[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15682-15701]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ACT OF 2014--Resumed

  Pending:

       Reid motion to concur in the House amendment to the bill.
       Reid motion to concur in the House amendment to the bill, 
     with Reid Amendment No. 3923 (to the motion to concur in the 
     House amendment), to change the enactment date.
       Reid Amendment No. 3924 (to Amendment No. 3923), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid motion to refer the House Message on the bill to the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, with 
     instructions, Reid Amendment No. 3925, to change the 
     enactment date.
       Reid Amendment No. 3926 (to (the instructions) Amendment 
     No. 3925), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid Amendment No. 3927 (to Amendment No. 3926), of a 
     perfecting nature.


                            Motion To Concur

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for up to 10 minutes; that following my remarks Senator Warren be 
recognized for 2 minutes; that Senator Landrieu then be recognized to 
speak for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 15683]]




                Tribute to Former Congressman Lane Evans

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in this week of Veterans Day, I would like 
to take a few moments to speak about a very brave marine who was a 
great friend of mine and a true champion of America's veterans. 
Congressman Lane Evans of Illinois passed away last Wednesday. He was 
only 63 years old. Lane had been battling Parkinson's disease for 
nearly 20 years. A few years ago, another illness, Lewy body disease, 
began attacking his memory. One cruel disease ravaged his body as the 
other assaulted his brain. But his spirit and his quiet courage 
remained unbroken to the end.
  Lane Evans and I were both elected to the U.S. House of 
Representatives in 1982, two surprised Democrats who were elected in 
traditionally Republican, conservative, downstate congressional 
districts. We were both sons of blue-collar families. We both learned 
our values from our parents, our neighbors, the nuns and priests at 
school. We both learned from politicians who were leaders in our State, 
such as Senator Paul Simon.
  Lane and I worked closely together in Congress. Parkinson's forced 
Lane Evans to retire from Congress in 2007, long before his time. We 
remained friends. I used to visit him. When I did, we would share our 
favorite stories about political adventures. Lane Evans was a kind and 
good person. He was funny, with a razor-sharp intellect, and he was 
courageous.
  He joined the Marines 2 weeks after graduating from high school. It 
was 1969. Lane was 17 years old. Military service was a tradition in 
the Evans family. Lane's dad had served in the Navy. One of Lane's 
brothers was already serving in Vietnam so Lane was stationed stateside 
and then in Okinawa. After 2 years in the Marines, he came home and 
used the GI bill to earn a college degree, graduating magna cum laude 
from Augustana College in Rock Island. Then he earned a law degree from 
Georgetown. He came home again and started a successful law practice in 
Rock Island serving children, the poor, and working families.
  In 1982, Lane Evans decided to make a run for Congress. He may have 
been the only person in the beginning who thought he had a prayer of 
winning. He had never run for office before. He was all of 31 years of 
age. He looked as though he was 21 on a good day. History was against 
him. Voters in that district had only elected a Democratic Congressman 
once in the previous century. That had been only for 2 years.
  Lane Evans worked hard. He got lucky when the incumbent Congressman, 
a lifelong Republican and moderate, lost to a hard-right challenger. On 
election night in 1982, Lane Evans and I were both elected to the U.S. 
House of Representatives for the first time. It was my third try to get 
elected. It was Lane's first. He never lost after that. He served 24 
years in the House. His voting record was often to the left of many of 
his constituents, but he was unapologetic. Voters reelected Lane over 
and over because they knew he was honest, forthright, and he cared 
about them. He was straightforward and sincere. People knew he was a 
man of principle who would always vote his conscience no matter what.
  When it came to constituent service, Lane Evans set the standard. 
Lane and his staff were so good at cutting through bureaucratic redtape 
that the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee 
once joked that ``two-thirds of the people in his district think that 
he signs their Social Security checks.''
  Lane's speeches were always packed and not because he was a great 
speaker. People came to Lane's speeches because of what happened after. 
He never left a speech until everyone in the audience who wanted to 
speak to him had their chance. Lane's dad was a firefighter, his mom a 
nurse.
  In the blue-collar neighborhood where he grew up, their steady 
incomes made the Evans family better off than most of their neighbors. 
As a young lawyer and Member of Congress, Lane Evans fought for people 
such as the parents of his childhood friends who worked shifts in 
factories and fire houses. He was a champion of blue-collar workers and 
senior citizens.
  Lane fought for fair trade, a fair minimum wage, and the right to 
collectively bargain. He worked for a cleaner environment and 
protection of family farmers. He fought to give students from working-
class families the same chance he had to get a good college education. 
He was a giant on the House Armed Services Committee. He understood the 
Rock Island Arsenal was more than just an arsenal for our Nation's 
defense, it was a major, important employer in his district. Most of 
all--most of all--Lane Evans fought for veterans. This week of Veterans 
Day is a good time to remember how much Lane Evans of Illinois meant to 
America's veterans and their families. He made veterans's concerns the 
cornerstone of his congressional career. He was the first chairman of 
the Vietnam-era Veterans Congressional Caucus and the first Vietnam-era 
veteran to serve as ranking member of the House Veteran's Affairs 
Committee.
  He was also the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. 
During his time in Congress, there was no Federal program for veterans 
that did not bear Lane Evans' mark. Veterans today enjoy increased 
education benefits, improved health care, strengthened home loans, 
judicial review of their benefits, additional opportunities for 
veteran-owned businesses, and a host of other improved benefits because 
of the leadership, determination, and heart of Lane Evans.
  From his earliest days in Congress, Lane Evans pushed for action on 
issues helping Vietnam veterans. He was an outspoken advocate to 
address the problems and embarrassment of the homeless and substance 
abuse among Vietnam veterans. In his first term he led the effort to 
create a pilot tram establishing community-based veterans centers to 
help with job and marriage counseling and post-traumatic stress 
syndrome long before it was a popular term.
  The program has since grown to include veterans centers all across 
America. Lane Evans led the fight to give compensation for Vietnam 
veterans exposed to Agent Orange and for their kids born with spina 
bifida as a result of that exposure. It was not just his war that 
concerned him. He was one of the first Members of Congress to push for 
more information about the Gulf War Syndrome. He supported increased 
opportunities for women in the military, an early supporter for full 
civil rights for gays in the military.
  Paul Rieckhoff, the CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, 
here is what he said about Lane:

       In the early days of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Lane 
     was one of the first members of Congress to take on issues 
     like PTSD and TBI.

  Traumatic brain injury.

       He helped put our issues on the map.

  Lane Evans worked to include Parkinson's research as part of funding 
for the VA, to make sure veterans suffering from this disease received 
the best possible care. He worked with Senator Leahy, then-Senator 
Hagel, and the Vietnam Veterans of America to push for a U.S. and 
international ban on the production of antipersonnel landmines.
  He was awarded the Vietnam Veterans of America's first annual 
President's Award for Outstanding Achievement in 1990. In 1994, the 
AMVETs gave him the Silver Helmet Award, known as the ``Oscar'' of 
veterans' honors.
  This is how Lane explained his commitment to veterans. He said:

       Our veterans--those returning from Iraq, those who scaled 
     the cliffs above the beaches of Normandy, those who walked 
     point in the jungles of Vietnam, those who survived the 
     brutality of Korea and other battlefields, all who honorably 
     served or who are now serving, have earned the assurance that 
     VA--their system--will be there when they need it. ``Just as 
     we practice on the battlefield that we leave no one behind, 
     we should not slam the door on any veteran who needs the VA 
     system.''

  The best way we can honor Lane Evans' memory is by more than just a 
speech on the floor of the Senate, it is to continue his work on behalf 
of America's veterans, continue to work to make the VA responsive to 
the massive number of disability claims that

[[Page 15684]]

have been filed since Iraq and Afghanistan, and make sure every veteran 
receives respect, health care, job training, and the opportunities they 
have earned.
  There is another way we can honor this champion of veterans; that is, 
by naming the year-old VA medical center in Galesburg, IL, the Lane A. 
Evans VA Community-Based Outpatient Clinic. This center is in the heart 
of what was Congressman Lane Evans' congressional district for so many 
years.
  Nearly 4,000 veterans a year seek services there. I am honored it is 
a bipartisan effort to name this center after Congressman Evans, led in 
the House by Congresswoman Cheri Bustos. Lane used to say he loved the 
Marines because the Marines salute their lowest members. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in honoring one of the Marines' finest members 
by supporting this proposal to name the VA outpatient clinic in 
Galesburg, IL, in honor of Congressman Lane Evans.
  Lane Evans was laid to rest at the Rock Island Arsenal on the date of 
the 239th anniversary of the Marine Corps. I remember so many years 
ago--18 years ago--when Lane and I were in a Labor Day parade in 
Galesburg, IL. I did not think much of it at the time. It was just 
another parade in another campaign. Lane told me later that he noticed 
something was wrong on that date. As he was waving his left hand, he 
realized it was numb and he had no feeling.
  He continued to work even after he had been diagnosed with early 
Parkinson's. It made it difficult for him to stand without pain or to 
even smile easily. He never, ever complained. When his legs locked up 
when he was in terrible pain, he would tell his closest friends: I am 
so lucky. I couldn't carry mail, I couldn't be a meat cutter, but I can 
still do my job as a Congressman.
  As we say in Illinois, thank heavens for Lane Evans, and I thank the 
good Lord he devoted so much of his life in Congress to the people he 
loved in his district and to the veterans of America.
  I offer my condolences to Lane's family, especially his three 
brothers, to his brothers and sisters in arms, and to all of us who 
loved him and were touched by his gentle life.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                         Remembering Tom Menino

  Ms. WARREN. I rise today to honor a departed friend and committed 
public servant, Tom Menino. He was a devoted husband to Angela, loving 
father to Susan and Tom Junior, and adoring grandfather to six 
grandchildren.
  For 20 years Tom served as mayor of Boston and led the resurgence of 
our city. He believed in economic growth and building communities, 
fighting for hospitals, scientific research, and innovation, while 
simultaneously strengthening our neighborhoods, expanding our parks, 
and knitting diversity into a community of equals.
  Mayor Menino succeeded because he knew all along that our fortunes 
depend on our working together as one people, one community, one 
Boston, and he did everything he could to create that united Boston.
  Reports are that Mayor Menino had personally met more than half the 
residents of Boston, and we believe it. In our happy moments--Red Sox 
championships--and in our darkest moments--when smoke arose at Copley 
Square--we knew we could always count on Tom Menino to be there.
  Mayor Menino's Boston lived up to the vision of its founders: a city 
that all eyes can see is a model for the country and for the world.
  On behalf of a grateful people, I urge my colleagues to come together 
to pass a resolution that was introduced only yesterday by Senator 
Markey and me celebrating the life of Mayor Tom Menino.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Keystone Pipeline

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank my colleagues for allowing a 10-minute 
discussion today by unanimous consent on an important issue the 
Congress is taking up today.
  On the House side, debate on the Keystone Pipeline is starting, and I 
understand there could potentially be a vote as early as tomorrow. I am 
so pleased to have been one of the spark plugs that helped to get us 
moving not in the next Congress but in this lameduck session of this 
Congress.
  The American people spoke loudly and clearly not only in my State of 
Louisiana but around the country, wanting us to work together to get 
the job done.
  I was very pleased that the Republican leadership brought to the 
floor the early childhood education bill that Senator Lamar Alexander 
has been leading. It is a very important bill. I, frankly, don't think 
it is more important than the Keystone Pipeline, however. So I was 
pleased yesterday to come to the floor and offer, as chair of the 
energy committee, my own priority list of what I think is most 
important. I say that with sincerity because I actually support both 
very strongly.
  I have several amendments to Senator Lamar Alexander's bill which 
have not been adopted and which I understand, unfortunately, will not 
be allowed for debate. So I don't know if I will be able to vote for 
cloture on his bill, although I strongly support it. My record is as 
strong as anyone's in this Chamber. So I will be interested to see if 
amendments to the Lamar Alexander bill will be allowed on the floor. I 
am hoping they will. If I can get at least a vote on the amendments I 
have pending to that bill, I will absolutely--whether my amendments 
pass or fail--vote for it because it is the will of the body and we 
must do something. We must invest more money. We must have more quality 
programs for early childhood education. It is an absolute cornerstone 
of strengthening and building the middle class.
  In my State, that is what we are focused on, and I can't go anywhere 
without people telling me: Senator, thank you for your fight for 
education. Senator, thank you for your fight for early childhood 
education. Senator, thank you for fighting to take student loans down 
from 11 percent--the rate on student loans--to 3 percent.
  On almost every day of this last election cycle, that is what I was 
talking about at home, and I know Members who were in elections or even 
not in elections heard clearly from the American people, during the 
time we were home working, how much what we do in Congress can matter, 
can make a difference in their lives. They don't want government 
intrusion, but they do want government to function so they can get a 
good college education, so they can get good job training, so they can 
start businesses that can grow profits for themselves and their 
communities.
  I look forward to that debate, and I am very happy the Republican 
leadership rushed to the floor to put down a bill on early childhood 
education because I think they heard from the American people that just 
talking about tax cuts for the wealthy, tax cuts for people making over 
$1 million a year, and tax policy--yes, it is important, but what is 
very important is fighting for the middle class.
  I say congratulations to Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. That 
is the first bill the Republicans have put down in this lameduck, and I 
look forward to working with him.
  But the first bill that we put down and I put down as chair of the 
energy committee--unusual for Democrats because we don't have our whole 
caucus supporting it, but we have a good strong part of our caucus 
supporting it--is a bill that is going to actually create immediate 
high-impact jobs for this country today, soon, as it is being built. As 
soon as this bill passes and as soon as the President signs it into 
law, there will be an immediate, dramatic push from the oil and gas 
industry and from the energy industry broadly--alternative energies, 
wind, solar, coal, and clean coal technologies--because the vote on 
Keystone and the President's signature on Keystone is a signal, a 
strong signal, it is a green light that America is ready to go, that we 
are following the science, that we are following our process, that we 
are respecting private property rights. And, yes, we are respecting 
States in their

