[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 463-473]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                         HELP Committee Agenda

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the work 
of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. It 
is an important committee. Senator Ted Kennedy, who served for many 
years as the chairman of the HELP Committee, as we call it, once said 
that the HELP Committee had 30 percent of the legislative jurisdiction 
of the Senate. If you think about it, health, education, labor, and 
pensions--the work we do touches the lives of virtually every American.
  During the last 2 years, I had the privilege of being the ranking 
Republican on the committee. The Senator from Iowa, Tom Harkin, was the 
chairman. I think most people would agree we have as ideologically 
diverse a committee as any committee in the Senate, but we worked very 
well together. Where we disagreed, which was often, we simply stated 
our piece and we voted. But we looked for opportunities to agree, and 
last Congress, we passed 25 bills through the committee that became 
law. I am not sure any other committee can say that.
  I look forward to a similar productive working relationship with the 
Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray. She is an experienced legislator, 
cares deeply about education, health, labor, and pensions, and has 
proven she knows how to successfully negotiate. We are operating today 
under a budget agreement that she helped negotiate with Congressman 
Paul Ryan in the House. I am hopeful Senator Murray and I can work 
together in the same successful manner that I did with Senator Harkin 
last Congress.
  I have now visited with almost all of the members of the committee, 
Democrat and Republican, and I feel confident we can successfully work 
together.
  Here are my goals for the next 2 years. I have the privilege of being 
the chairman of the committee. The job of the chairman is to set the 
committee's agenda and work with all members of the committee on that 
agenda. This Congress, all members, before and during hearings, will 
have a full chance to discuss and amend legislation related to the 
agenda. When we report a bill to the floor, there will be an 
opportunity for a robust amendment process, as Senator McConnell has 
said. Then, I hope we will go to conference with the House of 
Representatives on our bill, where there will be further discussion. 
The challenge in passing legislation is there will have to be 60 votes 
to move a bill out of the Senate, 60 votes to move to conference on the 
bill, and 60 votes to pass a bill in the end. To accomplish that takes 
working with all Senators, including those on the other side of the 
aisle.
  I also know if we want a bill to become law, President Obama must 
sign it. On the major issues we plan to address, we hope to work with 
him to gain his signature.
  My first priority as chairman will be to fix No Child Left Behind. 
The law is over 7 years expired, and we have been working to 
reauthorize it for 6 years. The law has become unworkable. States are 
struggling. As a result, we need to act.
  The Secretary of Education gave a fine speech yesterday saying we 
need to act on No Child Left Behind. I agree with him. I intend to 
finish this work in the first few months of this year.
  Second, we need to reauthorize the Higher Education Act and 
deregulate higher education. We need to simplify and streamline the 
regulations that are imposed on 6,000 colleges and universities. One of 
the committee members is Elizabeth Warren, the Senator from 
Massachusetts. When she was
at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, she said she would like a
one-page mortgage application. A multipage mortgage application is not 
consumer friendly, but a two or three page one provides the consumer 
with information in a more easily understood manner. I think we could 
do the same with the application for federal aid, and there is 
substantial room for bipartisan agreement on this in higher education.
  Just last week, I introduced legislation with Senators Bennet of 
Colorado, Booker of New Jersey, King of Maine, Isakson of Georgia and 
Burr of North Carolina, to make it easier for students to go to college 
by simplifying the complicated, dreaded FASFA. The FASFA is the 108-
question application form that 20 million American families fill out 
every year. The President talked about it on his visit to Tennessee on 
Friday. He also thinks it is too long and wants to simplify it. I think 
higher education is an area on which we can work together in the Senate 
and with the President.
  The third thing I would like to do is to modernize the Food and Drug 
Administration. Now, there is a great opportunity, working with the 
House and with the President, to take a good look at the FDA, to take a 
good look at the modern world of medical devices and personalized 
medicines, and to say: What do we need to do to make it easier to get 
treatments, medical devices,

[[Page 464]]

and cures through the FDA process quickly and effectively while 
ensuring those treatments, medical devices, and cures are safe so they 
can help people? This sort of work literally would affect every single 
American.
  Fixing No Child Left Behind would affect 50 million schoolchildren, 
millions of teachers, and 100,000 public schools. Reauthorizing the 
Higher Education Act and making its regulations simpler would affect 
6,000 institutions of all kinds and over 20 million students across 
this country. If we worked together with the House and the President to 
reform the FDA, we could affect the lives of every American and people 
all over the world by the kinds of treatments and devices and cures we 
bring to market.
  Those are my top 3 priorities. Of course, we also want to deal with 
the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare. On this side of the aisle, we 
would like to repeal it, and I am sure there will be that vote. I also 
hope, in the words of the Senator from Wisconsin, Ron Johnson, we move 
as rapidly and as responsibly as we can to repair the damage that 
ObamaCare has done. One example to improve ObamaCare would be to 
redefine full-time work from 30 hours to 40 hours. That would give 
about 2.5 million low-wage employees in America a pretty big pay raise 
when they go from 27 hours or 28 hours to 37 or 38 hours, which is what 
they would be able to do if full-time work were defined, as it is for 
everything else, as 40 hours.
  We will have our first hearing on that on a bipartisan bill in the 
HELP Committee on next Thursday--a week from Thursday. It is a bill 
introduced by Senators Collins, Murkowski, Donnelly, and Manchin. It is 
a bipartisan bill.
  Our committee has a great interest in this bill. The technical 
jurisdiction is with the Finance Committee. But by agreement with the 
Finance Committee, we will have this hearing, and then we will send to 
the Finance Committee our opinions, and it will be up to the Finance 
Committee how to report the bill, whether to report it, or what version 
of it to report. It helps, at least on the Republican side of the 
aisle, that six of the members of the Finance Committee are also 
members of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.
  Mr. President, let me talk about the first item on the HELP Committee 
agenda; the plan to fix No Child Left Behind.
  I see the Senator from Washington on the floor today. She will be 
speaking next, and I look forward to hearing her comments. I said 
before she came to the floor how much I look forward to working with 
her. She is an experienced legislator, proven leader, and has a 
demonstrated record of results. I hope we are able to work together to 
pass No Child Left Behind.
  No Child Left Behind was passed in 2001--a year before I became a 
Senator. It has become unworkable because Congress and the President 
failed to reauthorize and amend the law when it expired over 7 years 
ago.
  Under the terms of the law, the original provisions continue, but 
that is what has made it unworkable. Those original provisions, if 
strictly applied, would label as a failing school almost every one of 
our 100,000 public schools. This is clearly an unintended result of the 
those who passed No Child Left Behind.
  To avoid that unintended result, the U.S. Secretary of Education has 
granted waivers from the law's provisions to 42 States, the District of 
Columbia, and Puerto Rico. This has created a second unintended 
consequence. In exchange for the waiver, the Secretary has told those 
States what their academic standards should be, what accountability 
systems they should use to set performance standards, how many and what 
tests shall be used to measure the progress of students, how to 
evaluate teachers, and how to identify and intervene in low-performing 
schools. The Department has become, in effect, a national school board.
  We have been working over the last 6 years to fix the problems of No 
Child Left Behind. Over the last 6 years, the Senate HELP Committee 
held two dozen hearings on No Child Left Behind and K-12 education. 
Twice the committee reported legislation to the Senate floor. In the 
Congress before last, we reported the Democratic majority's bill. I did 
not particularly like it, but Senator Kirk, Senator Enzi, and I all 
voted for it so we could move it to the floor, continue to work on it, 
and then replace the law. But it did not come to the floor. In the last 
session of Congress, the committee reported a bill again.
  This Congress, we need to start with a specific proposal. I will put 
forward a Chairman's staff discussion draft, consult with all the 
members of the committee on the proposal, and see if we can ultimately 
get bipartisan agreement on the proposal.
  I have already distributed to all the committee members, Republican 
and Democrat, copies of the Chairman's staff discussion draft. This is 
not a chairman's bill; it is not a Republican bill; it is the 
Chairman's staff discussion draft put forward as a place to start 
discussions.
  We would like for staff of the various members of the committee to 
meet every day for the rest of this week and next week. They can 
discuss and provide feedback on each section of the bill. This will 
help determine areas where we agree and disagree.
  Former Chairman George Miller gave some good advice on fixing No 
Child Left Behind. He said: Let's pass a lean bill to fix No Child Left 
Behind. Discussions have highlighted there are about eight or nine 
problems with the law. We probably can agree quickly on about four or 
five of those problems. There are real differences of opinion on the 
other three or four areas. I hope we can come to agreement on those 
issues in the committee, and I am going to do my best to lead that 
process. I am willing to spend all the time we need over the next 
several weeks to reach agreement.
  If we cannot reach agreement in committee, then we should vote on a 
bill, and bring that bill to the floor. We can amend the bill there, 
and pass it with 60 votes. Then we can go to conference with the House, 
and ultimately send a bill to the President for him to sign.
  I look forward to the process. A week from tomorrow, we will hold a 
hearing on testing and accountability. Every member of the committee is 
interested in this topic. Here are the questions to be examined in the 
hearing: are there too many tests? Who should decide how many and what 
tests should be administered? We need to answer some questions before 
we make decision to be put into a bill. In the Chairman's staff 
discussion draft I have circulated, I have included two options for 
discussion: current law testing requirements and another option that 
gives more flexibility to the States to decide what to do on testing.
  On fixing No Child Left Behind, I plan to set realistic goals, keep 
the best portions of the law, and restore to States and communities the 
responsibility to decide whether schools and teachers are succeeding or 
failing.
  The Chairman's staff discussion draft relies on and respects the 30 
years of work by Governors and chief State school officers to develop 
higher standards, better tests, stronger accountability systems, and 
fair and effective teacher and principal evaluation programs that will 
allow parents and communities to know how children in our country's 
public schools are performing.
  I have watched the development of goals, standards, tests, and 
teacher evaluation systems for a long period of time. I was Governor of 
Tennessee in 1983 when Secretary Terrell Bell in the Reagan 
administration issued a report called: ``A Nation at Risk.'' The report 
said that if a foreign country had created schools in the condition of 
our nation's schools, we would have considered it an act of war. At 
this time, Governors all over the country were working to fix state 
education systems, understanding that while the Federal Government has 
some involvement in elementary and secondary education, it only pays 
for about 12 percent of state budgets. Most Americans feel as though 
they should be in charge of their local schools, not Washington.
  In 1985 and 1986, every Governor spent an entire year focused on 
improving

