To ensure private property is protected as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT

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

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

Pending:

Murkowski amendment No. 2, in the nature of a substitute.
Fischer amendment No. 18 (to amendment No. 2), to provide
limits on the designation of new federally protected land.
Sanders amendment No. 24 (to amendment No. 2), to express
the sense of Congress regarding climate change.
Vitter/Cassidy modified amendment No. 80 (to amendment No.
2), to provide for the distribution of revenues from certain
areas of the Outer Continental Shelf.
Menendez/Cantwell amendment No. 72 (to amendment No. 2), to
ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation
or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned
business entity.
Wyden amendment No. 27 (to amendment No. 2), to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that products
derived from tar sands are crude oil for purposes of the
Federal excise tax on petroleum.
Lee amendment No. 71 (to amendment No. 2), to require a
procedure for issuing permits to drill.
Murkowski (for Blunt/Inhofe) amendment No. 78 (to amendment
No. 2), to express the sense of the Senate regarding the
conditions for the President entering into bilateral or other
international agreements regarding greenhouse gas emissions
without proper study of any adverse economic effects,
including job losses and harm to the industrial sector, and
without the approval of the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are back to continue debate and
voting on amendments to this bipartisan Keystone XL bill.
I will focus on two main subjects today. The first is to speak to
what I think is the good progress we have made on this bill, moving us
toward ultimately a final vote and final passage. I believe we probably
surprised a few people yesterday by adopting an amendment on climate
change that few thought would be adopted. We have now processed a total
of nine amendments. Some would say, well, nine is not much, but just to
put it into context, last year, the Senate held just 15 rollcall votes
on amendments. That was in all of 2014. Over just a couple of days here
in this new Congress, we are already at 60 percent of last year's
total, and it is still January. We have eight amendments that are
pending at this moment and set to be voted on today. We will work out
the timing and order of those votes. My hope is that we will exceed
last year's total today.
I believe our productivity has been good. I appreciate the
cooperation of the ranking member on the committee. What we have been
able to do with this measure is important because I think it stands in
pretty stark contrast to what we have seen in recent years and, quite
honestly, to the delays the Keystone XL Pipeline has faced over those
years.
The second part of my comments this morning--I wish to provide a
little bit of perspective about how long this cross-border permit has
been pending, awaiting a final decision by the President.
Sometimes when we talk in terms of the raw numbers, some ask: What
does that really mean? What does it mean to be on the 2,316th day that
has passed since the company seeking to build this pipeline first filed
its first permit with the State Department?
It has been more than 6 years, more than 76 months, and more than 330
weeks.
The President noted in his State of the Union Address this week that
Keystone XL was just a single oil pipeline. And he is right--it is just
a single oil pipeline. We have multiple pipelines that cross the
border. We have hundreds of pipelines that cross the country. So it
begs the question: How and why has it taken so long to get action

[[Page S373]]

on just one single pipeline? Why has it taken so long?
There have been a lot of examples we have heard on floor. I mentioned
yesterday that President Obama was still a sitting Senator when the
permit application was filed. Others have said the iPad was not even
out on the market when the first permit was filed. We heard that 2,300
days is longer than it took the United States to win World War II,
longer than Louis and Clark's expedition to explore the West, and
longer than Project Mercury, which put the first American into space.
There have been a lot of comparisons in terms of what it really means
to be longer than 2,300 days.
I mentioned on the floor many times that in Alaska we are seeking to
try to advance our natural gas resource, and in order to do so we need
a big pipeline to move from the North Slope down to tidewater, and so
we are working to train welders because we know that when that day
comes and we have the opportunity to build that line, we are going to
want Alaskans to have those jobs. They may be temporary in that you
don't weld a pipeline forever, you do it until the job is complete, but
those are good jobs for those Alaskans and for people who come up to
our State.
The Fairbanks Pipeline Training Center in Alaska does a fabulous job.
In my opinion, it is the best pipeline training facility we have in the
country. Every year, graduates from the training center are sent out,
ready to go to work on projects such as Keystone XL. We are probably
talking about seven sets of welders who have graduated at this point,
and we need to keep approving projects that can help these young people
or those who have been retrained as welders to get jobs. That is what
they are waiting for.
We can even think about this length of time which has ensued since
the first permit application has been pending in terms of flying to
Mars and back. We could probably complete about three roundtrips from
here to Mars and back, depending, of course, on the distance between
the planets, but I am just putting it in context.
If we wanted to stay closer to home, we could describe those 2,300
days in terms of how many times we could hike the Appalachian Trail--
probably 10 or 12 depending on the weather. One of these days I would
like to hike the Appalachian Trail. I don't know that I have the time,
it is one of those issues when you think about how long this has been
pending before this administration.
Today I will add one more example to show the comparison. At this
time in the football season, we are all focused on what is going on
with Super Bowl XLIX, which is coming up in 10 days now. We will see
Super Bowl XLIX pit the reigning NFL champions, the Seattle Seahawks--
in Alaska we don't have our own professional football team, so we kind
of adopted the Seahawks. I will let my colleagues know that I will be
standing with the ranking member in rooting for the Seahawks on the big
day next week. A lot of folks are excited about it, and we will be
watching it. The game will be played next Sunday.
For the moment, let's look back to September 19, 2008, when the first
cross-border permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline was first submitted to
the State Department. Let's specifically focus on the Seahawks because
they provide a pretty good example of how much has changed over the
past 6 years. Back in September of 2008, the Seahawks were about to
start a season in which they would have a record of just 4 and 12--
winning 4 games and losing 12. At that point they were still a good
team and we were still rooting for them, but they were a pretty
different team. For starters, the Seahawks had a head coach. Their
current coach, Pete Carroll, was still at the University of Southern
California coaching the Trojans. Their star running back, Marshawn
Lynch, was about to start his second year in the NFL as a member of the
Buffalo Bills. It would be another 2 years before Lynch joined the
Seahawks and just over 3 years before the Nation discovered his love of
Skittles during the game against the Philadelphia Eagles.
The most famous members of the Seahawks secondary--the Legion of
Boom--are Richard Sherman and Earl Thomas. Back in September of 2008,
both were still in college, respectively playing for Stanford and the
University of Texas.
Of course, we cannot forget Russell Wilson. A lot of Alaskans are
rooting for him to get a second consecutive Super Bowl as the starting
quarterback for the Seahawks. Back in September of 2008--he played just
a handful of college games at that time. He was a redshirt freshman at
North Carolina State.
My point here is not necessarily about football--although that is
what a lot of us are talking about--it is to demonstrate that a lot can
happen over the course of 2,300 days, and it does, whether we are
talking about what goes on in politics, in world events, or the world
of sports. My point is that it should probably take the Federal
Government less time to approve an important infrastructure project--
what the President himself has called just a single oil pipeline--than
it takes to build an NFL championship team.
I would like us to get to the point where we are done discussing the
merits of this important project and be done in the sense that we can
move forward not only with Keystone XL but move forward as a nation
when it comes to North American energy independence and providing jobs
and greater economic benefit to this country.
I am pleased with the process we have had on the floor over the past
couple of days. I look forward to the series of amendments on which we
will have votes this afternoon--likely after lunch--and the opportunity
to be in further discussion about these issues that I think have been
pent-up for a period of time.
With that, I acknowledge my colleague on the energy committee and co-
fan of the Seattle Seahawks.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska. I am
certainly tired of hearing about deflate-gate. I don't know if our
bantering on the floor can keep the focus on the real talent of the
football team and the individuals, but I certainly want to say that she
has proven she is a true 12, and that is important to us in the
Northwest. I thank the Senator for her comments.
We are here today to continue the debate on the Keystone XL Pipeline,
and I see my colleague from Vermont is here, and he probably wishes to
give comments about his amendments. Hopefully we will be voting later
today on the various amendment proposals we discussed yesterday. We
will be talking to Members about other amendments they would like to
see on this legislation.
Before I turn it over to Senator Sanders, I wish to draw focus for a
few minutes to the fact that this process, debate, and discussion about
the protection of environmental issues, property rights, and
environmental laws is incredibly important in the United States of
America. I say that because I want to submit for the Record two news
articles that just came out today. One is entitled ``Montana oil spill
renews worries over safety of old pipelines,'' and the other story is
headlined ``Cleanup Underway for Nearly 3M-Gallon Saltwater Spill In
ND.''
The reason I bring that up is that as we are sitting here today
discussing whether we are going to override current environmental law
and give special carve-out exceptions to a foreign company to basically
build a pipeline through the United States of America, the fundamental
question in my mind is, What is the hurry in giving them exemptions to
these various laws as a way to get the pipeline built? These are things
U.S. businesses don't get. They don't get these exemptions and they
certainly don't get the U.S. Senate voting to basically override the
President's authority--I should say to pass a bill that would basically
prohibit the President from using his authority on what is in the
national interest.
To me, the Montana spill in the Yellowstone River is similar to our
current pipeline debate on Keystone XL and whether we have the right
safety provisions in place. So, if anything, we should be discussing
what we can do to further pipeline safety in the United States of
America and not let a foreign company roll back existing U.S. laws on
environmental issues that they should be complying with.
This is such a beautiful part of our country, and this article talks
about how oil is floating 28 miles downstream