[[Page 15685]]

views of where these pipelines should be sited. No State--not Nebraska, 
not West Virginia, and not Louisiana--wants to be told by the Federal 
Government where pipelines are coming through on private property. No 
State. So Nebraska does have an issue that has to be resolved. They 
have an issue that has to be resolved about where that pipeline should 
be laid, and the Republican Party should most certainly respect States 
rights on where that pipeline should be laid.
  The bill Senator Hoeven and I have acknowledges that process. It also 
acknowledges private property rights, and it says it is time to build 
the Keystone Pipeline.
  This was not a last-week election wake-up call; I have been working 
on passing the Keystone Pipeline before I was the chairman, all during 
my chairmanship, years ago, as a senior member of the committee, and 
now as chair. I have not stopped and came very close to getting a vote 
on this floor before the election. Frankly--and the reporters should 
know this--it was really held up by the politics of both sides. That is 
not what is said, but that is the actual truth--the politics of both 
sides. I see Senator Manchin on the floor, who is a strong supporter, 
and he might talk a little bit about that. Both sides have some blame 
as to why we couldn't get to a vote, but I will let the record speak 
for itself.
  This is the pipeline. This is what has to be built. As you can see, 
it doesn't come into Louisiana, but it most certainly impacts my State. 
It impacts the entire country.
  These are already pipelines that we have in America. This is just 
another important pipeline because it connects Canada--our greatest 
ally and our great economic partner--with the refining strength of 
America, which is not only in Louisiana and Texas but primarily in 
Louisiana and Texas. It begins to move a great product, produced with 
the highest environmental standards in the world, approved by this 
administration's environmental department saying it meets the 
environmental standards of transportation, et cetera, and it meets the 
standards of this administration's State Department when it comes to, 
is it in America's interests. They said yes, it is in America's 
interests. That standard has been met. So let's build the pipeline.
  I came to the floor yesterday. The Republicans brought their early 
childhood education bill to the floor. I am so proud they did. I 
brought Keystone Pipeline. Because I did, it seemed to have moved lots 
of things, which I am pleased about, and I think the Senator from West 
Virginia may wish to comment. But it seemed to have shaken up a few 
things and moved a few things, and that is good because Senators who 
are energetic and motivated and can build coalitions--like Senator 
Manchin and I do every day when we are here--can actually get things 
done.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia for a 
question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Let me say to all of our colleagues and all of my 
friends on the Republican side and my friends on the Democratic side 
that this is the greatest opportunity we have had in the 4 years since 
I have been in the Senate to have truly a jobs bill, a quality jobs 
bill that pays high wages. Almost every State in the Nation benefits by 
the Keystone Pipeline.
  If you want to take politics out of this, take all of our names off. 
Senator Landrieu says take her name off. Take my name off. Take 
everybody's name off, and let's find out who really rises to help 
Americans.
  This is one bill that we have been trying to bring to the forefront. 
Senator Landrieu has brought it how many times? She was the first 
person--I said yesterday--who, 4 years ago when I came to the Senate, 
explained to me how important it was and how it interconnected all of 
us. I am very appreciative of that.
  Now Mary is in the political fight of her life. I pray to the good 
Lord that the good people of Louisiana understand the fighter she is 
and what she produces for America every day.
  With all that being said, she is willing to take her name off if this 
piece of legislation will move forward so that the Presiding Officer in 
Montana and I in West Virginia can get some high-quality jobs. We all 
benefit from this.
  Next, it makes our Nation secure. If you want to protect your people, 
have a secure nation and don't go chasing energy all over the world. It 
takes us places we don't want to be and shouldn't be. This does all of 
that as far as securing our energy and making us energy independent.
  But I just saw after the election--and we accept that. I am on the 
Democratic side. I heard loud and clear the people of West Virginia and 
the changes they want. What they really told us is: We want you all to 
do something. If you have a chance to help us with a good job, do it. 
Don't argue over your politics. It seems as if you are more concerned 
about your own status of being a politician or being an elected 
official than you are about mine, which is basically paying my bills, 
taking care of my family, and being able to be a good American.
  What we are saying, we thought we heard that loud and clear. So I 
will say to all of my friends on the Republican side and all of us on 
the Democratic side, take a moment and listen to what was just told to 
us. What was told to us is to do our job--that is what Senator Landrieu 
was trying to do--move this important piece of legislation forward and 
do the job we are supposed to.
  The best politics is good government. If we do something good as a 
Republican and as a Democrat, we all get credit for it. We do something 
bad, and then we try to blame each other--who did it worse than the 
other. We all get blamed for it. This is the best thing we have had for 
the last 4 or 5 years. We have had a hard time getting to this point, 
to almost get a vote for it, and now they want to say: Well, one-
upmanship--we will see if it can come over from the House side with a 
person who is involved in a race against Senator Landrieu. Forget about 
those people.
  Forget about all of us who cosigned and cosponsored this bill, 
apparently.
  Just pass it. Give us a vote and pass it. That is all we are asking 
for. I think if we do that, the people will say: I think they heard us, 
and I think they are starting to do something. That is why I am on the 
floor with Senator Landrieu and the people willing to fight for the 
jobs that Americans need--not just in Louisiana but in West Virginia, 
too, and also in Montana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 10 minutes
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to close.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I think the Senator pointed out some key points--not 
only how important this pipeline is for the middle of America but for 
the economy of the whole country.
  The pipeline and the supplies that are coming and the workers to 
build this pipeline come from all over the country. The businesses that 
supply the gadgets, the widgets, the steel, the trucks, the forklifts, 
the equipment, the cranes that come to build this pipeline come from 
all over the country.
  But more important than the pipeline itself, which is going to move 
hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil from Canada--which we 
would much prefer to deal with and trade with, than, let's say, 
Venezuela or some other countries that don't share our values. More 
importantly than that, it is going to transport it in the safest way.
  Without this pipeline, this oil will be produced. We cannot stop 
Canada from producing it. They are going to produce it, and it is going 
to be moved east and west by rail or moved south by truck. We cannot 
put any more trucks on our highways, and we can't crowd our rails.
  I know there are people, like my good friend from Massachusetts, 
Senator Markey, who is going to surely speak against this pipeline and 
why, from his perspective, it is not the right thing to do. And I 
respect those views. I strongly disagree with him, but I respect him.

[[Page 15686]]

I strongly disagree with his arguments--and we will have this debate in 
the coming days--and I respect him.
  But the point is this. Whether you support the Senator from 
Massachusetts' or you support the Senator from Louisiana's views, the 
point is we need to vote. That is the process. I believe we have the 60 
votes on this floor to pass this bill. I believe we have always had the 
votes to pass this bill, if we can just get it to a vote.
  Now, as is the process, the Senate has to pass the bill, it has to go 
to the House, and then it has to go to the President. He can sign it or 
he can veto it. I do not have at this date any indication that he will 
veto this bill. He could issue a veto warning on it in an hour, he 
could do it tomorrow, he could do it next week. That is not the point.
  The point is the Senate must begin to be the Senate again. Let the 
President worry about being the President. Let the House worry about 
being the House. Let the Senate be the Senate.
  I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Let the Senate be the Senate. That is what my voters 
said. I think that is what voters in Tennessee said. I think that is 
what voters in North Carolina said, and I think that is what the voters 
in Massachusetts said. Let the Senate be the Senate.
  We are the greatest deliberative body in the world. Let's debate. 
Let's vote. Let's get the work done. Let the chips fall where they may. 
The public can accept that. They cannot accept--and they should not 
have to accept--gridlock, game playing, and raw politics on the great 
floor of this Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I respect the Senator from Louisiana, and 
there is no more fierce advocate for this pipeline in our country. She 
has been a relentless advocate for that pipeline. I am not going to 
speak on this issue today, but I look forward to a much more extensive 
debate that we will have next week. But there is no one more vulnerable 
than the Senator from Louisiana in her advocacy.


                         Remembering Tom Menino

  I rise today to speak about Tom Menino, our great mayor from the city 
of Boston who just passed in the last month. He always looked out for 
the little guy. He always stayed true to the people who elected him, 
and he stuck by his principles.
  In every neighborhood across the city, Boston mourns the loss of our 
great mayor, Tom Menino. We mourn along with his wife Angela, his 
family, and everyone who ever was touched by Mayor Menino. But we will 
fill that void with the love and respect that we have for the life and 
the legacy of this extraordinary man.
  Boston loves Tom Menino because Tom Menino loved Boston with all of 
his heart. Tom Menino wasn't satisfied with leading the best city in 
America. He wanted Boston to be the best city in the world. He was an 
urban architect without equal, attuned to every detail in every 
neighborhood. He forged a more inclusive Boston, where diversity is 
embraced. Tom Menino was everyone's mayor.
  In a poll a few years back, half of all Bostonians in the poll said 
they had personally met Tom Menino. That really captures how Tom Menino 
approached his job, but we all know how he viewed those poll results--
that his job was only half done.
  Yet Mayor Menino's vision for Boston was global, and he pushed the 
city into a new era of innovation. He helped our shining city on a hill 
illuminate its light of innovation across the world, building a beacon 
of entrepreneurship and ingenuity. He laid the foundation for Boston's 
economic leadership in the 21st century, including spearheading 
Boston's Innovation District and developing the seaport area.
  The Innovation District is supporting the companies and industries 
that are creating jobs today, and Mayor Menino has ensured that Boston 
will continue to be a national leader in biotechnology, clean energy, 
and health care for generations to come. He did all of this while 
keeping Boston's historic character alive. Tom knew what potholes 
needed filling, but he also knew when to leave the cobblestones alone.
  So today, if you take a drive around Boston--or, as Tom would want 
you to do, take a bike ride--you would see there is no place in Boston 
that hasn't felt the caring imprint of Tom's hand: kids playing on new 
playgrounds in safer neighborhoods; poor communities with better access 
to life-saving health care; entrepreneurs and investors collaborating 
on the next big thing.
  Boston will move into the future a stronger, brighter, safer, and 
healthier city because of Tom Menino. So today we honor his life and 
his legacy. Tom Menino is a man and a mayor for the ages.
  Rest in peace, Mayor Tom Menino.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2650

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will be asking a unanimous consent 
request to bring up S. 2650, the Corker-Graham-McCain-Ayotte-Rubio 
legislation. Senator Murphy, I think, is going to speak here in a 
second, but if I may do two things: I wish to reserve 20 minutes of 
time to be divided between myself, Senator Corker, and Senator Rubio to 
speak about the topic. But I would now like to make a unanimous consent 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined 
by the two leaders, but no later than November 24, 2014, the Committee 
on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. 
2650, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill 
be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of 
the bill with no intervening action or debate. Further, if passed, the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, just to 
make a few brief comments prior to my colleagues speaking on their 
request on the underlying bill, it is my understanding that the request 
is to bring a bill to the floor that would create an 
extraconstitutional process by which the House and the Senate would 
convene on a possible statement or resolution of disapproval on an 
agreement that has heretofore not been negotiated between the United 
States and our allies and Iran with respect to that country's nuclear 
program and nuclear ambitions.
  I think we are all of one mind in that we are hopeful that these 
negotiations are concluded successfully, that we are able to stand 
together and say that we have used diplomacy rather than military might 
in order to dislodge from Iran any prospect of obtaining a nuclear 
weapon. But we are at an absolutely critical moment in these 
negotiations, and I believe the underlying bill which is being asked to 
be brought to the floor today would undermine those negotiations by 
sending a message that Congress does not stand with the President as he 
and his team negotiate these final agreements.
  There is going to be a legitimate question as to what Congress's role 
is, but we won't know that until we see the agreement. We won't know 
whether it rises to the level of a treaty. We won't know whether we 
need to pass legislation to immediately repeal sanctions versus having 
them temporarily suspended. This bill has not gone through the 
committee process.
  While it raises, I think, some legitimate questions of what 
Congress's role is going to be, if there is ultimately an agreement 
worked out between the P5+1 and Iran, it is premature at this point to 
set into law a process by which we would vote an agreement up or down 
until we understand what the agreement is in the first place.

[[Page 15687]]

  That is my primary reason for standing here and ultimately 
registering an objection. I do worry as well that it would send a 
fairly chilling message to our negotiators and to those who are in the 
room if the signal is that the Congress is not giving the full 
authority to this President under the Constitution in order to 
negotiate an agreement which is ultimately going to be, we hope, to the 
benefit of the United States and global security.
  I know my colleagues have time constraints and want to speak on this 
underlying bill. So, with that, I object to the unanimous consent 
request
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). Objection is heard.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague very much for 
speaking in a way so we can all have time on the issue.
  No. 1, about the chilling messages, this is a chilling message from 
the Supreme Leader of Iran about 3 days ago: Nine questions about the 
elimination of Israel. In this tweet--and I will read some of it 
later--the Ayatollah, the Supreme Leader in Iran, talks about how to 
annihilate the State of Israel during the negotiations.
  Also, recently an IAEA inspector was talking about elements of the 
Iranian nuclear program that have been hidden that would make it larger 
than we all suspect.
  What are we trying to do? I would like to bring the Iranian nuclear 
program to an end through peaceful means, and by an end, I mean the 
following: I would welcome a deal that would allow the Iranians to 
produce peaceful nuclear power but without the capability of turning 
that program into a weapons program.
  I fear that we are on the road to a North Korean outcome, where the 
international community gave a rogue regime a small nuclear program to 
be monitored by the United Nations--and the rest is history regarding 
North Korea.
  I have asked several times to the administration: Tell me the 
safeguards that exist in these negotiations with Iran that did not 
exist in North Korea, and I have yet to get an answer.
  It is pretty openly known that the administration and the P5+1 have 
conceded a right to enrich uranium as part of any deal with Iran. To 
that I say: Of all the nations on Earth, given their behavior, name one 
country that you would put in the category ahead of Iran when it comes 
to denying them the ability to have a centrifuge that one day could be 
used to make a weapon. The idea of giving an enrichment capability to 
the Iranians, given 30 years of lying, deceit, American blood on their 
hands, and recent tweets about annihilating Israel to me is insane.
  So all we are asking is that any deal negotiated between the P5+1 
come to this body for a discussion and a vote. Senator Corker is the 
primary author of this legislation.
  Here is what I can tell the world: Nobody wants any more war. But we 
do not want to allow the Iranians, given their behavior, the capability 
one day to develop a nuclear weapon, and that is exactly what they have 
been trying to do. They have lied about their program. They have been 
deceptive about their program. They have blood on their hands when it 
comes to killing Americans in Iraq. They are one of the largest state 
sponsors of terrorism in the world.
  The idea that we would give them an enrichment capability just 
astounds me. We are telling our allies--South Korea, and the UAE: If 
you want a nuclear program, fine--don't enrich the uranium.
  There are 15 nations in the world that have nuclear programs without 
an enrichment capability. To concede one to the Iranians is the 
ultimate act of throwing the Mideast into further chaos, because the 
Sunni Arabs, the mortal enemy of the Shia Persians, will want a 
capability of their own of like kind or greater. The worst possible 
outcome is to give a regime this dangerous the capability or the 
potential to one day make a bomb. One centrifuge in the hands of people 
with this mentality is one too many.
  To the Iranian people, my beef is not with you. My beef is with your 
leaders who have taken the world down a dark path.
  This legislation is pretty simple. Bring the deal to the Senate. We 
will have a right to file a motion of disapproval. We will have a vote, 
we will have a debate, and if it is a good deal, it will be approved. 
If it is a bad deal, we will stop it.
  I cannot imagine the Senate and the House sitting on the sidelines 
and ignoring something this important.
  To Senator Corker, who will soon be the Chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, this was his original idea. We have tried to 
perfect it, but what I really believe is what he tried to do months ago 
to make sure the Congress would have a check and balance over any deal 
with the Iranians was smart. It would enhance the administration's hand 
when it comes to negotiating because they would have to tell the 
Iranians, it is not just us you have to please, you have to go before 
the representatives of the American people. That would lead to a better 
outcome. If it truly is a North Korea in the making, we will have a 
chance to stop it.
  President Obama wants a deal too badly, in my view; but at the end of 
the day, let's wait and see what happens. I just want to let the 
Iranians and the administration know beforehand, we will not sit on the 
sidelines and watch you go it alone. This is one decision the President 
will make that the Congress has to be read in on and have a say about. 
This is not the time to let President Obama go it alone. The stakes are 
too high for Israel, for the United States, for the world at large.
  What do I fear the most? I fear that over time we will give the 
Iranian ayatollahs the capability to develop a nuclear weapon. Name one 
technology they developed that they haven't shared with terrorists. And 
it will surely come our way.
  To our friends in Israel: No Israeli mother can ever go to sleep at 
night thinking her children are safe and the future of that country is 
secure if the Iranians have a nuclear capability. When the ayatollahs 
say openly they wish to destroy the State of Israel, to annihilate the 
State of Israel, I believe they mean it. When the Jewish people say 
never again, they speak based on past experience.
  Of all the scenarios in the world that could throw this world into a 
chaotic situation beyond what you see today, it would be to allow the 
ayatollahs a nuclear weapon. The Sunni Arabs will have one of their 
own. Israel will never know a minute's peace, and I fear that it would 
come our way.
  I would like to now yield to Senator Corker who can explain the 
details of the legislation, why we are asking this to be taken up 
before the end of negotiations.
  A week from Monday the deadline comes to an end. I want everybody at 
the negotiating table to know this deal is so important to the United 
States and the world that the Congress needs to have a say. Barack 
Obama should not be able to make any deal with the Iranians that is 
binding unless the Congress approves, and the Iranians should never be 
allowed to have a nuclear capability, period, that could be turned into 
a weapon.
  With that, I yield to Senator Corker.
  Mr. CORKER. I thank the Senator. I want to thank the Senator from 
South Carolina for his distinguished leadership on so many national 
security issues. I understand his frustration with our inability to 
actually take a vote on something that is such a commonsense measure. I 
also respect the committee process, as you could imagine, with the role 
I play and wished that our committee would actually take up this piece 
of legislation.
  I actually tried to offer something very similar to this in 
committee, and I actually did offer it, and the bill that was being 
offered, too, was taken down and no votes taken, because, again, of not 
wanting to deal with this issue.
  So I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for desiring to make 
something happen on this. As he mentioned, all of us want to ensure a 
successful negotiation. I cannot imagine there is a person in this body 
who doesn't want the negotiations between the P5+1 to end up with a 
good long-term conclusion. I agree based on the signals that