[[Page 465]]

schools--the first time in the history of the Governors association 
that it happened. I was chairman of the National Governors Association 
that year. The Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, was the vice 
chairman.
  In 1989, the first President Bush held a national meeting of 
Governors and established national education goals. Then in 1991-1992, 
President Bush announced Goals 2000 to help move the nation toward 
those goals. I was the Education Secretary at that time. States worked 
together to develop challenging education standards that were 
voluntary. States discussed teacher evaluation systems that were 
adopted by states such as Tennessee. In 1984, Tennessee became the 
first State to pay teachers more for teaching well. Washington did not 
dictate to Tennessee how to pay its teachers based on performance and 
other States began to model teacher policies in the same way. Governors 
began to work together on higher standards, on accountability systems, 
and on teacher evaluation systems.
  President George W. Bush brought many of his education ideas as 
Governor of Texas to Washington. A large portion of those ideas were 
included in No Child Left Behind, such as the requirement for annual 
testing to determine student achievement in every school and 
disaggregated reporting.
  President Obama created Race to the Top to give States incentives to 
adopt certain standards and certain tests and certain teacher 
evaluation systems. Since much of No Child Left Behind became 
unworkable in his term, Secretary Duncan provided waivers to certain 
aspects of the law in exchange for telling states and districts what 
their academic standards should be, what their accountability system 
should be, how to evaluate teachers, and how to intervene in low-
performing schools.
  These actions have created, in essence, a national school board. We 
need to reverse the trend toward a national school board and put 
responsibilities for education back with States and local communities. 
There is a difference of opinion about the proper balance between the 
federal and state role in education. I hope we can come to agreement on 
that balance in the committee. We need to start discussions. We have 
been working on fixing No Child Left Behind for 6 years, have held 
multiple hearings, and have reported a bill twice to the floor. 20 of 
the 22 members of the committee were members last year when we had 
hearings and reported a bill.
  I think we need to identify the seven or eight issues to fix in the 
law, discuss each other's points of view, and see if we can fix No 
Child Left Behind. I look forward to that process.
  The chairman's staff discussion draft, already distributed to 
committee members today, will be on the committee Web site tonight so 
that people can see it. We will solicit feedback. Staff will work 
together over the next few weeks, Senators will talk, and we will see 
we can turn that discussion draft into a bipartisan bill. If we can, we 
will mark it up in committee, have amendments, and see if we can get a 
bipartisan result. We will then bring it to the floor for further 
discussion and debate. If we can't get a bipartisan bill in committee, 
we will still bring a bill to the floor knowing we will have to get a 
bipartisan vote to get it off the floor.
  I am ready to get started on this process. I have talked to almost 
all my colleagues on the committee, and I believe they are as well.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
following my remarks a list of the nine problems the chairman's staff 
discussion draft identifies as the problems we should work on in trying 
to fix No Child Left Behind. These problems generally come from the 
discussions we have had over the last 6 years with the House of 
Representatives, and with the Secretary of Education. Identifying and 
discussing these problems should help us move along more rapidly.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 A Plan To Fix ``No Child Left Behind''

       ``No Child Left Behind'' (NCLB) was passed in 2001. It has 
     become unworkable because Congress and the President failed 
     to reauthorize and amend the law when it expired over seven 
     years ago. NCLB's original provisions, which continue in 
     place today, would label as a ``failing school'' almost all 
     of America's 100,000 public schools. To avoid this unintended 
     result, the U.S. Secretary of Education has granted waivers 
     from the law's provisions to 42 states, the District of 
     Columbia, and Puerto Rico. This has created another 
     unintended result: in exchange for the waiver, the Secretary 
     has told these states what their academic standards should 
     be, what accountability systems shall be used to set 
     performance standards, how many and what tests shall be used 
     to measure the progress of students, how to evaluate teachers 
     and how to identify and intervene in low performing schools.
       The Department has become, in effect, a national school 
     board.
       For the last six years, the Senate and the House have 
     worked together to try to fix ``No Child Left Behind'' In 
     each of the last two Congresses, the Senate HELP Committee 
     has held numerous hearings and reported legislation to fix 
     the problems with ``No Child Left Behind.'' In 2015, the 
     Senate HELP Committee will spend the first six weeks 
     concluding this work and, in former Rep. George Miller's 
     words, report a ``lean bill fixing No Child Left Behind'' 
     ready to move to the Senate floor on Feb 23. The House of 
     Representatives is pursuing a similar schedule.
       The plan is to set realistic goals, keep the best portions 
     of the original law, and restore to states and local 
     communities the responsibility to decide whether local 
     schools and teachers are succeeding or failing. The HELP 
     Committee's bill will seek to build on thirty years of work 
     by governors and chief state school officers to develop 
     higher standards, better tests, stronger accountability 
     systems, and fair and effective teacher and principal 
     evaluation programs that will allow parents and communities 
     to know how children in our country's public schools are 
     performing.
       1. New Goals--The 2001 goal is unworkable. Set new, 
     realistic but challenging goals to help all students succeed.
       2. High Standards--Require states to have high and 
     challenging standards that promote college and career 
     readiness for all students, but the federal government may 
     not dictate or get involved with what those standards should 
     be, or require states to submit their standards to the 
     federal government for review or approval.
       3. Reporting Progress Toward State Standards--Continue and 
     improve disaggregated school-by-school reporting so that 
     parents, teachers, schools, legislators, and communities know 
     what progress schools are making.
       4. State Accountability Systems--Free all public schools 
     from the federal requirement of conforming to a federally-
     defined adequate yearly progress mandate and, in exchange, 
     require states to establish accountability systems to measure 
     school performance toward meeting the each state's standards.
       5. Federal Support for the Lowest-Performing Schools--The 
     federal government will continue to support states and local 
     school districts in fixing schools that states determine are 
     lowest performing.
       6. Better Teaching--Encourage the creation of state and 
     local school district teacher and principal evaluation 
     systems, but the federal government may not dictate or get 
     involved with the design of those systems. This will replace 
     the current federal ``highly qualified teacher'' 
     requirements.
       7. More Local Authority To Transfer Federal Funds--Allow 
     school districts to transfer funds more efficiently among the 
     largest federal education programs.
       8. Consolidate and Streamline Programs--Consolidate and 
     streamline more than 60 programs within NCLB. Eliminate those 
     that are duplicative.
       9. Empower Parents--Encourage the creation and expansion of 
     high-quality charter schools that give teachers more freedom 
     to teach and opportunities that give parents more choices of 
     schools for their children.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, a century ago, President Lyndon Johnson 
returned to his old elementary school in rural Texas with a major piece 
of legislation. At a picnic table on the lawn of his school and sitting 
beside his very first teacher, President Johnson signed into law the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or ESEA.
  Our Nation has always held the ideal of education for everyone. In 
1786, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

       By far the most important bill in our whole code is that 
     for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other 
     sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of 
     freedom and happiness.

