[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1442-1468]
[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.

[[Page 1443]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Vitter/Cassidy further modified amendment No. 80, 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.
       Murkowski amendment No. 98 (to amendment No. 2), to express 
     the sense of Congress relating to adaptation projects in the 
     United States Arctic region and rural communities.
       Flake amendment No. 103 (to amendment No. 2), to require 
     the evaluation and consolidation of duplicative green 
     building programs.
       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.
       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.
       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.
       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.
       Cardin amendment No. 124 (to amendment No. 2), to clarify 
     that treaties with Indian tribes remain in effect.
       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.
       Udall amendment No. 77, to establish a renewable 
     electricity standard, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 15 
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as we just heard, the House has sent 
over legislation they have moved through that body that would allow for 
export of LNG. As we speak, in the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee downstairs, the committee is considering a bipartisan LNG 
measure. Five Republicans and five Democrats are coming together with 
an LNG export proposal that they have not only worked with the 
administration on, but the administration is actually carrying out, 
without the law being in place. Certainly we are getting to a place 
with our LNG and our natural gas opportunities where there are good, 
substantive developments being made in our laws and in how we can 
provide for not only certainty through the regulatory process--
efficiency, expediency--but assurance to the public--to families, to 
businesses, to manufacturers--that pricing issues will be addressed and 
the opportunity for jobs in this country is put first and foremost. So 
I think there is good news going on today.
  There is further good news as we begin the glidepath toward passage 
of the Keystone XL Pipeline. We have had a host of measures come before 
us in the form of some 35 amendments that we have considered as a body 
over the course of these several weeks. I think it has been good 
debate. I think it has been a good process. We are now getting to the 
final closeout.


                 Amendment No. 80, as Further Modified

  Some very important issues have been raised in this debate. I wish to 
thank Senator Vitter for bringing the very important issue of revenue 
sharing to the attention of the Senate. He offered an amendment that 
has been before us for consideration. He has been very steadfast in 
ensuring that there is a continued commitment to America's energy 
security and increasing offshore energy production.
  The American energy revolution has provided us with high-paying jobs 
for millions of workers. It has led to lower gas prices. It has 
provided a real stimulus to the pocketbooks of just about every 
American. It is fundamentally changing our role on the international 
stage, which is so important.
  The amendment Senator Vitter has offered to the underlying bill, 
which would increase access to our offshore energy resources and 
provide revenue sharing for coastal producing States, is a very 
important one. Again, I thank him for that.
  One of my top priorities as chairman of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee is to help ensure the exploration and the 
development of Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf--OCS--which holds an 
estimated 236 billion barrels of offshore oil and 132 trillion cubic 
feet of offshore natural gas. This is clearly an amazing resource base. 
It is going to take a while--more than a decade--to develop, but it 
will provide substantial government revenues for generations to come.
  With the benefits that come with this resource development, there are 
also impacts. There will be impacts both to the State of Alaska and to 
coastal communities. It will require major investment in new 
infrastructure, whether it be ports or pipelines or roads. That just 
comes with this kind of resource production.
  I look forward to working with Senator Vitter to address the revenue 
sharing not only for my State but for the gulf States and other States 
that host energy development off of their coastline in legislation that 
the energy committee will consider later this year.
  I appreciate the continued support of my colleague from Louisiana and 
for providing a fair share of the revenue from offshore oil and gas 
activity to the States that are most affected. His State most clearly 
has experienced the benefits of offshore activity. I have seen this for 
myself when I have gone down to visit.
  He is also working hard to ensure that others enjoy those benefits as 
well. Again, we are having a great debate over energy policy. We are 
seeing many good amendments with ideas that could be included in future 
bills, and I certainly look forward to working on revenue sharing with 
my colleagues from Louisiana, Senator Vitter and Senator Cassidy, and 
with other Members of the Senate as we go forward in this Congress.
  I will now yield to my colleague from Louisiana for any comments he 
may choose to make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I want to thank the Senator for her kind words and continuing 
commitment to work on revenue-sharing measures. As her new role as the 
Chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, that is going to 
happen this year, which is exciting.
  As the Senator mentioned, I filed an amendment to this bill with 
regard to revenue sharing and worked very closely with my new Senate 
colleague, Bill Cassidy, and others. This is important now more than 
ever, particularly in light, unfortunately, of the Obama 
administration's recently announced 5-year OCS plan. That plan is 
grossly inadequate. It really chops up and goes down even lower than we 
have been with regard to the development of our Outer Continental 
Shelf.
  Revenue sharing is one key way to reverse that trend and produce more 
American energy in a safe and environmentally sensitive way and have 
all of this benefit, including, by the way, the Federal Treasury. My 
revenue-sharing amendment and other revenue-sharing ideas--certainly 
including those Senator Murkowski is working on--would do just that. We 
have three fundamental goals in mind.
  First of all, we need to expand production activity on our U.S. Outer 
Continental Shelf.

[[Page 1444]]

  Secondly, we need to treat host States right. They have benefits like 
the economic benefits we enjoy in Louisiana, but there are also costs 
and burdens. There are absolutely impacts to coastal communities. That 
requires that some portion of that revenue from that production stay in 
the host States. That is what revenue sharing is all about. We need 
that in Alaska. We need that in the gulf. We need that when we start 
production on the east coast.
  Finally, we need that revenue sharing because it is the most powerful 
incentive tool out there to significantly boost production, to get more 
States into the act, to get more production online working toward 
American energy independence and an economic renaissance. Revenue 
sharing, properly formulated, will do all of that.
  I really do appreciate Senator Murkowski's focus on this issue and 
commitment to proceeding with this issue in the Senate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee in legislation this year.


            Amendment No. 80, as Further Modified Withdrawn

  With that having been said, I will withdraw my Vitter amendment No. 
80 on this bill and certainly will actively partner with Senator 
Murkowski, Senator Cassidy, and others to advance revenue sharing this 
year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Louisiana.
  I do think this is an area where those of us from coastal States can 
sit down together to truly map out a proposal that is fair and 
equitable, truly taking advantage of the benefits of accessing our 
offshore resources while recognizing those States that bear the 
responsibility of these production and development activities should 
share in some of the benefit there as well. I am looking forward to 
working with him as well as members of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee.
  At this time I ask unanimous consent that the votes on the Barrasso 
amendment No. 245 and the Cardin amendment No. 124 occur after the 
disposition of the Udall amendment No. 77, with all other provisions of 
the previous order remaining in effect, and there be 2 minutes equally 
divided before the vote on the Daines amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Just for Members' information, we will be prepared 
very shortly to commence votes. The good news for Members is the list 
of amendments that we had scheduled prior to the lunchtime has actually 
been winnowed down somewhat. Some Members, such as we have just seen 
from the Senator from Louisiana, have chosen to withdraw. We may be in 
a position to take some by voice. We will be having votes commencing 
here very quickly. But the good news is there will be fewer than there 
were when we started out this morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I assume there is a little bit of time 
to make a couple of comments as we are waiting.
  I would commend the chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, for she and the ranking Member have done an excellent job of 
moving us through. I think we all appreciate it when we hear the words 
``an amendment has been withdrawn'' in terms of being able to move the 
process forward.
  I did want to mention a couple of things. One, just to remind 
everyone, when we talk about this Canadian oil company bringing a 
pipeline through the United States down to the Gulf--putting it on a 
ship and sending it to China--they are not paying into the oilspill 
liability trust fund. Our amendment to say the oil should stay here if 
Americans are taking all the risk was voted down. The amendment that 
would require American steel was voted down. Any commitment to make 
sure these were all American jobs has also been voted down.
  I did also--because the distinguished Chair of the committee 
mentioned a bill that came over from the House--want to take a moment 
to say as we look at energy policy in the energy committee today we 
are, in fact, considering what I consider to be one of the most 
fundamental questions for us moving forward with this new energy source 
in abundance called natural gas.
  It is incredibly important we get this right. As opposed to the 
pipeline going through the middle of our country, this is something 
that can greatly increase our ability to have manufacturing jobs across 
the country, to continue to lower and keep down the prices of heating 
and other energy costs for our citizens. If it is done right--the 
committee, I believe, dramatically does it the wrong way. The bill that 
came from the House is very much, in my judgment, a China-first policy 
and not an America-first policy. I say that because right now China is 
willing to pay more than three times for natural gas than we are. I 
understand that the gas and oil industry wants to rush it on ships over 
to China. But to add insult to injury for us, they were willing to pay, 
last year, $16 and then turn around and subsidize their industry that 
is competing with us and only give it to them for I believe it was 
$1.78. Our folks who are forced to pay $16 because we don't have a 
prudent export policy--they just throw open the doors to send it to 
China. Our folks pay $16. The folks competing with us for our jobs are 
paying $1.78.
  I realize we have a lot more discussion on that at a later point. I 
do want to say there will be a great debate on what I believe is one of 
the most important issues in front of us in terms of continuing to 
having manufacturing renaissance and the ability to create good middle-
class jobs in this country. I am hopeful in the end we will have an 
America-first policy, not a China-first policy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are just about ready to begin our 
votes. Again, it was a very productive day processing amendments 
yesterday, and we have some good provisions included in the bill. We 
were able to adopt by voice the provision of the Senator from Maine to 
better coordinate energy retrofitting assistance for schools. That was 
good for us. I think we have been available to reach agreement on 
several of the measures that will allow the process to go quickly this 
morning.
  I am certainly prepared to yield back any time here so we can 
commence with the voting, although I want to recognize my ranking 
member and partner in this weeks-long effort if she wants to make any 
comments before the vote.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I know originally we pushed the bill back, so I am 
happy to move it back to reclaim some of that time and help us. I know 
there are a few things which have been worked out, and we very much 
appreciate that.
  I yield back our time.


                           Amendment No. 246

  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. 246, offered by the Senator from Montana, Mr. Daines.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Daines amendment. 
While I respect the perspective of my colleague from Montana, this 
amendment does nothing to support the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 
If you really want to support LWCF, you ought to support the bipartisan 
Burr amendment which we will consider in a few minutes. Instead of 
actually solving the problem, the Daines measure creates more delay for 
delay's sake and says LWCF should be a priority but undermines the very 
notion by suggesting there is something wrong with the program.
  For once we have a program where there actually is nothing wrong with 
it. It has been one of our Nation's most successful conservation 
programs for 50 years, funding projects in every State and literally 
every single county in the

[[Page 1445]]

United States. These are projects that range from creating new parks 
for inner city kids, to providing new access to sportsmen, to 
protecting the Nation's historic battlefields. We don't need to 
overhaul LWCF, we just need to reauthorize it and let the program's 
proven track record of success continue.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote no on the Daines amendment before 
us now, but vote yes on the bipartisan Burr amendment to follow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe Senator Daines is still in 
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee so I will attempt to speak 
on his behalf in support of his amendment.
  Reauthorizing the LWCF is something that I have said we plan to take 
up in the energy committee. We are going to make it a priority. But I 
agree the sense-of-the-Senate, in order to ensure that this program can 
be an effective tool for management structural improvements to the 
program, is going to be needed.
  For example, I know the LWCF has been used to acquire inholdings in 
existing national parks, our national forests, and wildlife refuges. 
Acquiring inholdings can improve management. We should do more of these 
kinds of targeted land acquisitions.
  Another structural change I know some are interested in making is 
setting aside some of the LWCF funding to address the maintenance 
backlog facing our Federal land management agencies. We have combined 
maintenance backlogs, as much as $22 billion, according to CRS reports. 
We have issues. We have to do that.
  I will support the Daines amendment.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has 
been instrumental in increasing access to our public lands, growing 
opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protecting wildlife. And 
there is great potential for the program to be used to increase access 
to our existing Federal lands.
  My amendment expresses the sense of Congress that the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund serves an important role in improving wildlife 
habitat, increasing outdoor recreation opportunities, and facilitating 
economic development on our public lands.
  It will also convey that funding and reauthorizing the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund should be a priority for Congress and as we consider 
its reauthorization, we should also look for improvements to the 
structure of the program. The benefits and opportunities for 
improvement to the Land and Water Conservation Fund should be 
thoroughly evaluated in a transparent legislative process.
  My amendment would support authorization through the legislative 
process and allow for oversight and transparency in improving the 
program. My amendment is not intended to undermine the integrity of the 
program.
  Montana's outdoors heritage is of great importance to our State's 
economy and thousands of Montanans' way of life. Supporting and 
improving the Land and Water Conservation Fund will help us ensure that 
this legacy is continued for future generations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the Daines amendment, No. 246.
  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. 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. (Mrs. Ernst). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 42 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--51

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cruz
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     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. 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. 92, as Modified

  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. 92, as modified, offered by the Senator from North 
Carolina, Mr. Burr.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I will be brief, but I would like my 
colleagues' attention because we have an opportunity today to take a 
program that functions well, that this body designed, funded from 
royalties off of exploration of energy, that has never been fully 
funded at what the statute said we would do, and every so often it 
comes up for reauthorization. That is sort of stupid.
  What this amendment does is it makes permanent the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. I say to my friends and colleagues, if you want to 
change the makeup of the fund--what it does, how it works--that still 
exists, but let's not have the debate as to whether this is going to 
continue. Let's continue it permanently, and let's make sure that what 
they do in their work, where they leverage a few Federal dollars with a 
lot of private dollars, not to acquire massive amounts of lands or 
create parks but to put adjoining lands together that stops 
encroachment on some very sensitive areas--this is a smart investment, 
and it is an investment we make off of the production of energy in this 
country.
  I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 92.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I would suggest that legislative 
proposals such as reauthorizing the LWCF should be considered under 
regular order, beginning with hearings in the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee. Obviously, this is an issue in which many of us 
are interested. We have just had a measure before this which spoke to 
some of the proposed policy changes that might be considered.
  So whether we are seeking to reauthorize permanently or considering 
different set-asides of funds that come in for different programs, I 
would like to think we could do it through regular order. But I 
certainly understand where the Senator from North Carolina is coming 
from, and I look forward to working with him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
92, as modified.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page 1446]]

  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. (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 43 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

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

                                NAYS--39

     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     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, as modified, is 
rejected.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CORNYN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Amendment No. 77

  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. 77, offered by the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Udall.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Madam President, this amendment creates a national market 
for renewable energy. A bill similar to this has passed the Senate 
three times and also passed the House once. These are the jobs of the 
future--renewable energy jobs. More than half of the new generation of 
energy in the world is in renewables, and this amendment--it is 
estimated by the people who have studied it and the experts--would 
create about 300,000 new jobs.
  So I ask my colleagues to support it. It is a good complement to the 
bill we are on, and it would create a lot of new jobs.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, this amendment is an issue that 
Congress has considered many times over the past 16 years, but we 
declined to impose a renewable electricity standard.
  We called it several different names. We called it a renewable 
portfolio standard. Then it moved to renewable electricity standard. It 
was later rebranded the clean energy standard. Now it is back to the 
RES. But this latest proposal that 25 percent of electricity supplied 
by a retail provider be generated by certain renewable resources by 
2025 is really no different than the EPA's move to impose a 30-percent 
reduction in greenhouse gases from existing powerplants by 2030 under 
this proposed CPP regulation.
  I would encourage Members to oppose this amendment.
  Further, I would note to colleagues that we are very close to 
finishing up these amendments. If we move quickly, if we stay on the 
floor and stick to 10-minute votes, we can finish them all before 
lunch. I think that would be good, but it is going to require the 
cooperation of all Members.
  With that, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to Udall amendment No. 77.
  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 45, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 44 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

                                NAYS--53

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson
     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. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 245

  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. 245, offered by the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, this is an amendment Senator Barrasso 
and Senator Cardin have been working on together. This amendment 
provides that the Federal Government must consult with the relevant 
Indian nations before modifying or breaking any trust or treaty 
obligation. This obligation is already required by Executive order. The 
Federal Government has been fulfilling its government-to-government 
consultation responsibilities on the Keystone XL Pipeline project for 
over 6 years.
  I think it is important for colleagues to recognize that this 
amendment does not create any new law; it is merely an additional 
guarantee that the Federal Government will live up to its existing 
obligations to consult with the Indian nations, which is a matter I 
think we should all be able to agree on.
  This is an issue Senator Barrasso has been working on with the 
Senator from Maryland, and they have indicated that they will accept a 
voice vote on this amendment.


                     Amendment No. 245, as Modified

  I ask unanimous consent that Barrasso amendment No. 245 be modified 
with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:


[[Page 1447]]

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. CONSULTATION WITH INDIAN TRIBES.

       Nothing in this Act relieves the United States of its 
     responsibility to consult with Indian nations as required 
     under executive order 13175 (67 Fed. Reg. 67249) (November 6, 
     2000).

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the 60-vote affirmative 
threshold be vitiated, and I urge its adoption by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there further debate on this amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 245), as modified, was agreed to.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BARRASSO. 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 Maryland.