[[Page 15688]]

are being sent. There are a lot of bipartisan concerns that have been 
expressed on this floor by people of both sides of the aisle, because 
people understand that this body, along with working with the House, 
put in place the sanctions that have actually gotten us to the place 
where we are in the negotiations. The initial agreement that was put in 
place was so much weaker than even the U.N. security resolutions that 
passed over and over and over relative to Iran.
  So I agree that by having us making the final say on this negotiation 
that it gives the administration some added strength that they were 
unable to show in the beginning. Obviously Iran is trying to tilt 
toward those within their own body, their own citizens, who certainly 
are concerned about negotiations and continue to bring that out 
throughout the negotiations. It seems to me that Congress would be an 
outstanding countervailing force. And obviously something of this 
magnitude--especially when Congress brought us to the table--this is 
the kind of thing that should be weighed upon.
  What the bill would do is obviously give us the opportunity within a 
defined amount of time to vote up or down on whether we agree that this 
should be put in place. It also puts in place some enforcement 
mechanisms. Then it also puts a clock on the negotiations, so, again, 
we cannot have these continual extensions.
  I recently read the newest book Henry Kissinger wrote. It was a great 
book to read, but it put in place one of the chapters that focused on 
these Iran negotiations and lays out the fact--and I know the 
distinguished Presiding Officer today knows this well because he 
focuses so much on nuclear issues and, like me, is very concerned about 
proliferation around the world. I have enjoyed working with him on the 
Foreign Relations Committee. Interestingly, one of the chapters lays 
out the progression that occurs. And Iran, just by stalling each time 
these negotiations take place, ends up in a better place. Again, I 
think all of us were very shocked with the interim agreement that was 
put in place first. I think this is a very commonsense piece of 
legislation.
  Let me point out something my friend from South Carolina did not 
point out. Without this, this is what is going to possibly happen--I 
hope it doesn't, but possibly happen. The administration can enter into 
a deal. The way we have crafted the sanctions, no permanent--no 
permanent--arrangement can be made to undo the sanctions. Only Congress 
can do that. But the way the sanctions regime has been put in place, 
the President in many cases does have the ability on a temporary basis 
to do away with the sanctions. It is evident that the administration 
very much wants something to happen. I want to see something happen, 
but the way this has gone, it appears they want something to happen 
that possibly will not stand the test of time.
  Let's say they enter into an arrangement by November 24. They undo 
the sanctions temporarily. If that happens, basically the work that has 
been done around here for years is over. It is done because it will be 
impossible from a practical standpoint to ever get those sanctions back 
in place, especially sanctions with the many other countries that are 
involved.
  So if the President enters into an agreement and temporarily does 
away with sanctions, I think everybody in this body understands it is 
going to be almost impossible for those to be put back in place. So the 
damage is already done. And that is why it is so important from my 
perspective, with Congress having played the role that Congress has 
played to help put us into this position, very important for Congress 
to have the opportunity to have the congressional review this bill lays 
out.
  Look, I think it is pretty evident with the denying, if you will, of 
this bill coming to the floor, which was expected, I think it is very 
evident that Congress is not going to have the opportunity between now 
and the 24th to weigh in. It is my hope that somehow if these 
negotiations unfortunately end up putting us in a very bad place--I 
hope that doesn't happen. I hope the outcome is much better than what 
is anticipated. But if it ends up unfortunately being something that is 
not good for our country, I hope what will happen is the next time we 
ask to bring this bill up--because of time being of the essence, the 
next time it would be brought up, hopefully Members of this body would 
agree that Congress would weigh in in a rightful manner. Congress would 
weigh in to make sure we don't enter into a deal as a nation that puts 
us in a very bad place in the longer term relative to what Iran is 
doing.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to speak. I do not see 
Senator Rubio here in the body.
  I yield the floor. It is my sense that Senator Rubio may come down 
and want to speak to this.
  But I do want to say in closing, all of us here hope the 
administration puts our Nation and the world in a place to know that 
Iran will not have the capability of developing nuclear weapons. That 
is what this piece of legislation is about. Without it, I hope the 
administration still does that, obviously, and that we wake up on 
November 25 surprised--but happily surprised--that we ended up in a 
place that will stand the test of time.
  I yield the floor and it has been a while, but I suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded and that I be allowed to speak for up 
to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Keystone Pipeline

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as you know--and many know--I have come 
to the floor now on several occasions since we arrived back here at 2 
p.m. yesterday to talk about an important piece of legislation I have 
cosponsored with Senator Hoeven. I understand Senator Hoeven is going 
to be speaking about the Keystone Pipeline in a few moments, and the 
Republicans have reserved some time to speak this afternoon. I will 
only take 5 minutes and will stay as the discussion on the Keystone 
Pipeline goes forward.
  Yesterday at 2 o'clock I came to the floor of the Senate when the 
Senate opened to say how important I thought it was that we listen and 
hear what the voters said not only in my State but in Kentucky, Texas, 
South Dakota, North Dakota, and all over the country. Regardless of 
whether the people were Democrats, Republicans, left or right or 
center, they want us to get our job done.
  I think one of the most important jobs we have as Senators is to 
vote, and I have been frustrated, along with many Members on both sides 
of the aisle, about why we have not been able to vote on some very 
important pieces of legislation.
  This is one of the most important pieces of legislation, and that is 
why I came down at 2 o'clock to claim time at my seat. I have been here 
for 18 years. This is Louisiana's seat. One of the things we have to 
talk about right now--not next year or not next week--is the Keystone 
Pipeline.
  I know the Presiding Officer and other Members of this body, mostly 
on the Democratic side, are not strong supporters and have expressed 
that view. I understand it, I respect it, but I don't agree with it. It 
is time for us to have a vote.
  Because of the advocacy yesterday when the Senator from West Virginia 
and the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Heitkamp--she has been a 
very strong and effective advocate. I wish to give a shout-out to both 
of my colleagues from West Virginia and North Dakota. They have been 
tireless in their effort to try and build a 60-vote margin.
  In the old days we could pass bills with just 51 votes, and some 
people want to go back to that. I have mixed feelings about it, but it 
would be great if we could pass things by a simple majority. But the 
rules of the Senate which we operate under--and have not requested to 
change, and I don't believe

[[Page 15689]]

will change any time in the near future--requires us to have 60 votes.
  We worked and worked and worked to try to get 60 votes. Since May, if 
we could just get this vote to the floor, I believe we have the 60 
votes to pass it. It looks like that is going to happen, and I could 
not be happier. I could not be more grateful to the House of 
Representatives for taking up not their bill but Senator Hoeven's bill 
and my bill. They are debating it right now, and I believe we will pass 
it.
  I don't know how many Democrats will vote for that bill, but I think 
there will be some Members who will vote for that bill. I don't know 
how many, but I believe there are 60 votes in this Senate to pass the 
Keystone Pipeline bill and send it to the President's desk.
  What President Obama does with it, I don't know. I am urging him to 
sign it. Seventy-five percent of the people in our country want this 
Keystone Pipeline built. There are jobs at stake. It is a signal that 
America is ready to be energy independent.
  When I say ``energy independent''--to my good friend, the Presiding 
Officer from Massachusetts--I, of course, mean more oil and gas. I am 
from an oil-and-gas State. We have coal States, but we also have States 
that have solar and wind and drop-in fuels and new technologies.
  This pipeline is a symbol that America is ready to do what it takes 
to become energy independent and to use our resources so we can create 
jobs for the middle class.
  I see the Republican leader, and I appreciate that signal. So I will 
just conclude with my statement, but I do wish to be a part of this 
colloquy today, if allowed, so I may continue to talk about the 
importance of this issue.
  I am happy the House has taken up the Hoeven-Landrieu bill--the exact 
language of the bill. We can call it whatever they want. They can put 
any name they want on the bill as long as it gets passed because that 
is what we need to do for the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for 6 long years the Obama 
administration has been dragging its feet on the Keystone Pipeline. For 
as long as anyone can remember one Senator has worked harder than any 
other to ensure that those feet are always held to the fire; that is, 
our friend the senior Senator from North Dakota.
  Senator Hoeven has been a tireless advocate for the shovel-ready jobs 
project. The people of North Dakota are lucky to have him in their 
corner. Similar to the experts, Senator Hoeven knows the Keystone 
Pipeline will create literally thousands of jobs, and similar to the 
experts, Senator Hoeven knows the Keystone Pipeline would have almost 
zero net effect on our climate, and similar to the people we represent, 
he understands that the Keystone Pipeline is just common sense. He has 
done just about everything possible to make the administration come to 
grips with that obvious point.
  Senator Hoeven, along with leaders in the House, such as Congressman 
Cassidy, succeeded in assembling and leading an impressive Keystone 
coalition that literally crossed party lines. That is why the opponents 
of Keystone have been so afraid to allow the Senate to take a free and 
open vote on it, because they feared Senator Hoeven and Congressman 
Cassidy were right; that there is overwhelming bipartisan support for 
ending the President's blockade of these very good jobs.
  After so many years of obstruction, we finally get the vote. After 6 
years, we finally get the vote. We can credit the people's choice of a 
new Senate majority for finally getting these gears turning. But we 
never would have gotten to this point without the tireless leadership 
of Senator Hoeven in the Senate and Congressman Cassidy over in the 
House.
  I wish to thank Senator Hoeven for all of his great work on this 
matter. We hope we can soon celebrate a well-deserved victory for the 
American people.
  I understand we have colleagues on the floor as well, and I will be 
happy to yield at this time for any thoughts or questions they may 
have.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I have a question, if I could ask the Republican 
leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Does the Senator from North Dakota have a question? I 
believe I have the floor, and I believe Senator Hoeven is going to ask 
a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the minority leader, but I 
ask him to repeat his question.
  Mr. McCONNELL. As the Senator from North Dakota was engaged in 
conversation, I was talking about his leadership role in this endeavor 
the last 6 years and the difficulty of getting action here in the 
Senate. It almost seems to me as if it took an election by the American 
people to choose a new majority for next year to begin to get the 
attention of the current majority to go forward on the issue that 
Senator Hoeven has been talking to us about on a virtually daily basis 
here for 6 years.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the minority leader. 
That has been the case, that we have worked for some time to get a vote 
on this important issue. We actually had passed a measure back in 2012 
attached to a payroll tax holiday. At that time the President turned 
down the Keystone XL Pipeline project on the basis of the route in 
Nebraska. So that work has been done. It has been rerouted.
  Some time ago, we put together a bipartisan bill. It is a bill I 
drafted and wrote. Senator Landrieu from Louisiana agreed to cosponsor 
it. We have all 45 Republicans on the bill, and we have 11 Democrats. 
We have 56 cosponsors on the legislation, but we have not been able to 
bring the bill to the floor. So I really had anticipated that we would 
have to wait until the new Congress in order to get a vote on the bill, 
because as the minority leader said, the American voters spoke. And 
particularly with the new Members we have coming, we will have more 
than 60 Senators who support the legislation. So I had anticipated that 
we would have to go into the new Congress to get a vote on the bill.
  However, the cosponsor on the bill, Senator Landrieu, yesterday 
requested that we call the bill up, and she worked on her side and we 
have worked on our side to get unanimous consent to get a vote on the 
bill. So we are certainly happy to vote on this important issue for the 
American people. We will have a vote in the House on the very same 
bill. They now have taken up the very same bill. I believe it will pass 
easily tomorrow in the House. And then on Tuesday, we will have a vote 
on our bill here, S. 2280. We will have 45 Republicans, and we hope to 
have 15 Democrats. And if we do, we will pass the bill and send it to 
the President for signature.
  If we don't get to the 60 votes, I believe we will still be able to 
bring the bill back in the new Congress and have the 60 votes. So I 
believe we will now be able to advance this bill to the President. The 
question is, What will the President do? The indication was from one of 
his spokespersons traveling with him yesterday that he may well veto 
the legislation. If that happens, I still think, again, based on the 
fact that the American people overwhelmingly support this legislation, 
that we will be able to come back, work with our colleagues on a 
bipartisan basis and perhaps make this legislation part of a broader 
energy bill, or attach it to an appropriations measure. But I think we 
will be able to find other legislation that we can attach approval of 
the Keystone XL Pipeline--this bill--to. That makes it very likely that 
we could either override a veto or maybe the President wouldn't veto 
it. Because at the end of the day, what this is all about is more 
energy for this country, produced here and working with our closest 
friend and ally, Canada.
  This is about jobs. By the State Department's own environmental 
impact statement, 42,000 jobs. So it is about energy. It is about jobs. 
It is about the infrastructure we need to build the right kind of 
energy plan for our country. Whether one comes from North Dakota or 
Kentucky or Texas or Louisiana or wherever, we have to have 
infrastructure as part of our energy plan.

