[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3197-3208]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE APPROVAL ACT--VETO

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the veto message on S.1, which the clerk will 
report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Veto message to accompany S. 1, a bill to approve the 
     Keystone XL Pipeline.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 2:20 
p.m. will be equally divided.
  Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, the time will be divided equally.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary order at this 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is on the veto message to accompany 
S. 1.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if we could have order in the Senate, I 
wish to open debate on S. 1.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Presiding Officer.

[[Page 3198]]

  Senator Cantwell will be comanaging this bill, and I thank her very 
much for her strong leadership.
  The vote that is going to occur at 2:20 p.m. is a very important 
vote.
  I rise today to oppose the attempt to override President Obama's veto 
message of S. 1, the very first bill the Senate majority brought to the 
floor.
  As I look at this bill, it says to me that the only people who are 
helped by this bill are the big Canadian special oil interests.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Keystone Pipeline is presented as 
something that is going really to help this economy and help oil 
prices. I think the only thing it helps, frankly, are the special 
interests in Canada--the special big oil interests--which, by the way, 
will carry the filthiest, dirtiest, tar sands oil into our great 
Nation.
  If we look at the history of the tar sands, we will find that misery 
follows the tar sands. We still have terrible problems in Michigan and 
Arkansas because there was a spill of this dirty, filthy oil, and they 
cannot clean it up because it is so, so difficult to clean.
  This is a picture of a tar sands spill in 2013 in Mayflower, AR. That 
has not been cleaned up because this is tar sands oil. We had a spill 
in Michigan, and we know that since 2011 they have not been able to 
clean up that spill. So why would we build a pipeline to bring dirty, 
filthy oil into our great Nation and our great communities when we know 
the dangers?
  Mr. President, I ask again that there be order in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I know Senators have an opportunity to 
talk to one another, and I appreciate that, but it is hard to make our 
thoughts come out right when there is so much talking in the Senate.
  I thank the Presiding Officer very much.
  Here is the deal. Why on Earth would the Republicans make the first 
bill a bill to help Canadian special oil interests that will bring in 
tar sands oil and has caused terrible problems for our communities? It 
is the hardest oil to clean up. Why would they do it, and why would 
they go against public opinion?
  A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 61 percent of 
Americans support the President's position on this pipeline, which is: 
Don't stop the process. Keep it going. Let's see what this does to our 
people and to our communities.
  I spend a lot of time on environmental issues, and I am saying to you 
that as you look at the environmental laws of our great Nation, we find 
that they brought such a better quality of life to people. We can turn 
that around if we decide at this point--there are all of the challenges 
we face in our communities, such as, the challenges of lung disease, 
the challenges of heart disease, and the challenges of stroke. That is 
what happens from the pollution we get from the tar sands oil.
  Earlier I said that misery follows tar sands. I met with the Canadian 
people who live near the tar sands excavation site. They have terrible 
rates of cancer.
  The bottom line is that because of climate change--and we see it all 
around us. Just the other day we learned a remote Alaskan village has 
to be relocated due to climate. We know the impact of this dirty tar 
sands oil on that, and we know what happens when the tar sands pipeline 
spills. We know all of these things.
  I think the President is right by allowing the process to continue. 
He was very right to veto this bill, and I hope we will have enough 
votes to sustain his veto.
  I yield the floor for my friend Senator Cantwell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues not to 
override the President's veto of this special-interest piece of 
legislation.
  I wish to thank my colleague from California for her leadership on 
this issue and for her constant involvement in making sure that 
national environmental and safety standards are adhered to. She has 
been a great advocate throughout this process and I very much 
appreciate her voice as we close the debate about the Keystone Pipeline 
legislation.
  This bill to approve the Keystone Pipeline undermines a well-
established process for determining what is in the national interests. 
If we overrode the President's veto, we would be subverting safety and 
environmental standards that are important to the American people.
  I am glad the President vetoed this legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues not to override the decision. I think the President's veto 
message said it best:

       Through this bill, the United States Congress attempts to 
     circumvent longstanding and proven processes for determining 
     whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline 
     serves the national interest.
       . . . And because this act of Congress conflicts with 
     established executive branch procedures and cuts short 
     thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our 
     national interest--including our security, safety, and 
     environment--it has earned my veto.

  So the President sums it up pretty much, I think. Why circumvent the 
process? The people who have been advocates for the pipeline have been 
circumventing the process all the way through. They circumvented the 
process by not going through the utility commission in their State, the 
public utility commission, and instead wrote legislation around that. 
That legislation has been challenged in court. The rest of it has been 
an enormous process here in Washington, DC. While the company was 
negotiating with the State Department, it was also supporting efforts 
to circumvent that process at the State Department and just get a 
rubberstamp on their permit, saying ``project approved.'' I think this 
project, as does every other project in the United States of America, 
should follow the rules.
  While we spent the better part of January considering this 
legislation, there were other events that transpired. We heard a lot 
about the routing and that it was a settled matter. Since January, it 
is worth noting that Nebraska landowners have taken new steps to defend 
their rights as private property owners. On January 9, 2015, the 
Nebraska Supreme Court upheld a special carveout of TransCanada to site 
the Keystone XL Pipeline. They did this even though four judges who 
addressed the question said this carveout was unconstitutional.
  After the setback, several landowners whose property would be seized 
along the proposed route filed a new suit and hopefully stopped the 
seizure of their land. Last month--just this past February--two 
Nebraska district courts have issued temporary injunctions enjoining 
TransCanada's effort to acquire rights of way to support the Keystone 
Pipeline by eminent domain. So at this moment here in the Senate, with 
the vote imminent, the pipeline's route through Nebraska is still in 
doubt because the new lawsuit challenges the Governor's ability to 
approve it.
  It is also worth noting that South Dakota will hold a new hearing on 
the proposed route of the pipeline through their State in May. At this 
time we simply don't know whether South Dakota will make the same 
decision it did when it first approved the route 3 years ago. The 
situation in Nebraska and South Dakota makes it clear that even if this 
bill were to become law, the Keystone Pipeline will not get built any 
time soon.
  I know my colleagues would like to rush the process, and they will 
talk about all of the various steps in the process where this project 
got delayed. But who said building a pipeline through the United States 
of America by a foreign interest should get ``expedited approval'' 
stamped on it from the very beginning? That is what they have done. 
They have circumvented what is the process in the State, which should 
have been through the utilities commission, and they have tried to 
circumvent the process here in the Senate.
  So I hope we will not override the President's veto, but give the 
President of the United States the ability to still

[[Page 3199]]

consider these national interests of the environment and security.
  We had a pretty robust debate here on the Senate floor, and many of 
the issues that would have been important my colleagues voted to say we 
shouldn't consider--environmental issues. So I get that on the other 
side of the aisle, there are people who want to give a pass-go, a 
speedy permit to this process. I urge my colleagues to not override the 
President, but allow him to do the homework that is needed on security, 
on the environment, and on making sure that due process is followed.
  I ask my colleagues to not override the President's veto.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I came here to speak on another topic, but 
let me interject in light of the comments from our colleagues from 
across the aisle on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Everybody says, on a 
bipartisan basis, We want job-creating legislation. We want to 
facilitate the creation of new jobs here in America. When it comes to 
voting, our friends across the aisle seem to be stuck on voting against 
job-creating legislation, because our State Department has estimated 
that as many as 42,000 jobs would be created by the construction of the 
Keystone XL Pipeline.
  The thing that mystifies me the most about this debate is at last 
count, we had roughly 2.5 million miles of pipelines crisscrossing 
America. I have come to the floor before and I have suggested that 
people might want to do a search on their laptop or on their tablet for 
oil and gas pipelines, and they will see a map of those pipelines, and 
it looks like a spaghetti bowl, because they are everywhere. Indeed, we 
also know this is the most efficient and the safest way to transport 
natural gas and crude as well.
  So I remain mystified by the fact that the President and many in his 
party seem determined to try to kill what is clearly job-creating, 
energy- providing legislation that would be from a friendly source.