                           Amendment No. 124

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I take a 
few minutes to debate the next amendment and save a little bit of time 
at the end by withdrawing the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, as we consider both the Barrasso and 
Cardin amendments, I wish to remind my colleagues of the unique history 
the United States has with Indian nations. This history includes over 
300 treaties that were negotiated with individual tribes and nations 
which remain in effect today.
  For over two centuries our Nation disregarded the concerns of tribal 
nations with respect to expansion and development that affected their 
communities. This often included abrogating treaty rights and 
disregarding trust obligations this country has to Indian nations and 
individual Indians. But this is no longer how we work with Indian 
nations in our country. We now have laws and Executive orders requiring 
deliberate and meaningful consultation on any actions taken by the 
Federal Government that affect tribal interests. We have also signed on 
to the United Nations Declaration Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which 
states that the rights of indigenous peoples cannot be abrogated 
without their free and informed consent.
  I want to make it crystal clear that nothing in this bill is meant to 
abrogate the rights of any Indian nation or any individual Indian. So 
while I believe we could say more to affirm these policies in this 
bill, I am happy that at a minimum, Senator Barrasso's amendment 
guarantees that Indian nations continue to have a voice through 
meaningful consultation on this project.
  It has been necessary to have this discussion because the Great 
Plains Tribal Chairman's Association does not believe that the 
consultation required is occurring with respect to KXL. It is helpful 
to remind the executive branch agencies involved in this process just 
what their obligations are. I would like to quote from a letter the 
association recently sent to Interior Secretary Jewell, which states in 
part:

       As our Trustee, DOI has a specific duty to insure that its 
     comments and positions on this National Interest 
     Determination accurately reflect the very real potential 
     impacts that this Project may have on our historical Tribal 
     homelands, sacred sites, cultural resources and water rights, 
     all of which are protected by applicable federal law and our 
     Treaties with the United States. While many of our Tribes 
     have submitted comments on this document, the State 
     Department's unwillingness to sit down with us on a 
     government to government basis to discuss our concerns has 
     led us to question whether that Department really respects 
     our legal roles as elected officials of federally recognized 
     sovereign tribes. These concerns are so serious that the 
     Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, 
     the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, and the Yankton Sioux Tribe have all 
     become party interveners in the South Dakota Public Utility 
     Commission's proceedings challenging its 2010 action permit 
     for this project.
       Madam Secretary, we know that you have many important 
     demands on your schedule, but meaningful government to 
     government consultation, especially on matters of this 
     importance, is assured to us by President Obama's Tribal 
     Consultation policy of November 5, 2009, as well as by 
     Executive Order 13175. President Clinton issued that 
     Executive Order to ``establish regular and meaningful 
     consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the 
     development of Federal policies that have tribal implications 
     [and] to strengthen the United States government-to-
     government relationship with Indian tribes''. President Obama 
     re-committed federal agencies to this duty through a 
     Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and 
     Agencies issued on November 5, 2009, in which he declared: 
     ``My Administration is committed to regular and meaningful 
     consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in 
     policy decisions that have tribal implications including, as 
     an initial step, through a complete and consistent 
     implementation of Executive Order 13175''. To prepare final 
     DOI comments on a document of this magnitude without 
     affording us the opportunity for a meaningful face to face/
     government to government meeting is a flagrant violation of 
     President Obama's directive in 2009 and of the commitments 
     President Obama has made to us as recently as last December.

  Now, what is meant by the term ``consultation''? When the world 
community of nations, including the United States, worked with 
Indigenous Peoples over a 15-year period to develop the United Nations 
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, they used the 
consultative standard of ``free, prior and informed consent'' in 
Article 11, 2: which reads: ``States shall provide redress through 
effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in 
conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to their cultural, 
intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their 
free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws, 
traditions and customs.''
  This language was necessary because the Federal Government and the 
States once ran roughshod over the rights of Native peoples and simply 
took and used land and other property of Native nations and persons, 
and there was a need to make sure that this would not happen in the 
future. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Native peoples were confined 
to reservations and could not leave without permission of the Federal 
Indian agent. Even in the 1950s and 1960s, Native delegations to 
Washington were not supposed to go to Capitol Hill without checking in 
at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA. Native people tell me that they 
used to think BIA stood for ``boss Indians around.'' Out of this sorry 
past have come new policies that give true meaning to the nation-to-
nation relationship. Key to this relationship is ongoing consultation 
that is meaningful and worthy of trust, and agreements that are made 
are transparent and consensual.
  There are many laws mandating consultation with Indian tribes and 
persons, regarding areas on tribal, individual trust and original 
lands, among them the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the 
Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Native American Graves 
Protection & Repatriation Act, and the National Historic Preservation 
Act. Unless the consultation required under these and other statutes is 
open and based on informed consent, it is not meaningful and cannot 
lead to a good end. When we refer to consultation in the modern era, we 
do not mean some sleight of hand; rather, we intend fair, good faith 
dealings that honor the high standards of the United States' treaty and 
trust relationship with the Native peoples.
  I will close my remarks simply by including excerpts from just two 
recent judicial decisions regarding the nature of Federal-tribal 
consultation. First, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern 
District of California ruling in the case of Quechan Tribe v. United 
States Department of the Interior, et al (December 15, 2010), citing 
the National Historic Preservation Act: ``The consultation requirement 
is not an empty formality; rather, it `must recognize the government-
to-government relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes' and is to be `conducted in a manner sensitive to the concerns 
and needs of the Indian tribe.'''
  Second, from the case of Comanche Nation, et al v. USA, et al 
(September 23, 2008), involving the Army's failure to consult with the 
Comanche Nation regarding a sacred place, Medicine Bluff, the U.S. 
District Court for the

[[Page 1448]]

Western District of Oklahoma found that the National Historic 
Protection Act, NHPA:

     . . . requires an agency to make a reasonable and good faith 
     effort to identify historic properties that may be impacted, 
     and to identify . . . issues in connection with such 
     potential impact. . . . The reasonable and good faith efforts 
     requirement extends to consultation with Native American 
     tribes which may attach religious and cultural significance 
     to potentially affected property . . . It has been said that, 
     in a general sense, the NHPA requires agencies to `stop, 
     look, and listen' before commencing actions which could 
     impact historic or culturally significant properties. . . . 
     The evidence submitted during the preliminary injunction 
     hearing substantially demonstrates Defendants' actions were 
     contrary to the letter and the spirit of the NHPA and its 
     implementing regulations. . . . Defendants virtually ignored 
     the concerns regarding the viewscape up to the Bluffs from 
     the southern approach. . . . Contrary to the direction of the 
     Ft. Sill Garrison Commander . . . to `get with the tribes' 
     about their viewscape issues, that same day the Section 106 
     letter was sent out without a reference to Medicine Bluffs 
     and without mentioning the potential impact on viewscapes. 
     Instead, the details of the TSC project were buried in 
     technical attachments, and the consulting parties were left 
     to ferret out for themselves the adverse impact on viewscapes 
     then known by Defendants to exist. . . . Moreover, the 
     requirement of good faith consultation suggests that the 
     consulted Native American tribes would have considered it 
     important to know, and therefore should have been told, that 
     the TSC warehouse was the tip of the iceberg regarding plans 
     to build within the southern approach to the Bluffs. . . . In 
     reality, the area in question is also slated for construction 
     of a DRMO facility (which will occupy about 20 acres), 
     construction of a fire station, and a widening of Randolph 
     Road on its north side. Had this cumulative impact been 
     disclosed to the area tribes, their initial reaction may well 
     have been different. As it was, the Comanche Nation began 
     complaining in earnest in the fall of 2007 and early 2008. 
     These protests, asserted after the close of the 30-day 
     comment period announced in the August 10, 2007 Section 106 
     letter, were brushed off by defendants as untimely. Having 
     concluded that they technically complied with the Section 106 
     process, Defendants decided to proceed with the TSC project 
     despite the mounting objections from the Comanche Nation. . . 
     . it has been said that the NHPA requires an agency to `stop, 
     look and listen' Coliseum Square Ass'n, Inc., 465 F.3d at 
     225; the evidence in the present case suggests that 
     Defendants merely paused, glanced, and turned a deaf ear to 
     warnings of adverse impact. Thus, Defendants' efforts fell 
     short of the reasonable and good faith efforts required by 
     the law. Where a plaintiff shows that an agency failed to 
     comply with the NHPA requirements, injunctive relief may 
     issue.

  The bottom line is that for over two centuries, our Nation 
disregarded the concerns of tribal nations with respect to projects 
affecting tribal communities. We now have laws and executive orders 
requiring deliberate and meaningful consultation on any actions taken 
by the Federal Government that affect tribal interests. This certainly 
applies to the Keystone pipeline.
  I want to thank Senator Barrasso for working with us on the amendment 
we just approved that makes it very clear that the consultation 
obligations must be adhered to. I also want to thank Senator Heinrich, 
Senator Tester, and Senator Cantwell for their incredible help on this 
issue so we could get a compromise.
  The work that Senator Barrasso and I have done in consultation with 
other Members, with the amendments that have been filed, to try to find 
common ground exemplifies what I hope we would do more of here in the 
Senate: finding common ground.
  So I am pleased we were able to adopt the Barrasso amendment.


                      Amendment No. 124 Withdrawn

  With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is withdrawn.
  Under the previous order, the motion to proceed to the motion to 
reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on S. 1 is agreed 
to, and the motion to reconsider is also agreed to.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 1, a bill to 
     approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
         Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Richard Burr, Jerry 
           Moran, John Thune, Marco Rubio, Johnny Isakson, Kelly 
           Ayotte, Ben Sasse, Deb Fischer, John Boozman, David 
           Vitter, Tim Scott, Roger F. Wicker, Richard C. Shelby, 
           Michael B. Enzi, Roy Blunt.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 1, a 
bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, shall be brought to a close, 
upon reconsideration?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  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 Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) and 
the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 62, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 45 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Carper
     Casey
     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
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                                NAYS--35

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Hirono
     Reid
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). On this vote, the yeas are 62, 
the nays are 35. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn 
having voted in the affirmative, upon reconsideration, the motion is 
agreed to.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 15 minutes, and that following me, the Senator from North Carolina 
be recognized for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am advised by the highly competent 
floor staff that Senators Nelson and Collins will be worked in to be 
able to speak shortly after we have because I know they both are hoping 
to do that.


        Amendments Nos. 67, 98, 103, 174, 102, and 55 Withdrawn

  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments 
be withdrawn: Sullivan No. 67, Murkowski No. 98, Flake No. 103, Merkley 
No. 174, Tillis No. 102, and Peters No. 55.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Innovation for Healthier Americans Report

  Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senator from North Carolina, Senator Burr, and I 
are here to speak about an important and exciting development that is 
about to occur in our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. 
What we are talking about and we will describe in our remarks today is 
a report entitled ``Innovation for Healthier Americans'' which will 
launch a bipartisan effort to look at how Congress

[[Page 1449]]

can help to get cutting-edge treatments, drugs, and devices to 
America's patients more quickly while still preserving this Nation's 
gold standard for safety and quality. This report and the actions we 
hope to take will affect virtually every American.
  I am especially glad today to be here with the Senator from North 
Carolina. While there are a number of Senators on this body who worked 
hard on these issues--which in our government are usually dealt with by 
the Food and Drug Administration and by the National Institutes of 
Health--no one has been more effective, no one has worked harder, and 
no one has had more foresight and vision on these issues than Richard 
Burr, the Senator from North Carolina. The report today is 
substantially his work product, and he will be deeply involved in the 
next year as we work with Senator Murray, our Democratic friends, and 
with President Obama to try to bring this to a result.
  In 2013, Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of 
Health, wrote the following:

       Drugs exist for only about 250 of the more than 4,400 
     conditions with defined molecular causes. And it takes far 
     too long and far too much money to get a new drug into our 
     medicine cabinets. This is an old problem that cries out for 
     new and creative solutions.

  Since Dr. Collins said that, the number of conditions with defined 
molecular causes has increased now to about 5,390, yet the number of 
new drugs approved has not kept pace with these discoveries.
  The President of the United States has recognized this problem. In 
his State of the Union message a few days ago, President Obama said 
this:

       21st century businesses will rely on American science, 
     technology, research and development. I want the country that 
     eliminated polio and mapped the human genome to lead a new 
     era of medicine--one that delivers the right treatment at the 
     right time. In some patients with cystic fibrosis, this 
     approach has reversed a disease once thought unstoppable.

  The President said:

       Tonight, I'm launching a new Precision Medicine Initiative 
     to bring us closer to curing diseases like cancer and 
     diabetes--and to give all of us access to the personalized 
     information we need to keep ourselves and our families 
     healthier.

  Senator Murray and I had breakfast yesterday with Secretary Burwell 
and talked with her about the President's statement and about Secretary 
Burwell's own desire to help implement that initiative.
  Today Senator Burr and I released a report titled ``Innovation for 
Healthier Americans.''
  Next, Senator Murray--who is ranking member of the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions--and I will start examining the 
issues in this report and other issues raised in comments, through a 
bipartisan HELP Committee staff working group.
  I emphasize that we are going to be working together, Democrats and 
Republicans. We are going to be working with Secretary Burwell, we are 
going to be working with the President of the United States, and we are 
going to be on a parallel track with the House of Representatives, 
where Chairman Upton and his team have been working for several months 
on what they call 21st century cures. In our committee in the Senate we 
will begin hearings in March.
  We are releasing the report today in order to ask for comments. 
Surely we missed something in the report. If someone who is listening 
or reading it may have an idea or solution, we would like to know about 
that. We have opened an email account just to hear from those outside 
of Washington, DC, that is: [email protected].
  Improving medical device and drug development is not a new topic for 
the HELP Committee. Legislation was passed in 1997 and different 
legislation was passed in 2012 to try to get at the same goal of 
speeding delivery of drugs and devices while ensuring they are still 
safe. Our goal will be to give bipartisan legislation to the President 
this year.
  It is encouraging to have the House, the Senate, and the President 
working on such an important common goal that affects virtually every 
American during the same Congress. That greatly increases our 
likelihood of securing a result.
  We want to improve and modernize how drugs and medical devices are 
discovered, developed, and approved. We will examine the work of the 
National Institutes of Health, which funds and enables much of the 
research that leads to medical breakthroughs and the Food and Drug 
Administration which regulates all the medical products we come in 
contact with.
  As I mentioned, this work will touch the life of almost every single 
American--from a very ill patient who has run out of treatment options 
and is counting on the most cutting-edge drug to an active child with 
asthma who is hoping to run faster and farther with the aid of a new 
drug.
  Today our scientists and researchers are making discoveries at a pace 
that our development process is not equipped to match. Patients wait 
while treatments languish in laboratories, going through our drawn out, 
inefficient, and outrageously expensive development process.
  FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg has acknowledged that ``we are 
left relying on the 20th century approaches for the review, approval 
and oversight of the treatments and cures of the 21st century.''
  There is no time to waste in solving this problem. The mapping of the 
human genome opened a whole new world of individualized medicine in 
which a person's genetic makeup can drive the doctor's plan for disease 
prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.
  In the words of Andrew von Eschenbach, the former Commissioner of the 
FDA and Director of the National Cancer Institute:

       We stand on the cusp of a revolution in health care. 
     Advances in molecular medicine will allow us to develop 
     powerful new treatments that can cure or even prevent 
     diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer. Tomorrow's high-tech 
     cures can also slash health-care costs and eliminate 
     ineffective treatments. What will it take to realize the 
     potential of the new medicine?

  Today's report is the first step of our initiative. It seeks to 
answer the questions: What today is driving innovation? What barriers 
are standing in the way? What can we improve?
  The report has five main themes:
  No. 1, it costs too much to bring medical products to patients; No. 
2, as science and technology advance, the discovery and development 
process takes too long; No. 3, the Food and Drug Administration's 
responsibilities have grown to include many unrelated to regulating 
medical products; No. 4, science outside the FDA is moving at a faster 
pace than ever; No. 5, an effective FDA is essential to maintain the 
U.S. leadership in biomedical innovation.
  Some of the report's key findings include that complex medical 
devices approved in the U.S. were available to patients in Europe on 
average four years earlier than in the U.S., and increased competition 
for NIH grants may be discouraging researchers from proposing risky 
projects. Further, the average cost to develop a drug is disputed--some 
say $1 billion, some say $2 billion, some more--but all agree it is 
rising, and unpredictable and inconsistent development requirement 
standards in the FDA review process drive product developers to design 
clinical trials that are unnecessarily expansive.
  Since World War II, the U.S. has dominated the biomedical industry 
space. Even 20 years ago, studies suggested that the U.S. share of 
global biomedical research funding was as high as 70-80 percent.
  However, from 2007 to 2012, the U.S. share of research and 
development declined from about 51 percent to 45 percent. While the 
U.S. continued to lead the world in public sector investment during 
this time, private sector investment shrank by almost $13 billion and 
largely reallocated to Asia.
  This is a chance to step back and look at where we are and how all 
the different reauthorizations have added up. We need to ensure that 
legislative efforts over the last 30 years are helping and not getting 
in the way of having the best treatment and technology available for 
the right patient at the right time. Our goal is simple but ambitious--
to work in a bipartisan way with members of the HELP Committee

[[Page 1450]]

to make sure policies support medical innovation and patient access to 
important medicines and medical technologies.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the copy of the 
executive summary from the report that Senator Burr and I are releasing 
today.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Executive Summary