[[Page S374]]

from the Poplar Pipeline spill. This is an issue we should be really
thinking about.
I get that there has been an explosion of both tar sands and Bakken
oil. The question is not are we going to rush to try to help these
companies override rules; the question is whether they comply with
rules and whether the United States of America has enough protections
in place to make sure the safety and security of our citizens as this
new opportunity and explosion of product is occurring.
I can say from my perspective in my State, I have worked with
practically every city council in the State about how they want new
safety regulations for crude oil transported by rail--something they
are very concerned about, given the explosions that have happened on
oil railcars.
Again, regarding this particular issue, I know my colleague from
North Dakota thinks that somehow this alleviates the Northwest from
having trains go through there, but I assure him it doesn't. So we will
still have concerns about the safety of our citizens as more crude oil
is being transported by rail.
But we shouldn't now be trying to exempt a foreign company from
complying with U.S. laws; we should be saying they should follow the
rules. In the meantime, we should be asking the NTSB--we should be
asking our agencies--whether there are enough safety protections in
place, given the large amount of crude that is now moving and the
issues we have seen as a result. There is nothing more important to me
than protecting farmers and landowners to make sure they are actually
treated fairly, and to make sure that resources such as clean water are
protected.
Just because the discussion has been going on for a long time doesn't
mean we should overrule existing environmental laws and exempt a
foreign company from complying with it. I would rather them follow the
rules all the way through the process.
So, with that, I yield the floor. I see my colleague from Vermont is
here to discuss his amendment.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Associated Press, Jan. 22, 2015]

Montana Oil Spill Renews Worry Over Safety of Old Pipelines

(By Matthew Brown)

Billings, MT.--A second large oil spill into Montana's
Yellowstone River in less than four years is reviving
questions about oversight of the nation's aging pipeline
network.
Investigators and company officials on Wednesday were
trying to determine the cause of the 40,000-gallon spill that
contaminated downstream water supplies in the city of
Glendive.
Sen. Jon Tester said Saturday's spill from the decades-old
Poplar Pipeline was avoidable, but ``we just didn't have the
folks on the ground'' to prevent it.
The Montana Democrat told The Associated Press that more
frequent inspections by regulators are needed, and older
pipelines should face stricter safety standards.
``We need to take a look at some of these pipelines that
have been in the ground for half a century and say, `Are they
still doing a good job?' '' Tester said.
The latest spill comes as Republicans and some Democrats,
including Tester, want the Obama administration to approve
TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf.
Keystone would cross the Yellowstone roughly 20 miles
upstream of the Poplar Pipeline spill.
In 2011, an ExxonMobil pipeline break spilled 63,000
gallons of oil during flooding on the Yellowstone near
Billings. The break was blamed on scouring of the river
bottom that exposed the company's Silvertip line to
floodwaters.
Officials involved in the Poplar Pipeline spill have said
it's too soon to say if that line also was exposed.
Poplar, owned by Wyoming-based Bridger Pipeline, was
constructed in the 1950s. The breached section beneath the
Yellowstone was replaced at least four decades ago, in the
late 1960s or early 1970s, according to the company.
Based on the number of miles of pipelines in the U.S. that
carry oil, gasoline and other hazardous liquids, just over
half were installed prior to 1970, according to the U.S.
Department of Transportation.
The agency's Office of Pipeline Safety has roughly 150
inspectors overseeing 2.6 million miles of gas, oil and other
pipelines.
That number is slated to increase by another 100 inspectors
under a $27 million budget increase approved last year. That
would still leave inspectors stretched thin given the mileage
of pipelines.
Dena Hoff, a farmer and rancher whose land borders the site
of the Poplar accident, said she's had a good working
relationship with Bridger Pipeline, and she commended the
company for taking responsibility for the spill.
But Hoff said the spill should spur second thoughts about
Keystone and whether it's a good idea to have pipelines that
cross beneath surface waters.
``It's the nature of the beast. Pipelines leak and
pipelines break. We're never going to get around that,'' she
said. ``We have to decide if water is more valuable than
oil.''
Authorities continue work to clean up Glendive's public
water supply after cancer-causing benzene was detected in
water coming from the city's treatment plant. The plant draws
directly from the Yellowstone.
Bridger Pipeline has committed to providing bottled water
for Glendive's roughly 6,000 residents until the water-
treatment plant is running again.
Late Wednesday night, Dawson County Disaster and Emergency
Services Coordinator Mary Jo Gehnert said in an email that
the plant has been decontaminated. If tests conducted
Thursday show that the plant's water is safe to use, county
workers will give information to the public on how to flush
the water in homes and businesses, Gehnert said.
Workers late Tuesday recovered about 10,000 gallons of oil
that was still in the Poplar line after it was shut down
because of the breach.
Bridger Pipeline Co. spokesman Bill Salvin said Wednesday
only a ``very small'' amount of oil has been siphoned from
the river itself.
Company officials and government regulators say most of the
oil is thought to be within the first 6 miles of the spill
site. That includes the stretch of the river through
Glendive.
``What we're working on is identifying places where we can
collect more oil,'' Salvin said. ``The cleanup could extend
for a while.''
Oil sheens have been reported as far away as Williston,
North Dakota, below the Yellowstone's confluence with the
Missouri River, officials said.
The farthest downstream that free-floating oil has been
seen was at an intake dam about 28 miles from the spill site,
officials said.
Montana Department of Environmental Quality Director Tom
Livers said he was concerned that when the ice breaks up in
the spring, oil will spread farther downstream.
____

[From the Associated Press, Jan. 22, 2015]

Cleanup Underway for Nearly 3M-Gallon Saltwater Spill in ND

(By Regina Garcia Cano)