            The Israeli Prime Minister's Speech To Congress

  Mr. President, turning to the Middle East, yesterday, as we all know, 
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered what can only be 
characterized as a powerful and important message about the common 
threats to the national security of Israel and the United States. 
Again, only in Washington would a speech such as this be controversial. 
I think most people would be concerned enough about the subject matter 
of what he talked about that they would want to hear the insights and 
information he delivered in that speech. It was a powerful and 
important message, and really a call to arms for the United States and 
our allies in Israel against the threat of radical Islam, particularly 
in the form of Iranian terrorism.
  His words reminded me why--as I know many on both sides of the aisle 
agree--we have no closer Middle Eastern ally than Israel. 
Unfortunately, his speech also reinforced the belief I have held for 
many years that we have no bigger adversary in the Middle East than 
Iran.
  The cold, hard truth is that today, more than ever, Iran is a terror-
sponsoring theocracy that is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons 
capability and trying to establish an Iranian axis of power from Tehran 
to Damascus to Beirut to Gaza. Iran claims a right to enrich uranium 
for peaceful purposes, but its leaders have routinely lied and 
attempted to deceive inspectors in the past as a matter of standard 
practice.
  Prime Minister Netanyahu also reminded all of us whose memories might 
have dimmed that over the last 30 years, Iran has engaged in a war by 
proxy against the United States and our allies. I was reminded by a 
member of my staff of an article that came out in 2011 in the National 
Journal. The heading of it is: ``Record Number of U.S. Troops Killed by 
Iranian Weapons.'' It tells the tragic story that June of 2011 was the 
deadliest month in 2 years for U.S. troops, with 14 killed. These were 
primarily by Iranian-backed militias using very deadly weapons called 
explosively formed penetrators that could literally cut through the 
steel in our humvees and other armored vehicles like a hot knife 
through butter.
  So given this track record that we were reminded of by the Prime 
Minister yesterday, and just the remainder that I have tried to provide 
here with this article, do we really believe that Iran would use its 
nuclear weapons in a way that would not make the world more unstable 
and less safe? Do we really believe that Iran, were they to get a 
nuclear weapon, won't give it to the same proxies that have been 
killing Americans and our allies in the Middle East and around the 
world, including the Shia militia, Hezbollah, Hamas, or the dictator in 
Syria, Bashar al-Assad, who has now killed roughly 200,000 of his own 
civilians in a civil war, and with almost 13 million people displaced 
not only internally, within Syria, but in neighboring countries and the 
like?
  So as the P5+1 negotiations involving the United States continue, 
there remain serious questions about Iran's true nuclear intentions and 
about whether the deal the Obama administration is eagerly finalizing--
whether it will cement Iran's status as a nuclear threshold nation. 
Based on some of the details we know so far, many of which are being 
held very close to the vest by the administration and not being made 
known to Congress, much less the American people, the President's deal 
would abandon longstanding U.S. policy of preventing a nuclear-armed 
Iran, period.
  I remember when the former Secretary of Defense, Senator Hagel at the 
time--he became the Secretary of the Department of Defense--when asked 
about our policy toward Iran, stumbled a little bit in his answer but 
ultimately said that containment was not our policy. Our policy was to 
prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. But it appears now that the 
deal that is being negotiated on the President's behalf by Secretary 
Kerry would abandon that longstanding U.S. policy of preventing Iran 
from getting a nuclear weapon. Instead, it would opt for a feeble 10-
year containment plan. Such an outcome would be both dangerous and 
unacceptable.
  So while I was glad to hear Leader McConnell announce yesterday that 
the Senate will soon consider bipartisan legislation that would give 
Congress the authority to approve any agreement that is reached by the 
administration, that was quickly replaced by confusion when I read that 
some of my Democratic colleagues, who have shown great courage in 
urging that Congress have a role in approving any negotiated agreement 
between Tehran and the White House--now they are suggesting they might 
filibuster their own bill and the vote we are going to have at 5:30 on 
Monday.
  Yesterday, for example, one of our colleagues who had been a key 
sponsor of this bipartisan legislation said that he was outraged--
outraged--that the Senate would vote on the very bill that bears his 
name. He indicated his outrage with the Senate not for voting on the 
substance of the bill, but basically because of the timing. He thought 
the timing was wrong. In other words, he opposes voting on his own bill 
because of the Senate procedures and the process. I don't know how we 
explain that back home. I couldn't sell that to my constituents in 
Texas, saying, I am a sponsor of this legislation; I think it is 
important and the right thing to do, but I am going to vote against it 
because I disagree with the majority leader's timing, or the procedure 
by which the majority leader is bringing this to a vote and debate in 
the U.S. Senate. Good luck explaining that to our constituents.
  I suspect who is also not concerned with the process are the Israeli 
Government and the millions of innocent civilians who stared down an 
Iranian regime bent upon their annihilation every day. I suspect they 
could care less about the process. What they want to do is to stop Iran 
from getting the bomb.
  So I sincerely hope everyone here who has supported Israel and 
embraced a policy of blocking Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon will 
calm down and work together and consider this

[[Page 3200]]

important piece of legislation. Because as we heard yesterday, again, 
from Prime Minister Netanyahu, it has profound implications for both 
our national security as well as the security of our best ally in the 
Middle East.
  Before the Obama administration initiated these misguided 
negotiations, Congress had created incredible economic pressure on the 
regime in Tehran through sanctions backed by the threat of military 
action. It also has helped, frankly, that America is now producing more 
oil, and the price of oil is now down around $50 a barrel, more or 
less. That has put incredible financial pressure on Tehran itself, 
because they have basically had to finance their terrorist ambitions 
around the world through these various proxies by use of high oil 
prices. But we had imposed tremendous sanctions on Tehran, which, of 
course, the administration is now in the process of rolling back.
  I believe an approach of tough sanctions is one we must return to as 
quickly as possible. The President and some of his friends have 
suggested it is either this deal or war. That is a false choice. That 
is not true. It is either this deal or tougher sanctions, sanctions 
designed along with the credible threat of military action if Tehran 
continues on its path to get a nuclear weapon that I believe will 
ultimately have the best chance of success and deter them from getting 
it.
  The concept of good-faith negotiation, though, strikes me as a little 
implausible when you are dealing with the rogue regime and state-
sponsored terrorism. We simply cannot trust the Iranian leadership with 
nuclear weapons. Yet, sadly, the President seems to be traveling down a 
path to secure what he views as a legacy foreign policy accomplishment 
when he should be implementing an Iran policy that would best safeguard 
America and our allies for years to come.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, protecting the President's veto of the 
Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act is about protecting the review 
process for this project. The President deserves to have all of the 
input from the different agencies delivered to him so he can make his 
decision.
  Today in the vote that we will be having shortly, we are saying the 
President should be able to exercise his prerogative to review the 
pipeline and to decide whether it is in the national interest to have 
this pipeline constructed through the United States of America. But we 
are also protecting his prerogative to decide in the end, because this 
is a pipeline that should be rejected on its merits.
  The pipeline fails the test on job creation. After it is built, it 
will only have 35 to 40 permanent jobs that the United States will have 
on its soil. Meanwhile, we should be having a debate about the wind 
production tax credit because if we extended that, we would keep 30,000 
people working permanently here in the United States, as this wind 
revolution continues to explode. Last year, there were 5,000 megawatts 
of solar energy installed in the United States. That is like five huge 
powerplants. This year 7,500 megawatts, at least, of solar are going to 
be installed in the United States. And next year 10,000 megawatts, at 
least, in solar are going to be installed. But that tax break is 
expiring at the end of 2016. You would think there would be an urgency 
here on the floor of the Senate to debate the wind tax break and the 
solar tax break which will create upwards of 250,000 jobs in the United 
States.
  We already have 175,000 people working in the solar industry, but 
there is no urgency to take up wind and solar. But a pipeline from 
Canada taking the dirtiest oil in the world, tar sands--tar. Think 
about that, tar. The tar has to be actually melted down so it can be 
put into a pipeline. It is tar, the dirtiest oil in the world, and then 
a pipeline like a straw through the United States of America, built 
right down to Port Arthur, TX
  What is so unique about Port Arthur, TX? I will tell you right now. 
It is a tax-free export zone, and so there is the plan for the 
Canadians--build a pipeline like a straw through the United States, 
right down to a tax-free export zone, and then get that oil out of the 
United States of America.
  Why is that? I will tell you right now that the price for oil in the 
United States is now $12 less than it is if you can get it out onto the 
global market. Per barrel, $12 less. You don't have to go to Harvard 
Business School to get a degree to put that business plan on a 3-by-5 
card. Get it out of the United States, and you will make $12 a barrel 
more.
  The advocates for the pipeline say that is not going to happen. That 
is why I made the amendment on the Senate floor. The oil will not be 
exported. If we are going to take all of the environmental risks, then 
we should receive the benefits of the oil being here in the United 
States.
  Why is that important? It is important for this reason: We are--the 
United States is--the largest importer of oil in the world. China does 
not import as much oil as we do. We are the leader. You might see these 
ads on television where the American Petroleum Institute and other oil 
companies advertise that with regard to what a great job we are doing 
in producing more oil in the United States. And we are producing more 
oil in the United States. Let's take note of that. The truth is we are 
still 5 million barrels a day short. This pipeline will be moving maybe 
800,000 barrels of oil from Canada right through the United States, 
which could reduce our dependence upon imported oil, but it is going 
through a tax-free export zone. So we know what is going to happen.
  Why is that important? It is important because we export young men 
and women in uniform every single day to the Middle East to protect the 
ships with oil coming into the United States that we import from 
Kuwait, from Saudi Arabia, from the other countries around the world. 
So why would we be exporting oil out of the United States while we are 
exporting young men and women in uniform out of America who then 
protect oil coming back in from countries in the Middle East? That 
makes no sense.
  That is what this pipeline is all about. It is all about getting some 
benefit for the United States. Climate change, big loser. It is the 
dirtiest oil in the world. The Canadians actually escape paying the tax 
in the event that there is an oilspill. They don't have to pay into 
that fund, either, that American oil companies do. And then 
notwithstanding their ads on television that say they are going to keep 
the oil in the United States, they bitterly object to any provision 
being voted here that keeps it in the United States while they run ads 
on television saying North American energy independence, that is their 
greatest goal.
  You can't have it both ways. Life is not like that. Either your ads 
are saying what your goal is, North American energy independence, or 
you are going to export it. But you can't have it both ways, do one 
thing on television and then another thing in real life and say to the 
Senate, please don't put any restrictions on our ability to export this 
oil. That is the challenge for us here.
  By the way, one other thing. If we keep the oil here in the United 
States, that is going to keep a pressure to keep the price of gasoline 
lower, because the more oil we have here in the United States, the 
lower the price of gasoline. Every time there is a 1-penny reduction in 
the price of gasoline, it is $1 billion that goes into the pocket of 
consumers in America. One penny equals a billion. So when the price of 
oil, gasoline, drops 10 cents, that is $10 billion. When it drops $1, 
that is $100 billion. It is down by $1. It is down by more than $1 over 
where it was this time last year. That is a lot of money that goes as a 
stimulus into the pockets of Americans who can spend it on other 
things. But this oil is going out of the country, so the pressure it 
would keep to help our manufacturers, to help our drivers, is not going 
to exist. It fails on each one of these items: One, it gets exported. 
Two, they don't pay their full taxes, or any at all, to the Oilspill 
Liability Fund. We don't keep it here to keep the price lower for 
American drivers. I understand the Canadians want