       ``We stand on the cusp of a revolution in health care. 
     Advances in molecular medicine will allow us to develop 
     powerful new treatments that can cure or even prevent 
     diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer. Tomorrow's high-tech 
     cures can also slash health-care costs and eliminate 
     ineffective treatments. What will it take to realize the 
     potential of the new medicine?''
     --Andrew von Eschenbach, former FDA Commissioner, 2012
       The federal government has been an enthusiastic investor in 
     biomedical research for five decades. That investment has 
     helped drive rapid innovation and bring us to a crossroads: 
     Will we use what we have learned to transform the discovery 
     and development of new drugs and medical devices, or will we 
     maintain the status quo, depriving patients of cutting-edge 
     products?
       With the release of this report, the Senate Health, 
     Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee is beginning 
     an inclusive and transparent process to:
       Candidly assess the status quo: What works? What's not 
     working? What can we do better?
       Identify how Congress can improve public policies to 
     promote the efficiency and effectiveness of medical product 
     development to cut down on the total time it takes for these 
     products to get to American patients.
       Pass transformational legislation that the President can 
     sign this year.
       Every American is personally affected by the U.S. Food and 
     Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institutes of Health 
     (NIH). Anytime we take medicine, have a routine check-up, or 
     undergo a serious procedure for a health problem, like 
     surgery or cancer treatment, we are using medical products 
     regulated by the FDA. In many cases, the research leading to 
     the discovery and development of these products has been 
     advanced, funded, or enabled in some way by the NIH.
       These two agencies have an enormous influence on our 
     economy. FDA-regulated products account for about 25 cents of 
     every dollar spent by American consumers each year.
       For generations, America has led the world in medical 
     innovation. The dedicated professionals at the NIH and FDA 
     have helped to instill confidence in FDA-approved products. 
     Scientists from across the globe take seriously the findings 
     and caliber of research that NIH funds, as well as the safety 
     and efficacy of products FDA approves.
       But our global edge is slipping.
       Medical discoveries and advancements to treat and cure 
     diseases, including new targeted drugs, could, and should, be 
     reaching American patients more quickly and with less cost to 
     developers, without lessening the standards of safety and 
     efficacy. Too many patients with no treatment options wait 
     while potential treatments languish in laboratories awaiting 
     further development, testing, and/or approval. At the same 
     time, each additional $1 billion spent on pharmaceutical 
     research and development results in fewer drugs than in years 
     past. The time and cost of developing medical products is 
     increasing without a discussion of whether there is enough 
     incremental assurance of safety and effectiveness for the 
     additional delays and costs.
       Over the past several decades, FDA's mission and regulatory 
     reach has expanded dramatically. This has resulted in an 
     increasingly complex bureaucracy while the science of 
     discovery and development has evolved more rapidly than ever 
     in academia and private industry. FDA has struggled to 
     regulate the most cutting-edge medical products. The 
     disparity between the pace of scientific discovery and 
     development outside of the FDA and FDA's scientific knowledge 
     threatens America's position as a global leader in medical 
     innovation.
       FDA Commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg, has acknowledged 
     that ``. . . we are left relying on the 20th century 
     approaches for the review, approval and oversight of the 
     treatments and cures of the 21st century.'' While the FDA has 
     reviewed drugs in as little as three months, and meets the 
     timelines set for medical device reviews the majority of the 
     time, the inability of medical product developers to predict 
     what questions will be asked during the review forces a 
     multi-year process simply to get an application ready for FDA 
     consideration. This lack of predictability is driven by fast 
     changing and complex science, inefficient and inconsistent 
     processes, and difficulty in hiring and retaining review 
     staff and managers. This challenge will grow as new medical 
     products and the clinical methods used to test them continue 
     to evolve at an exciting pace.
       This report aims to examine the current process of drug and 
     device development and identify the inefficiencies that stand 
     in the way of a modern development and review process. We 
     take a close and honest look at what is, and is not, working 
     well at the NIH and FDA. We want to know what successes we 
     can replicate, and what failures must be learned from and 
     fixed.
       This report is organized to follow the process it 
     examines--in other words it takes us from discovery to 
     approval. We outline key problems, partnerships, initiatives, 
     dollars, and data involved in helping to bring promising 
     medical products through the research, development, and 
     regulatory review process. We identify the challenges at the 
     NIH and FDA--inefficiencies, unnecessary regulatory burden, a 
     lack of predictability, and ever increasing regulatory 
     costs--that must be addressed. We identify ways to facilitate 
     stakeholder engagement in these processes, and we intend to 
     continue regular and responsible congressional oversight.
       Our goal is simple and ambitious--to work in a bipartisan 
     way with members of the HELP Committee to align public 
     policies to support accelerating medical innovation and 
     patient access to important medicines and medical 
     technologies.
       Science has never held greater potential to improve the 
     quality of life and outcomes for America's patients. In order 
     to fully realize this exciting potential, we must identify, 
     candidly assess, and confront existing factors that may be 
     stifling efforts to innovate. We have identified five guiding 
     principles for this effort:
       (1) It costs too much to bring medical products through the 
     pipeline to patients.
       (2) As science and technology advance, the discovery and 
     development process takes too long for medical products to 
     make their way to patients.
       (3) FDA's responsibilities have grown to include many 
     activities unrelated to the core function of regulating 
     medical products to advance the public health.
       (4) The disparity in scientific knowledge at FDA and the 
     fast pace of biomedical innovation are slowing, and in some 
     cases, stifling, innovation in American medicine.
       (5) A working FDA is essential to continuing biomedical 
     innovation in the United States and maintaining America's 
     global leadership in medical innovation.
       For us to succeed, we need your help. The full spectrum of 
     stakeholders here is incredibly large and diverse, so it may 
     be challenging to identify specific challenges and/or best 
     practices that would have wide-ranging impact. We wish to 
     solicit ideas on how to address these challenges in order to 
     inform action in the 114th Congress. This report and the 
     feedback we receive in response to it will inform what we 
     expect will become a bipartisan legislative package to 
     address the challenges we identify through this process. 
     Please send your ideas to us at I[email protected] not 
     later than February 23, 2015. These comments will be shared 
     with Ranking Member Patty Murray and all of our colleagues on 
     the HELP Committee as we work to achieve this important goal.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. I look forward to the remarks from the Senator from 
North Carolina. As I have said, no Senator has done more on either side 
of the aisle in this area of helping us think about creative new ways 
to move treatments, medical devices, and drugs through our safety 
process into the medicine cabinets and into the hands of patients who 
desperately need them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I am pleased to talk about an issue that as 
Senator Alexander said is near and dear to my heart; that is, ensuring 
that America's patients have access to the most cutting-edge medical 
products in as timely a manner as possible. I look forward to the 
partnership that Chairman Alexander and I have in what I think is one 
of the most crucial studies and processes we will go through in this 
session of Congress.
  Many of my colleagues know that holding the National Institutes of 
Health and the Food and Drug Administration accountable for their work 
on behalf of America's patients is not a new area of focus for either 
one of us. After I was first elected to serve in the House of 
Representatives, I was tasked with modernizing the Food and Drug 
Administration, a Federal agency that controls 25 cents of every $1 of 
our economy. This work culminated in the Food and Drug Administration 
Modernization Act of 1977, FDAMA, a total revamp of that agency.
  FDAMA sought to ensure that the FDA had the tools it needed to keep 
pace with modern scientific advances. We modernized the agency in a way 
that supported regulating in the least burdensome manner, while 
ensuring

[[Page 1451]]

that innovative products would reach patients in as timely a manner as 
possible. As many of my colleagues remember, these reforms were adopted 
at a critical point in the fight against the HIV/AIDS epidemic. But 
while we have made great strides in certain areas, FDAMA's tools 
haven't been fully leveraged, and the challenges of keeping pace with 
the cutting-edge technologies have only increased.
  Today the timely and predictable review of medical products is key to 
promoting and protecting the public health, just as it was 18 years 
ago. But the agency's mission and responsibilities have expanded 
dramatically over that same period of time. The size and the scope of 
the FDA as an organization has never been more complex than it is 
today. By its own admission, FDA has struggled to regulate the most 
cutting-edge medical products at the same time our understanding of 
medicine and the ability to target treatments to individualized 
patients has never been greater. The growth of the agency and its 
responsibilities presents serious management challenges.
  Our report, as the chairman said, entitled ``Innovation for Healthier 
Americans: Identifying Opportunities for Meaningful Reform to Our 
Nation's Medical Product Discovery and Development,'' takes a hard look 
at the current status quo and poses targeted questions that can help 
inform how we do things better. We need to identify how we can improve 
our policies to promote more efficient and effective medical product 
development and review processes to cut down on total time it takes for 
these lifesaving products to actually reach America's patients.
  We have seen how regulatory burden and uncertainty results in 
innovation going overseas, while America's patients wait for the FDA to 
catch up. The day-to-day actions and in many cases inaction at the 
agency has a profound effect on our Nation's patients and our health 
care.
  It also directly impacts our economy, as FDA-regulated products 
account for about 25 cents of every $1 spent by American consumers. The 
importance of holding the agency accountable for its actions and 
inactions--all the way from the frontline reviewers to the 
Commissioner--has never been more important than now.
  This is what the current landscape tells us:
  No. 1, it costs too much to bring medical products through the 
development pipeline to patients. There is no disputing that the costs 
to bring medical products through the development pipeline have grown 
over time.
  No. 2, as science and technology advance, the discovery and 
development process takes longer for medical products to make their 
ways to patients. We need to look at the total real time it takes for 
medical products to reach a patient, not only the time of FDA review.
  In 2004, FDA's Critical Path Report warned that:

       Today's revolution in biomedical science has raised new 
     hope for the prevention, treatment, and cure of severe 
     illnesses. However, there is a growing concern that many of 
     the new basic science discoveries made in recent years may 
     not quickly yield more effective, more affordable, and safe 
     medical products for patients. This is because the current 
     medical product development path is becoming increasingly 
     challenging, inefficient, and costly.

  More than a decade later, these challenges continue to confront us. 
We must find a way to embrace our advances and to cut down on the total 
time it takes medical products to reach an American patient. Our report 
asks for feedback, as the chairman said, on how we do that.
  No. 3, FDA's responsibilities have grown to include many activities 
unrelated to the core function of regulating medical devices to advance 
the public health. Today there are more than 12,000 employees at the 
Food and Drug Administration. This growth has exacerbated the 
management challenges of the agency, and the question is, How do we 
ensure that FDA is equipped to fulfill its mission?
  No. 4, the disparity in scientific knowledge at FDA and the fast pace 
of biological innovation are slowing and in some cases stifling 
innovation in American medicine. To ensure that medical product 
innovation continues to benefit America's patients, our report asks how 
we could better leverage the regulatory science initiatives to ensure 
that the novel medical products are reaching America's patients in that 
timely fashion.
  No. 5, we know that a working FDA is essential to be continuing 
biomedical innovation in the United States and maintaining America's 
global leadership in medical innovation. Therefore, we ask for feedback 
on how Congress and the FDA can work to align public policy and 
regulation to support biomedical research as a vibrant and healthy 
component of the U.S. economy.
  We have a unique opportunity this Congress to take a hard look at 
what is and is not working and advance solutions that will ultimately 
ensure that the NIH and the FDA serve America's patients better. We 
have an opportunity to focus on these issues without a crisis demanding 
action, such as the unfortunate meningitis outbreak in 2012.
  The drug and medical device user fee negotiations have not yet begun. 
I should add that these negotiations should not begin until everyone 
has the data to inform how well the agency is currently meeting what 
was agreed to in the last round of negotiations. It makes no sense to 
me why anyone would rush to engage in a negotiation before they have 
the data to know what they are getting or what they are currently 
paying for.
  It is my hope that looking at these issues without the pressure of an 
eminent, expiring, user fee reauthorization will help to facilitate 
candid dialogue among all stakeholders about where we are, where we 
need to go on behalf of America's patients.
  While we do not have these pressures upon us today, we do bring an 
urgency to this work because of what is at stake. These issues impact 
every single one of our constituents and every single American, but 
they affect not only our patients but our economy and our global 
competitiveness.
  Our goal is simple, to align public policies to support accelerated 
medical innovation and patient access to medicines and medical 
technologies, because when we advance innovation, we help America's 
patients be able to access the most cutting-edge, lifesaving medical 
devices, and products in as timely a fashion as possible.
  We foster and facilitate the next generation of cutting-edge products 
which, in turn, help to ensure America's continued standing as the 
world leader of innovation.
  This is good for our innovators, it is good for our patients, and it 
is good for North Carolina.
  Dr. Paul Howard of the Manhattan Institute's Center for Medical 
Progress was right when he pointed out that innovation is not an 
option, it is a national imperative. Innovation is central to 
addressing our Nation's unsustainable health care costs. It is also 
central to improving the treatments, outcomes, and ultimately the 
quality of life for the American people.
  Former FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach was kind enough to pen 
the foreword of this report. The chairman has already alluded to some 
of his statements, but in that foreword he writes:

       Government policy can either inhibit or accelerate the next 
     revolution in science and technology. The time has come to 
     examine whether our nation has the right public policies in 
     place to realize the full promise of discovery, development, 
     and delivery of 21st century medicine.

  Toward that end, I really do look forward to working with my good 
friend Chairman Alexander, with our ranking member, Senator Murray, and 
with all the members of the HELP Committee as we begin this important 
process of ensuring that the National Institutes of Health and the Food 
and Drug Administration work as well as they can for patients today 
and, more importantly, into the future.
  I thank the chairman for the opportunity to work with him on this 
issue. It won't be an easy road, but it is one we are committed to 
tackling. I urge those who might have input for the

[[Page 1452]]

purposes of this study and this initiative to please visit the HELP Web 
site and submit feedback to [email protected]. I am glad to 
see we have put that in place.
  I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, health care 
doesn't distinguish between parties. Health care requires us to come 
together and to put policies in place that drive innovation and drive 
quality outcomes. If we can do that, we might set a new pathway for how 
we cure disease, for how we bring down health care costs, and for how 
Americans look forward to a generation that grows up with less 
genetically transmitted diseases.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. COTTON. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Florida, Mr. Nelson, and I be permitted to proceed for up to 20 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Retirement Security Act

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today Senator Nelson and I rise to 
discuss S. 266, the Retirement Security Act, legislation we filed 
earlier this week and first introduced last year. Our bill would 
encourage more small employers to offer retirement plans that would 
provide incentives for employees to save more for retirement and would 
ensure that low-income and middle-income taxpayers are able to claim 
tax benefits for retirement savings that are already authorized in law.
  Our bill is the product of the work that Senator Nelson and I did 
together on the Special Committee on Aging. In the fall of 2013, the 
committee conducted a hearing on retirement security where we heard 
from witnesses that far too many American seniors have real reason to 
fear they will outlive their savings. According to the nonpartisan 
Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, there is an estimated 
$6.6 trillion gap between the savings that American households need to 
maintain their standard of living in retirement and what they actually 
have. The group that was surveyed were those Americans between ages 32 
and 64.
  Nationally, one in four retired Americans has no source of income 
beyond Social Security. In the State of Maine the number is one in 
three. While 4 in 10 rely on this vital program for 90 percent of their 
retirement income, Social Security provides an average benefit of just 
$1,294 per month--less than $16,000 per year.
  It is hard to imagine stretching those dollars far enough to pay the 
bills. Certainly a comfortable retirement would be out of the question 
for most Americans.
  A recent Gallup poll shows there is an increase in concern among the 
American people about their standard of living in retirement. This has 
gone up over time. Two decades ago 34 percent of Americans were 
concerned. Now 60 percent of Americans are worried about their standard 
of living in retirement.
  Sadly, they are right to be concerned. Projections published in 2014 
by the Employee Benefit Research Institute showed that nearly half of 
``early boomers''--those between ages 56 and 62 when the study was 
conducted--are at risk of not having enough money to pay for basic 
costs in retirement, including health care costs not covered by 
insurance.
  There are many reasons for the decline in retirement security facing 
American seniors, including the demise of many defined-benefit pension 
plans in the private sector, the severity of the financial crisis we 
recently endured, rising health care costs, the greater and expanding 
need for long-term care, which is so expensive, but most of all the 
fact that Americans are living far longer than they did in the past. 
Many of us are also reaching retirement age with far more debt than 
retirees of previous generations.
  Another contributing factor we found is that employees of small 
businesses are much less likely to participate in employer-based 
retirement plans. According to a July 2013 GAO study, more than half of 
the 42 million Americans who work for businesses with fewer than 100 
employees lack access to a work-based plan to save for retirement. Cost 
and complexity are among the reasons that plans are not more widely 
offered by smaller employers.
  These employers would very much like to offer plans, but oftentimes 
the cost and the complexity make the plans out of reach. Therefore, 
making it easier for smaller businesses to provide access to retirement 
plans for their workers would make a significant difference in the 
financial security of many retirees. That is why the bill that we 
reintroduced earlier this week focuses on reducing the cost and 
complexity of retirement plans, especially for small businesses, and on 
encouraging individuals to save more for retirement.
  Let me now go into detail about the provisions of our bill.
  First, our bill would allow small businesses to enter into multiple 
employer plans, MEPs, to offer retirement programs jointly to their 
employees. This allows small companies to share the administrative 
burden of a retirement plan, which helps lower costs. Current law 
discourages the use of MEPs because it requires a connection, or 
``nexus,'' between unrelated businesses in order to join a MEP, such as 
membership in the same trade association. Our bill would waive the 
nexus requirement for businesses with fewer than 500 employees. So as 
not to discourage growth, our bill provides a long phase-out under 
which businesses are not automatically disqualified from a MEP when 
they hire their 500th employee.
  Second, our bill makes joining a MEP a more attractive option for 
small businesses. Under current law, if one employer in a MEP fails to 
meet the minimum criteria necessary for retirement plans to obtain tax 
benefits, all employers and their employees could lose these tax 
benefits, which are substantial. For employees, they include delaying 
the taxation of income contributed to a plan until funds are withdrawn. 
For employers, plan disqualification could result in limited deductions 
and a higher tax burden. Our bill directs Treasury to issue regulations 
to address this uncertainty, and protect members of a MEP from the 
failure of one bad apple to meet its obligations.
  Third, our bill reduces the cost of maintaining a retirement plan. 
Current law requires that participants in a retirement plan receive a 
variety of notices. Our bill would direct Treasury to simplify, 
clarify, and consolidate these required notices, to lessen costs.
  Fourth, the Retirement Security Act encourages those still in the 
workforce to save more for retirement. Retirement plans are often 
designed to comply with existing safe harbors to prevent the IRS from 
challenging the tax benefits that flow to employees and employers. The 
existing safe harbor for so-called ``automatic enrollment'' plans 
effectively caps employee contributions at 10 percent of annual pay, 
with the employer contributing a ``matching'' amount of up to 6 
percent. Our bill creates an additional safe harbor for these plans 
that would allow employees to receive an employer match on 
contributions of up to 10 percent of their pay.
  I recognize that businesses that choose to adopt a plan with this new 
optional safe harbor may face additional costs due to the increased 
employer match. That is why our bill helps the smallest businesses--
those with fewer than 100 employees--offset this cost by providing a 
new tax credit equal to the increased match.
  Finally, our bill ensures that current measures to encourage savings 
are functioning as they were intended. One such measure is the so-
called ``saver's credit,'' which reduces the tax burden on low- and 
middle-income individuals who contribute to retirement plans, including 
IRAs and 401(k) plans. Yet the credit cannot be claimed on a form 
1040EZ, which is frequently used by these individuals. A 2013 
Transamerica

[[Page 1453]]

Center for Retirement Studies survey found that only 23 percent of 
people with household incomes of less than $50,000 per year, the group 
most likely to qualify, were aware of the saver's credit. To address 
this, our bill directs Treasury to make the credit available on Form 
1040 EZ.
  I do want to emphasize in closing that is there is nothing in our 
bill that would force a small business to offer a 401(k) plan. That may 
be impractical for some small employers. What we are trying to do is to 
provide incentives for them to do so, to reduce the cost, and to make 
it possible for them to join together with other employers to offer 
retirement plans. We are trying also to provide incentives for 
employees to save more for their retirement.
  During my time on the Special Committee on Aging, I have heard 
countless stories of retirees whose savings did not go as far as they 
had anticipated. Adequate savings reduce poverty among our seniors in 
what should be their golden years. As the HELP Committee noted in a 
July 2012 report, poverty among the elderly also increases Medicare and 
Medicaid costs and strains our social safety net. Giving those not yet 
at retirement age more opportunities to save--and to save more--would 
help ease this additional burden on entitlement programs that are 
already projected to be unsustainable.
  In light of the positive impacts this bill would have in 
strengthening retirement security for millions of Americans, I urge our 
colleagues to join Senator Nelson and me in supporting the Retirement 
Security Act of 2015. This bill has been endorsed by the Maine State 
Chamber of Commerce, the American Benefits Council, the American 
Council of Life Insurers, Fidelity Investments, Lincoln Financial 
Group, the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, 
the Plan Sponsor Council of America, the Principal Financial Group, the 
Society for Human Resource Management, TransAmerica, and the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these as well 
as other letters of support.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              Maine State Chamber of Commerce,

