficient and nearly one-quarter are
functionally obsolete. Almost one-third of our roads are in poor or
mediocre condition, and more than 42 percent of urban highways are
congested. Urban and suburban transit systems are struggling to address
deferred maintenance even as ridership steadily increases.
No one argues about the need to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.
When we do that, we get an additional bonus because if we invest $1
trillion over a 5-year period, we can create 13 million decent-paying
jobs, and that is exactly what we should be doing. Real unemployment
today is not 5.6 percent, it is 11 percent. Youth unemployment is 18
percent. African-American youth unemployment is 30 percent. We need to
create millions of decent-paying jobs, and the best way we can do that
is by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be
set aside and that I be permitted to proceed as in morning business for
up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
529 College Savings Plans
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, in President Obama's State of the Union
Address last week, he outlined an agenda focused on what he called
middle-class economics, which he described as providing Americans with
the ``tools they needed to go as far as their effort and their dreams
will take them.''
Our country thrives when hard-working Americans prosper. The
President was right to praise policies, such as the GI bill and Social
Security, that have helped us to do just that. That is why I am
perplexed at the President's proposal to tax the earnings of 529
college savings plan accounts. Rather than help American families meet
the onerous cost of a college education, this new tax would greatly
diminish the benefits of a law that is helping millions of parents plan
for their children's futures. The President's proposal undermines the
very values we should be promoting--families making sacrifices today in
order to better provide for their children tomorrow. The President's
plan would also lead to more student loan debt for many young people at
a time when concern over the level of debt is rising.
I would also note that the President has proposed eliminating the tax
deduction on interest on student loan payments.
One of the first questions new parents ask themselves is how they
will be able to pay for their children's education. For the past 14
years the 529 accounts have been an important part of the answer. They
have allowed parents to save for their children's education in tax-
advantaged accounts. Regular, affordable contributions made with after-
tax dollars from their paychecks grow over time. When college years
start, those savings and the earnings from their investments can be
withdrawn tax free for educational expenses. These small sacrifices
made from paycheck to paycheck can have an enormous impact, making real
the dream of higher education.
Parents know that receiving a college degree greatly improves their
child's future earnings potential. In fact, according to data compiled
by the U.S. Census Bureau in the year 2011, individuals with college
degrees earn approximately $1 million more over the course of their
careers than do workers with high school diplomas. Census data also
showed that people with higher levels of education are more likely to
be employed full time year-round. College graduates also tend to have
access to more specialized jobs that, in turn, yield higher wages.
Critics of the 529 plans assert that they disproportionately benefit
very high-income families who could afford to pay for college without
the tax-free growth in these dedicated savings accounts. Data from the
College Savings Foundation, however, counters this assertion. According
to the foundation, the average value in one of these 529 accounts is
$19,774. Additionally, the average contribution to accounts that
receive regular electronic contributions, such as those coming from
paycheck withholding, is just $175 a month. That is clearly more in
line with hard-working families trying to make ends meet than with
affluent families who enjoy significant disposable income.
My home State provides a great example of the benefits of the 529
law. After this law was passed in 2001, thousands of Maine families
established these accounts, but then came a powerful extra incentive.
In 2008 the Harold Alfond Foundation, which was established by one of
Maine's greatest philanthropists, created the Harold Alfond College
Challenge. This program now provides a $500 contribution to the college
savings account of every baby born in Maine. To date, some 23,000 Maine
families have used this generous gift to begin planning for the future
education of their children. As their parents' own contributions are
added to the account, the future becomes even brighter for these
children and for our State. As the children grow and make their own
contributions from afterschool and summer jobs, so too grows their
appreciation of financial responsibility and self-reliance.
The President says his proposal is driven in part by the need to
simplify the Tax Code. Our Tax Code certainly needs simplification, and
I hope that becomes a major accomplishment of this Congress. But the
question must be asked--how does creating a difference between the 529
contributions already made, which would remain untaxed, and new
contributions, which would be taxed, simplify anything? And perhaps
more to the point, in addition to simplification, our Tax Code needs
predictability.
Before I joined the Senate, I was employed at Husson University in
Bangor, ME--an outstanding institution that has a high percentage of
students who are the very first in their families to attend college.
Every day, I saw how hard parents and students worked, how many
sacrifices they made in order to make higher education a reality.
My experience at Husson is the chief reason why one of the very first
bills I introduced in this Chamber was the College Affordability and
Access Act. That bill called for creating tax-preferred education
savings account--the precursor to the Coverdell savings accounts--tax
incentives for employer-provided educational assistance, and a tax
deduction for student loan interest. Many provisions of that bill are
now law but would also be harmed by the President's proposal.
The 529 college savings plan program channels the determination that
I saw while working at Husson University and that exists throughout our
great country into a tangible benefit built upon the virtues of saving
and planning for the future. Changing the tax rules for the 529
accounts would break a promise to families across this country who are
working hard to save for their children's educations to help them
attain a brighter future.
I urge my colleagues to join me in working to make college more
accessible and more affordable and to save the 529 college savings plan
program.
[[Page S520]]
I thank the sponsors and managers of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise and thank my colleague from
Maine for bringing up this very important issue. I would like her to
know that I join with her in a concern that has been raised with the
President and this proposal.
As the mom of two young men who are just finishing their years in
college--I have one who graduated last year and one who will graduate
in May. Very early on we participated in the 529 plan that was offered
in the State of Alaska.
In fact, in my early years as a State legislator, it was my
legislation in the Statehouse that set up the University of Alaska 529
College Savings Plan, and our boys were direct beneficiaries of that,
if you will, because it allowed us, as parents, to begin our savings in
a way we knew, when it came time for them to go to schools, we would be
as prepared as we could be at that point in time.
I don't think any family is ever really prepared, particularly for
the extraordinary costs of higher education. We were fortunate in that
our sons chose to attend schools that were not some of the most
expensive schools in the country--they attended State universities--but
what we paid as a family for their college education, and having two
boys in college at the same time puts a stress on families that is very
real. So the suggestion that somehow these 529s benefit a very limited
group of families across the Nation, I think, belies the obvious.
I think we all try to do the best we can by our kids, and saving for
their future when they are very young is important.
So when we have these programs that will allow and encourage families
to do this, knowing there will be a tax benefit, it is important. It is
important for the families, it is important for the young people
looking to their opportunities in college and, hopefully, when they
complete their college education, they are not bearing these incredibly
crushing financial burdens.
Again, I applaud the efforts of my colleague and I look forward to
working with her on this very important issue.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Amendment No. 174 to Amendment No. 2
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise to ask unanimous consent to set
aside the pending amendment and call up Merkley amendment No. 174.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Merkley] proposes an amendment
numbered 174 to amendment No. 2.
Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that the United States
should prioritize and fund adaptation projects in communities in the
United States while also helping to fund climate change adaptation in
developing countries)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING FUNDING OF CLIMATE
CHANGE ADAPTATION PROGRAMS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) President Obama has committed $3,000,000,000 from the
United States to the Green Climate Fund, with the objective
of helping developing countries deal with the impacts of
climate change and advancing mitigation efforts;
(2) many communities in the United States, including many
rural and indigenous communities, face social and economic
challenges that rival those in developing countries and are
also being impacted by climate change;
(3) these communities include indigenous and traditional
communities in the Arctic region of the United States;
(4) similar opportunities for adaptation projects exist
across rural and other vulnerable communities in the United
States; and
(5) the United States should prioritize and fund adaptation
projects in vulnerable communities in the United States,
including rural and indigenous communities, while also
helping to fund climate change adaptation and mitigation in
developing countries.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, in very brief format, this amendment is
about recognizing that global warming is having an impact on some of
the poorest countries around the world, and that the United States
should work with these nations in terms of helping them address some of
those consequences. But the amendment also notes that we have
communities in the United States that are poor and struggling with the
impacts of climate change and that we should give much attention to
helping those communities address the impacts as well and that these
two issues--helping poor countries around the world and helping
communities within the United States--are not in conflict with each
other in that we should be doing both of these things.
Amendment No. 125 to Amendment No. 2
(Purpose: To eliminate unnecessary tax subsidies and
provide infrastructure funding.)
I wish to call up a second amendment, so I ask unanimous consent to
set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 125.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Merkley] proposes an amendment
numbered 125 to amendment No. 2.
Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of January 22, 2015, under
``Text of Amendments.'')
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S520, January 27, 2015, in the third column, the
following language appears: (The amendment is printed in the
Record of January 26, 2015, under . . .
The online Record has been corrected to read: (The amendment is
printed in the Record of January 22, 2015, under . . .
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, this amendment recognizes that
construction jobs can play a key role in strengthening our economy, and
not just strengthening our economy with current jobs but rebuilding
infrastructure or building new infrastructure that will facilitate a
very successful economy in the future.
This particular amendment proposes that we not create 4,000
construction jobs in the pipeline but that we create 400,000 jobs
rebuilding key infrastructure in a variety of ways across our Nation.
I think as we wrestle with both the current economy and the strength
of the future economy, this is an idea well worth considering.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Amendment No. 131 to Amendment No. 2
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 131.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell], for herself and
Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 131 to amendment
No. 2.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To ensure that if the Keystone XL Pipeline is built, it will
be built safely and in compliance with United States environmental
laws)
In section 2(a), strike the period at the end and insert
the following:
, subject to--
(1) all applicable laws (including regulations);
(2) all mitigation measures that are required in permits
issued by permitting agencies; and
(3) all project-specific special conditions listed in
Appendix Z of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement issued by the Secretary of State in January 2014.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, as my colleague said, we are going
back and forth on offering amendments to this bill and I hope this
process will lead us toward getting this bill wrapped up. I know many
of my colleagues have been talking about various aspects of this
legislation, and this particular amendment focuses on making sure that
if this project goes forward that we meet certain environmental
standards.
I can't say how important that is because the first serious delay in
the approval process came because a bad route was selected. The
pipeline was
[[Page S521]]
originally proposed to go through an aquifer that is critically
important to a large percentage of agriculture in the area. So this is
very important to me, and that was a very glaring example that we need
to get this right.
What was wrong then is that Congress was set to intervene and
basically say the State Department was wrong and just go ahead and
approve this pipeline. So I feel we are about at that same point again
in saying just forget the administrative process and let us go ahead
and deem this approved. So if Congress, rather than the administration,
approves this pipeline, the American people will lose all the
protections and conditions attached as part of the national interest
determination.
Just so people understand, according to Executive Order 13337, the
State Department can require permits to contain ``such terms and
conditions as the national interest may . . . require.'' So the
President can decide a pipeline is in the national interest if it is
constructed to meet those specific standards.
In this case, the State Department's environmental impact statement
outlined hundreds of conditions that should be met to ensure the
pipeline is built to the highest safety standard. To quote the
environmental impact statement:
If the proposed Project is determined to serve the national
interest . . . the applicant would be required to abide by
certain conditions listed in this Supplemental EIS and the
Presidential Permit.
So these conditions, or mitigation measures, as the report refers to
them, are compiled in one section of the report and it highlights the
measures TransCanada needs to take to deal with and reduce the impacts
when they are operating this pipeline. These are higher standards for
environmental and public safety that the company would be obligated to
meet.
The problem is the bill before us would authorize the pipeline
without those mechanisms and without those conditions. If TransCanada
declined to meet these conditions, there would be no legal recourse for
the injured parties to take TransCanada to court.
I wish to talk about those conditions that are included in the
environmental impact statement so that my colleagues understand what we
are talking about when they say they would vote to bypass this process.
I will give three examples of the conditions included in the
environmental impact statement.
First, along the proposed pipeline there are areas where the terrain
is fragile. There has been a lot of discussion of the Sand Hills region
of Nebraska and how difficult it would be to site a pipeline on those
very fragile sandy soils. The Sand Hills are so fragile that the
current route goes around them just to compensate. However, in southern
South Dakota and northern Nebraska, there are areas that, according to
the environmental impact statement, ``exhibit conditions similar to the
Sand Hills Region and are very susceptible to wind erosion.''
Let me read from the appendix about how TransCanada would be required
to operate the pipeline in those areas.
This document proves site-specific reclamation plans that
itemize construction, erosion control, and revegetation
procedures for those fragile areas . . . To reduce the
potential impacts related to severe wind and water and
erosion, the following summary . . . of best management
practices would be implemented during construction,
reclamation and post-construction.
This document then goes on to list 16 specific bullet points outlined
that TransCanada must meet. These conditions for the Sand Hills-like
area along the route include: avoiding wetlands, avoiding erosion-prone
areas such as ridgetops, working with landowners to build fences to
prevent livestock from the construction, providing compensation to
landowners who need to let pastures rest until vegetation can be
reestablished.
Most people would agree TransCanada should do these things. I think
the American people would say follow the rules and do the things that
are required. It makes sense to do these things for the protection of
our environment and vulnerable areas and for the landowners whose
livelihoods depend on the land around the pipeline. But if S. 1 became
law, the State Department would not have the authority to ensure the
things I just mentioned--that they build the fences, they compensate
the ranchers as outlined, and the conditions be required that the State
Department has laid out.
So the State Department, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
TransCanada are working on a plan to ensure the protection of
endangered species along the pipeline route and these important things
are part of what we want to see addressed. Implementation of an
agreement that is designed to avoid harm to these species is what we
are trying to make sure of if the President has the authority to issue
a permit.
In contrast, the bill we are considering, S. 1, exempts the pipeline
from further review under the Endangered Species Act. According to the
State Department, the process that is now underway to establish these
implementing agreements to protect these vulnerable species would
stop--would stop--if this bill became law.
Finally, the conditions would require TransCanada to improve its
safety standards. And my colleagues may not know that TransCanada
received a ``warning letter'' from the Federal Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration for violating pipeline safety
regulations over a year and a half ago. As outlined in a September 26,
2013, letter from the administration:
TransCanada experienced a high rejection rate for welding
and failed to use properly qualify welders.