  The idea of a strong public education for every child was woven into 
the fabric of this Nation. But ESEA put that idea into action. It aimed 
to close the

[[Page 466]]

gaps between rich and poor, black and white, children growing up in the 
crowded neighborhoods of Philadelphia, to the rural districts of Texas, 
children with every advantage in the world and kids with disabilities. 
This law moved our country in the right direction, but we still have a 
long way to go to close those gaps.
  In the coming weeks and months, Congress will have the opportunity to 
make sure we continue moving our country toward this ideal and to work 
together to fix the broken No Child Left Behind law, because we as a 
nation still believe every student should have access to a quality 
public education, regardless of where they live or how they learn or 
how much money their parents make.
  Education and fighting on behalf of children is what drew me to 
public service in the very first place. When my kids were much younger, 
I found out their wonderful preschool program might close because of 
budget cuts. I knew how valuable that program was and how much it was 
helping our local children, so I put my two young kids in my car and I 
drove off to the State capitol to explain to our legislators why they 
couldn't just cut this program. When I got there and was finally able 
to get one of the legislators to listen to me, he said something I will 
never forget. He said to me: You can't make a difference. You are just 
a mom in tennis shoes.
  Well, I couldn't believe that, and I was furious. I drove all the way 
home telling my two little kids in the car that I was going to change 
that. So I got home, picked up the phone and started calling other 
parents, and they called other parents, and we held rallies, and we 
wrote letters. Finally, after it was all said and done, the legislature 
voted to keep the funding for that preschool program.
  Throughout my career, as a preschool teacher, to serving on the local 
school board, the Washington State Senate, and here in the U.S. Senate, 
I have been committed to expanding educational opportunities and making 
sure every kid has someone fighting for them and their future. But that 
battle is far from over. Now is the time to take another big step 
forward, putting the ideals of our Nation into action.
  The current law, No Child Left Behind, is badly broken and it is time 
to fix it. The good news is this doesn't have to be a partisan issue. 
Nearly everyone--Democrats, Republicans, teachers, parents, business 
leaders--agrees this law needs to be rewritten. So today I wanted to 
come to the floor to lay out some pretty basic but very important 
principles I think should guide any bill to fix No Child Left Behind.
  For one, we need to work to reduce redundant and unnecessary testing 
so educators focus on preparing students for college and their career 
and also ensure we know how all of our students are progressing. We 
need to continue to hold schools and States accountable for delivering 
on the promise of a quality education for all our kids so they can 
compete in the 21st century economy. We need to improve our schools and 
give them the resources they need so every student does have the 
opportunity to reach their potential. And I believe we need to expand 
access to early childhood education so students can go to kindergarten 
ready to learn.
  What is clear to nearly everyone is that No Child Left Behind is not 
working. For one, the law requires States to set high standards for 
schools, but it didn't give them the resources they needed to meet 
those achievement goals. In effect, this law set up our schools for 
failure. It sets teachers up for failure. It set our students up for 
failure. That needs to change.
  I have heard from parent after parent and teacher after teacher in 
Washington State who have told me that not only are students taking too 
many tests, oftentimes the tests are of low quality and are redundant. 
That needs to change too.
  We are still facing inequality in our education system, where some 
schools simply don't offer the same opportunities. For example, 
African-American and Latino students are significantly less likely to 
attend a high school that offers advanced math classes. According to 
the Department of Education, 30 percent fewer students from low-income 
backgrounds reach proficiency or higher on assessments compared to 
their peers of affluent backgrounds. On average, kids from low-income 
neighborhoods don't have access to qualified and experienced teachers, 
as do students from wealthier neighborhoods. That needs to change.
  The current law is not working for our States either. I have seen 
firsthand how No Child Left Behind is not working for my State of 
Washington. The law is so bad the Obama administration began issuing 
waivers to exempt States from the law's requirements. Washington State 
had received a waiver but last year it lost it. As a result, most of 
the schools in my home State are now categorized as failing. That means 
that hard-working parents sending their kids to schools in communities 
such as Spokane in eastern Washington, the Tri-Cities in central 
Washington, and Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, and many others in western 
Washington are receiving a letter in the mail that says their children 
aren't getting the type of education we expect in this country.
  Not only that, but Washington now has less flexibility in how to use 
Federal investments in education. That needs to change.
  I recently heard from a woman--her name is Lillian, who lives in 
Shoreline, WA--last year whose son was going into the fourth grade in 
the same school district where I used to serve as a school board member 
years ago. Her son has a learning disability. With the help of teachers 
and specialists in his elementary school he has shown great signs of 
progress. But then Lillian said she got a letter in the mail 2 weeks 
before school started describing the school as failing, and that left 
her worried about her son's education.
  Because No Child Left Behind is broken, so many parents and schools 
and districts across the State of Washington are facing a similar 
uncertainty, and that is not fair to our students. That needs to change 
too.
  It is time to rewrite No Child Left Behind with something worthy of 
this Nation's children and their future. In the coming weeks and 
months, these are some of the core principles I am going to be fighting 
for. Let us work with our States and districts to reduce unnecessary 
testing, especially by targeting redundant and low-quality tests. This 
is an obvious step we need to take and one you won't find much 
disagreement on.
  That doesn't mean we should roll back standards or accountability for 
schools to provide a good quality education. We need to make sure we 
establish expectations for our students that put them on a path to 
competing in the 21st century global economy.
  And let me be clear on assessments. We know if we don't have ways to 
measure students' progress, and if we don't hold our States 
accountable, the victims will invariably be the kids from poor 
neighborhoods, children of color, and students with disabilities. These 
are the students who too often fall through the cracks, and that is not 
fair. True accountability makes sure we are holding our schools up to 
our Nation's promise of equality and justice. This is a civil rights 
issue, plain and simple.
  Another reason assessments are important is they help parents monitor 
their kids' progress. If a school is consistently failing to provide a 
quality education year after year, parents deserve to know. We 
shouldn't forget this law provides the Nation's largest Federal 
investment in K-12 education. It would be irresponsible to ask our 
taxpayers to spend billions of dollars on education without knowing if 
it is making a difference in our students' lives. That is a good 
government principle which Democrats and Republicans should be able to 
agree on and which the taxpayers should have every right to expect.
  So let's maintain strong accountability that measures the students' 
growth with statewide assessments. I believe annual assessments are one 
of the most important tools we have to make sure our schools are 
working for every student. We need to make sure