                                     Augusta, ME, January 8, 2015.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: First, I want to wish you a Happy New 
     Year. I would also like to thank you for your continued 
     service to the state of Maine, particularly the business 
     community. Your efforts in Washington are most appreciated!
       I am writing to you today about your efforts to enable more 
     businesses to offer retirement plans to their employees. The 
     Maine State Chamber of Commerce fully supports your efforts 
     on this front. As you know, small businesses drive Maine's 
     economy--80% of businesses here in Maine employ fewer than 20 
     people--and their employees are like family to them.
       I regularly hear from small businesses who want to offer 
     more retirement benefits to their employees, but are not in 
     the financial position to do so. Coming from a small business 
     state, you clearly understand this. Your proposed legislation 
     can. change this dynamic and make offering retirement plans a 
     more viable option for more small businesses--not only in 
     Maine, but across the country.
       Again, thank you for your efforts on behalf of Maine's 
     business community. Please let me know if you have any 
     questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Dana F. Connors,
     President/CEO.
                                  ____



                                    American Benefits Council,

                                 Washington, DC, January 21, 2015.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bill Nelson,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins and Senator Nelson: On behalf of the 
     American Benefits Council, I am writing to applaud the 
     introduction of the Retirement Security Act of 2015. We stand 
     ready to assist you in working toward enactment of this 
     important piece of legislation.
       The Council is a public policy organization representing 
     principally Fortune 500 companies and other organizations 
     that assist employers of all sizes in providing benefits to 
     employees. Collectively, the Council's members either sponsor 
     directly or provide services to retirement and health plans 
     that cover more than 100 million Americans.
       The private retirement system is a great success and has 
     helped ensure the retirement security of millions of 
     Americans. But there is still more work to be done, 
     especially with respect to the coverage of small business 
     employees and with respect to benefit levels.
       Your bill would take major steps forward in addressing both 
     of these issues. We believe the bill's reforms of the 
     multiple employer plans rules will expand opportunities for 
     small businesses to band together to maintain plans at a 
     lower cost. In particular, we applaud the provision that 
     would prevent an entire multiple employer plan from being 
     disqualified by reason of a violation of the qualification 
     rules by one or more participating employers. This 
     inappropriate result under current law can deter many small 
     employers from joining a multiple employer plan.
       The Council is a strong supporter of automatic enrollment, 
     and believes that the Retirement Security Act of 2015 would 
     substantially increase the use of automatic enrollment 
     through the establishment of an alternative safe harbor with 
     key incentives to adopt it. Moreover, the alternative safe 
     harbor would set default contributions at higher levels that 
     are better designed to achieve retirement security.
       We thank you for your leadership in this important area and 
     look forward to working toward enactment of this important 
     bill.
           Sincerely,
     Lynn D. Dudley,
        Senior Vice President, Global Retirement and Compensation 
     Policy, American Benefits Council.
                                  ____



                            American Council of Life Insurers,

                                 Washington, DC, January 21, 2015.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bill Nelson,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins and Senator Nelson, The American 
     Council of Life Insurers (ACLI) would like to express our 
     appreciation for your leadership in the field of retirement 
     security, especially in your roles as Chairman and Ranking 
     Member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. We support 
     you for reintroducing the Retirement Security Act of 2015, a 
     bill that would greatly expand the ability of Americans to 
     better save for their retirement.
       ACLI represents approximately 300 legal reserve life 
     insurer and fraternal benefit society member companies 
     operating in the United States and abroad. ACLI member 
     companies offer insurance contracts and other investment 
     products and services to qualified retirement plans, 
     including defined benefit pensions, 401(k) and 403(b) 
     arrangements, and to individuals through individual 
     retirement accounts (IRAs) or on a non-qualified basis. Our 
     members and their products help Americans accumulate 
     retirement savings and turn those savings into guaranteed 
     lifetime income.
       ACLI supports proposals that will help expand coverage and 
     encourage small businesses to sponsor retirement savings 
     plans for their employees. The Retirement Security Act of 
     2015 would help facilitate the use of private multiple 
     employer plans, encourage greater use of auto-enrollment and 
     auto-escalation features, and allow employers to use a 
     ``stretch match'' to incent employees to save even more. The 
     bill would expand tax incentives for small businesses to 
     offer retirement plans, an important consideration for many 
     employers. Likewise, the bill would make it easier for more 
     individuals to access the Savers' Credit, helping low-income 
     workers maximize their savings. These valuable reforms will 
     help to expand a system already important to millions of 
     Americans.
       Again, we appreciate your continued support of the current 
     retirement security system. ACLI and its member companies 
     look forward to working with you and your staffs to improve 
     retirement security for all Americans.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Dirk Kempthorne,
     President and Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____



                                         Fidelity Investments,

                                     Boston, MA, January 20, 2015.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     Dirksen Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bill Nelson,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Collins and Nelson: On behalf of Fidelity 
     Investments, I would like to thank you for your efforts to 
     improve retirement security and enhance pension coverage 
     among small employers. The private employer retirement system 
     has been a great success, yet more can be done to improve 
     retirement security and expand access to workplace savings 
     plans.
       Fidelity supports provisions in the Retirement Security Act 
     of 2013 that would establish a new safe harbor from the 
     401(k) nondiscrimination rules for plans that automatically 
     enroll employees at a minimum contribution level equal to 6 
     percent of pay. One

[[Page 1454]]

     of the key actions to boost retirement security for workers 
     is to save at the right rates in a workplace savings plan. 
     Automatic enrollment at a minimum of 6 percent of pay, along 
     with annual automatic increases and investing appropriately, 
     puts workers on a better path toward retirement security. Our 
     data and analysis show that the average participation rate 
     among plans with automatic enrollment is approximately 90 
     percent, regardless of the default contribution rate and 
     regardless of the salary level. The 3 percent minimum 
     contribution rate under the current safe harbor is too low 
     and woefully inadequate to put employees on a path to reach 
     their retirement savings goals. Due to human inertia many 
     employees who auto-enroll at 3 percent are unlikely to take 
     any action to increase their savings. Raising the minimum 
     contribution level from 3 percent to 6 percent would go a 
     long way toward increasing savings rates and improving 
     retirement security.
       Furthermore, Fidelity supports provisions in the bill to 
     streamline and simplify regulations and reduce unnecessary 
     burdens that serve as an obstacle to retirement plan 
     coverage. Regulatory burdens are one of the biggest obstacles 
     to small employers that may otherwise want to offer a 
     retirement plan to their employees.
       Fidelity applauds your leadership on retirement security 
     and appreciates your efforts to advance these reforms. We 
     hope to work with you as the bill moves through the 
     legislative process to further simplify the rules and 
     streamline duplicative or unnecessary regulations to help 
     achieve your goal of expanding pension coverage.
           Regards,
                                                Douglas B. Fisher,
     Senior Vice President.
                                  ____



                                      Lincoln Financial Group,

                                 Greensboro, NC, January 20, 2015.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of Lincoln Financial Group, 
     I am writing to express our strong support for the Retirement 
     Security Act of 2015. We thank you for your leadership in 
     sponsoring this very important bill.
       Congress has made great strides forward in enhancing 
     retirement security, but there are many challenges still 
     ahead. One of the key challenges is improving retirement plan 
     coverage among small businesses. The Act would help address 
     the small business issue by reforming the rules regarding 
     multiple employer plans, which help small businesses achieve 
     many of the economies of scale that large businesses have. 
     The Act would modify the rules to make multiple employer 
     plans more efficient and more workable for small businesses.
       We also applaud the Act's new automatic enrollment safe 
     harbor and its important enhancement of access to the saver's 
     credit. These provisions will increase participation levels, 
     especially among low and middle-income individuals.
       We strongly support your efforts and stand ready to assist 
     you in moving forward with this important piece of 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                              Charles C. Cornelio,
     President, Retirement Plan Services.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                             Insurance and Financial Advisors,

                                Falls Church, VA, January 7, 2015.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: The National Association of Insurance 
     and Financial Advisors (NAIFA) applauds your efforts in 
     preserving and enhancing the voluntary employer-provided 
     retirement system and the tax incentives that support it. 
     These plans are helping millions of American families achieve 
     a secure retirement.
       The employer-sponsored retirement plan system has 
     introduced tens of millions of American workers to retirement 
     saving. Employers voluntarily establish and promote these 
     plans to help their workers build assets for a secure 
     retirement.
       NAIFA encourages support for the Retirement Security Act of 
     2015 introduced by Senator Susan M. Collins. The bill would 
     add a new more generous safe harbor for small business 
     retirement plans, establish a tax credit for employer matches 
     for plan sponsors using the new (optional) safe harbor, and 
     ease the rules allowing small employers to join multiple 
     employer pension plans.
       Cost is often a factor in whether a business will offer a 
     plan for its employees to adequately save for retirement. 
     This bill lowers costs by waiving a requirement that there be 
     a nexus among businesses to join multiple employer plans, 
     thereby allowing more entities to share plan administrative 
     burdens. The bill instructs Treasury to simplify, clarify and 
     consolidate notice requirements for retirement plans, and 
     instructs Treasury to provide taxpayers using a 1040EZ filing 
     the ability to report and receive a tax credit, if eligible.
       We thank you for your leadership in helping employees plan 
     and prepare for a financially secure retirement.
           Sincerely,

                                              Juli Y. McNeely,

                                                  LUTCF, CFP, CLU,
     NAIFA President.
                                  ____



                                    Principal Financial Group,

                                  Des Moines, IA, January 9, 2015.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bill Nelson,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins and Nelson: On behalf of Principal 
     Financial Group, I want to thank you for your leadership in 
     seeking to improve and enhance the existing voluntary defined 
     contribution system through the Retirement Security Act of 
     2015. Employer sponsored 401(k) plans and other worksite 
     retirement plans have helped millions of workers save 
     trillions of dollars. These plans have proven to be resilient 
     even in challenging times but more is needed to expand access 
     to worksite retirement plans. Your proposal builds upon the 
     strength of the existing system, providing main street 
     businesses the necessary tools to address retirement savings 
     adequacy and coverage challenges.
       Principal Financial Group is a leading provider of defined 
     contribution plans with more than 70 years' experience 
     working with small to medium-sized employers and their 
     employees. We currently provide retirement services to more 
     than 41,000 retirement plans and 4.5 million employee 
     participants.
       Principal was particularly pleased with your inclusion of 
     the enhanced automatic contribution safe harbor. We must find 
     ways to encourage far greater numbers of plan sponsors to 
     adopt automatic enrollment and escalation features with 
     substantive employer match contributions. To do this, we feel 
     more flexibility is needed in the existing safe harbor 
     requirements and your proposal offers a good starting point 
     for gaining that additional flexibility.
       Thank you for your leadership in this area. We look forward 
     to working with you as the process continues. Seeking 
     solutions to these important policy considerations to expand 
     savings rates in the current employer based retirement system 
     is vital to the economic wellbeing of millions of future 
     retirees.
           Sincerely,
                                               Gregory J. Burrows,
     Senior Vice President.
                                  ____

                                                 Society for Human


                                          Resource Management,

                                  Alexandria, VA, January 9, 2015.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bill Nelson,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Collins and Nelson: On behalf of more than 
     275,000 human resource professionals who belong to the 
     Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), I would like to 
     thank you for your leadership on the issue of retirement 
     security. The introduction of the Retirement Security Act of 
     2015, demonstrates your commitment to ensuring that all 
     Americans are given the ability to save for retirement.
       Founded in 1948, SHRM is the world's largest membership 
     organization devoted to human resource management. 
     Representing more than 275,000 members in over 160 countries, 
     SHRM is the leading provider of resources to meet the 
     evolving needs of HR professionals, while advancing the 
     professional practice of human resource management. SHRM has 
     more than 575 affiliated chapters throughout the United 
     States.
       As human resource professionals, it has been our members' 
     experience that a comprehensive and flexible benefits package 
     is an essential tool in recruiting and retaining talented 
     employees. Regardless of an employer's size, it is vitally 
     important that every employee be given the opportunity to 
     save and plan for retirement and to protect his or her 
     family's financial health. Steps the government can take to 
     facilitate and encourage voluntary employer-sponsored 
     retirement plans and individual savings plans are critical to 
     achieving this goal.
       Removing barriers and disincentives, especially for small 
     businesses, is a tactic that can lead to greater 
     participation in employer-provided defined benefit retirement 
     plans. A variety of options including tax incentives, 
     increased contribution limits, catch-up contributions for 
     older workers and increased access for employees, are all 
     elements that have proven to increase participation and 
     contribution levels in retirement plans. SHRM believes that 
     the Retirement Security Act of 2015 would benefit both 
     employers and employees by expanding important tax credits to 
     small businesses as well as expanding auto-enrollment safe 
     harbor provisions. These elements are essential for small 
     businesses, who comprise an important segment of our 
     membership, to offer retirement plans that enable their 
     employees to save for retirement.

[[Page 1455]]

       We look forward to working with you in the future to ensure 
     that retirement security for all Americans is preserved.
           Sincerely,
                                                Michael P. Aitken,
     Vice President, Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                                     Transamerica,


                                           Government Affairs,

                                 Washington, DC, January 22, 2015.

                   Re Retirement Security Act of 2015

     Hon. Susan Collins,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins:  On behalf of Transamerica, I would 
     like to thank you for your leadership on retirement security 
     issues as most recently evidenced by your introduction today 
     of the Retirement Security Act of 2015.
       Your bill addresses in a comprehensive manner problems 
     faced by small and large employers in providing their 
     employees the means to save for a secure retirement, as well 
     as by individuals in trying to achieve a secure retirement 
     through workplace savings. In particular, removing 
     impediments to the adoption of multiple employer plans, 
     expanding the auto enrollment safe harbor and making it 
     easier to claim the Saver's Credit are areas in which 
     Transamerica has been extremely active--from a policy, 
     participant education and market development standpoint. I 
     and others at Transamerica look forward to working with you 
     and your staff as you move the bill forward.
       The Transamerica companies market life insurance, 
     annuities, pensions and supplemental health insurance, as 
     well as mutual funds and related investment products 
     throughout the U.S. and in selected countries worldwide. 
     Transamerica Retirement Solutions provides and services 
     workforce retirement savings plans in the small and mid-large 
     employer markets. As of December 31, 2014, these plans held 
     in the aggregate over $132 billion in assets for 3.7 million 
     participants. The Transamerica companies are ranked among the 
     top insurance groups in the U.S., based on admitted assets, 
     and employ approximately 11,000 people nationwide.
       Please do not hesitate to contact either me if I can 
     provide any specific information regarding our retirement 
     plan business or market expertise to support your efforts.
           Very truly yours,

                                            Jeanne de Cervens,

                                        Vice President & Director,
     Federal Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                              Chamber of Commerce,


                                     United States of America,

                                 Washington, DC, January 21, 2015.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Vern Buchanan,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins and Representative Buchanan: The U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation 
     representing the interests of more than three million 
     businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as 
     state and local chambers and industry associations, and 
     dedicated to promoting, protecting, and defending America's 
     free enterprise system, thanks you for introducing the 
     ``Retirement Security Act of 2015.'' Retirement security is a 
     critical issue, and our members support all efforts to 
     encourage voluntary participation in retirement savings 
     plans.
       The Retirement Security Act of 2015 includes key provisions 
     that the Chamber has set forth as important reforms to the 
     retirement system including eliminating barriers to the use 
     of multiple employer plans; providing optional safe harbor 
     alternatives; and simplifying notice requirements. Overall, 
     the Chamber believes that the Retirement Security Act of 2015 
     would provide important reforms to encourage participation by 
     both plan sponsors and plan participants in the employer-
     provided retirement system.
       The Chamber looks forward to working with you on this bill 
     and urges Congress to take steps to further the enactment of 
     the bill.
           Sincerely,

                                              R. Bruce Josten,

                                         Executive Vice President,
     Government Affairs.
                                  ____



                              Plan Sponsor Council of America,

                                 Washington, DC, January 20, 2015.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bill Nelson,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Collins and Nelson, The Plan Sponsor Council 
     of America (PSCA) is pleased to endorse the Retirement 
     Security Act of 2015. The Act removes several impediments 
     that restrict the ability of small businesses to participate 
     in multiple employer plans, or MEPs. Expanded MEP access will 
     open another important avenue for small business owners to 
     provide critically important retirement plans for hardworking 
     employees.
       The small business arena is the last frontier for improving 
     access to an employer-provided retirement plan. The 
     Retirement Security Act of 2015 will help conquer this 
     frontier, providing a uniform, federal response. This is an 
     especially timely endeavor as states consider enacting new 
     legislation relating to employer-based retirement plans that 
     could result in a problematic patchwork of disparate laws 
     impacting plan sponsors and employees.
       Thank you for your efforts on behalf of American workers.
           Sincerely,

                                            Stephen McCaffrey,

                                              Chairman, PSCA Legal
                                        and Legislative Committee.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, this bill is borne out of the work Senator 
Collins and I did on the Special Committee on Aging. After we had a 
hearing on the condition of the American senior citizen, it was 
certainly clear that something had to be done to give them better 
access to retirement plans.
  A lot of the situation that Senator Collins has just described is so 
true. Fewer than half of workers have access to any retirement plan at 
work, and those numbers are even constricted when you start talking 
about employees who work for smaller business. Only one quarter of 
small businesses with less than 100 employees offers any type of 
retirement plan for their employees.
  The lack of a retirement plan at work means when an individual gets 
to be a senior citizen they are going to end up relying on Social 
Security, where we are talking about a benefit of maybe $1,300 a month, 
or $15,000 a year. That is simply not enough to pay for housing and 
medical care and other expenses. In my State of Florida, one-third of 
the senior citizens rely on Social Security income to get by in 
retirement. We have to fix this problem. There are too many people who 
work too hard throughout their lives and get to be in those golden 
years, and then they are faced with a real crisis.
  So the legislation the two of us have worked on for well over a year 
will offer retirement plans by encouraging small businesses to set up 
those retirement plans. One example would be small businesses will be 
able to pool together their resources and take advantage of the 
economies of scale. There is no reason that a very good retirement plan 
can't be as a result of cobbling together the resources of many small 
businesses and still have a retirement plan that makes sense for the 
individual retirement business because they are getting the economies 
of scale.
  The bill is going to encourage the employees to save more with things 
such as providing automatic enrollment in retirement plans, and it is 
going to encourage increasing the employer match. Those things are all 
common sense.
  I join Senator Collins in urging our colleagues to come together, and 
let's try to do this for the American senior citizens.
  Mr. President, 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.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Ms. Warren pertaining to the introduction of S. 320 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The majority leader.