Cleanup is underway after nearly 3 million gallons of
brine, a salty, toxic byproduct of oil and natural gas
production, leaked from a pipeline in western North Dakota,
the largest spill of its kind in the state since the current
energy boom began.
The full environmental impact of the spill, which
contaminated two creeks, might not be clear for months. Some
previous saltwater spills have taken years to clean up. A
contractor hired by the pipeline operator will be on site
Thursday, assessing the damage.
Operator Summit Midstream Partners LLC detected the
pipeline spill on Jan. 6, about 15 miles north of Williston
and informed North Dakota officials then. State health
officials on Wednesday said they weren't given a full account
of the size until Tuesday.
Inspectors have been monitoring the area near Williston, in
the heart of North Dakota's oil country, but it will be
difficult to assess the effects of the spill until the ice
melts, said Dave Glatt, chief of the North Dakota Department
of Health's environmental health section.
``This is not something we want to happen in North
Dakota,'' Glatt said.
The spill presently doesn't threaten public drinking water
or human health, Glatt said. He said a handful of farmers
have been asked to keep their livestock away from the two
creeks, the smaller of which will be drained.
Brine, also referred to as saltwater, is an unwanted
byproduct of drilling that is much saltier than sea water and
may also contain petroleum and residue from hydraulic
fracturing operations.
The new spill is almost three times larger than one that
fouled a portion of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in
July. Another million-gallon saltwater spill in 2006, near
Alexander, is still being cleaned up nearly a decade later.
Summit Midstream said in a statement Wednesday that about
65,000 barrels of a mix of freshwater and brine have been
pumped out from Blacktail Creek. Brine also reached the
bigger Little Muddy Creek and potentially the Missouri River.
Glatt said the Blacktail Creek will be completely drained
as part of the initial cleanup, but the water and soil will
have to be continuously tested until after the spring thaw
because some of the contaminated water has frozen. The Little
Muddy Creek will not be drained because it is bigger than the
Blacktail Creek and the saltwater is being diluted.
``We will be monitoring to see how quickly it gets back to
natural background water quality conditions, and we are
already starting to see that,'' Glatt said of the Little
Muddy Creek. ``It's getting back pretty quickly.''
Summit Midstream's chief operating officer, Rene Casadaban,
said in a statement that the company's ``full and undivided
attention'' is focused on cleaning up the spill and repairing
any environmental damage.
Spokesman Jonathan Morgan did not immediately confirm
exactly when the spill

[[Page S375]]

began. It also was not clear what caused the pipeline to
rupture. Glatt said the company has found the damaged portion
of pipeline and it was sent to a laboratory to determine what
caused the hole.
North Dakota has suffered scores of saltwater spills since
the state's oil boom began in earnest in 2006.
A network of saltwater pipelines extends to hundreds of
disposal wells in the western part of the state, where the
briny water is pumped underground for permanent storage.
Legislation to mandate flow meters and cutoff switches on
saltwater pipelines was overwhelmingly rejected in the
Legislature in 2013.
Wayde Schafer, a North Dakota spokesman for the Sierra
Club, called the brine ``a real toxic mix'' and ``an extreme
threat to the environment and people's health.''
``Technology exists to prevent these spills and nothing is
being done,'' said Schafer. ``Better pipelines, flow meters,
cutoff switches, more inspectors--something has got to be
done.''
Daryl Peterson, a grain farmer from Mohall who has had
spills on his property, said the latest incident underscores
the need for tougher regulation and enforcement.
``Until we start holding companies fully accountable with
penalties, I don't think we're going to change this whole
situation we have in North Dakota,'' said Peterson, a board
member of the Northwest Landowners Association.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

Amendment No. 24

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska and the
Senator from Washington for their work on this legislation.
I rise today to say a few words about my amendment to the proposed
Keystone Pipeline bill, an amendment that will be coming up for a vote
in a few minutes. I wish to thank Senators Bennet, Carper, Leahy,
Menendez, Murphy, Warren, and Whitehouse for cosponsoring this
amendment.
This amendment is extremely simple. It is about 1 page and I will
read it in a moment. It raises a very profound question as to how we
implement public policy, not just on issues related to climate but on
issues in general. The question is: As we go forward, tackling the very
difficult problems facing our country and the world, to whom do we
listen? Whose advice do we take as we proceed?
I would argue that historically and appropriately, what we do as a
nation is we listen to the experts. That is what we do. I think in this
debate, when we deal with the Keystone Pipeline and when we deal with
the issue of climate change, it is absolutely appropriate that we
listen to what the overwhelming percentage of scientists are telling
us.
I hear some of my colleagues say, This is complicated and I am not a
scientist; I don't know. Let me be very frank. I am not a scientist and
I did not do terribly well in biology and in physics in college, but I
can read. And I can listen and understand what the scientific community
is saying on this issue.
As the Senate moves forward, when we deal with complicated medical
issues and search for solutions in terms of cancer or heart disease or
diabetes, to whom do we go? Who do we listen to for advice as to how we
should proceed and allocate public funding? We listen to the doctors
and the scientists and the researchers who know a lot more than
virtually all of us do in terms of cancer or heart disease.
We spend a lot of money in this country on infrastructure, on roads
and bridges and wastewater plants and water systems. That is
complicated stuff. To whom do we look for advice? Who do we have at our
hearings on these issues? We look to the engineers and the scientists
who tell us the best way to proceed in terms of how we build roads and
bridges in a cost-effective way.
We are dealing right now with the issue of cyber security--a huge
issue--a threat to the Nation. To whom do we look for advice? We look
to those experts in technology who can tell us the best way to prevent
cyber security attacks against the United States. On and on it goes.
Whether it is education or whatever it is, good public policy is
dependent upon listening to the scientific community, listening to the
people who know the best about this issue.
In terms of the issue of climate change, the fact is that the
scientific community is virtually unanimous in telling us that climate
change is real. It is caused by human activity. It has already caused
devastating problems in the United States and around the world. The
scientific community tells us there is just a brief window of
opportunity before the United States and the entire planet suffer
irreparable harm. They tell us 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 not the opinion of Bernie Sanders; that is the opinion of the
scientific community.
So to those of my colleagues who say, This is complicated stuff, I am
not a scientist, I don't know, let me tell my colleagues who does know.
Thirty-seven major American scientific organizations--people who study
this issue--do know. And what they say is that climate change is real.
It is caused by human activities. It is already causing devastating
problems in the United States and around the world, and we need to
transform our energy system.
That is what the Sanders amendment says. That is all it says. It is a
modest amendment. It is a conservative amendment. It simply tells us
what the scientific community has told us year after year after year.
For those of us who are not scientists, let me tell my colleagues the
scientific organizations that hold that point of view. They are, among
others, the American Anthropological Association, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical
Society, the American Geophysical Society, the American Institute of
Biological Sciences, the American Meteorlogical Society, the American
Physical Society, the National Academy of Engineering, the National
Academy of Sciences--37 separate scientific organizations, including
those I mentioned.
That is not all. There are 135 international scientific organizations
that say the same thing.
I refer my colleagues to the list of 135 international scientific
organizations, 37 American scientific organizations, and 21 medical
associations that all agree with the basic premises that are in the
Sanders amendment that is printed with my remarks in yesterday's
Record, Wednesday, January 21.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the leading
international scientific body that deals with climate change. Let me
quote to my colleagues what they said last fall:

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.
I am going to conclude my remarks by simply reading my amendment to
make sure every Member of the Senate understands how simple and
straightforward and noncontroversial this amendment is. 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
(1) climate change is real;
(2) climate change is caused by human activities;
(3) climate change has already caused devastating problems
in the United States and around the world;
(4) a brief window of opportunity exists before the United
States and the entire planet suffer irreparable harm; and
(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. And every provision in this
amendment is supported by virtually the entire scientific community,
the people who best understand this issue.
Clearly we are a nation divided politically and clearly we are a
Congress divided politically. We have different views on almost every
issue. But I hope very much the U.S. Senate does not reject science,
because in doing so, it would not only lead to bad public policy but it
would be an embarrassment before the entire world, that the U.S. Senate
is rejecting what the overwhelming majority of scientists are telling
us about what they consider to be one of the great crises facing our
planet.
So I hope very much for strong bipartisan support for this amendment
in the Senate and will say, as a Senate, that we are going to listen to
what the

[[Page S376]]

scientific community tells us and that we are going to develop public
policy based on their knowledge and that information.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.