[[Page 15690]]

  It is also about national security. Americans do not want to have to 
depend on getting oil from the Middle East. They want to produce it 
here at home, and they want to work with our closest ally, Canada, and 
we want the jobs and the economic activity that come with it.
  So that is where we are. That is the game plan, to get this important 
legislation passed, and that is what this is all about. This is about 
moving forward on approving the Keystone XL Pipeline. When asked, the 
American people in the polling showed anywhere from 65 up to about 75 
percent overwhelmingly support it. So that is what this issue is all 
about.
  Now is our chance to show that we can move forward, and in a 
bipartisan way, and get this done for the people of this great Nation. 
We are hopeful that we can get it in the lameduck. That is great. We 
have cleared the way to get a vote, and if we can't, then we will be 
right back to work on it in the new Congress.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I could, it strikes me that there 
was some intervening event here between the difficulty of getting a 
vote over the past few years and the apparent ease of getting a vote 
now. It strikes me--and I would be interested in the observations of my 
colleague from North Dakota--it strikes me this intervening event was 
the election and it could be that the voices of the American people 
have already altered the agenda in the Senate even before the Senate 
officially changes hands in January. Maybe the voices of the American 
people have finally been heard on this important issue that the Senator 
from North Dakota has been speaking about week after week after week 
for a very long time.
  I would say to the Senator from North Dakota, when there is a new 
majority here, if we come up short between now and the end of the year, 
we will be back and back and back, looking for ways to make sure that 
the voices of the American people are heard, and all of these new jobs 
are created.
  So I hope--the Senator from North Dakota has indicated we will come 
to a favorable conclusion sooner, but I assure the Senator from North 
Dakota that we will come to a favorable conclusion later, if not 
sooner.
  I see the Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I will, yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I agree with the Republican leader that 
our leader on this issue for years now in the Senate has been the 
Senator from North Dakota, and North Dakota is a big energy-producing 
State--second, I must point out, to my State of Texas, but they are 
making some rapid developments in that area, and a lot of Texans have 
gone temporarily to North Dakota to help them with the technology, and 
they are doing a great job. Believe me, it is creating a lot of jobs. 
These aren't minimum wage jobs, these are high-paying jobs. As a matter 
of fact, there are labor shortages, and what we need to do is train 
more people to qualify for these good, high-paying jobs.
  But I wonder whether the Republican leader--or really I would be 
interested in anybody's point of view--beyond the election, I think 
there are going to have to be some changes of heart on the other side 
of the aisle, because as the distinguished Senator from North Dakota 
pointed out, we have gotten close, but never quite achieved that 60-
vote goal. So if we are going to vote on this now as a result of the 
intervening election, there are going to have to be some folks on the 
other side of the aisle who are going to have to have a change of heart 
and vote for the bill, which I hope they do.
  But this has been the main impediment--no opportunity for a vote--
because the majority leader, Senator Reid, has refused to grant a vote 
up until this point. He has changed his mind. That represents progress. 
But I think we have two impediments. One is the need for additional 
Democratic votes to actually meet that threshold; and then, as the 
Senator from North Dakota points out, we don't know whether the 
President has been chastened or has learned anything from the election, 
or if he is going to be influenced at all in his decision.
  I know the Senator from North Dakota has been a bulldog on this 
issue. He is not going to let this one get away from him, nor should 
he, for all the reasons mentioned earlier, including the 42,000 jobs. 
Also, a lot of this oil, if it doesn't come in this pipeline across 
from Canada to the United States, most of it is going to be refined in 
southeast Texas and turned into gasoline and jet fuel, which is going 
to help bring down prices, because we will see a glut of additional 
supply. But if we don't use it in the United States, this is going to 
be shipped to China or other places that are rapidly buying natural 
resources.
  So I would be interested if the Republican leader has a view of how 
we get over those final hurdles of getting Democratic votes next 
Tuesday to get to that 60-vote threshold. Then, how do we get the 
President to sign this, for a President--at least so far--who has 
refused to listen to the American people?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend, we were both in an election 
this year and there is no question that this jobless recovery is the 
biggest issue in the country. Here we have had a project which has 
cleared all of the environmental hurdles, it has been sitting around 
for literally 6 years, and--I don't know what the latest estimate of 
job creation is. I would ask my friend from North Dakota, what is the 
latest estimate on that? How many new people would be put to work 
constructing this pipeline--ready to go to work?
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, there have been a whole range of numbers 
offered. But I think to cut through to a number that people should be 
able to accept and to agree on is to take the number the State 
Department has put forward in the environmental impact statement. As a 
matter of fact, I think there have been either four or five 
environmental impact statements done on this project over a 6-year 
period, going all the way back to starting in September 2008 when 
TransCanada initially applied for approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, 
which is the sister pipeline to the Keystone Pipeline, which was 
already built--permitted in 2 years and built in 2 years--and that 
happened when I was Governor. I actually started working with this 
project when I was Governor and it continued when I came to the Senate. 
But TransCanada originally applied for their permit back in September 
of 2008. So for 6 years this has been going on, and in the final 
environmental impact statement, which stated the project will have no 
significant environmental impact--it stated that very clearly--they 
also said it will create about 42,000 jobs. And these are good-paying 
jobs, construction jobs and other types of jobs that are good-paying 
jobs.
  So here is a project, when we include Canada, about $7.9 billion. It 
is not going to cost the government one penny--not one penny. By the 
State Department's own admission, it will create 42,000 jobs. It will 
generate hundreds of millions in tax revenue to help the States and 
help with our deficit and debt, and it is to move oil not only from 
Canada, but from my State of North Dakota and Montana to refineries in 
Texas and Louisiana and other places that need the crude, and right now 
that crude is coming from places such as Venezuela or the Middle East.
  It is a job creator, and there are all of these other benefits. 
Again, it is an excellent example of the kind of infrastructure we need 
to build the energy plan this country needs.
  I ask the minority leader if I have answered his question adequately.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I may, it strikes me what the 
administration is best at is either destroying jobs or preventing new 
jobs from being created. In my State, as a direct result of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, we have lost 7,000 coal-mining jobs 
during the Obama years. For every coal-mining job, we lose three more 
jobs. We have a literal depression in eastern Kentucky, largely caused 
by the Obama Environmental Protection

[[Page 15691]]

Agency. So you begin to get the picture.
  Whether it is preventing 42,000 people from going to work or taking 
the employment away from up to 21,000 Kentuckians, what this 
administration seems to be best at is either destroying existing jobs 
or preventing new jobs from being created. I am happy there was an 
energy bill in Texas and an energy bill in North Dakota. I am pretty 
darn unhappy we don't have an energy bill in Kentucky. We have a 
depression again as a result of this administration and its 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, would the Senator yield for another 
question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. CORNYN. I ask the Senator from Kentucky--I think you described 
how the administration appears to not just have a war on coal but a war 
on hydrocarbons, a war on anything other than wind turbines and solar 
panels.
  The President said he is for all of the above. We are a big ``all of 
the above'' State. We have a lot of sunshine and wind. We actually 
produce more electricity from wind energy than any other State in the 
country, but it is hard to understand this ideological battle against 
coal and oil and gas from anywhere other than just an ideological 
perspective.
  I think the Senators have pointed out well--both the Senator from 
North Dakota and the Senator from Kentucky--that these are good, high-
paying jobs. One of the biggest problems we have had in the country for 
the last 30 years has been stagnant wages.
  The middle-class wage earners are not seeing their wages go up. One 
of the surefire ways to make them go up is to develop more domestic 
energy, whether it is coal or whether it is oil or gas, because these 
are good, high-paying jobs.
  I can tell you not just in North Dakota, where I am sure it is hard 
for restaurants to find people to work there because there is so much 
demand in the oil and gas business, but the Permian Basin, in the 
Midland Odessa area, where I know the Senator from Kentucky visited 
many times, there is a shortage of labor, and wages skyrocketed because 
of the demand as a result of taking advantage of this natural resource.
  I would just ask--obviously the Members of the Senate who have been 
vitally interested in this issue under the leadership of our friend, 
the Senator from North Dakota--it has been acknowledged, but I think it 
is only fair, wouldn't the Senator say, to acknowledge the leadership 
in the House of Representatives of Congressman Bill Cassidy. As a 
matter of fact, the bill that the House will pass tomorrow and send 
over here is chiefly the work product of Congressman Bill Cassidy.
  Mr. McCONNELL. It certainly is. We commend him for his good work and 
that bill will be headed over this way. I would also make the 
observation with regard to the President's approach to energy, the 
announcement in China yesterday which, as I read it, gives the Chinese 
16 years to do anything to reduce their carbon emissions while we are 
going full speed ahead here, visibly destroying American jobs or trying 
to prevent the creation of new jobs in North Dakota.
  My goodness, as I said earlier, it seems to me what this 
administration is best at is either destroying existing jobs or 
preventing new jobs from being created because of this obsession, as 
the Senator from Texas pointed out, with hydrocarbons of any kind.
  I see the Senator from South Dakota here as well and wonder if he may 
have a question.
  Mr. THUNE. Yes. I would say to my colleague from Kentucky--and I 
appreciate the leadership of our colleague from North Dakota in 
constantly, persistently trying to get this in the Senate for a vote. 
My State of South Dakota, similar to so many others, stands to benefit 
enormously from this. We wish we had the direct energy production that 
the Senator of North Dakota has. We have a lot of indirect benefit from 
that. In fact, the State Department, the President's own State 
Department--not the oil companies--the State Department has said that 
in my State of South Dakota it would create 3,000 to 4,000 jobs, add 
$100 million to the economy, and generate $20 million in property tax 
revenue.
  I happen to come from a county through which the pipeline would pass, 
a small rural county in South Dakota. My father still lives there. He 
is 94 years old. The school district there is very concerned about 
staying open. They know that when this pipeline is built, the easement 
they will have to get will generate property tax revenue that very well 
could keep the school district going. So many of the local governments 
out in my area in the State are very supportive of this important 
project.
  I guess as I have looked at this--we have now had plenty of time to 
look at it since it has been kicking around here for about 6 years and 
five now environmental impact statements, all of which came back and 
said they have minimal impact on the environment.
  If we are serious about job creation, and we have all talked on our 
side about the jobs this would create, the economic activities it would 
create, and the lessening of the dependence we have on foreign sources 
of energy--I have to say one other thing about my State; that is, we 
have a rail crisis. We have been battling now for a long time with the 
limited capacity in rail and much of the oil moving out is going on 
rail.
  That makes it harder for us to get our agricultural commodities to 
the marketplace, and so what is happening is that we are consistently 
stressed. The one thing the pipeline would do in addition to moving 
Canadian oil down is it would allow for about 100,000 barrels a day of 
that--what do you call it--sweet light crude--to be put on the pipeline 
and therefore not on the rail car. That saves about a unit train a day, 
which is significant.
  I guess I would say to my colleague from Kentucky--and I appreciate 
the arguments he has made not just with respect to this specific issue 
but also with what the administration's policies are doing to energy 
production in this country and the cost of energy and what that means 
for middle-income families, what that means for businesses, and what 
that means for jobs. It is like an all-out assault.
  The Keystone Pipeline is one example of many of policies where this 
administration is in a position to do something good for the economy, 
something good for jobs, and something good for energy development in 
this country, lessening the dangerous dependence we have on foreign oil 
sources of energy.
  I would say to my friend from Kentucky and I would ask him in terms 
of--the Senator doesn't have the direct and indirect benefit we have in 
North and South Dakota, but I know he has an awful lot of energy 
development in his State--what these policies are doing to jobs in a 
State such as Kentucky.
  I know the Senator hears every day from his constituents about this 
administration's assault on the industries that are so basic and so 
important to our economy, so important to jobs, and providing a better, 
stronger, if you will, future for middle-income families in this 
country.
  I would be curious to know if the Senator from Kentucky shares the 
same concern about the jobs and economy and cost of energy and 
everything else that I do and that we do in the northern part of the 
country.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from South Dakota. I think the 
energy revolution is wonderful and we ought to embrace it. As I was 
saying earlier, what has happened in my State as a result of the war on 
coal, 90 percent of our electricity in Kentucky comes from coal-fired 
generation. We have been among the top five of the lowest utility rates 
in the country in any given year for as long as anyone can remember.
  The war on coal is not only a war on coal miners. It is a war on all 
of Kentucky because our utility rates are beginning to go up, which is 
going to make the energy less affordable for

[[Page 15692]]