                 Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 203

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:30 
p.m. on Monday, February 2, the Senate proceed to the consideration of 
Calendar No. 6, H.R. 203; that the time until 5:30 p.m. be equally 
divided in the usual form, and that following the use or yielding back 
of that time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote on 
passage of the bill, without any intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak in opposition to the 
Keystone XL Pipeline. This bill will not help our economy, it will not 
create

[[Page 1456]]

permanent jobs, and it certainly is not a boon to the environment. On 
item after item, the Keystone pipeline just doesn't make sense for the 
United States.
  When we last debated Keystone in November, the price for a barrel of 
oil was about $75. That price was already down from a peak of $100 in 
2014, and since then the price has dropped another $25, to less than 
$50 a barrel.
  In November, the average price of gas was nearly $3 per gallon. This 
week, gas averages around $2.20 per gallon--the cheapest in nearly six 
years--and many States are seeing gas under $2 per gallon.
  In fact, since this pipeline was first proposed in 2008, America has 
gone from the third largest producer of oil to the world's largest 
producer, surpassing both Russia and Saudi Arabia. As a result of new 
production and increasing fuel economy, the final months of 2014 saw 
the lowest net imports of crude oil since 1986.
  The Keystone Pipeline is simply not necessary for America's energy 
independence.
  Even worse, the oil that moves through the pipeline isn't necessarily 
for the benefit of the United States. Instead, the pipeline would be a 
conduit to move the oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, where it 
will be refined and sold on the global market. Some individual barrels 
may be kept in the United States, but much will be exported and prices 
will be set by international supply and demand. The State Department's 
review projected that building a pipeline would have ``little impact on 
the prices U.S. consumers pay for refined products such as gasoline.'' 
I fail to see how the United States gains any economic benefit from 
this project.
  Finally, Keystone supporters often argue that the pipeline creates 
large numbers of jobs. It is great that this project will create nearly 
2,000 direct construction jobs over 2 years, and more indirectly. 
Unfortunately, those jobs are temporary. That means once the pipeline 
is complete in two years, operating the pipeline will support only 
around 50 permanent jobs.
  The American economy won't benefit from this bill. American companies 
won't benefit. American drivers won't benefit, and American workers 
won't benefit. The economic policies behind the pipeline just don't 
make sense.
  Unfortunately, the problems also don't end with the lack of economic 
value. This project also comes with substantial hazards for the 
environment. Extracting oil from these tar sands would essentially mean 
the destruction of huge swaths of land in Alberta. The tar sands are 
beneath 54,000 square miles of boreal forest and peat bog, an area the 
size of the state of New York.
  An estimated 20 percent of the deposits require destructive surface 
mining, which entails clearing huge swathes of boreal forest and top 
soil to get at the tar sands beneath. Already, 175,000 acres of forest 
have been cleared, but an additional 1 million acres of forest have 
already been leased for surface mining operations.
  This destructive form of mining generates large volumes of toxic 
wastewater, which must be stored in vast tailings ponds that already 
cover around 70 square miles. These tailings contain high 
concentrations of benzene and other carcinogens, as well as lead and 
mercury. Significantly higher levels of these pollutants have been 
found downstream from tar sands refineries, leading to higher rates of 
cancers, including leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
  The development of these tar sands will have negative effects on the 
environment and public health, and it has also contributed 
significantly to Canada's failure to fulfill its Kyoto Protocol 
obligations. I believe that Canada should rethink its approach to tar 
sands development.
  Finally, I would like to address climate change. No matter how hard 
some of my colleagues hope climate change isn't real, it is, and we are 
already seeing harmful effects.
  Transforming the oil from tar sands into useful gasoline is 80 
percent more carbon intensive than the processing of typical crude oil. 
Producing, refining, and combusting the oil that Keystone would carry 
will release up to 168 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions 
every year. That is 27 million metric tons more greenhouse gas 
emissions than would be emitted from burning the same amount of typical 
crude oil. To put this in context, those additional emissions over 
normal processing are equivalent to the annual emissions from 5.7 
million cars, 1.4 million homes or nearly 8 coal-fired power plants.
  The economics of the Keystone Pipeline don't make sense, and the 
environmental risks could well be tragic. We are being asked to approve 
a project that will primarily benefit Canadian companies and foreign 
oil markets, while at the same time accepting the consequences of the 
harm the pipeline and tar sands oil would create.
  If this is about jobs, let's invest in clean energy. The Shaheen-
Portman energy efficiency bill, for example, is estimated to create 
190,000 jobs. If our goal is to lower fuel costs for American families, 
let's speed up improvements to fuel economy standards. If we want to 
modernize our infrastructure, let's get to work on a real 
transportation reauthorization bill. And if our aim is to exploit our 
energy resources, let's focus on wind and solar, biofuels, or the 
future of batteries and fuel cells.
  We can do better than the Keystone Pipeline, both for our economy and 
for the environment. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
Keystone Pipeline.
  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, today I wish to speak on S. 1, legislation 
to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan bill, which will 
approve construction of the pipeline that has been under review for 6 
long years. By moving this project forward, we are helping to secure 
America's energy future, improve our national defense, and create tens 
of thousands of jobs for Americans.
  The Keystone XL Pipeline is a commonsense jobs bill. It should never 
have been a political issue. It goes far beyond the labor to construct 
the pipeline--it will drastically increase employment across many 
industries as we work to develop our North American energy resources. 
It is disappointing that the President is threatening to veto its 
approval when building Keystone would create American jobs and help 
lower energy costs for families across the country.
  The American people are still struggling in today's economy, and they 
expect and deserve Washington to cut red tape and unleash America's 
energy resources. Building the Keystone XL pipeline is an important 
step toward meeting these goals, will help ensure America's energy 
security, and reinforce relations with our largest trading partner.
  Unleashing our Nation's full energy potential remains one of my top 
priorities in the U.S. Senate. I will work to advance serious policies 
that responsibly develop all of our energy resources, create good jobs, 
and make America more energy independent.
  It is time we start putting America's issues on the President's desk. 
I urge the President to reconsider his threat to veto the bipartisan 
Keystone jobs bill and to finally take the opportunity to work with 
Congress to find solutions the American people want.
  The Senator from Florida.


                       Telephone Tracking Devices

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, there is a disturbing report in the 
Washington Post today about a major telephone company, Verizon, putting 
supercookies on the phones that its customers are using which will 
allow those customers to be tracked, and if that information is turned 
over to third parties, to be utilized for purposes of advertising, even 
though the customer has indicated they do not want that particular 
cookie placed on their device.
  Our staff on the commerce committee will be investigating this, and 
we certainly want to make sure that in this time of ubiquity of eyes 
prying all around in this electronic age we are living in that we 
preserve the rights of privacy for all individuals.
  This is a matter of particular importance to the commerce committee. 
It

[[Page 1457]]

is of extreme importance to this Senator, and I will keep the Senate 
informed.
  Mr. President, 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. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Department of Homeland Security Funding

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I know we are about to bring some final 
votes on Keystone to the floor, but I want to take a few minutes to 
speak on the topic we will be focused on next week, and that is the 
impending crisis at the Department of Homeland Security should we not 
continue to fund their operations, which matters greatly to a State 
such as Connecticut--a State with expansive coastline, with natural 
disasters as part of our recent history, and with a close connection to 
some of the potential epicenters for terrorist activity and attacks, 
New York City being at the top of the list.
  It was just 3 weeks ago that terrorists staged a horrific attack in 
downtown Paris. Before they were stopped by law enforcement, dozens of 
people were killed or injured and the world was given another reminder 
of the threats that exist all around us. Across Europe countries 
stepped up their alert, increasing their law enforcement presence, 
raiding suspected terror cells, and requesting the assistance of the 
United States to help track down the people who carried out the 
attacks.
  Astoundingly, though, here at home, it seems as though there are a 
lot of Republicans in Congress who would rather talk about deporting 
children who were brought to this country without documentation rather 
than talk about funding the very agency that every day seems to keep 
our homeland safe from threats.
  Even as our allies in Europe look for ways to improve their security, 
the House of Representatives, in particular, has told us that the only 
way we can fund the Department of Homeland Security--keeping this 
country safe--is to start deporting young boys and girls who are here 
trying to make it in the United States.
  The United States is no stranger to the types of attacks that 
happened in France. An Ohio man was arrested 3 weeks ago when it was 
discovered he was plotting to blow up the United States Capitol. I am 
certain we have not already forgotten about the Boston marathon bombing 
or what happened before that in Oklahoma City. The threats against this 
country continue to evolve.
  Why should we play politics with the agency that is most responsible 
for responding and getting this country ready for those threats? It is 
the height of irresponsibility to suggest, as some of my colleagues 
have, that shutting down the Department of Homeland Security--the 
Department responsible for protecting the United States from terrorist 
attacks--would be no big deal.
  This is what the Secretary of Homeland Security has said. Last week 
he said:

     . . . as long as we are on a CR, we cannot engage in new 
     starts, new spending, new initiatives, new grants to state 
     and local law enforcement to fund homeland security missions. 
     We can't put in place the independent panel that recommended 
     changes to the secret service. We can't do a lot of things 
     for border security. Our counterterrorism efforts are 
     limited.

  In 28 days, the Department of Homeland Security, the agency charged 
with border security, aviation security, cyber security, Presidential 
security, and counterterrorism efforts, is going to run out of funding. 
Instead of working with the Senate, which overwhelmingly passed a 
bipartisan bill to fix our immigration system and secure our border, 
Republicans are willing to hold up this funding bill so they can deport 
DREAMers against the President's Executive order. It is not just 
irresponsible, it is dangerous.
  In my State, as I said, it matters greatly. Over the past several 
years, we have seen, as the northeast has been battered by hurricanes 
and superstorms and blizzards, the indispensable nature of agencies 
funded in the Department of Homeland Security budget. Failing to pass 
this bill would delay upgrades to critical and necessary emergency 
communication systems for first responders in my State that are 
responding to emergencies and disasters. Whether we like it or not, 
they are happening with greater frequency.
  Fortunately, thanks to the leadership of Senator Mikulski and Senator 
Shaheen, there is a path forward. Yesterday they introduced a clean, 
full-year funding bill that has been endorsed by every Democratic 
Senator. This is the same bipartisan, bicameral bill that was 
negotiated by the House and the Senate last year.
  This agreement includes critical assistance, critical increases in 
funding for our border security, cyber security, air and maritime 
surveillance, and biological and explosive detection at our borders. 
All of these things keep us safe at a time when we know that terrorism 
is a more real threat than ever, not just to the United States but to 
our partner countries all around the world.
  Last week, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution I was proud to 
have written, declaring that we stand in solidarity with the people in 
France, that we mourn the loss of innocent victims and condemn the 
atrocity of these attacks.
  I submit that just as important as our words, which we all came 
together to support, are our deeds. Will our response now be to engage 
in a partisan fight over immigration or do we come together as 
Republicans and Democrats to fund the law enforcement personnel who are 
charged with keeping our citizens safe?
  Next week when we return to this body, I strongly urge my Republican 
colleagues to quickly bring a clean, bipartisan Department of Homeland 
Security appropriations bill to the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Children's Health Insurance Program

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Children's Health 
Insurance Program. This Congress 20 years ago passed CHIP. It was an 
invention of Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch, both Senators who cared 
a lot about what we do to help low-income children.
  I was at Mercy Health Clinic in Cincinnati late last week, and early 
this week I was at Dayton Children's Hospital, talking to families who 
have benefitted from the Children's Health Insurance Program.
  In the great majority of cases, the parents of these children have 
full-time jobs--often two jobs. They typically make significantly less 
than what we would call a living wage. They rarely have any kind of 
health insurance, although now they are entering the exchanges or 
perhaps Medicaid--more likely the exchanges--but their children are not 
getting health insurance except through CHIP. It has been around for 20 
years, and there are about 10 million children in the United States who 
benefit from the Children's Health Insurance Program.
  The Children's Health Insurance Program is law. It has been 
reauthorized up through 2019, but the funding for it expires this 
September. I have spoken with members of the Senate Finance Committee, 
including my colleague here, Senator Nelson from Florida, who has been 
a big supporter of the Children's Health Insurance Program. Senators 
Casey and Stabenow have been very involved, Senator Gillibrand, and as 
I said, Senator Hatch was one of the founders of this program, along 
with Senator Kennedy.
  It is so important that we move as quickly as possible, in part 
because the States need to budget these dollars--this Federal 
passthrough--so that it directly goes to the Children's Health 
Insurance Program. There are a few things we can do that are even more 
important than that.
  In closing, I will add that it is not just the right thing to do, to 
fund the Children's Health Insurance Program,

[[Page 1458]]

it is also a smart thing to do because it means that parents will take 
their child who has an earache to the family doctor because they have 
insurance, instead of waiting a week, when the pain is unbearable, and 
taking that child to the emergency room and costing all of us more as 
taxpayers and perhaps causing that child some hearing loss.
  In addition to helping these families with health insurance and 
saving money, it also makes a big difference in schools. The children 
are less likely to miss school and children will be better able to 
learn if, in fact, they have better health insurance.
  We know that is the case for our own children. All of us here have 
government health insurance, if you will, as Members of the Senate, and 
it is important that we do what we ought to do for the Children's 
Health Insurance Program. It matters for so many families in North 
Dakota, the Presiding Officer's State, and my State of Ohio.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  (The remarks of Mr. Thune and Mr. Nelson pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 304 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements 
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 
minutes equally divided after each vote and that all after the first 
vote in the series be 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 155

  The question occurs on the Booker amendment No. 155.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, my amendment No. 155 ensures that Federal 
agencies disclose to the public, landowners, and communities any 
significant new circumstances learned about the impact of the Keystone 
XL Pipeline.
  The National Environmental Policy Act--NEPA--is one of the most 
emulated statutes in the world. It is used as a model around the world. 
NEPA in fact is often referred to as the modern-day ``environmental 
Magna Carta.''
  These are very commonsense ideas. NEPA regulations really do require 
agencies to actually supplement already issued environmental impact 
statements when significant new circumstances or information is found 
to exist relating to the environmental impacts of a project.
  The pending Keystone bill, however, would deem the final 
environmental impact statement issued last January to fully satisfy 
NEPA. In other words, if new circumstances come up that are germane and 
important, they do not get a chance to alter that statement. My 
amendment would change that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BOOKER. I respectfully request 25 more seconds to conclude my 
comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOOKER. My amendment would change that and would preserve the 
applications of agencies to supplement the EIS. For example, if the 
proposed route of the pipeline was to change, it could mean drinking 
water supplies and other critical resources would have a higher risk of 
contamination from a spill. People should know that.
  When American companies are building projects, they comply with this 
important NEPA safeguard. Foreign companies should not be given a 
shortcut. If American companies do it, foreign companies should do the 
same.
  This amendment is supported by the Natural Resources Defense Fund, 
the Sierra Club, and a number of other organizations. I ask my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are here today because the Keystone 
Pipeline border crossing permit has been pending for years. There are 
no shortcuts at play.
  The Booker amendment, drafted as a savings clause, would withhold the 
approval the bill seeks to confer if there are any new circumstances, 
new information relevant to environmental concerns. That is the whole 
point here.
  The Keystone administrative record is already thousands of pages 
long. We have had 6 years of dos and redos. If this amendment is 
adopted, it begs the question as to whether there will ever be a 
decision.
  I think the obvious strategy of pipeline opponents is to drag out the 
approval process until everybody gives up on it; everyone walks away. 
That is certainly not the intent of those of us who support this 
bipartisan bill. We don't want to see an endless round of further 
considerations. I think the majority here in the Senate believes it is 
time to move forward. Let's not have continued delays.
  I urge a rejection of this amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the Booker amendment No. 155
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) and 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 41, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 46 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

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

                                NAYS--56

     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
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Lee
     Reid
     Rubio
  The amendment (No. 155) was rejected.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COATS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 130

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with 
respect to the Boxer amendment No. 130.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. It is my understanding that Senator Boxer is willing 
to forgo a rollcall vote, but she would like to speak to her amendment.
  I turn to Senator Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. If I could ask for the attention of my friends.
  The reason I so wanted to have this 1 minute even though I am not 
asking for a rollcall vote is because I want to make clear what we are 
doing in this underlying bill.
  This is the only time in the history of the Senate that we have given 
such a big hug and kiss to a private company--any private company, 
American or foreign.
  My amendment simply says that if TransCanada breaks the rules related 
to any permit they have--for example, there is an oilspill and they 
don't follow the oilspill plan or they don't handle hazardous waste in 
the right way--a whole list: They use the wrong steel.

