[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1370-1393]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1) to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

  Pending:

       Murkowski amendment No. 2, in the nature of a substitute.
       Vitter/Cassidy modified amendment No. 80 (to amendment No. 
     2), to provide for the distribution of revenues from certain 
     areas of the outer Continental Shelf.
       Murkowski (for Sullivan) amendment No. 67 (to amendment No. 
     2), to restrict the authority of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to arm agency personnel.
       Cardin amendment No. 75 (to amendment No. 2), to provide 
     communities that rely on drinking water from a source that 
     may be affected by a tar sands spill from the Keystone XL 
     pipeline an analysis of the potential risks to public health 
     and the environment from a leak or rupture of the pipeline.
       Murkowski amendment No. 98 (to amendment No. 2), to express 
     the sense of Congress

[[Page 1371]]

     relating to adaptation projects in the United States Arctic 
     region and rural communities.
       Flake amendment No. 103 (to amendment No. 2), to require 
     the evaluation and consolidation of duplicative green 
     building programs.
       Cruz amendment No. 15 (to amendment No. 2), to promote 
     economic growth and job creation by increasing exports.
       Moran/Cruz amendment No. 73 (to amendment No. 2), to delist 
     the lesser prairie-chicken as a threatened species under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973.
       Daines amendment No. 132 (to amendment No. 2), to express 
     the sense of Congress regarding the designation of National 
     Monuments.
       Boxer amendment No. 130 (to amendment No. 2), to preserve 
     existing permits and the authority of the agencies issuing 
     the permits to modify the permits if necessary.
       Peters/Stabenow amendment No. 70 (to amendment No. 2), to 
     require that the Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous 
     Materials Safety Administration make a certification and 
     submit to Congress the results of a study before the pipeline 
     may be constructed, connected, operated, or maintained.
       Collins/Warner amendment No. 35 (to amendment No. 2), to 
     coordinate the provision of energy retrofitting assistance to 
     schools.
       Murkowski amendment No. 166 (to amendment No. 2), to 
     release certain wilderness study areas from management for 
     preservation as wilderness.
       Sanders amendment No. 23 (to amendment No. 2), to increase 
     the quantity of solar photovoltaic electricity by providing 
     rebates for the purchase and installation of an additional 
     10,000,000 photovoltaic systems by 2025.
       Merkley amendment No. 174 (to amendment No. 2), to express 
     the sense of Congress that the United States should 
     prioritize and fund adaptation projects in communities in the 
     United States while also helping to fund climate change 
     adaptation in developing countries.
       Merkley amendment No. 125 (to Amendment No. 2), to 
     eliminate unnecessary tax subsidies and provide 
     infrastructure funding.
       Cantwell/Boxer amendment No. 131 (to amendment No. 2), to 
     ensure that if the Keystone XL Pipeline is built, it will be 
     built safely and in compliance with United States 
     environmental laws.
       Tillis/Burr amendment No. 102 (to amendment No. 2), to 
     provide for leasing on the outer Continental Shelf and the 
     distribution of certain qualified revenues from such leasing.
       Markey amendment No. 178 (to amendment No. 2), to ensure 
     that products derived from tar sands are treated as crude oil 
     for purposes of the Federal excise tax on petroleum.
       Markey amendment No. 141 (to amendment No. 2), to delay the 
     effective date until the President determines that the 
     pipeline will not have certain negative impacts.
       Whitehouse amendment No. 148 (to amendment No. 2), to 
     require campaign finance disclosures for certain persons 
     benefitting from tar sands development.
       Booker amendment No. 155 (to amendment No. 2), to allow 
     permitting agencies to consider new circumstances and new 
     information.
       Burr modified amendment No. 92 (to amendment No. 2), to 
     permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
       Coons amendment No. 115 (to amendment No. 2), to express 
     the sense of Congress regarding climate change and 
     infrastructure.
       Carper amendment No. 120 (to amendment No. 2), to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the credits for new 
     qualified fuel cell motor vehicles and alternative fuel 
     vehicle refueling property.
       Heitkamp amendment No. 133 (to amendment No. 2), to express 
     the sense of Congress that the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     should be amended to extend the credit with respect to 
     facilities producing energy from certain renewable resources.
       Cardin amendment No. 124 (to amendment No. 2), to clarify 
     that treaties with Indian tribes remain in effect.
       Cantwell (for Gillibrand) amendment No. 48 (to amendment 
     No. 2), to modify the definition of underground injection.
       Cantwell (for Peters/Stabenow) amendment No. 55 (to 
     amendment No. 2), to require a study of the potential 
     environmental impact of by-products of the Keystone XL 
     pipeline.
       Murkowski (for Barrasso) amendment No. 245 (to amendment 
     No. 2), to clarify that treaties with Indian tribes remain in 
     effect.
       Daines amendment No. 246 (to amendment No. 2), to express 
     the sense of Congress that reauthorizing the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund should be a priority.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am ready to go this morning. I have 
comfortable shoes on. I am ready for a good, long day and to process a 
bunch of amendments. I see the Senate doing its work. I know we have 
important business before the Senate. I know the Judiciary Committee is 
holding the hearing to listen to the comments from Loretta Lynch, who 
has been nominated to be Attorney General.
  Obviously these are very important issues the committee is discussing 
today. Interspersed with all of that, we are going to be having a 
relatively long series of votes this afternoon, which makes it a little 
bit choppy and a little bit chaotic, but we have business to do in the 
Senate.
  I am pleased we are at this point where I think we can honestly say 
we are looking at the final stretch in this discussion on the 
bipartisan, 60-sponsored bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline after 
more than 2,320 days of delay.
  At this point we are past that last call for amendments on the bill. 
We have spent a lot of time over the past couple of days negotiating 
which of the roughly 200 first-degree amendments that have been filed 
would come up for votes. We have a pretty good list. Again, we have 18 
of them that will be before us beginning this afternoon. There will be 
more we will be dealing with at a later point.
  But I do think this is significant. I was reading the newspaper this 
morning, and there is no shortage of critics out there, folks who would 
say the Senate is broken and can't possibly be fixed.
  There was an article from an opinion writer which stated: Within the 
midst of the Keystone debate, McConnell has had to retreat ``on his 
promise to allow freewheeling amendments.''
  The article then goes on to state that yesterday not much of anything 
happened on the Senate floor where the pipeline debate had stalled.
  In fairness, maybe the debate, in terms of processing amendments on 
the floor, had stalled out yesterday, but that did not mean there were 
not significant and serious negotiations going on between the majority 
and the minority about how we would proceed. Sometimes when someone 
tunes in and the Senate is in a quorum call, they think nothing is 
happening. They think the business of the Senate is not being 
conducted. I need to assure not only colleagues but those who watch 
this process on C-SPAN that in fact there is still good business being 
done.
  I think that is what has resulted in our opportunity this afternoon 
to take up some 18 different amendments. There are amendments that are 
all across the board; 10 of the 18 pending amendments are from 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I think we are certainly 
being very generous in terms of what is out there. We are trying to 
ensure that Members who want a vote can have them.
  Again, keep in mind, with a couple hundred amendments that come 
forward, we are going to have a lot of duplication. We are going to 
have issues people may want to make a statement about but might not 
necessarily want to ask for a vote on. But those that we have in front 
of us today--everything from issues relating to solar energy to LNG 
exports, to further discussion about climate change, wilderness, wind 
tax credits, the Land and Water Conservation Fund--are truly all over 
the map.
  When it is suggested that somehow or other Senator McConnell as the 
majority leader is moving back from his commitment to allow for an open 
amendment process, so-called freewheeling amendments, I don't think a 
whole picture of what is happening on the Senate floor is being 
painted. In fact it is a very open and considerable process.
  I made mention last week that we broke the records. We blew the top 
off in terms of the number of amendments we were actually able to 
process on the Senate floor. We moved through 24 amendments on this 
bill since the time we started it. Twenty-four amendments is pretty 
considerable, considering that in all of 2014 there were just 15 
amendments that were considered the entire year. In fact, on Thursday 
alone we processed 15. If we do 18, as is on the roster today, that is 
pretty significant. I feel good about the point we are at. It is not 
just because we are churning through amendments, it is because of what 
the ranking member and I have been able to do as the floor managers on 
this bill, kind of working back and forth. Yes, sometimes it is 
tedious. Yes, sometimes it is frustrating.

[[Page 1372]]

Yes, sometimes Members wish they had more time to talk or there were 
more hours in our day to process all of this, but at some point in time 
I think we have to recognize when we spend 3 weeks on a bill, that is 
pretty considerable. When we are able to move 50 amendments--close to 
50 amendments is where we may be at the end of this legislation and 
processing--that is of note.
  What I appreciate is we are here this morning getting ready to kick 
off a long afternoon of votes and go back and forth with Members and 
disruption of their schedules and committee meetings and the 
inconvenience that causes. But again this is part of what happens 
around here. It is not a very tightly scheduled environment because we 
just have so much that is going on. But being able to move forward on 
this important legislation is good and necessary.
  I think we are setting the stage for the balance of this Congress--
under the leadership of the Senator from Kentucky, the majority leader, 
a commitment to have wholesome debate--to have the opportunity for a 
process that is not only good for Republicans, it is good for 
Democrats. It is good for the Senate and for the United States.


                           Amendment No. 166

  I want to quickly mention an amendment I will have up later this 
afternoon. This is amendment No. 166. I spoke very briefly to it 
yesterday when I called it up. But it would require wilderness study 
areas to be released if Congress has not officially designated them as 
wilderness within one calendar year. Right now what happens is that 
when a wilderness study area is designated, it can sit out there on the 
books almost indefinitely. There have been areas that have been sitting 
out there without congressional action for a couple of decades.
  I don't think this was the point of the process. But I would suggest 
the amendment I have advanced is a critical one to our Western States, 
certainly to my State of Alaska.
  Again, the news on Sunday of the President moving toward a wilderness 
designation of all of ANWR--with the exception of a very small slice 
but all of ANWR--all 19 million acres in addition to the 1002 area, the 
1.57 million acres that have been specifically designated by Congress 
for further review and study.
  Right now there are 528 wilderness study areas throughout Alaska and 
the other 11 Western States. Again, these designations have been made 
by over time by one administration or another. The next step forward in 
this process is that Congress needs to act, but Congress hasn't acted. 
We have had some of these that have been pending since the 1980s.
  Again, as I suggested yesterday, if we have had something pending for 
20, 30 years, I think that is plenty of time to say that Congress has 
had to review those areas. Even though we have not turned these into 
wilderness--in other words, even though Congress has not acted to 
designate these areas as wilderness, what happens to them?
  They are treated and managed as if they are wilderness. Effectively, 
we have de facto wilderness. The law requires that only Congress 
determines whether an area is designated as wilderness. But what has 
happened is just kind of a lag, a lull, if you will, so they don't even 
need the congressional designation if in fact it is already being 
managed as wilderness.
  We look at the intent behind this. It is clear it was never intended 
to be this way. We were never supposed to have millions of acres of de 
facto Agency-decided wilderness around the Western United States. We 
routinely pass public lands legislation into law. I would like to know 
we could do it a little more often. As recently as last month, it 
actually has included new wilderness. So we are not saying that in 
other areas these wilderness study areas don't get officially 
designated. There is that process, and we demonstrated that just during 
the lameduck here. But in the instances where Congress has decided not 
to act on wilderness study areas, agencies need to start looking at 
what that broader array of options is for managing the land, whatever 
that multiple use designation might be. They need to be looking at this 
critically with the local people in the area and with the other 
stakeholders who are involved in the planning process, but clearly they 
are not doing that on their own.
  So what my amendment would do is essentially provide a 1-year 
timeframe for wilderness designations to be made. I think, again, that 
is more than enough time for Congress to consider debate and approve 
legislation for any area with wide support for a wilderness 
designation, so we will see that amendment this afternoon.
  I know the Senator from Washington was on her way, coming from a 
committee meeting this morning, and had intended to speak. I see 
Senator Udall is also on the floor.
  I yield to the Senator from New Mexico if he wishes to speak at this 
time before Senator Cantwell comes to the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PETERS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 55

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my amendment that 
was made pending by my friend and the ranking member of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell.
  The amendment I have offered, amendment No. 55, is a simple, 
commonsense amendment. It requires the Environmental Protection Agency 
to complete a study on the potential environmental and health impact of 
byproducts from tar sands oil that would be transported across our 
country by the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  One of these byproducts of tar sands oil is a black, powdery 
substance known as petroleum coke or petcoke. It is a residual from 
this tar sands oil and large amounts of it are produced in the refining 
process.
  In fact, it is estimated basically for every barrel of oil we get 
from tar sands, one-third of the material is this dark substance called 
petcoke. If we are transporting an awful lot of oil through the 
Keystone Pipeline, it naturally follows that we are going to get 
massive amounts of this petcoke.
  I have had an experience with this petcoke in my previous House 
district in the city of Detroit, where we had petcoke from the refining 
process of this tar sands oil being piled up along the Detroit River. 
We had a pile there that was at some times several stories high, a city 
block long. It was stored along the river in an uncontained fashion. It 
was blowing into people's homes, it was blowing into businesses, and it 
was also draining into the Great Lakes watershed.
  It caused all sorts of problems. I had complaints from constituents 
who talked about this substance going into their homes. I had 
businesses talking about--for example, restaurants in the area--their 
wait staff getting respiratory problems as a result of breathing this 
in.
  In fact, we had a video to explain how problematic it can be. I had a 
video taken by a Canadian resident across the Detroit River that showed 
the petcoke piles. With some wind blowing, a massive black dust cloud 
was blowing off of these petcoke piles. In the distance you could see 
the Ambassador Bridge, which is the bridge that connects Canada to the 
United States. The dust was so thick and so black it obscured the 
bridge as it was blowing into the neighborhoods, into the river, and 
then into Canada.
  It is a completely unacceptable situation, which is why I believe it 
is important as we move forward with this legislation that we have a 
couple of studies.
  One, we need to understand what are those environmental and health 
risks associated with petcoke. It is clear this is particulate matter, 
and if it is not contained, it gets into people's lungs and creates a 
dust layer throughout communities.