[[Page 3201]]

to make the most money by getting out of the open market. That hurts 
you. That hurts us. That hurts our drivers. That is the challenge.
  It fails each one of these tests. It fails on the climate change. It 
fails on the export test because it goes overseas. It fails on the tax 
issue. It fails on the process issue of trying to short-circuit the 
President's prerogative to be able to consider this in a comprehensive 
sense.
  The President has correctly vetoed this bill. The President is 
standing up for the American taxpayer, for the American consumer, for 
the environment of the United States. He is asking the right questions. 
He is doing the right things.
  I urge my colleagues here on the Senate floor, within the next hour, 
to vote to sustain the veto of President Obama on this policy which 
does not advance the best interests of the United States of America.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MARKEY. 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. MARKEY. I ask unanimous consent that all time within the quorum 
call be divided equally between the two sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Human Trafficking

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about human sex 
trafficking--an issue that plagues the world and our Nation. Today I 
join my colleagues, Senators Cornyn, Wyden, Klobuchar, and King, in 
supporting legislation to help fight this evil and to stop it from 
spreading. Sex trafficking is real. It is affecting millions of people 
around the world. We should not tolerate it, and we cannot turn a blind 
eye. This modern-day form of slavery has continued to grow in the 
shadows all around us. It is time to take action.
  The scale of this problem is difficult to calculate; yet many 
estimates, including those from the United Nations and various human 
rights organizations, show that millions of human beings are being 
trafficked every year. Meanwhile, the criminals who force these victims 
into slavery profit to the tune of $32 billion annually.
  Mr. President, 300,000 children right here in the United States are 
at risk of becoming victims of this vile practice. Teenagers are the 
primary targets. These kids are being sold into a life of physical and 
emotional abuse. Often they are runaways who flee violent households 
looking for a way out. Women and girls represent a disproportionate 
amount of those trafficked around the world, but this does affect all 
of us. The pain and suffering victims experience is hard to describe in 
words. Simply put, it is evil. We must do more to stop this plague, and 
our work begins by setting a clear example.
  This Sunday we will commemorate International Women's Day. As we 
celebrate the progress women have made here in the United States and 
around the world, we must also use this moment to remind ourselves of 
the work that still needs to be done.
  As I mentioned, Senator Cornyn and I, along with several of our 
colleagues, introduced a new bill to address this issue. This 
legislation would set up a deficit-neutral fund to support people 
abused by sex trafficking. Through enhanced reporting and mechanisms 
that would reduce demand, this bill can serve as the next step in 
providing care for victims of trafficking and child pornography. 
Furthermore, Senator Cornyn's bill protects victims in courts by 
treating the traffickers as violent criminals. By labeling traffickers 
in this way, convicts can now be detained while they await their 
judicial proceeding. Funding for the bill comes from increased fines 
placed on those convicted of trafficking.
  While nothing can erase the pain inflicted on these victims, we must 
do what we can to make a difference. I encourage all of my colleagues 
to join in this effort and stand against this vile practice.
  A number of my colleagues have other bills as well. We should take 
the time to consider solutions that are offered by all of them. Our 
government has a responsibility to stand up and to act for those whose 
voices grow weak in the shadows of this imperfect world. This is our 
moment to do something. These victims do not have time to wait. We must 
act now.
  I ask unanimous consent that all time spent in quorum calls before 
the 2:20 vote this afternoon be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FISCHER. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 150th Anniversary of the Second Inaugural Address of President Lincoln

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today is the 150th anniversary of the 
second inaugural address of President Abraham Lincoln. Later on this 
evening there will be an observance in the Rotunda sponsored by the 
Illinois State Society and the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation 
to observe this anniversary. My colleague Senator Kirk is scheduled to 
be there; former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood; Stephen Lang; and 
some of the most distinguished Lincoln scholars in America: Dr. Edna 
Greene Medford, Chief Justice Frank Williams of Rhode Island, and the 
most prolific Lincoln writer I know, Harold Holzer from New York.
  There have been 15,000 books written about Abraham Lincoln. I think 
Mr. Holzer has written about half of them. He is not only prolific, but 
he is profound in his observations about this great man's life. He was 
joined by Edith Holzer, his wife, who stood by him through his Lincoln 
travails.
  Historians disagree on whether the second inaugural address of 
Abraham Lincoln was his greatest speech or his second greatest. I am in 
the latter camp. I accord that highest honor to the Gettysburg Address 
for its brevity as well as its inspiration, but both speeches are 
immortal.
  I am not a Lincoln scholar, but my life as a Springfield attorney, 
elected Congressman, and Senator from Illinois has taken me to some of 
the same streets and same buildings that were part of Abraham Lincoln's 
life.
  Although he tried mightily to be elected to the Senate in 1858, 
Abraham Lincoln fell short. It was in that campaign of 1858 that he 
debated Stephen Douglas. At the end of the debates and when the votes 
were cast, Stephen Douglas was the victor in that senatorial contest in 
Illinois. Of course, the same two men faced off again 2 years later for 
the Presidency. But that Senate seat, the Douglas seat that was 
contested in the 1858 election, is the same seat I am honored to hold 
today in the State of Illinois.
  We can feel Abraham Lincoln's presence in this building, particularly 
near the Senate Chamber. There is a magnificent room off the Senate 
Chamber known as the President's Room. It is one of the historic rooms 
in the Capitol.
  It was in this room in April of 1862 that President Lincoln signed 
the bill outlawing slavery in the District of Columbia. It was in this 
room in 1965 that Dr. Martin Luther King and other leaders watched 
Lyndon Baines Johnson