[[Page 1459]]

It is dangerous. They are dangerous to their workers. It doesn't matter 
what they do, under the underlying bill, S. 1, they can never lose 
their permit. We don't do that for any other company, let alone a 
foreign special interest company that is going to take this oil and 
siphon it right out of America. There are 35 permanent jobs. A trail of 
misery follows the tar sands.
  I am not going to ask for a rollcall vote because I get the writing 
on the wall. I would hope we would have a voice vote, and I would urge 
my folks to yell a ``yes'' if they can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think it is clear that the good 
Senator from California and I disagree on whether the Keystone XL 
Pipeline should proceed. It is apparent that we disagree on the reach 
of the section on permits as currently in the bill and also, more 
specifically, the substitute amendment we are discussing.
  I am willing to agree that the permits which have already been issued 
should not be affected. That was the intent of the provision within the 
substitute. I am going to be voicing my opposition through a loud 
``nay'' and would encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  With that, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  I withdraw my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 130) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 141

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided before a vote on the Markey amendment No. 141.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple. It would 
require that before the Keystone XL Pipeline is deemed approved, we 
should determine whether carbon pollution, including the carbon 
pollution from tar sands oil production, will contribute to an increase 
in more extreme weather events. We should know if carbon pollution is 
going to put another climate change card in a deck that is already 
stacked for more extreme rainfall and snowfall and for more dangerously 
hot summer days.
  Since 2010 there have been 49 weather and climate disasters in our 
country that caused at least $1 billion in damages across the United 
States. We should not be making energy policy decisions that increase 
the risk of costly, extreme weather events.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I would suggest that this amendment is designed to 
further delay this pipeline. It requires that a study be done by all 
Federal agencies with even a smidgen of review authority to determine 
whether increased greenhouse gas emissions are likely to contribute to 
an increase in more extreme weather events. It doesn't specify that the 
increased greenhouse gases that are under study are only related to the 
pipeline project. So, for instance, the President's deal to allow an 
increase in greenhouse gas emissions until 2030--if it caused the 
impacts listed in this amendment, it would stop the pipeline. That is 
not what we want to do.
  I am going to be urging my colleagues to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the 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. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 47 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     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
     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
     Kaine
     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 amendment (No. 141) was rejected.
  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. 178

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to the Markey amendment No. 178.
  The Senator from Massachusetts
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, right now the Canadian pipeline company is 
receiving a ``get out of Canada free'' slip. They do not have to pay 
taxes into the oilspill liability fund.
  My colleagues may remember that last week the Republicans objected 
because they said the amendment of Senator Wyden had a blue slip 
problem from the House because the tax has to originate in the House. 
You might remember that last Thursday night Senators on the Republican 
side objected to my amendments--late at night and, again, on procedural 
grounds. Well, the good news is we have been able to find a way to have 
a straight up-or-down vote on the substance of whether the Canadians 
have to pay into the oilspill liability fund. So this is going to be 
the vote that determines whether they are going to be able to build a 
pipeline right through our country--where we are running all the 
environmental risk--and if a spill occurs, they have not contributed to 
the oilspill liability fund.
  This is a pure vote. It is not procedural. It is yes or no--do they 
contribute or not to that fund. I urge an aye vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I will be opposing this amendment. I 
believe it is unnecessary. We already debated and dispensed with this 
just last week. We voted for the sense of the Senate amendment which 
called for a loophole within the oilspill liability trust fund to be 
closed. We set us on a path to work with the House on that. That 
amendment is now part of this bill.
  I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his support in making sure 
we did adopt that. I think most of us believe this loophole should be 
closed, and I am confident that we will close it well before the 
Keystone XL Pipeline goes into operation.
  We have to remember, my friends, that before any oil flows through 
this pipeline which can be put into the oilspill liability trust fund, 
it has to be built. That is what this bill before us does. I want to 
make sure that we address this with the House. We will do so.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page 1460]]

  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 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 result was announced--yeas 44, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 48 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

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

                                NAYS--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
     McCain
     McCaskill
     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 amendment was rejected.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ROUNDS. 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 Washington.


                      Amendment No. 131 Withdrawn

  Ms. CANTWELL. Given the results on other votes--given the vote on the 
Boxer and Booker amendments, and given everybody here, I ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw the Cantwell amendment No. 131.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is withdrawn.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to announce 
that this is the last vote of the week. The final vote on the Keystone 
Pipeline is the last vote of the week. The next vote will be at 5:30 
p.m. on Monday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate prior to 
the vote on passage of S. 1, as amended.
  Mr. CORKER. I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, all time is yielded back.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, shall it pass?
  Mr. CORKER. 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 62, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 49 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Carper
     Casey
     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
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                                NAYS--36

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     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
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Reid
     Rubio
       
  The bill (S. 1), as amended, was passed, as follows:

                                  S. 1

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Keystone XL Pipeline 
     Approval Act''.

     SEC. 2. KEYSTONE XL APPROVAL.

       (a) In General.--TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. may 
     construct, connect, operate, and maintain the pipeline and 
     cross-border facilities described in the application filed on 
     May 4, 2012, by TransCanada Corporation to the Department of 
     State (including any subsequent revision to the pipeline 
     route within the State of Nebraska required or authorized by 
     the State of Nebraska).
       (b) Environmental Impact Statement.--The Final Supplemental 
     Environmental Impact Statement issued by the Secretary of 
     State in January 2014, regarding the pipeline referred to in 
     subsection (a), and the environmental analysis, consultation, 
     and review described in that document (including appendices) 
     shall be considered to fully satisfy--
       (1) all requirements of the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
       (2) any other provision of law that requires Federal agency 
     consultation or review (including the consultation or review 
     required under section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a))) with respect to the pipeline and 
     facilities referred to in subsection (a).
       (c) Permits.--Any Federal permit or authorization issued 
     before the date of enactment of this Act for the pipeline and 
     cross-border facilities referred to in subsection (a) shall 
     remain in effect.
       (d) Judicial Review.--Except for review in the Supreme 
     Court of the United States, the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have 
     original and exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action for 
     the review of an order or action of a Federal agency 
     regarding the pipeline and cross-border facilities described 
     in subsection (a), and the related facilities in the United 
     States, that are approved by this Act (including any order 
     granting a permit or right-of-way, or any other agency action 
     taken to construct or complete the project pursuant to 
     Federal law).
       (e) Private Property Savings Clause.--Nothing in this Act 
     alters any Federal, State, or local process or condition in 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act that is necessary 
     to secure access from an owner of private property to 
     construct the pipeline and cross-border facilities described 
     in subsection (a).
       (f) Private Property Protection.--Land or an interest in 
     land for the pipeline and cross-border facilities described 
     in subsection (a) may only be acquired consistently with the 
     Constitution.

     SEC. 3. COORDINATION OF ENERGY RETROFITTING ASSISTANCE FOR 
                   SCHOOLS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) School.--The term ``school'' means--
       (A) an elementary school or secondary school (as defined in 
     section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801));
       (B) an institution of higher education (as defined in 
     section 102(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1002(a));
       (C) a school of the defense dependents' education system 
     under the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978 (20 
     U.S.C. 921 et seq.) or established under section 2164 of 
     title 10, United States Code;
       (D) a school operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
       (E) a tribally controlled school (as defined in section 
     5212 of the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988 (25 
     U.S.C. 2511)); and
       (F) a Tribal College or University (as defined in section 
     316(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1059c(b))).

[[Page 1461]]

       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       (b) Designation of Lead Agency.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
     shall act as the lead Federal agency for coordinating and 
     disseminating information on existing Federal programs and 
     assistance that may be used to help initiate, develop, and 
     finance energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy 
     retrofitting projects for schools.
       (c) Requirements.--In carrying out coordination and 
     outreach under subsection (b), the Secretary shall--
       (1) in consultation and coordination with the appropriate 
     Federal agencies, carry out a review of existing programs and 
     financing mechanisms (including revolving loan funds and loan 
     guarantees) available in or from the Department of 
     Agriculture, the Department of Energy, the Department of 
     Education, the Department of the Treasury, the Internal 
     Revenue Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and 
     other appropriate Federal agencies with jurisdiction over 
     energy financing and facilitation that are currently used or 
     may be used to help initiate, develop, and finance energy 
     efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofitting 
     projects for schools;
       (2) establish a Federal cross-departmental collaborative 
     coordination, education, and outreach effort to streamline 
     communication and promote available Federal opportunities and 
     assistance described in paragraph (1) for energy efficiency, 
     renewable energy, and energy retrofitting projects that 
     enables States, local educational agencies, and schools--
       (A) to use existing Federal opportunities more effectively; 
     and
       (B) to form partnerships with Governors, State energy 
     programs, local educational, financial, and energy officials, 
     State and local government officials, nonprofit 
     organizations, and other appropriate entities to support the 
     initiation of the projects;
       (3) provide technical assistance for States, local 
     educational agencies, and schools to help develop and finance 
     energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofitting 
     projects--
       (A) to increase the energy efficiency of buildings or 
     facilities;
       (B) to install systems that individually generate energy 
     from renewable energy resources;
       (C) to establish partnerships to leverage economies of 
     scale and additional financing mechanisms available to larger 
     clean energy initiatives; or
       (D) to promote--
       (i) the maintenance of health, environmental quality, and 
     safety in schools, including the ambient air quality, through 
     energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofit 
     projects; and
       (ii) the achievement of expected energy savings and 
     renewable energy production through proper operations and 
     maintenance practices;
       (4) develop and maintain a single online resource website 
     with contact information for relevant technical assistance 
     and support staff in the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
     Renewable Energy for States, local educational agencies, and 
     schools to effectively access and use Federal opportunities 
     and assistance described in paragraph (1) to develop energy 
     efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofitting 
     projects; and
       (5) establish a process for recognition of schools that--
       (A) have successfully implemented energy efficiency, 
     renewable energy, and energy retrofitting projects; and
       (B) are willing to serve as resources for other local 
     educational agencies and schools to assist initiation of 
     similar efforts.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report describing the implementation of this section.

     SEC. 4. CONSULTATION WITH INDIAN TRIBES.

       Nothing in this Act relieves the United States of its 
     responsibility to consult with Indian nations as required 
     under executive order 13175 (67 Fed. Reg. 67249) (November 6, 
     2000).

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that climate change is real 
     and not a hoax.

     SEC. 6. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING THE OIL SPILL LIABILITY 
                   TRUST FUND.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) Congress should approve a bill to ensure that all forms 
     of bitumen or synthetic crude oil derived from bitumen are 
     subject to the per-barrel excise tax associated with the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund established by section 9509 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       (2) it is necessary for Congress to approve a bill 
     described in paragraph (1) because the Internal Revenue 
     Service determined in 2011 that certain forms of petroleum 
     are not subject to the per-barrel excise tax;
       (3) under article I, section 7, clause 1 of the 
     Constitution, the Senate may not originate a bill to raise 
     new revenue, and thus may not originate a bill to close the 
     legitimate and unintended loophole described in paragraph 
     (2);
       (4) if the Senate attempts to originate a bill described in 
     paragraph (1), it would provide a substantive basis for a 
     ``blue slip'' from the House of Representatives, which would 
     prevent advancement of the bill; and
       (5) the House of Representatives, consistent with article 
     I, section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution, should consider 
     and refer to the Senate a bill to ensure that all forms of 
     bitumen or synthetic crude oil derived from bitumen are 
     subject to the per-barrel excise tax associated with the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund established by section 9509 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

               DIVISION B--ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This division may be cited as the ``Energy Efficiency 
     Improvement Act of 2015''.

                       TITLE I--BETTER BUILDINGS

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Better Buildings Act of 
     2015''.

     SEC. 102. ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN FEDERAL AND OTHER BUILDINGS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of General Services.
       (2) Cost-effective energy efficiency measure.--The term 
     ``cost-effective energy efficiency measure'' means any 
     building product, material, equipment, or service, and the 
     installing, implementing, or operating thereof, that provides 
     energy savings in an amount that is not less than the cost of 
     such installing, implementing, or operating.
       (3) Cost-effective water efficiency measure.--The term 
     ``cost-effective water efficiency measure'' means any 
     building product, material, equipment, or service, and the 
     installing, implementing, or operating thereof, that provides 
     water savings in an amount that is not less than the cost of 
     such installing, implementing, or operating.
       (b) Model Provisions, Policies, and Best Practices.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Energy and after providing the public 
     with an opportunity for notice and comment, shall develop 
     model commercial leasing provisions and best practices in 
     accordance with this subsection.
       (2) Commercial leasing.--
       (A) In general.--The model commercial leasing provisions 
     developed under this subsection shall, at a minimum, align 
     the interests of building owners and tenants with regard to 
     investments in cost-effective energy efficiency measures and 
     cost-effective water efficiency measures to encourage 
     building owners and tenants to collaborate to invest in such 
     measures.
       (B) Use of model provisions.--The Administrator may use the 
     model commercial leasing provisions developed under this 
     subsection in any standard leasing document that designates a 
     Federal agency (or other client of the Administrator) as a 
     landlord or tenant.
       (C) Publication.--The Administrator shall periodically 
     publish the model commercial leasing provisions developed 
     under this subsection, along with explanatory materials, to 
     encourage building owners and tenants in the private sector 
     to use such provisions and materials.
       (3) Realty services.--The Administrator shall develop 
     policies and practices to implement cost-effective energy 
     efficiency measures and cost-effective water efficiency 
     measures for the realty services provided by the 
     Administrator to Federal agencies (or other clients of the 
     Administrator), including periodic training of appropriate 
     Federal employees and contractors on how to identify and 
     evaluate those measures.
       (4) State and local assistance.--The Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall make 
     available model commercial leasing provisions and best 
     practices developed under this subsection to State, county, 
     and municipal governments for use in managing owned and 
     leased building space in accordance with the goal of 
     encouraging investment in all cost-effective energy 
     efficiency measures and cost-effective water efficiency 
     measures.

     SEC. 103. SEPARATE SPACES WITH HIGH-PERFORMANCE ENERGY 
                   EFFICIENCY MEASURES.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle B of title IV of the Energy 
     Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17081 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 424. SEPARATE SPACES WITH HIGH-PERFORMANCE ENERGY 
                   EFFICIENCY MEASURES.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) High-performance energy efficiency measure.--The term 
     `high-performance energy efficiency measure' means a 
     technology, product, or practice that will result in 
     substantial operational cost savings by reducing energy 
     consumption and utility costs.
       ``(2) Separate spaces.--The term `separate spaces' means 
     areas within a commercial building that are leased or 
     otherwise occupied by a tenant or other occupant for a period 
     of time pursuant to the terms of a written agreement.
       ``(b) Study.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section,

[[Page 1462]]

     the Secretary, acting through the Assistant Secretary of 
     Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, shall complete a 
     study on the feasibility of--
       ``(A) significantly improving energy efficiency in 
     commercial buildings through the design and construction, by 
     owners and tenants, of separate spaces with high-performance 
     energy efficiency measures; and
       ``(B) encouraging owners and tenants to implement high-
     performance energy efficiency measures in separate spaces.
       ``(2) Scope.--The study shall, at a minimum, include--
       ``(A) descriptions of--
       ``(i) high-performance energy efficiency measures that 
     should be considered as part of the initial design and 
     construction of separate spaces;
       ``(ii) processes that owners, tenants, architects, and 
     engineers may replicate when designing and constructing 
     separate spaces with high-performance energy efficiency 
     measures;
       ``(iii) policies and best practices to achieve reductions 
     in energy intensities for lighting, plug loads, heating, 
     cooling, cooking, laundry, and other systems to satisfy the 
     needs of the commercial building tenant;
       ``(iv) return on investment and payback analyses of the 
     incremental cost and projected energy savings of the proposed 
     set of high-performance energy efficiency measures, including 
     consideration of available incentives;
       ``(v) models and simulation methods that predict the 
     quantity of energy used by separate spaces with high-
     performance energy efficiency measures and that compare that 
     predicted quantity to the quantity of energy used by separate 
     spaces without high-performance energy efficiency measures 
     but that otherwise comply with applicable building code 
     requirements;
       ``(vi) measurement and verification platforms demonstrating 
     actual energy use of high-performance energy efficiency 
     measures installed in separate spaces, and whether such 
     measures generate the savings intended in the initial design 
     and construction of the separate spaces;
       ``(vii) best practices that encourage an integrated 
     approach to designing and constructing separate spaces to 
     perform at optimum energy efficiency in conjunction with the 
     central systems of a commercial building; and
       ``(viii) any impact on employment resulting from the design 
     and construction of separate spaces with high-performance 
     energy efficiency measures; and
       ``(B) case studies reporting economic and energy savings 
     returns in the design and construction of separate spaces 
     with high-performance energy efficiency measures.
       ``(3) Public participation.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary 
     shall publish a notice in the Federal Register requesting 
     public comments regarding effective methods, measures, and 
     practices for the design and construction of separate spaces 
     with high-performance energy efficiency measures.
       ``(4) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish the study 
     on the website of the Department of Energy.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 423 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 424. Separate spaces with high-performance energy efficiency 
              measures.''.

     SEC. 104. TENANT STAR PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle B of title IV of the Energy 
     Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17081 et 
     seq.) (as amended by section 103) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

     ``SEC. 425. TENANT STAR PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) High-performance energy efficiency measure.--The term 
     `high-performance energy efficiency measure' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 424.
       ``(2) Separate spaces.--The term `separate spaces' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 424.
       ``(b) Tenant Star.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Energy, shall develop a voluntary program within the Energy 
     Star program established by section 324A of the Energy Policy 
     and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6294a), which may be known as 
     `Tenant Star', to promote energy efficiency in separate 
     spaces leased by tenants or otherwise occupied within 
     commercial buildings.
       ``(c) Expanding Survey Data.--The Secretary of Energy, 
     acting through the Administrator of the Energy Information 
     Administration, shall--
       ``(1) collect, through each Commercial Buildings Energy 
     Consumption Survey of the Energy Information Administration 
     that is conducted after the date of enactment of this 
     section, data on--
       ``(A) categories of building occupancy that are known to 
     consume significant quantities of energy, such as occupancy 
     by data centers, trading floors, and restaurants; and
       ``(B) other aspects of the property, building operation, or 
     building occupancy determined by the Administrator of the 
     Energy Information Administration, in consultation with the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to be 
     relevant in lowering energy consumption;
       ``(2) with respect to the first Commercial Buildings Energy 
     Consumption Survey conducted after the date of enactment of 
     this section, to the extent full compliance with the 
     requirements of paragraph (1) is not feasible, conduct 
     activities to develop the capability to collect such data and 
     begin to collect such data; and
       ``(3) make data collected under paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     available to the public in aggregated form and provide such 
     data, and any associated results, to the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency for use in accordance with 
     subsection (d).
       ``(d)  Recognition of Owners and Tenants.--
       ``(1) Occupancy-based recognition.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date on which sufficient data is received pursuant 
     to subsection (c), the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall, following an opportunity for public 
     notice and comment--
       ``(A) in a manner similar to the Energy Star rating system 
     for commercial buildings, develop policies and procedures to 
     recognize tenants in commercial buildings that voluntarily 
     achieve high levels of energy efficiency in separate spaces;
       ``(B) establish building occupancy categories eligible for 
     Tenant Star recognition based on the data collected under 
     subsection (c) and any other appropriate data sources; and
       ``(C) consider other forms of recognition for commercial 
     building tenants or other occupants that lower energy 
     consumption in separate spaces.
       ``(2) Design- and construction-based recognition.--After 
     the study required by section 424(b) is completed, the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in 
     consultation with the Secretary and following an opportunity 
     for public notice and comment, may develop a voluntary 
     program to recognize commercial building owners and tenants 
     that use high-performance energy efficiency measures in the 
     design and construction of separate spaces.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 424 
     (as added by section 103(b)) the following new item:

``Sec. 425. Tenant Star program.''.