[[Page 1373]]

  It is very important as well in the study not only to study the 
environmental and health impacts, but what are the best practices to 
handle this material.
  With the massive amount of tar sands oil that will come through the 
Keystone, we will also get massive amounts of petcoke, a substance that 
has been problematic not only in Detroit, but it has been problematic 
in the city of Chicago and other places across the country.
  So I believe it is very important that we get these kinds of 
information as this project moves forward, and it is certainly my hope 
that we can assure that what happened in Detroit, what is happening in 
Chicago and other places across this country doesn't happen, that we 
understand what this substance is, and we understand what those best 
practices are to handle and to transport this material safely.
  I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 55.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 166

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am glad the junior Senator from 
Alaska is in the Chair because I am going to be discussing things that 
are of great concern to Alaskans and really to those who care about the 
rule of law here and how it applies throughout all 50 States fairly and 
evenly. As I mentioned just a bit ago, I have offered an amendment that 
would deal with how wilderness study areas are treated. My proposal is 
one that would put a time limitation on these study areas.
  I mentioned the amendment was precipitated by the President's 
announcement this weekend about additional areas of wilderness to be 
designated in Alaska. I have cited two. The 1980 lands bill, ANILCA--I 
think it is good for us to have a little bit of a refresher on what 
ANILCA actually did. In one fell swoop ANILCA designated nearly 60 
million acres of wilderness in the State of Alaska. That is pretty 
substantial. It was more than any other President had ever designated 
at any other time prior to that.
  What we have seen since then, with the designation of wilderness, is 
there has been this fight going back and forth. There have been areas 
that have been requested for wilderness study areas. But this 
administration has really taken it a major step forward. On Sunday the 
President recommended that an additional 12.3 million acres within the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be designated as wilderness--so an 
additional 12.3 million acres on top of the 60 million acres that we 
already have as wilderness in Alaska after ANILCA.
  This action by the President means that these 12.3 million acres will 
immediately be managed as wilderness. As I have mentioned, right now 
there is no deadline or expiration for this designation. Even if 
Congress fails to act--and I am going to make darn certain we do not 
act on this wilderness proposal the President has advanced--these acres 
are being managed as wilderness.
  Let me just show colleagues what it means for us right now. The small 
map of Alaska is up there in the corner. It is kind of unfair because 
it needs to be a much bigger map to get the context. Effectively, what 
the President is proposing is that in addition to the 7.16 million 
acres of wilderness that currently exist in the ANWR area--and the ANWR 
area is a big refuge, a big designation. A little over 7 million acres 
have already been designated as wilderness. That was done back in 1980. 
But what he is proposing now is effectively taking the whole balance of 
the refuge area and making wilderness out of that as well--so 12.3 
million acres.
  Now, keep in mind this also includes the 1002 area up on the northern 
part of ANWR. That is the area right, which was specifically designated 
by Congress for further study of its oil and gas potential. Back in 
1980, when the wilderness designation was made for the one area--7 
million acres of it--it was determined that refuge status would be 
afforded the balance of the area, and then the 1002 would be reserved--
reserved deliberately for study of its oil and gas potential.
  That 1980 act was pretty clear in terms of the bargain that had taken 
place. I am going to read for the record the provision in the law that 
we refer to as the ``no more'' clause. It states:

       This Act provides sufficient protection for the national 
     interest in the scenic, natural, cultural and environmental 
     values on the public lands in Alaska, and at the same time 
     provides adequate opportunity for satisfaction of the 
     economic and social needs of the State of Alaska and its 
     people; accordingly, the designation and disposition of the 
     public lands in Alaska pursuant to this Act are found to 
     represent a proper balance between the reservation of 
     national conservation system units and those public lands 
     necessary and appropriate for more intensive use and 
     disposition, and thus Congress believes that the need for 
     future legislation designating new conservation system units, 
     new national conservation areas, or new national recreation 
     areas, has been obviated thereby.

  The act goes on to state that ``no further studies of Federal lands 
in the State of Alaska for the single purpose of considering the 
establishment of a conservation system unit, national recreation area, 
national conservation area, or for related or similar purposes shall be 
conducted unless authorized by the Congress.''
  So the President is basically choosing to ignore the law as set out 
in ANILCA--the agreement that Alaska has contributed mightily with its 
share of wilderness.
  I remind my colleagues that more than one-half of the wilderness in 
the entire United States of America is in the State of Alaska. Thus we 
wrote the law back in 1980 that says no more out of Alaska. They found 
that balance. Well, this President is tipping that balance.
  The coastal plain holds an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil. I 
mentioned yesterday that if we can tap into these resources, we could 
see 1 million barrels a day coming down our Trans-Alaska Pipeline for 
nearly 30 years.
  Think about what that would mean, Mr. President--1 million barrels a 
day filling up that Trans-Alaska Pipeline that is now less than half 
full, an additional 1 million barrels a day coming into this country. 
Right now, Americans are enjoying the lower prices of oil. But the 
President said: Don't get used to these low prices because they may go 
up. Well, they do not have to go up if we can provide more. If we can 
increase production in this country, we can theoretically decrease that 
cost. But we have to be allowed to access that.
  Think about the source of good-paying jobs, energy security, billions 
of dollars in new Federal revenues. The energy security part of it is 
keenly important, but let us also think about the positive national 
security implications of energy produced in the United States. When we 
are producing more energy in this country and relying less on others, 
we are less vulnerable. We have greater ability to deal with hostile 
nations. Sanctions work better when we don't need to rely on that same 
oil that some of these nations would like to free up for other 
countries.
  From a national security perspective, this is huge. This is where the 
intersection with the Keystone Pipeline is so interesting: that at the 
same time this administration has issued this wilderness study it is 
also fighting so hard to keep us from building the Keystone XL 
Pipeline, which would allow us to get crude from our friend and 
neighbor to the north and utilize it to our benefit. The President is 
saying: No, I don't want to do that.
  I guess he would much rather receive it from Venezuela or wherever. 
He says he wants Brazil to be our big trading partner when it comes to 
oil.
  Hello. Canada--they share a border. They are our friend. They are our 
closest friend, our strongest trading partner. Are we going to shut 
down such an opportunity as that?
  And: Oh, by the way, that same week let's just go ahead and take off 
the table permanently one of the greatest reservoirs of crude we have 
here in the United States next. Let's just take that off the table, 
too.

[[Page 1374]]

  What does that say? What does that say to other countries? That we 
don't care about our own energy security? I care about our energy 
security, and I care about our national security.
  Again, it stuns me to think that what the President is proposing here 
is a measure that would take off limits permanently our ability as a 
nation to access the 1002 area to safely develop this enormous 
potential.
  Keep in mind, we are not talking about accessing the full 1.5 million 
acres in the 1002. The legislation that has been before this Senate, 
back in 1995 and 2005, asked to open up 2,000 acres--2,000 acres--out 
of 19.5 million acres in the whole refuge.
  The Presiding Officer knows Alaskans can do this safely. We have set 
and met the highest environmental standards in the world. We do it 
every day. Our pipeline, our amazing 800-mile pipeline, has a decades-
long record of responsible production. It has carried nearly 17 billion 
barrels of oil safely across our State, over 2 mountain ranges, 
multiple rivers, in areas where we are known to have a few earthquakes. 
It is an engineering marvel. It has served our State and our country 
well.
  But instead of recognizing this unparalleled opportunity that we 
have, we are now facing a mounting lockdown of our resource potential. 
And the Presiding Officer knows the worst part is, it is not just ANWR 
we are talking about. Our offshore oil reserves are now also going to 
be restricted.
  Just yesterday the President announced he was indefinitely 
withdrawing 9.8 million acres in the Beaufort and the Chukchi Seas from 
leasing. So now ANWR is going to be locked up, as well as the Beaufort 
and Chukchi seas. I don't have a map of these areas that have been 
taken off limits, but I can tell you that it is an area of roughly 9.8 
million acres. There is some real question that I have in my mind. 
After reading the Interior's press release, I don't have any real 
comfort that the two sales that are being proposed--one in the Beaufort 
and one in the Chukchi--will actually stay on schedule.
  The Secretary of the Interior is quoted saying that: Interior will 
continue to consider oil and gas exploration in the Arctic. It is not a 
very firm commitment, as far as I can see.
  But when we look at it altogether--between the ANWR wilderness 
designation and the Arctic offshore withdrawal--Alaska has lost more 
than 22 million acres of land and water where energy could be produced 
for the good of this country, and it has happened in less than 1 week. 
It has happened over a span of 3 days--22 million acres.
  So what is 22 million acres? It is an area about 563 times larger 
than where we are here in the District of Columbia. It is about 28 
Rhode Islands. I know Rhode Island is a small State by comparison, but 
28 of them adds up. It is about 4.5 times the size of the State of 
Massachusetts. Again, this is just to give you an idea of what was 
taken off limits, indefinitely, by this administration since Sunday.
  My reaction to all this has been pretty strong. I think it is pretty 
obvious to anybody who would take a moment to think about it, but I am 
amazed our President can look at Alaska and think, this is what we need 
most right now.
  We are facing a pretty significant budget shortfall. I know our 
Governor has spoken to the President and the Secretary of Interior 
about Alaska's situation. Then this is what he gets as a ``we will work 
with you''? I don't think so. This is not an indication of a Federal 
Government that wants to work with the State to develop its resources.
  The Governor asked the Secretary of the Interior for an address, 
because he said he needed to send an invoice for the lack of any 
economy Alaska would be able to generate with these actions.
  The one thing--the one thing more than anything else that could help 
our State--is to be able to access our Federal lands and our waters so 
that we can fill up the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, so that we can not only 
help Alaska but we can help the rest of the country. But that seems to 
be the one thing this President is intent on denying, whether it is in 
ANWR, whether it is in our offshore, or whether it is in our National 
Petroleum Reserve, where this President basically unilaterally took off 
about half of that in terms of availability of access.
  I noted that when the President made his announcement on Sunday, the 
video that went out showed beautiful pictures of the refuge area. 
Again, this is a big area. This whole refuge is about the size of the 
State of South Carolina. It is big and there are some amazing spaces--I 
am the first one to admit it, amazing spaces--just as there are all 
over Alaska.
  But I watched that video as he was flying in his airplane to go to 
India, and I thought to myself: The President hasn't been to Alaska, 
even though he says he only has three States left to see and Alaska is 
not included. So I actually asked my staff to find out. By my count, 
the President has been to Alaska three times during his administration. 
And he told me, before he was President, he had never been to Alaska. 
So three times during his administration. All three times were 
basically to get fuel. And granted, to give him credit, on one of those 
times he did meet with the troops at Elmendorf, but he never went off 
the base. The other two times were in the middle of the night for as 
long as it took to get fuel.
  In my mind, that is not visiting Alaska. That is not trying to 
understand who we are. We have some pretty beautiful, wide-open skies. 
But when you are flying at 35,000, 45,000 feet looking down, that is 
not how you get a view of Alaska.
  So outside of this short meet-and-greet, outside of a bargaining chip 
to gain support from national constituencies, he is basically viewing 
Alaska as a refueling stop--which is no shortage of irony here in the 
fact that he is happy to refuel Air Force One in Alaska, but he doesn't 
seem to want fuel produced in Alaska.
  I can get pretty frustrated and upset about this. Part of it is 
because so much of this comes without consultation with us, without 
listening to the vast majority of Alaskans--as if, once again, we are 
nothing but a territory and the promises that were made to us at 
statehood mean nothing.
  I was born in the territory. It was not that long ago that Alaskans 
knew what it meant to be kind of kicked around by folks on the outside. 
We didn't have a voice. We thought statehood was going to change that. 
We thought that statehood compact--the promises made that Alaska would 
be able to deliver to its citizens based on the amazing resource wealth 
that we had--we thought that was going to count for something. 
Apparently, not enough.
  I was a little bit surprised to read that the White House counselor, 
Mr. Podesta, thinks I have overreacted to these announcements and to 
others that I have been told may be coming--more to come--and he 
suggested my reaction is not warranted.
  I would ask any one of the other 99 Senators here: Think about how 
you would respond if the citizens of your State woke up to a message 
that we are going to take 12 million acres away from you and your 
potential to develop in your State; and then on Tuesday, we are going 
to take away 9.8 million acres. But don't worry, we are the Federal 
Government, we are here to help. Alaskans want to help themselves. We 
want to be able to exercise that independence, that free spirit that so 
many of us in Alaska identify with. We want to help our neighbors, help 
our families. But this kind of help we don't need. Don't lock us up. 
Don't shut us out.
  It was suggested in Mr. Podesta's comments, and I saw it in other 
press reports, that somehow or other the Interior Department felt 
compelled to move forward with the timing of these announcements 
because we were ratcheting up on ANWR. They suggested I had introduced 
a bill. I haven't introduced a bill. I do intend to introduce a bill. 
But to somehow suggest this was precipitated because the delegation is 
making a charge on ANWR is, at this time, unwarranted.
  It did kind of make me wonder, maybe the White House isn't aware of 
how Alaskans feel about this. So in the

[[Page 1375]]

few minutes I want to take this morning I want to read a few of the 
quotes from our State leaders who have come out against this decision 
since they were announced, particularly as they relate to ANWR.
  We have a new, Independent Governor. As I mentioned, he has already 
had the opportunity to meet with the President and talk about Alaska's 
issues. Again, he has also met with the Secretary of Interior to talk 
similarly. Governor Walker says he is ``angry, very angry, that this is 
happening.''
  Our State senate president, Kevin Meyer, said the following:

       The impact of this decision, if allowed to stand, will harm 
     the future of our Great State and will deal a devastating 
     blow to our economy.

  I spoke with our house speaker, a gentleman by the name of Mike 
Chenault from the Kenai Peninsula, an area where we have oil and gas 
potential in the Cook Inlet. They know about oil and gas. The speaker 
said:

       The president just doesn't get it, or he does get it and 
     doesn't care about the will and voice of Alaskans. That's 
     beyond offensive.

  In response to the President's ANWR announcement, Speaker Chenault 
also had some pretty choice words. He said:

       Alaska's not a territory anymore and it's high time our 
     federal overlords stopped trying to treat us like one.

  The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, whose shareholders, people who 
actually live on the North Slope, issued a press release stating that:

       We are staunchly opposed to this relentless and coordinated 
     effort to designate the Coastal Plain of ANWR as Wilderness. 
     This administration has deliberately ignored the input 
     provided by the most affected people within ANWR.

  Colleagues, remember that when this President is suggesting that this 
area needs to be named or designated as wilderness, the 1002 area, 
people live there. People live their lives there--children go to school 
and people work there. They fly in and out. They have a little grocery 
store. They try to make an honest living there. They subsist, 
absolutely; but people live there. To quote from the Arctic Slope 
Regional Corporation, the corporation's shareholders who live there 
say, ``this administration has deliberately ignored the input provided 
by the most affected people within ANWR.''
  I think the reason they have ignored it is because they forget people 
actually live there. How can people live in a wilderness?
  Democratic State Representative Ben Nageak of Barrow, who is an 
Inupiat and born in Kaktovik, who lives in the affected area, wrote 
this:

       President Barack Obama and his lieutenants at the Interior 
     Department will permanently harm our people and all Alaskans 
     with his colonial attitude and decision making . . . It's 
     terrifying to see the extent by which our pleas for time and 
     a fair hearing of our views fall on deaf ears 5,000 miles 
     away.