[[Page 467]]

these assessments don't lead to unintended consequences. But I would be 
very concerned about any proposal that rolls back this key student and 
taxpayer protection and accountability tool.
  I believe we need statewide assessments that give parents, civil 
rights groups, and policymakers the ability to see how students are 
doing from district to district.
  Furthermore, to make sure we are meeting our obligations to all of 
our students, let's increase funding for schools that have high numbers 
of children from low-income backgrounds. Rich or poor, every child 
should get a high-quality education.
  The ones who are on the frontlines of this noble work--let's make 
sure our teachers and principals have the resources they deserve to 
continue to build their skills so they can best help the students about 
whom they care so much. Let's improve schools through innovation and 
with coursework that challenges our students--not just so they earn a 
diploma but so their diploma means they are truly college- and career-
ready.
  I believe Congress should only pass an education bill that expands 
access to preschool programs. This is a particularly important issue to 
me. As a mom and when I was a preschool teacher, I saw firsthand the 
kind of transformation early learning can inspire in a child not just 
to start kindergarten ready to learn but to succeed later in life. That 
is why law enforcement, business groups, military leaders, and so many 
others support expanding access to early childhood education.
  Congress needs to catch up with the Democratic and Republican 
Governors and legislators around the country who support investments in 
early learning, and we need to make sure the investments in our 
youngest kids that will pay off for generations to come are part of 
this bill.
  Those are just some of the core principles I am going to be focused 
on as we work together to revamp our Education bill.
  Providing an excellent education to all students is a national 
priority--not just because our children deserve it but because it is 
one of the best investments we can make to ensure long-term and broad-
based economic growth. Businesses and entrepreneurs need the next 
generation of workers to come in and help them innovate, invent, build, 
and grow. That is something I hear from my Washington State businesses 
all the time.
  Making sure all students are able to take on the jobs of the 21st 
century is the only way our Nation will stay economically competitive 
in the years to come. Other countries are investing massively in 
education and their students, and we cannot afford to fall behind in 
this country.
  Let me be clear on another point. The only way Congress will be able 
to fix this law is by working in a bipartisan way. That means 
Republicans should come to the table ready to work with Democrats to 
get this done. I know the Republicans are the majority in the Congress, 
and I welcome our new committee chair, Senator Alexander. I listened 
carefully to his remarks and thank him for reaching out to begin this 
process. But parents across the country are expecting us to put 
partisanship aside and work together for the good of our children.
  Secretary Duncan, President Obama, and so many of us here in Congress 
have made it very clear that we aren't going to accept a bill that 
hurts students or doesn't live up to the ideals of our great Nation.
  There is no question, as Senator Alexander said, that there are some 
serious differences in the way the two parties approach this, but I am 
confident, just as we did with the budget last Congress, we can find 
common ground and move forward if both sides are willing to leave their 
partisan corners and work across the aisle. Everyone should be able to 
agree that this law needs to provide every student in every school in 
every State with a quality education, and that is what I am going to be 
fighting for.
  When President Johnson signed the Education bill, he said he 
envisioned ``full educational opportunity as our first national goal.'' 
Our Nation's commitment to that ideal is so important to me and my 
family. I would not be here in this Senate Chamber without it. When I 
was 15 years old, my dad was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. In just 
a few short years he could no longer work at the five-and-dime store he 
ran. Without warning, my family fell on hard times. But instead of 
falling through the cracks, my six brothers and sisters and I got a 
good education because of our public schools, and we all went to 
college with the support from the program we now know as Pell grants. 
My mother was able to get the skills she needed to get a job through a 
worker training program at Lake Washington Vocational School.
  Today I believe we need to continue to make education a national 
priority so more families can seize the opportunities that are only 
possible with access to a good education. So I am glad to be here on 
the floor today with the chairman of our committee, and I call on 
Democrats and Republicans to work together to fix this law.
  For the child who may not live in the best neighborhood or the kid 
whose parents are struggling to make ends meet, for every student who 
deserves the chance to learn, grow, and thrive--I hope we can work 
together to write a bill to make sure every child in this country gets 
a quality education. Let's make sure our country continues to have the 
best workforce the world over. Let's deliver on Jefferson's promise of 
education as the foundation for freedom and happiness.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Washington for her remarks. 
In the spirit of her remarks, I am delighted to have the privilege of 
working with her in Congress because of her leadership position, her 
background, her caring for children, and her reputation for getting 
results. I like all of those things.
  I neglected to mention that our first hearing will be on the 21st--a 
week from Wednesday--on testing and accountability. I am working with 
Senator Murray to see if perhaps we can agree on the witnesses. The 
purpose of the hearing is to ask the questions she asked: Are these the 
right tests? Are they redundant tests? Are there too many tests? What 
are we hearing from across the country?
  I thank the Senator for her comments. I took careful notes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                            Law Enforcement

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the law enforcement 
in Pennsylvania and throughout the country.
  We just finished the holiday season, and in my family--as with many 
of us, I am sure--we had a wonderful Christmas in our homes, had a 
wonderful meal, and got to watch the kids open their presents.
  There are a lot of Pennsylvanians and Americans who didn't have the 
chance to do what we got to enjoy, and they were the law enforcement 
men and women who were out on the streets, in the cold, protecting us 
as they do day in and day out because their work goes on 24/7, 365 days 
a year.
  Just this past Saturday a number of us gathered on Independence Mall 
in Philadelphia. Several hundred people braved a very cold and windy 
day to let the law enforcement officials of Pennsylvania and beyond 
know just how much we appreciate the sacrifice they make for us day in 
and day out. We had a terrific turnout. It was a very enthusiastic 
crowd who rallied in support of our police officers.
  But being a police officer is not just often inconvenient; sometimes 
it is very dangerous. Last year 115 police officers died in the line of 
duty. So far we are 13 days into a new year and 10 officers have 
already been shot and wounded.
  Often these police officers have been targeted and shot just because 
of the uniform they wear. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania is not immune to 
this problem. Last year on September 12,

[[Page 468]]