                  TITLE II--GRID-ENABLED WATER HEATERS

     SEC. 201. GRID-ENABLED WATER HEATERS.

       Part B of title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation 
     Act is amended--
       (1) in section 325(e) (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)), by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(6) Additional standards for grid-enabled water 
     heaters.--
       ``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       ``(i) Activation lock.--The term `activation lock' means a 
     control mechanism (either a physical device directly on the 
     water heater or a control system integrated into the water 
     heater) that is locked by default and contains a physical, 
     software, or digital communication that must be activated 
     with an activation key to enable the product to operate at 
     its designed specifications and capabilities and without 
     which activation the product will provide not greater than 50 
     percent of the rated first hour delivery of hot water 
     certified by the manufacturer.
       ``(ii) Grid-enabled water heater.--The term `grid-enabled 
     water heater' means an electric resistance water heater 
     that--

       ``(I) has a rated storage tank volume of more than 75 
     gallons;
       ``(II) is manufactured on or after April 16, 2015;
       ``(III) has--

       ``(aa) an energy factor of not less than 1.061 minus the 
     product obtained by multiplying--
       ``(AA) the rated storage volume of the tank, expressed in 
     gallons; and
       ``(BB) 0.00168; or
       ``(bb) an equivalent alternative standard prescribed by the 
     Secretary and developed pursuant to paragraph (5)(E);

       ``(IV) is equipped at the point of manufacture with an 
     activation lock; and
       ``(V) bears a permanent label applied by the manufacturer 
     that--

       ``(aa) is made of material not adversely affected by water;
       ``(bb) is attached by means of non-water-soluble adhesive; 
     and
       ``(cc) advises purchasers and end-users of the intended and 
     appropriate use of the product with the following notice 
     printed in 16.5 point Arial Narrow Bold font:

     ```IMPORTANT INFORMATION: This water heater is intended only 
     for use as part of an electric thermal storage or demand 
     response program. It will not provide adequate hot water 
     unless enrolled in such a program and activated by your 
     utility company or another program operator. Confirm the 
     availability of a program in your local area before 
     purchasing or installing this product.'.
       ``(B) Requirement.--The manufacturer or private labeler 
     shall provide the activation key for a grid-enabled water 
     heater only to a utility or other company that operates an 
     electric thermal storage or demand response

[[Page 1463]]

     program that uses such a grid-enabled water heater.
       ``(C) Reports.--
       ``(i) Manufacturers.--The Secretary shall require each 
     manufacturer of grid-enabled water heaters to report to the 
     Secretary annually the quantity of grid-enabled water heaters 
     that the manufacturer ships each year.
       ``(ii) Operators.--The Secretary shall require utilities 
     and other demand response and thermal storage program 
     operators to report annually the quantity of grid-enabled 
     water heaters activated for their programs using forms of the 
     Energy Information Agency or using such other mechanism that 
     the Secretary determines appropriate after an opportunity for 
     notice and comment.
       ``(iii) Confidentiality requirements.--The Secretary shall 
     treat shipment data reported by manufacturers as confidential 
     business information.
       ``(D) Publication of information.--
       ``(i) In general.--In 2017 and 2019, the Secretary shall 
     publish an analysis of the data collected under subparagraph 
     (C) to assess the extent to which shipped products are put 
     into use in demand response and thermal storage programs.
       ``(ii) Prevention of product diversion.--If the Secretary 
     determines that sales of grid-enabled water heaters exceed by 
     15 percent or greater the quantity of such products activated 
     for use in demand response and thermal storage programs 
     annually, the Secretary shall, after opportunity for notice 
     and comment, establish procedures to prevent product 
     diversion for non-program purposes.
       ``(E) Compliance.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subparagraphs (A) through (D) shall 
     remain in effect until the Secretary determines under this 
     section that--

       ``(I) grid-enabled water heaters do not require a separate 
     efficiency requirement; or
       ``(II) sales of grid-enabled water heaters exceed by 15 
     percent or greater the quantity of such products activated 
     for use in demand response and thermal storage programs 
     annually and procedures to prevent product diversion for non-
     program purposes would not be adequate to prevent such 
     product diversion.

       ``(ii) Effective date.--If the Secretary exercises the 
     authority described in clause (i) or amends the efficiency 
     requirement for grid-enabled water heaters, that action will 
     take effect on the date described in subsection 
     (m)(4)(A)(ii).
       ``(iii) Consideration.--In carrying out this section with 
     respect to electric water heaters, the Secretary shall 
     consider the impact on thermal storage and demand response 
     programs, including any impact on energy savings, electric 
     bills, peak load reduction, electric reliability, integration 
     of renewable resources, and the environment.
       ``(iv) Requirements.--In carrying out this paragraph, the 
     Secretary shall require that grid-enabled water heaters be 
     equipped with communication capability to enable the grid-
     enabled water heaters to participate in ancillary services 
     programs if the Secretary determines that the technology is 
     available, practical, and cost-effective.'';
       (2) in section 332(a) (42 U.S.C. 6302(a))--
       (A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in the first paragraph (6), by striking the period at 
     the end and inserting a semicolon;
       (C) by redesignating the second paragraph (6) as paragraph 
     (7);
       (D) in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (7) (as so 
     redesignated), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) for any person--
       ``(A) to activate an activation lock for a grid-enabled 
     water heater with knowledge that such water heater is not 
     used as part of an electric thermal storage or demand 
     response program;
       ``(B) to distribute an activation key for a grid-enabled 
     water heater with knowledge that such activation key will be 
     used to activate a grid-enabled water heater that is not used 
     as part of an electric thermal storage or demand response 
     program;
       ``(C) to otherwise enable a grid-enabled water heater to 
     operate at its designed specification and capabilities with 
     knowledge that such water heater is not used as part of an 
     electric thermal storage or demand response program; or
       ``(D) to knowingly remove or render illegible the label of 
     a grid-enabled water heater described in section 
     325(e)(6)(A)(ii)(V).'';
       (3) in section 333(a) (42 U.S.C. 6303(a))--
       (A) by striking ``section 332(a)(5)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (5), (6), (7), or (8) of section 332(a)''; and
       (B) by striking ``paragraph (1), (2), or (5) of section 
     332(a)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1), (2), (5), (6), (7), 
     or (8) of section 332(a)''; and
       (4) in section 334 (42 U.S.C. 6304)--
       (A) by striking ``section 332(a)(5)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (5), (6), (7), or (8) of section 332(a)''; and
       (B) by striking ``section 332(a)(6)'' and inserting 
     ``section 332(a)(7)''.

         TITLE III--ENERGY INFORMATION FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

     SEC. 301. ENERGY INFORMATION FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS.

       (a) Requirement of Benchmarking and Disclosure for Leasing 
     Buildings Without Energy Star Labels.--Section 435(b)(2) of 
     the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 
     17091(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (1)''; and
       (2) by striking ``signing the contract,'' and all that 
     follows through the period at the end and inserting the 
     following:

     ``signing the contract, the following requirements are met:
       ``(A) The space is renovated for all energy efficiency and 
     conservation improvements that would be cost effective over 
     the life of the lease, including improvements in lighting, 
     windows, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 
     systems.
       ``(B)(i) Subject to clause (ii), the space is benchmarked 
     under a nationally recognized, online, free benchmarking 
     program, with public disclosure, unless the space is a space 
     for which owners cannot access whole building utility 
     consumption data, including spaces--
       ``(I) that are located in States with privacy laws that 
     provide that utilities shall not provide such aggregated 
     information to multitenant building owners; and
       ``(II) for which tenants do not provide energy consumption 
     information to the commercial building owner in response to a 
     request from the building owner.
       ``(ii) A Federal agency that is a tenant of the space shall 
     provide to the building owner, or authorize the owner to 
     obtain from the utility, the energy consumption information 
     of the space for the benchmarking and disclosure required by 
     this subparagraph.''.
       (b) Study.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy, in 
     collaboration with the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, shall complete a study--
       (A) on the impact of--
       (i) State and local performance benchmarking and disclosure 
     policies, and any associated building efficiency policies, 
     for commercial and multifamily buildings; and
       (ii) programs and systems in which utilities provide 
     aggregated information regarding whole building energy 
     consumption and usage information to owners of multitenant 
     commercial, residential, and mixed-use buildings;
       (B) that identifies best practice policy approaches studied 
     under subparagraph (A) that have resulted in the greatest 
     improvements in building energy efficiency; and
       (C) that considers--
       (i) compliance rates and the benefits and costs of the 
     policies and programs on building owners, utilities, tenants, 
     and other parties;
       (ii) utility practices, programs, and systems that provide 
     aggregated energy consumption information to multitenant 
     building owners, and the impact of public utility commissions 
     and State privacy laws on those practices, programs, and 
     systems;
       (iii) exceptions to compliance in existing laws where 
     building owners are not able to gather or access whole 
     building energy information from tenants or utilities;
       (iv) the treatment of buildings with--

       (I) multiple uses;
       (II) uses for which baseline information is not available; 
     and
       (III) uses that require high levels of energy intensities, 
     such as data centers, trading floors, and televisions 
     studios;

       (v) implementation practices, including disclosure methods 
     and phase-in of compliance;
       (vi) the safety and security of benchmarking tools offered 
     by government agencies, and the resiliency of those tools 
     against cyber attacks; and
       (vii) international experiences with regard to building 
     benchmarking and disclosure laws and data aggregation for 
     multitenant buildings.
       (2) Submission to congress.--At the conclusion of the 
     study, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce of the House of Representatives and Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report on the 
     results of the study.
       (c) Creation and Maintenance of Database.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and following opportunity for public 
     notice and comment, the Secretary of Energy, in coordination 
     with other relevant agencies, shall maintain, and if 
     necessary create, a database for the purpose of storing and 
     making available public energy-related information on 
     commercial and multifamily buildings, including--
       (A) data provided under Federal, State, local, and other 
     laws or programs regarding building benchmarking and energy 
     information disclosure;
       (B) information on buildings that have disclosed energy 
     ratings and certifications; and
       (C) energy-related information on buildings provided 
     voluntarily by the owners of the buildings, only in an 
     anonymous form unless the owner provides otherwise.
       (2) Complementary programs.--The database maintained 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) shall complement and not duplicate 
     the

[[Page 1464]]

     functions of the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy 
     Star Portfolio Manager tool.
       (d) Input From Stakeholders.--The Secretary of Energy shall 
     seek input from stakeholders to maximize the effectiveness of 
     the actions taken under this section.
       (e) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the 
     Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce of the House of Representatives and Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report on the 
     progress made in complying with this section.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CORNYN. 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 am very pleased that we are at this 
point after three solid weeks of debate. The Presiding Officer 
introduced this bill on January 8, 2015, and it is now January 29. 
After weeks of good, solid debate, we have officially passed our 
bipartisan bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  This legislation was not only important to pass so we could add more 
jobs, have energy security, and good trade relationships with our 
neighbor in Canada, but also we were able to return to what we call 
regular order in the Chamber. The Senate has been given the title of 
the world's most deliberative body. I think it is fair to say that in 
recent years we have not really worn that title very well. We have not 
been able to engage in the deliberation and debate that I think Members 
of the Senate and the public at large expect.
  What we have seen over these past few weeks was a return to regular 
order where a Member is free to call up an amendment, have it debated, 
and have it fall or succeed based on a process that has been long 
established in this Chamber. That is a good thing to see.
  Boy, did we have our share of ideas. By last count, I believe there 
were close to 250 amendments that Members had offered from both sides 
of the aisle. That is a lot of ideas. There was a lot of pent-up 
demand, if you will, on energy-related legislation.
  All in all, we voted on just over 40 amendments. I believe the final 
count was 41 amendments. We made a lot out of the statement that we 
have surpassed--with just this one bill in 1 month--all of the recorded 
votes that we had throughout 2014. In fact, we surpassed it with nearly 
three times more votes than we had in all of 2014.
  Senator Cantwell and I have been here in the well during this last 
vote, and we have received thanks from Members who said: Thank you for 
getting us to this point. We appreciate that. Good job.
  But I think we all recognize there were some points of very clear 
tension around here, and that is just part of the process. Fortunately, 
cooler heads prevailed, and we were able to come back together. We were 
able to get the process moving forward and keep this bipartisan 
coalition in tact.
  I will just point out to the Members that with the help of the 
ranking member on the energy committee--with the exception of one 
night--we did it all during daylight hours. Not to get real personal 
around here, but we have gotten into a habit in recent years of not 
taking up votes until just about the dinnertime hour. I don't know 
about the rest of you, but when I call the family in for dinner, we 
kind of expect it is dinnertime.
  I am pleased that we were able to work with everyone's schedule and 
move through amendments in a fashion that was reasonable and 
structured. Yesterday was not exactly convenient with the numbers that 
we processed, but we did it. So I appreciate the great level of 
cooperation we have had. It is not easy to start out a new Congress in 
a new majority as the manager of the first bill brought to the floor, 
but I had a lot of phenomenal help.
  I wish to take a brief moment to thank those who have provided 
counsel and assistance to us. This is kind of like the Academy Awards 
for the first bill coming through the Senate.
  I would like to recognize my staff on the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee who have done a fabulous job with every part of 
this process: My staff director, Karen Billups, Pat McCormick, Kellie 
Donnelly, Colin Hayes, Lucy Murfitt, Tristan Abbey, Kate Williams, 
Robert Dillon, Chelsea Thompson, Chuck Kleeschulte, Cathy Cahill, Chris 
Kearney, Mike Pawlowski, Chester Carson, Mike Tadeo, Isaac Edwards, 
Jason Huffnagle, and Brian Hughes, on the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee and on my personal staff as well. Our interns on the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee, Samin Peirovi and Will Treadwell, also 
did a great job assisting my staff, including putting together binders, 
making sure we had the current amendments and the modifications that 
were in front of them. So they did a great job as well.
  I also want to thank the members of the natural resources team in the 
Senate Office of the Legislative Counsel. These folks are kind of the 
unsung heroes. These are the ones who helped prepare the more than 240 
amendments that were offered to this bill. We never see these folks, 
but they are churning out amendments as quickly as we can move ideas to 
them. Gary Endicott, Heather Burnham, Christina Jacquet, Michelle 
Johnson-Weider, Deanna Edwards, and Heather Lowell.
  It is absolutely not possible to do what we did in moving this 
measure through--or any measure--without recognizing the work our floor 
staff does for us. I wish to thank Laura Dove and the entire cloakroom 
staff, including Robert Duncan and Chris Tuck. The Parliamentarians and 
the clerks really worked hard.
  Also I wish to recognize on the Democratic side of the aisle Gary 
and--everybody has just done a phenomenal job and we so appreciate it.
  I truly must say the opportunity to start with this first bill and to 
be working with my ranking member, Maria Cantwell, on this effort, 
knowing that she was just getting her staff in line as we moved to this 
bill--the staff director on the ranking side I don't even think had 
officially been brought on--and it was full on. They have done 
extraordinary work, working with us.
  I want to recognize Angela Becker-Dippmann and Sam Fowler and all the 
rest of the team because they were extraordinary.
  I also want to recognize Barbara Boxer and her staff as well. There 
was so much that needed to be coordinated.
  I thank my ranking member for her patience, for her partnership, and 
for really the very good-faith efforts she has made as we have worked 
to get this bill to a conclusion, and offer a continued gesture of 
wanting to work together with her. I want her to know that I will be 
with her this weekend rooting for the Seahawks at the Super Bowl. So 
yet one more area of her operation, but a grand thanks to my ranking 
member and my partner on this bill.
  With that, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor to Senator 
Cantwell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Capito). The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I wish to speak also for a few minutes 
about what an incredible process this has been. As the Senator from 
Alaska stated, this was all a very unique experience, coming to a new 
Congress and being the very first bill up and everybody moving to that 
discussion. So I thank the Senator from Alaska.
  Let's just say both sides of the aisle tested people on amendments 
and the amendment process, but I would say it was the trust we could 
negotiate that got us through a couple of rough spots and the fact that 
I could count on the Senator from Alaska for negotiating and trusting 
what she had to say about how we could move forward in getting those 
votes and getting things done. So I thank her for that and I thank her 
for her leadership. I certainly can't wait to work with her on broader 
energy policy legislation, because while I think people probably still 
look at us as representing the States of Washington and Alaska, what 
people may not realize is how intertwined Alaska's and Washington's 
economies are. So if there is anybody who can find commonality on 
energy policy, even given the difference