  That is a State representative born and raised in this area, an 
Inupiat, who is saying 5,000 miles from here you are making decisions 
without listening to us, without listening to our people.
  Our North Slope Borough Mayor Charlotte Brower didn't mince any 
words, either. She said that ``these types of paternalistic, executive 
fiats seem to be more appropriate for Andrew Jackson's administration 
than Barack Obama's.''
  Pretty tough words. I am starting to think my words were pretty mild 
based on what I read from the mayor of the North Slope Borough and the 
Democratic State representative from Barrow.
  Mayor Brower has invited President Obama and Secretary Jewell to 
visit the North Slope, and she asked them to meet with the people who 
actually live there before proposing these types of sweeping land 
designations. If the President and the Secretary actually accept that 
invitation, Mayor Brower concluded:

       They might learn that the Inupiat people who have lived on 
     and cared for these lands for millennia have no interest in 
     living like relics in a giant open air museum. Rather, they 
     hope to have the same rights and privileges enjoyed by people 
     across the rest of the country.

  That seems like a pretty fair request to me.
  Even the New York Times interviewed a few Alaskans who didn't hide 
their feelings. One woman who said she had voted for the President 
twice said, ``He has just alienated an entire state.'' She described 
herself as being ``on the fence'' about ANWR before the proposal, but 
she added, ``without talking to any of us, just doing it by fiat--
that's not how you lead.''
  I think she summed it up pretty well. What the President has done, 
the way he has done it--it is unfair, uncalled for, and it is 
unwarranted. So for it to be suggested by the counselor from the White 
House that my response is somehow overreacting or unwarranted, I think 
they should start listening to all of the people of Alaska. The 
presiding officer and myself were sent here to represent them and I 
think we are expressing pretty clearly where Alaskans are coming from 
on this.
  This is wrong. It should not be tolerated. And we will not just sit 
back while this administration locks up our State and the potential of 
our people.
  We have a lot more we will be discussing about this. Again, I 
mentioned on Monday that there was a trifecta with what we see coming 
out of this administration. I have been told by the Secretary that we 
would see his ANWR designation and that we would then see the 5-year 
lease sale that would take areas that had been in deferred status and 
completely withdraw them for an indefinite period of time, and that 
there would be a third announcement coming relating to the National 
Petroleum Reserve--the area where folks who said don't go to ANWR, go 
to NPRA, go to the National Petroleum Reserve. So the first company 
that tried to do so is trying to make it happen. What this 
administration is doing with the mitigation costs they are laying in 
front of them, the company will determine whether it is going to be 
economic. But my fear is that will be the third kick to Alaska.
  So it has been a bad week, a bad week for Alaska. But you know what, 
we are not people who are deterred by bad news, by bad weather. We have 
a way to roll with it.
  I was looking at the front page of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner 
yesterday. They had a little recap of what is going on with the 
weather. It is about 52 below zero in Fort Yukon and 51 below in Fort 
Greely where we base our ground-based missile defense system. We are 
pretty proud of what we do. We can still provide for the defense and 
protection of this country and do it in some pretty cold weather.
  In Fairbanks, where I went to high school, I think the weather this 
morning was 47 degrees below zero, but the kids still go to school in 
this kind of weather. We are doing what we do up north. It is not easy, 
but it is an amazing place and the people there are pretty resilient. 
We have been kicked this week, but that doesn't mean we are down. It 
means we are just getting started.
  With that, I will have more to say about the process in front of us 
this afternoon, where we are with Keystone; but again, I am pleased 
that we have a good series of votes to keep us busy this afternoon, and 
I appreciate the indulgence of colleagues as we go through a process 
that can be very disruptive as they are trying to meet with 
constituents and pursue committee business. But I think we recognize 
that we want to be on a path toward completion of this bill, and I 
thank them for their cooperation.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


           Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, last week my colleague Senator Lankford 
and I introduced the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency 
Act--a bill to enhance transparency about the true costs of burdensome 
Federal regulations affecting our States and localities.

[[Page 1376]]

  Twenty years ago the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, otherwise known as 
UMRA, was signed into law to reduce the burden of Federal mandates on 
State and local governments, as well as the private sector. The statute 
was intended to fix a simple problem while promoting informed decisions 
by this Congress. But since UMRA's enactment in 1995, many remain 
concerned that the law has fallen short. In Nebraska and all across 
America, our constituents continue to face a growing mountain of 
redtape that stifles economic growth and holds back progress on a 
number of fronts.
  In 2011 alone the Government Accountability Office identified 14 
different loopholes that would allow government agencies to avoid 
conducting the UMRA analysis. In other words, redtape has survived and 
prospered. By their very nature, Federal mandates are both complex and 
vague, which is why I have introduced a new bill to fix these 
shortcomings and increase accountability. My bill, known as the 
Unfunded Mandates and Information Transparency Act, would address 
UMRA's loopholes by mandating stricter agency requirements, enhance 
stakeholder input, and strengthen enforcement mechanisms.
  Furthermore, this bill has the power to get the job done. It would 
allow judges to place a stay on a regulation or invalidate a rule if a 
Federal agency fails to complete the required UMRA analysis. It would 
also close a glaring loophole used by agencies to skirt UMRA 
requirements.
  Last but not least, my bill would expand the scope of reporting 
requirements to include regulations imposed by independent regulatory 
agencies, such as the EPA. I know many Nebraskans are deeply concerned 
about the effects of new EPA requirements, such as the proposed water 
rule--a rule I have forcefully fought since it was first proposed. 
Nebraskans already go to great lengths to protect and preserve water 
resources within our State, but now the EPA is going overboard with 
this new proposal--one that represents a massive Federal power grab and 
clear disconnect with Main Street America.
  I share the belief of many Nebraskans that the Federal Government 
should be held responsible for the rules it puts into place. By clearly 
notifying taxpayers of the costs of each mandate, which the bill I 
introduced would require, we can better hold the Federal Government 
accountable for the economic impact of its costly regulations.
  I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in 
supporting this simple, commonsense legislation to help bring greater 
accountability and transparency to Washington.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOEVEN. 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. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I return to the floor today to discuss the 
legislation under consideration. As I did yesterday, I wish to begin by 
again thanking both the Senator from Alaska on our side of the aisle 
and the Senator from Washington on the other side of the aisle, who are 
the bill managers--the legislation managers in this case--of the 
Keystone XL Pipeline approval legislation that I put forward along with 
Senator Manchin. I wish to begin by thanking both of the managers for 
their diligence and for their bipartisanship and for working together 
to advance this legislation, but I also want to make sure all of the 
Members of this body get a chance to bring their amendments forward, 
debate those amendments, and have a vote.
  This afternoon we have scheduled 18 votes, and that is great. Some of 
those amendments I support; some I oppose. But we are going to do what 
this body is supposed to do and what the American people elected us to 
do, and that is to have this discussion and then vote.
  We are working to advance energy policy for this country that can not 
only truly help create more energy, jobs, and economic growth but also 
really address the national security implications of making our country 
energy secure. By that, I mean producing more energy than we consume 
and working with Canada, our friend and ally, to do that so that we 
don't have to depend on OPEC to do that and on parts of the world where 
there is great instability and where our interests are not aligned with 
the interests of some of those countries.
  Also, it enables us to actually weaken some of our opponents that are 
petro-dependent, countries such as Iran, which is now trying to build a 
nuclear weapon, as well as, right now, Russia, which is invading its 
neighbor Ukraine, one of our allies, where we are trying to stop the 
adventurism of President Putin.
  By truly becoming energy secure, by providing more supply of energy, 
we not only benefit every American at the pump--Americans are saving 
billions of dollars when they pull up to the pump. That is not only 
good for American consumers, it is good for our small businesses.
  Energy is a foundational industry that strengthens every other 
industry out there. It makes us more competitive in the global economy 
across the board. As I say, it weakens some of our opponents. So that 
is really the debate in which we are engaged.
  Yesterday I started to respond to some of the critics who oppose this 
legislation on the basis of saying this is a project for Canada and not 
for the United States, and that is not true at all. This pipeline would 
not only move crude from Canada to our refineries, it would also move 
crude from production in the United States, including in my State of 
North Dakota, which now produces 1.2 million barrels of oil a day--
second only to Texas--as well as Montana. So it also moves domestic 
crude to our refineries as well.
  Furthermore, it really is about making our Nation energy secure, 
working with Canada to become energy secure so we don't have to depend 
on OPEC. That is very much a national interest issue for this country, 
for this Nation, and for all Americans. I spoke about that a little bit 
yesterday.
  The second issue I would like to address is some of the environmental 
issues. I started to do that yesterday, but I deferred at that time 
because anytime we can get people to come to the floor to offer their 
amendments and make them pending, that is what we want to do. At that 
point we started getting people to come offer their amendments, and the 
bill managers, through their hard work, were able to get agreement, and 
we now have 18 amendments pending on a precloture basis. So we have 
made real progress in getting everyone involved and hopefully building 
more bipartisan consensus and getting on the energy debate the American 
people want and getting to a result where we can actually produce 
legislation that will help our Nation.
  So I started to get into the second point I wanted to discuss, which 
is some of the environmental aspects of the oil sands development and 
how technology is being deployed, with hundreds of millions of private 
dollars invested in new technologies that are not only producing more 
energy but doing it with a smaller environmental footprint. That helps 
to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of oil that is produced in the 
oil sands.
  There are two projects I wish to speak about to give examples of how, 
if we continue to work to empower this kind of investment in new 
technologies, we get not only more energy more cost-effectively and 
more dependably but we also get it with environmental stewardship.
  The first project I will speak about is a project that has been 
undertaken in the oil sands in Alberta, Canada. Going back to this 
earlier chart, we can see that it is up in the Hardisty area, and this 
second chart is a picture of the project. It is one that is undertaken 
by the Shell Oil Company. It is called their Quest project. I will read 
a little bit about the project.

       Shell Canada will this year complete the world's first oil 
     sands carbon capture and storage project.

  This is CCS--carbon capture and storage--something we have been

[[Page 1377]]

working to develop in this country and apply to fossil fuels, not only 
things such as oil and gas but also coal. This is the new carbon 
capture technology. They will complete the world's first project. 
Continuing:

       The project, called Quest, will begin permanently storing 
     CO2 by the end of the year and will permanently 
     store more than 1 million tons per year.

  Let me read that again.

       The project, called Quest, will begin permanently storing 
     CO2 by the end of the year and will permanently 
     store more than 1 million tons per year. Quest reduces the 
     emissions from Shell's upgrader by 35 percent--that's the 
     equivalent of taking 175,000 cars off the road each year. 
     Shell will transport the CO2 50 miles north via 
     pipeline and permanently store it more than a mile below 
     ground under impermeable rock formations.

  My point is that here is an example of where a private company is 
working with the Province of Alberta on this project to invest hundreds 
of millions of dollars in carbon capture and storage technology that 
will not only apply to the oil sands, but--think about it--this is also 
technology that is not only being developed but deployed on a 
commercial scale in production that we can now take advantage of and 
use in this country to produce more energy from multiple sources--
again, smaller footprint, lower greenhouse gas.
  Isn't that the solution to better environmental stewardship where we 
get more energy that we produce here with our closest friends and 
allies, with better stewardship through investment by private companies 
in these new technologies and, in this case, working with Alberta? 
Alberta is also investing in this technology, but this is the 
innovation of our country, of our companies. This is the kind of 
ingenuity and innovation that helps us build the kind of future we 
want. In this case, it is a secure energy future by deploying these new 
technologies.
  The other point I will make as we look at this chart is that under 
the old system of oil sand production--remember, it is excavation, so 
they would be digging up this area and then extracting the oil from the 
oil sands. But under this new system of development, which is called in 
situ, they are actually drilling wells, and then they put steam down 
the hole to bring the oil up, and then they capture the CO2 
and store it underground, so smaller environmental footprint and lower 
greenhouse gas emissions.
  Since 1990 the greenhouse gas emissions on a per-barrel basis for oil 
sands production has gone down by 28 percent. So they have reduced it 
by almost a third. These new technologies will reduce it further going 
forward.
  This is about finding good solutions to create jobs and economic 
activity and energy security and take us into the future. That is why I 
wanted to discuss that project for just a minute.
  A second project I will reference is Exxon's Kearl project, spelled 
K-E-A-R-L. Just by way of preface, Exxon currently produces over 
100,000 barrels of oil a day in the Canadian oil sands. They are going 
to increase that amount this year to 345,000 barrels a day. Their 
objective is to get to half a million barrels a day of oil produced in 
the Canadian oil sands. They are investing $10 billion in this project. 
That is their investment in this project and these new, better drilling 
techniques.
  Let me tell my colleagues a little bit about their project. Exxon is 
doing it differently than Shell and Quest. They are employing different 
technologies but investing $10 billion to reduce the environmental 
footprint, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but produce a lot of 
energy for Canada and for our country.
  Exxon's Kearl project will use cogeneration for steam, which a low-
energy extraction process to recover oil, and heat integration between 
the extraction and treatment facilities to minimize energy consumption. 
As a result, oil produced from Kearl will have about the same life-
cycle greenhouse gas emissions as many other crude oils refined in the 
United States as a result of technologies which significantly enhance 
environmental performance--again, smaller environmental footprint, 
lower greenhouse gas emissions.
  This is how we work to address the challenges we face, whether it is 
producing energy or anything else. We deploy these new technologies 
that enable us to do it better.
  Other environmental innovations for Kearl include onsite water 
storage to eliminate river withdrawals in low-flow periods and 
progressive land reclamation, which will return the land to the boreal 
forest.
  I wish to emphasize that for a minute. What we see around this site, 
which is actually the Shell site--this is the boreal forest. I have 
been to Hardisty, and I have seen the oil sands production. I was also 
taken out to areas where they had reclaimed land that had been formerly 
used to produce oil sands. Now we can't tell the difference between the 
land that has been reclaimed and the land that hadn't ever been used in 
terms of oil production. I was there and I looked at both and I 
couldn't tell the difference. Of course, that is subjective. You want 
to return it to the state it was in before it was tapped. With this 
newer production, there is a much smaller area that we would ultimately 
have to return to its original state.
  I wanted to touch on those two projects for a few minutes as well as 
point out that the Alberta Government actually requires that all land 
used in the development of oil sands has to be returned to the same or 
equivalent condition when it is no longer in use.
  The final point I wish to touch on for just a minute or two is 
another issue that has been brought up, which is pipeline safety. There 
have been some references to recent pipeline spills--one in Poplar, MT, 
actually not too far from where I live in western North Dakota. But the 
spill is from what is called the Poplar Pipeline, which I believe is 
owned by the Bridger Company. It is a pipeline that goes underneath the 
Yellowstone River. It was built in the 1950s, so we are talking about a 
pipeline that is over 50 years old. Isn't that just the point, that 
whether it is roads or bridges or buildings or pipelines or 
transmission lines or anything else, we have to make the investment in 
new facilities rather than just continuing to rely on old facilities?
  That is what I want to emphasize about the Keystone XL Pipeline 
project. This is an investment of $8 billion, not a penny of government 
investment but $8 billion in private investment in new steel and new 
technologies.
  Also, the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous 
Material Safety Administration--PHMSA--the division of the Department 
of Transportation that oversees pipeline safety, has required 57 
special conditions for this pipeline to make sure it is as safe as 
possible. I am going to touch on some of those to give a sense of what 
they are.
  The whole point is that here we are trying to create a business 
climate, a business environment where companies can put billions of 
dollars into these new technologies and this new infrastructure so that 
we can have energy as safely as possible, with the best stewardship 
possible, so we aren't relying on pipelines or other infrastructure 
that is more than 50 years old.
  We are trying to get that upgrade. We are not doing it at taxpayer 
expense. We are getting tax revenues. We will get hundreds of millions 
of tax revenues that will come back in from private sector projects 
where we are trying to empower that investment. At the same time, the 
PHMSA, the Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration, has all these requirements that they 
are making part of the approval process--57 different special safety 
conditions for the Keystone XL Pipeline. They are conditions such as 
puncture resistance. For example, TransCanada is required by PHMSA in 
the environmental impact statement to ensure that the steel used in the 
pipeline can withstand impact from a 65-ton excavator with 3\1/2\-inch 
teeth.
  There is corrosion resistance coating, making sure it has a coating 
on it that is resistant to corrosion. There is cathodic protection. 
Cathodic protection is applied to a pipe so where it connects to 
other--it could be structures such as a bridge. It could be any place 
where the pipes are connected to make sure those other connections 
don't rust through into the pipe.