late at night, two Pennsylvania State troopers were coming in for their 
shift at work, and Eric Frein was lying in wait, hiding in the woods, 
with a high-powered rifle. He shot and killed Corporal Bryon Dickson, 
and he shot Trooper Alex Douglass, who was grievously wounded. The 
killer, Eric Frein, didn't know either Corporal Dickson or Trooper 
Douglass; he shot the two police officers simply because they were 
police officers. He thought that somehow by killing a cop he would help 
spark a revolution. Such is the madness police officers have to face on 
a regular basis. On any given day they don't know that they won't run 
into that kind of insanity.
  It is important for us to remember that these victims--in this case, 
Corporal Dickson--aren't just numbers and badges. Corporal Dickson was 
a dad, the father of two young boys. He used to enjoy making toys for 
his sons. He was a devoted husband who had recently celebrated his 10th 
wedding anniversary. He was a proud Marine Corps veteran.
  I am proud, as Pennsylvanians generally are, of the response of law 
enforcement to the savage and despicable shooting of these two State 
troopers. Officers from all across Pennsylvania and surrounding States 
and even around the country joined in a very intensive, tireless, 7-
week-long manhunt. In the end they found Eric Frein, and they brought 
him into custody wearing the handcuffs of Corporal Dickson. He will 
meet justice.
  But, of course, the story doesn't end there. There was another 
terrible tragedy just last month in Brooklyn. Just 5 days before 
Christmas, Officer Rafael Ramos and Officer Wenjian Liu were both 
murdered in the line of duty. In the middle of the afternoon, in broad 
daylight, a gunman approached their marked police vehicle while they 
sat in the vehicle and shot each police officer point-blank range in 
the head, killing them both instantly. The motivation of the gunman was 
very clear: He just wanted to kill any police officer he could. That 
day, the gunman posted messages such as ``They Take 1 of Ours . . . 
Let's Take 2 of Theirs.'' Another message he posted used the hashtag 
advocating ``Shoot the Police.''
  Officers Ramos and Liu were not just nameless people in uniforms 
either.
  Officer Ramos was described by his family and friends ``as a Puerto 
Rican kid who grew up on these streets'' in Queens and never stopped 
trying to help the people in his community. Officer Ramos had spent the 
last 10 years of his life studying to become a chaplain. He was 
murdered just an hour before his graduation ceremony. Office Ramos 
joined the police force at the age of 37. He explained that he saw the 
streets as his ministry and that by protecting and serving his 
community, he was serving God as well. Office Ramos left behind his 
wife and two sons, 19-year-old Jaden and 13-year-old Justin.
  Officer Liu was the other victim that day. In many ways, Officer Liu 
was the epitome of the American dream. He was a young boy who at age 12 
came from China to America with his family. He was a teenage boy who 
left playground basketball games occasionally so he could do the 
shopping for his family's groceries. He was a young man who was so 
inspired by the heroism he saw on September 11 that he decided he would 
become a police officer. He was the police officer who called home 
every night to let his dad know he had finished a day of work safely--
every night, that is, except December 20, when the phone call never 
came. Officer Liu is survived by his wife, whom he married just 3 
months before.
  The response of law enforcement to the savage murders of Officer 
Ramos and Officer Liu should make every American proud. Over 25,000 
police officers traveled from across America and from parts of Canada 
to attend the funeral services last month.
  We can never really fully repay the debt of the men and women who 
sacrifice their very lives protecting us, but there are small things we 
can do to help the families they leave behind. I want to call on 
Congress to take one small step toward that goal. We should pass the 
Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship Act, and we should do so soon.
  The Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship Act simply provides that 
any child whose parent dies in the line of duty as a member of the 
armed services or as a public safety officer would be entitled to the 
maximum permissible scholarship under the Pell Grant Program for their 
attendance in college.
  Five years ago the House of Representatives unanimously passed this 
legislation. My fellow Pennsylvanian Senator Bob Casey plans to 
reintroduce this legislation. I would be cosponsoring this legislation, 
and I call on Congress to pick up where it left off back in 2010 and 
enact the Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship Act.
  I also want to take a moment to address the recent spate of protests 
we have seen. People have gone out on to the streets and across the 
country, often harshly criticizing the officers. I want to be clear, if 
people want to protest, they have the right to protest; and I would 
never challenge their right to say what is on their minds or to convey 
whatever message they would like to convey. But I would hope they would 
keep a few basic facts in mind as they consider, or in fact carry out, 
the protests.
  No. 1, any human institution is going to be imperfect. That is the 
nature of humanity. It consists of human beings. So it therefore will 
be imperfect. But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of police 
officers are honest, hard working, decent Americans, and they are 
motivated by the desire to serve and protect the community in which 
they live, and they don't have a racist bone in their bodies.
  So my message to law enforcement is I understand how demoralizing it 
must have been recently to see some of these protests, to hear some of 
the outrageous and slanderous statements that have been made. But these 
protestors don't speak for most Americans. The fact is, a big majority 
of Pennsylvanians and, I suspect, a big majority of Americans know that 
every day 780,000 men and women across America who put on their blue 
uniforms and put on their badges are answering to the call of the 
people in need when they need them the most, and they put themselves in 
great danger to serve all of us. When other people choose to run away 
from danger, they are the ones who have to run toward it.
  So just as the law enforcement community has stood by the families of 
all the victims, and that of Officer Dickson, Officer Ramos, and 
Officer Liu, I want you to know that America stands with you.
  Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. First, I would like to thank my colleague from 
Pennsylvania for his thoughtful remarks. As one who has been involved 
in law enforcement for a number of years and having great friends in 
the law enforcement community, I am well aware of what their duties are 
like.
  I remember we had a dangerous event here at our Capitol, and one of 
the police officers raced around the building to the scene of the 
event. Did he know what could happen to him? Could there be a team of 
terrorists waiting to assassinate him when he came around that corner?
  What if a police officer responds to a domestic violence call at a 
home? They don't know what is behind that door and what might happen to 
them. It is a tough job. They have a right to come home to their family 
and their children. They do not have to allow themselves to be murdered 
by someone who is a danger. It is a tough issue. Police departments 
work at it very hard.
  I thank Senator Toomey for his beautiful remarks. I think they are 
very appropriate at this time.
  Mr. President, with regard to the Keystone Pipeline issue and the 
discussion we have been having here, I want to associate myself with a 
series of very important and balanced concerns raised in support of 
that pipeline.
  We have pipelines that criss-cross my State, as the Presiding Officer 
does in Oklahoma. We don't have problems with them. I cannot remember 
when

[[Page 469]]

somebody raised a problem, environmentally, about a pipeline. We know 
they are less likely to cause environmental damage than transportation 
by train or truck. We know they are less likely to be accessed. We know 
there is less energy consumed in that process. So I want to associate 
myself with that.
  But there is something that has been bothering me for quite a long 
time, and I want to raise that point today because I think it is so 
valid and I think it is important for all of us to understand. The 
reason this Senator and I think others have advocated for more 
production of American energy, advocated for these issues and for more 
production is not to benefit some oil company, as we have been wrongly 
accused, not to benefit some rich group, it is to benefit the American 
consumer. The more energy we produce in America, the more the American 
people benefit.
  We import a great deal of oil today. It is less now because we are 
producing more through the new technology of fracking and other 
technology. We have seen a reduction in the amount we import. Much of 
it has been imported from places such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and 
Libya--many places with which we have not had very good relations. So 
we have made a transfer of wealth from the American people to foreign 
nations--weakening us and strengthening them. Many of them have not 
been friendly to us over the years, as I have said. So we have a choice 
in this vote to help supply a shortage we have from our--perhaps--
closest ally in the world, Canada.
  I was at the Canadian-American Interparliamentary Group. I was 
surprised how deeply our Canadian friends feel about this pipeline. 
They cannot imagine why we wouldn't want to buy oil from them as 
opposed to other countries around the world. They purchase all kinds of 
products from us. We have a good, fair, and honest trading relationship 
with Canada. They support us throughout the world, consistently in the 
U.N. and in other places, on important issues--important to the 
American people. We have so many common interests.
  No. 1, I just want to say if we are going to import oil from around 
the world to meet our needs, there is no better country we could ever 
choose to import from than Canada, our friend and neighbor.
  No. 2, it has been said that this is being done to help some big 
business. That is not the way this system works. In a free market 
system, bringing in this oil provides another source of oil for 
consumers. They don't have to buy the Canadian oil if it is not 
cheaper. They wouldn't build this pipeline if they didn't think they 
could sell the oil cheaper than Saudi Arabia and Venezuela could 
produce it or even America could produce it. They believe they can sell 
it, and they have to sell it for a lower cost or they won't sell it.
  What would the lower cost mean? It means good things for mothers, for 
children, for families, and for businesses. All over America we have 
lower cost energy to make America a stronger, more vibrant world-class 
economy. We are able to compete in the world market if our energy costs 
are below other nation's energy costs. It helps us overcome the wage 
differences that Americans have compared to other places around the 
world. This reliable source of energy is important.
  I guess what I wish to say to my colleagues is that this is an 
opportunity for us to make a statement. The statement is we are going 
to help the American people by reducing the cost of their energy so 
they may have more money each month to maybe go out to a movie, to go 
out to eat--and it can make quite a difference.
  Well, they say the price is fixed. You know, these guys have got 
these powers, and try to manipulate prices. I don't deny that goes on 
in the world. But one of the most powerful forces in the world is 
supply and demand. If the oil companies are so powerful, why has oil 
fallen from $110 a barrel this summer to now $46 a barrel today? Why 
did this happen? Because there is a supply from fracking, from other 
sources around the world. It has brought up the supply, created some 
surplus, and the prices have collapsed. There are a lot of oil 
companies out there that are hurting today.
  So if you don't like big oil and you don't like the big oil 
companies, why would you want to oppose importing oil that would be 
cheaper? This is the way the free market system works. I would say the 
market system is working. I saw an expert yesterday in Barron's 
indicating that oil could fall to $20 a barrel. That would be great for 
the American consumer.
  I spoke with an oilman. I teased him a little bit. I said: I hope you 
saved some money, because I like this low-priced oil. Don't come in 
here and ask me to have oil go up on my constituents, on American 
consumers.
  I mean, I appreciate the fact that people go out there and they drill 
these multimillion dollar wells and sometimes they are dry and 
sometimes they hit. That is the great American free market system. Some 
people have gotten rich. A lot of them have gone broke. There has been 
boom and bust in the oil industry since the beginning of time, as it is 
documented by Daniel Yergin in the book ``The Prize'' and by other 
writers. This is the way it has always been.
  We benefit when the price falls, and importing a good source of oil 
from our neighbor Canada at a competitive price provides one more 
source that helps keep the price down and gives more options to the 
American people. It is the right thing to do, colleagues. I cannot 
imagine that we would want to favor importation of oil from other 
countries over Canada.
  I believe we should go forward with this, and I am concerned that the 
President and his allies are not in agreement. But look, this is a true 
fact, as many of us who have been involved in these issues for several 
years have come to understand. There is a large group of folks out 
there--activists, environmental extremists, and not just good 
environmentalists but people who have extreme views--who want the price 
of energy to go up. President Obama even said it in the campaign when 
he ran the first time. He said the price of electricity would 
necessarily skyrocket. That is not my policy. That is not the policy of 
a good public servant, in my view, for America, for the American 
workers. Personally, I want the electric bill as low as we could 
possibly keep it, consistent with good environmental and clean 
activities, and I want that gasoline bill as low as we can get it. That 
is what we should do, and that is how we can make this country better. 
It will make it tougher for a lot of these guys who have been sitting 
on oil at $100 a barrel and now it is $46.
  So who is the loser with more supply? The guys who have been sitting 
on the energy. I don't bear any grief for them. I am happy if they make 
money. They have to go through tough times just as everybody else does.
  I want to thank Senator Hoeven and others who worked so hard on this 
legislation. I believe we are in a position to see some positive action 
occur in the next few days and look forward to creating an additional 
supply of oil from an ally of the United States that will bring down 
the price of oil perhaps even further in the world and in the U.S. 
market.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments to speak 
about an amendment that I will be offering as part of the Keystone 
Pipeline legislation. It is an extremely simple, straightforward 
amendment. It is a brief amendment, but it basically raises a very 
fundamental issue, and that issue is whether the Senate will abide by 
scientific evidence, will come down on the side of science as we debate 
this enormously important issue of climate change.
  The amendment is very brief, and I wish to read it and then explain 
why I