So in 1 week alone, 72 percent of TransCanada's welds had to be
replaced. After TransCanada's shoddy work came to light, the State
Department added 2 new safety conditions to the 57 conditions that the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration had already
required.
One of those conditions required TransCanada to hire a third-party
contractor to monitor pipeline construction and report back to the U.S.
Government whether that construction is sound.
So this new condition was that TransCanada adopt a quality management
program to ensure ``this pipeline is--from the beginning--built to the
highest standards by both the Keystone personnel and its many
contractors.'' But if this legislation is approved, this pipeline and
all the conditions I just mentioned fall away. That is why I do believe
that, with this legislation, we are acting prematurely. So I am
offering this amendment.
Last week we had a very big reminder that pipeline spills do happen
when 30,000 gallons of oil spilled into the Yellowstone River in
Montana--not the first spill into that river, unfortunately.
So I ask my colleagues, why would we continue on a process without
making sure that TransCanada follows the established safety issues on
pipelines and we make sure that they comply with these environmental
laws?
I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this amendment. I
hope my colleagues will stand with 61 percent of the American people
who believe that due process is more important than special interests.
Madam President, I yield to my colleague from Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we have a number of amendments
pending on both sides of the aisle and there are other Senators who are
working with us to offer them tonight. We will be working to set votes
on many of these pending amendments tomorrow, with nongermane
amendments set at a 60-vote threshold.
So if there are other Senators on either side who have amendments
they intend to offer, they should be coming down to the floor to talk
with the bill managers and get those amendments pending. We do intend
to try to get to the third reading of the bill before the end of the
week.
With that, I recognize the Senator from North Carolina, who is with
us to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Amendment No. 102 to Amendment No. 2
Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 102.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
[[Page S522]]
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Tillis], for himself
and Mr. Burr, proposes an amendment numbered 102 to amendment
No. 2.
Mr. TILLIS. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for leasing on the outer Continental Shelf and the
distribution of certain qualified revenues from such leasing)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
TITLE ___--ATLANTIC OCS ACCESS AND REVENUE SHARE ACT OF 2015
SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Atlantic OCS Access and
Revenue Share Act of 2015''.
SEC. __02. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Mid-atlantic producing state.--The term ``Mid-Atlantic
Producing State'' means each of the States of--
(A) Delaware;
(B) Maryland;
(C) North Carolina; and
(D) Virginia.
(2) Mid-atlantic planning area.--The term ``Mid-Atlantic
Planning Area'' means the Mid-Atlantic Planning Area of the
outer Continental Shelf designated in the document entitled
``Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program
2012-17'' and dated June 2012.
(3) Qualified outer continental shelf revenues.--
(A) In general.--The term ``qualified outer Continental
Shelf revenues'' means all rentals, royalties, bonus bids,
and other sums due and payable to the United States from
leases entered into on or after the date of enactment of this
Act.
(B) Exclusions.--The term ``qualified outer Continental
Shelf revenues'' does not include--
(i) revenues from the forfeiture of a bond or other surety
securing obligations other than royalties, civil penalties,
or royalties taken by the Secretary in-kind and not sold; or
(ii) revenues generated from leases subject to section 8(g)
of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(g)).
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(5) South atlantic producing state.--The term ``South
Atlantic Producing State'' means each of the States of--
(A) Florida;
(B) Georgia; and
(C) South Carolina.
(6) South atlantic planning area.--The term ``South
Atlantic Planning Area'' means the South Atlantic Planning
Area of the outer Continental Shelf designated in the
document entitled ``Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas
Leasing Program 2012-17'' and dated June 2012.
SEC. __03. OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASING IN MID-ATLANTIC AND
SOUTH ATLANTIC PLANNING AREAS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary sha1l--
(1) not later than July 15, 2016, publish and submit to
Congress a new proposed oil and gas leasing program prepared
under section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1344) for the 5-year period beginning on July 15, 2017
and ending July 15, 2022; and
(2) not later than July 15, 2017, approve a final oil and
gas leasing program under that section for that period.
(b) Inclusion of Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning
Areas.--The Secretary shall include in the program described
in subsection (a) annual lease sales in both the Mid-Atlantic
Planning Area and the South Atlantic Planning Area.
(c) Prohibition On Leasing Certain Areas--
(1) Petition.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), the
leasing of areas within the administrative boundaries of a
Mid-Atlantic Producing State or South Atlantic Producing
State that are 30 miles or less off the coast of the State
shall be prohibited.
SEC. __04. DISPOSITION OF QUALIFIED OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
REVENUES FROM MID-ATLANTIC LEASING ACTIVITIES.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 9 of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1338) and subject to
this section, for each applicable fiscal year, the Secretary
of the Treasury shall deposit--
(1) 50 percent of qualified outer Continental Shelf
revenues generated from leasing activities in the Mid-
Atlantic Planning Area in the general fund of the Treasury;
and
(2) 50 percent of qualified outer Continental Shelf
revenues generated from leasing activities in the Mid-
Atlantic Planning Area in a special account in the Treasury
from which the Secretary shall disburse--
(A) 75 percent to Mid-Atlantic Producing States in
accordance with subsection (b); and
(B) 25 percent to provide financial assistance to States in
accordance with section 200305 of title 54, United States
Code, which shall be considered income to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund for purposes of section 200302 of that
title.
(b) Allocation Among Mid-Atlantic Producing States.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amount made
available under subsection (a)(2)(A) from any lease entered
into within the Mid-Atlantic Planning Area shall be allocated
to each Mid-Atlantic producing State in amounts (based on a
formula established by the Secretary by regulation) that are
inversely proportional to the respective distances between
the point on the coastline of each Mid-Atlantic Producing
State that is closest to the geographic center of the
applicable leased tract and the geographic center of the
leased tract.
(2) Minimum allocation.--The amount allocated to a Mid-
Atlantic Producing State each fiscal year under paragraph (1)
shall be at least 10 percent of the amounts available under
subsection (a)(2)(A).
(c) Timing.--The amounts required to be deposited under
subsection (a)(2) for the applicable fiscal year shall be
made available in accordance with that paragraph during the
fiscal year immediately following the applicable fiscal year.
(d) Administration.--Amounts made available under
subsection (a)(2) shall--
(1) be made available, without further appropriation, in
accordance with this section;
(2) remain available until expended; and
(3) be in addition to any amounts appropriated under--
(A) the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331
et seq.);
(B) chapter 2003 of title 54, United States Code; or
(C) any other provision of law.
(e) Distributed Qualified Outer Continental Shelf Revenues
Shall Be Net of Receipts.--For each of fiscal years 2017
through 2055, expenditures under subsection (a)(2) and shall
be net of receipts from that fiscal year from qualified outer
Continental shelf revenues from any area in the Mid-Atlantic
Planning Area.
SEC. __05. DISPOSITION OF QUALIFIED OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
REVENUES FROM SOUTH ATLANTIC LEASING
ACTIVITIES.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 9 of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1338) and subject to
this section, for each applicable fiscal year, the Secretary
of the Treasury shall deposit--
(1) 50 percent of qualified outer Continental Shelf
revenues generated from leasing activities in the South
Atlantic Planning Area in the general fund of the Treasury;
and
(2) 50 percent of qualified outer Continental Shelf
revenues generated from leasing activities in the South
Atlantic Planning Area in a special account in the Treasury
from which the Secretary shall disburse--
(A) 75 percent to South Atlantic Producing States in
accordance with subsection (b); and
(B) 25 percent to provide financial assistance to States in
accordance with section 200305 of title 54, United States
Code, which shall be considered income to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund for purposes of section 200302 of that
title.
(b) Allocation Among South Atlantic Producing States.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amount made
available under subsection (a)(2)(A) from any lease entered
into within the South Atlantic Planning Area shall be
allocated to each South Atlantic producing State in amounts
(based on a formula established by the Secretary by
regulation) that are inversely proportional to the respective
distances between the point on the coastline of each South
Atlantic Producing State that is closest to the geographic
center of the applicable leased tract and the geographic
center of the leased tract.
(2) Minimum allocation.--The amount allocated to a South
Atlantic Producing State each fiscal year under paragraph (1)
shall be at least 10 percent of the amounts available under
subsection (a)(2)(A).
(c) Timing.--The amounts required to be deposited under
paragraph subsection (a)(2) for the applicable fiscal year
shall be made available in accordance with that paragraph
during the fiscal year immediately following the applicable
fiscal year.
(d) Administration.--Amounts made available under
subsection (a)(2) shall--
(1) be made available, without further appropriation, in
accordance with this section;
(2) remain available until expended; and
(3) be in addition to any amounts appropriated under--
(A) the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331
et seq.);
(B) chapter 2003 of title 54, United States Code; or
(C) any other provision of law.
(e) Distributed Qualified Outer Continental Shelf Revenues
Shall Be Net of Receipts.--For each of fiscal years 2017
through 2055, expenditures under subsection (a)(2) and shall
be net of receipts from that fiscal year from qualified outer
Continental shelf revenues from any area in the South
Atlantic Planning Area.
Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, earlier this week--actually, yesterday
and today--the Department of the Interior announced a plan that will
allow the permitting in 2017 for offshore oil and gas drilling off the
Outer Continental Shelf of our beautiful east coast.
The concern we have with this measure is not unlike the concern my
friends may have in Alaska, with steps taken by the administration that
actually limit the true potential of these regions. Like Alaska, we
have a number of opportunities for offshore oil and
[[Page S523]]
natural gas drilling that have not been exploited in the past, and I am
afraid that under the current course and speed of the administration's
action, they will not be fully exploited to the benefit of North
Carolinians and many east coast States.
That is why Senator Burr and I have sponsored an amendment that
directs the administration to take more decisive and more comprehensive
action so we can seize the opportunity for North Carolina and many of
our neighbor States.
The main reason we are doing this is because I think North Carolina
and the east coast can do their part to make our Nation an energy super
power. We can also have enormously positive impact on our economy as we
move forward. This slide depicts some of the initial estimates for the
economic impact that we could have by simply directing the Department
of the Interior to issue leases and to allow exploration and ultimately
extraction off the coast.
This graphic gives us an idea, from Delaware down to Florida, of the
potential jobs creation. We can see that in North Carolina that is
55,000 jobs. It is 55,000 jobs in some of the hardest hit areas of
North Carolina, where people are out of work, and the unemployment rate
is well above the State average. It is a jobs creation opportunity that
we are just waiting to be able to provide to the States with the
ultimate authority to decide whether they are going to move forward.
In terms of the economic impact, it is over $190 billion in capital
investment and nearly $51 billion in revenue to the Federal Government
and to State governments between 2017 and 2035.
This opportunity is something that I hope doesn't go without the full
efforts of the State to actually determine how we can do it in an
environmentally responsible way.
I was speaker of the house before I came into this great body, and we
took the steps to put into place a regulatory framework to allow
potential natural gas drilling within the State of North Carolina. We
did it in a very responsible way, and we did it in a way that made sure
stakeholders had the opportunity--environmentalists, business people,
travel and tourism--so we make sure we get it right. I believe we have
laid the groundwork with the State. Now we want to do the same thing
for the opportunity that we have near the Outer Continental Shelf.
The process will involve the input of several stakeholders. It will
involve the input of environmentalists and key stakeholders across the
State to make sure we get this right. Ultimately, it gives the States
the right to determine whether they want to pursue this--from Florida
to Delaware.
The other thing it does is addresses a number of concerns I heard
when I was a legislator and since I was speaker. It has to do with one
of the greatest assets we have in North Carolina; that is North
Carolina's beautiful coast.
This is a picture of a North Carolina beach today. It is beautiful.
It is why we have millions of people come visit our coast every year.
Based on our amendment, this is a picture of how that same beach will
look after we authorize drilling and we are actually creating those
jobs. It is that same beautiful beach because we have taken the steps
to make sure that any drilling would be beyond the sight line of our
beautiful beaches. I believe, as a result, we will have travel and
tourism on our side because those jobs create additional opportunity to
expand opportunities for travel and tourism.
Then, finally, I want to talk about what good the revenue to the
State can do for this very same area. We desperately need increased
infrastructure in the eastern part of our State. We desperately need
funds to renourish our beaches, and we desperately need funds to clear
our inlet and outfit our ports so that North Carolina can play a part
in the new shipping patterns that will occur post-Panama Canal upgrade.
So in terms of economics, it is fairly simple. We are looking for
about 50 percent of a revenue share, with 37 percent of that going to
the States and for the effective regions for items such as inlet
clearing and beach renourishment.
We are also looking to have 12.5 percent of the revenues dedicated to
the Land and Water Conservation Fund so we can continue the good work
of setting aside irreplaceable lands and increase outdoor recreation
activities.
I believe this is an opportunity for North Carolina to do its part to
make America the energy super power that we need it to be, to improve
our economy in North Carolina, and to contribute to improving the
economy of this great Nation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 178 to Amendment No. 2
Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and call up Markey amendment No. 178.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] proposes an
amendment numbered 178 to amendment No. 2.
Mr. MARKEY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To ensure that products derived from tar sands are treated as
crude oil for purposes of the Federal excise tax on petroleum)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. INCLUSION OF OIL DERIVED FROM TAR SANDS AS CRUDE
OIL.
This Act shall not take effect prior to 10 days following
the date that diluted bitumen and other bituminous mixtures
derived from tar sands or oil sands are treated as crude oil
for purposes of section 4612(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986.