[[Page 1378]]

  For maintenance, TransCanada must submit certification that 
demonstrates compliance with all 57 conditions before they commence 
operation of the pipe.
  Airplanes will patrol the right of away at least 26 times a year. 
They will send cleaning and inspection tools through the pipeline once 
a year to collect and analyze basic sediment and water.
  Compare all of this to a pipeline that was built 50 years ago and 
laid on the floor of a river--versus a pipeline now, where if they have 
to cross a river, they use directional drilling. So they go down 25 
feet below the river and put the pipe 25 feet down in the rock below 
the river, versus older pipelines that were just laid in there. Again, 
this is the new technology--the new safeguards.
  In horizontal drilling and directional drilling the pipe will be 
buried approximately 25 feet below riverbeds. So if there any riverbeds 
that cross, that is 25 feet below using directional drilling.
  There are automatic shutoff valves. So they will have automatic 
shutoff valves and they will be placed every 20 miles along the 
pipeline route. Extra miles will also be placed where there are 
protected water crossing and other areas of higher consequence. They 
can be closed remotely on either side of the line, isolating a damaged 
area within minutes of detection.
  Again, it is about making sure if there is an issue of any kind, that 
you can minimize and mitigate any kind of spill.
  With 100 percent weld inspections, there is a requirement that 100 
percent of welds are inspected rather than just some of the welds under 
a test basis.
  With satellite monitoring and leak detection, Keystone XL will have 
more than 13,500 sensors feeding constant and detailed information 
about flow rates to the control center 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 
That is so that if any kind of a leak is detected, it is immediately 
shut down so you minimize the amount of product that would leak.
  Those are the kinds of safety features--and there are 57 of them--
required by the administration's Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety 
Administration. When we talk about pipeline safety and somebody comes 
in and says there is this pipe that broke so we should never have 
another pipe, we need to talk about that and address that in a sensible 
way.
  We have over 2 million miles of pipe in this country. The point is we 
do need to build new pipelines and upgrade them and take other steps to 
make sure the system is safe. But you don't do that by blocking 
investment in the new technologies and the new pipeline that will help 
us move product more safely, more cost-effectively, and more 
dependably.
  Those are the three issues I wanted to address. Again, I covered some 
of them yesterday, but I wanted to make sure that any time we had 
somebody coming down to offer amendments, we deferred to those 
individuals. I am pleased now we have 18 amendments pending on a whole 
gamut of issues related to this project, to this energy discussion, and 
to our efforts to advance a better energy future for our country.
  Again, I look forward to the debate this afternoon, to voting on 
these amendments, and to continuing to advance this legislation on 
behalf of the American people.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Department of Homeland Security Funding

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to talk 
about the latest attempt by the Republicans in the House of 
Representatives--and a few Republicans in the Senate as well--to hold 
hostage the basic operation of our government, once again, over 
politics.
  While I have several issues with the Department of Homeland Security 
funding bill that the House has sent to us, I will first discuss this 
strategy we are seeing from Republicans, as the former chair of the 
Budget Committee and as someone who has worked across the aisle to 
break through gridlock in Congress.
  Two years ago our country was moving constantly from one manufactured 
crisis to the next. We had debt limit scares that were rattling our 
businesses and the markets, we were headed toward an absurd and 
unnecessary government shutdown, and people across the country were 
losing faith that their elected officials could get anything done when 
it came to the budget and to our economy.
  But by working together, Congressman Paul Ryan and I were able to 
reach a budget deal that prevented another government shutdown and 
showed the American people that Congress could work together to get 
things done.
  Because of that deal we were able to then pass bipartisan spending 
bills for the past 2 fiscal years, including 11 of the 12 
appropriations bills from last year. Although we have a lot of work to 
do, it is clear that stability in the Federal budget makes a difference 
for our economy. We have to work together to build on that growth, to 
continue that certainty, and to make sure our economy is working for 
all families, not only the wealthiest few.
  Across the country, businesses have added more than 11 million new 
jobs--over 58 straight months of job growth. The unemployment rate is 
now under 6 percent and trending downward, and we have reduced the 
Federal budget deficit by over two-thirds since 2009.
  So when I look at the Homeland Security funding bill that the House 
of Representatives has now sent to us, I see a few things. I see a 
bill--the way it is drafted and was sent to us will tear apart families 
who are working hard to make it in America. I see a bill that will put 
our security at risk, and I see a bill that seriously threatens all of 
the work we have done recently, Republicans and Democrats, to keep our 
government functioning because the bill the House has sent over is 
simply unacceptable.
  It will not pass the Senate. Republicans know that. Let's be clear 
about what this bill is, it is a calculated, political gamble from our 
Republican colleagues.
  This looming showdown over funding the Department of Homeland 
Security is no accident. In fact, it is actually a risk they have been 
planning since last year all because of political pressure from the 
extreme anti-immigration right wing of their party.
  If Republicans are willing to risk funding for the Department of 
Homeland Security for political reasons, I believe the American people 
deserve to know exactly what that does mean because funding the 
Department of Homeland Security doesn't only keep the lights on the DHS 
headquarters, that funding protects our country from terrorist attacks 
at a time when the world is as dangerous and volatile as ever.
  It protects our country and American businesses from cyber attacks, a 
threat that is all too real as we have now seen in recent months. It 
supports basic security measures at our airports, at our seaports, and 
along the border. It even supports our Federal emergency management 
resources that are on call for every community in America.
  In my home State of Washington, this funding supports the Coast 
Guard, which protects shippers and sailors throughout Puget Sound, and 
Customs and Border Protection, which helps facilitate billions in 
international trade moving through my State, the most trade-dependent 
State in the country.
  Not funding these programs is a risk we cannot afford to take. It is 
reckless and irresponsible and, more than anything else, simply 
counterproductive for Republicans to put all of this on the line just 
to score some political points with the tea party and the far right. 
Unfortunately that appears exactly to be what they are doing.

[[Page 1379]]

  Once again Speaker Boehner and the House Republicans have decided 
they are willing to break up millions of families and deport millions 
of DREAMers who are victims themselves of a broken system.
  They have decided they are willing to stop the President's policy of 
focusing our law enforcement on national security threats, gang 
members, and violent criminals. Once again they have decided they are 
willing to make bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform that much 
more difficult to achieve.
  This is much more than only an annual funding bill. This legislation 
is a message which has been sent to us loud and clear from House 
Republicans and Speaker Boehner that they are willing to continue 
pushing us from crisis to crisis. They are willing to play politics 
with our national security, and they are willing to turn their backs on 
millions and millions of children and families.
  For years now we have seen that strategy doesn't work--it doesn't 
work. It holds us back.
  But I have to say I was encouraged when Majority Leader McConnell 
said that at the end of the day the Senate will fund the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  It is clear the House bill will not pass the Senate, so I truly 
believe it is time for the majority leader to show, as he has promised, 
that he will let the Senate and Congress work efficiently.
  It is time for the majority leader to bring a clean DHS 
appropriations bill to the floor. Let's get it done, passed, and move 
on to the work that is so important to us.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to urge my Republican colleagues 
to pass a clean bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security for 
the remainder of the fiscal year.
  We are now only 1 month away from a shutdown of the principal Federal 
agency charged with keeping Americans safe from terrorism and prepared 
for natural disasters.
  The President has said he will veto any funding bill that repeals or 
rolls back his Executive order on immigration, so anything but a clean 
bill to fund DHS means one thing and one thing alone. Republicans are 
unilaterally shutting down the agency.
  No matter what your grievance is, we shouldn't be playing politics 
with national security. It is alarming that even as we can now count 
the days, 30, until a Republican security shutdown, so many on the hard 
right are ready to just dismiss the consequences.
  Compared to their obsession with President Obama's immigration action 
and their desire to appease the tea party with radical and practical 
ideas that would not fix our system, to Republicans shutting down DHS 
is ``not the end of the world.''
  So I will use my time to spell out what a DHS shutdown would mean for 
our country in the hopes that our Republican colleagues will be jolted 
back to reality and to common sense. Since this isn't the first time 
Republicans have put us through a shutdown, we actually have a very 
good idea as to what a DHS shutdown would look like.
  Here are just some of the functions that would cease if Republicans 
failed to put a clean bill on the floor: The bulk of DHS management and 
headquarter administrative support activities would cease, including 
much of the homeland security infrastructure that was built during the 
9/11 terrorist attacks to improve command, control, and coordination of 
disparate frontline activities. Securing the Cities, a critical post-9/
11 funding program that helps pay for nuclear detection capabilities in 
New York City, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC, could not be awarded in 
fiscal year 2015. The DHS Nuclear Detection Office, which since 9/11 
coordinates on a daily or weekly basis with local law enforcement, will 
stop operating.
  FEMA's disaster preparedness unit would cease coordinating regular 
training activities for law enforcement for weapons of mass destruction 
events. FEMA employees in Washington and across the country who provide 
critical preparedness resources to local first responders would be sent 
home. Twenty-five percent of FEMA's headquarters and regional staff 
would be furloughed.
  FEMA personnel working on grants programs, such as funds for 
intelligence analysts or firefighter needs, would be furloughed, and 
even those personnel deemed essential would be denied paychecks until a 
funding bill is passed. This means we are not paying the Coast Guard, 
we are not paying the TSA, we are not paying the Border Patrol, the 
Secret Service or FEMA aid workers.
  So make no mistake, a DHS shutdown would hamstring our ability to 
combat threats to the homeland and to keep our citizens safe. The irony 
of course is that one of the programs that shutdown would close 
completely is E-Verify, which stops unscrupulous employers from hiring 
undocumented workers and cutting everyone's wages.
  So in order to make a point on immigration, our Republican colleagues 
are actually going to stop the program which prevents employers from 
hiring undocumented workers. Essentially to make a point about needing 
more immigration enforcement, Republicans are willing to shut down 
immigration enforcement.
  In short, I am perplexed as to why Republicans are playing this game 
of chicken with DHS funding because the only possible outcome that 
could come from withholding of a clean DHS bill is the shutdown of 
several critical post-
9/11 programs within the DHS and the furlough of thousands of workers 
paramount to our Nation's security and disaster preparedness.
  At a time when we need all hands on deck to keep America safe, 
Republican efforts to politicize our security would tie DHS's hands 
behind their back. So I urge my Republican colleagues in the House and 
Senate to drop this fool's errand and put a clean DHS funding bill on 
the floor as soon as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, 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.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here this afternoon to discuss the 
two concerns I have about the bill currently before the Senate--the 
regulation that would grant immediate approval of the Presidential 
permit necessary to construct and operate the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  First and foremost, I believe a thorough regulatory review process is 
critical for any major infrastructure project, particularly one that 
will cross our country's border. Regulatory review enables the 
identification of economic impacts from a major project and, more 
importantly, environmental impacts that infrastructure projects such as 
the Keystone Pipeline may bring.
  We shouldn't trade transparency for expediency when it comes to the 
construction of an international project that has such scope. I can't 
support a bill that sacrifices these important protections. That is why 
I voted in the past against legislation to allow the Keystone XL 
Pipeline to circumvent the normal review process, and that is why I 
intend to again vote against this bill.
  I also have a number of concerns about the impact of the Keystone 
Pipeline on our environment. In the past 2 weeks, we have had a 
spirited debate on this floor, and a number of my colleagues have come 
to the floor to talk about the pipeline oilspills we have seen in this 
country.
  Just a few days ago, an oil pipeline burst, leaking 50,000 gallons of 
crude oil into the Yellowstone River in Montana. Yet this spill pales 
in comparison