[[Page 3202]]

sign the Voting Rights Act, prohibiting discrimination at the polls--
100 years after Lincoln's death. It was in the same room on January 20, 
2009, that a newly inaugurated President Barack Obama signed his first 
official documents as President of the United States. And it was in 
this room that Abraham Lincoln worked long into the night before his 
second inauguration, signing and vetoing bills passed in the final 
hours of one Congress, before the next Congress was sworn in. Imagine 
that, Congress leaving important business until the last minute.
  President Lincoln was working in the President's Room on March 3, 
1865, when he received an urgent message from GEN Ulysses Grant. GEN 
Robert E. Lee was seeking a peace conference to negotiate an end to the 
war. Grant asked the President, his Commander in Chief: What should I 
reply?
  After conferring with Secretary of War Stanton and Secretary of State 
Seward, Lincoln sent word back to General Grant that he was not to meet 
with Lee ``unless it be for the capitulation of General Lee's army.''
  The following day, in his second inaugural address, March 4, 1865, 
Lincoln explained more fully why he had refused Lee's request for a 
negotiated settlement. He said: ``With firmness in the right as God 
gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are 
in.''
  Less than 5 weeks later, General Lee surrendered unconditionally at 
Appomattox. The cannons would fall silent. After 4 years of horrific 
death and destruction, the worst war and the most costly war in the 
history of the United States was over. But the work was not.
  President Lincoln told us in his second inaugural address the urgent 
challenge is not only to win the war, but to win the peace by achieving 
true reconciliation. Another President could certainly have been 
vindictive toward the South--that had been the practice of the day and 
it is what many people wanted in the North--but Lincoln understood that 
if America remained divided after the hostilities ceased, then the 
terrible sacrifices of war would have been in vain. So he counseled in 
that immortal inaugural address: ``With malice toward none, charity for 
all.'' Let us bind up the wounds here, and not inflict new injuries. 
That was how the Union would be reunited and persevere.
  Six weeks later after this speech, Abraham Lincoln was cut down by an 
assassin's bullet. He was, in fact, the last casualty of America's war 
within its own boundaries.
  That address, that second inaugural address, remains the second 
shortest in the Nation's history, only 703 words. Lincoln spoke so 
briefly that many people were still arriving after he finished. As at 
Gettysburg, some listeners were mystified by the President's brevity. 
Few understood the genius of the speech at that moment. Frederick 
Douglass was an exception. He said to Mr. Lincoln afterwards, ``Mr. 
Lincoln, that was a sacred effort.''
  In the century and a half since his death, we have made uneven 
progress in achieving the kind of America Abraham Lincoln believed we 
could be. A full century passed before African Americans in the South 
were guaranteed the most basic right of citizenship, the right to vote.
  If President Lincoln were here today, I think he would be happy to 
see how our Union has survived. I think he would be pleased and 
astonished to see that America had elected and reelected another lanky 
lawyer from Illinois, and an African American, to be our President.
  I also think he would challenge us. When our government ``of the 
people, by the people, for the people'' is under threat from a cabal of 
secret, special interest money that can buy elections, I think 
President Lincoln would tell us we have unfinished work to do.
  When we neglect to bind up the wounds of war of even one soldier 
returning from war, and neglect to care for widows and orphans, Lincoln 
would have reminded us that we have unfinished work to do.
  And when the right to vote is under systematic attack in so many 
States for obvious political reasons, there is still work to do.
  When Americans who work long and hard can't earn enough to provide 
for their families, I think Lincoln would tell us to put our shoulder 
to the plough and finish the work of creating a genuine opportunity for 
all Americans.
  We can see in the second inaugural and in the Gettysburg Address one 
reason that Abraham Lincoln remains our greatest President. He shows us 
that America is capable of constant progress toward our professed 
creed. We can love our country and be determined to make it better.


                      Tribute to Bill Bartholomay

  Mr. President, even by Chicago standards, this has been some winter. 
From Boston to Birmingham, AL, tens of millions of Americans have been 
clobbered this winter by record snowfalls. In fact, we are heading for 
the exits in Washington this afternoon with the threat of another 
winter storm.
  That may be why so many of us are so happy this week is finally here 
and we can literally count the days until spring training of baseball 
begins. In cities throughout the Sun Belt, mighty Casey is smiling 
again. More than Punxsutawney Phil or the sighting of the first robin, 
spring training for many of us marks the unofficial arrival of spring.
  Few people on Earth are happier about the start of the baseball 
season than Bill Bartholomay, a man who has done so much for the cities 
of Chicago and Atlanta, for the sport of baseball, and for our Nation.
  Bill Bartholomay has achieved more in his one life than many talented 
people in five. He is phenomenally successful as an entrepreneur, and 
he has built some of the most successful insurance brokerage firms in 
the world. Bill has owned a restaurant, a candy company, and a chain of 
toy stores.
  He helped a friend and business partner by the name of Ted Turner 
transform CNN from an upstart news station to one of the most powerful 
news organizations in the world.
  Bill Bartholomay is more than a successful businessman, he is a 
principled civic leader and a true philanthropist. On top of all that, 
he is chairman emeritus of the Atlanta Braves. He is a man who half a 
century ago, with support from leaders, including the father of the 
Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., brought Major League Baseball to 
America's Deep South. What a life.
  In 1962, Bill Bartholomay and a group of investors bought the 
Milwaukee Braves. The Braves roster then included a lot of great 
legendary ballplayers. Among them was a young catcher with a rocket for 
an arm whose mother had to sign his first major league contract because 
he hadn't reached the age of 21. His name was Joe Torre. But the Braves 
greatest player then and ever was a man named Henry Aaron, ``Hammerin' 
Hank.''
  In 1966, Bill Bartholomay and his partners moved the Braves from 
Milwaukee to Atlanta. Here is something that will do your heart good. 
Go to YouTube and watch the video of that magic night, April 8, 1974, 
when Hank Aaron broke Babe Ruth's record to become baseball's all-time 
home-run champ, a record he would hold for 33 years. For anyone under 
the age of 50, it may be impossible now to fully appreciate what that 
moment meant.
  It was 6 years almost to the day after Dr. King's assassination. For 
more than a year, as Hank Aaron had closed in on Babe Ruth's fabled 
record of 714 home runs, he had been cheered by many, but also 
subjected to ugly racist threats and taunts. There were people who just 
seethed at the idea that Babe Ruth's immortal record would be broken by 
a Black baseball player.
  Years later, Hank Aaron would acknowledge that the anger and the 
jeers wore on him. They worried Bill Bartholomay too.
  So watch that clip on YouTube, April 8, 1974. It was the Braves home 
opener against the Los Angeles Dodgers. More than 53,000 fans were 
standing for that great moment--a record crowd.
  It is the fourth inning. Henry ``Hank'' Aaron is up at bat. The count 
is 1 and 0. And then it happens: Aaron swings and smashes the ball over 
the center field fence.

[[Page 3203]]

  The fans roar. Fireworks fill the sky over the stadium. As Aaron 
rounds the bases, the Dodgers infielders reach out to shake his hand.
  He crosses homeplate, surrounded by teammates, his beaming wife, and 
parents. And standing right next to him was Bill Bartholomay.
  It had been a dozen years since Bill and his partners had bought the 
Braves and 8 years since they moved to Atlanta. Part of their reason 
for moving the Braves to Atlanta was because Atlanta was working hard 
in the 1960s to become the leading city of the new South, a city that 
would move beyond the old legacy of Jim Crow to a new era.
  Leaders, including Dr. King, believed that Major League Baseball 
could help to create that new Atlanta, and Bill Bartholomay and his 
partners wanted to be part of that dream. Eight years after he moved 
the team to Atlanta, there he stood with baseball's new home-run king, 
a man who had started his career in the old Negro League, who had just 
broken the most revered record in Major League Baseball and who would 
become a symbol of immense pride for Atlanta and all of America. That 
was one of the many great moments for the Braves under Bill 
Bartholomay.
  Since he moved the team to Atlanta in 1966, Bill has witnessed the 
Braves winning 16 division championships, including a record-setting 14 
in a row, 5 National League pennants. And in 1995 the Braves went all 
the way, winning the World Series.
  Bill no longer owns the Braves, but he is still closely connected to 
the team and has served as the chairman emeritus since 2003. He is an 
active member of the MLB owners group.
  Bill Bartholomay grew up in Illinois in a family where his father and 
grandfather had made good money in the insurance brokerage business. He 
was the second of two boys, and he grew up in Winnetka, IL, just 
outside of Chicago, in a big house. The Bartholomay family were friends 
with both the Wrigley family, who owned the Chicago Cubs, and the 
Comiskey family, who owned the White Sox.
  As far back as he can remember, Bill loved baseball and so did his 
mom. They used to go to Cubs games together.
  At North Shore Country Day School, his eighth grade phys ed 
instructor thought Bill loved baseball a little too much. He sent home 
a report card that said:

       Billy is very cooperative in play activities. While his 
     ability is not great, he makes up to a large degree by his 
     enthusiasm and interest. My greatest concern with him is that 
     he seems to borrow much of his ideas of conduct from 
     professional baseball.