Amendment No. 141 to Amendment No. 2
Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I have a second amendment, Markey
amendment No. 141. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment and call up Markey amendment No. 141.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] proposes an
amendment numbered 141 to amendment No. 2.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To delay the effective date until the President determines
that the pipeline will not have certain negative impacts)
At the end, add the following:
SEC. ___. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Notwithstanding subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b), this Act
shall not take effect until any consultation, analysis or
review required by the National Environmental Policy Act,
Endangered Species Act, or any other provision of law that
requires Federal agency consultation or review, is completed
with respect to whether increased greenhouse gas emissions,
including the indirect greenhouse gas emissions over the
lifecycle of oil sands crude oil production, and
transportation from the diluted bitumen and other bituminous
mixtures derived from tar sands or oil sands transported
through the pipeline, described in section 2(a), are likely
to contribute to an increase in more extreme weather events.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, the subject matter of these two
amendments is, No. 1, the Canadian oil company that wants to build a
pipeline through our country right now is exempt from having to pay
taxes into the oilspill liability trust fund. In other words, if there
is an actual accident in the United States, if the oil pipe breaks or
something happens, the Canadians will not have paid into the oilspill
liability trust fund the way every American pipeline company has to do.
So my first amendment would just say that they cannot be exempt from
that, and the hundreds of millions of dollars which they are
responsible for would have to be put into the trust fund.
The second amendment is an extreme weather amendment. That amendment
would call for a requirement and analysis of the impact that global
warming would have from the tar sands pollution and would require that
we have that scientific analysis just so that we can understand it and
its impact on extreme weather events in the United States and across
the planet.
We would need both of those amendments to be debated in order to make
[[Page S524]]
sure we fully understand the implications of what is being debated
here.
Finally, I wish to say that I note Senator Cruz from Texas has an
amendment which would almost automatically approve any natural gas
exports that were going to any WTO country in the world. I think that
is a very bad stance for the Senate to take.
We have to debate what the impact of the exportation of natural gas
on a mass basis is going to be on the price of natural gas here in the
United States--the price that utilities are going to have to pay for
natural gas to generate electricity, the speed with which we will be
able to transform our automotive sector from oil over to natural gas,
the impact on the petrochemical industry and other industries that are
now increasingly using low-priced natural gas in our country. We also
have to deal with the fact that the Energy Information Agency says that
the already-approved export of natural gas will lead to a more than 50-
percent increase in domestic natural gas prices for Americans at home.
I understand why the natural gas industry wants to do it, but I think
we have to have a big debate here in Congress over the impact that
those natural gas imports are going to have, especially if they are
approved automatically if they are heading to any WTO country in the
world.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Amendment No. 148 to Amendment No. 2
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be set aside and I be allowed to call up my
amendment, Whitehouse amendment No. 148.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Whitehouse], for
himself, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Brown, Mr.
Udall, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Murphy, and Mr.
Heinrich, proposes an amendment numbered 148 to amendment No.
2.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require campaign finance disclosures for certain persons
benefitting from tar sands development)
At the end, add the following:
SEC. __. CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURES BY THOSE PROFITING FROM
TAR SANDS DEVELOPMENT.
Section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974
(52 U.S.C. 30104) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(j) Disclosure by Tar Sands Beneficiaries.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Initial disclosure.--Every covered entity which has
made covered disbursements and received covered transfers in
an aggregate amount in excess of $10,000 during the period
beginning on December 1, 2012, and ending on the date that is
165 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection
shall file with the Commission a statement containing the
information described in paragraph (2) not later than the
date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
subsection.
``(B) Subsequent disclosures.--Every covered entity which
makes covered disbursements (other than covered disbursement
reported under subparagraph (A))and received covered
transfers (other than a covered transfer reported under
subparagraph (A)) in an aggregate amount in excess of $10,000
during any calendar year shall, within 48 hours of each
disclosure date, file with the Commission a statement
containing the information described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Contents of statement.--Each statement required to be
filed under this subsection shall be made under penalty of
perjury and shall contain the following information:
``(A) The identification of the person making the
disbursement or receiving the transfer, of any person sharing
or exercising direction or control over the activities of
such person, and of the custodian of the books and accounts
of the person making the disbursement or receiving the
transfer.
``(B) The principal place of business of the person making
the disbursement or receiving the transfer, if not an
individual.
``(C) The amount of each disbursement or transfer of more
than $200 during the period covered by the statement and the
identification of the person to whom the disbursement was
made or from whom the transfer was received.
``(D) The elections to which the disbursements or transfers
pertain and the names (if known) of the candidates involved.
``(E) If the disbursements were paid out of a segregated
bank account which consists of funds contributed solely by
individuals who are United States citizens or nationals or
lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in
section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(20))) directly to this account for
electioneering communications, the names and addresses of all
contributors who contributed an aggregate amount of $1,000 or
more to that account during--
``(i) in the case of a statement under paragraph (1)(A),
during the period described in such paragraph, and
``(ii) in the case of a statement under paragraph (1)(B),
the period beginning on the first day of the preceding
calendar year and ending on the disclosure date.
Nothing in this subparagraph is to be construed as a
prohibition on the use of funds in such a segregated account
for a purpose other than covered disbursements.
``(F) If the disbursements were paid out of funds not
described in subparagraph (E), the names and addresses of all
contributors who contributed an aggregate amount of $1,000 or
more to the person making the disbursement during--
``(i) in the case of a statement under paragraph (1)(A),
during the period described in such paragraph, and
``(ii) in the case of a statement under paragraph (1)(B),
the period beginning on the first day of the preceding
calendar year and ending on the disclosure date.
``(3) Covered entity.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `covered entity' means--
``(i) any person who is described in subparagraph (B), and
``(ii) any person who owns 5 percent or more of any person
described in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Person described.--A person is described in this
subparagraph if such person--
``(i) holds one or more tar sands leases, or
``(ii) has received revenues or stands to receive revenues
of $1,000,000 or greater from tar sands production, including
revenues received in connection with--
``(I) exploration of tar sands;
``(II) extraction of tar sands;
``(III) processing of tar sands;
``(IV) building, maintaining, and upgrading the Keystone XL
pipeline and other related pipelines used in connection with
tar sands;
``(V) expanding refinery capacity or building, expanding,
and retrofitting import and export terminals in connection
with tar sands;
``(VI) transportation by pipeline, rail, and barge of tar
sands;
``(VII) refinement of tar sands;
``(VIII) importing crude, refined oil, or byproducts
derived from tar sands crude;
``(IX) exporting crude, byproducts, or refined oil derived
from tar sands crude; and
``(X) use of production byproducts from tar sands, such as
petroleum coke for energy generation.
``(C) Tar sands.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term
`tar sands' means bitumen from the West Canadian Sedimentary
Basin.
``(4) Covered disbursement.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `covered disbursement' means a
disbursement for any of the following:
``(A) An independent expenditure.
``(B) A broadcast, cable, or satellite communication (other
than a communication described in subsection (f)(3)(B))
which--
``(i) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal
office;
``(ii) is made--
``(I) in the case of a communication which refers to a
candidate for an office other than President or Vice
President, during the period beginning on January 1 of the
calendar year in which a general or runoff election is held
and ending on the date of the general or runoff election (or
in the case of a special election, during the period
beginning on the date on which the announcement with respect
to such election is made and ending on the date of the
special election); or
``(II) in the case of a communication which refers to a
candidate for the office of President or Vice President, is
made in any State during the period beginning 120 days before
the first primary election, caucus, or preference election
held for the selection of delegates to a national nominating
convention of a political party is held in any State (or, if
no such election or caucus is held in any State, the first
convention or caucus of a political party which has the
authority to nominate a candidate for the office of President
or Vice President) and ending on the date of the general
election; and
``(iii) in the case of a communication which refers to a
candidate for an office other than President or Vice
President, is targeted to the relevant electorate (within the
meaning of subsection (f)(3)(C)).
``(C) A transfer to another person for the purposes of
making a disbursement described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
``(5) Covered transfer.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `covered transfer' means any amount received by a
covered entity for the purposes of making a covered
disbursement.
``(6) Disclosure date.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `disclosure date' means--
[[Page S525]]
``(A) the first date during any calendar year by which a
person has made covered disbursements and received covered
transfers aggregating in excess of $10,000; and
``(B) any other date during such calendar year by which a
person has made covered disbursements and received covered
transfers aggregating in excess of $10,000 since the most
recent disclosure date for such calendar year.
``(7) Contracts to disburse; coordination with other
requirements; etc,.--Rules similar to the rules of paragraphs
(5), (6), and (7) of subsection (f) shall apply for purposes
of this subsection.''.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I just wish to speak briefly to this
amendment, which I hope might help answer the mystery as to why the
first order of business of the new majority in the Senate is S. 1, a
bill that allows a foreign corporation to run a pipeline across our
country, seizing American farms and ranches along the way. That would
not ordinarily seem to be our country's first and highest order of
business given all of the issues that we face.
We have seen news reports just today that the legendary Koch brothers
are gearing up to spend $900 million in the coming election. We have
seen news reports that compare their political operation to the
Republican National Committee's political operation--favorably to the
Koch brothers as having a bigger political operation.
We know that since Citizens United there has been a torrent of
corporate money poured into our elections, and a great deal of it has
come from the fossil fuel industry. We know also that beside that
torrent of disclosed money has been another torrent of dark money that
has poured into our elections. We don't know quite where that has come
from, but there are plenty of reasons to suspect and to suggest that
money has also come from the fossil fuel industry.
So we have a situation right now where I think reasonable people
could look at the facts and draw a sensible inference that the
Republican Party has been acquired by the fossil fuel industry as its
political subsidiary. If that were the case, then that might be an
explanation of why S. 1 does this extraordinary service to a foreign
corporation at peril to all of the American farms and ranches and
families whose land would be taken from them in order to give this
foreign corporation this great boon.
This amendment would require that companies that will make more than
$1 million off of the Keystone Pipeline should meet the disclosure
obligations that we have voted on before in the Senate. These are
disclosure obligations that Republican Senators have often supported in
the past.
Indeed, until 2010 and until the Citizens United decision actually
showed where the money was coming from and to whom it was going, one of
the most ardent and eloquent advocates for disclosure was none other
than the distinguished Senator from Kentucky who is now our majority
leader. So it would not seem to be out of place to ask for a little bit
of disclosure, a little bit of transparency, about where the political
contributions went from the corporations that are going to make so much
money from this, whether it is more than $1 million made off the
pipeline or whether it is opening up the tar sands and having tar sands
leases.
So I hope we will have a chance to vote on this, and if we are in
favor of transparency and disclosure and voters understanding what is
going on around here, this ought to be an amendment we ought to be able
to support.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. First of all, I want to say how good it is to see the
Presiding Officer, and also recognize that he is a member of the
nascent Cory caucus, and I respect that quite a bit.
Amendment No. 155 to Amendment No. 2
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment in order to call up amendment No. 155.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Booker] proposes an
amendment numbered 155 to amendment No. 2.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To allow permitting agencies to consider new circumstances
and new information)
At the end of section 2, add the following:
(f) Environmental Impact Statement Savings Clause.--Nothing
in subsection (b) relieves any Federal agency of the
obligation of the Federal agency to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
including the obligation of the Federal agency to prepare a
supplement to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement described in subsection (b) in connection with the
issuance of any permit or authorization needed to construct,
connect, operate, or maintain the pipeline and cross-border
facilities described in subsection (a) if there are
significant new circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concerns and bearing on the environmental
impacts resulting from the construction, connection,
operation, and maintenance of the pipeline and cross-border
facilities, including from greenhouse gas emissions
associated with the crude oil being transported by the
pipeline.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I want to say that amendment No. 155 is a
very important amendment. It is common sense. It is practical. The
National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA as it is known, is one of the
most emulated statutes in the world. It is something that many people
see as valuable in other countries because NEPA, in fact, by many is
referred to as the modern-day environmental Magna Carta.
NEPA regulations require agencies to supplement already-issued
environmental impact statements when significant new circumstances or
information is found to exist relating to the environmental impact of a
project. The pending Keystone bill, however--and quite surprisingly--
would deem the final environmental impact statement issued last January
to fully satisfy this NEPA requirement going ahead. This would remove
the obligation from permitting agencies to supplement any environmental
impact statements if significant new circumstances or information is
discovered.
This amendment I am putting forward, No. 155, would change that and
would preserve a commonsense obligation of agencies to supplement the
environmental impact statement for significant new circumstances or
information. In other words, if very pertinent information comes
forward, it would require there be a need to supplement the
environmental impact statement.
For example, if the proposed route of the pipeline were changed, it
could mean that drinking water supplies or critical resources would
have a higher risk of contamination from a spill. This amendment would
simply require consideration of significant changes so we don't go
blindly and put natural resources at greater risk without understanding
the impact.
This bill is for me common sense. It says, basically, if
circumstances change, we should make sure a new environmental impact
study is considered.
I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment and not provide
special treatment to a foreign company that American companies don't
get that could result in harm to fellow Americans.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Amendment No. 102
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to pledge my
overwhelming support to Senator Tillis on the Outer Continental Shelf
amendment that has been placed on the Keystone bill, and I think it is
apparent with the direction the administration is going that they
finally realize this is the right thing, but I think codifying that
into this bill is important.
Amendment No. 92 to Amendment No. 2
I also come today because many of my colleagues in this body support
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Just to remind some who might not
have been here as long, the Land and Water Conservation Fund was
created and funded by royalties off of this exploration explosion we
have had over decades in this country.
I might say a disappointment to me is that over the life of this
trust fund we created, it never received the appropriations that it
accrued in a balance. It accrues a certain amount off of royalties and
it was directed in statute that money goes to fund the Land and
[[Page S526]]
Water Conservation Fund. Let me say to my colleagues, this is the best
organization to choose where to make that investment. This is not about
a land grab; this is about providing contiguous pieces of land that
have restored value. But this is not about initiatives to create new
national parks. It is to protect the infrastructure that is out there
in their control, and we have battled for years.
I would love to come to the floor right now and say I want to offer
an amendment for full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
which should be $900 million a year, but we appropriate $350 million to
$450 million a year to fund it.