[[Page 1380]]

to the 2010 Kalamazoo River oil spill where over 1 million gallons of 
oil sands poured into Talmadge Creek in Michigan. The cleanup has 
already cost more than $1 billion and taken over 4 years to complete. 
In fact, to date there has been no authoritative study on how the 
spills of oil sands crude may differ from those of conventional crude 
oil. This means we have no idea about the spill's long-term effects on 
the health of wildlife in that river.
  The other issue that has been raced onto the floor is the fact that 
right now, because of the way we define crude oil, TransCanada--
supporting and planning to build the Keystone Pipeline--is not required 
to pay into the federal oil spill liability trust fund, which would 
ensure taxpayers against any spills. So we have this out-of-state, out-
of-country foreign company that is coming in to build this pipeline, 
and yet they are not required to pay, as any American company would be, 
into the oil spill liability trust fund. That, to me, doesn't make 
sense. Circumventing the regulatory process for Keystone prevents us 
from understanding the health hazards that we would face should another 
spill occur.
  I am also concerned that construction of the Keystone Pipeline will 
increase carbon emissions and undermine some of the most critical 
climate policies that we have in place. The pipeline poses threats to 
our environment that have already been identified. Tar sands greenhouse 
gas emissions are 81 percent greater than those of conventional oil. 
That is because the production of oil sands crude is more energy 
intensive, or more greenhouse gas intensive, than conventional crude 
production. Additional processes are required to extract the oil, 
remove the sand, and dilute the oil so that it can flow in a pipeline.
  In addition, if the pipeline is approved, much of the boreal wetlands 
in Alberta, Canada, which act as a carbon sink, would be destroyed, 
releasing 11 million to 47 million metric tons of CO2 into 
the atmosphere.
  One of the reasons I am concerned about circumventing the regulatory 
process is because I believe this could set a precedent for a rushed 
approval of infrastructure projects currently under consideration in 
New Hampshire.
  In New Hampshire, we have two projects that really merit careful 
consideration and thorough review that could be affected by a precedent 
that says we should ignore the regulatory process. In New Hampshire, 
the Northern Pass transmission proposal, which proposes to deliver 
hydropower from Quebec into the New England energy markets and goes 
through northern New Hampshire, would bring power to southern New 
England, but New Hampshire wouldn't benefit. And any suggestion that we 
would circumvent the process is a real concern to people in New 
Hampshire who would be affected by that project.
  The other project is the potential reversal of the Portland-Montreal 
pipeline, which, if the determination were made to do this, would send 
oil sands through many New Hampshire communities, and that oil would 
then be shipped to foreign countries.
  So if we set the precedent of trading transparency for expediency 
with Keystone, without requiring the completion of a comprehensive 
approval process, local communities in New Hampshire may not have a 
meaningful voice in the process that deals with Northern Pass or 
reversing the Portland-Montreal pipeline. I think that is unacceptable.
  These three projects--Keystone, Northern Pass, and Portland-
Montreal--have one important thing in common: They should undergo the 
comprehensive environmental and safety approval process required by 
existing law, and that should be done independent of politics.
  Circumventing the Presidential permitting process for cross-border 
pipelines and electric transmission facilities avoids the due process 
that is needed to determine whether these projects are in the best 
interests of the country.
  In New Hampshire, Northern Pass and the Portland-Montreal pipeline 
have raised serious concerns for people who live in areas impacted by 
these projects. That is why I worked with the entire New Hampshire 
congressional delegation in a bipartisan way to ensure that both 
projects undergo a transparent, thorough, and comprehensive review 
process. That allows the input of local communities who will be 
affected by these projects.
  Like people in New Hampshire and across the country, I share concerns 
about our Nation's energy future. Throughout my career I have fought 
for smart policies that will reduce energy costs in New Hampshire and 
across the country, that will help create jobs, and will protect our 
air and water from pollution.
  But I don't believe mandating a project that bypasses the approval 
process is a smart policy. We need to be smart and thoughtful about our 
energy future. I think it would set a dangerous precedent for other 
projects that could have serious consequences in New Hampshire and in 
other States around the country.
  I appreciate the debate we have had here on the Senate floor about 
the Keystone Pipeline, but I will be opposing this bill.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Ukraine and Syria

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I want to speak to the Senate about 
Ukraine and also about Syria. These are two parts of the world that are 
of particular critical importance to the United States foreign policy 
today because of what they portend for the future. The fact that our 
relationship is so rocky with the President of Russia, President Putin, 
who right up to just a few days after the Olympics suddenly shows his 
true colors when he invades Crimea, a part of Ukraine, despite all of 
the agreements when the Soviet Union broke up in the late eighties, 
early nineties, the agreements that in exchange for moving all of the 
nuclear weapons out of Ukraine back into Russia, that Russia would 
forever recognize and respect the sovereignty of Ukraine--well, that 
went out the window right after the Olympics, and Mr. Putin showed his 
true colors.
  He could couch it in all kinds of terms, that there is a Russian 
naval base that was there, but the fact is the whole world knows what 
he did, and no one could do anything about it. Then he started to move 
on the eastern part of Ukraine, and that, of course, is going on as we 
speak. The so-called rebels aren't really rebels. They are a front for 
the Russian military propped up with actual troops of the Russian 
military, sometimes disguised as being free and independent players 
simply because they don't have on their Russian uniforms; but in fact 
they have taken them off and put on uniforms that are not Russian 
uniforms to say that they are part of the rebel force. It is a ruse and 
everybody knows it is a ruse.
  I went last August to Ukraine, spoke with almost all of the top-level 
members of the government and asked what it was they needed. To my 
surprise, at the time they did not say they needed lethal equipment. 
They needed up-to-date, up-to-the-minute intelligence, and they needed 
training.
  I have urged the U.S. Government to provide that, and we are 
providing a number of things. This Senator thinks it is clearly in the 
interest of the United States that we provide more assistance to the 
Government of Ukraine so their military can have the equipment, 
including lethal assistance, to hold off Putin's aggression in Eastern 
Ukraine.
  This is a particularly critical time. I was there last summer, but 
what has happened in the meantime is over the course of the past year 
oil has gone from $100 to $46 a barrel. I remember asking someone when 
I was there and in the Baltic States what did oil need to get to and 
below in order for Mr. Putin to start really feeling the pinch, and 
they said anything under $85 a barrel. It is now around $46 a barrel. 
Although Russia has significant reserves

[[Page 1381]]

as of a few months ago, about $450 billion of cash in reserves, that is 
lower now. Those reserves will hold them for a while because of the 
price they are getting for their oil. They don't have high production 
costs in Russia, but because the price is so much lower--half of what 
they were getting--their revenue is significantly down and therefore 
all of the money that was being supplied by the Russian Government for 
so many things, a plethora of different social programs--guess who is 
feeling the pinch. The people of Russia. So the aggressiveness of Mr. 
Putin internationally is an attempt to try to take his people's eye off 
of their own financial depravity and, in fact, get it on the 
international scene where the President of Russia is quite adept at 
pounding his chest and banging his fist.
  The Ukrainians are once again fighting right now as we speak for 
their territory. The Ukrainian Government took back the Donetsk airport 
in Eastern Ukraine. Then the rebels came back. And I say ``rebels'' 
with a wry smile. I mean this is the Russian Army. They came back and 
they took it again. Last week those Russian-backed rebels broke a shaky 
ceasefire agreement and they renewed the fighting with the Ukrainian 
Government military. This Senator feels that we have got to do more to 
help these people who are trying to protect their independence. If you 
recall, last year we passed the Ukraine Freedom Support Act which 
provides further sanctions and lethal aid such as antitank and anti-
armor weapons, counterartillery radars, secure communications 
equipment, and tactical surveillance drones. All of that was needed.
  The fighting that is following appears to be a steady buildup of 
Russian support for the rebels. General Hodges, the U.S. Army commander 
in Europe, said last week that since December Russia had doubled its 
support for the rebels. General Breedlove, the NATO Supreme Commander, 
said that Russian electronic warfare and defense systems have been 
detected in the conflict areas. So let's not fool ourselves, the 
Russian Army is in there and we have to do more to help them.
  On Syria, this Senator feels where we are having success right now in 
Iraq against ISIS with the multiple strikes from the air, with training 
up the Iraqi Army as the boots on the ground, including some American 
boots on the ground that are advisers and trainers--at the end of the 
day we are going to have to do this in Syria if we are going to be 
successful. It is a lot more complicated in Syria because of the Assad 
government. The Free Syrian Army we are now starting to train--it is 
almost an impossible task. We train them, they go in, they try to 
attack ISIS. ISIS attacks them, but so does the Assad regime. That is 
not a recipe for success.
  We are working with the vetted opposition fighters to go after ISIS 
in Syria. We have to supply support. We have to supply lethal support 
in addition to the training and equipment in order for them to be 
successful. And for them to be successful, it is absolutely in the 
interest of the United States. Congress has approved the training and 
equipping of vetted elements of the Syrian opposition, and the 
Department of Defense recently announced it will deploy 400 personnel 
in that effort. We are going to have to do a lot more.
  The American people are tired of war, and yet we have a new kind of 
enemy, and we are going to have to take it right to them where they 
are.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hatch pertaining to the introduction of S. 295 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about some of the 
amendments we will be voting on later this afternoon--three of them in 
particular. The amendments I am referring to are the Merkley amendment 
No. 125, the Carper amendment No. 120, and the Heitkamp amendment No. 
133. All three of these amendments address sensitive tax issues that 
fall squarely into the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee, 
and all of them address issues that are likely to be litigated as the 
Finance Committee continues its efforts toward comprehensive tax 
reform.
  The Finance Committee is going to be very active in this Congress. We 
had our first bipartisan markup this morning. We already had two 
hearings, with more scheduled for next week, and perhaps more 
importantly--at least in the context of these three votes we will be 
having today--we have taken concrete steps in a process we believe will 
end in the introduction of bipartisan tax reform legislation. We have 
appointed five tax reform working groups to address the various areas 
of reform. Our hope is that over the next few months these working 
groups will study the issues and provide ideas we can use as we develop 
a comprehensive tax reform proposal.
  Ranking Member Wyden is on board with this effort. We are working 
together every step of the way. If we start singling out individual tax 
issues here on the floor--even issues Members may feel passionately 
about--we are going to undermine this bipartisan process. Virtually 
everyone in both parties agrees that we need to fix our broken, 
inefficient Tax Code. Sure, there are disagreements on what the 
substance of tax reform should look like, but there is a growing 
consensus on the need for reform, which is encouraging. If we are going 
to be successful in tax reform, we need to make sure these issues are 
addressed in the tax-writing committees.
  I think it is safe to say that all of the issues my colleagues are 
trying to address with their amendments are going to be litigated one 
way or another in the Finance Committee's efforts this year. That being 
the case, raising these issues as floor amendments on an unrelated bill 
is, in my view, very counterproductive.
  Finally, I would like to note that these amendments would all be 
subject to a constitutional point of order as they all deal with 
revenue and would need to be passed first by the House of 
Representatives. I am not going to raise that point of order at this 
time; I just want to make note of it for the record.
  Given all of these concerns, I hope my colleagues--Senators Merkley, 
Carper, and Heitkamp--will withdraw these amendments so these issues 
can be addressed in the proper forum. If they do not withdraw their 
amendments, I plan to vote against all three of them and urge all of my 
colleagues--particularly those who have an interest in a successful tax 
reform effort--to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. I congratulate the Presiding Officer, and I also 
congratulate Chairman Hatch for the unanimous vote he got in today's 
markup in the Finance Committee. It was a great bipartisan start to our 
work, as he said. I hope we will continue to have these discussions in 
that manner.


                     Amendment No. 92, as Modified

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I wish to speak today about the Burr-
Bennet amendment No. 92, which we are slated to vote on later today. I 
will be brief because it is pretty straightforward.
  The amendment simply reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund and ensures that a dedicated portion of LWCF funds go to provide 
new access for our Nation's sports men and women.
  As many in this body know, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is 
one of the country's best and most important conservation programs. It 
is authorized to provide $900 million annually for efforts to preserve 
and increase access to our public lands and waterways. These resources 
historically have been used for projects that range from building city 
parks, to purchasing small parcels of isolated land from willing 
sellers, all the way to preserving the Nation's historic battlefields.
  This past summer in Colorado, we completed a huge LWCF project that 
retired several old mining claims on the San Juan National Forest near 
the town of Ophir.
  Over the Fourth of July weekend, the town invited me and my family to 
join

[[Page 1382]]

them in a celebration of the accomplishment, and we took them up on 
that offer without a moment's hesitation.
  Ophir sits at 9,600 feet above sea level. It is the kind of place 
that has a sign on its main road--clearly painted by the kids who live 
in the town--indicating that their population totals 163 people, 
including, according to the sign, 55 kids, 30 dogs, and 15 cats. When 
we pulled in on the morning of the celebration, it seemed to me that 
the entire town was there. Over the course of that day--which included 
a hike, a picnic, and a formal program--it was amazing to hear from the 
community about the importance of this LWCF project and how many years 
so many people in the town devoted themselves to getting it done.
  Many of our mountain communities get huge portions of their revenue 
and business through recreation and tourism, and it is for some of 
these reasons that the town felt LWCF literally helped cement its 
economic future.
  I was an LWCF supporter before that visit, but that day really drove 
home the value of the program to me. That is only one of countless 
stories from Colorado. I know it can be replicated thousands of times 
across the country in all 50 States. Those stories and accomplishments 
alone make this amendment worth supporting.
  Let's also remember that when we are talking about LWCF, we are not 
talking about taxpayer dollars. When Congress crafted the measure back 
in 1965, they had a very innovative solution for how to pay for their 
concept. Instead of using taxpayer dollars from the Treasury, they 
decided to dedicate a portion of the revenue the government collects 
from offshore oil drilling to fund LWCF. This argument was very simple 
and elegant.
  As we deplete our natural resources--offshore reserves of oil and gas 
in this case--we ought to support the conservation of another natural 
resource: our lands and waterways. As I mentioned, Congress passed a 
law in 1965, and now it is time to reauthorize it. I thank Senator 
Burr, who has shown great leadership in crafting the amendment to do 
just that.
  This amendment is thoroughly bipartisan and enjoys cosponsors such as 
Senator Ayotte, Senator Alexander, and Senator Tillis, just to name a 
few. In fact, I am told there are 246 amendments that have been filed 
on this bill, and not one amendment has the number of cosponsors that 
this amendment does. This amendment has more cosponsors than any of the 
remaining 245 amendments.
  Before I close and urge my colleagues to vote yes, I want to 
paraphrase something I said on the floor last week about another 
amendment. Conservation policies such as LWCF are important to the 
American people. Protecting our land and water is mom-and-apple-pie 
stuff in Colorado, and I know our State is not the only one. Conserved 
lands and wide-open spaces are a huge economic driver across our 
country, and it is part of who we are in the West.
  We are not only talking about backcountry parcels, such as the one I 
visited in Ophir, we are talking about building new parks in inner 
cities and providing new access to hunters and anglers. The LWCF does 
all of these things and more.
  I say to my colleagues, if you are for city kids getting a new 
playground or making sure we protect gold medal trout streams or any 
number of benefits in between, then you need to be for amendment No. 92 
from Senator Burr. I urge all of my colleagues to support the measure 
when it comes time for a vote later this evening. I think we would make 
a very meaningful statement about where the Senate is headed if we 
could supply the votes necessary to actually adopt this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  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. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Amendment No. 75

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that in about a 
minute we are going to be voting on the first of a series of 
amendments. The first amendment is the amendment I have offered which I 
talked about before. I want to remind my colleagues what this amendment 
does.
  First, it would require a notification to Governors and to county 
officials of risks to their drinking water supplies that may be caused 
by the Keystone Pipeline.
  Second, the local officials would have the right to bring that 
information back to the Federal Government so that action could be 
taken in order to protect their drinking water supplies.
  Third, it provides a right of action for property owners for damages 
caused to their wells and drinking water as a direct result of the 
Keystone Pipeline construction.
  This is a pretty straightforward amendment. It provides States rights 
in knowing what is happening with regard to their drinking water, and 
it provides property owners rights for the damages that could be caused 
as a result of Keystone.
  I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would urge colleagues to oppose the 
Cardin amendment.
  In review, it appears that it is designed to halt the construction of 
this pipeline before it even begins. The amendment tells the President 
to provide this analysis of the potential risks to public health and 
environment from a leak or rupture and to provide that to every 
municipality and every county along the route, as well as to the 
Governors. Then the Governor can petition the President to effectively 
locate the pipeline somewhere else, at which point, again, construction 
could never commence.
  The Governors of Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska have already 
approved the pipeline route through their States. So this amendment is 
an effort, I think, to build that opposition over contamination fears 
and in turn, pressure those Governors to reverse their positions and 
halt the pipeline's construction.
  I think it is important for colleagues to understand the risks to the 
water supplies along the pipeline path were examined by the State 
Department's final SEIS. They were found to be not significant. Again, 
I will vote no on this amendment and strongly encourage my colleagues 
to join me with this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on agreeing to amendment No. 75.
  Mr. CARDIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 31 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

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

                                NAYS--62

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz

[[Page 1383]]


     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Reid
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.