[[Page 1465]]

of our States and the differences on each side of the aisle, I think 
the Senator from Alaska and I will have a chance to do that. I think 
this process we just went through bodes well for us trying to say to 
both sides of our aisles that there are things we can put on the table 
and discuss and a process we can go through, and that process can work. 
So I thank her for that.
  I look forward to the many initiatives--in fact, we just had a 
hearing this morning. I said, with two women heading up this leadership 
on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and two women staff 
directors, multitasking is front and center in the U.S. Senate. I don't 
think a lot of people would see either of us out in the halls making 
declarations. I think we just hustled our way to the floor to try to 
get things done. I hope that is what we can do as we move forward 
through this process.
  I too wish to thank certainly Karen Billups on the majority side 
staff. I hadn't had a chance to work with her yet in this capacity and 
I certainly appreciated her steady hand on that. I want to thank on our 
side our staff director, Angela Becker-Dippmann. The very first day--
like sometime in mid-January, I think--to come back to the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee and then have the first bill and have it 
right in front of us and not be totally staffed up, I certainly 
appreciate her leadership and her dedication to energy policy. Also, I 
thank Sam Fowler and David Brooks and Jared Leopold on my staff for 
their hard work on this.
  I too have a list of staff that I wish to read quickly: Will 
Dempster, Clayton Allen, Renae Black, Elizabeth Weiner, Tara 
Billingsley, David Gillers, Al Stayman, Dan Adamson, Elizabeth 
Craddock, Nick Sutter, Aisha Johnson, Caroline Bruckner, Bryan Petit, 
Faye Matthews, and Carl Seip. There are also a couple of other people 
from my staff, Nicole Teutschel and Travis Lumpkin who also helped.
  I really want to thank the floor staff. This is the first time I have 
managed a bill on the floor, so thanks to Gary Myrick and Tim Mitchell 
and Tricia Engle; and Reema in Senator Durbin's office, and Emma, 
thanks so much for helping us through a process that, as my colleague 
said, for the most part didn't take us way late into the night and we 
got a lot of things accomplished when we could during the day.
  Needless to say, I am not as excited about the passage of this 
legislation as my colleague on the other side of the aisle, but we did 
find out some things during this process. We found out that the 
majority of the Senate doesn't think that climate change is a hoax. We 
couldn't quite agree on whether it is significantly caused by man, or 
just caused by man in some areas, but that was a step. We saw huge 
enthusiasm for energy efficiency. We saw that people were willing to 
accept voice votes or receive 95 votes on things that were energy 
efficiency items, so I think that bodes well for the Senator from 
Alaska and me thinking about more energy efficiency policy.
  Obviously, I remain concerned about the holes in the legislation, 
everything from the things we didn't get to pass--the trust fund--and 
the fact that we still need to figure out oilspill cleanup processes on 
something like tar sands.
  I appreciate the Senator from Alaska mentioning some of these issues 
as areas for continued work because we will definitely take her up on 
that process. And, certainly, we want to try to take up some of the 
issues our colleagues, such as Senator Peters, brought up and work on 
them moving forward. I hope this process, as it relates to this 
legislation--I hope our colleagues--coming from the State of Washington 
where we have so many coal trains and oil trains coming through our 
area, I wish the pipeline would be some remedy for us, but it is not. 
Even according to railroad statistics and other statistics, a pipeline 
is not going to make one dent in the number of oil trains coming to the 
Pacific Northwest. So the fact that the Commandant of the Coast Guard 
says we don't have a solution for cleaning up tar sands is something we 
want to work on and push forward on.
  I hope we can get our colleagues around the fact that the number of 
crude oil incidents has been growing since 2009. It used to be we were 
having a decline and now, according to the Associated Press, we are 
seeing an increase; at least 73 different accidents in 2014, an 87-
percent increase over 2009.
  We are seeing these new sources being developed and new ways of 
transporting them, and huge acceleration, and I hope Congress will take 
a deep breath and get to these issues as it relates to safety and 
security outlined and into law. I hope we will have a chance to do 
that.
  I still hope the President of the United States vetoes this 
legislation because, frankly, I want him to be able to negotiate. I 
want him to be able to negotiate with this company the terms and 
agreements by which this pipeline is going to be built. I want him to 
protect the American economy, I want him to protect the American 
farmers, and I want him to protect the American environment.
  Again, I say to my colleague from Alaska that if she and I can get 
through these few weeks on a bill that a lot of our colleagues were 
predetermined on, but have so many different amendment discussions, 
then, yes, maybe it bodes well for a bigger bipartisan energy bill. I 
will certainly look forward to working with her on that.
  I thank her for her leadership during a time period where she had 
many things on her plate, and this was just one of them. I hope we can 
get some of the issues we care about on our side of the aisle that I 
think really do lead to job growth, such as the energy tax credits, a 
focus on energy efficiency, and a focus of diversification also on the 
energy agenda.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from 
Washington for her comments. I think it is clear that we have a great 
deal of work in front of us, but I think we also have a better idea of 
where some of that common ground may be as a result of the discussions 
this past month. So I am looking forward to advancing an energy 
initiative through the committee and, hopefully, through the full 
process, that will speak to the attributes of affordability, abundance, 
a clean energy supply, diverse and secure. We have a lot of work to do.
  In the comments I made, I thanked a lot of people, but I think it is 
important to recognize that the Senator from Washington and I would not 
have been able to do the job we did--managing this bill on the floor, 
working with other Members, working with staff on the floor and our 
respective staffs--if there had not been a very clear and a conscious 
decision that management of what was going to happen on the Senate 
floor was going to be a little bit different, that there would be an 
opportunity for debate, and some have described free-wheeling debate. 
What is free-wheeling debate? I think we have just kind of defined it 
here with the Keystone XL Pipeline. I don't know whether that is going 
to be the course for everything going forward, but this was a pledge 
that the majority leader Senator McConnell made when he became the 
majority leader. I think we have seen that play out in a process that 
has been respectful, where at the end of the discussion we can still 
agree to disagree on the bill itself, but the process that has gotten 
us through final passage has been one that, again, was respectful and 
did allow for full and civil discourse. I think that is what the Senate 
should be all about and I am proud to have been a part of it.
  With that, I know my good friend from North Dakota, the prime sponsor 
of this bill, is waiting to speak and I congratulate him for a 
phenomenal job. He and his staff--I should have mentioned his staff. 
Ryan and the others who have been working behind the Senator from North 
Dakota have been doing a great job. Senator Hoeven has been articulate, 
persistent, and really has done a phenomenal job moving this through 
the process.
  I congratulate the Senator from North Dakota, and I yield to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Alaska

[[Page 1466]]

and the Senator from Washington as the bill managers. I think they have 
done an exceptional job. I know that is not just my opinion, but it is 
the opinion on both sides of the aisle. It is not just that they were 
able to do the work on this bill, but actually to facilitate the debate 
that really enabled us to move through an open amendment process and a 
return to regular order. It is not easy to do. Because, obviously, we 
had people who had ideas on a whole variety of issues, and, clearly, we 
have strong support for legislation, but there are those who oppose 
legislation as well. So to find a way to keep that amendment process 
going and with more than 40 amendments and, of course, to get to a 
final vote and pass the legislation is a real testament to both of the 
bill managers.
  I thank all of the Members of this body who supported the 
legislation. A bipartisan vote getting more than 60 votes is no small 
achievement for any piece of legislation. Of course this bill already 
passed the House.
  We are already conferring now with the House on whether we will need 
to go to conference or hopefully get their concurrence, but obviously 
our objective is to put it on the President's desk as soon as possible. 
This is an important step in building the kind of energy plan this 
country needs. We can't get to energy independence or energy security 
without building the infrastructure we need to move that energy from 
where it is produced to where it is consumed.
  We have to remember that, yes, this is about working with our closest 
friend and ally, Canada. Some of the oil in the pipeline will be moved 
from oil production in Canada, but it is also about moving our domestic 
oil in this country from States such as mine and from the State of 
Montana and moving that oil as safely and as efficiently and 
effectively as possible and moving it in a way that actually produces 
less emissions than if we try to move all that oil on trains, which is 
what is being done now.
  Moved on trains, we are talking 1,400 railcars a day instead of 
moving it through a pipeline. It is not only a safety issue, it is not 
only a cost issue, it is not only an efficiency issue, it is about 
producing less emissions and making sure we don't create congestion on 
our railroads to move all of the other goods we want to move. This is 
about building the kind of infrastructure plan for energy and other 
things we want for this country. I hope the President now will join 
with us. Clearly we are going to move this to his desk, and I hope he 
will work with us. That is what the American people want.
  If we look at this legislation, if we look at this Keystone XL 
Pipeline project, it is about energy. It is about jobs. It is about 
helping to grow our economy. It is about working to achieve national 
security in terms of energy security. It is about building the right 
kind of energy plan for the future of our country.
  Here is where we are. This process was started over 6 years ago. Not 
only has this Congress, both the House and the Senate, now advanced 
this bill in a bipartisan way with strong bipartisan majorities in both 
Chambers, but every State on the route, all six States on the route 
have approved this project as well. We have the Congress that has 
approved it on a bipartisan basis. We have all six States that are 
included on the route. They have approved it through their processes. 
We have the supreme court in the State of Nebraska which has 
adjudicated, legislated in that State. That has been resolved.
  Our closest friend and ally, Canada, wants us to work with them on 
energy security for North American energy security, but most important 
of all the American people want this done. In poll after poll, the 
American people overwhelmingly support this project. Over the last 3 
years, the support has ranged from 65 percent to 75 percent. Even in 
the most recent poll that came out this month, 3 to 1, 65 percent to 22 
percent, the people want the President to sign this bill. Again, I hope 
the President will join with us and work with us and support this 
legislation as we work with our leader on the energy committee and with 
our ranking member.
  We don't agree on everything, obviously, but there are things we can 
work on together. We are working to build the right kind of energy plan 
for this country to get energy security. There will be more work to do, 
but I hope the President will join us in a bipartisan way and sign this 
legislation.
  Again, my thanks to the bill managers, to the Members of this body 
who supported the legislation. I appreciate it very much.
  I know the good Senator from Texas has a few words, but I will first 
yield the floor back to the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, let me say to the Senator from Alaska 
and the Senator from North Dakota, congratulations, and tell them how 
much I admire and appreciate their tenacity. The 114th Congress had a 
lot to prove. Mainly what we had to prove is we weren't like the 113th 
Congress that was completely dysfunctional, particularly the Senate.
  I have to say to our good friend, the Presiding Officer, it wasn't 
the House. It was the Senate that was dysfunctional. The House passed a 
lot of legislation that came to die in the Senate because the then-
majority leader made the decision he wasn't going to move it. It is a 
new day in the Senate. While I am sure the bill managers would tell us 
it wasn't easy, we actually have an accomplishment thanks to the 
leadership of the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from North 
Dakota, and thanks to an awful lot of people. That is progress.
  I hope the first efforts we have made by being able to pass 
legislation--hopefully the House will concur, the Senate, and the 
President--we will have done our job. What the President decides to do 
is about him doing his job, but we can't fail to do our jobs just 
because he refuses to do his job.
  In fact, when he has announced for seven different pieces of 
legislation he is going to veto them, the easiest thing for us to do 
would be to curl up in a fetal position and say we give up, we are not 
even going try. We haven't done that. Again, I think this is a great 
accomplishment.
  I would say to my friends, the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from 
North Dakota, and others who have gotten us here today, well done.


                     President Obama's 2016 Budget

  Madam President, I would like to turn to another topic. That seems as 
though it is a metaphor for life in the Senate. We finished one 
important piece of legislation, and we turn the page to the next topic. 
I would like to talk about the budget.
  Next Monday the President is expected to release his 2016 budget. 
Budgets are a time when you talk about and deal with your priorities. 
This budget will reflect the President's priorities, I am sure. I hope 
one of those priorities is to put the country on a more sustainable 
path. But one of the things I am very glad about is that for the first 
time the President, in a long time, is actually going to propose his 
budget on time. The President missed so many previous deadlines over 
the years that people hardly ever notice anymore--but that is good, the 
President releasing his budget on time.
  While I am happy to see he will finally meet his statutory deadline 
in submitting his annual budget, what I am interested in seeing is what 
he has in the budget, to see if he is willing to meet the challenges of 
our day by drafting a serious budget, including realistic priorities. 
That also means making tough decisions, but that is where budgets are 
so helpful.
  I am an optimistic person, but if the President's State of the Union 
rhetoric is any indication as to what we will see next week, I am 
concerned the budget will be loaded with more taxes, more spending, and 
more debt. That certainly isn't a sustainable path forward for the 
country, but last year the President's 2015 budget would have raised 
taxes by more than $1 trillion and increased our national debt by 
trillions more and his budget would have never balanced.
  I can't think of anything worse during a time of slow economic growth

[[Page 1467]]

than layering on $1 trillion of additional taxes on the people we are 
depending upon to create jobs and make the investment to get the 
economy growing again and get America back to work.
  Here is another sort of sleight of hand the President has been using 
lately. He has been talking a little bit about deficits. Deficits, as 
we all know, is the difference between the money that comes in and the 
money that is paid out on an annual basis. The debt is a different 
topic. That is the long-term debt. Actually, it is the accumulated 
deficits which represent the biggest challenge.
  The President likes to say that, well, the deficit has come down--
which is true--but primarily the reason for that is because of a huge 
tax increase he embraced a couple of years ago along with the sequester 
or discretionary spending caps that were in the Budget Control Act of 
2011. The combination of higher taxes the President sought and got and 
the spending restraint that essentially was championed on this side of 
the aisle resulted in lower annual deficits.
  But the fact is we are still spending money we don't have. As the 
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee likes to say, we are 
still overspending. We are still spending money we don't have as long 
as we have any deficit. But deficits will not hold up for long as a 
reliable red herring. Factors contributing to lower deficits will soon 
change. Spending on ObamaCare and other broken entitlements will only 
ramp up from here. On the President's current trajectory, it is only a 
matter of time before those annual deficits start building again and 
adding even more to our national debt.
  What the President is hoping is that they will be distracted by his 
happy talk about lower annual defenses, and we will not pay attention 
to the looming elephant in the room, which is our national debt which 
has grown more than $7 trillion in the 6 years he has been in office. 
More than $1 trillion a year. The national debt is $18 trillion and 
counting. It is set to explode over the long term.
  I realize most of us can't possibly conceive of what $18 trillion is, 
but if we consider the fact we have 320 million people in America and 
we have an $18.1 trillion national debt, each one of us--from the 
oldest American, most senior American, to the baby who was just born--
owes $56,500 in debt.
  Earlier this week the Congressional Budget Office released its annual 
Budget and Economic Outlook which provides an updated economic forecast 
for the current fiscal year and for 10 subsequent years. According to 
the Congressional Budget Office, under current law the national debt is 
expected to grow more than $9 trillion in the next 10 years. The 
President added $7 trillion during the 6 years he has been in office. 
If we don't do something quickly, we are on a trajectory to add $9 
trillion more over the next 10 years.
  The Congressional Budget Office's report also shows that in 5 years 
the Federal Government will spend more than $500 billion in interest on 
the debt alone and $827 billion in 10 years.
  Here is the ticking timebomb if you think about it. Because of slow 
economic growth globally, a lot of the Federal Reserve Banks 
essentially for the United States and other countries have done the 
best they can to keep interest rates low. In America they are next to 
zero. All we need to do is look at the return on our savings accounts 
to see what a meager interest rate is being offered by the bank or 
credit union on our savings. That is because of Federal Reserve policy. 
That is true of central banks throughout the world. But inevitably over 
time those interest rates are unsustainable, so they are going to start 
ticking back up. When they go from roughly zero to 4 percent or 5 
percent, the amount of money we will have to pay on the current $18.1 
trillion in debt and on the additional debt that will be added over the 
next 10 years--unless we get hold of this problem--is going to crowd 
out our ability to do everything from protecting the most vulnerable in 
our society through our safety net programs to jeopardizing our 
national defense which is something we can't outsource to somebody 
else. This is something only the Federal Government can do.
  We had an office holder in Texas a few years ago who talked about the 
Yellow Pages test. It always resonated with me. She used to say 
government should not be doing things that we can find in the Yellow 
Pages because that means the private sector is doing it. But the one 
thing you won't find in the Yellow Pages is national security, and so 
our ability to protect our way of life and our future is going to be 
jeopardized by this debt. That is why Admiral Mullen--former Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a few years ago--shocked all of us when he 
was asked ``What is the single largest threat to our national 
security?'' and he said ``The debt.'' That got a lot of us going to the 
books trying to figure out what he was talking about, and what he was 
talking about is what I have been referring to here.
  Let me repeat that second part again. In 2025 we will be spending 
$827 billion in interest on our debt alone. We won't be paying down the 
principal; we will just be paying interest on the debt by 2025--$827 
billion. That would be the third largest line item in the Federal 
budget, just behind Medicare and Social Security.
  The Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Doug Elmendorf, has 
been testifying on findings from this report. On Tuesday, before the 
House Budget Committee, Dr. Elmendorf stated that ``such large and 
growing federal debt would have serious negative consequences.'' He is 
exactly right. When we have to basically take up available credit to 
finance our national debt, that leaves less credit available to the 
private sector to make investments that will actually create jobs. It 
acts like a wet blanket on economic growth. Nothing but fiscal 
uncertainty and crisis will come from our debt continuing to spiral out 
of control.
  The bottom line is this: Under President Obama the Federal Government 
has spent the past several years raising taxes. It has increased 
regulations. It is driving our national debt to unprecedented levels, 
and we have a growth rate which reflects that.
  I know the President was celebrating. He was almost spiking the 
football at the State of the Union, saying: Well, we had a 5-percent 
spurt of growth in the gross domestic product last quarter.
  Well, that is great, but all of the projections show that for the 
next year, because of all of the factors I have mentioned, growth is 
going to continue to bounce along the bottom at a rate of roughly 2 to 
2.2 percent. That is not enough growth to get the economy moving again 
to create the jobs to create the prosperity and lift our economy needs 
to get Americans back to work.
  In my opinion, the President's policies over the last year have 
actually made it more difficult for businesses to hire workers and for 
families to plan for the future. I would argue that his policies have 
introduced enormous uncertainty into our health care system, our tax 
system, and our financial system.
  What our country needs now is the same thing which we have needed all 
along but which we haven't had over the past 6 years. We need genuine 
Presidential leadership, the type of leadership that is required to 
restore Americans' confidence in the future and to ensure better 
opportunities for the next generations and beyond. We don't need 
Presidential leadership that leads us into more debt, less opportunity, 
and a more dismal future.
  It is my hope that the President's budget will be exactly what it 
should be and exactly what the American people deserve; that is, a 
responsible blueprint for robust, economic growth. There are not a lot 
of problems that face our country that couldn't be addressed in large 
part by robust economic growth. Our economy would grow. Revenues to the 
Federal Treasury would grow, thus reducing our deficits and giving us a 
better opportunity to address our debt. More Americans would be working 
again instead of the lowest percentage of people in the workforce in 
the past 30 years. That is what they call the labor participation rate.

[[Page 1468]]

  I hope the President's budget will get behind some of these progrowth 
policies, such as progrowth tax reform--something we are eager to work 
with the President on--and support serious efforts to save Social 
Security and Medicare. The dirty little secret in Washington is that if 
we don't do anything to save Medicare and Social Security, they are 
going to fall off the fiscal cliff. So doing nothing is not an option, 
but we need a bipartisan commitment to save Social Security and 
Medicare.
  I hope the President's budget will be a balanced one and finally 
offer a long-term plan for controlling our national debt. If it is not, 
well, we are not going to depend on the President alone; we are going 
to do our job in the Senate and the House and pass a responsible 
budget. If the President does not propose one, we will show the 
American people what one looks like because we cannot let the President 
continue to lead us down this path of unsustainable debt and a darker 
future for American people.

                          ____________________