Unfortunately I am not here to offer that amendment, although I think
it would receive tremendous support in this body, primarily because I
would have to find about $8 billion worth of offsets. This is
incredible, that we could have a trust fund that is funded with the
royalties off of production that has an $8 billion balance but to
actually say if we are going to begin to fully fund it, you have to
come up with $8 billion worth of offsets because we spent the money on
something else. We spent the money on something else, therefore we have
got to find an offset.
So I am not coming to the floor today to propose we fully fund it,
although I am an advocate of it, and I think many people are.
In a minute I will ask unanimous consent to have amendment No. 92
pending, which is the Burr-Bennet-Ayotte amendment. It is to
permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
I am sure the President is aware that the program expires the end of
September, and we can wait, but I don't think we should wait to
reauthorize what I believe is, dollar for dollar, the most effective
government program we have. We can save any kind of funding-level
fights for another day. The simple truth is this program is a trust
fund that is codified in law. So we are not debating whether this
exists or doesn't exist. It does exist and every year $900 million in
royalties are paid by energy companies that drill for gas or oil in the
Outer Continental Shelf and are put into this fund, but for some
reason, that group, that conservation effort, only finds what the
appropriators are willing to pass on to it.
Our amendment would reauthorize the program itself on a permanent
basis, and I am going to ask all of my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment to call up amendment No. 92.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina, [Mr. Burr] for himself,
Ms. Ayotte, and Mr. Bennet, proposes an amendment numbered 92
to amendment No. 2.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation
Fund)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. PERMANENT REAUTHORIZATION OF LAND AND WATER
CONSERVATION FUND.
(a) In General.--Section 200302 of title 54, United States
Code, is amended --
(1) in subsection (b), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``During the period ending September 30,
2015, there'' and inserting ``There''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``through September
30, 2015''.
(b) Public Access.--Section 200306 of title 54, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Public Access.--Not less than 1.5 percent of amounts
made available for expenditure in any fiscal year under
section 200303 shall be used for projects that secure
recreational public access to existing Federal public land
for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes.''.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I have spoken very briefly on this
reauthorization because it is a very simple measure. I urge my
colleagues, because it is now pending, when we have an opportunity to
vote, and I think that will be sooner rather than later on a whole host
of amendments, that you take the opportunity to permanently reauthorize
a program that is clearly one that benefits this country and our
National Treasury.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Amendment No. 115 to Amendment No. 2
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment so that I can call up my amendment No. 115.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Coons] proposes an amendment
numbered 115 to amendment No. 2.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S526, January 27, 2015, in the second column, the
following language appears: The Senator from Delaware [Mr. KOONS]
proposes an amendment . . .
The online Record has been corrected to read: The Senator from
Delaware [Mr. COONS] proposes an amendment . . .
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. COONS. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding climate change and
infrastructure)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE AND
INFRASTRUCTURE.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) climate change is already impacting the safety and
reliability of the critical infrastructure systems of the
United States, including buildings, roads, bridges, tunnels,
rail, ports, airports, levees, dams, and military
installations through sea level rise, rising temperatures,
and more frequent and intense extreme weather events such as
droughts, floods, wildfires, and heat waves;
(2) significant energy, industrial and transportation
infrastructure in the United States is located near the
coast, in floodplains, or in other areas vulnerable to sea
level rise;
(3) the impacts to infrastructure described in paragraph
(1) have caused tangible economic costs that are likely to
increase over time;
(4) it is fiscally prudent to prepare for and seek to
mitigate the impacts described in paragraph (1), as it is
estimated that every dollar spent on mitigation saves $4 in
disaster relief;
(5) the Federal Government self-insures, offers insurance
programs such as crop insurance and the national flood
insurance program, and, in the case of extreme weather
events, also serves as the insurer of last resort for public
and private infrastructure;
(6) the Federal Government has a crucial role to play as a
partner in working with State, local, tribal, and territorial
jurisdictions to help ensure coordinated efforts to keep
communities resilient;
(7) the role of the Federal Government should include
prioritizing climate resilient projects when administering
Federal grants, providing technical support, and sharing of
data and information in user-friendly and accessible formats,
among other actions;
(8) Federal agency climate change adaptation plans that
assess the risk to physical assets and missions of the
Federal agencies can help create savings for taxpayers; and
(9) Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense,
should quantify the economic value of the physical risks of
the agencies from climate change.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, this amendment recognizes that climate
change is not a hoax, that climate change is a reality, and that we
need to do some things together to begin to plan for and prepare for
the inevitable consequences and impacts on our infrastructure.
As someone who was in local government for a long time before coming
to this body--I was a county executive--I have a sense of what it means
for our States, our municipalities, and our county governments to have
to plan for and deal with the inevitable consequence, the impacts on
our local infrastructure of the coming changes through climate change.
I happen to represent the lowest mean elevation State in America, and
our Governor Jack Markell and his able folks in the Delaware Department
of Natural Resources and Environmental Control have led a grassroots
statewide effort to begin planning for the future impacts of climate
change. Because of the combination of subsidence and sea level rise,
Delaware will see earlier than many States impacts on vital local
infrastructure. So whether it is our sewer systems, our roads, our
water systems or other infrastructure, we need to begin to plan now to
bake resiliency into the future of our community.
Given the unique and important role that the Federal Government plays
in financing infrastructure and in responding to disasters such as
Superstorm Sandy that destroyed a lot of the infrastructure in the
nearby States of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut, we need to be
mindful of what these costs could be.
[[Page S527]]
The U.S. Department of Defense is already preparing plans to
understand how climate change will impact its infrastructure. My
thinking is that the entire Federal Government should make responsible,
timely, and thoughtful plans to assess and to prepare for prudent
mitigation of the future impacts of climate change on our
infrastructure. So I am hopeful that this will be among the many
amendments that will be taken up, debated, discussed, and passed in the
coming hours and days.
I am grateful that we continue to have an open amendment process and
the opportunity to discuss and debate the issues in front of us, and I
very much look forward to passage of Coons amendment No. 115.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, two Senators from Delaware, back to back--
a double shot.
Amendment No. 120 to Amendment No. 2
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment in order to call up my amendment No. 120.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for himself, Mr.
Donnelly, and Ms. Heitkamp, proposes an amendment numbered
120 to amendment No. 2.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the
credits for new qualified fuel cell motor vehicles and alternative fuel
vehicle refueling property)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR NEW QUALIFIED FUEL CELL MOTOR
VEHICLES.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 30B(k) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
``December 31, 2014'' and inserting ``December 31, 2019''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property purchased after December 31, 2014.
SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE
REFUELING PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Subsection (g) of section 30C, as amended
by the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014, is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2014'' and inserting ``December 31,
2019''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2014.
SEC. 5. OFFSET.
(a) 100 Percent Continuous Levy on Payment to Medicare
Providers and Suppliers.--Paragraph (3) of section 6331(h) is
amended by striking the period at the end and inserting ``,
or to a Medicare provider or supplier under title XVIII of
the Social Security Act.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to payments made on or after the date which is
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity today.
My colleague from Delaware, Senator Coons, knows that Delaware, until
4 years ago, developed and built more cars, trucks, and vans per capita
than any other State in America. We lost within literally 6 months a GM
plant that employed thousands of employees and a Chrysler plant that
employed thousands of people. Those companies went into bankruptcy.
For a number of years before that and since then, I have gone every
year in January to the North American auto show in Detroit. I remember
being there half a dozen or so years ago and walking through the
demonstrations--they call them the stands--where the auto companies,
whether they happen to be domestic, Ford, Chrysler, GM, or companies
from Europe or Asia, had on display their vehicles, in some cases the
vehicles they were introducing that year for the next buying year, and
in some cases concept cars that may never be built but are just
interesting, exciting new technologies that are represented in those
vehicles.
I have never forgotten about a half dozen years ago walking through
this enormous cavernous auto show and coming across what they call the
stand where a number of the Honda vehicles were being displayed. One of
them was in a makeshift garage. I thought that was interesting. You
don't see makeshift garages in the Detroit auto show.
I asked the Honda people, what is this about? They said, imagine a
vehicle that is in a garage alongside a house. The technology in this
vehicle will actually provide for the propulsion of that vehicle,
propel the vehicle, and the fuel this vehicle uses will also cool the
house next to this garage in the summer and warm and heat this house in
the winter. I said, you are kidding. I said, what kind of technology is
this? He said, this is fuel cells. I said, no kidding. Are you really
serious about this? He said, yes, we are.
As it turns out, a few years after that, I was back in Delaware at
Dover Downs. A lot of people think of Dover Downs now because we have
musical festivals. Firefly was there, and we had 80,000 people there.
We also have 80,000 people show up for a couple of Sundays every year
for the auto show.
A couple of years ago, I was at Dover Downs, and I had a chance to
drive around the Monster Mile when no other cars were racing. I drove a
GM minivan. The thing that was unique about the GM minivan was how much
it cost. I have a Chrysler Town & Country minivan that has about
386,000 miles on it. The vehicle I drove that day had less than 1,000
miles on it, and it was powered by fuel cells.
I said to the guy I was driving with, how much does this vehicle cost
if I wreck it? He said, probably $1 million. I said, I better be
careful. And right about then somebody came out of the infield and
drove right in front of me and scared the guy next to me to death. I
was able to avoid a crash.
GM, Chrysler, and Ford have put a lot of money into fuel cell
vehicles. One of the people who helped to run GM for a number of years,
a fellow named Tom Davis, a longtime friend, when he stepped down from
GM several years ago ran the part of the company that dealt with light
trucks and SUVs. Almost half of their revenue was generated from those
sources.
Earlier this month he and I talked about the future of the auto
industry and GM in particular. I said, what do you think the future is
for providing propulsion for cars? Is it like the hybrid electric? He
said, no, it is not. I said, is it like the diesel electric? He said,
no, it is not. I said, is it pure electric? He said, no, it is not. I
have said for years that the future is fuel cells. I said, no kidding.
That is just like I saw at the auto show years ago and just like the
fuel-cell powered minivan I drove at Dover Downs a couple of years
after that. He said, that is the future.
It turns out in Japan they have a word that actually means future
that they use to describe this technology, and it is called ``mirai.''
Honda and Toyota are betting a little bit of their money--actually
quite a bit--just as some of our domestic auto companies are betting
some money of their own.
The great thing about this technology is that it reduces the
consumption of oil. We are still the leading consumer of oil in the
world. A lot of our oil is from foreign sources, and some of it is
unstable. I think some of the countries use our money to harm us. This
technology has the ability to reduce our dependence on that foreign oil
from unstable countries. It has the ability to further clean our air
and to offer a great driving experience. I personally experienced it
myself all those many years ago in Dover Downs on the Monster Mile.
What I want do today is call up an amendment that will help us to
seize the day and to take this technology, which is ready now, to be
made commercial and to be introduced on both coasts and across the
country in order to provide fuel cell vehicles and to help give it a
little push, if you will, through the Tax Code to encourage them to be
purchased by our consumers.
There are actually two parts to my amendment. One of those is to
provide a $4,000-a-year tax credit for alternative fuel vehicles. In
this case I am talking about fuel cells, but it could be electric, and
it could be others as well.
The second half of the amendment is to provide the infrastructure. We
have heard about fueling stations. Well, these would be infrastructures
that would include fueling stations for fuel-cell-powered vehicles.
[[Page S528]]
It is a two-fold amendment. It reduces our dependence on foreign oil,
especially from unstable sources. It provides for new investment and
for creation of jobs for that new investment. It is something that
would help consumers, it would help our domestic auto industry, and it
would enable us to compete with the rest of the world.
There are two parts to this amendment--a tax credit of about $4,000
for each vehicle for 5 years, and then an investment tax credit of 30
percent to enable us to build the fueling stations. We have gas and
diesel stations all across the country. We need alternative fueling
stations, if you will, for these alternative vehicles if they are to
realize their potential and we are to realize ours.
Later in the week, I will ask to have the opportunity to offer this
amendment, and I ask that my colleagues keep these arguments in mind,
and if they see fit, to support this amendment. I hope they will.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 133 to Amendment No. 2
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 133.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Ms. Heitkamp], for herself,
Mr. Donnelly, and Mr. Coons, proposes an amendment numbered
133 to amendment No. 2.
Ms. HEITKAMP. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 should be amended to extend the credit with respect to
facilities producing energy from certain renewable resources)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING 5-YEAR EXTENSION OF
CREDITS WITH RESPECT TO FACILITIES PRODUCING
ENERGY FROM CERTAIN RENEWABLE RESOURCES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the energy policy of the United States is based on an
all-of-the-above approach to production sources;
(2) an all-of-the-above approach reduces dependence on
foreign oil, increases national security and creates jobs;
(3) smart investments in renewable resources are critical
to increase the energy independence of the United States,
reduce emissions, and create jobs;
(4) wind energy is a critical component of an all-of-the-
above energy policy and has a proven track record of creating
jobs, reducing emissions, and provides an alternative and
compatible energy resource to the existing generation
infrastructure of the United States;
(5) the wind energy industry and utilities require long-
term certainty regarding the Production Tax Credit for
project planning in order to continue build out of this
valuable natural resource; and
(6) the stop-start unpredictability of short-term
Production Tax Credit extensions should be avoided, as short-
term extensions have disrupted the wind industry, slowing the
ability of the wind industry to cut costs, as compared to
what would have occurred with a long-term, predictable policy
in place.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) section 45(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
should be amended by striking ``January 1, 2015'' each place
it appears and inserting ``January 1, 2020'' in--
(A) paragraph (1);
(B) paragraph (2)(A);
(C) paragraph (3)(A);
(D) paragraph (4)(B);
(E) paragraph (6);
(F) paragraph (7);
(G) paragraph (9); and
(H) paragraph (11)(B);
(2) clause (ii) of section 48(a)(5)(C) should be amended by
striking ``January 1, 2015'' and inserting ``January 1,
2020''; and
(3) the amendments that would be made by paragraphs (1) and
(2) should take effect on January 1, 2015.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Keystone has been described two ways down here, an
energy bill and a jobs bill--economic development offering economic
opportunity. I don't think there could be an amendment that is offered
that would fit more both slots of the description of the Keystone bill
than the amendment that I am proposing, amendment No. 133.