                             Change of Vote

  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, on rollcall No. 31, I voted yea. It was 
my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to change my vote, since it will not affect the outcome of 
the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WICKER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Amendment No. 70

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 70, 
offered by the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Peters.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, as Michiganders, Senator Stabenow and I 
know firsthand how important the Great Lakes are. The lakes are a vital 
natural resource and an economic engine for our State, region, and the
entire country. Unfortunately, Michiganders also know firsthand the 
environmental dangers and risks when it comes to pipeline leaks.
  We had the worst inland pipeline leak in our Nation's history near 
Kalamazoo, MI. Cleanup has taken over 4 years and has cost $1.2 
billion. There is a 60-year-old pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac 
where Lake Michigan and Lake Huron come together. I cannot even fathom 
what would happen if there were an accident that contaminated the Great 
Lakes. The results would be catastrophic not only for the Great Lakes 
but also the entire country.
  That is why we need to act now and act quickly, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the Peters-Stabenow amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am not entirely certain I like this 
amendment. This is the first I have heard PHMSA may not have the 
resources to do its job. It does seem fair to have PHMSA come tell us 
if they do not have adequate resources.
  What I most strongly oppose with this amendment is its attempt to tie 
the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline to an unrelated pipeline 
in a different State. There is no limit for the PHMSA study and 
certification included here, so we could be looking, in addition to the 
already 2,300-some-odd days this delay has been in place, at further 
delays.
  If my colleagues from Michigan are interested in a PHMSA study, I 
recommend they introduce their effort as a stand-alone bill so it can 
be considered by the committee of jurisdiction. If it is needed, we can 
move it through the regular order and certainly consider it in the 
future.
  I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I remind 
colleagues that we are on 10-minute votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Peters 
amendment.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Toomey). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 32 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

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

                                NAYS--58

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Reid
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Amendment No. 23

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 23, offered by the Senator from Vermont.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the scientific community tells us very 
clearly that if we are going to reverse climate change and the great 
dangers it poses for our country and the planet, we must move 
aggressively to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to 
energy efficiency and sustainable energy.
  This amendment would provide a 15-percent rebate to homeowners so 
that we could install 10 million new solar rooftops across the country 
within 10 years. This would result in enough new electrical generation 
to retire nearly 20 percent of our dirty coal-fired plants and create a 
significant number of new jobs.
  So if we are interested in reversing the dangers of climate change 
and creating jobs, I would urge Senators to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the sponsor of this bill knows that I, 
too, am a supporter of solar, and I think we all are, but it is 
important to recognize what this measure would do. When we are talking 
about the benefits to this country and how much it will cost, it is 
important to understand this.
  When this was first introduced in the 110th Congress, the goal of 10 
million solar roofs legislation was too costly, but we have since seen 
decreased costs and growth in the solar industry that have made this 
Federal assistance unnecessary. We have seen the residential solar 
market grow, we have seen the costs drop. The cost of the solar systems 
have dropped about 60 percent in the last 4 years. Despite these 
trends, we are not close to reaching that 1 million mark let alone the 
10 million installations. So the real question is, How much is this 
going to cost us to achieve?
  The proposed rebate per system is the lesser of 15 percent of the 
initial

[[Page 1384]]

capital cost. This puts the Federal Government on the hook for up to 
$100 billion to pay for these installations.
  We can debate the merits of jobs and job creation, but I again urge 
my colleagues to oppose the Sanders amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the Sanders amendment.
  Ms. STABENOW. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 33 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

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

                                NAYS--58

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Reid
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CORKER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Amendment No. 15

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes 
of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 
15, offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, this amendment would expedite the export of 
liquid natural gas and would provide countries that are members of the 
WTO the same expedited process that is currently available to free-
trade agreement countries.
  There are now in the Department of Energy some 28 applications 
pending to export liquid natural gas. This should be an amendment that 
would bring together Republicans and Democrats. A recent study showed 
that allowing us to export LNG could create as many as 450,000 new jobs 
by 2035 that could produce GDP growth of up to an additional $73.6 
billion and produce 76,000 more manufacturing jobs. It would aid our 
allies such as Ukraine, the Baltics, and Europe, and would weaken 
countries such as Russia that would use natural gas for economic 
blackmail.
  I would urge all Senators to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. The amendment offered by the Senator from Texas is 
drafted so broadly that it allows just about every nation which is a 
member of the World Trade Organization to automatically receive natural 
gas exported from the United States of America. The process is just 
eliminated--automatic.
  What will that do? No. 1, it will increase prices to American 
consumers. The Energy Information Agency has already determined that 
the LNG export facilities already approved are going to lead to a 50-
percent increase in the price of natural gas here in America. It would 
jeopardize American manufacturing which has seen 700,000 new jobs 
created in the last 5 years in America largely because of low-priced 
natural gas. It is going to increase carbon pollution because it is 
going to slow the pace of change from coal over to natural gas in the 
generation of electricity. It is going to undermine our trade 
negotiations because it is all going to be given away here on the 
Senate floor. And, finally, it is going to harm our national security, 
because if we converted one-third of our trucks and buses, it backs out 
all the oil that we import from the Persian Gulf by using natural gas 
in American vehicles. We are going to ship jobs along with that gas 
going overseas. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Cruz amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to amendment 
No. 15 offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 34 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--45

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Reid
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 125

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 125, offered by the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley.
  The Senator from Washington.


                      Amendment No. 125 Withdrawn

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Merkley 
amendment No. 125 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 1385]]

  The amendment is withdrawn.


                            Amendment No. 73

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 73, offered by the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Moran.
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 
determined that the lesser prairie chicken should be listed in a number 
of States, including Kansas, as a threatened species. The lesser 
prairie chicken has had a significant history in our State and a 
significant population of birds, but as a result of a drought, the 
habitat for the lesser prairie chicken and other wildlife has been 
diminished and the number of birds has decreased.
  The consequences of listing the lesser prairie chicken that results 
from a drought is so dramatic and so damaging to the Kansas economy and 
to the farmers and ranchers and the use of their lands, to the oil and 
gas industry and the exploration of oil and gas, and to the utility 
industry in regard to the production and transmission of electricity 
that this amendment is necessary to set aside that listing as a 
threatened species and to allow interest holders in Kansas to come 
together and find a commonsense solution based upon sound science to 
protect the habitat of this bird.
  This is not just a Kansas issue, and in fact, this species is only 
the precursor to problems others will have in their States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Moran amendment, 
which would delist the lesser prairie chicken as a threatened species.
  To be clear, I appreciate some of the concerns about this listing by 
farmers, ranchers, and industry. I am concerned about any unintended 
consequences this listing may have on rural New Mexicans. I strongly 
support and I assume the Senator from Kansas supports the bipartisan 
five-State effort for a thorough review.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service took numerous steps in this process to 
respond to all stakeholders and to enable habitat conservation and 
economic growth. New Mexico has been and continues to be a leader in 
cooperative conservation in places where the prairie chicken is found. 
Ranchers and oil and gas industries deserve their praise for their 
efforts. So it is working and the sky is not falling, but we should not 
take this top-down political approach. Listing and delisting of the 
species by Congress goes against the intent of the law, which requires 
the government to make these decisions based on science, not politics.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the Moran amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Barrasso). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 35 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Reid
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.


                           Amendment No. 148

  Under the previous order, there is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 148, offered by 
the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the underlying measure benefits 
specific investors, specific corporations, and pushes regulatory 
approval of a specific project. In that sense, it has all the earmarks 
of the biggest earmark ever.
  We have learned from other history with earmarks that when you have a 
project that benefits specific investors and specific corporations and 
specific entities, there is a valuable premium on having the public 
know about the campaign contributions relative to that project.
  This bill requires the disclosure of over $10,000 in campaign 
contributions from entities that will make more than $1 million off 
this project. It is the type of transparency that many of my Republican 
colleagues had been for before they were against it.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this amendment is virtually identical 
to the text of what we saw last year. It was tabled by a vote of 52 to 
43. This amendment is not relevant to this debate. It is as unnecessary 
now as it was the first time we voted on it.
  To the extent it is legal for a person or a company to make a 
campaign contribution, Federal and State election laws require public 
disclosure of those campaign contributions. Any other more general 
political activities a company or a person may choose to engage in are 
governed by existing laws and regulations as well. For that reason, I 
am going to be opposing this amendment for a second time and would 
encourage my colleagues to do as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on agreeing to amendment No. 148.
  Mr. CARDIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), 
and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 36 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed

[[Page 1386]]


     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cruz
     Reid
     Rubio
     Sessions
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. VITTER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 132

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 132, offered by the Senator from Montana, Mr. Daines.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, my amendment simply expresses the sense of 
Congress that all future national monument designations should be 
subject to consultation with local governments and the approval of the 
Governor and legislature of the States in which such designation would 
occur. This amendment ensures that the people affected most by these 
designations have a seat at the table and their voices are heard.
  The current administration, as well as past administrations--both 
Republican and Democratic--have made efforts to stretch the intent of 
the Antiquities Act, threatening Montanans' ability to manage our 
State's resources.
  It is a trend we are seeing. Any bill designation that impacts land 
management should be locally driven, not spearheaded in Washington.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, speaking in opposition to this 
amendment, there is a reason why they call it a national monument. That 
is because it is a national process, and it is a national decision.
  Yes, Presidents of the United States consult with Governors and 
consult with State legislators, but they are not required to have a 
bill or the authority of the Governor before they make a national 
monument.
  Nearly half of our national parks, including the Grand Canyon and 
Olympic National Park, were designated under this Antiquities Act. 
Sixteen Presidents--eight Republicans and eight Democrats--have 
designated over 130 national monuments since Teddy Roosevelt signed 
this act in 1906.
  I think it has worked well for the United States of America. Please 
turn down this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
132, the Daines amendment.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 37 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--47

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cornyn
     Reid
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRUZ. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 115

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 115, offered by the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, we need to take steps now to prepare for 
the coming impact of climate change on our Nation's infrastructure.
  The Federal Government plays a crucial role in protecting our 
infrastructure and partnering with State and Federal, tribal, and local 
governments to prepare.
  The Federal Government, including our Pentagon and the highway 
administration, is already planning and preparing for these impacts. 
Many States are as well. From my home State of Delaware to Alaska to 
Florida, all are already planning responsibly for the future impacts of 
climate change. Preparing now is only responsible, because every dollar 
invested in planning and preparing is projected to save us up to $4 in 
future disaster relief.
  This amendment is supported by a number of organizations--the 
American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Wildlife Federation, 
the Union of Concerned Scientists, and others.
  This amendment does not speak to the human role in climate change or 
emissions. It simply acknowledges that climate change is having an 
impact on our infrastructure and suggests that planning is responsible.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I had a conversation with our colleague 
from Delaware, and I told him I think this is an area where we might be 
able to work together.
  I had actually introduced an amendment that deals with the adaptation 
that helps to assist those communities that have been affected by 
climate. We see that up in the coastline of Alaska. Senator Merkley has 
an amendment that also deals with adaptation. This is about resilience.
  I am going to oppose the sense-of-the-Senate at this time because of 
some of the language. I get a little confused or am not certain we are 
stating it in the right manner. But I do think this process has been 
healthy in the sense that by having an opportunity to have amendments 
come forward, we find out where there might be areas where we can work 
to develop future initiatives that we all might be able to support on a 
bipartisan basis. I look

[[Page 1387]]

forward to working with the Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 38 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Reid
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Amendment No. 35

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 35, offered by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, 
and I are offering an amendment that would help school officials to 
learn about existing Federal programs to improve energy efficiency in 
order to reduce school energy costs. It would not authorize any new 
programs or any new funding. It would simply require a review of 
existing Federal programs and require the Department of Energy to 
establish a coordinating structure so that schools can more easily 
navigate the many programs that are scattered across the Federal 
Government.
  I know of no opposition to the amendment. To try to make life easier 
for my colleagues, if it is acceptable to the managers, I would be 
happy to accept a voice vote.
  I don't know if my colleague from Virginia has any comments he would 
like to make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Maine, and I 
would urge a voice vote as well.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank both Senators, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the 60-vote affirmative threshold on the Collins 
amendment be vitiated, and I urge its adoption by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there any further debate on the Collins amendment No. 35?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 35) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 120

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 120, offered by the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper.
  The Senator from Washington.