State of the Union

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I had some concluding thoughts about the
President's State of the Union speech on Tuesday night. Much of it we
have heard before. In fact, what the President laid out was largely
what his agenda has been for the last 6 years. In other words, we have
been there and we have done that, and it hasn't worked very well. We
have had tired big government proposals. In fact, the President seems
as though he has doubled down in a lot of ways on higher taxes, more
redistribution, and more regulations that are out of step with what the
American people, I believe, want and need.
I think what they want more than anything else, from a strictly
economic point of view, is to get the economy growing again. Let's
create jobs. Let the private sector actually create jobs--not
government. We know government is pretty incompetent when it comes to
job creation. And we now have this nagging little minor detail called
the national debt where we keep borrowing money and pushing that down
the road to the next generation and beyond.
It is ironic in a lot of ways because the President came to the
people's House to give his State of the Union speech, which is the
House of Representatives, but his speech was anything but for the
people. He claimed that really his focus was on middle-class economics.
I think he had been listening to the senior Senator from New York who,
after this last election, gave a speech at the National Press Club and
said that Democrats had made a terrible mistake leading off with the
President's new term in 2009 with ObamaCare and other big government
programs and they had neglected stagnant wages and the middle class. So
I think the President, in a tipping of his hat to Senator Schumer and
his comments post election, has essentially acknowledged that his first
6 years have failed to address the needs of the middle class. That is
why he kept using the phrase ``middle-class economics'' during his
speech. But it wasn't really about the middle class. It wasn't about
hard-working American taxpayers. Time and again, it seemed his most
urgent priority was himself. His speech was really about him and his
agenda, his pet projects, his vision for bigger government.

I would just point out that the President quite candidly admitted it
was his agenda and his policies that were on the ballot on November 4.
I think that sent a shudder through every incumbent who was running for
reelection who happened to have voted for his big government agenda.
But the point is that it was soundly rejected on November 4. You
couldn't tell that from the President's tone and his cheerleading last
Tuesday night. But my point is we have been there, we have done that,
and it didn't work. So let's try something different.
We have felt the experience of this experiment in big government for
the last 6 years. If anything, what the voters said on November 4 is
enough is enough. I can't remember who originally said it, but someone
said famously that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing
over and over and expecting different results. You can't try the same
old tired policies over and over and actually expect a different
outcome. At least to my mind, reality wasn't what was driving the
President's remarks. If it was, he would have focused on the biggest
concerns Americans have right now. I mentioned jobs, stagnant wages,
rising costs, and issues such as health care costs.
Unfortunately, ObamaCare really backfired on a lot of middle-class
workers, and it actually raised their health care costs rather than
lowered them. Then there are the stagnant wages I mentioned a moment
ago. But if he really cared about those issues as he should and as we
do, he would be working with Congress to address those issues, and he
would have given some attention to one of the first major pieces of
legislation that we have taken up in the 114th Congress on a bipartisan
basis.
Of course I am referring to the Keystone XL Pipeline that we are
debating now, where 11 Democrats joined all of the Republicans who are
present to proceed to this bill. So when I say it is bipartisan, I am
not just saying it. It actually is.
Sometimes you can tell a lot from what a person doesn't say. In this
case, the President spoke more than 6,000 words, and he didn't mention
the word Keystone in one of them. Instead of using this opportunity
when millions of Americans and people around the world were listening
to the President to lay out sound reasons why he continues to oppose
this jobs and infrastructure project year after year, the President
merely said we should look beyond a single pipeline to meet America's
infrastructure needs. We need to start somewhere, and the President
won't even start by taking the first step of approving this
infrastructure and job-creating project known as the Keystone XL
Pipeline.
I think there is a Chinese proverb that says a trip of a thousand
miles has to start with the first step. That is true here as well. It
may be a single pipeline, but it is a single pipeline that his own
State Department has said has the potential to support more than 40,000
jobs.
Here is what I don't get. There are 2.5 million miles of oil and gas
pipelines in America today--2.5 million. What is this fixation with
this roughly thousand-mile pipeline that comes from Canada down to
southeast Texas where it is refined, turned into gasoline, and other
refined products? Why has this become such a political football?
It is because the President and, unfortunately, some of his own party
who are wed to a political base that won't allow them to do the
rational, realistic, practical thing, which would be to approve this
pipeline. The President tried to minimize this.
We have heard people say these are temporary jobs. My job here is
temporary. The President's job is temporary. It is going to run out in
a couple of years. Every job is temporary in that sense. To try to
denigrate these well-paying construction jobs from welders and others--
people who make $125,000, $140,000 a year in my State--and to denigrate
them, to minimize them, and to say it is just a temporary job and is
really not all that important is a slap in the face to the people who
are hungry to find work, people who are working part time who want to
work full time, people who are working for minimum wage but want to
improve their standard of living and their ability to provide for their
family.
Then there is this. We need to remember the percentage of Americans
participating in the workforce is at a 30-year low--a 30-year low. What
that means to me is that some people just simply have given up looking
for work, and so they have dropped out. They have retired. They have
gone on to do other things. But it is a symptom of a disease in our
economy. It is not something we should be proud of. If we are actually
interested in getting more Americans back in the workforce, the
President would approve this pipeline.

Let me tell you about one person with whom I met last Friday in
Beaumont, TX. We call it the golden triangle. It is a place where
refineries are seemingly almost everywhere. It is a blue-collar
community but one that is proud and contributes a lot to the Texas
economy. I was in Beaumont, as I said, and we were there to mark the 1-
year anniversary of the southern leg of the Keystone XL Pipeline's
coming online. This is a little confusing. But this is the portion of
pipeline that is already in place, and it doesn't require a transit
with Presidential approval to cross from Canada into the United States.
Believe it or not, there are already 4,800 jobs that have been
created and an average of 400,000 barrels of Canadian crude pumped into
southeast Texas already. We are not talking about doing something that
is new. We are talking about adding to what already exists by
completion of this pipeline.
My point is this. If the President wants to see what the potential
economic impact and the impact on jobs and on the standard of living
would be for the entire Keystone XL Pipeline, all he needs to do is to
look to southeast Texas--to Beaumont, TX--where