This is a bipartisan proposal that has always been supported by both
sides of the aisle, and quite honestly, it has tremendous support
across the country from the American people. Quite simply what the
amendment does is to provide that it is the sense of the Senate that we
should extend the production tax credits for the next 5 years to give
certainty to alternative energy companies, particularly to wind energy
companies. It would basically lay down the marker that this is an
important part of our energy and jobs future. Importantly, as we have
watched the ups and downs of our tax policy, or lack thereof, in the
Senate and Congress, we have seen short-term extensions--or as we call
them, extenders--being passed in the last moments of Congress, which
does not give the certainty we need to provide the incentives that are
included in those extenders.
This sense of the Senate--to the extent it becomes legislation--
would, in fact, for the first time give us an opportunity to provide
certainty with a glidepath out, and everyone understands that
eventually this industry is going to have to stand alone.
I wish to talk about the importance of the wind energy industry, not
just from the energy standpoint but from the jobs standpoint. Today the
wind energy industry sustains approximately 73,000 jobs and directs
over $17.3 billion a year in private investment to the U.S. economy,
including thousands of well-paid wind manufacturing jobs at over 500
factories in 43 States that supply the United States industry.
The United States currently has over 60,000 megawatts of installed
capacity, and according to the American Wind Energy Association and
USDA's Energy Information Administration, the United States produced
over 167 billion kilowatts of wind power last year alone.
If my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are serious about this
being a jobs bill and serious about this being an energy bill, then
they you will want to vote in favor of this amendment. Wind energy and
the continued buildout of additional capacity in this country is an
absolute critical piece of the ``all of the above'' energy policy.
Every person in this building and every person you talk to about what
their energy policy is will say all of the above. That has to have
meaning, and it has to include this important and critical
infrastructure and this important and critical tax credit for wind
energy.
The other benefit of this amendment is--as you have heard, we have 43
States somehow involved in the manufacture and production of equipment
in this industry, but we have over 1,000 utility-scale wind projects,
which represent over 62,000 megawatts and over 46 wind turbines and are
installed across 39 States and Puerto Rico. There are also more than
500 wind manufacturing facilities spread across those 43 States.
I am a little bias because we in North Dakota like to say we are the
Saudi Arabia of wind, and wind is a critical part--in fact 15 percent--
of our capacity. We think we could do a lot more, but I will tell you
the economic impact just in my State. A lot of you know the great
energy renaissance that is going on in America that involves the
development of fossil fuels--North Dakota being the second largest oil
and gas producer with the shale development.
What you don't know is that North Dakota truly represents all of the
above. I want to talk about what we do in wind before I close out here.
We have almost 1,600 megawatts of wind capacity installed and another
740 megawatts under construction. The industry has invested over $3.4
billion in my State with annual lease payments--and these are to
farmers who are grateful for that additional revenue. The towers are on
their property and over $5 million of lease payments goes back to
farmers.
I talked to farmers all across North Dakota who are proud that they
are part of the energy renaissance in our State and grateful for the
additional revenue.
We have two educational institutions in our State that have wind
energy training centers and do tremendous jobs training the workforce
for additional wind energy. The wind energy industry supports close to
3,000 jobs in North Dakota, and in a State of around 700,000 people,
that is a significant factor. In 2013 wind energy was 15 percent.
These are numbers that--I saw the Presiding Officer grin when I said
that
[[Page S529]]
North Dakota is the Saudi Arabia of wind because I think he is thinking
that Colorado might be the Saudi Arabia of wind. I know that the
Presiding Officer is a great supporter of wind energy as well.
But when we do these stops and starts, when we don't give a constant
and predictable policy, we are living hand to mouth. Maybe we are
making some decisions to deploy resources in a way that meets with the
congressional schedule and doesn't meet with the business-like or
orderly introduction and continuing development of this industry.
If you are looking for a germane amendment that addresses both jobs
and energy, this is a perfect amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Amendment No. 124 to Amendment No. 2
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside so I may be able to offer my amendment,
amendment No. 124.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] proposes an
amendment numbered 124 to amendment No. 2.
Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To clarify that treaties with Indian tribes remain in effect)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. _. NO EFFECT ON INDIAN TREATIES.
Nothing in this Act may change, suspend, supersede, or
abrogate any trust obligation or treaty requirement of the
United States with respect to any Indian nation, Indian
tribe, individual Indian, or Indian tribal organization,
including the Fort Laramie Treaties of 1851 and 1868, without
consultation with, and the informed and express consent of,
the applicable Indian nation, Indian tribe, individual
Indian, or Indian tribal organization as required under
Executive Order 13175 (67 Fed. Reg. 67249) (November 6,
2000).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, my amendment states that S. 1 may not
``change, suspend, supersede, or abrogate any trust obligation or
treaty requirement of the United States without consultation with, and
the informed express consent of, any affected Indian nation, Indian
tribe, individual Indian, or Indian tribal organization.''
The need for this amendment becomes particularly relevant because on
January 11 of this year, the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association
wrote to President Obama to express the association's unequivocal
opposition to the Keystone XL Pipeline.
The association speaks on behalf of 16 sovereign American Indian
tribes and asserts that the pipeline violates the Fort Laramie Treaties
of 1851 and 1868.
I am not taking a legal position on whether the assertion is correct.
Rather, I think it is important that the Senate go on record that our
trust obligations and treaty requirements, which are with sovereign
Nations, must be honored and that any changes to those obligations may
only occur with consultation and their consent.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter dated January 11, 2015, from
the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association and the Association's
resolution regarding the KXL pipeline be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Great Plains Tribal Chairman's
Association,
Rapid City, SD, January 11, 2015.
Re Veto Legislation to Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline and
DO NOT Approve a Permit for the Pipeline.
Hon. Barack Obama,
President, United States of America,
Washington, DC.
Dear President Obama: The Great Plains Tribal Chairman's
Association (GPTCA) is made up of the 16 Sovereign American
Indian Tribes in the States of North Dakota, South Dakota and
Nebraska. All of our Tribes have signed Treaties with the
United States in which the United States pledged to protect
Indian Tribes, guarantee the right to Self-Government and
obligated itself to undertake Trust Responsibility. The Great
Plains Tribal Chairman's Association stands in solidarity
with the First Nations of Canada and with Tribal Nations in
the United States in opposing the Keystone XL pipeline.
We are writing to alert you that TransCanada Keystone
Pipeline, LP (TransCanada) is in the midst of the
recertification process of its 2010 permit from the South
Dakota Public Utilities (SDPUC) for the Keystone XL pipeline.
While we are aware the Nebraska Supreme Court issued a
decision to vacate a lower court decision that held a
Nebraska statute concerning the Keystone XL pipeline
unconstitutional, we write to urge you to consider the fact
that TransCanada's permit to traverse South Dakota is still
under review and does not authorize construction of the
project in South Dakota unless and until the SD PUC grants
certification.
Four Federally Recognized Tribes have signed on as Party
Intervenors in the SD PUC proceedings as well as numerous
Native and nonnative concerned citizens. The Tribes include
the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe, Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the Yankton Sioux Tribe. Other
Great Plains Tribes are poised to comment and are monitoring
the proceedings. The pipeline is planned to traverse through
our homelands that still possess substantial treaty
obligations, cultural and natural resources and water rights
for all the Great Plains tribes. These are also the homelands
of numerous animals, birds and fish including several
endangered species.
Under South Dakota law, TransCanada must declare that the
conditions under which the permit was issued in 2010 remain
the same despite submitting along with its application a
matrix of 30 Changed Conditions. These 30 Changed Conditions
show that significant design and construction changes are
planned for the pipeline that make it substantially different
in our eyes. The 2010 permit was also issued with 50 Special
Permit Conditions that TransCanada also must prove it still
meets before it can legally commence construction of the
project. While there is an evidentiary hearing currently set
for May 2015, it is unclear when a final decision will be
issued in that case.
We therefore urge you, consistent with your stance on the
previously pending Nebraska litigation, to refrain from
making any decision regarding whether the Keystone XL
pipeline would be in the national interest until you have all
the necessary facts before you. Tribal leaders request you
deny the permit as contrary to the national interest.
It is the position of the GPTCA that your administration
does in fact have incontrovertible evidence that the proposed
Keystone XL pipeline would be a detriment to the American
public and the national interest regardless of whether the SD
PUC ultimately authorizes construction under TransCanada's
2010 permit due to the risks the project poses regardless of
the particular route through South Dakota. The GPTCA urges
you to deny the Presidential Permit for the reasons set forth
in the attached GPTCA Resolution among others. However,
should you have reservations about denying the Presidential
Permit at this time, please grant South Dakota the same
respect you accorded Nebraska and refrain from making your
decision until after the legal processes regarding the South
Dakota permit have been resolved. We strongly urge you to
veto any legislation passed by Congress that mandates the
issuance of a presidential permit to TransCanada. We believe,
consistent with federal separation of powers, that a decision
to deny TransCanada a federal permit must be made by your
Executive branch and it is not appropriate for legislation.
We further assert that construction of any pipeline
violates the Fort Laramie Treaties of 1851 and 1868, which
impact the greater population of the Oceti Sakowin or the
Seven Council Fires of the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota Tribes.
We are known to many as the Great Sioux Nation and are the
keepers of the sacred, cultural and natural resources located
in the KXL corridor. Literally, thousands of sacred and
cultural resources that are important to our life-ways and
for our future generations will potentially be destroyed or
compromised by the pipeline construction. Many of these
sacred sites have not been surveyed by outsiders less they be
looted or plundered but are known to those designated by our
people considered to be sacred keepers of this knowledge. The
Programmatic agreement entered into for compliance with the
National Historic Preservation Act acknowledges that
construction of the pipeline would cause destruction to many
sacred and cultural sited.
With regards to our tribal federally reserved water rights
in the Great Plains Basin, the pollution risk via benzene and
other carcinogens from the tar sands sludge spilling into the
tributaries that lead into the Missouri River or leaching
into the Oglala Aquifer, should a pipeline break occur, is
too great. The Missouri River is the source of drinking water
for many communities along the Missouri River main-stem. The
Oglala Aquifer supplies drinking water throughout the Great
Plains region. All of this development further impacts
reserved rights of our Oceti Sakowin which were unceded by
treaties, including the right to live in a safe manner and be
in control of our human, cultural and natural resources as
outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Consultation has not occurred in
a manner that recognizes free, prior and informed consent for
the construction of this
[[Page S530]]
pipeline. We believe it is our Human Right to live safely on
our homelands with clean water and lands.
Very importantly, the KXL Pipeline and the continued
development of the Alberta tar sands will increase the carbon
footprint in our sacred lands for the enrichment of foreign
countries and oil companies. As you know, climate change will
impact and affect all of us including the generations to come
unless we do something to stop it now. The Oceti Sakowin
tribes are making important strides toward renewable energy
with the Oceti Sakowin Power Project (OSPP) that recognizes
fossil fuels are relics that contribute to phenomenal climate
change. The OSPP leaders met with the White House
representatives in our effort to turn the tide against
globing warming through solar and wind development on our
lands. We do not have to be held prisoners of fossil fuels
but can create stories of redemption for Mother Earth through
exciting renewals development, not in the future but now.
Because of the dire concerns outlined above, we request an
emergency meeting with Department of Interior Secretary Sally
Jewell, who as our Trustee, has a responsibility to hear
directly from tribal leaders in a government-to-government
meeting. We are prepared to put forth our concerns for
inclusion in the forthcoming Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) regarding the impacts the Keystone XL
pipeline may have on Tribal homelands as well as our sacred
sites, cultural resources, natural resources and water rights
protected by treaty and other agreements.
The Executive Director of the GPTCA, Ms. Gay Kingman-
Wapato, is the contact for the GPTCA and is empowered to work
with your administration staff to coordinate a meeting at
Secretary Jewell's earliest convenience. She can be reached
at Cell: 605-484-3036 or e-mail, K[email protected]
Sincerely,
John Steele,
Chairman.