                      Amendment No. 120 Withdrawn

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Carper 
amendment No. 120 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 166

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 166, offered by the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have had an opportunity to speak on 
this amendment several different times. Effectively, what we are doing 
is releasing wilderness study areas if within 1 year of receiving the 
recommendation Congress has not yet designated the study area as 
wilderness.
  Effectively, what is happening is designations will come from the 
administration. Congress is the entity that is to approve them. But in 
the interim these areas are managed as de facto wilderness. In fact, 
many areas have been managed as de facto wilderness for decades because 
the Congress has not acted.
  So simply, what we do in this amendment is to put a time period. 
Until the Congress makes a final determination on the wilderness study 
area, these areas will be determined not to be wilderness and not 
managed as such. But they are putting a time parameter on that so that 
they are not managed as wilderness areas indefinitely.
  I would urge a ``yes'' vote from my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, this is a sweeping attack on millions of 
acres of land recommended for wilderness. This would nullify much of 
the Obama administration's plan for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
and would also immediately abolish wilderness studies on BLM lands in 
12 Western States. It would also abolish protection for 2.3 million 
acres in national wildlife refuges. These lands have been refuges, and 
they should be managed accordingly. So I would ask my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Murkowski 
Amendment No. 166.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 39 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott

[[Page 1388]]


     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--48

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Reid
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 133

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 133, offered by the Senator from North Dakota, Ms. 
Heitkamp.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, this amendment will provide a sense of 
the Senate that we will provide some certainty to the American wind and 
other renewable industries by taking a look at the production tax 
credits and actually having a forward progress report so that they know 
exactly what the rules will be in the future, however short or long 
that may be. Every year, as we do the tax extenders, there are people 
waiting to find out if they still have a job. People in my State are 
waiting to know whether they are going to be put to work the next day 
or even the next week based on what this Congress does. It is so 
critical that we actually have predictability in this industry.
  This is a jobs bill, and it is an energy bill. I can't imagine 
anything more germane to the Keystone XL Pipeline than a bill that 
provides both jobs and certainty to an ``all of the above'' essential, 
which is wind.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I 
believe we do need more certainty, and the certainty ought to be that 
it is time for this tax credit--particularly the wind PTC--to expire. 
This was enacted 23 years ago as a temporary tax measure. There has 
been a lot of wind that has blown since that time, and we have a mature 
industry. In fact, the other day the President said we are No. 1 in the 
world in wind power.
  We ought to have more certainty, and the certainty that needs to be 
there is that the tax credit is going to end and that we stop picking 
winners and losers in the energy economy.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to speak on Amendment No. 
133, offered by Senator Heitkamp of North Dakota. The amendment is a 
sense of Congress that the renewable electricity tax credit should be 
extended for 5 years. While I supported the amendment, I would like to 
express my concerns regarding the consideration of this amendment at 
this time.
  I have been an outspoken supporter of renewable energy for many 
years. In fact, I first authored the wind production tax credit in 1992 
to drive this renewable energy technology. I have worked for many years 
to provide as much certainty as possible to grow the domestic wind 
industry. Iowa has seen an enormous investment in wind energy 
manufacturing and wind farm development. I know firsthand the boom-and-
bust cycle that exists for renewable energy producers when Congress 
fails to extend these critically important tax incentives.
  But I also know this credit won't go on forever. It was never meant 
to, and it shouldn't. In 2012 the wind industry was the only industry 
to put forward a phaseout plan. A number of my colleagues here in the 
Senate have been working to construct a responsible, multiyear phaseout 
of the wind tax credit. That is why I am somewhat puzzled by an 
amendment that suggests a 5-year extension of this credit. It seems 
disconnected with reality.
  I would remind my colleagues on the other side that in November of 
2014, the House offer on tax extenders included a multiyear extension 
of the wind production tax credit that would have provided the 
certainty and soft landing that most of us and the industry support, 
but President Obama issued a veto threat before the ink was dry, and as 
a result the wind incentive expired.
  Again, I strongly support wind energy, but I support a prudent way 
forward on an extension of the production tax credit. This amendment 
fails terribly in that regard. That is why I am disappointed that the 
Senator from North Dakota insisted on going forward with a 5-year 
extension on this bill. This is not a real effort to extend the wind 
incentive. I am afraid this was simply a politically motivated effort 
designed to score political points. It is unfortunate that in this 
case, politicking has trumped efforts to achieve sound, responsible 
policy.
  Rather than offer ``gotcha'' amendments on an unrelated bill, we 
should be working together to craft an extension of these important tax 
incentives that work for the wind industry, that are realistic 
politically, and that make sense for the American taxpayer. That effort 
requires regular order, working through the Finance Committee, to 
determine the most prudent path forward. It should be done in the 
context of comprehensive tax reform, where all energy tax provisions 
are on the table, rather than as a sense of the Congress on the 
unrelated Keystone XL bill.
  I hope that with this political exercise behind us, those of us who 
seek to ensure a responsible transition for the wind production tax 
credit can get to work and achieve a sensible policy for those who 
depend on it. It is too bad that this ill-timed, ill-conceived 
amendment may have actually harmed those efforts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 40 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Reid
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes

[[Page 1389]]

for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Amendment No. 48

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 48 offered by the Senator from New York, Mrs. Gillibrand.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor 
of the Keystone XL Pipeline Act. As it stands now, gas companies in 
this country do not have to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act--
the law that keeps our tapwater clear, safe, and clean.
  For decades now, this loophole has exempted hydrofracking and gas 
storage companies from this law, even though every other energy 
industry, including oil and coal industries, is legally obligated to 
comply. If big coal can comply with this law, so can gas companies.
  This special exemption is unfair, it is unnecessary, and it is 
unsafe. My amendment would finally remove it from the law. I urge my 
colleagues not to let this chance pass us by.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, claiming the 1 minute in opposition. As 
the Senator from New York has described, this would apply to the 
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act to underground ejection of 
natural gas. Currently the Safe Drinking Water Act expressly prohibits 
this application.
  This amendment to add the requirements to the Safe Drinking Water Act 
is beyond the scope of the immediate Keystone debate. We are debating 
the approval of a pipeline that is going to carry oil, not gas. If the 
Senator from New York wants to debate the issues of fracking--most 
certainly those issues are before the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, and the Safe Drinking Water Act--I would welcome a stand-
alone bill. We will have those discussions, but on this measure I would 
oppose and encourage Members to vote against the Gillibrand amendment.
  I would remind Members we are so close to wrapping up this series of 
amendments. If we can ask the folks to stick around for these final few 
and keep to the 10-minute line. I know Senator Feinstein is looking to 
encourage the women of the Senate to gather for a meal later on, and 
that would be important for us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to Gillibrand 
amendment No. 48.
  The yeas and nays have been previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 63, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 41 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

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

                                NAYS--63

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Reid
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending Murkowski substitute, as amended, be considered original text 
for the purposes of further amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of 
S. 1 tomorrow, Thursday, January 29, there be 15 minutes equally 
divided in the usual form and the Senate proceed to vote on the 
following amendments in the order listed: Barrasso No. 245; Cardin No. 
124; Burr No. 92, as modified; Daines No. 246; Vitter No. 80, as 
further modified with the changes at the desk; Udall No. 77; further, 
that all amendments on this list be subject to a 60-vote affirmative 
threshold for adoption and that no second-degrees be in order to any of 
the pending amendments to this bill. I ask unanimous consent that there 
be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between each vote and that all 
votes after the first in this series be 10-minute votes.
  I further ask that once these amendments have been disposed of, the 
Senate agree to proceed to the motion to reconsider the failed cloture 
vote on S. 1; that the motion to reconsider be agreed to and the Senate 
proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the bill, upon 
reconsideration. I ask consent that if cloture is invoked on the bill, 
as amended, all time postcloture be considered expired at 2:30 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 80), as further modified, is as follows:

       At the end, add the following:

      TITLE _--OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING REVENUE

     SEC. _01. REVENUE SHARING FROM OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF WIND 
                   ENERGY PRODUCTION FACILITIES.

       The first sentence of section 8(p)(2)(B) of the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(2)(B)) is 
     amended by inserting after ``27 percent'' the following: ``, 
     or, beginning in fiscal year 2016, in the case of projects 
     for offshore wind energy production facilities, 37.5 
     percent''.

     SEC. _02. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LEASING PROGRAM REFORMS.

       Section 18(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1344(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5)(A) In each oil and gas leasing program under this 
     section, the Secretary shall make available for leasing and 
     conduct lease sales including at least 50 percent of the 
     available unleased acreage within each outer Continental 
     Shelf planning area (other than the North Aleutian Basin 
     planning area or the North Atlantic planning area) considered 
     to have the largest undiscovered, technically recoverable oil 
     and gas resources (on a total btu basis) based on the most 
     recent national geologic assessment of the outer Continental 
     Shelf, with an emphasis on offering the most geologically 
     prospective parts of the planning area.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall include in each proposed oil and 
     gas leasing program under this section any State subdivision 
     of an outer Continental Shelf planning area (other than the 
     North Aleutian Basin planning area or the North Atlantic 
     planning area) that the Governor of the State that represents 
     that subdivision requests be made available for leasing. The 
     Secretary may not remove such a subdivision from the program 
     until publication of the final program, and shall include and 
     consider all such subdivisions in

[[Page 1390]]

     any environmental review conducted and statement prepared for 
     such program under section 102(2) of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)).
       ``(C) In this paragraph, the term `available unleased 
     acreage' means that portion of the outer Continental Shelf 
     that is not under lease at the time of a proposed lease sale, 
     and that has not otherwise been made unavailable for leasing 
     by law.
       ``(6)(A) In the 5-year oil and gas leasing program, the 
     Secretary shall make available for leasing any outer 
     Continental Shelf planning area (other than the North 
     Aleutian Basin planning area or the North Atlantic planning 
     area) that--
       ``(i) is estimated to contain more than 2,500,000,000 
     barrels of oil; or
       ``(ii) is estimated to contain more than 7,500,000,000,000 
     cubic feet of natural gas.
       ``(B) To determine the planning areas described in 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use the document 
     entitled `Minerals Management Service Assessment of 
     Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of 
     the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf, 2006'.''.

     SEC. _03. DISPOSITION OF REVENUES.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 102 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy 
     Security Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 note; Public Law 109-
     432) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through (11) as 
     paragraphs (6) through (12), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) Coastal state.--The term `coastal State' means--
       ``(A) each of the Gulf producing States; and
       ``(B) effective for fiscal year 2016 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter--
       ``(i) the State of Alaska; and
       ``(ii) for leasing in the Atlantic planning areas, each of 
     the States of Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South 
     Carolina, and Virginia.'';
       (3) in paragraph (10) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified outer Continental 
     Shelf revenues' means--
       ``(i) with respect to the Gulf producing States, in the 
     case of fiscal year 2017 and each fiscal year thereafter, all 
     rentals, royalties, bonus bids, and other sums due and 
     payable to the United States received on or after October 1, 
     2016, from leases entered into on or after December 20, 2006;
       ``(ii) with respect to each of the coastal States described 
     in paragraph (5)(B)(ii), all rentals, royalties, bonus bids, 
     and other sums due and payable to the United States from 
     leases entered into in the Atlantic planning areas on or 
     after October 1, 2015; and
       ``(iii) with respect to the State of Alaska, in the case of 
     fiscal year 2022 and each fiscal year thereafter, all 
     rentals, royalties, bonus bids, and other sums due and 
     payable to the United States received on or after October 1, 
     2021, from leases entered into on or after March 1, 2005.''; 
     and
       (4) in paragraph (11) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``Gulf producing State'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``coastal State''.
       (b) Disposition of Revenues.--Section 105 of the Gulf of 
     Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 note; 
     Public Law 109-432) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``FROM 181 AREA, 
     181 SOUTH AREA, AND 2002-2007 PLANNING AREAS OF GULF OF 
     MEXICO'';
       (2) by striking ``Gulf producing State'' each place it 
     appears (other than paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b)) 
     and inserting ``coastal State'';
       (3) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) 50 percent of qualified outer Continental Shelf 
     revenues in a special account in the Treasury from which the 
     Secretary shall disburse--
       ``(A) in the case of qualified outer Continental Shelf 
     revenues generated from outer Continental Shelf areas 
     adjacent to Gulf producing States--
       ``(i) 75 percent to Gulf producing States in accordance 
     with subsection (b); and
       ``(ii) 25 percent to provide financial assistance to States 
     in accordance with section 200305 of title 54, United States 
     Code, which shall be considered income to the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund for purposes of section 200302 of that 
     title; and
       ``(B) in the case of qualified outer Continental Shelf 
     revenues generated from outer Continental Shelf areas 
     adjacent to coastal States described in section 102(5)(B), 
     100 percent to the coastal States in accordance with 
     subsection (b).'';
       (4) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Gulf Producing 
     States'' and inserting ``Coastal States'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4);
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Allocation among certain atlantic states and the 
     state of alaska for fiscal year 2016 and thereafter.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), effective 
     for fiscal years 2016 and each fiscal year thereafter, the 
     amount made available under subsection (a)(2)(B) shall be 
     allocated to each coastal State described in section 
     102(5)(B) in amounts (based on a formula established by the 
     Secretary by regulation) that are inversely proportional to 
     the respective distances between the point on the coastline 
     of each coastal State described in section 102(5)(B) that is 
     closest to the geographic center of the applicable leased 
     tract and the geographic center of the leased tract.
       ``(B) Minimum allocation.--The amount allocated to a 
     coastal State described in section 102(5)(B) each fiscal year 
     under subparagraph (A) shall be at least 10 percent of the 
     amounts available under subsection (a)(2)(B).''; and
       (D) in paragraph (4) (as redesignated by subparagraph (B)), 
     by striking ``paragraphs (1) and (2)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)''; and
       (5) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the total 
     amount of qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues made 
     available to coastal States under subsection (a)(2) shall not 
     exceed--
       ``(A) in the case of the coastal States described in 
     section 102(5)(A)--
       ``(i) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2017;
       ``(ii) $520,000,000 for fiscal year 2018;
       ``(iii) $525,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2019 and 
     2020;
       ``(iv) $575,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 through 
     2025; and
       ``(v) $699,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 
     2055;
       ``(B) in the case of the coastal States described in 
     section 102(5)(B)(ii)--
       ``(i) $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 through 
     2020;
       ``(ii) $75,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 through 
     2025;
       ``(iii) $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 
     2055; and
       ``(iv) $300,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2056 through 
     2065; and
       ``(C) in the case of the State of Alaska--
       ``(i) $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2022 through 
     2025;
       ``(ii) $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 
     2055; and
       ``(iii) $199,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2056 through 
     2065.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think Members have been given the 
outline for tomorrow morning that will take us through a final vote on 
cloture so that we can get to final passage of the Keystone XL 
Pipeline.
  I appreciate the consideration and the courtesy of all Members. It 
has been a long day. We have worked through about a dozen additional 
amendments, if my count is correct, and we have done it in pretty good 
order. We have done it while there have been a number of committee 
meetings going on, which can be very disruptive, but I think with the 
level of cooperation we have had, we will be able to conclude our 
business at a relatively civilized hour this evening.
  I appreciate the good work of my partner and ranking member Senator 
Cantwell in getting us to this place. I am hopeful that with the number 
of amendments we have outlined for the morning and then the handful of 
germane amendments we will have in the afternoon, we will be able to 
move on to other business before the Senate. But I thank my colleagues 
for all of the effort and cooperation we have had to this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from Alaska 
for her hard work in getting us through this process. I think our 
colleagues can see the daylight to finishing this up tomorrow, 
hopefully. I know Members have worked across the aisle on some of these 
remaining issues, and we are still trying to work a few of them out. So 
hopefully tomorrow will go as smoothly as today has.
  I would like to turn now to my colleague from New Mexico to call up 
his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                            Amendment No. 77

       (Purpose: To establish a renewable electricity standard, 
     and for other purposes)

  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment so that I may call up my amendment No. 77.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:


[[Page 1391]]

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Udall], for himself, Mr. 
     Markey, and Mr. Bennet, proposes an amendment numbered 77.