[[Page S377]]

the impact has been nothing but positive.
I met with the mayor of Beaumont, the county judge, other local
businesses, officials, and stakeholders. The mayor and the county judge
pointed out that it is the taxes they get from the economic activity
caused by this pipeline--which exists and which would do nothing but be
enhanced by the Keystone XL Pipeline--that helps pay the taxes that
pave roads, provide health care to people who don't have access to it--
who can't afford health care. It provides to pay the law enforcement.
It provides all of the governmental functions, including education.
This is what adds to the tax base which allows local governments,
including school districts, to provide for the education of our
children.
Then there is this. There is the multiplier effect of the investment
by the private investment on this pipeline. It is the multiplier effect
because people who earn these good wages spend the money at
restaurants, buy homes, rent apartments. They buy things at retail
outlets. That is the multiplier effect from this pipeline.
One person in particular I want to close with is a gentleman I met by
the name of Kenneth Edwards who is a vice president with the United
Association, the union of plumbers, fitters, welders, and service
techs. I think Mr. Edwards would agree with me that we wouldn't
necessarily see eye to eye on everything. But after being married 35
years, I don't know many married couples that agree on everything. So
that is not all that unusual. It isn't a surprise that Republicans and
unions haven't been on the same page on every issue. But there is an
issue where we agree 100 percent, and that is the need for the
President to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline after 6 long years.
Mr. Edwards speaks on behalf of many union workers nationwide who, as
he put it, earn their living from a series of temporary jobs that
happen to add up to a lifelong career. He told me last week he wants
the President to put his famous veto pen away, to take out his approval
pen, and to sign his approval of this project right away.
Speaking of temporary jobs, the President is ending his time in
office. He has 2 more years left. His State of the Union Address leads
me to believe he is not open to changing course and making much of a
departure from the partisanship and gridlock that marked his first term
and a half. But there is still time to change his mind.
With the Keystone XL Pipeline bill that a bipartisan majority of
Congress will soon send his way, we are presenting him an opportunity
to say that he heard the message that voters delivered on November 4. I
heard the American people say we are tired of the dysfunction in
Washington, DC. We actually want to see Congress and the White House
work together to get things done on behalf of the American people.
It is not too late. I hope he will listen not only to people such as
Kenneth Edwards and union workers across the country but to the vast
majority of Americans who support this important project.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer).
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, for the information of all Senators,
we are working now to set up votes on several pending amendments to the
bill. These votes should be after lunch today. Right now, we are
looking at 60-vote thresholds on the Fischer amendment, along with the
Boxer side-by-side, the Sanders amendment, and the Lee amendment.
I do understand that the Boxer amendment is now filed at the desk.

Amendment No. 18, As Modified

I ask unanimous consent that the Fischer amendment, No. 18, be
modified with the changes at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. __. LIMITATION ON DESIGNATION OF NEW FEDERALLY PROTECTED
LAND.

(a) Definition of Federally Protected Land.--In this
section, the term ``federally protected land'' means any area
designated or acquired by the Secretary of the Interior for
the purpose of conserving historic, cultural, environmental,
scenic, recreational, developmental, or biological resources.
(b) Considerations.--The Secretary, prior to the
designation or acquisition of new federally protected land,
shall consider--
(1) whether the addition of the new federally protected
land would have a negative impact on the administration of
existing federally protected land; and
(2) whether sufficient resources are available to
effectively implement management plans for existing units of
federally protected land.
(c) This section shall not apply to
(1) congressionally designated federally protected land, or
(2) acquisitions of federally protected land authorized by
Congress.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we have a number of Members who have
asked to come to the floor to speak over the course of these next
couple of hours. Many will be speaking to their specific amendment on
the Keystone XL Pipeline. Again, we encourage folks to use this time,
while we have a little bit of time before we move to the votes this
afternoon.
I see that my colleague from North Carolina is here to speak. I would
welcome his remarks at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, long before I was actually sworn into
the Senate, I traveled across the State of North Carolina. I promised
the citizens of North Carolina that I would work toward commonsense
solutions to provide opportunities for economic growth and opportunity.
Today I hope to send forth amendment No. 102 with the support of my
good friend Senator Burr from North Carolina on the approval of the
Keystone Pipeline, to take a look at things that we can do to do our
part in North Carolina to contribute to the ultimate goal of energy
independence in this Nation.
The amendment, the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Access and
Revenue Share Act of 2015, will expand domestic offshore production,
natural gas exploration and production, which, in turn, will create
jobs and set our Nation on that track to energy independence.
Families across the country are too familiar with the impact energy
prices play in our day-to-day lives, making decisions that are very
difficult for them in these difficult economic situations.
When utility bills and gas prices increase, hard-working Americans
face hardship and struggle to make ends meet. We need to make that
easier and lift the burden on those hard-working taxpayers.
We also cannot underestimate the great impact energy plays in
America's foreign policy decisions. We are in many ways dependent on
oil from the Middle Eastern States that do not share our democratic
values.
The predicament does not certainly place America in a position of
strength. America has more energy potential than any other nation. It
is time that we start realizing its full potential.
What the amendment does is fairly straightforward. It instructs the
Secretary of the Interior to finalize the 5-year program for 2017 to
2022. That includes annual lease sales in both the Mid-Atlantic Outer
Continental Shelf and the South Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf
region. It grants to States in both of these regions a 37.5-percent
share of all revenues collected from the Outer Continental Shelf
leasing activities.
Each State in the region gets a minimum of a 10-percent share of that
allocation. It directs 12.5 percent of the revenues collected for the
Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf activities to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. The 37.5 percent for the States and the 12.5 percent
for other regions

[[Page S378]]