____
Resolution No. 30-9-28-11
GREAT PLAINS TRIBAL CHAIRMAN'S ASSOCIATION (GPTCA)
Opposition to Keystone XL (``Keystone II'') Pipeline now
being considered for authorization by the United States
Department of State, on the basis that construction of such
pipeline is not in the national interests of the United
States
Whereas, The Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association
(GPTCA) is composed of the elected Chairs and Presidents of
the 16 Sovereign Indian Tribes and Nations recognized by
Treaties with the United States that are within the Great
Plains Region of the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and
Whereas, The Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association was
formed to promote the common interests of the Sovereign
Tribes and Nations and their members of the Great Plains
Region which comprises the states of North Dakota, South
Dakota, Nebraska; and
Whereas, The United States has obligated itself both
through Treaties entered into with the sovereign Tribes and
Nations of the Great Plains Region and through its own
federal statutes, the Snyder Act of 1921 as amended, the
Indian Self-Determination Act of 1976 as amended, and the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976 as amended; and
Whereas, Indian Tribes are governments that pre-date the
United States, and through the Indian Commerce, Treaty and
Apportionment Clauses and the 14th Amendment, the United
States recognizes the status of Indian Tribes as sovereigns
and the status of American Indians as tribal citizens; and
Whereas, In treaties, the United States pledged to protect
Indian Tribes, guaranteed the right of Tribal self-
government, and has undertaken a trust responsibility to
promote the viability of Indian reservations and lands as
permanent homelands for tribes; and,
Whereas, On September 28, 2011, the Tribal Chairmen and the
Tribal Council representatives from the Tribal Nations that
are members of the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's
Association, have been meeting at the GPTCA/BIA/USACE Tribal
Water Management Summit, discussing issues of great
importance to the Indian Tribal Nations of the Great Plains
Region and their members; and
Whereas, a major oil transmission pipeline is planned to
extend from northern Alberta, Canada, from areas that have
sand mixed with tar and oil, called ``tar sands'', to
refineries in the United States; and
Whereas, the route of the pipeline, called Keystone II, or
Keystone XL, because it is the second oil transmission
pipeline to be constructed by the same company that built the
first Keystone pipeline, crosses through Indian country in
northern Alberta, Saskatchewan, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota and Nebraska, near and potentially over, many
culturally significant areas for Tribal Nations within those
provinces and states; and
Whereas, based on the relatively poor environmental record
of the first Keystone pipeline, which includes numerous
spills, U.S. regulators shut the pipeline down in late May,
2011, and, therefore, based on the record of the first
Keystone pipeline, and other factors, it is probable that
further environmental disasters will occur in Indian country
if the new pipeline is allowed to be constructed; and
Whereas, the First Nations of Canada, representing the vast
majority of First Nations impacted by ``tar sands''
development, have unanimously passed resolutions supporting a
moratorium on new ``tar sands'' development and expansion
until a ``cumulative effects management system'' is in place,
and are also in opposition to the pipeline; and
Whereas, many U.S. Tribal Nations are also in opposition to
the Keystone XL pipeline, including several Tribal Nations in
the Great Plains, because it would threaten, among other
things, the Oglala aquifer and other major water aquifers,
rivers and water ways, public drinking water sources,
including the Mni Wiconi Rural Water System, agricultural
lands, animal life, cultural sites, and other resources vital
to the peoples of the region in which the pipeline is
proposed to be constructed; and
Whereas, Indian tribes including the Affiliated Tribes of
Northwest Indians are also in opposition to the Exxon-
Imperial ``Heavy Haul'' proposal to transport ``tar sands''
equipment through the Nez Perce Reservation and across scenic
highways, and several Indian tribes have joined in litigation
to stop this proposal; and
Whereas, the pipeline is unnecessary as a number of other
pipelines are not at full capacity to carry oil from Canada
to refineries in the U.S., and the oil is also not likely to
end up on the U.S. market but will be exported to foreign
countries; and
Whereas, Tribal Nations and First Nations within Indian
country near the route of the proposed pipeline have already
stated their opposition to the proposed route of the
pipeline, and because of earlier opposition from both Tribes
and environmental groups, a supplemental environmental impact
statement has been required by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency from the proposed operators
of the pipeline, a draft of which is now available for public
comment; and
Whereas, since the pipeline is designed to cross the U.S.-
Canadian border, the United States Department of State is the
lead U.S. agency in evaluating whether the pipeline should be
allowed to be constructed in the U.S.; and
Whereas, the First Nations of Canada and Tribal Nations
within the U.S. have a long history of working to ensure
protection of their environment, and the Keystone XL pipeline
poses grave dangers if it is constructed; and
Whereas, the U.S. Department of State is continuing to
accept public comments until October 7, 2011, but despite the
concerns of the numerous Tribal Nations and the First Nations
of Canada has recently received notice from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency of a ``Finding of No
Significant Impact'' from the proposed pipeline; and
Whereas, the U.S. Department of State did not properly
consult with the Tribes along the route of the Keystone XL
Pipeline and, as a result of the mechanisms used for what
consultation was provided, the affected Tribal Nations were
not provided the opportunity for ``free and informed
consent'' regarding the construction of the pipeline; and
Whereas, the GPTCA hereby urges all its member Tribal
Nations to submit comments to the U.S. Department of State
regarding the Keystone XL project as not in the tribal nor
the national interest; and
Whereas, Tribal Government Chairs and Presidents,
Traditional Treaty Councils, and US property owners, met with
the First Nations Chiefs of Canada, impacted by TransCanada's
proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and tar sands
development present at the Rosebud Sioux Tribe Emergency
Summit, September 15-16, 2011, on the protection of Mother
Earth and Treaty Territories, developed the Mother Earth
Accord for sign on by all First Nations and Tribal Nations:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's
Association stands in solidarity with the First Nations of
Canada and with Tribal Nations in the United States in
opposing the Keystone XL pipeline and the Exxon-Imperial
Heavy Haul proposal and their negative impacts on cultural
sites and the environment in those portions of Indian country
over and through which it is proposed to be constructed, and
disagrees with the Finding of No Significant Impact issued by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and agrees to file
these comments regarding this opposition to the Keystone XL
pipeline with the Secretary of State as soon as possible; and
Be it further resolved that the Great Plains Tribal
Chairman's Association approves the Mother Earth Accord among
the First Nations of Canada and the Tribal Nations within the
United States; and
Be it further resolved that the United States is urged to
reduce its reliance on the world's dirtiest and most
environmentally destructive form of oil--the ``tar sands''--
that threatens Indian country in both Canada and the United
States and the way of life of thousands of citizens of First
Nations in Canada and American Indians in the U.S., and
requests the U.S. government to take aggressive measures to
work towards sustainable energy solutions that include clean
alternative energy and improving energy efficiency; and
Be it finally resolved that the Great Plains Tribal
Chairman's Association requests a meeting with the Tribal
Leaders and Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State, and the
Administration to present the Mother Earth Accord and voice
the concerns of the US Tribal Nations and the First Nations
of Canada opposing the construction of the Keystone XL
Pipeline across Treaty Lands as not in the national interest:
Now, therefore be it finally
[[Page S531]]
Resolved that this resolution shall be the policy of the
Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association until otherwise
amended or rescinded or until the goal of this Resolution has
been accomplished.
CERTIFICATION
This resolution was enacted at a duly called meeting of the
Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association held at Rapid
City, SD on September 28, 2011 at which a quorum was present,
with 10 members voting in favor, 0 members opposed, 0 members
abstaining, and 6 members not present.
Dated this 28th day of September, 2011.
Mr. CARDIN. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
State of the Union Address
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about
President Obama's State of the Union Address last week. It was a speech
that I believe laid out a positive and forceful agenda for
strengthening our middle class and for accelerating our Nation's
economic recovery.
Over the past year, our Nation's economic progress has become
unmistakable and undeniable. In our home State of Delaware, more people
are working. People spend much less time looking for work, and job
growth has been the strongest it has been since the 1990s.
Nationally, we are amidst the longest period of sustained private-
sector job growth on record. Of particular interest to me is that our
manufacturing sector has come back and come back strongly as
manufacturers have created nearly 800,000 jobs in the last 4 years--
jobs that make up the foundation of our 21st century middle class and
our economy.
Our unemployment rate has dropped to its lowest level since before
the great recession. Our growing private sector is not just creating
jobs now. They are also laying the foundation for the jobs of the
future. As test scores continue to improve, high school graduation
rates reach record highs, and, as our President said, ``More Americans
finish college than ever before,'' we are laying a path that ensures
that future generations of Americans can thrive as well.
But our work remains unfinished. Although we are right to turn the
page on the crisis here at home, crises do remain real in the lives of
far too many Americans--families I listen to who are struggling to get
into and stay in our middle class. For many in the middle class, wages
have remained stubbornly stagnant as incomes for the wealthy have
continued to grow. At the same time, too many Americans just stopped
looking for work altogether during the recession and haven't begun that
job search again. So we have a lot of work to do together to ensure
that the middle class experiences the benefits of this recovery.
On that note, I appreciated President Obama's call for an agenda that
would do a lot to strengthen our middle class. Although this isn't what
we will hear about on the news, many of these ideas should enjoy
bipartisan support. I wish to spend a few minutes on some of the areas
that I think are ripe for bipartisan cooperation and that would go a
long way toward actually helping middle-class families and our Nation
as a whole.
First, it is no secret to anyone that our country's infrastructure is
badly outdated and in need of repair. From our ports and roads, to our
bridges and railways, we have steadily racked up a national debt of
investment that we will need to pay for. The only question is when and
how we do it. Historically, infrastructure--fixing roads and bridges
and ports and railways--has not been a partisan issue. It is something
that has been a core value of our Federal Government from its very
founding. It is in no small part what the Federal Government was
created to help do.
Last Tuesday the President laid out ideas for thinking more
creatively about how to make these core investments--from improving
efficiency to bringing private capital off the sidelines--and I am
encouraged to hear Republican colleagues discussing infrastructure as
an initiative they can work on with us. So let's get this done. Let's
solve our highway trust fund challenges for good and make the long-term
investments that will put people back to work and strengthen our
Nation's economic backbone.
Second, the President's proposal to expand access to community
colleges is an initiative that I hope will spark a broader discussion
about how to make higher education more accessible and more affordable.
I understand there is real disagreement here about how best to pay for
it or how wide its scope should be, but that is what we can and should
work on together.
We all know that higher education is necessary to ensure Americans
have the skills they will need in the 21st century. We know community
colleges can and should play a central role in achieving that mission.
In manufacturing in particular, community colleges such as Delaware
Tech in my home State play a central role in partnering with local
businesses to create a talent pipeline that sustains a community and
its economy. In Delaware the SEED and Inspire scholarships give
students who are willing to work hard the chance to go to college and
to learn the skills that will help them to contribute to Delaware's
economy after they finish school. We can replicate Delaware's example
across the country and find ways to work together to make community
college and further higher education affordable and accessible. So
let's work on this together.
Lastly, the President laid out some commonsense tax and work
proposals to help give middle-class families more of a realistic leg
up. Expanding the tax credits for families with children and
streamlining childcare support makes sense to me. Making it easier for
middle-class families to save for their kids' college education and to
save for retirement at the same time would go a long way toward helping
families to plan for the long term.
Around the country, too many of our work places lack family and
medical leave policies that appreciate what it really takes to raise a
family and live a healthy life. The President's proposal to work with
States to improve their policies would be a great step and would help
those communities that choose to, to create policies that suit their
own local situations.
Let's work together on these ideas. Let's do something for middle-
class families in our country. With a Republican Congress and a
Democratic White House, we need to come together if we are going to get
anything meaningful done. As President Obama made clear, we have a lot
of important and difficult work to do. Our economy has come a long way
from the great recession, but there is still work to do to strengthen
our middle class. There is still work to do to broaden the opportunity
that has always been at the heart of the American dream. We can move
forward together, and it is my sincere hope that we will rise to that
occasion, that we will seize this opportunity and do the critical work
of building and sustaining our vital middle class.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Amendment No. 48 to Amendment No. 2
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up on behalf of Senator Gillibrand amendment
No. 48.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell], for Mrs.
Gillibrand, proposes an amendment numbered 48 to amendment
No. 2.
Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To modify the definition of underground injection)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
[[Page S532]]
SEC. __. DEFINITION OF UNDERGROUND INJECTION.
Section 1421(d)(1) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42
U.S.C. 300h(d)(1)) is amended by striking subparagraph (B)
and inserting the following:
``(B) includes the underground injection of natural gas for
purposes of storage.''.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, this amendment amends the Safe Drinking
Water Act to protect clean drinking water sources from hydraulic
fracturing, commonly known as fracking, and from underground storage of
natural gas.
The Safe Drinking Water Act currently exempts underground injection
of fracking fluids and underground storage of natural gas from
regulation under the act. The Gillibrand amendment repeals those
exemptions and makes underground injection of fracking fluids and
underground storage of natural gas subject to those regulations.
I know my colleague from New York has been on the floor many times--
actually three times, I think--at various times during this debate
trying to offer this amendment. I am offering it on her behalf tonight.
I am sure she will be looking for time to come and discuss it further.
Amendment No. 55 to Amendment No. 2
Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 55 on behalf of Senator
Peters.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington, [Ms. Cantwell], for Mr.
Peters, for himself and Ms. Stabenow, proposes an amendment
numbered 55 to amendment No. 2.
Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require a study of the potential environmental impact of
by-products of the Keystone XL pipeline)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. STUDY OF BY-PRODUCT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall complete and make publicly available
on the Internet a study assessing the potential environmental
impact of by-products generated from the refining of oil
transported through the pipeline referred to in section
(2)(a), including petroleum coke.
(b) Report.--On completion of the study required under
subsection (a), the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall submit to Congress a report on the
results of the study, including a summary of best practices
for the transportation, storage, and handling of petroleum
coke.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the Peters amendment No. 55 would
require the EPA to complete a study on the environmental impacts of
petcoke. My colleague has been here on the floor speaking on the tar
sands issue in general because Kalamazoo had one of the worst tar sands
oilspills in the Nation's history. He has been on the floor talking
about the things we need to do to protect people not just in the State
of Michigan but throughout the United States.
One of the aftermath effects of this issue is also petcoke, which my
colleague from Illinois has been speaking to on the floor. This is a
very big issue for midwest Senators who have an amount of petcoke in
their communities and want to see the proper environmental treatment of
it.
I am sure Senator Peters will be back to the floor to speak in more
detail on amendment No. 55, but I offer it on his behalf.
I see the Senator from New Jersey, and I think he is here to speak on
another matter, but I will yield the floor at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
70th Anniversary of the Liberation of Auschwitz
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished ranking member
of the energy committee for yielding me some time this evening. I am
not here for the purposes of legislation we have been debating; I am
here to take time on the Senate floor on an occasion that I think is
incredibly important to recollect, to commemorate, and to talk about.
Seventy years ago today a Soviet soldier, Ivan Martynushkin, arrived
with his unit at the death camp at Auschwitz, and he said in an
interview that he was instantly struck by the silence, the smell of
ashes, and the emptiness. But as they entered the gates, Ivan and his
unit were unaware of the atrocities, the war crimes that were to come
to light over time.