[[Page 470]]

believe it is such an important amendment. This is what it says:

       It is the sense of Congress that Congress is in agreement 
     with the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific 
     community that, No. 1, climate change is real; No. 2, climate 
     change is caused by human activities; No. 3, climate change 
     has already caused devastating problems in the United States 
     and around the world; No. 4, a brief window of opportunity 
     exists before the United States and the entire planet suffer 
     irreparable harm; and No. 5, it is imperative that the United 
     States transform its energy system away from fossil fuels and 
     toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy as rapidly as 
     possible.

  That is it. That is the entire amendment. I would say that for the 
scientific community around the world, there is nothing in that 
statement that smacks of controversy. These are simple statements of 
fact, agreed to by the overwhelming majority of scientists who have 
written and studied climate change.
  Climate change is, in fact, one of the great threats facing our 
country and the entire planet. It has the capability of causing severe 
harm to our economy, to the food supply, to access to water, and to 
national security.
  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the leading 
international scientific body on this issue--reported yet again this 
past fall that ``warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is 
now evident from observations of increases in global average air and 
ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising 
global average sea level.''
  More than 97 percent of the scientific community in the United States 
and across the globe agrees with these findings, including, among many 
other organizations, the American Association for the Advancement of 
Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Meteorological 
Society, and the American Geophysical Union, to name just a few. In 
fact, at least 37 American scientific organizations, 118 international 
scientific organizations and national academies, and 21 medical 
associations all agree that climate change is real and is being caused 
by human activities.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of 37 
American scientific organizations, 135 international scientific 
organizations, 21 medical associations, and some religious and teacher 
organizations that understand that climate change is real and that it 
is caused by human activity.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Virtually every major scientific organization in this 
     country and throughout the world have said that climate 
     change is real, climate change is caused by carbon emissions 
     and human activity, and that climate change is already 
     causing devastating problems in the United States of America 
     and around the world.
       This list includes at least:
       37 American scientific organizations, 135 international 
     scientific organizations, 21 medical associations, 4 
     religious organizations.


                  37 American scientific organizations

       American Anthropological Association, American Association 
     for the Advancement of Science, American Association of 
     Geographers, American Association of State Climatologists, 
     American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, 
     American Fisheries Society, American Geophysical Union, 
     American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Institute 
     of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American 
     Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, American 
     Society for Microbiology, American Society of Agronomy, 
     American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical 
     Association, Association of American Geographers, Association 
     of Ecosystem Research Centers, Botanical Society of America, 
     California Academy of Sciences.
       Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of 
     America, National Academy of Engineering, National Academy of 
     Sciences (USA), National Association of State Foresters, New 
     York Academy of Sciences, Scripps Institution of 
     Oceanography, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 
     Society of American Foresters, Society of Systematic 
     Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, The Geological 
     Society of America, The Wildlife Society, United States 
     National Research Council, University Corporation for 
     Atmospheric Research, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.


               135 international scientific associations

       Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil), Academia Chilena 
     de Ciencias (Chile), Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa 
     (Portugal), Academia de Ciencias de la Republica Dominicana, 
     Academia de Ciencias Fisicas, Matematicas y Naturales de 
     Venezuela, Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales 
     de Guatemala. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Academia 
     Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia, Academia Nacional de 
     Ciencias del Peru, Academia Sinica, Taiwan, China, Academie 
     des Sciences et Techniques du Senegal, Academie des Sciences 
     (France), Academy of Athens, Academy of Science for South 
     Africa, Academy of Science of Mozambique, Academy of Sciences 
     Malaysia, Academy of Sciences of Moldova, Academy of Sciences 
     of the Czech Republic, Academy of Sciences of the Islamic 
     Republic of Iran, Academy of Scientific Research and 
     Technology, Egypt, Accademia dei Lincei (Italy), Africa 
     Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science.
       African Academy of Sciences, Albanian Academy of Sciences, 
     Amazon Environmental Research Institute, Australian Academy 
     of Science (Australia), Australian Coral Reef Society, 
     Australian Institute of Marine Science, Australian Institute 
     of Physics, Australian Marine Sciences Association, 
     Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, 
     Bangladesh Academy of Sciences, Botanical Society of America, 
     British Antarctic Survey, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 
     Cameroon Academy of Sciences, Canadian Association of 
     Physicists, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric 
     Sciences, Canadian Geophysical Union, Canadian Meteorological 
     and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Society of Soil Science, 
     Canadian Society of Zoologists, Caribbean Academy of 
     Sciences, Center for International Forestry Research, Chinese 
     Academy of the Sciences, Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical 
     and Natural Sciences, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial 
     Research Organisation (Australia).
       Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cuban Academy of 
     Sciences, Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and 
     Letters, Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina 
     (Germany), Ecological Society of Australia, European Academy 
     of Sciences and Arts, European Federation of Geologists, 
     European Geosciences Union, European Physical Society, 
     European Science Foundation, Federation of Australian 
     Scientific and Technological Societies, Geological Society of 
     Australia, Geological Society of London, Georgian Academy of 
     Sciences, Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences, Indian National 
     Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of the Sciences, 
     Institute of Biology (UK), Institute of Ecology and 
     Environmental Management, Institute of Marine Engineering, 
     Science and Technology, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 
     UK.
       InterAcademy Council, International Alliance of Research 
     Universities, International Arctic Science Committee, 
     International Association for Great Lakes Research, 
     International Council for Science, International Council of 
     Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, 
     International Research Institute for Climate and Society, 
     International Union for Quaternary Research, International 
     Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union of Pure 
     and Applied Physics, Islamic World Academy of Sciences, 
     Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Kenya National 
     Academy of Sciences, Korean Academy of Science and 
     Technology, Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts, Latin 
     American Academy of Sciences, Latvian Academy of Sciences, 
     Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, Madagascar National Academy 
     of Arts, Letters, and Sciences, Mauritius Academy of Science 
     and Technology, Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts.
       National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, 
     Argentina, National Academy of Sciences of Armenia, National 
     Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic, National Academy 
     of Sciences, Sri Lanka, National Council of Engineers, 
     Australia, National Institute of Water & Atmospheric 
     Research, New Zealand, Natural Environment Research Council, 
     UK, Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences, Nigerian Academy of 
     Science, Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, 
     Organization of Biological Field Stations, Pakistan Academy 
     of Sciences, Palestine Academy for Science and Technology, 
     Polish Academy of the Sciences, Romanian Academy, Royal 
     Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium (Belgium), 
     Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of 
     Spain, Royal Astronomical Society, UK, Royal Danish Academy 
     of Sciences and Letters, Royal Irish Academy, Royal 
     Meteorological Society, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and 
     Sciences, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, Royal 
     Scientific Society of Jordan, Royal Society of Canada.
       Royal Society of Chemistry, UK, Royal Society of New 
     Zealand, Royal Society, UK, Royal Swedish Academy of 
     Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences, Science Council of 
     Japan, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Slovak Academy 
     of Sciences, Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Society 
     of Biology, UK, Society of Systematic Biologists, Sudanese 
     National Academy of Science, Tanzania Academy of Sciences, 
     The Geological Society (UK), The World Academy of Sciences 
     (TWAS) for the developing world, Turkish Academy of Sciences, 
     Uganda

[[Page 471]]

     National Academy of Sciences, Union der Deutschen Akademien 
     der Wissenschaften, World Meteorological Association, Zambia 
     Academy of Sciences, Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences, Sudan 
     National Academy of Sciences.