mirrors the revenue split given to the Gulf Coast States--Texas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama--under current law.
North Carolina has received approximately $209 million in funding
over the past 5 decades, protecting places such as the Cape Lookout
National Seashore, the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge,
Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests. The Department of Interior is
currently developing a 5-year leasing program for 2017 to 2022. The
language of the amendment merely instructs the Department to include
the Mid-Atlantic and the South Atlantic regions as part of that plan.
Current law requires that the Department of Interior give deference
to the preferences of States when developing a leasing plan for areas
within 50 miles of the shore. Keep in mind, the drilling that we are
talking about in North Carolina, off our coast, is greater than 30
miles off the coast, far beyond the site horizon of our beautiful
beaches in North Carolina.
I want to close by saying why we are moving this amendment now.
First, it is the fulfillment of a promise I made to the citizens of
North Carolina. It also does enormous progress for creating jobs and
helping our economy get back on track in the State and the region.
It is estimated that more than 55,000 jobs can be created by 2035;
more than $4 billion annually in economic contributions to the State of
North Carolina. Almost $4 billion in government revenue for the State
of North Carolina--$4 billion. As someone who served as Speaker of the
House of North Carolina, I cannot tell you what an enormous impact that
will have in terms of reducing the burden on taxpayers and businesses
in North Carolina, creating more opportunities for economic expansion
and job growth. There will be up to $577 million annually in revenue
share payments according to a report published by the Southeast Energy
Alliance in 2009.
These numbers increase opportunities in North Carolina unlike
anything I saw in my 8 years in the State legislature. It is an
opportunity for North Carolina to do its part to make the Nation energy
independent and to help me fulfill my promises to the citizens of North
Carolina, which is to create jobs and provide great opportunities for
this generation and future generations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to discuss an
amendment that I filed to the pending legislation. It is an amendment
to modify the Jones Act. The Jones Act is an archaic 1920s-era law that
hinders free trade, stifles the economy, and hurts consumers, largely
for the benefit of labor unions.
Specifically, this amendment would effectively repeal a law that
prevents U.S. shippers from purchasing or otherwise supportively
procuring the services of vessels that are built outside the United
States for use in American waters. From time to time here in Congress,
we find that legislation still remains on the books many decades after
it has served its original stated purpose. If ever we had one, I think
one of the best examples of this is a law called the Jones Act.
As many of you know, the Jones Act is simply a continuation of laws
passed through U.S. history addressing cabotage--or port-to-port
coastal shipping. Those laws have been used to protect U.S. domestic
shipping dating back to the very first session of Congress.
The Jones Act may have had some rationale back in the 1920s when it
was enacted, but today it serves only to raise shipping costs, making
U.S. farmers and businesses less competitive in the global marketplace
and increasing costs for American consumers.
According to the 2002 U.S. International Trade Commission economic
study--by the way, the U.S. International Trade Commission is not a
group of special interests, they are an international trade commission
which is appointed to study issues affecting international trade,
obviously, as the name implies.
Their study reached the conclusion that repealing the Jones Act would
lower shipping costs by about 22 percent. The Commission also found
that repealing the Jones Act would have an annual positive welfare
effect of $656 million on the U.S. economy.
Since these decade-old studies are the most recent statistics
available, imagine the impact the Jones Act repeal would have today--
far more than a $656 million annual positive impact--likely closer to
$1 billion, stimulating our economy in the midst of an anemic recovery.
The requirement that U.S. shippers must purchase vessels in the
United States comes at a tremendous cost that is passed on to U.S.
consumers. For example, just recently the U.S. container line Matson
placed a $418 million order for two 3,600 20-foot equivalent unit
container ships in a U.S. shipyard. The high price of $209 million per
vessel reflects that the ships will be carrying goods within the United
States and therefore governed by the protectionist Jones Act.
The fact is that Matson's order at $209 million per ship is more than
five times more expensive than if those same ships were procured
outside of the United States. Ships of that size built outside the
United States would cost closer to $40 million each. For comparison,
even Maersk Line's far larger ships cost millions less at an average of
$185 million each.
The U.S. Maritime Administration, MARAD, has found that the cost to
operate U.S. flag vessels at $22,000 per day is about 2.7 times higher
than foreign flag vessels--just $6,000 a day.
There is no doubt that these inflated costs are eventually passed on
to shipping customers. In the energy sector, for example, the price for
moving crude oil from the gulf coast to the Northeastern United States
on Jones Act tankers is $5 to $6 more per barrel, while moving it to
eastern Canada on foreign flag tankers is about $2.
That can mean an additional $1 million per tanker in shipping costs
for oil producers.
This increased cost is why, according to the Congressional Research
Service, more than twice as much gulf coast crude oil was shipped by
water to Canada as shipped to Northeastern U.S. refineries last year--
all in an effort to avoid paying Jones Act shipping rates.
The implications of this fact touches just about every American who
buys gasoline. It is American consumers who pay exorbitantly higher
prices because of a law that protects the shipbuilding industry and
domestically manufactured ships that transport crude and other refined
products.
But it is not only the energy sector that deals with the distorted
effects of the Jones Act. Cattlemen in Hawaii who want to bring their
cattle to the U.S. mainland market, for example, have actually resorted
to flying the cattle on 747 jumbo jets to work around the restrictions
of the Jones Act. Their only alternative is to ship the cattle to
Canada because all livestock carriers in the world are foreign owned.

I am deeply concerned about the impact of any barrier to free trade.
I believe the U.S. trade barriers invite other countries to put up or
retain their own barriers and that at the end of the day the U.S.
consumer and the economy at large pays the price.
Throughout my career I have always been a strong supporter of free
trade. Opening markets to the free flow of goods and services benefits
America and benefits our trading partners. Trade liberalization creates
jobs, expands economic growth, and provides consumers with access to
lower cost goods and services.
Yet as clear as the benefits of free trade are, actually taking
action to remove trade barriers and open markets can be almost
impossible in Congress. Special interests that have long and richly
benefited from protectionism flex their muscles and issue doomsday
warnings about the consequences of moving forward on free trade.
Judging from the hysterical reaction by some of the special interests
to my simple filing of this amendment, the debate over the Jones Act
will be no different.
The domestic shipbuilding requirement of the Jones Act is outdated
and should be abolished.
U.S. consumers are free to buy a foreign-built car. U.S. trucking
companies are free to buy a foreign-built truck. U.S. railroads are
free to buy a foreign-built locomotive. U.S. airlines are free to buy a
foreign-built airplane.
Why can't U.S. maritime special interests more affordably ship
foreign goods on foreign-made vessels? Why do U.S. consumers,
particularly those in

[[Page S379]]

Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico, need to pay for ships that are five
times more expensive?
If there was a law that long ago outlived its usefulness--if it ever
had any--it is the Jones Act. On the Jones Act, it is time to change
course today.
I have a letter from the American Farm Bureau Federation which
states:

Farm Bureau believes that there should be no restrictions
as to the quantities or vessels on which a commodity is
shipped between U.S. ports. Repealing The Jones Act would
allow more competition for the movement of goods between U.S.
ports, thus driving down transportation costs.

Continuing to read from the letter ``TO ALL MEMBERS OF SENATE'' from
the Farm Bureau:

Repeal of The Jones Act accomplishes the same purpose: a
reduction in energy costs, increased competition to lower
costs of U.S. goods and more opportunities to transport
agricultural commodities at competitive prices.
Due to this importance, Farm Bureau policy, developed by
our grassroots members consisting of working farmers and
ranchers, explicitly supports the repeal of The Jones Act.
Farm Bureau urges you to vote in support of Sen. McCain's
amendment repealing sections of the Merchant Marine Act of
1920.

Then there is an article: ``McCain under fire.''

A growing number of politicians are taking aim at a
prominent US Senator's crusade against the Jones Act . . . .

Oh my God. I am deeply concerned. All the special interests on this
issue are weighing in. By the way, one of them would have effects on
the U.S. shipbuilding and repair base. We all know the U.S.
shipbuilding industry, because of the Jones Act, is moribund. In fact,
I have an article from the Daily Signal which says: ``Shipbuilding
industry stuck on ground.''

U.S. shipbuilding exports are tiny compared to exports of
semis and trailers. Shipbuilding is subject to the
protectionist Jones Act which hinders competition, while the
semi industry is not.
According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
``The coastwise laws [like the Jones Act] are highly
protectionist `provisions that are intended to create a
`coastwise monopoly' in order to protect and develop the
American merchant marine, shipbuilding, etc.''
But protecting U.S. industries from competition may
actually have the opposite effect. Consider U.S. production
of vessels designed to transport goods via water compared to
U.S. production of semi-trailer trucks and trailers designed
to transport goods via land. In 2013, U.S. manufacturers
exported $4.1 billion in semi-trailer trucks and trailers,
but they exported just $0.1 billion in commercial ships.
Americans in most states would benefit from the freedom to
ship goods on the best-built, most affordable vessels,
wherever they are made. The Alaska governor is actually
required to ``use best efforts and all appropriate means to
persuade the United States Congress to repeal those
provisions of the Jones Act formally codified at 46 U.S.C.
861, et seq.''
The Jones Act drives up the price of gas, hinders U.S.
infrastructure improvements, inflicts high costs on people in
Hawaii and Puerto Rico, and makes it difficult to transship
goods between U.S. ports.