people on fixed incomes in my State and make us less able to compete 
for other industries.
  I repeat. I am thrilled at what is going on in North Dakota and what 
is going on in Texas. We would like to have some of that job growth 
ourselves and calling off this Environmental Protection Agency which 
seems to be just hell-bent to take coal out of the equation.
  It is a heavy price to pay for this ideological crusade which the 
President seeks to lead on a worldwide basis and says to the Chinese 
they don't have to do anything for 16 years while we take away our own 
jobs and opportunity.
  Mr. CORNYN. I wonder if the Senator would yield for one last 
question. I see the Senator from Alaska, and I hope she will join us in 
this discussion.
  To follow up on a very important point made by the Senator from North 
Dakota that hadn't been explored a lot, he talked about the 
implications of more North American energy self-sufficiency and what 
that might mean in terms of geopolitics.
  We know, for example, that Vladimir Putin used his energy as a weapon 
in Ukraine and Europe to try to intimidate people and to keep them from 
resisting his invasion of independent republics such as Ukraine.
  I think it is significant because for so long we have been dependent 
on imported energy from the Middle East, which we know has been a real 
challenge because of the instability there, millennia old conflicts and 
sectarian strife.
  I would be interested if the Senator from Kentucky or perhaps other 
Senators have observations about what this means in terms of the safety 
and the security of the United States as we become increasingly North 
American energy self-sufficient. We haven't even talked about New 
Mexico. They are just now beginning to open their domestic energy 
production to the kinds of things we are already seeing in North 
Dakota, Texas and Alaska and elsewhere.
  It promises not only jobs but a great opportunity for us to become a 
safer and more stable source of this necessary energy supply.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, obviously what is happening is 
America is on its way to being energy independent in natural gas and 
oil. We have the ranking member of the energy committee on the floor as 
well. I wonder if she had a question.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, and to our leader on the floor and to 
the colleagues who have come together to talk about this important 
issue for us as a nation from an energy perspective--and we mentioned 
the jobs and the benefits that flow to our Nation's economy. When we 
talk about the issue of energy independence, there was a time when 
people would scoff at the notion that as a nation we would ever have a 
level of independence. I guess I look at it and say energy independence 
to me is a place where we are no longer vulnerable for our energy 
sources from those who would wish us ill. What has happened to this 
Nation in the past half dozen years has been transformational.
  We talk about the shale revolution. We talk about a renaissance. What 
this means to us is that we are truly approaching that point where we 
are more energy secure and from a national security perspective. The 
vulnerability we once had is greatly lessened because of our own 
ability to produce our own resources for our people.
  It is not just within the continental United States. It is Alaska as 
we point out, but it is North America. We are talking about North 
American energy independence and what that entails and what that means. 
When we think about where we have come and the fact that next year we 
will be producing more oil than Saudi Arabia, who would have thought 
that the United States would be in this perspective. Who would have 
thought we would have a conversation about energy abundance rather than 
energy scarcity.
  It hasn't happened because this oil has just suddenly migrated to 
North America. It has always been there. It has been our technology. It 
has been our ingenuity that allows us to access it. Think what we can 
do when we partner with our friends and neighbors whether it is Canada 
to the north or Mexico to the south. So when we talk about energy 
independence and energy security, the Keystone XL Pipeline is kind of 
that corridor that helps connect us as two nations. The benefits that 
derive to both of us are quite considerable.
  We are talking about jobs for America and we should be. I think we 
also need to recognize that when we are talking about the Keystone XL 
Pipeline, it is about a trade relationship with our closest neighbor 
and truly our closest ally and the benefits that come to both of us 
because of this relationship.
  There is a phrase that is used. We say the United States and Canada 
are joined at the well--literally joined at the well. This is something 
the Congressional Research Service actually says.
  There are currently 19 cross-border oil pipelines that are already 
operating between the United States and Canada or Mexico. This is in 
addition to all of the dozens of natural gas, electric transmission 
lines. These are oil pipelines that are crossing the border with Canada 
into Montana and into North Dakota, into Michigan, into New York, into 
Washington, into Vermont.
  One would think this Keystone XL was the first pipeline to ever cross 
the border from the north to the south. It is some new precedent 
setting. There were 19 cross-border oil pipelines.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Back in 2009 this administration, this Obama 
administration, came to a decision about the Alberta Clipper project. 
This was yet another pipeline from Canada to the United States. There 
were arguments for and against. But ultimately Clipper was approved 
just as Keystone XL should be approved. So when we are talking about 
plowing new ground here, I think it is important for people to 
recognize there is no new ground that we are plowing here. This is just 
a reticence and a reluctance from an administration to do what I think 
people across the country believe is the right and the reasonable 
thing, not only from a jobs perspective, from an economic perspective, 
but from an energy security perspective as well as a relationship with 
our closest friend and ally.
  I know my colleague from Kentucky had an opportunity to serve with 
our former colleague here, Senator Ted Kennedy. I am not going to ask 
the Senator whether he recalls the quote, but I think it is important 
to kind of put this in context. We have not as a nation always been 
opposed to importing this crude from Canada. As I mentioned, 19 cross-
border agreements are in place today. But back in 1970 the Nixon 
administration announced they were going to place a quota on Canadian 
oil exports. This was when things around the country were getting 
dicey.
  It was Senator Ted Kennedy who led the fight against this. He said--
and this is a quote from a Senate hearing back in March of 1970. 
Senator Kennedy said:

       The reason why Canadian oil has never been restricted in 
     the past is obvious. Canadian oil is as militarily and 
     politically secure as our own and thus there can be no 
     national security justification for limiting its importation.

  So not only is this an issue that has been going on for a long time, 
both sides of the aisle recognize that there is an imperative when you 
come together with your allies for a resource that we recognize is a 
benefit to all, creates jobs for all.
  So I ask my colleague from Kentucky, because he has not only served 
in this body for considerable years, but he has been through these 
debates over the decades. The question is: Why is this Keystone XL 
Pipeline being held out to be such a groundbreaking initiative that 
this President would put a hold on it for 5 years?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend from Alaska, I am as 
perplexed by that as she is. The Senator pointed out that having a 
cross-border pipeline is not exactly something new. As our chairman, 
Senator Hoeven, has pointed out repeatedly, it has cleared every 
environmental test. We cannot figure out why this has happened other 
than some

[[Page 15693]]

misplaced ideological crusade the President wants to lead, not approved 
by Congress.
  We all remember what it was like here in 2009 and 2010. Our friends 
on the other side had 60 votes. They could do whatever they wanted to. 
They could not pass cap-and-trade when they owned the place. They 
passed ObamaCare. They passed the stimulus. They passed Dodd-Frank. 
They couldn't pass cap-and-trade.
  The President obviously feels so strongly about this, he is willing 
to give the Chinese a 16-year pass, ignore Congress and go full speed 
ahead. Part of that ideological rigidity is reflected in the challenge 
our friend from North Dakota has had here for a number of years in 
getting a decision made, which by any objective standard ought to be a 
no-brainer. My goodness, this is about as close to a no-brainer as you 
will ever run into.
  I came out here for the specific purpose of praising the great work 
of the Senator from North Dakota. Without him we would not be where we 
are today on this issue.
  I wonder if the Senator has any further question or observation to 
make?
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I would like to thank the minority 
leader. I would like to thank all the Members of our caucus for joining 
on this bipartisan legislation. You know, we are continuing to work 
across the aisle to get 60 votes. At the end of the day, you have got 
to go back to what this is all about. This is about building an ``all 
of the above'' energy plan for this Nation. You cannot build an ``all 
of the above'' energy plan for the Nation if you do not have the 
infrastructure to move that energy around the country. We are seeing 
what is happening. Because we have been blocked on building these 
pipelines, now we are not able to move our grain to market, because 
there are so many rail cars now trying to move crude oil--700,000 
barrels a day out of our State alone, and it is growing.
  Keystone alone will replace 1,400 rail cars a day that are now 
carrying oil. That is 10-unit trains. So, you see, this is about so 
many aspects of our economy, strengthening our economy and creating 
good-paying jobs that people want. That is why the American people--and 
that is who we work for, that is who we represent. That is what this is 
about. That is what we heard loud and clear in the election, is that 
the American people want us to work together. They want us to get jobs 
going, get this economy going, build the right kind of energy future, 
get our budget deficit under control.
  That means we have to do the fundamentals. When we talk about 
building infrastructure, we are talking about the fundamentals. That is 
what is going on here. This has been 6 years. We need to get this 
economy going. That starts with common sense. This is common sense. 
This is common sense because it is about energy, it is about jobs, it 
is about growing the economy, it is about national security, it is 
about not having to get oil from the Middle East, and it is about doing 
what the American people overwhelmingly time and again have told us 
they want us to do.
  Again, I want to thank the minority leader. I will turn to him and 
again say: You know, I believe we can find a way, either in this 
lameduck or in the next Congress--and I would ask the leader--in the 
next Congress, and I believe it to be true, as the majority leader, he 
will make this a priority as part of an energy plan for this country.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me wrap it up by thanking again the Senator from 
North Dakota for his extraordinary leadership on this issue and assure 
the American people that we will be back. Hopefully it will be approved 
and signed by the President sooner. If not, he will have another 
opportunity later.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I most certainly have enjoyed this 
colloquy and have been down on the floor most of the day. I am 
extremely disappointed I could not get any Member of the other side to 
recognize me for questions. I see the minority leader leaving the floor 
now, although he knows I have many questions for him that he does not 
want to answer. But that is his prerogative. You know, I thought we 
came here to work together. I am standing here. I have worked with 
Senator Hoeven on this bill. Before Senator Hoeven leaves the floor or 
Senator Barrasso or Senator Murkowski, if they would stay, I would like 
to thank Senator Hoeven for his extraordinary leadership on this bill.
  Although the other side does not acknowledge any of the leaders over 
here, such as the Presiding Officer or Senator Manchin or Senator 
Baucus, who is no longer here but was a strong voice for Keystone many 
years ago, or some of the other Democratic Senators, I want to 
personally thank Senator Hoeven for his leadership and thank Senator 
Murkowski for her extraordinary leadership on this issue.
  The Senator has been a real partner to me in the truest sense of the 
word and in the greatest spirit of bipartisanship. Of course, she had 
an experience that not many Senators have. She was defeated by her own 
party in her own State. They chose someone else and ran against the 
Senator, which is unusual, and did not support her in her reelection, 
even though the Senator and her father have chaired, on and off, the 
energy committee for years. I have been a strong partner not only with 
Lisa, the Senator from Alaska, but with her father Frank.
  But the Republican Party did not support the Senator in her last 
election. So the Senator had to sign in on an Independent ticket. I was 
one of the first people to call her and say: Go, girl. Let's get it 
done. She did. So I have the utmost respect for Senator Murkowski. I 
have the utmost respect for the Senator's father. I have the utmost 
respect for Ted Stevens. I stood with Ted Stevens until the end, even 
though my party went against him. I would fight for him to this day if 
he were here, because some of us actually believe in bipartisanship. 
Lots of people around here talk about it, but that is really it.
  The evidence I am going to give--I am sorry the Senator from Kentucky 
is not here to defend himself. I want the quote he wrote down. He might 
come back to the floor when he hears what I am going to say. I am going 
to speak for 1 hour.
  The Senator from Kentucky, who will be the majority leader, has not 
left his partisanship in Kentucky because you just saw it on display 
here. He cannot help himself. He cannot speak for 3 minutes without 
mentioning the President. He had his back turned the whole time, would 
not even acknowledge anyone over here. So he does a lot of talking 
about bipartisanship. But his statement just yesterday was, ``I am 
confident Dr. Cassidy will use his position to succeed where Senator 
Landrieu failed.''
  I do not necessarily think this is failure to get a vote on the 
Keystone Pipeline. I think this is a great victory. I want to share 
this victory with Senator Hoeven who is a leader. I also want to have 
printed in the Record--the Senator from Kentucky had a lot to say about 
everybody else not doing their job. I want to say that on at least one 
occasion, he did not do his either. On March 16, there were 15 
Senators--March 16 of 2011, not 2012. I mean not 2014, not 2013, not 
2012, but 2011. I think that was before the Presiding Officer was here. 
On March 16, 2011, when Secretary Clinton was still the Secretary of 
State, there were 16 Members of the Senate who signed a letter to her 
asking her to approve the Keystone Pipeline. I am going to read those 
names because I think it is important. My name is first, amazingly. I 
am very proud of that, didn't even remember it. Mary Landrieu. Orrin 
Hatch circulated a letter with me. Max Baucus. Kay Bailey Hutchison, my 
dear friend from Texas. Pat Roberts from Kansas, another dear friend. 
Mike Enzi from Wyoming. Lisa Murkowski--of course her name would be on 
here--from Alaska. Senator John Cornyn from Texas. John Barrasso from 
Wyoming. Mark Begich from Alaska who just unfortunately lost his race 
because of several reasons, one of which is that people talk a lot 
about bipartisanship who do not really honor it. Nobody better than

[[Page 15694]]

Mark Begich has shown a willingness to work across party lines. He is 
no longer with us, but he signed this letter. Roy Blunt from Missouri. 
John Hoeven from North Dakota, and Ron Johnson.
  But you know a signature that is not on this letter is Mitch 
McConnell's. Maybe Mitch McConnell was too busy to sign this letter. 
But his name is not on here. Now am I saying Mitch McConnell has not 
been a supporter of the Keystone Pipeline? Absolutely not. Senator 
McConnell has supported this project. But what I am saying is that 
Senator McConnell has not been truthful with the American people about 
actually how this has always evolved. To support that claim, which is a 
strong one, on May 7, 2014, Senator Reid offered a vote on the XL 
Pipeline. Senator McConnell objected. On May 12, 2014, Senator Reid 
offered a vote on the Keystone Pipeline. Senator McConnell objected. On 
May 12, I offered a vote on the Keystone Pipeline. Senator Flake 
objected for Senator McConnell. On June 24, Senator Shaheen offered a 
vote on the XL Pipeline. That, of course, I believe, was connected with 
the energy efficiency bill with Senator Portman. Senator Inhofe 
objected. Senator McConnell did nothing to help. Then on June 25, 
Senator Reid offered a vote on the XL Pipeline. Senator McConnell 
objected.
  I want to underscore this. I am not saying Senator Reid is a 
supporter of the pipeline. He has never been. He is not a supporter of 
the pipeline, but he has asked for a vote on Keystone a number of times 
and Senator McConnell has objected.
  Senator McConnell will come to the floor and show a list such as this 
when he has asked for votes on the Keystone Pipeline and Senator Reid 
has objected. That is the truth of the Congress. The saddest thing 
about this is I have believed for over 1 year that if we could actually 
get a vote, we have the 60 votes to pass it.
  I have said that on any number of occasions. I believe we have the 60 
votes to pass Keystone. I believe the coalition of oil and gas and 
energy and manufacturing companies that are very strong, with the 
coalition of the strongest labor unions and organizations that 
represent working people, and with the vote in this last election, and 
with the people of the United States--mostly because of the people of 
the United States asking us to do our jobs, I, on faith, and with 
strong evidence that I have--but on faith in what is right, what is 
true, and what is best--we have the 60 votes on this floor. That is why 
I came to the floor yesterday--on that faith.
  I said that I believed that it was time to vote on the Keystone 
Pipeline now. The most important reason is to show the American people 
that we are willing to put partisanship aside. I called Senator 
Hoeven--the first thing I did. The Senator has left the floor because I 
am not really sure anyone wants to debate me on this. But that is OK. I 
am used to it. I don't have anybody to debate at home in my election 
because my opponent won't show up. So I am very used to debating all by 
myself. So they have all left the floor.
  But when I arrived in Washington, the first thing I did was to call 
Senator Hoeven. I spoke to him because I have done that on any number 
of occasions. I said to him: John, I think this is a very good time, 
and there are several reasons why. I think the politics are cleared up. 
I think the people spoke--cleared up, not meaning me. It is not about 
my politics, but it is about the politics of some people who lost and 
won.
  Some people who were opposing the vote have lost. Some people who 
supported having the vote are here. I have said it looks to me as if 
this is a perfect opportunity to do two things--to get done something 
that you and I have wanted to do now for over 1 year.
  This letter most certainly suggests that there were a number of us--
not many. There were only 15 of us who signed the letter to Secretary 
Clinton asking her to push forward on the pipeline. Other people were 
either too busy to sign it or didn't think--whatever--but it is a 
bipartisan letter and it was very good.
  So I called the Senator, and he said that he didn't think that it 
would happen until the next Congress.
  So I said: Well, let's try. Maybe we could get it done. He said that 
he would talk to his leadership, and that was the last conversation I 
have had with him.
  I came down to the floor yesterday just thinking: Well, maybe I will 
just kick it up a little bit, and sure enough, I did. It got kicked up 
pretty high. I was actually here around 2 o'clock because I have been 
around here enough to know that if you show up early you actually might 
get something done. Don't show up late; don't be late. My dad taught me 
to be on time, so I was here at 2 o'clock.
  I was very interested to see what Majority Leader Reid would say and 
Minority Leader McConnell would say, and the Senator from Texas, who is 
usually always with the Senator from Kentucky, what they would say 
about what we should do.
  I sat here fully expecting the minority leader from Kentucky--soon to 
be the majority leader--to say OK, the people have spoken; let's get on 
with a bill that is very important. Everyone in the country--not 
everyone, but many people--many people in this country, in all regions, 
support the Keystone Pipeline--not everyone. There are strong feelings 
against it, but every poll I have seen shows people from many different 
areas of the country, many different political persuasions. This is not 
as if only Democrats are against it and only Republicans are for it. 
There are many Democrats in my State that have supported it--poor 
people, rich people, black people, white people--Democrats who support 
the Keystone Pipeline. I am certain that is true in the State of the 
Presiding Officer, North Dakota. I am sure that it is not even a party 
issue in the State of North Dakota. This is just a commonsense issue to 
get the Keystone Pipeline bill.
  At approximately 2:15 yesterday I sat on the floor, ready to go. I 
had called my leader and John Hoeven. His name is first on this bill. I 
could have asked for my name to be first on the bill because I actually 
chair the committee, but I was trying to be bipartisan, gracious, and a 
team member. It hasn't gotten me very far, but I just used it as an 
example.
  I said: John, this means the world to you, although it means the 
world to me, put your name first. So it is called the Hoeven-Landrieu 
bill. I called him since it is his bill and asked him what he thought. 
He said he thought we could do it in the next Congress. I said, I 
actually think we can do it now. He said he didn't think so. So I just 
came to the floor.
  I waited for Mitch McConnell to say something. This is what he said:

       Mr. President, last week the American people sent a strong 
     message to Washington. They voted for a new direction. They 
     called for a change in the way we do things in the Senate, 
     and they sent a new team to Washington to carry their wishes 
     forward, and we plan to do just that.
       But several items remain for the outgoing Congress to 
     consider and that is our immediate focus.