                        21 medical associations

       American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of 
     Occupational and Environmental Medicine, American College of 
     Preventive Medicine, American Lung Association, American 
     Medical Association, American Nurses Association, American 
     Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society, 
     Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, 
     Australian Medical Association, Children's Environmental 
     Health Network, Health Care without Harm, Hepatitis 
     Foundation International, National Association of County and 
     City Health Officials, National Association of Local Boards 
     of Health, National Environmental Health Association, 
     Partnership for Prevention, Physicians for Social 
     Responsibility, Trust for America's Health, World Federation 
     of Public Health Associations, World Health Organization.


                       4 Religious organizations

       Interfaith Power and Light, National Association of 
     Evangelicals, Presbyterian Mission Agency, The Pope.


                          Other Organizations

       American Association for Wildlife Veterinarians, American 
     Society of Civil Engineers, International Association for 
     Great Lakes Research, Institute of Professional Engineers New 
     Zealand, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization 
     of Biological Field Stations, The Institution of Engineers 
     Australia, The World Federation of Engineering Organizations, 
     World Forestry Congress.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me read from an excerpt of a letter 
signed by virtually every major scientific organization in this country 
that was sent to the U.S. Senate way back in 2009. This is what the 
letter states:

       Observations throughout the world make it clear that 
     climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research 
     demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human 
     activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are 
     based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary 
     assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of 
     the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is 
     strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad 
     impact on society, including the global economy and on the 
     environment. For the United States, climate change impacts 
     include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of 
     extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water 
     scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and a 
     disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The 
     severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase 
     substantially in the coming decades.

  Let me repeat that one sentence:

       The severity of climate change impacts is expected to 
     increase substantially in the coming decades.

  We know that the Earth's climate is warming and warming quickly as a 
result of industrial greenhouse gas emissions. The 2014 National 
Climate Assessment reported:

       The most recent decade was the nation's warmest on record. 
     U.S. temperatures are expected to continue to rise.

  According to NOAA, October, August, June, and May were the hottest 
months ever recorded. And 2012 was the warmest year on record in the 
contiguous United States and saw at least 69,000 local heat records 
set.
  The consequence of this rapid and dramatic rise in global 
temperatures--what does that mean? What is going to happen? The answer 
is, it is going to mean more severe storms, more flooding and 
destructive storm surges, heat waves, drought, forest fires, and the 
inundation of water supplies and agricultural land with saltwater.
  As the New York Times reported in August, droughts in the West and 
Southwestern United States appear to be intensifying as a result of 
climate change.

       Over the past decade, droughts in some regions have rivaled 
     the epic dry spells of the 1930s and 1950s. . . . The country 
     is in the midst of one of the most sustained periods of 
     increasing drought on record.

  China's heat wave a year and a half ago was the worst in at least 140 
years. Fire-suppression costs in the United States have increased from 
roughly $1 billion annually in the mid-1990s to an average of more than 
$3 billion in the last 5 years, adjusted for inflation, reports the 
National Climate Assessment.
  Our oceans are not just warming, they are becoming more acidic, 
threatening fish, coral reefs, and other sea life.
  A study published in the Journal of Science reported:

       Carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere are driving a 
     rate of change in ocean acidity, which is already thought to 
     be faster than at any time in the past 50 million years.

  The authors warn that we may be entering an unknown territory of 
marine ecosystem change.
  Extreme storms are also becoming more common and more intense, with 
extraordinary impacts. For example, when Typhoon Haiyan struck the 
Philippines a year ago, it displaced over 4 million people, killed 
thousands, and cost the country at least $15 billion in damages.
  What will happen if we fail to cut back dramatically on greenhouse 
gas emissions and climate change continues to accelerate? What will 
that reality mean for our country and for the globe? The IPCC estimates 
that without additional efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 
``warming is more likely than not'' to exceed 4 degrees Celsius--7.2 
degrees Fahrenheit--by the end of the century.
  Let me repeat that. If we do not begin the process to dramatically 
reverse carbon emissions and slow down the warming of this planet by 
the end of the century, warming is more likely than not to exceed 4 
degrees Celsius, which is 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit, resulting in a planet 
that is over 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer.
  Similarly, just last year the White House released the National 
Climate Assessment, emphasizing that global warming is already 
happening and warning that global warming could exceed 10 degrees in 
the United States by the end of the century--10 degrees Fahrenheit.
  The World Bank, which is a pretty conservative organization, talked 
about a world in which temperatures increase by just 4 degrees Celsius, 
that that would be one of unprecedented heat waves, severe drought, and 
major floods in many regions, with serious impacts on many systems, 
ecosystems, and associated services. This is the warning we hear from 
the World Bank, which is a fairly conservative international 
organization.
  The IPCC reports that sea levels are likely to rise another 10 to 32 
inches by the end of the century. Some studies have reported projected 
increases of more than 6 feet during that time period.
  As the New York Times reported, a rise of less than 4 feet would 
inundate land on which some 3.7 million Americans live. Miami, New 
Orleans, New York, and Boston are highly vulnerable.
  Similarly, according to the IPCC, ``many small island nations are 
only a few meters above present sea level. These states may face 
serious threat of permanent inundation from sea-level rise.''
  Reuters has reported that experts estimate that if the sea level 
rises by 1 meter over the next 50 years, 20 million additional people 
will be displaced from their land.
  The Army Corps of Engineers has predicted that the entire village of 
Newtok, AK, could be underwater by 2017 and more than 180 additional 
Native Alaskan villages are at risk. Parts of Alaska are literally 
vanishing.
  As reported in the journal Forest Ecology and Management, U.S. Forest 
Service researchers reported that wildfires are expected to increase 50 
percent across the United States under a changing climate and over 100 
percent in areas of the West by 2050. So huge increases in forest fires 
are expected.
  The World Health Organization reported in August that the number of 
weather-related natural disasters has more than tripled since the 
1960s, and more than 60,000 people now die each year in weather-related 
natural disasters. By 2020 food production is estimated to drop by 50 
percent in some African countries, and by 2090, the World Health 
Organization anticipates, climate change will double the frequency of 
drought and the duration will be six times longer.
  In 2003 a heat wave in Europe killed an estimated 70,000 people. As a 
study published in Nature Climate Change projects, however, Europe will 
likely