  That teacher needn't have worried. The lessons of baseball have 
served Bill Bartholomay very well. They have inspired and shaped his 
entire amazing life.
  One of Bill's favorite sayings is: ``Start strong, finish strong and 
play all nine innings.'' Translation: Give it everything you have got--
no half measures.
  That attitude has enabled Bill to build or even help build a number 
of powerful insurance brokerage firms, along with other diverse 
businesses.
  In 2003, he became vice chairman of Willis Group Holdings, one of the 
largest insurance brokers in the world. He increased their presence in 
Chicago to the point where they became the regional headquarters of 
what was formerly known as Sears Tower, now known as the Willis Tower. 
Today that office anchors Chicago's place as a first-rate place to 
operate a global company.
  Bill is more than a businessman, more than a man of baseball; he is a 
civic leader as well. In the early 1980s, then-Chicago mayor, the late 
James Byrne, asked Bill to serve on the park commission, overseeing 
Chicago's 400 parks. Bill never said no to public service. So even 
though he had five teenaged kids and a number of businesses, he said he 
would serve for 1 year. He ended up serving for 23 years, including 
many as commission chairman.
  All told, three of Chicago's mayors recognized Bill's talents as a 
bridge builder in Chicago. He made sure the commission focused not only 
on the wealthy parts of the city but all of the city.
  Bill created a charitable foundation and he has helped to make it 
work and helped millions of others. He is a generous man and he is 
generous in praise of others.
  I wish to give a short story that I read when I was reading a book 
one day and stumbled on this little episode in Bill's life that really 
tells a story. It is a story about another baseball legend, a man by 
the name of Satchel Paige, who may have been the best baseball pitcher 
ever. He was an American treasure.
  He was a star in the Negro Leagues during the Jim Crow era. He later 
became the first African-American pitcher in the American League and 
the first Negro League player elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame.
  He played for an astonishing 250 teams in his 40-year career. He used 
to pitch year around, often on back-to-back days. He hurled exhibition 
games on his day off. He spent the winter months playing in Cuba, the 
Dominican Republic, and Mexico.
  In 1968 Satchel Paige was 62 years old, and despite all the time he 
had played in baseball, he hadn't played long enough to qualify for a 
pension. He fell 6 months short. So Satchel Paige sent a letter to 
every Major League Baseball team asking them if they would consider 
hiring him as a coach, and if they would for 6 months, he would qualify 
for a pension.
  Well, you can guess who replied. It was Bill Bartholomay. Bill 
Bartholomay, in a real true act of kindness, said: ``Baseball would 
have been guilty of negligence should it not assure this legendary 
figure a place in the pension plan.''
  Bill made sure Satchel Paige got his pension. He hired him to be the 
Braves' pitcher-coach-trainer just long enough for him to meet his 
pension needs. In case there was any doubt about what he was doing, he 
assigned Satchel Paige the number 65, the age at which his retirement 
salary would kick in.
  But there was another reason the Braves hired Satchel Paige. That 
summer--the summer of 1968--riots were raging and cities were burning 
across America in the wake of Dr. King's assassination. Bill 
Bartholomay believed that having a bridge builder such as Satchel Paige 
might help diffuse tensions in Atlanta, and he was right.
  Satchel did that partly by signing autographs and spending time with 
fans and serving as a good will ambassador. Even though his title was 
trainer, what Satchel Paige really wanted to do, even at age 62, was 
pitch. The club didn't care for the idea. They were afraid his eyesight 
wasn't good enough and a line drive might knock him off the mound, but 
Satchel insisted. He said he could tell by the crack of the bat where 
the ball was headed.
  In 1969, Satchel Paige pitched a couple of innings in an exhibition 
game for the Braves' highest level minor league team, the Triple-A 
Richmond team. So picture this: Satchel Paige on the mound beaming, and 
who steps up to the plate? Hank Aaron. The best pitcher in baseball 
history against the best hitter.
  Strike one, strike two, and finally Hank Aaron swings hard, gets a 
piece of the ball and pops out to third. Old Satchel still had it.
  In his 1966 Hall of Fame induction speech, Ted Williams urged the 
inclusion of Negro League players to the Hall of Fame. Satchel Paige 
was elected as the first Negro League player to be inducted.
  Satchel Paige once said: ``Ain't no man can avoid being born average, 
but there ain't no man got to be common.''
  Bill Bartholomay has led an uncommonly good life as a business 
leader, as a pioneer in baseball, as a civic leader, as a 
philanthropist, and as a man who sensed in his lifetime an opportunity 
to build bridges in America and make us a better nation through the 
game of baseball and through the integration of that sport. He served 
the cities of Chicago and Atlanta in an extraordinary way, but he 
served America as well. He proved his old phys ed instructor from grade 
school wrong by showing that the rules of baseball are pretty good 
rules for life after all.

[[Page 3204]]