The facts are clear. What we have is an old-time 1920s law that may
have been, I emphasize the word ``may,'' have had some utility in the
past.
I am aware that all of the special interests have been mobilized and
how this can be damaging, frankly, to certain special interests. It
would not be damaging to the average citizen who would pay less for the
goods that are transported much more cheaply as a result of the Jones
Act repeal.
I say to those critics of this amendment, as has been my habit over
the years, I will not quit on this issue. There will be other
opportunities to put the Senate and Congress on record.
Sooner or later the Farm Bureau will be heard. Sooner or later the
people of Hawaii and Puerto Rico who are paying exorbitant prices that
they shouldn't have to pay will be heard. Sooner or later this
protectionist--an anachronism--ancient protectionist act will be
repealed and average American consumers will benefit from it and
unfortunately the special interests will not.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the January 20,
2015, Farm Bureau letter, the Heritage Foundation piece called the
Daily Signal, entitled ``Senator McCain's Jones Act Amendment: Good for
America,'' and another article: ``If You Like Higher Prices, Enriched
Cronies, And Weak National Security, Then You'll Love The Jones Act.''
It is one of my favorite pieces.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

American Farm Bureau Federation,

Washington, DC, January 20, 2015.
To All Members of Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear: The Senate will soon begin consideration of
amendments to S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act. On behalf
of the American Farm Bureau Federation, the nation's largest
general farm organization, I am writing to convey our strong
support for adoption of an amendment by Sen. John McCain that
would repeal provisions of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920,
known as The Jones Act. The Jones Act mandates that any goods
shipped by water between two points in the United States or
its territories must be transported by a vessel that is U.S.
built, U.S. flagged, and at least 75 percent U.S. crewed.
Given the ability of ships to move large amounts of cargo,
and the bulk nature of most agriculture commodities, shipping
via water is a strategic and economic resource that should
not be limited by antiquated provisions of U.S. law. Farm
Bureau believes that there should be no restrictions as to
the quantities or vessels on which a commodity is shipped
between U.S. ports. Repealing The Jones Act would allow more
competition for the movement of goods between U.S. ports,
thus driving down transportation costs.
Farm Bureau supports the construction of pipelines in
general and the Keystone XL pipeline in particular. We
support projects of this nature for their ability to decrease
energy and input costs, lower prices for consumers and
diversify our transportation infrastructure. Repeal of The
Jones Act accomplishes the same purpose: a reduction in
energy costs, increased competition to lower costs of U.S.
goods and more opportunities to transport agricultural
commodities at competitive prices.
Due to this importance, Farm Bureau policy, developed by
our grassroots members consisting of working farmers and
ranchers, explicitly supports the repeal of The Jones Act.
Farm Bureau urges you to vote in support of Sen. McCain's
amendment repealing sections of the Merchant Marine Act of
1920.
Sincerely,
Bob Stallman,
President.
____

[From the Daily Signal, Jan. 16, 2015]

Senator McCain's Jones Act Amendment: Good for America

(By Bryan Riley and Brian Slattery)

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) recently introduced an amendment
to repeal harmful aspects of the Jones Act, a 1920 law that
restricts the use of foreign-built or foreign-owned ships for
transporting goods within the United States.
According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
``The coastwise laws [like the Jones Act] are highly
protectionist provisions that are intended to create a
`coastwise monopoly' in order to protect and develop the
American merchant marine, shipbuilding, etc.''
But protecting U.S. industries from competition may
actually have the opposite effect.
Consider U.S. production of vessels designed to transport
goods via water compared to U.S. production of semi-trailer
trucks and trailers designed to transport goods via land. In
2013, U.S. manufacturers exported $4.1 billion in semi-
trailer trucks and trailers, but they exported just $0.1
billion in commercial ships.
U.S. commercial shipbuilding accounts for just 21.7 percent
of total shipbuilding. Most of the industry produces vessels
for the military and will continue to do so with or without
the Jones Act. The notion that U.S. defense needs require a
ban on the use of foreign-built ships for commercial purposes
(but not foreign-built aircraft or foreign-built cars and
trucks) seems bizarre. In fact, by artificially inflating
prices, protectionist measures such as the Jones Act may have
given foreign competitors a competitive edge in international
shipping.
The Persian Gulf conflict in the early 1990s proved that
the Jones Act was not a necessary element in supplying and
sustaining a military operation. For example, during the
Persian Gulf War, Military Sealift Command shipped millions
of tons of cargo to the operation. Of the 191 chartered dry
cargo ships involved in this operation, 162 (or 85 percent)
were foreign-flagged.
Additionally, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) has
frequently leased foreign vessels to execute missions that
required additional sealift capacity. This further obviates
the need for the Jones Act. One could argue that such long-
term leasing agreements are not cost-effective, but if that
is the case then the military should purchase such vessels
outright. The Jones Act doesn't solve this issue.
Americans in most states would benefit from the freedom to
ship goods on the best-built, most affordable vessels,
wherever they are made. The Alaska governor is actually
required to ``use best efforts and all appropriate means to
persuade the United States Congress to repeal those
provisions of the Jones Act formerly codified at 46 U.S.C.
861, et seq.''
The Jones Act drives up the price of gas, hinders U.S.
infrastructure improvements, inflicts high costs on people in
Hawaii and Puerto Rico, and makes it difficult to transship
goods between U.S. ports. Senator

[[Page S380]]

McCain's Jones Act amendment would promote competition,
strengthen the economy, and benefit American consumers.
____

[From the federalist.com, Jan. 22, 2015]

If You Like Higher Prices, Enriched Cronies, and Weak National
Security, Then You'll Love the Jones Act

(By Scott Lincicome)

Sen. John McCain has found an archaic, protectionist
boondoggle whose time for death is long past. It's called the
Jones Act.
Lost in the never-ending debate about the KeystoneXL
pipeline is great news for anyone who opposes cronyism and
supports free markets and lower prices for essential goods
like food and energy. Sen. John McCain has offered an
amendment to repeal the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also
known as the Jones Act, which requires, among other things,
that all goods shipped between U.S. ports be transported by
American-built, owned, flagged, and crewed vessels.
By restricting the supply of qualified interstate ships and
crews, this protectionist 94-year-old law has dramatically
inflated the cost of shipping goods, particularly essentials
like food and energy, between U.S. ports--costs ultimately
born by U.S. consumers. Thus, the Jones Act is a subsidy
American businesses and families pay to the powerful, well-
connected U.S. shipping industry and a few related unions.
For this reason alone, the law should die, but it turns out
that the Jones Act also harms the very industry it's designed
to protect and, in the process, U.S. national security.