[[Page 472]]

experience severe heat waves once every 5 years now, which is 10 times 
more frequent than just a decade ago.
  The need to act quickly is profound and pronounced. In its fifth 
assessment, the IPCC found that ``without additional mitigation efforts 
beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the 
end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, 
widespread, and irreversible impacts globally.''
  In order to prevent ``irreversible and severe impacts,'' we must 
quickly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to keep warming below 
2 degrees Celsius, and to do that we must transform our energy system 
away from fossil fuel and into energy efficiency and sustainable 
energy.
  In the face of this overwhelming evidence, in the face of deep 
concerns all over this planet, what is the Senate going to do over the 
next few weeks? Well, I hope very much that we do not go forward with 
the Keystone Pipeline, which moves us exactly in the wrong direction by 
expanding the production and transportation of some of the dirtiest 
fossil fuel on this Earth. I think that would be a terrible mistake. 
But maybe more importantly, I hope the Senate goes on record in 
strongly supporting the overwhelming scientific evidence which tells us 
loudly and clearly that climate change is real, that climate change is 
caused by human activity and the emission of carbon, and that climate 
change is already causing devastating problems in our country and 
around the world.
  We have a short window of opportunity in order to move dramatically 
to reverse climate change and cut carbon, and we must transform our 
energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and 
sustainable energy.
  I intend to offer an amendment which basically urges the entire U.S. 
Senate to go on record in making it clear that they understand what 
scientists are talking about. They are going to listen to the 
scientific community, and they are going to take actions for which our 
kids and our grandchildren will be proud of them so that we do not 
leave them with a nation and a planet substantially less habitable than 
the planet on which we were born.
  With that, I want to thank Senator Bennet and Senator Carper for 
cosponsoring this amendment. I hope we can have more cosponsors and I 
look forward to seeing the adoption of this important amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                        Personal Identity Theft

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I want to speak on the Keystone Pipeline, 
but before I do, I want to alert the Senate that I am filing 
legislation today to try to protect the average American from the 
breach of data in an individual company and therefore the loss of their 
personal identification.
  We have had a number of cases where there have been these wide data 
breaches in companies with hundreds of thousands of records being 
stolen. And, of course, woe to you if, in fact, your personal identity 
is stolen. It may manifest itself in so many different ways, not the 
least of which we have seen particularly in the Tampa and the Miami 
area of my State--the use of stolen Social Security numbers to file 
false income tax returns seeking refunds. Believe it or not, there was 
a ring in Tampa that was actually doing this so successfully that the 
street crime actually dropped--the burglaries, the robberies, the 
breakings and enterings, all of that dropped because suddenly the 
criminals found it was so easy to use a laptop instead, once they had 
secured the stolen ID, to generate these false income tax returns. That 
is just one example.
  The fact is if your identity is stolen because of a breach in a 
corporation, you should have a right of having the knowledge that your 
security has been breached. Therefore, we are filing today, with a 
number of cosponsors, simple legislation that I have filed before in 
previous Congresses, that if data is stolen from a company, it is 
incumbent upon that company to notify its customers within 30 days that 
their secure information has been stolen. That is it. Plain and simple.
  Mr. President, I want to talk about the Keystone XL. I would first 
remind anybody who is not familiar with this issue, this is the 
Keystone XL Pipeline. What does XL stand for? It stands for extra 
large. Well, if this is an extra-large pipeline, that would indicate 
there is a smaller pipeline, and in fact there is. There is a smaller 
pipeline that is in existence from Canada coming across the northern 
part of the United States, coming down to a terminal in southern 
Missouri.
  It was about 2 years ago that the President announced he was going to 
start and allow the extension of that southern terminus all the way to 
the gulf where there are the refineries. That is under construction. I 
don't know the completion date. It may be already completed. So there 
is a pipeline from Canada all the way to the gulf coast.
  If what the oil interests in Canada want is a larger pipeline, XL, a 
lot of this environmental debate could have been avoided if you simply 
ran it along the same route as the existing pipeline. In fact, there 
wouldn't have been all the controversy about all of the aquifer and the 
recharge area right across the middle of Nebraska that the State of 
Nebraska got so exercised about, and at first the Governor and the 
various State officials took the position they did not want this.
  Finally, a new route was negotiated and the route was further to the 
east, not right across the middle of the recharge area which supplies a 
lot of the aquifer not only in Nebraska but a lot of the Western 
States. Yet it is still running across part of the aquifer. We would 
have avoided all of that had you just run the XL pipeline right along 
the existing pipeline. There wouldn't have been all of this siting 
problem. The environmental problems associated with the pipeline 
wouldn't have been there.
  But why was it done? This is all politics. It was done in the middle 
of the Presidential campaign going back--coming up to the 2012 
campaign, and it was supposedly to show that the President was anti-
energy, anti-energy independence because he wasn't in favor of creating 
more oil production in North America.
  Well, that is clearly what played out. But along the way, then the 
question came: Well, assuming you put this pipeline there, what is 
going to happen to that Canadian oil? Where is it going to go? It was a 
legitimate question.
  The answer to that was it was going to go right out to additional 
foreign countries. So this particular Senator said, now wait a minute, 
do I understand that you want Canadian oil to have a conduit right 
through the center of the United States to a port in the Gulf of 
Mexico, then to be exported to foreign countries? And the answer to 
that was yes.
  I said, well, since it seems as though it would be in the interests 
of the United States that we at least keep part of that in the United 
States for consumption so it would lessen our dependence on foreign oil 
coming from the Middle East or coming from places where we used to get 
some 12 percent to 20 percent of our oil--thank goodness we don't 
today, but used to from a place such as Nigeria. You know how troubled 
that area is now.
  My question was: Well, wouldn't it make sense that we keep some of 
that oil in the United States for domestic uses so we didn't have to 
rely on oil coming from Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf area, from the 
West Coast of Africa? The answer was that they would not entertain an 
amendment that would prohibit that oil from being exported. Likewise, 
if the oil is refined on the gulf coast, it is not prohibited from 
being exported.
  I am just a country boy from Florida, but I can put two and two 
together. It simply does not make sense to me that you would want 
foreign oil to come in a conduit through the United States right 
through the heartland to go right out to other oil-thirsty nations in 
the world. If that were the case, then why doesn't Canada take an oil 
pipeline and build it themselves to the west, through the Pacific 
Coast? Or why wouldn't Canada use the existing structures and end up in 
the Great Lakes and send the oil out through the Great Lakes?

[[Page 473]]

  And yet, what did I say? This is politics.
  Since the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed last 
night was passed, this is going to be in front of the Senate. There are 
going to be opportunities for amendments, and I can tell you that this 
Senator is going to support the amendment that prohibits this oil from 
being sent out to other countries.
  If we are really interested in the security of the United States, 
national security, our independence from foreign oil, since Canada is 
such a close friend and ally, this would be in the interests of the 
United States.
  The fact is that it is coming at an interesting time. It is getting 
all the more complicated. It used to be that oil--and you think back a 
half a year, three-quarters of a year ago, oil was selling in excess of 
$100 barrel. Yesterday it was just over $46 a barrel. It is said that 
Canada cannot efficiently produce this oil and have any break-even 
point unless oil is selling in the range of $70 a barrel. So why in the 
world would Canada even want to do this right now, particularly at a 
time that oil is at $46 and may stay down for some period of time, even 
a year or two?
  I think if we apply some country-boy logic to this, there are 
sufficient significant questions--first of all, to kill the bill, and 
if that is not possible, certainly to amend it so that it complies with 
the financial and national security interests of the United States. 
That is the intention of this Senator.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all 
postcloture time on the motion to proceed to S. 1 now be expired and 
the Senate proceed to a vote on the motion to proceed; that if the 
motion to proceed is adopted, the bill be reported and that Senator 
Murkowski be recognized to offer a substitute amendment, the text of 
which is at the desk.
  I further ask that the following amendments be in order to be offered 
during this week's session by Senators Cantwell and Murkowski or their 
designees: Markey amendment No. 13 related to oil exports; Portman 
amendment No. 3; a Franken amendment related to U.S. steel; and that 
the consideration of these amendments be in the order listed and the 
bill be for debate only during this week's consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I just 
want to note for my colleagues that this agreement has been worked out 
on both sides; that instead of staying until midnight and having a 
great deal of uncertainty as we approach the next 2 days for both of 
our caucuses to have retreats, giving people predictability about 
Friday and next Monday being a holiday, working out a back-and-forth on 
these agreements I think is a good way to proceed.
  I hope people will feel free on Friday to come and dialogue about 
these or other amendments. But this process is one I think we should 
pursue at this point, so I will not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have discussed the process going 
forward on this bill with our leader, the majority leader, and Senator 
Cantwell. It is our intention to work together so the two bill managers 
or their designees continue to offer amendments in an alternating 
fashion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________