  On this day, as we start spring training and a new baseball season, I 
wish the very best to the very best--Bill Bartholomay.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. 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. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to address the motion to 
override the President's veto of S. 1, which would force approval of 
the construction of the Keystone Pipeline to transport tar sands heavy 
oil from Canada to the gulf coast. We will be having that vote in just 
a while from now.
  My key consideration today is this. What would the impact of this 
bill be on global warming? The reason that is the core question I am 
raising is that already we are seeing extensive damage to our rural 
resources around the world from our warming planet. We are seeing this 
in Oregon, and we are seeing, therefore, an impact on our future 
economic prospects.
  To put it very simply, the burning of fossil fuels is damaging our 
forests, our farming, and our fishing. By many estimates, to contain 2 
degrees Celsius, which is almost 4 degrees Fahrenheit, we must 
transition aggressively and rapidly from burning conventional fossil 
fuels for energy toward the use of nonfossil renewable energy.
  Now, this shift is well within our power. It is well within our 
technology. But do we have the political will to make this happen? And 
that test is before us in the vote we are taking today.
  Building the Keystone Pipeline opens the faucet to rapid exploitation 
of massive, new, unconventional reserves called tar sands, and it takes 
us in exactly the opposite direction from where we need to go. Indeed, 
the pipeline locks us into utilizing the dirtiest fossil fuels on the 
planet for a generation, and it accelerates human civilization down the 
road towards catastrophic climate change. Thus, building this pipeline 
is a mistake, and there is a lot to be concerned about.
  Now, global warming isn't some imaginary scenario 50 years from now 
about some computer model predicting something bad will happen. No, it 
is about facts on the ground right now.
  The warmest 10 years on record for global average surface temperature 
have occurred in the last 12 years. And 2014, the calendar year we just 
passed, was the single warmest year on record. While some Senators may 
come to this floor and say that it is just an anomaly here or an 
anomaly there, it is not. The facts are in. When we have 10 of the 
warmest years on record within the last 12 years, we know something 
dramatically is happening to the globe.
  The average forest fire season is getting longer. Since the 1980s the 
season has grown 60 to 80 days longer than it was before. That means 
that with each year passing the fire season is growing by an average of 
about 2 days, and the number of acres consumed annually by wildfires 
has doubled to more than 7 million acres. This is an enormous impact, 
and those fires themselves put additional carbon dioxide into the 
atmosphere. So we start to see a feedback mechanism that is 
accelerating us down this road to catastrophic change.
  The snowpack is decreasing in our Oregon mountains, the Cascade 
Mountains, which means smaller and warmer streams, which are certainly 
not good for trout. But it also means less water for irrigation. We 
have right now virtually no snow in the Cascades. At this point we 
should have a substantial snowpack. So the possibility of yet another 
major drought faces us this coming summer.
  We had the worst-ever drought in the Klamath Basin, a large 
agricultural basin in southern Oregon, in 2001. We had another 
devastating drought in 2010--a near worst-ever drought--and another 
devastating drought in 2013. And here we are this year, with virtually 
no snowpack to provide irrigation water during the summer. That is a 
very big deal.
  It isn't just farming and forestry. It is also fishing. The carbon 
dioxide that we are pumping into the air is absorbed through wave 
action. It becomes carbonic acid. We can envision mankind pouring vast 
vats of carbonic acids into the ocean, because that is essentially the 
effect of what we are doing. If you think putting all that acid into 
the ocean wouldn't be a good idea and would have bad effects, you are 
right. The ocean has become 30 percent more acidic than it was before 
the industrial revolution--before we started burning coal and other 
fossil fuels as a major source of energy--and we can start to see the 
impact.
  At the Whiskey Creek Shellfish Hatchery on the Oregon coast, we have 
a big problem. The big problem is that the baby oysters are having 
trouble pulling enough carbon out of the water in order to create their 
shells because the water is too acidic. That is a little bit like the 
canary in the coal mine. If the oysters are having trouble, what other 
shellfish are being affected by the increasing level of acidity?
  As humans on our planet, we have the moral responsibility to exercise 
wise stewardship of our resources--a responsibility to this generation 
but a profound responsibility to the generations to come.
  Now, our youth tend to have a better understanding of this than do 
the lawmakers who come to the floor of the Senate. Our youth widely 
rank global warming as a major concern, a major issue they want to see 
us take on. They will face the challenges that we will leave behind. 
But here is the problem: If we wait to tackle global warming until--we 
have pages on the floor--our 15- and 16-year-old pages are in office, 
when they are in their forties and their fifties, then it will be 
almost impossible to address this issue because of the feedback loops 
that are occurring.
  I was watching yesterday a time-lapsed series of ice in the Arctic, 
and I can tell you that essentially, as viewed from North America, 
there was a swirling mass of ice--and this was over several decades--
and that swirling mass became less with every passing year, to where we 
are halfway to starting to be ice-free in the summer. That is a massive 
change happening within a single human lifetime which is but a blink in 
time when you think about the age and course of this planet.
  So big changes are occurring, and when those changes occur, we do 
have additional problems arise. All of that open water in the Arctic 
absorbs more sunlight. That is what makes the water blue and it becomes 
warmer; whereas, the ice reflects the sunlight and keeps the water 
cooler. Therefore, we have a magnification of the effect of global 
warming at the poles. This is not a good thing.
  So whether we are looking at the impact on our farming or the impact 
on our forests which are burning or the impact on our oceans and our 
fisheries which are becoming too acidic, we have a responsibility to 
address those issues. That means we are going to have to not burn all 
the fossil fuel that we have been clever enough to find in the crust of 
the Earth.
  It is estimated that we would have to leave four-fifths of the fossil 
fuels we already have identified that are in the ground. We have to 
leave it in the ground rather than burn it if we are not going to 
exceed 2 degrees centigrade in global warming. That is a huge 
challenge.
  That means we cannot proceed to build infrastructure designed to 
accelerate the extraction of these fossil fuels. The pipeline is 
exactly that kind of infrastructure.
  Now, have no doubt, I love the idea of jobs and construction. That is 
why I am a huge supporter of the Partnership to Build America Act. The 
Partnership to Build America Act would create hundreds of thousands of 
construction jobs over the course of a number of years in America. That 
is the type of investment in jobs and construction and infrastructure 
we should make, but we shouldn't be investing infrastructure that is 
going to do profound damage to our planet. That does not honor the 
moral responsibility we have to the stewardship of this beautiful blue-
green orb that we live on known as this planet Earth.

[[Page 3205]]

  Let's honor our responsibility and let's not override the veto the 
President has put on this bill.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent for up to 30 minutes to engage in 
a colloquy on the Keystone Pipeline approval legislation which was 
vetoed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I am here to discuss the Keystone Pipeline approval legislation and 
the President's recent veto as well as our efforts today to override 
that veto.
  I will be joined in the colloquy with my distinguished colleague from 
South Dakota. Also our colleague on the other side of the aisle from 
West Virginia will be joining us shortly, as well as the chairman of 
the energy committee, our colleague from Alaska. I want to make a 
couple points upfront and then turn to my colleague from South Dakota.
  What I have here and have shown before on the Senate floor is the 
route the Keystone XL Pipeline would take from the oil sands in 
Hardisty, Alberta, coming down through Montana where we pick up 
domestic crude. Often people think of it as moving Canadian crude, but 
it also picks up domestic crude in the Bakken region. Our country likes 
sweet Bakken crude oil from Montana, and then it takes it on to 
refineries throughout the country. So that is the project we are 
talking about.
  This chart shows the project itself, and it shows what is going to 
happen if we don't approve it. You have to understand, this has been 
going on now for over 6 years. The President has delayed this project 
for more than 6 years, but if we don't build the pipeline to move our 
domestic crude in the United States, then Canada will build pipelines 
to the west coast and that oil will go to China by tanker ship and be 
refined in China.
  Again, we go through all these different discussions, but the reality 
is the oil will be produced. The question is, Do we want to have that 
oil here in our country or would we rather see it go to China?
  Of course, if it goes to China, then not only does that affect our 
ability to use the oil in our country because we don't have the 
infrastructure to move it around safely and cost-effectively, but we 
also then continue to import oil from the Middle East.
  I will run through a couple more of these charts and bring us up-to-
date. It is not like we don't have pipelines. When the President takes 
more than 6 years to make a decision--having such a hard time with this 
pipeline--it is not that we don't have a few pipelines in the country. 
We have millions of miles of pipeline. Of course, this is going to be 
the latest, greatest state of the art with all the safety features--
something like 53 different safety features that are required as part 
of the approval process that, as we say, has been going on for more 
than 6 years.
  The other point I want to make before we go into the latest status is 
this is the finding of not one, not two, not three, not four, not five 
reports by the administration, but in fact the Obama administration's 
State Department has done five environmental impact statements, three 
draft statements, two final statements--three draft statements and two 
final environmental impact statements.
  Here is what President Obama's report states after studying the 
environmental impact: ``No significant environmental impact'' according 
to the U.S. State Department environmental impact statements as a 
result of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  So here we are today, after more than 6 years in the ``approval 
process'' by the administration.
  We passed this legislation with 62 votes in the Senate. It passed 
through the House with about 270 votes in the House, a big bipartisan 
vote for this legislation.
  Last Tuesday--last Tuesday we sent it to the President. We sent it to 
him in the morning and he vetoed it the same day and had it back to us 
that afternoon. So that was pretty efficient. We send it to him in the 
morning and--bang--he has it back here in the afternoon.
  His rationale for vetoing the project is he said it cut short his 
review process. That is right out of his veto message. It cut short his 
review process. So for somebody who figured out how to veto it in one 
day who has been studying it for over 6 years--over 6 years--and he 
vetoed it because we cut his review process short after more than 6 
years.
  Subsequent to that, the President was asked by the press: Mr. 
President, if Congress is somehow cutting your process short, when are 
you going to make a decision? His response to the press--I believe it 
was last week or earlier this week--he said he is going to make a 
decision either in a couple weeks or maybe in a couple months but 
certainly by the end of his term.
  My question is this, How can there be any process there? Where is the 
process? What process are you talking about?
  If he delays it for more than 6 years--a situation where TransCanada, 
a company that has met every single requirement of the law and 
regulations--they have met all the requirements for more than 6 years. 
The six States on the route have all approved the project. All six 
States on the route have approved the project. It wasn't tough; they 
had 6 years to do it. The American people overwhelmingly support this 
project in poll after poll, from 65 to 70 percent.
  What process is he talking about that was cut short? There is no 
process there. If you go on for 6 years, where a company has spent 
millions of dollars, taking 6 years to try to build an $8 billion 
project that would help us create energy security in this country, 
working with our closest friend and ally, Canada, what process is he 
talking about? When asked: When are you going to make a decision as to 
your process, he said: I don't know, maybe a few weeks, maybe a few 
months, by the end of my term, anyway. That is 8 years.
  Isn't this a country of laws? How would you or anyone else feel--any 
company, large or small, anybody who feels if they comply with the law 
and they do everything they are supposed to do and they do it over and 
over again and somebody who is elected to office says, yes, you know, I 
just don't feel like it.
  When did we cease to become a country of laws? When did we cease to 
have a situation where we can rely on the laws and the regulations of 
this State, whether it is an individual, a family, a community, a 
company or anything else?
  So when we look at a project such as this one, that is a question we 
have to ask ourselves, because if it can happen in this situation, 
can't it happen in any situation? When do we as a Congress step up and 
say: We pass the laws. We pass the laws and those laws have to be 
respected and enforced. Isn't that our job? Isn't that our obligation? 
Isn't that why the people of this country sent us? I believe it is.
  It is one thing to say: Well, it is that TransCanada company. They do 
business in Canada. They do business here. What if it was you? What if 
it was your company? What if it was 6-plus years of your life? What if 
it was millions of your dollars? How would you feel about it?
  Remember, America is the place people throughout history have come to 
do business. This is where they come to do business because they can 
count on our laws and they can count on our regulations and they can 
count on the fact that if they made the investment, they would be able 
to do business on a certain, dependable basis. What happened to that? 
When we lose that, what happens to our economy?
  With that, I would like to turn to my good friend from South Dakota. 
This pipeline will run through his State, creating jobs and millions of 
tax dollars for his State.