  Mr. UDALL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of January 20, 2015, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, let me just say to the two leaders on the 
floor who have participated in this open amendment process that I 
really appreciate the way Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member 
Cantwell have worked through this bill. I really appreciate all their 
help.
  I have heard, at least on our side of the aisle, over and over that 
this is the way the Senate should be moving, this is the way we should 
be working. So I think all of us are very appreciative of how the two 
managers of the bill have worked together.
  I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank our colleague for his kind comments. We do 
have one more consent request here very briefly.
  I ask unanimous consent that the order of votes on the Burr and the 
Daines amendments be reversed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. With that, Mr. President, I again thank Members for 
their cooperation today and look forward to yet another productive day 
tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the 
bill managers for their hard work today and for their efforts in the 
work that was done in a bipartisan way on this legislation. I know both 
the bill managers have spent an awful lot of time putting together 
these amendments, and I think they have really bent over backward to 
make sure Members on both sides of the aisle have had an opportunity to 
file their amendments, to make those amendments pending, and to get 
votes on the amendments. So I would like to express my appreciation to 
both of them for all the work they have done and for the process today 
in voting on amendments.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                              The Economy

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, yesterday the Congressional Budget Office--
the CBO--released its budget and economic outlook showing the forecast 
through 2025. It should strike fear in the heart of anybody who is 
concerned about this country's financial future.
  The very short-term news is good. The deficit is projected to fall--
but only for another 2 years. In 2017 the deficit is projected to start 
rising again to $1.1 trillion in 10 years. That is the annual deficit. 
By 2025 the deficit will be 4 percent of our overall economy.
  Right now the country's debt in cumulative deficits over the years--
the cumulative debt--is $18 trillion. This year we will pay about $277 
billion just servicing that debt. That amount might seem low, but it is 
because of artificially low interest rates. In 10 years we will pay 
about $827 billion a year just to service the debt. That is 3 percent 
of our economy just to pay interest on the debt. That is unsustainable.
  Don't take my word for it, though. You can take CBO's. They said:

       Such large and growing Federal debt would have serious 
     negative consequences, including increasing Federal spending 
     for interest payments; restraining economic growth in the 
     long term; giving policymakers less flexibility to respond to 
     unexpected challenges; and eventually heightening the risk of 
     a financial crisis.

  I have been working on these issues--this issue in particular--for a 
long time, and I have to admit that sometimes it is tough to get people 
to focus on this topic. But we shouldn't be fooled and patting 
ourselves on the back just because we have done things such as getting 
rid of earmarks. That is a good thing, but it is certainly insufficient 
to address our spending.
  The culture in Washington is still the culture of runaway spending, 
not just in earmarks, as I said, not just in wasteful spending. For 
example, spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will 
nearly double over the next decade alone. This is not a revenue problem 
that we are having. Projected revenues will exceed their 50-year 
historical average of 17 percent of GDP this year and will grow to over 
18 percent of the economy in this decade.
  The culture of spending in Washington is something that defies logic, 
defies math and an honest assessment of who we are as a country. As a 
result, the United States is fast becoming a once-prosperous nation. We 
don't want that designation. It is truly a frightening distinction. Yet 
too few in Washington are motivated to get this country's fiscal house 
in order. One has to wonder how bad it is going to have to get to prod 
those who are not yet motivated.
  Some will argue that we need to take baby steps to address our fiscal 
crisis. I think we are well past that time, but whatever kinds of steps 
we take, we need to take them now. We need to turn this culture of 
spending in Washington to one that will fully repair our economy. That 
will give the private sector the stability and confidence to create 
jobs. We also need to reform our cumbersome Tax Code. Most of all, we 
need to relieve future generations of the burden of our financial mess.
  In short, it is well past time to start climbing our way out of this 
fiscal hole we are in.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here now for the 87th consecutive 
week the Senate has been in session to urge action on climate change.
  We have had an interesting couple of weeks on the Keystone Pipeline, 
but from a climate change and carbon pollution point of view, this 
would obviously not be helpful. Indeed, it would be a disaster leading 
to as much as 27 million--27 million--metric tons of additional carbon 
dioxide emitted per year. To put that number into some perspective, 
that is the equivalent of adding 6 million cars and trucks to our roads 
for 50 years. So it is a very considerable carbon price to pay.
  We have seen a poster used on the Senate Floor that says it will have 
no environmental effect. That is not precisely true. Indeed, precisely 
the opposite is true. This is the environmental effect it will have, 
and it is considerable. The report referred to went on to say that it 
would be offset by the fact that this fuel would go out by rail anyway. 
But that offset was conditioned on a fuel price above $75 per barrel of 
oil, and we are at $50. So there is no way that conclusion can stand, 
and the underlying fact is what prevails--27 million metric tons of 
additional carbon dioxide.
  It is obviously very bad from an environmental perspective. It is a 
lot of ``not much'' from a jobs perspective. Every 4 days we add more 
jobs than the construction of this pipeline just through the economic 
recovery that is taking place.
  This is a little bit hard to explain, particularly when you think 
that this bill is going to be dead on arrival at the White House. We 
have known from the beginning that this is going to be vetoed. But it 
has allowed the oil and the fossil fuel industry to show their hands. 
This is all being done on behalf of a foreign oil company and on behalf 
of the fossil fuel industry.
  When we look at what we have been through in the past couple of days, 
there are some interesting choices the Senate has made if you are a 
foreign oil company. If you are a foreign oil company, we will let you 
use eminent domain to extinguish the property rights of farmers and 
ranchers and take their farms and ranches away. If you are a foreign 
oil company, we will exempt you from the oilspill recovery fund--the 
Federal excise tax on petroleum--so you don't have to pay the taxes 
American companies have to pay. If you are a foreign oil company, we 
will not require you to use American

[[Page 1392]]

steel in a pipeline being built across America being touted as a source 
of American jobs. If you are a foreign oil company, we won't require 
you to sell it in the American market even though it is touted as a 
product that will help balance America's energy portfolio.
  So, so far, not much good to show for all of this but one thing, and 
that is that this exercise has at last brought the issue of climate 
change to the floor of the Senate.
  We have not had much debate about climate change since the Citizens 
United decision back in 2010 allowed the fossil fuel industry to cast a 
very long shadow of intimidation across this body. They spend a huge 
amount of the money that has been freed up by Citizens United. They 
spend a huge amount of dark money that flows post Citizens United. And 
since then, the Republican Party has been virtually muzzled on that 
subject. So having Republicans talk about climate change on the Senate 
floor was something of a revelation, and I don't think we should 
underestimate the importance of that or undervalue what was said.
  The senior Senator from South Carolina came to the floor and said 
this:

       The concept that climate change is real, I completely 
     understand and accept. To the point of how much man is 
     contributing, I don't know, but it does make sense that man-
     made emissions are contributing.
       . . . the greenhouse gas effect seems to me scientifically 
     sound. The problem is that how you fix this globally is going 
     to require more than just the U.S. being involved.

  Which I think we all agree with.
  The senior Senator from Alaska, who is our chairman of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee and the floor manager on this very bill, 
agreed, stating that she hopes we can all, quoting her, get beyond the 
discussion as to whether or not climate change is real and talk about 
what do we do.
  I look forward to that discussion about what do we do. It is not 
enough just to say, OK, we finally concede that climate change is 
really happening. We really do have to get on to what do we do.
  Even if you disagree with me that climate change is real and very 
significant and consequential for our country, if you will spot me that 
there is just a 10-percent chance that I am right--even just a 2-
percent chance that I am right--when we consider the possible harms, it 
is something that grownup adults and responsible people ought to take a 
look at and come together and decide what to do.
  We have been through some very notable benchmarks. We hit for the 
first time last year 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in our 
atmosphere for more than 3 months. They have been tracking this in 
Hawaii, at the top of the mountain at the Mauna Loa laboratory for 
decades now, and 400 parts per million for more than 3 months is a new 
record.
  To put that in context: For as long as human beings have been on this 
planet, all the way back to when we were living in caves, the range of 
carbon in the atmosphere has been 170 to 300 parts per million. So we 
are well outside the range that has been our comfortable safe range for 
human habitation of this planet during our entire human experience, and 
400 is a big move when our entire range is only 130 points and now we 
are 100 parts per million out of that.
  Some of this lands in the oceans. The oceans have absorbed about a 
quarter of all our carbon emissions. We can measure their pH level. 
This isn't complicated. This isn't something we have to do with 
elaborate computer models.
  What we see is that the pH level of the oceans is changing rapidly. 
The oceans are acidifying rapidly. When I say rapidly, they are 
acidifying at a rate that we have not seen in 25 to perhaps 30 or 50 
million years. Indeed, some studies say nothing like this has been seen 
on the face of the Earth for as long as 300 million years. When we 
consider that our species has been around for about 200,000 years, that 
is a pretty long window to be launching new and dramatic changes in our 
oceans.
  There is nothing new about the science that supports this. John 
Tyndall wrote the first report about the greenhouse gas effect to the 
British Academy of Sciences in 1861. The pages who are here and have 
studied history will know that 1861 was the year President Lincoln took 
office. So the scientific community has been aware of the greenhouse 
gas phenomenon since Abraham Lincoln was driving up and down 
Pennsylvania Avenue in a carriage with his top hat on.
  There is not much new that is there, and the latest data is clearer 
and clearer that we just continue apace to warm the planet.
  Professor Jonathan Overpeck is at the University of Arizona, and 
Arizona is certainly feeling the heat. Professor Overpeck said:

       The global warmth of 2014 is just another reminder that the 
     planet is warming and warming fast. . . . Humans, and their 
     burning of fossil fuels, are dominating the Earth's climate 
     system like never before.

  It is equally clear, when we look at the oceans, they not only absorb 
a lot of the carbon dioxide and acidify as a result--they absorb most 
of the heat. In fact, they absorb 90 percent of the excess heat that 
has been trapped by the greenhouse gases that we have flooded our 
atmosphere with.
  I certainly see that in Rhode Island, where Narragansett Bay's mean 
winter water temperature is up 3 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit since we had 
our big hurricane of 1938. That is significant, because it means more 
likely storms. It is associated with sea level rise. We have 10 more 
inches of sea level at the Newport Naval Station. So if the 1938 
hurricane were to repeat itself now, it would have 10 more inches of 
sea to hammer against our shores. And that is not a complicated 
measure, either. We do that with thermometers.
  So since the Industrial Revolution, human beings have dumped 2 
trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air and into the 
atmosphere. Said another way, that is 2,000 billion metric tons of 
carbon dioxide.
  The notion that has no effect, when we have known since Abraham 
Lincoln's day that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and when we put 
that much in and when we can measure that it is at 400 for the first 
time in human history--connect the dots. How much does it take? It is 
really pretty obvious.
  Folks who remain skeptical--well, I know, I am not a scientist. I get 
that. So ask one. That is all I request. And I don't think that is too 
much to ask of colleagues. And, by the way, do me one favor. You can 
ask the scientist that you please, but please don't ask a scientist who 
is in the pay of the fossil fuel and the denial industry. There are a 
bunch of them who are out there. They turn up at all the usual denial 
conferences. They write in the denial journals. They take money from 
the denial organizations that all have fossil fuel industry funding 
behind them. Go to someplace neutral.
  For instance, go to your own State university, like the University of 
Arizona or the University of Oklahoma. The dean of the relevant 
department at the University of Oklahoma signed the IPCC report and 
started Climate Central. Ask your own university. Ask any major 
scientific organization. All the major recognized scientific 
organizations in the United States of America are on board, agree that 
this is real, agree that this is important, agree that it is vital, and 
believe that we are actually near the tipping point that may make the 
damage irrecoverable.
  If you don't want to go to your home State university and if you 
don't want to go to America's major scientific societies, try NOAA and 
NASA.
  Think about NASA for a moment. As I give this speech, there is a 
Rover that is the size of an SUV being driven around on the surface of 
Mars. We built a Rover, shot it to Mars, landed it safely, and are now 
driving it around. Do we think those scientists might actually know 
something? Do we think they might know what they are talking about? Do 
we think they might merit our confidence? So ask them and see what they 
say.
  Or, if you want, ask some of America's leading corporations. If you 
are from Arkansas, go and ask Walmart. They will tell you. If you are 
from Georgia, go and ask Coca-Cola. They will tell you. This is not 
hard to discover once you get away from that little stable of denial 
scientists who are

[[Page 1393]]

so closely affiliated with the fossil fuel industry.
  I do this every week because we have the arrogance so often here to 
think how much our laws--the laws that we pass--matter. But the laws 
that we pass are passing things. They come and they go. They have their 
time. They are repealed, they are replaced, they fall into desuetude.
  But some laws last, and those are the laws that God laid down upon 
this Earth that guide its operations. Those are the laws of physics, 
the laws of chemistry, the laws of biology, the law of gravity. We 
cannot repeal those laws. We must face their consequences. And we know 
the consequences of continuing to emit gigatons of carbon dioxide into 
our planet is going to launch us into an environment in which the 
habitability of Earth as we have known it will be put into question.
  History makes its judgments about every generation. If we do not take 
calm and reasonable and sensible precautions about this obvious known 
and admitted risk, then when that risk comes home to roost, we will be 
duly shamed.
  So let us avoid that. Let us get to work. Let us take advantage of 
the opening that the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska and the 
distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina have opened for us, 
and let us do what is right by our country and by the judgment that we 
can anticipate from history.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________