Today I rise in memory of the 1.1 million persons who perished there,
90 percent of them Jews. I rise in recognition of 1.1 million lost
dreams, lost hopes, the lost wisdom of 1.1 million that will never be
shared, never be known, and the lost potential of a generation that
perished in that camp between 1940 and 1945.
Ivan Martynushkin and his unit entered the camp thinking there would
be a Nazi ambush, and then they noticed people behind barbed wire. ``It
was hard to watch them,'' he said. ``I remember their faces, especially
their eyes, which betrayed their ordeal.'' Ivan didn't know that the
Nazis had evacuated another 58,000 prisoners 10 days earlier or the 6
million who were killed in camps across Europe.
He stood witness that day to the ultimate manifestation of man's
inhumanity to their fellow man--7,000 prisoners left behind, 600
corpses born of hatred, intolerance, prejudice, bigotry, and a seething
anti-Semitism that is again rearing its ugly head in Europe, the Middle
East, and around the world.
There has been an alarming increase in anti-Semitic attacks and
incidents in Europe that remain a challenge not only to stability and
to security but to our shared morality, our mutually ethical core as
human beings. Just two weeks ago, on January 9, 2015, four members of
France's Jewish community were murdered during a hostage crisis at
Hyper Cacher--a kosher supermarket--following the deadly terrorist
attack on the Paris offices of the newspaper Charlie Hebdo.
The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights issued a 2013 report
on anti-Semitism in France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Belgium,
Sweden, and the United Kingdom, where 90 percent of Europe's Jews
reside, in which three-quarters of respondents said that anti-Semitism
had worsened over the past 5 years where they lived.
In France, home to Europe's largest Jewish population, it has been
reported that the number of French Jews immigrating to Israel in 2014
had doubled compared to 2013. And for the first time ever, more Jews
moved to Israel from France than any other country in the world.
Anti-Semitic acts in European countries in 2014 included violent
attacks, death threats, and the desecration of Jewish homes, commercial
property, cemeteries, and places of worship. On May 24, 2014, a gunman
opened fire at the Jewish Museum of Belgium in Brussels, Belgium, and
killed four people. On July 29, Molotov cocktails were thrown at the
synagogue in Wuppertal, Germany, which had been burned to the ground by
the Nazis during the 1938 Kristallnacht and had only been rebuilt in
2002.
We have all been shocked by the recent disturbingly stereotypical
anti-Semitic utterances of President Erdogan of Turkey and those around
him. He said in February of 2013, ``Today the image of the Jews is no
different from that of the Nazis.'' Speaking at a campaign rally in the
Black Sea province of Ordu, he said the ``terrorist State Israel has
attacked Gaza once again, hitting innocent children who were playing on
a beach,'' and the crowd chanted ``Down the Israel.'' Erdogan said,
``The world's media is under the influence of Israel.'' He said,
``Wherever Jews settle, they make money.'' He claimed during the 2013
Gezi Park protests that the Europeans and what he stereotypically
referred to as the ``interest-rate lobby'' were backing the
antigovernment campaign, with the ultimate goal of dividing Turkey from
within.
A Turkish writer aligned with President Erdogan called for Turkish
Jews to be taxed to pay for Gaza reconstruction. He said:
The reconstruction of Gaza will be paid for by Jewish
businessmen.
He went on to say:
The penalty for failing to pay the tax should be the
revocation of the Jew's business license and the seizure of
his property.
This is the kind of anti-Semitism we hear in Turkey today.
[[Page S533]]
Around the world, the numbers are shocking. Based on the global
survey, the ADL concluded that 1.09 billion people harbor anti-Semitic
attitudes. Thirty-five percent never heard of the Holocaust.
If the world does not stand together in never forgetting and if our
schools, teachers, parents, and communities do not join together in the
fundamental principle of never forgetting, how can we prevent this from
ever happening again? How can we work together to confront the anti-
Semitism that enables hatred, violence, murder, and genocide around the
world?
We can only ask what tomorrow might bring. We cannot know what the
future will hold, but we have learned from the past. What we remember
today--70 years after the liberation of Auschwitz--is that the United
States and the American people will always stand shoulder to shoulder
with the Israeli people and Jewish communities across the world in
ensuring never again. This means confronting modern-day anti-Semitism,
whether from the world's leaders, from ivory tower academics, or from
economic belligerence pushing the boycott, divestment, and sanctions
movement. We must fight back against any and all efforts to
delegitimize the Israeli State, the Jewish people, and the Jewish
religion.
As I have said many times, on many occasions, the Holocaust was the
most sinister possible reminder that the Jewish population in exile has
lived under constant threat. It is the definitive reminder that anti-
Semitism can appear anywhere, and its horrors galvanized international
support for the State of Israel.
But let's be very clear. While the Shoah has a central role in
Israel's identity, it is not and never has been the reason behind
Israel's founding, and it is not the main justification for its
existence. The extreme characterization of this mistaken view is that
Western powers established Israel in 1948 based on their own guilt, at
the expense of the peoples who already lived there, and therefore the
current state is illegitimate and, according to religious clerics such
as Supreme Leader Khamenei, who retains his own aspirations for
regional hegemony, should be wiped off the face of the map.
This flawed argument is not only in defiance of basic human dignity
but in plain defiance of history, in defiance of what we remember
today. It is in defiance of ancient history, as told in biblical texts
and through archeological evidence. It ignores the history of the last
several centuries, and it stands in stark contrast to what we remember
today. Several thousand years of history lead to an undeniable
conclusion: The reestablishment of the State of Israel in modern times
is a political reality with roots going back to the time of Abraham and
Sarah.
At the end of the day, the argument for Israel's legitimacy does not
depend on what we say in speeches and what we say on an occasion like
this. It has been made by the hard reality of history. It has been made
by the men and women who made the desert green, by Nobel Prizes earned,
by groundbreaking innovations and enviable institutions, by lives
saved, democracy defended, peace made, and battles won.
There can be no denying the Jewish people's legitimate right to live
in peace and security in a homeland to which they have had a connection
for thousands of years. And there can be no denying the suffering, the
senseless slaughter of a generation, and all that the world realized we
had lost when Ivan Martynushkin and his unit walked through those gates
and liberated Auschwitz-Birkenau, a reminder for all times of the
racism and hatred from the most devastating genocide in human history.
As we commemorate the victims of the Holocaust, let us never forget.
But let us be very clear as we look around the world today that the
struggle is not over. Combating anti-Semitism is not only a Jewish
issue of the past, it is a matter of basic civil and human rights
today, now, in the present.
Like those Russian soldiers 70 years ago, I have personally stood at
the gates of Auschwitz-Birkenau. I felt the impact, the horror, the
silence, the emptiness, and I felt the lives lost. It is a moving
experience that should compel all of us to collectively reflect on how
we must transform the lessons we should have learned into concrete acts
to prevent history from repeating itself.
Now is the time to renew the vow ``never again'' with even greater
resolve.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Executive Action
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we Americans are so fortunate to enjoy
the blessings of liberty. We protect our rights as individuals, and we
have a legal system that demands that government officials respect
those rights and respect the law.
Historically some nations have lost their freedoms in revolutions. In
others a leader gradually undermined the rule of law. Once the rule of
law is dismantled, the road to dictatorship is easily traveled.
In a country under the rule of law, government officials are bound by
that law.
When the Framers wrote our Constitution, they feared that the Federal
Government might grow too strong. They divided and limited the powers
among three branches. They made sure to preserve State power to serve
as a check on the Federal power, and they also provided that where the
Federal Government had the authority to make uniform laws, contrary
State laws gave way.
To make sure everyone would be subject to the law, they entrusted the
President with the duty to ``take Care that the Laws be faithfully
executed.''
President Obama has repeatedly failed to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed. He has repeatedly violated the Constitution. His
administration has not conformed its conduct to law.
His administration therefore has undermined the rule of law. Often
patterns repeat. The President proposes legislation that the American
people do not want, so the Congress naturally refuses to enact it.
The President then decides that he will take Executive action as if
Congress had enacted that law. Another pattern is he claims the
authority to take various actions but fails to produce an opinion from
the Department of Justice that coherently supports his authority. That
creates a terrible lack of accountability.
We have also seen the President pick and choose which laws he will
enforce, claiming that the ability to make individual enforcement
decisions extends to failing to enforce the laws in millions of
instances, and the President has simply failed to take notice when the
Supreme Court has ruled he has exceeded his powers.
I know my colleagues think these are serious charges, and they are.
I wish to outline a number of instances where the President or his
administration, acting at his discretion, has failed to follow the
Constitution or the laws. Regrettably I will only be able to touch on
some of the examples.
The President has attempted to unconstitutionally limit the powers of
States through ObamaCare. He threatened the States that did not expand
Medicaid would lose their existing Medicaid funds. The Supreme Court
ruled 7 to 2 for the first time that a condition on Federal spending
was so coercive to the States as to be unconstitutional.
Another President might have been careful after such a rebuke by the
highest Court in the land to be mindful of State power--after all, it
included one of the Justices that the President himself appointed to
the Supreme Court--but not this President taking notice of what the
Court said.
President Obama's EPA then turned around and has not followed the
rule of law. It wrongly recognizes no limit to Federal power or to its
own power.
Despite the fact that Congress rejected his cap-and-trade proposal,
his EPA issued greenhouse gas regulations
[[Page S534]]
that would require States to develop plans that meet EPA-established
emission standards. Once EPA approved them, EPA would then order the
States to enforce the standards.
Supporters of EPA argued that the threat from pollutants under the
Clean Air Act, a category in which they erroneously include carbon
dioxide, justified EPA's action, but the ``end justifies the means'' is
an argument that is totally at odds with the concept of rule of law.
EPA's approach is unconstitutional. Just as a State cannot be coerced
by Federal spending programs, it cannot be commandeered to enact
Federal dictates. This is a well-established rule of the 10th
Amendment, otherwise the States would lose their sovereignty.
Responsibility and therefore accountability would be blurred as
voters could not tell which level of government to blame for unpopular
policies. Among those who recognize that EPA has acted
unconstitutionally is the President's own liberal constitutional law
professor, Laurence Tribe of Harvard.
He wrote that it was his own view that the EPA is ``asserting
executive power far beyond its lawful authority.''
He also wrote: ``Frustration with congressional inaction cannot
justify throwing the Constitution overboard.''
President Obama also acted unconstitutionally when he made what he
said were valid recess appointments, even though the Senate was not in
recess. Although Presidents had been making recess appointments for
more than 200 years, the President's use of the power was once again
unprecedented.
He was armed with a Justice Department opinion that laughably argued
that the President could ignore when the Senate said it was in session
to make such appointments.
The Supreme Court rejected the President's so-called recess
appointments unanimously. That meant of course that both of the
Justices President Obama appointed rejected his claim that he could
determine when the Senate was in recess, even though the Constitution
makes it very clear, and it also rejected the Justice Department's
arguments that supposedly allowed the President to make that recess
appointment in violation of the Constitution.
But the President, similar to the old French Kings, learns nothing
and forgets nothing when it comes to respecting the limits of
Presidential power.
Despite the lodging of the power in the Constitution to Congress
alone to enact uniform laws of naturalization, the President decided to
enable millions of people who entered the country without documents to
remain without congressional approval.
In fact, at a recent Judiciary Committee hearing we heard testimony
that the administration's misuse of parole authority under this
directive would allow many individuals who are here illegally to obtain
green cards without Congress changing a word of the immigration laws.
This follows the President's earlier decision when Congress would not
pass the DREAM Act to give benefits to undocumented aliens, as if that
bill had been enacted into law.
In both of these instances, the supposed justification for
noncompliance with the law is that the need is so great. This is a
siren song that supporters of the rule of law must reject.
Texas and a number of other States have already filed suit
challenging the immigration order's constitutionality, as well as its
violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
In an unrelated case, Federal district court has already found parts
of the order to be unlawful. The President also has claimed enforcement
discretion in failing to enforce other Federal criminal laws.
The Controlled Substances Act prohibits marijuana possession
nationwide. Under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, State laws
to the contrary are unconstitutional.
Normally the Federal Government sues States that enact such laws. But
when Colorado and other States legalized marijuana, the Obama
administration directed Federal law enforcement to refrain from using
its resources to enforce Federal law in those States. It did not make
individualized prosecutorial decisions but a very blanket refusal to
enforce Federal law, contrary to the oath.
Nebraska and Oklahoma, rather than the Federal Government, have sued
Colorado, as those neighboring States argue they face a significant
increase in marijuana and other drug-related harms as a result of the
Colorado law.
To make matters worse, Attorney General Holder is expanding his
refusal to apply Federal marijuana laws to Indian reservations. Those
reservations depend upon Federal law enforcement.
He plans to allow tribes to petition unelected local prosecutors to
decide whether the same nonenforcement of marijuana laws' policy will
apply to those reservations. Apart from the rule of law question, it
must be kept in mind that these reservations are in States that still
want to see marijuana illegal. As a matter of policy, rates of illegal
drug use are higher on Indian reservations, with all of the associated
health and crime consequences.
Again, this goes to the heart of the rule of law.
Does anyone believe if a State decided dealers could sell guns
without conducting the federally required background checks, that the
Obama administration would ignore those States? Anyone who approves
what President Obama has done under the guise of enforcement discretion
will have no cause to complain about a future President's decision to
allocate scarce resources.
For instance, he could decide that the ObamaCare individual mandate,
which is constitutional according to the Supreme Court--only because it
is a tax--will not be enforced against anyone who does not buy
government-approved health insurance.
President Obama has also violated the law when he released five
Taliban fighters who were detained at Guantanamo in exchange for an
American sergeant. As the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office
concluded, the failure to notify Congress 30 days before such transfer,
and to provide a justification, was a violation of law.