  So I am sitting in my chair thinking OK, here we go. I am ready. I 
have been ready since we started, but definitely my staff can't find 
anything before that which I can show for any evidence, other than this 
letter. So I can just say I think I was for it since I heard about it. 
But since I can't prove it, let's go back to March 16, 2011, because my 
signature is the lead on this letter. So that is some indication that I 
have been leading at least since then.
  I get a tremendous amount of credit, of course, from my own caucus 
because they understand that even though most of my caucus doesn't 
agree with me and thinks I have been--and I have really pushed them on 
this issue and will continue to, because that is what good Senators do. 
We don't represent our caucuses. We represent our States, and we fight 
hard for what we believe is right. I have, for the longest time, felt 
this was the right thing to do. So that was that letter.
  I was sitting and thinking: Here we go. But this is what the minority 
leader went on to say:

       In the weeks that remain in this Congress, we should work 
     to accomplish the essential

[[Page 15695]]

     task [not of building the Keystone Pipeline] of funding the 
     Congress and preventing retroactive tax increases.

  I thought he could say the essential task of funding Congress--which 
I will put first, although a lot of people don't think we should fund 
ourselves because we are not doing a very good job--but I will give him 
that.
  The second I would put--and let's show the people that we mean 
business by passing a bipartisan bill, the Keystone Pipeline, and 
moving it to the President's desk. But he said:

       . . . preventing retroactive tax increases. We must address 
     the expiring authority passed earlier this session for the 
     Department of Defense to train and equip a moderate, vetted 
     Syrian opposition [I agree that is very important] and we 
     must continue to support the efforts to address the Ebola 
     crisis [equally important].

  But then something interesting happened. They brought to the floor a 
childhood bill--the majority and minority together. The leadership 
brought a bill that has bipartisan support--but so does Keystone. But 
the majority leader and the minority leader didn't think Keystone could 
get votes or couldn't pass or maybe they didn't want to pass it.
  But as long as I am a Senator--I hope to be for many years to come--I 
am going to continue to fight for what is right and do it in as 
gracious a manner as possible to give credit where credit is due, to 
honor the Members on the other side and on my side who work very hard 
and just don't talk about bipartisanship but actually work at it every 
day.
  I am sorry that it doesn't seem possible for the minority leader--
soon to be majority leader--to do that. When he finished speaking, I 
just sat here because I can't get leader time because I am not the 
leader of the caucus. Then I thought well, maybe Senator Cornyn will 
say something.
  Senator Cornyn spoke at approximately 2:30, the record says. He spoke 
longer than the majority leader. He also talked about dysfunction, but 
he never called for a Keystone vote either. So I thought that was 
strange.
  He said: ``We will pass a budget next year--something our friends 
across the aisle have failed to do . . . ''
  He said: ``I know Republicans and Democrats will continue to have 
policy disagreements.''
  He also said:

       So last week's election will not change some of the 
     fundamental policy differences we have between political 
     parties on ObamaCare, on what we need to do to preserve and 
     protect Social Security and Medicare and the like . . . but 
     it will give us a chance to make some steady incremental 
     progress on issues where we do agree.

  He talked about Ted Kennedy, the lion of the Senate. He talked about 
Mike Enzi and how Mike Enzi, who is a wonderful Senator--someone I have 
worked with very closely--said: Let's work on the 80-20 rule.
  He said: What is that? He said: Let's work on the 80 percent that we 
can agree on and the 20 percent we cannot.
  Then he went on to say:

       That strikes me as eminently practical and a way for us to 
     begin to get back to work again.
       When I talk about the easy stuff we can do, I am referring 
     to the bipartisan majority that supports things such as the 
     Keystone XL Pipeline authorization . . .

  I want to repeat that:

       When I talk about the easy stuff we can do, I am referring 
     to the bipartisan majority that supports things such as the 
     Keystone XL Pipeline authorization . . .

  So I thought he would call for us to see what we could do in this 
lame duck. We are going to vote on an early childhood education bill. 
Most certainly we would have the time to vote on a jobs bill.
  Now I believe early childhood education in the long term is the best 
jobs bill we can do. I have said that over and over, and my life has 
been committed to early childhood education, good schools, excellence 
in education, and accountability. I am not saying this to diminish the 
bill the Senate is poised to pass, which is for early childhood 
education. But if we started today with 2 year olds, it will literally 
take us 20 years until they are 22, and the American people want jobs 
yesterday. They want jobs now. They don't want jobs in 22 years.
  So I was hoping the majority would see that there is a clear path for 
the Keystone Pipeline to pass--a clear path. You can see it. You don't 
need a magnifying glass. You just need a brain in your head, an 
understanding of what happened in the election, and the votes that are 
here. It is--yes, what happened in the election, not only that the 
American people spoke, but that some Members who were opposed to it and 
who didn't want to vote have lost their elections.
  The votes are here to pass this bill. It was clear to me; I thought 
it should be clear to the majority leader. So people are going to have 
to go ask the majority leader. He left the floor, and he will not 
answer this question, but I am going to continue to ask it until I get 
an answer from him because I think the people of the United States 
deserve it. Why didn't he? He has been talking about it incessantly 
every day, not only beating up on Democrats, even though about 15 of 
us--maybe more--will vote for it, but he has been beating up on the 
President incessantly, every day. And when he had the microphone, when 
he had the chance, when he was elected overwhelmingly in his State, he 
walked to the floor and didn't say a word about the Keystone Pipeline. 
Not a word. He didn't even refer to it.
  Then the Senator from Texas, who I thought, well--because they do 
their scripts together, they coordinate them very well. I thought maybe 
the Senator from Texas was going to give the signal. The Senator from 
Texas didn't give the signal, either.
  So as all Senators here who are elected have the right to stand up at 
their desk and ask for recognition--it is about as simple as that. I 
didn't even have a script. I was just sort of thinking that they were 
going to do it. That is why I was here, because I thought at least I 
would like to say I agree with it, and I am prepared to do what I have 
done to rally our side to get the votes.
  So neither one of them said anything. And we can read it for 
ourselves. It is very clear. The Senator from Texas said we should do 
easy stuff like the Keystone Pipeline. We will do that. Next time we 
will work on workforce training. He said: No. 4, we can work on 
infrastructure; No. 5, he said we should discourage abusive, costly 
litigation; No. 6, we are going to repeal ObamaCare, particularly 
restore the 40-hour workweek; repeal the medical device tax; and No. 8, 
we are going to abolish the Independent Payment Advisory Board under 
Medicare. Each of these things I have mentioned has bipartisan support. 
If we can pass these measures, we will send them to the President for 
his signature. So starting with the easy stuff we have already 
identified that has bipartisan support.
  Well, I lead the bipartisan effort on the Democratic side, and I am 
proud to say that I lead it with the Senator from North Dakota who is 
presiding, who has been an equally ferocious and sometimes more 
effective, I will admit, champion than I have been, and the Senator 
from West Virginia, who has also been an absolute bulldog on the issue.
  There are other Senators. Max Baucus was a strong supporter of 
Keystone. Senator Tester. Is it impossible for Republicans to utter the 
words? Senator Tester. Senator Heitkamp. They don't have to say my 
name. I am clear about why they are not doing that, but they could at 
least be gracious enough to recognize the leadership of the other 
Senators here who have worked hard.
  When we start this next Congress--and I am going to do everything I 
can to be a part of it--I really hope the reporters in this Chamber and 
people who are following this will start reporting what really happens 
here instead of what happens at press conferences, instead of what 
people say in press releases, instead of what people say when they buy 
staged television ads. If the reporters would actually just report what 
happened, I think that would be a good start.
  Sometimes they are going to say: This is what Senator Landrieu did, 
and I disagree with her. This is what Mitch McConnell did, and I 
disagree with him. But at least they would report what actually 
happens.
  So when they finished speaking, I stood up and said I think the votes 
are

[[Page 15696]]

there. I have reason to believe they are. I worked for a couple of days 
last week just calling around because I am the chair of the committee, 
and my job is to pass legislation. I passed some significant pieces of 
legislation even before I was the chair of the energy committee, 
although you would not believe that listening to some people. We passed 
the RESTORE Act. I led the pushback against Biggert-Waters, although I 
didn't put my name on it because I knew if I did, it would never pass 
because they wouldn't have allowed it under any circumstance. So 
Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson were gracious to step up, and they 
led the effort, and I just kind of organized behind the scenes--it is 
clear that happened--and we passed it. I am grateful to this day that I 
didn't put my name as the lead because they never would have passed it 
in an election year, and we would have had 5 million people in this 
country literally turning their homes back to the banks or telling 
their children: The home that I built and that we built together that 
has $300,000 or $400,000 of equity--I am just telling you we are 
bankrupt.
  I am so glad that didn't happen. I am thrilled.
  So we did that bill. We did the RESTORE Act. I passed early in my 
career a revenue-sharing bill that is going to serve the State of 
Louisiana and the gulf coast beautifully for years to come.
  Harry Truman offered us a portion of offshore oil and gas revenues 
even before I was born. When I got through college and read about it, I 
thought: Geez, that was a good idea. I liked Harry Truman's idea, and 
so I filed a bill and passed it as a junior member of the committee--I 
remind people, over the objection of my own chairman, who was a 
Democrat at the time, the Senator from New Mexico, Jeff Bingaman, who 
was adamantly opposed, adamantly fought every day, not just voted 
against me but lobbied against me, fought against me, spoke against 
it--not me personally but the bill. He just didn't believe in it--not 
me personally but the bill. I passed it over his objection, which is a 
very hard thing, for a junior member of the committee to pass it over 
the objection of their own chairman. But the reason I did it is because 
I figured out the votes, and we drafted it in a way that could secure 
the votes and passed it. That is the truth.
  So I am happy tonight. I am not sad. I am happy tonight that the 
House of Representatives is again--because this is like the third time 
this has happened in my career. It is a great honor for a House that I 
haven't spent 2 minutes on the floor of--I mean, I know my delegation, 
but I haven't spent any time in the House. I wasn't even a Member of 
the House. This is the third time in my career that the House of 
Representatives has actually taken a Hoeven-Landrieu, Landrieu-Hoeven 
bill, stripped their bill--and I didn't even ask them to do it--and put 
my bill over there and passed it, and then they are going to move it 
over here. I could not be happier because we need to get the Keystone 
Pipeline done. They did sort of the same thing with revenue sharing, 
the RESTORE Act--well, four times--and the Biggert-Waters bill.
  So I could not be happier that I was here at 2:00, that I listened to 
my father, who is listening now--he should be happy to say: Show up on 
time. You might not ever figure out what could happen if you aren't 
there on time.
  So I was, thinking absolutely they wouldn't put the early childhood 
vote on the floor, they would put Keystone on the floor because they 
talked about it every single day--every single day in my State, in 
Alaska, in North Carolina, in Georgia, and in Kentucky. Every single 
day.
  What was wrong with yesterday? What was wrong with yesterday? It was 
a good day. I am going to let that question sit because there are a lot 
of people around here who know the answer; I don't have to tell it to 
them. What was wrong with Tuesday? So when they didn't mention it, I 
thought that I would because, as is the truth, I have been leading it 
since 2011. I am not going to stop until we get a vote on the Senate 
floor, for as long as I am here as chair, as ranking member--which I 
will be, and not as happy as being chair but thrilled to be able to 
work with the Senator from Alaska. If I had to pick one person in this 
body on that side of the aisle to work with, it would be Lisa Murkowski 
without a doubt, not only because she is a woman but because she is an 
independent woman. She is strong. And since I was raised by one, I 
cotton to them.
  So I am a happy camper. It does not bother me because, as I have 
said, I have now worked here long enough to have worked in the majority 
and in the minority. I have worked with Republicans. I have worked with 
Democrats. I have worked with three Presidents of different parties and 
six Governors. Why would I be sad? This is kind of like somebody said 
to me: This is the gig you signed up for. Yes, it is. It is strange to 
many people, and I don't blame our constituents for getting aggravated, 
but it is a gig I signed up for because my dad signed up for it, my 
brother signed up for it, and my sister signed up for it because it is 
what we do, and we do it well. And every single member of my family--
and my husband signed up for it, and his mother signed up for it. I 
think it is worth signing up for, is why I am here.
  Other people can have their opinions about the people who are here. I 
think they are some of the best people in the world. Maybe the 
institution is dysfunctional--it is. It is dysfunctional at this 
moment, but the people are not. The individual people who are here on 
both sides are not dysfunctional individuals; they are some of the most 
extraordinary people on this planet. I know I am going to get 
criticized for that statement because people will say: There she goes, 
just talking about politicians. But I have served long enough to know 
there are really some extraordinary human beings who serve in this 
Senate--smart, capable, caring--on both sides of the aisle, and I am 
proud to be a part of it.
  I was not proud of the minority leader from Kentucky on Tuesday. I 
was not proud of him today. I was not proud of the Senator from Texas 
today. I was very disappointed in the Senator from North Dakota. But 
they are my friends. We will get through it, and we will work forward 
together.
  I am glad the House is debating and voting. I look forward to being 
back here on next Tuesday, where our vote will occur, and I am very 
hopeful we will have and I believe we will have not 60 but probably 61 
votes for the Keystone Pipeline. What the President does is a different 
matter, and I would like to challenge the Senators on Tuesday to just 
focus on the Senate.
  Let the Senate's will work. Let us pass this bill. We will then send 
it to the President, and under the Constitution--which is read to us on 
a frequent basis--the President has the right to sign it or to veto it. 
If he vetoes it, it is going to take 67 votes to override his veto. 
Mine will be one of them if he vetoes this bill. If I am here, my vote 
will be there to override his veto. I don't believe there are 67 other 
votes in the Senate to do that. There might be. I don't know what 
mindset people will have, but let's cross that bridge when we get 
there.
  Stop talking about the White House and talk about the Senate. If the 
Senate can function, then maybe the House will do a little bit better, 
maybe the White House will do a little bit better. My mother taught me 
if you want to criticize others, start with yourself first. Get 
yourself straight before you start criticizing everybody else. All I 
hear around here is what this one didn't do and what that one didn't do 
and what the President didn't do. Let us work as a Senate. Let us show 
the American people how the Senate works.
  The House is going to do their job on Keystone. We are going to do 
our job on Keystone, and that will break the gridlock, which we 
desperately need on a significant--not an easy bill, not an easy bill--
but easier, such as early childhood education. Who could be opposed to 
that? But let's break the gridlock on a tough bill that is hard on our 
Members to vote on. There are Members here who think it is the worst 
thing in the world. I understand that. I think there are things that 
have passed