[[Page 3206]]


  Mr. THUNE. I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from North 
Dakota on this issue. He has been a fierce advocate for many months in 
the Senate for the jobs and economic activity, the energy independence, 
and the positive benefits to our national security in building this 
pipeline. The most recent development is the frustration with having 
the President veto a bill that has more than 60 cosponsors in the 
Senate. This is a broad bipartisan bill. The Senator from North Dakota 
worked very hard to make it that way. A lot of Members on both sides of 
the aisle support this pipeline.
  What is striking to me about it is some of the misstatements and 
things that have been said here recently--the President in his veto 
message and some of the things he said. The Washington Post Fact 
Checker, as recently as a couple days ago, pointed out that when the 
President said that this is going to bypass the United States and we 
are not going to get any benefit from this, not only did they give him 
one, two, three--he got four Pinocchios from the Washington Post. What 
that means, folks, is that is a really big whopper to suggest that 
there is not going to be any benefit to the United States from this.
  In fact, they went on to point out in that story that their estimate 
is that 70 percent of the oil to be refined would be used in this 
country.
  Furthermore, as the Senator from North Dakota pointed out, this is a 
significant investment, obviously, by people who want to do business in 
the United States because of our rule of law or rules and certainty 
that come with that. The production, the oil sands up there in North 
Dakota is 30 percent owned by Americans. There is a lot of American 
ownership in this, and Canada is our friend and ally. Instead of 
getting the same type or quality of oil from a country where we don't 
have a favorable relationship--Venezuela, for instance--we can get it 
from Canada, and it can come through this country. The suggestion that 
it is not going to benefit anybody in this country is completely wrong.
  I know the Senator from North Dakota has pointed out before that up 
to 100,000 barrels of oil a day would be put in here from his State of 
North Dakota and from Montana--a lot of the light, sweet crude that is 
so valued--and it would take pressure off the railroads.
  Interestingly enough, the Senator from North Dakota pointed out that 
the administration found no significant environmental impact. Well, 
think about this. You are now putting this oil on a railcar or a truck, 
and the studies show that creates 28 to 42 percent more emissions than 
shipping it in a pipeline. It is going to go some way. It is going to 
go on a truck, a railcar or a pipeline. If it goes on a railcar or a 
truck, it will create 28 to 42 percent more emissions than transporting 
it through a pipeline. From an environmental standpoint, it makes all 
the sense in the world.
  As somebody who represents a border State to North Dakota, we have 
had our own issues these last couple of years with the rail service and 
trying to get our agriculture commodities to the marketplace. There is 
an awful lot of pressure to move oil on rail. If you can move some of 
that in the pipeline--100,000 barrels a day--it takes a lot of pressure 
off of the rails and frees up that infrastructure and capacity to move 
agricultural commodities that are so important to both of our States.
  There is a lot of misinformation that has been put out on this 
particular subject. I hope we can at least have discussions based upon 
a common set of facts, and most of the facts we are talking about are 
things that have been put out by the administration.
  My State of South Dakota--as the Senator from North Dakota 
mentioned--would be crossed by this. The estimate by the State 
Department was that it would create $100 million in earnings in South 
Dakota, create 3,000 to 4,000 construction jobs, and generate about $20 
million in property tax revenue.
  There is an awful lot of interest in my State in what happens with 
the economic activity, the jobs, the property tax revenue, and what 
that could do to support local governments, law enforcement, schools, 
and those sorts of things--not to mention getting us away from the 
dependence we have on foreign sources of energy.
  Let's be factual in this discussion. This doesn't bypass the United 
States. This has tremendous economic and positive economic impacts on 
our country, and we should not forget that. As we debate this here and 
have an opportunity now to vote on this veto, we should at least have a 
set of facts that is consistent with reality.
  The Senator from Alaska has been very involved and has been a great 
leader on this issue.
  My colleague from West Virginia is here as well. He has been working 
very hard to move this project along. It is unfortunate we are where we 
are. Perhaps we will be a couple of votes short today, but who knows. 
Maybe some people will come to the right conclusion and help us advance 
this important project.
  I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his leadership. The Senator 
from North Dakota pointed out the number of pipelines that already 
exist in this country. I know the Senator has also pointed out the 
positive impact--when we get this down and it gets refined in other 
parts of this country--that a lot of this energy will be used here in 
the United States. I appreciate the fact that the Senator has made all 
of those facts abundantly clear on the floor. It is unfortunate that we 
have not been able to persuade the President, but I still have hope.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the good Senator from South 
Dakota, and turn to my colleague from West Virginia who has been a 
champion on this project and other energy projects. As a Governor, he 
has worked on energy. He understands job creation, and he understands 
that we can make this country much stronger if we produce energy here 
at home versus getting it abroad.
  I turn to my colleague from the State of West Virginia and thank him 
for his leadership on this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. I thank the Senator. I very much appreciate this 
colloquy, which is basically just common sense.
  I became a Senator on November 15, 2010, so I have been here a little 
over 4 years. That is when I was first brought to understand the 
Keystone project, which was underway at the time and trying to be 
built. I was asked the question: What do you think? I looked at it very 
quickly, and I looked at how much oil we buy from other countries 
around the world. We buy the same type of oil--750,000 barrels of oil a 
day--from Venezuela. I was thinking that I would rather buy from my 
friends rather than from my enemies--the people who take the proceeds 
and the profits from our buying their product and use it against us. I 
was very clear on that, and I think most West Virginians feel the way I 
do.
  Let's look at the facts. Forty percent of this pipeline has already 
been built. This is the part we are talking about, which has not been 
built and which we are producing and would like to build. The capacity 
from the Bakken--we talked about how 12 percent of the volume from this 
will be Bakken oil from North America.
  We are saying that we are moving and producing our oil, buying from 
our best, friendliest neighbor and ally, Canada, and it makes us more 
secure as a nation. I have heard all of the arguments against it. 
People have said that we can't do this because basically this oil will 
come straight down and go out. They make you believe it is going to 
come down here, get loaded on a tanker, and taken to another country, 
so that we get no benefit at all. That is what they are telling me.
  We had a press conference 2 or 3 weeks ago. We had the Prime Minister 
of Canada and the Premier of Alberta. Everybody who was there agreed 
that will not happen, and it can't happen because they need this to 
refine it. They will be subjected to the same rules and regulations 
that our Commerce Department puts on oil in America. No crude will be 
exported unless we change the law. So that prevents that from 
happening. That is a misnomer.

[[Page 3207]]