I have asked the Justice Department for the justification they
prepared for this move by the President. To this day, the President
refuses to produce the Justice Department's opinion that purports to
legally justify this action, contrary to the law passed by Congress.
The American people can draw their own conclusions as to whether that
means a well-reasoned legal argument exists that the President could
legally act as he did.
The rule of law ensures that government officials and agencies obey
the law. Under the Constitution, Federal agencies can only exercise the
power that Congress gives them. They cannot do whatever they want. Now
that is obvious to any high school government class. But in the Obama
administration, where too many agencies do not believe in limited
government, agencies are lawlessly exceeding their powers. This
lawlessness is a major reason why polls show that Americans believe the
Federal Government is overregulated.
Let's take a look at the EPA again. Not only has the EPA violated the
Constitution and exceeded its powers on the Clean Air Act, that agency
has violated a core Federal statute--the Administrative Procedures Act.
The Administrative Procedures Act sets forth the process by which
agencies can issue regulations and conduct other administrative
business.
For instance, under the APA, an agency can issue a regulation that is
binding on citizens with penalties for noncompliance only if that
agency pursues notice-and-comment rulemaking.
This process, consistent with notions of due process and fairness,
requires any agency to issue a proposed rule, seek public comment,
respond to public comment, and modify the proposed rule to reflect
those comments when it issues a final rule. The process is this way to
assure accountability, to ensure transparency and input from regulated
entities. Courts can strike down the regulation if the agency fails to
comply with the Administrative Procedures Act.
They can also strike down the regulation where the agency exceeds its
statutory powers or where the agency's interpretation of law that is
said to justify the regulation does not reflect a legitimate reading of
the statute. Courts give greater deference to an agency's
interpretations of statutes that are taken after proceeding through the
notice-and-comment process.
The EPA recently violated the Administrative Procedures Act in my own
[[Page S535]]
State of Iowa. The EPA wrote letters to Iowa municipalities setting
forth specific requirements that they said must be followed to meet
their obligations under the Clean Water Act. The cities challenged the
EPA because the two letters effectively imposed new regulatory
requirements. They argued the EPA could not impose regulatory
obligations simply by letter but needed to proceed by notice-and-
comment rulemaking--the Administrative Procedures Act requirements.
They also argued that so-called informal guidance imposes subtle
pressures on regulated entities to comply even if the EPA does not call
its actions a regulation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed and struck
down the requirements EPA imposed on those cities just by issuing
letters. However, the EPA has since publicly stated, as a lot of
government agencies do, that the EPA would only comply with the ruling
in the Eighth Circuit.
So here we have a situation where there is a national law, the
actions of the EPA are struck down in the Eighth Circuit, and now that
law is going to be applied one way in the Eighth Circuit and the other
way in the rest of the States. In other words, the EPA has proclaimed
it intends to continue to impose these illegal requirements on
municipalities in those States outside the Eighth Circuit, in clear
violation of the APA.
The EPA is not alone in failing to comply with the Administrative
Procedures Act. The Department of Education issued what it termed
informal guidance concerning campus sexual assault last year without
public input.
I hope we can see a pattern here, whether it is by letter by the EPA
to Iowa municipalities or whether it is something called informal
guidance by the Department of Education. These are all terms trying to
get around the legal requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act
to get things done faster by these agencies, because following the rule
of law is kind of an encumbrance they do not want to go through.
In regard to what the Department of Education did, at a HELP
Committee hearing the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine
Lhamon stated that she expected colleges and universities to comply
with that guidance that was not a regulation under the Administrative
Procedures Act. Of course, that meant what the Department was calling
informal guidance was really a regulation that could only be issued
after engaging in notice-and-comment rulemaking.
When Senator Alexander, who is chairman of the committee now, asked
her who gave her the authority to issue the guidance, she responded,
incredibly--and I emphasize incredibly--``Well, with gratitude, you
did, when I was confirmed.''
So you get confirmed by 100 Members of the Senate and you can do
whatever you want to regardless of law? No. This is the United States,
where we operate under the rule of law and the constitution. It is not
France in the age of Louis XIV where government officials say, L'Etat
c'est moi. I am the State, in other words.
Senate confirmation means only that a person has been legally
installed in a job. But once confirmed, the agency official can only
act in accordance with the laws governing their agency.
I support the Department's overall goal of holding accountable those
who commit campus sexual assault, but it has to be done lawfully. By
issuing so-called guidance that, by her own admission, she expected
colleges and universities to follow, the Department exceeded its lawful
powers.
Separate from excluding the public from having any say in the rules
that have governed their conduct, bureaucrats have many incentives--too
many incentives--to ignore the Administrative Procedures Act.
Imagine: Formal rulemaking takes time. A formal notice of proposed
rulemaking is followed by the public's comment period, then the agency
responds to comments and modifies their proposed rule before it is made
final. The Office of Management and Budget reviews the regulation and
can block or modify it. The Office of Management and Budget makes
agencies justify the costs and benefits of their rules, reduce burdens
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, and also prepare a federalism impact
statement for those proposed rules.
Agencies that want to regulate without oversight can subvert the
whole process of issuing binding rules under the cover of ``informal
guidance.'' It is so much faster for bureaucrats to issue dictates to
whomever they want for whatever reason they want.
By avoiding the Administrative Procedures Act, these unelected
agencies violate the whole separation of powers. They act legislatively
in violation of the limited authority Congress provides a particular
agency. Then they are free to issue even more rules, restricting the
freedom of American people and increasing the role of unelected
bureaucrats in telling other people what to do. Reductions in freedom
are ultimately manifestations of a failure to follow the rule of law.
We are already headed in that direction. The Supreme Court has before
it a case now from the Labor Department, where one of the issues
discussed at oral argument was whether that agency was required to
proceed by notice-and-comment rulemaking rather than through
interpretive rules. We shall see, then, whether the Court addresses
that issue or focuses instead on what level of deference a court gives
when agencies change their position without proceeding through
Administrative Procedures Act rulemaking.
But even if the issue of the necessity of engaging in notice-and-
comment rulemaking is not addressed in that case, the Court, before
long, will reach that question. When it does, I believe it will find
that what the Obama administration has been doing is clearly illegal.
President Obama's claims of Executive power are unprecedented. He is
creating a general precedent of a Presidency unrestrained by law.
When Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated in the darkest days of the
Great Depression, he called on Congress to act to respond to the
emergency as well as giving him powers to address it. He did issue
Executive orders, such as declaring a bank holiday, but he did not say
that he had a phone and a pen and that he would do whatever he felt was
necessary regardless of whether Congress acted. Rather, he said that if
the powers Congress gave him to address the emergency were inadequate,
he would ask Congress to provide him with the powers Congress would
give a President in the event of a foreign invasion.
Those are extensive powers. But he was determined to ask Congress for
power, not to act unilaterally because the ends justified the means. He
wanted to use all the powers available under the Constitution, not
exceed those powers.
Not only does the Constitution further government compliance with the
rule of law through the separation of powers, it also sets up an
executive branch that can act to check itself. Executive officials have
their own legal powers that the President cannot interfere with. They
can also refuse to carry out illegal Presidential orders.
We have a very good example from the dark days of Watergate. The
Nixon administration exceeded its powers too. When that happened, there
were administration officials who pushed back against their own
President who appointed them. The appropriate Justice Department
official told President Nixon he would haul him into Federal Court if
there were evidence of his criminality. Attorney General Elliott
Richardson and Deputy Attorney General Ruckelhaus resigned rather than
fire the Watergate special prosecutor, as the President had
ordered. People of conscience do sometimes resign or threaten to do so,
and that increases public pressure on the President to obey the law.
Who in the Obama administration has ever stood up against his
lawlessness? No one, as far as I know. No one has resigned from the
Justice Department as it has become a rubberstamp for wild claims of
Presidential power that exceed the Constitution and violate the laws.
What lawyer in the EPA or any other Department has stopped her agency
from acting unconstitutionally by exceeding the powers that Congress
has specifically delegated under various statutes? What lawyer has
stopped an agency from violating the Administrative Procedures Act by
issuing binding rules on the public without public comment?
[[Page S536]]
I regret to say that the Congress up to now has too often been
complicit with Presidential assaults on the rule of law. When President
Obama eviscerated the core Senate prerogative of advice and consent by
making unconstitutional recess appointments, not one single Democrat in
this body objected. This is where the real harm of excessive
partisanship manifests itself.
Time and again, the previous majority in this body refused to take
action against any Presidential action that violated the law if they
agreed with the policy being pursued by the President. This sort of
nonactivity is not why the Constitution created the Congress. Whatever
its flaws, an active Congress that defends its legislative prerogatives
and conducts effective oversight of Executive illegality is vital to
preserving liberty.
In one historical example, the process of transformation from
democracy to dictatorship was completed when the Parliament voted
itself out of existence.
The Framers did not intend a Congress to sit idly by as the President
violates the Constitution and the laws. In Federalist 51, James Madison
wrote that the separation of powers was vital to the preservation of
liberty. He noted that checks and balances would be effective in
keeping each branch within its prescribed constitutional role because
each had, in his words:
. . . the necessary constitutional means and personal
motives to resist encroachments of the others. . . . Ambition
must be made to counteract ambition.
Recently, the Senate has failed to counteract unlimited Executive
ambition. That must change and, as a result of the last election,
should change. Will it change? I sure hope so.
I trust that under our new leadership, the Senate will take action
for the government to control itself, and to restore the rule of law
that has been so badly damaged in recent years, because if we take the
spirit of the Declaration of Independence--and remember, prior to that
Declaration, the colonies decided they did not want one person, George
III, making decisions affecting millions of people on this side of the
ocean. So they were very careful, when they declared independence and
they wrote a Constitution a few years later, to make sure they carried
out the spirit of the Declaration of Independence that:
. . . they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of happiness.
Not by our government, but by nature or by our Creator.
So they put into this Constitution assurances so there could never be
a George III again, and separated all the powers so one person didn't
have all the power.
Now we see one person trying to exercise the power of several
branches of government, as George III tried to do. So we are over that
hurdle. All we have to do is make sure that the checks and balances the
government worked--the same checks and balances that every high school
kid learns in government class, to make sure that one person doesn't do
it, and that our liberties are protected by a government that operates
under the rule of law. And that Constitution is our rule of law.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 245 to Amendment No. 2
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the pending amendment so that I may call up amendment No. 245 on behalf
of Senator Barrasso.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski], for Mr. Barrasso,
proposes an amendment numbered 245 to amendment No. 2.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To clarify that treaties with Indian tribes remain in effect)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. NO EFFECT ON INDIAN TREATIES.
Nothing in this Act may change, suspend, supersede, or
abrogate any trust obligation or treaty requirement of the
United States with respect to any Indian nation without
consultation with the applicable Indian nation, as required
under Executive Order 13175 (67 Fed. Reg. 67249) (November 6,
2000).
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DAINES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 246 to Amendment No. 2
Mr. DAINES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment in order to call up amendment No. 246.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Montana [Mr. Daines] proposes an amendment
numbered 246 to amendment No. 2.
Mr. DAINES. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that reauthorizing the Land
and Water Conservation Fund should be a priority)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. _. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING REAUTHORIZATION OF LAND
AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Land and Water Conservation Fund plays an important
role in improving wildlife habitat and increasing outdoor
recreation opportunities on Federal and State land; and
(2) reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund
should be a priority for Congress and should include
improvements to the structure of the program to more
effectively manage existing Federal land.
Mr. DAINES. Madam President, as a fifth-generation Montanan and
lifelong sportsman, I have a deep appreciation for our public lands.
Hunting, fishing, and hiking on our public lands are important parts of
many Montanan's way of life. These are traditions I have enjoyed in my
life and traditions I have also enjoyed with my kids.
It is important our State's outdoor heritage is protected for future
generations. That is why protecting and increasing access to public
lands is so important. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been
instrumental in increasing access to our public lands, growing
opportunities for outdoor recreation and protecting wildlife. There is
great potential for the program to be used to improve the management of
our existing Federal lands.
In fact, there is much improvement to be made to make Federal land
management more effective. My amendment will express the sense of the
Congress that the Land and Water Conservation Fund plays an important
role in improving wildlife habitat and increasing outdoor recreation
opportunities on Federal as well as State land. It will also convey
that reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund should be a
priority for Congress and should include improvements in the structure
of the program to more effectively manage existing Federal land.
Montana's outdoor heritage is of great importance to our State's
economy and thousands of Montanans' way of life. We must work to
improve programs such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund so it
will work better for Montanans and all Americans.
Supporting and improving the Land and Water Conservation Fund will
help us ensure this legacy is continued for future generations.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page S537]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on
Wednesday, January 28, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote
in relation to the following amendments in the order listed: Cardin No.
75, Peters No. 70, Sanders No. 23, Cruz No. 15, Merkley No. 125, Moran
No. 73, Whitehouse No. 148, Daines No. 132, Coons No. 115, Collins No.
35, Carper No. 120, Murkowski No. 166, Heitkamp No. 133, Gillibrand No.
48, Barrasso No. 245, Cardin No. 124, Daines No. 246, and Burr No. 92,
as modified with the changes at the desk; further, that all amendments
on this list be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption
and that no second-degrees be in order to the amendments. I ask consent
that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between each vote,
and that all votes after the first in the series be 10-minute votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 92), as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. PERMANENT REAUTHORIZATION OF LAND AND WATER
CONSERVATION FUND.
(a) In General.--Section 200302 of title 54, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``During the period ending September 30,
2015, there'' and inserting ``There''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``through September
30, 2015''.
(b) Public Access.--Section 200306 of title 54, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Public Access.--Not less than 1.5 percent of amounts
made available for expenditure under section 200303 or
$10,000,000, whichever is greater, shall be available each
fiscal year for projects that secure recreational public
access to existing Federal public land for hunting, fishing,
and other recreational purposes.''.
____________________