[[Page 15697]]

here that I thought were the worst things in the world and I didn't 
like them, but voting is important. Senator Durbin has said this and 
others have said this over and over again; Senator Leahy, who has been 
here a long time. Let us vote and let us stop criticizing everyone 
else, and do our job, and I am proud that I helped to get us moving in 
that direction.
  I am going to ask--Senator Carper is seeking to speak on another 
matter. I understand my hour of postcloture is about to expire. I don't 
need any additional time. I note that Senator Carper is here, but 
before that, Senator Heitkamp, I would respectfully say to the Chair, I 
think may have some comments she would like to make, and I yield the 
floor, but if Senator Heitkamp could go now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). For the information of the 
Senate, cloture having been invoked, the motion to refer falls.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my very good 
friend Mary Landrieu for everything she has done for our country, for 
her State, for her tenacity, and for her willingness to shepherd this 
through at a very critical time.
  We talked yesterday on the floor about how important it is to send 
the right messages to the American public. A lot of people will say, 
well, they pick this agenda or this agenda. They just want us to start 
working together. And they want us to turn on the television and watch 
C-SPAN and say, there they are in the sandbox again, fighting about 
things that don't matter to the American public. You know, picking 
fights with each other, bad-mouthing each other, as opposed to working 
together.
  It is a little tough right now, because I think that if we are going 
to set the tone today, yesterday, today and in the days that follow 
during this lameduck, the tone that will establish the relationships 
and the courtesies we are going to have going forward in the next 
Congress, we need to make sure we are communicating when the tone goes 
a little wrong.
  To me, I have fought this issue. I have been in favor of the Keystone 
Pipeline ever since I looked, and I somewhat famously likened it to 
caring about a reality TV show that has nothing to do with people's 
lives, and wondering why we care so much about Keystone, because it 
doesn't have a whole lot to do with carbon. It doesn't. Keystone 
Pipeline is about transportation of oil. That oil is going to get 
transported, it is going to get produced, and it is going to move. It 
is going to move on rail or it is going to move on pipe someplace. When 
you look at all the studies that have been done, the environmental 
studies, you turn it around 100 different ways, you come to the same 
conclusion, that the Keystone Pipeline makes an incredible amount of 
sense.
  It is a job-ready project, shovel-ready project, with good trade 
union jobs. That is something you don't see every day in America. New 
things coming--it will help us transport 100,000 barrels of oil. That 
is less than 10 percent of what we produce every day but it will take, 
as my senior Senator said, a lot of unit trains off the rails so we can 
move grain, and it will be state of the art in terms of the quality of 
the pipeline. I have seen the pipeline. I have seen the oil sands. I 
have been there. We are headed for North American energy independence 
if we don't get in our own way.
  Keystone has taken a role larger than life, and it has been this hot 
button issue that doesn't belong in this debate. It should have been 
approved, in my opinion, years ago, absolutely years ago. It has taken 
us longer to analyze Keystone than what it has taken us to beat 
Hitler--by far, almost 50 percent more time spent analyzing the 
Keystone Pipeline.
  The people of the United States are tired of this issue. They are 
tired of our gridlock, and they are tired of the partisan bickering 
back and forth. So I would ask as a way to move forward on a lot of 
very difficult energy issues that we are going to have here, whether it 
is what I believe, we need to begin to lower the barriers and eliminate 
the barriers for exportation of crude oil. It has been something I have 
talked about a lot. I believe we need to export and to facilitate the 
exportation of natural gas. I believe we need to do everything we can 
to continue to develop our renewables. I believe we should have a 
renewable fuel standard that encourages--encourages--the development of 
renewable fuels. I believe a lot of things on energy, and we frequently 
hear in this body we are all of the above and people start talking and 
you know they are not. They are not all of the above. They are 
polarizing this issue.
  At the heart of it, as I said yesterday, one of the reasons why the 
United States of America has not experienced an economic downturn or 
the slowdown that you see globally is because of this energy 
renaissance. This is what the American public has sent us to do, to set 
public policy, but more importantly, to get out of the way of private 
invention and entrepreneurship.
  So I would respectfully, very respectfully, ask that when our 
colleagues from the other side come to the floor, think about how we 
can use language that brings us together, that doesn't tell the 
American public, there they go again. You know, here we are again in 
the sandbox trying to figure out who gets credit. You know what, when 
this place works, we will all get credit. And more importantly, when 
this place works, the American public will have their faith in their 
government restored.
  So let's be very careful with language. Let's recognize everyone for 
the commitment they have made, and for the leadership they provided. 
And I have said many times in my home State, Senator Hoeven has led 
this effort. He talks about it. He has been a champion for the Keystone 
Pipeline. I hope I have been a champion. But I certainly have not done 
the time that he has done on this issue. Senator Hoeven deserves an 
incredible amount of credit; but equally, Mary Landrieu deserves an 
incredible amount of credit for moving this issue right at this point 
of time and moving this issue forward. We who are working on this side 
to gather the number of votes that we know we are going to need to pass 
this--that is not easy work. Trust me, that is not easy work, but we 
are making tremendous progress. We are making tremendous progress.
  Now what happens next week? We hope we pass it. And we will cross the 
bridge of a Presidential veto when we come to it and if we come to it. 
But let's not presuppose what people are going to do and let's not 
stand here at a time when the American public wants to see us all come 
together, let's not stand here and worry about who gets credit. Let's 
not stand here and call out people for what you consider past wrongs. 
Let's move forward on behalf of the American people.
  I wanted to personally say thank you, Senator Landrieu, for your 
leadership, for your tenacity. And if I could add one point, and I will 
say this because I was with you every step of the way on flood 
insurance. Flood insurance would not have happened without Mary 
Landrieu. We had great support on the other side, great bipartisan 
effort, but she sounded the alarm before anyone knew we were going to 
have this problem and had already built that groundwork.
  You know, I am sure there are a lot of things her opponents and her 
detractors can say about the positions she has taken over the years. Be 
honest about it. She has been a leader on Keystone. She has been a 
leader on oil and gas. She has been a leader on flood insurance. She 
has been a tenacious voice for all of those issues. And she has in her 
heart the best interests not just of the people in this country, but 
particularly the great people of the great State of Louisiana. So, 
thank you, Mary, for everything you do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                              Nominations

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I did not come to the floor to praise 
Senator Landrieu, but while I am at it, I would like to say a few 
words.
  I have the privilege of chairing the committee on governmental 
affairs.

[[Page 15698]]

Senator Landrieu chairs the appropriations subcommittee that deals with 
Homeland Security. She is also a member of the authorizing committee. 
So she works both vineyards. She is as tenacious and tireless in her 
defense of our country against cyber attacks, against terrorist 
attacks, against all kinds of ills that would otherwise be visited on 
our country. She still finds time as chairman of the energy committee 
to focus not only on issues that are important to her State--and this 
is one of them--but also issues that are incredibly important to our 
country.
  I said to my wife the other night--we were talking about Senator 
Landrieu and her tenacity. That word has been used tonight a couple 
times about her, as an unrelenting advocate for her State and the 
causes she believes in. Others have mentioned that she is a tireless 
advocate not only for Louisiana but for the causes that she sees that 
are just.
  There is no quit in this one, as I said to my wife this week. She 
said, ``How is Mary?'' I would never want to run against this woman, 
and fortunately I would never have to. And for those who have to, good 
luck and God bless. But I am proud to be here with Mary, and with 
Senator Heidi Heitkamp as well.
  The reason I come here tonight is to discuss a number of nominations 
that have been considered and approved by the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee that both Senator Landrieu and Senator 
Heitkamp and I serve on. Senator Coburn, our colleague from Oklahoma, 
is the ranking Republican on that committee, and we have worked 
tirelessly ourselves for the better part of the last 2 years to try to 
make sure there is a full complement of leadership in the Department of 
Homeland Security to provide the leadership for one of the most 
important agencies in our government. I have spoken with people on this 
floor and wherever else I could find a venue about the large and very 
troubling backlog of nominations in this Senate. I call it executive 
branch Swiss cheese. Executive branch Swiss cheese.
  There are a couple of ways you can cripple an administration. No. 1, 
you can refuse to provide appropriations and funding. Another way to 
cripple an administration is to not approve the nominations of people 
who fill key leadership positions. The most important ingredient I 
found in any organization--I don't care if it is a legislative body 
such as this, a State such as Minnesota or Delaware or Louisiana or 
North Dakota--I don't care if it is a college or a business, a church. 
The most critical factor in all of those is leadership.
  When we deny a President or a Governor or a mayor, for that matter, 
the ability to put his or her leadership team together--even when they 
are nominating well-qualified, competent people, people of integrity--
we do not do just a disservice to that person who has been nominated 
and has gone through the process, but to the State or the county or the 
country in which they have been nominated to serve.
  I think it is every Senator's constitutional role to provide advice 
and consent on the President's nominations in a thorough and timely 
manner as part of the Senate confirmation process. I have exercised 
that constitutional role and our right and our obligation. I think we 
do our country no service and do ourselves no honor when we leave 
critical agencies--and Homeland Security is certainly one of those--
without proper leadership and leave honorable men and women who are 
willing to serve in the government twisting in the wind.
  I am a big believer in the Golden Rule, as our Presiding Officer 
knows: treat other people the way we want to be treated. How would we 
like it if we were nominated, and we have a job--maybe it is an 
important job, maybe it is a job that pays a lot more than what they 
have been nominated to do in service to our country. All too often 
people are asked to put their lives and their family on hold. They 
don't know if they are going to be uprooted from wherever they are in 
the country to come here and live or for their spouse or father or 
mother to work. It is not fair.
  In some cases, it is just to put people before committees and berate 
them publicly for sins of omission or commission that may be 
fabricated. No wonder it is hard to get good people to serve.
  In this case, I have several people that I will talk about tonight. 
These people deserve not just our consideration but our strong support.
  During my 2 years as chairman of the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee, I have made it one of my top priorities 
to work closely with our ranking Republican, Dr. Tom Coburn, who is a 
physician and also a Senator, and to vet the President's nominees that 
we have jurisdiction over and move them in a timely manner when they 
meet muster, scrub them good, make sure we have drilled down on what 
they believe in, their credentials and competency for serving, and when 
they do pass muster, try to move them along and bring them through our 
committee--almost every time--with a bipartisan vote and then bring the 
nomination to the floor.
  Tom Coburn and I try to do that religiously with respect to our 
nominees. We try to do the same kind of bipartisan approach with our 
legislation. We have had a lot of success and we are grateful to our 
colleagues for supporting what we have done in our committee. We are 
grateful to Majority Leader Reid and Senator McConnell and their 
staffs. They have been valuable partners in this effort. Gary Myrick, 
who works on the floor for the Democratic side, and Laura Dove, who 
works on the Republican side for Senator McConnell, have been terrific 
to work with, and we thank them for their stewardship.
  Just yesterday our committee reported out three more outstanding 
nominees, one of them, Sarah Saldana, to be head of Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security. It is a big 
job, it is an important job, and it is a tough job. Russell Deyo has 
been nominated to be the top management official at the Department of 
Homeland Security. Mickey Barnett has been nominated by the President 
to serve another term on the Postal Services Board of Governors.
  I believe Ms. Saldana and Mr. Deyo will almost certainly be confirmed 
in short order. I urge my colleagues to review their qualifications and 
work with Dr. Coburn and me to fill these two vacancies at the 
Department of Homeland Security in the coming days.
  I wish to spend a few minutes of my time tonight discussing the 
nomination of Mickey Barnett, who is already serving on the Postal 
Board of Governors. He is a Republican and nominated again by the 
President. I will then talk about a couple of lower profile nominees 
that I think we urgently need to confirm as quickly as we can--
certainly this year during this lameduck session.
  Mickey Barnett is among a group of five partisan nominees to the 
Postal Board of Governors. His nomination was submitted by a Democratic 
President. Two of the nominees are Republicans, and Mickey is one of 
those, and three of them are Democrats.
  If we don't confirm Mr. Barnett and his colleagues by December 8--a 
little more than 4 weeks from now--Mr. Barnett, who is currently the 
Board's chair, will be forced to leave the Board. If that happens, the 
Postal Board of Governors will no longer have enough members to achieve 
a quorum and will not be able to conduct business.
  At a time when the Postal Service is struggling to address a number 
of financial challenges and adapt to the digital age and the Internet 
world we live in, being unable to conduct business would not be good 
for the Postal Service. In fact, it would be very bad. We need to avoid 
that from happening. I think if it does happen, we will be inviting a 
disaster.
  Today, because of our inability in Congress to come to a consensus on 
postal reform legislation--and they are actually creeping closer--the 
good work by Dr. Coburn and a number of other people to actually 
develop a bipartisan consensus around the legislation that was reported 
out of our committee--I believe in a 9-to-1 vote earlier this year--the 
Postal Service will continue to twist in the wind, able to