  Next, they said they don't pay 8 percent into the Oilspill Liability 
Trust Fund in case there is a spill. They agreed to do that. They said: 
Wait a minute; this will not be built with American steel. Yes, it will 
be. They agreed to that. Everything we have asked for, they have agreed 
to.
  We can't even get our side of the aisle to agree basically to put it 
in a piece of legislation to make sure that it will happen. I trust the 
Canadians. They will do exactly what they said. I would like to codify 
it by putting it in the bill, and I am working on that.
  The politics of what we are dealing with is this. If we can't get 
four more Democrats on my side to vote with me to repeal and beat the 
veto the President has, this is coming back. Everybody in this 
understands the reality of politics. This legislation is coming back in 
the form of an infrastructure bill or a road bill. It will come back on 
a bill that we will all vote for, and we will have to spend a lot of 
time and energy again on this same subject. I have said to do it now. 
Let's do it now and move on to something that we need to move on to, 
which will be something of great interest.
  I have a hard time reasoning with those who say that this pipeline is 
not going to make us more secure. We buy 7 million barrels of oil a 
day. We buy that oil from other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, 
Venezuela, and even Russia.
  If you want to make this country more secure, let's not depend on the 
foreign oil where they will use resources that will be used against us. 
The last time I checked, I don't believe Venezuela uses any of the 
money we give them for their oil to benefit America. I am not convinced 
that Saudi Arabia uses any of their money to benefit our country or any 
of these other foreign countries that we buy from.
  This is a perfect, commonsense solution. I also think that our good 
friend from South Dakota talked about the amount of trains. My State 
just had a tragedy. Thank God there was no loss of life, and by the 
grace of God, no one was injured. I can tell you that the amount of 
transportation on the rail has increased 3,300 percent since 2009. So 
3,300 percent more oil is being transported in America by rail. If we 
can relieve some of that and be safer--as well as environmentally 
safer--we should do it.
  I ask my colleagues to consider this legislation because if we don't 
do it now, it is going to come back. We have a chance to put it to bed. 
It makes a lot of common sense as far as jobs.
  I will say one more thing about jobs. They talked about jobs. When I 
was Governor and when the Senator from North Dakota was Governor, we 
built an awful lot of infrastructure, such as roads and bridges. I 
never remember creating one permanent job after I built a bridge. There 
were a lot of good jobs that paid good money during the construction, 
and all of my contractors were happy. All of my affiliated trades 
people were happy that they had jobs, but we never expected to create 
permanent jobs. They were construction jobs. That is what it is.
  Why are people saying that we are not creating jobs? This is 
construction. When it is done, it is done. I don't know why we can't 
come to grips with that. We do it all day long. We will talk about an 
infrastructure bill and be tickled to death that we are getting jobs. 
But when we talk about 20,000 to 40,000 jobs to build this pipeline, I 
don't understand why it is not something we can all embrace.
  I say to all of my colleagues on my side of the aisle, as well as on 
the other side of the aisle, that we should all support something that 
makes so much sense to the American people and the working people of 
America and also for the security of our Nation.
  I applaud and support my friend. I cosponsored this bill. I feel very 
strongly about it, and I will continue to speak out about it as long as 
we have to. I hope today is the last time we have to speak about this 
legislation. I hope we get this veto repealed and move on.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank our colleague from West Virginia 
for his tremendous leadership. I know that will continue. He is right. 
If we don't win the battle today, we will win the war because we will 
find another bill to attach this legislation to. But the thing is that 
we ought to pass it on its merits, as the Senator so eloquently 
explained.
  I will now turn to the head of the energy committee, somebody who is 
truly committed to an ``all of the above'' energy approach and 
demonstrates that leadership on the ``all of the above'' approach every 
day in this body and certainly in her leadership of our energy 
committee. That is why she speaks on this issue in a way that should 
have everyone listening to her. Whether she is speaking about fossil 
fuels, traditional energy or renewables, this is a Senator who has 
supported all of these and has great creditability on this issue.
  I turn to my colleague from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
North Dakota for his leadership. He has been dogged not only as we have 
advanced this measure through the floor and process but truly over the 
years.
  It has been 6-plus years, or 2,350 days, since the company seeking to 
build the Keystone XL Pipeline first submitted its cross-border permit 
application. Even with all this time, the President is incapable of 
making a final decision.
  I thank my colleague from West Virginia, who just spoke. He 
articulated some of the myths and misconceptions that are out there, 
and the Senator from South Dakota annunciated them as well.
  When you think about where we are today, with this veto override here 
in front of us--you have to think about that fact that this is 
bipartisan energy legislation. The first bill we sent to the President 
this year is bipartisan and has strong support around the country from 
an environmental perspective, from an energy security perspective, and 
from a national security perspective. The Keystone XL Pipeline is what 
we should endorse. It is wrong and shortsighted that this President has 
chosen to veto this bipartisan energy initiative.
  We have heard on the floor all of the reasons why this proposal is 
good and sound and rational. It focuses on the energy infrastructure. I 
think it is also important to remind colleagues that when we had this 
bill on the floor in January, we had something that we have not had in 
a long period of time, and that was an open amendment process. We moved 
41 different amendments forward to the floor, and some of those 
amendments actually passed. They became part of this Keystone XL 
Pipeline legislation.
  So in addition to vetoing the infrastructure aspects of this 
legislation, the President has vetoed a time-sensitive provision that 
will provide regulatory relief to our water heater manufacturers. He 
also vetoed multiple provisions to increase the efficiencies of our 
commercial buildings. He has also vetoed a provision that would improve 
the energy retrofitting assistance that would be available for our 
schools. He also vetoed what I believe many of us viewed as a very 
responsible path forward on the Oilspill Liability Trust Fund and our 
statement asserting that climate change is real.
  We made some good progress with this bill. If this vote is not 
successful, all of that is now off the table. We are not just talking 
about permitting a piece of pipe, the infrastructure that goes across 
the border. Keep in mind, folks, we also included some things that this 
body felt were important to advance, and that has all been vetoed by 
this President. It was wrong to veto this legislation.
  I think it is also important to highlight some of the irony we see 
with the veto of this legislation coming from this administration. In 
effect, the President is making a mockery of the Executive order meant 
to expedite decisions, as it has been more than 2,350 days since this 
application was submitted for permit. But there is other irony here, 
and I wish to take a brief moment to point this out.
  Last month the White House released the National Security Strategy 
for this country. I will quote from this strategy:


[[Page 3208]]

       The challenges faced by Ukrainian and European dependence 
     on Russian energy supplies puts a spotlight on the need for 
     an expanded view of energy security that recognizes the 
     collective needs of the United States, our allies, and 
     trading partners as well as the importance of competitive 
     energy markets. Therefore, we must promote diversification of 
     energy sources, fuels, and routes, as well as encourage 
     indigenous sources of energy supply. Greater energy security 
     and independence within the Americas is central to these 
     efforts.

  Well, Canada is within the Americas.
  The President's veto of the Keystone XL Pipeline contradicts his own 
national security policy. It contradicts his own energy policy that is 
outlined by the Council of Economic Advisers in their economic report 
when they say ``the extent to which a country's economy is exposed to 
energy supply risks--specifically, international energy supply 
disruptions that lead to product unavailability, price shocks, or both.
  The President is contradicting himself at every turn, whether it is 
his Climate Action Plan that he has introduced, vetoing his own--this 
veto contradicts his own climate policy.
  We have an opportunity to boost our economy, to help our allies, to 
increase our energy security, to be an environmental leader, and to 
lead on energy. This President's veto denies us that. It is a failure 
of leadership.
  I recommend that all of us on both sides of the aisle come together 
to override this veto.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, President Obama had advocated reducing 
our reliance on Middle Eastern oil. The President has advocated 
reaffirming the commitment of the United States to its close allies. 
The President has led us to believe he would work to create American 
jobs, not veto them. Of course, signing the bipartisan Keystone jobs 
bill would have advanced all of those priorities, but President Obama 
chose deep-pocketed special interests over the middle class with his 
partisan veto of the Keystone jobs bill. It is the kind of thing that 
puts union workers on edge. I suspect it makes some of our Democratic 
colleagues uncomfortable too.
  But here is the good news: Our Democratic friends don't have to make 
the same choice the President made. There is a bipartisan jobs 
coalition right here in the Senate that would love to have their 
support. We are pro-Keystone jobs, we are pro-Keystone infrastructure, 
and we are pro-middle class.
  If you are interested in jobs and infrastructure and saving your 
party from an extreme mistake, then join us. Vote with us to override a 
partisan veto and help the President pursue priorities he has advocated 
in the past. There is no reason to allow powerful special interests to 
block the billions this infrastructure project would pour into our 
economy or the thousands of American jobs Keystone would support. Your 
vote for common sense can release this special interest stranglehold. 
It can return a little more sanity to Washington.
  There is a lot we can accomplish by working together with serious 
jobs ideas and commonsense reform as our guiding principle. So I hope 
you will join the new majority in that effort because no matter what 
happens today, this new Congress is not going to stop working for good 
ideas, and we are not going to protect the President from them either.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the majority leader and 
our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for supporting this 
bipartisan legislation.
  The Prime Minister of Israel was here yesterday and he spoke to 
Congress. We have an opportunity to declare energy independence. We do 
not need to rely on oil from the Middle East. I ask my colleagues to 
join with us and vote yes to override the President's veto of this 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill (S. 1) pass, 
the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary 
notwithstanding?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the Constitution.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 62, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 68 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     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
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                                NAYS--37

     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
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Donnelly
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 62, the nays are 
37.
  Two-thirds of the Senators voting, a quorum being present, not having 
voted in the affirmative, the bill, on reconsideration, fails to pass 
over the veto of the President of the United States.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________