[[Page 15699]]

only do so much to address the financial challenges they face and to 
transfer themselves in a digital age. They need to figure out how to 
make themselves relevant--a 200-some-year-old establishment--in 
delivering that work that goes to every business and every residence in 
this country, for the most part, 6 days a week.
  How do we enable the Postal Service to make money? They are figuring 
it out, and we can help them with our legislation.
  Meanwhile, the customers of the Postal Service are left with 
uncertainty about what the future holds for the Postal Service. Are 
they going to be around? Are they going to be able to do the job? Are 
they ever going to modernize their fleet? Are they ever going to 
modernize their processing centers and the post offices themselves? We 
can answer that question and enable them to be financially viable once 
again. We would make that uncertainty that surrounds the Postal Service 
even worse if December 8 comes and goes and our five Postal Board 
nominees are still waiting for us to act.
  The same goes for our nominees to fill vacancies, not on the Postal 
Board of Governors, but on something called the Postal Regulatory 
Commission. It is a five-member commission. It is the regulator, if you 
will, for the Postal Service. The two people who have been nominated by 
this President are Nanci Langley and Tony Hammond. They have been 
waiting since the spring of 2013 to be confirmed. As a result, the 
commission has been working with only three commissioners out of five. 
We need to do something about that as well, and waiting for another 
year--waiting for another month is foolhardy.
  These people deserve a vote. We ought to vote them up or down. They 
have been unanimously approved and confirmed by our committee, and I 
think they need a vote. When they get a vote, I am sure they will be 
confirmed.
  Also pending before the Senate are two nominations to the District of 
Columbia Superior Court, Judge William Nooter and Judge Steven Wellner. 
They are both well-qualified nominees who, like the Homeland Security 
and Postal nominees I have discussed, won bipartisan support in the 
committee and are needed to fill vacancies on the District of 
Columbia's very busy trial court.
  Judge Nooter and Judge Wellner were reported out of our committee 
with unanimous bipartisan support months ago. In Judge Nooter's case, 
it was more than a year ago.
  As I have discussed, these men are not alone in waiting so long for 
confirmation, but the problem is particularly unfair when it comes to 
the District of Columbia's court system. Earlier this fall during the 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Hearing on DC 
statehood, the current vacancies on the DC Superior Court were included 
as just one of many injustices the District faces simply because it 
serves our Nation's capital.
  The District of Columbia already suffers from not having control over 
its laws or even its own local dollars. The citizens of this city 
should not have to face a compromised legal system as well. While we in 
Congress may not be able to fix everything, I do think this is one of 
the few issues we can and must address now.
  The DC Circuit Court is a local court. It hears primarily local 
matters. Most nominees are entirely uncontroversial and used to go 
through the Senate without a recorded floor vote. But because these 
local judges go through Senate confirmation, they have been caught up 
in a broader political stalemate of the Senate floor. I hope that is 
going to come to an end.
  Meanwhile, no other local or State jurisdiction must have its non-
Federal judges approved by the Congress. If we are talking about 
Federal District judges or Circuit Court of Appeal judges or Supreme 
Court Justices, of course they should come through and be debated and 
approved here. These are local judges, and it is only by a quirk in the 
law that they have to come here for a confirmation at all. They are 
local judges in the District of Columbia.
  How would we like it if we had been nominated and held up for over a 
year--particularly in courts where there are huge backlogs. We are 
talking about caseloads of tens of thousands of people, and they don't 
have a full complement of judges because of us. How fair is that? Well, 
it is not.
  No other local or State jurisdiction must have its non-Federal judges 
approved by Congress, and no other State or locality is without a vote 
in the Senate to help push for action on nominations of concern to that 
community.
  The DC Superior Court is operated by the Federal Government and its 
judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 
15-year terms. It is important to note that although this court is 
operated by the Federal Government, it is separate from the Federal 
Government. Instead, the Superior Court is the local trial court for 
the District of Columbia. It handles matters such as local crime and 
domestic and civil disputes.
  Nevertheless, because this court is operated by the Federal 
Government, the President nominates candidates for judicial vacancies 
from a slate prepared by a nonpartisan nomination commission and the 
Senate must confirm the nominees.
  Currently, there are four vacancies on the Superior Court. Due to 
planned retirement and medical leave, this number will rise by the end 
of the year, and it is going to get worse. These vacancies hinder the 
Superior Court's ability to administer justice for DC residents. The 
Superior Court judges already carry, as I said earlier, enormous 
caseloads. The existing vacancies--the majority of which are in the 
family court division--threaten to undermine the judge's ability to 
give proper attention to each case, including those cases in family 
courts that affect the welfare of families, and particularly the 
welfare of children.
  Recently the chief judge of the Superior Court and the Bar 
Association in the District of Columbia sent to both Senate leaders and 
Dr. Coburn and myself a letter raising these concerns and ultimately 
seeking a Senate vote on Judges Nooter and Wellner. They are preaching 
to the choir.
  Judge Nooter is currently the presiding magistrate judge on the 
Superior Court and has served as a magistrate judge for the past 14 
years. As presiding magistrate judge, he manages 23 fellow magistrate 
judges and serves on the leadership team of the chief judge of the 
Superior Court.
  Meanwhile, Judge Wellner currently serves as an administrative law 
judge for the District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings. 
Since 2011, he has led the unemployment insurance division, and by all 
accounts skillfully coordinates a team of 10 administrative law judges 
and support staff to adjudicate over 3,000 unemployment insurance cases 
per year.
  Given the caliber of these nominees, the lack of controversy over 
their nomination, and the unanimous bipartisan support they have 
received from the committee of jurisdiction, I urge--and I am sure I 
urge with the full support of Dr. Coburn, our ranking Republican member 
of the committee--this body to move their confirmations forward as soon 
as possible. Justice delayed is still justice denied. It has been that 
way for centuries and these delays are insufferable.
  I will close by saying that what we are doing is not just bad 
judgment, it is not just bad form, I think it is shameful, and we need 
to fix it.
  With that, I am finished, and I am looking around to see if there is 
anybody else seeking recognition. I don't see anyone, so with that, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. 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. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 15700]]




                          Affordable Care Act

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, after the election, I have heard a number 
of my colleagues in the House of Representatives and in the Senate say 
they are going to come to the floor of the Senate and to the floor of 
the House and again try to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  I said last night on the floor that it strikes me that during an 
election I would think Members of Congress would hear from their 
constituents, whether it is in Minnesota or Ohio--the Presiding 
Officer's State or mine, or around the country--and once we start 
talking to real people--not campaign rallies, not a country club 
dinner, not a fundraiser, but real people--about their lives, we would 
understand what the Affordable Care Act has meant to a whole lot of 
people.
  In my State, there are a lot more than 500,000 people who have health 
insurance today who did not have it 1 year ago because of the 
Affordable Care Act. In addition, there are 97,000 and counting young 
people--18--20--25-years-olds--who are on their parents' health care 
plan who wouldn't have insurance without it. There are a million 
seniors in my State, from Gallipolis to Troy to Toledo to Zanesville, 
who have gotten free--meaning no copay, no deductibles--free cancer 
screenings, preventive care, diabetes checks--all of these kinds of 
preventive care, including when their doctor prescribes getting a 
physical for seniors that is free, all because of the Affordable Care 
Act. There are thousands and thousands of people in Ohio who have a 
child with diabetes or a son or a daughter with asthma, and that family 
has been denied coverage year after year, but now, because of the 
Affordable Care Act, they have coverage. So we know what this has 
meant.
  I heard Pope Francis say a few months ago, speaking to his parish 
priests--he exhorted them to go out and listen to people and understand 
their lives, as should others, before they come to the floor and try to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act. There is something a bit untoward where 
people of privilege--we are Senators; we have great titles, we are paid 
good salaries, most of us dress well, most of us have nice haircuts--we 
come to the floor with government-paid insurance, and we say we are 
going to repeal the Affordable Care Act and take insurance away from 
500,000 Ohioans and tens of thousands of Minnesotans, and take away 
young people's and their parents' plan, and take away these benefits 
for seniors.
  I came to the floor to share a handful of letters because I want to 
put a face on some of these, what this actually means, if we were to--
if Congress, thinking that is what the voters want--come to this floor 
and say we are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Let's talk 
about what that means.
  Connie from Hamilton County, in Cincinnati--the Presiding Officer has 
been in that city a couple of times--writes: As one of your 
constituents, I want you to know the deleterious impacts of the DC 
Circuit Court's ruling on my well-being. Because of a change in both my 
employment status and marital status, I have looked at the Affordable 
Care Act as a godsend. I worked full-time in a well-paying job for more 
than 35 years when I was organized out of a position at the worst time 
during the recession. I have been able to maintain limited and 
temporary part-time contract work since. But the income I net is 
substantially reduced from what it was.
  She said she worked for 35 years, so I assume she is at least in her 
fifties.

       As an older worker, I'm having a difficult time securing 
     permanent employment. I believe strongly in the importance of 
     health care. I have recently qualified for a catastrophic 
     health plan with tax credits on healthcare.gov. Paying for it 
     is a stretch, but I have willingly bit the bullet.
       As you know, Ohio is one of those States that has opted out 
     of establishing its own state plans. That wasn't a problem 
     until recently. Now, facing a plan that may be ineligible for 
     the Federal tax credit, I face a dire financial situation. If 
     I were the only one caught in this Catch 22, I would not be 
     writing. I understand there are approximately 5 million 
     Americans in similar straits.

  Living in a State where the Governor did not want to set up an 
exchange, and the Supreme Court--nine privileged men and women who are 
lawyers, who get government health insurance--may take these benefits 
away from these 5 million people. That was my editorial comment.
  She writes:

       Please, please, help find a way to ameliorate the impact of 
     this circuit court ruling. Many of us are dependent upon it 
     so we don't become burdens on the health care system.

  So the question: Why do people who dress like this, who have titles 
such as ``Congressman'' and ``Senator, who get health insurance paid by 
taxpayers, why do they want to take it away from so many other people? 
Why do they want to take these benefits away? Why do they want to 
cancel these consumer protections? So when they cast these votes on 
repeal of the Affordable Care Act, they should be thinking about the 
Connies of the world.
  Sharon from Franklin County in the middle of State, Columbus, is a 
lupus patient. She writes:

       I urge you to maintain the health care reform that helps us 
     afford coverage. Before Congress starts gutting the health 
     care reform, please visit a support group for any chronic 
     illness, and listen to the stories of people struggling to 
     pay their medical bills, about people being denied insurance 
     due to preexisting conditions, cutting their meds in half to 
     try to stretch them to the end of the month.

  My wife was in a drugstore not too long ago. Right in front of her, 
somebody was trying to figure out: Can I skip, take half this number of 
pills so they last twice as long? That happens all the time. If more of 
us would get out to a drugstore, if more of us would get out and talk 
to people, we would learn that.
  Sharon writes:

       I have got a good education, a good job, good insurance, 
     but I know I could be wiped out in a matter of months if my 
     job were outsourced or discontinued. Since I work at home and 
     telecommute due to my illness, my chances at a new job and 
     new health insurance are grim. The health care reform bill 
     isn't perfect, but when it was passed, a collective sigh of 
     relief went up for millions of Americans who are struggling 
     to maintain their jobs, their families, and their lives while 
     suffering with chronic illnesses like lupus. Please don't 
     play politics with our lives. Please don't gut the health 
     care bill.

  Again the question is, Why do my colleagues--almost all of whom have 
health insurance provided by taxpayers--why do they want to take these 
benefits away from Sharon and Connie?
  A couple more.
  Rose from Hamilton County writes:

       Senator Brown, please vote no to repeal the health care 
     law. My family and friends appreciate the added benefits we 
     are getting from the current health care law. My son's 
     fiancee is currently finishing her graduate degree.

  She is 25.

       Thank God she is able to remain on her parents' insurance; 
     otherwise she would not be able to afford the high cost of 
     private insurance.

  This a young woman about whom Rose is writing. This is a young woman 
who wants to get more education, wants to do better in life, wants to 
further her career, but what will happen? If she cannot stay on her 
parents' plan, if my colleagues are successful in repealing the 
Affordable Care Act, what will happen to her? Why should we even be 
asking that question?

       My niece graduated last year from college and has not been 
     able to find a full-time teaching job.

  She is doing what we need more of--good teachers in our country.

       Fortunately, she too can now stay on her parents' insurance 
     because of the health care law. In addition--

  She has an illness--

     the current health care law ensures that when it's time for 
     her to get her own health insurance, she will not be 
     discriminated against.

  This woman, Rose's niece, is in this situation. She is right out of 
school. She wants to teach. She does not have a job yet. She is on her 
parents' health insurance plan. Then when she gets a job, if it were 
not for the Affordable Care Act, she probably would be denied coverage 
because she has a preexisting condition. So she is a perfect example of 
two things about this law that my colleagues for whatever reason want 
to take away.
  I will close with this. Chris from Fairfield County--kind of 
southeast of Columbus--writes:


[[Page 15701]]

       Senator, I just wanted to thank you for standing by the 
     health care law. I now have insurance after 4 years without 
     it. I am now receiving treatment for my knee after 3 years of 
     pain and swelling. Turns out I have arthritis and I go to an 
     orthopedic surgeon next week for further diagnosis and 
     treatment. Without the insurance I purchased through the 
     exchange, the x-ray that discovered the arthritis would have 
     never been possible because I could not afford it.

  So, again, why would my colleagues--almost all of whom have health 
insurance--why would they want to take those benefits away? Why would 
they say to this person in Fairfield County--why would they say to 
Chris: Well, sorry, you are not going to get that x ray.
  In the end, what would happen? Chris would not get the x ray, would 
not know about the arthritis until it gets worse, and then it would 
cost the health insurance company more money.
  Part of what the Affordable Care Act does--and the Presiding Officer 
played a role in writing many provisions of this law--part of what it 
does is it encourages and gives people incentives to get preventive 
care.
  So if we repeal this law, if my colleagues--again, I know I said this 
over and over, but almost all of whom have health insurance provided to 
them by taxpayers--if they have their way, all of these people--Chris 
and Rose and Sharon and Connie--where do they turn? Where do they turn? 
Their lives end up worse. They end up being sicker. They possibly die 
younger. They end up costing the health care system more money. They 
are less productive as citizens. The niece and the son-in-law and the 
fiancee one of these ladies talked about would not be able to get an 
education, get ahead--all of the things we say we value in this 
country.
  How can any anybody think in good conscience that repealing the 
Affordable Care Act makes sense for our families, makes sense for our 
communities, makes sense for the States of Minnesota and Ohio, makes 
sense for our country?
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 p.m., 
Monday, November 17, all postcloture time be considered expired with 
respect to the House message to accompany S. 1086; that the motion to 
concur with amendment No. 3923 be withdrawn; and the Senate proceed to 
vote on the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 1086; that 
upon the disposition of the House message, the Senate proceed to 
executive session and vote on cloture on Executive Calendar Nos. 856, 
Abrams; 857, Cohen; and 858, Ross; further, that if cloture is invoked 
on any of these nominations, that on Tuesday, November 18, following 
the Senate's action with respect to S. 2280, as provided under a 
previous order, the Senate proceed to executive session, that all 
postcloture time be considered expired, and the Senate proceed to vote 
on confirmation of the nominations in the order upon which cloture was 
invoked; further, with respect to the nominations in this agreement, 
that if any nomination is confirmed, the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table and the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action; that upon disposition of 
the Ross nomination, the Senate resume legislative session and the 
motion to proceed to S. 2685; that there be 30 minutes of debate 
equally divided between the two leaders or their designees on the 
motion to proceed; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the 
Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to 
proceed to S. 2685; further, that with any sequence of multiple votes 
there be 2 minutes for debate prior to each vote and all rollcall votes 
after the first vote in each sequence be 10 minutes in length; and, 
finally, that the time in opposition to S. 2280 be under the control of 
Senator Boxer or her designee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________