The Jones Act Inflates Shipping Costs for Americans

There is no question that the Jones Act inflates U.S.
shipping costs. A 2011 Maritime Administration (MARAD)
report, with input from the U.S. maritime industry, compared
the costs of U.S.-flagged versus foreign cargo carriers, and
found that the former far outweighed the latter due to the
Jones Act and other U.S. Carriers noted that the U.S.-flag
fleet experiences higher operating costs than foreign-flag
vessels due to regulatory requirements on vessel labor,
insurance and liability costs, maintenance and repair costs,
taxes and costs associated with compliance with environmental
law . . . [T]he operating cost differential between U.S.-flag
vessels and foreign flag vessels has increased over the past
five years, further reducing the capacity of the U.S.-flag
fleet to compete with foreign-flag vessels for commercial
car-
go . . .
Higher costs are precisely what you'd expect from an
industry that has a ``coastwise monopoly'' on shipping, due
almost entirely to the Jones Act. As a result, U.S. vessel
operating costs are 2.7 times more expensive than their
foreign counterparts.
Domestic unions and shipbuilders, with a bipartisan
coalition of their congressional benefactors, vehemently deny
that these outrageous shipping costs differences have any
effect on the ultimate cost of U.S. goods that are
transported on Jones Act vessels, but several examples belie
such claims (and prove that, once again, basic economics
still works).
First, there is ample evidence that the Jones Act distorts
the U.S. energy market and raises domestic gasoline prices.
As I noted last year:
According to Bloomberg, there are only 13 ships that can
legally move oil between U.S. ports, and these ships are
`booked solid.' As a result, abundant oil supplies in the
Gulf Coast region cannot be shipped to other U.S. states with
spare refinery capacity. And, even when such vessels are
available, the Jones Act makes intrastate crude shipping
artificially expensive. According to a 2012 report by the
Financial Times, shipping U.S. crude from Texas to
Philadelphia cost more than three times as much as shipping
the same product on a foreign-flagged vessel to a Canadian
refinery, even though the latter route is longer.
It doesn't take an energy economist to see how the Jones
Act's byzantine protectionism leads to higher prices at the
pump for American drivers. According to one recent estimate,
revoking the Jones Act would reduce U.S. gasoline prices by
as much as 15 cents per gallon `by increasing the supply of
ships able to shuttle the fuel between U.S. ports.'
For these and other reasons, the Heritage Foundation just
recently called for the complete repeal of the Jones Act as
part of its new energy policy agenda.
Second, the Jones Act has particularly deleterious effects
on water-bound U.S. markets like Puerto Rico, Alaska, and
Hawaii. A 2012 report by the New York Fed highlighted the
issue for Puerto Rico:
Available data show that shipping is more costly to Puerto
Rico than to regional peers and that Puerto Rican ports have
lagged other regional ports in activity in recent years.
While causality from the Jones Act has not been established,
it stands to reason that the act is an important contributor
insofar as it reduces competition (shipments between the
Island and the U.S. mainland are handled by just four
carriers). It costs an estimated $3,063 to ship a twenty-foot
container of household and commercial goods from the East
Coast of the United States to Puerto Rico; the same shipment
costs $1,504 to nearby Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic) and
$1,687 to Kingston (Jamaica)--destinations that are not
subject to Jones Act restrictions . . . Furthermore, over the
past decade, the port of Kingston in Jamaica has overtaken
the port of San Juan in total container volume, despite the
fact that Puerto Rico's population is roughly a third larger
and its economy more than triple the size of Jamaica's. The
trends are stark: between 2000 and 2010, the volume of
twenty-foot containers more than doubled in Jamaica, while it
fell more than 20 percent in Puerto Rico.
A 1988 study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office
found similar harms for Alaska and the U.S. economy. Thus,
the idea that the Jones Act doesn't line the pockets of a few
U.S. companies and unions at the expense of American families
and businesses simply defies reality.

Regulating Industries Cuts Them Down

Supporters of the Jones Act often rebut these economic
criticisms by explaining that the law is absolutely essential
for U.S. national security, but these claims also fail the
smell test. Consider first the enervation of the U.S.
shipping industry itself. The above-referenced MARAD report
shows a U.S. industry that has declined nearly to the point
of extinction under the weight of the Jones Act and other
regulations--a shameful outcome when you consider the history
and importance of the U.S. Merchant Marine, which is a
component not just of the United States economy, but also our
national defense. Mariners in World War II faced the highest
casualty rate of any other service: 1 in 26 men went to their
deaths on the sea. In 1950, ships waving the United States
flag comprised 43 percent of the global shipping trade. Yet
by 2009 the U.S. fleet had withered to 1 percent of the
global fleet--while global demand for international shipping
surged.
As of 2010, the picture was clear: there were 110 U.S.-
flagged ships engaged in foreign commerce. Sixty in of these
ships were part of the Maritime Security Program. Notably, as
of 2012 these ships receive a subsidy (naturally) to the tune
of $3.1 million per ship, per year, to offset their higher
costs. Compare this to the 540 ships owned by American
interests which flew a ``flag of convenience''--typically
that of the Marshall Islands, Singapore, or Liberia. Why such
a dramatic difference?
While it is certainly not the only factor at play, this
precipitous decline in the U.S. fleet's standing is due in no
small part to burdensome regulations which make American
ships more costly and less competitive. The Jones Act
requires ships engaged in the U.S. trade to be built in the
country, but building a ship in the United States is
exorbitantly expensive--three times the cost of a new ship
built in Japan or South Korea. In nearly all cases it is far
less burdensome to purchase an existing ship and reflag it
rather than build new. And these burdens are before factoring
the requirement to crew these ships with U.S. mariners, union
men who unsurprisingly average more than five times the
expense of a foreign crew. Indeed, the MARAD report
identified labor costs as the single largest driver of the
difference between U.S. and foreign carrier costs.
The Jones Act isn't the only harmful regulation, not by a
mile. One of the unfortunate realities of operating a massive
ocean-going vessel full of complex machinery is that things
inevitably require maintenance. These inconveniences often
arise overseas and necessitate repairs in foreign countries.
Lest you worry the government would be left with beak
unwetted in this instance, fear not: 19 USC Sec. 1466 to the
rescue (link included if you're having trouble falling
asleep). This outgrowth of the Tariff Act of 1930 requires
the master, or owner of a vessel, upon the ship's return to a
United States port, to declare to U.S. Customs any parts and
services received onboard while in foreign waters. The ship
owner is then required to pay an ad valorem duty of 50
percent on the dutiable vessel repair costs.
A few exceptions written into the law help mitigate this
figure, at the further cost of man hours or maritime attorney
fees. Free trade agreements between the United States and
nations like Oman, South Korea, Singapore, and others help to
alleviate these costs by allowing for almost total remission
of duty for work performed in those countries. However, it's
hardly practical for U.S.-flagged vessels to perform the
entirety of their maintenance in these countries when stays
in port can be measured in hours. Vessel repair duties are
situated to remain a significant, punitive cost of doing
business as a U.S. cargo vessel. Even with this 50 percent
duty, in the majority of cases it is still less expensive to
make the repairs overseas and pay up rather than to perform
the work in the United States. This also holds true for the
acquisition of new ships.
Thus, under the Jones Act, shipping prices (as well as
those for the goods shipped) rise and the U.S. fleet
degrades. (For more on how the Jones Act imperils U.S.
maritime security, see this helpful Heritage Foundation
report.) It's quite the double-whammy, and precisely what
you'd expect from a protectionist law that thwarts the
benefits of foreign competition. In short, the Jones Act has
turned the U.S. merchant marine into a fleet of Ford Pintos
and Chrysler K-Cars, all in desperate need of the kind of
motivation only free market competition can bring.

To Top It Off, the Jones Act Worsens Emergencies

Moreover, the Act has proven to be a significant and costly
obstacle in times of real emergency. Most recently, the deep
freeze of 2014 saw New Jersey exhaust its supply of road
salt, imperiling the lives of local travelers. Such salt was
available in Maine, but it was delayed for days because of
the requirement that only U.S. ships could engage

[[Page S381]]

in coastwise trade to carry the shipment--even though an
empty foreign ship was available and headed to Newark. The
government denied a request to waive the Jones Act and use
the foreign ship to supply the much-needed road salt. By the
time a Jones Act barge was found to carry the salt, the cost
of the operation had grown by $700,000. Sorry about those icy
roads, New Jersey, but the shipping industry and unions gotta
get paid.
During the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the government
similarly refused to issue Jones Act waivers so foreign
vessels could aid in the cleanup and containment. Despite
several offers for foreign assistance during an ongoing
ecological disaster, the government cited the Jones Act to
justify turning them away. Many suspect that the Obama
administration was reluctant to go against the pro-Jones Act
labor unions (tr. every labor union) he needed to cement his
re-election. It's not a leap to say that such cronyism may
have delayed the eventual resolution of the spill.
The Jones Act and its related statutes raise the cost of
essential goods for American families and businesses;
strangle the life from the industries they were designed to
protect; jeopardizes U.S. maritime security; and exacerbates
the pain of major national emergencies. (They also are major
irritant in foreign trade relations.) So why hasn't Congress
repealed these laws? Maybe we should ask the politicians and
well-connected cronies who benefit from the current
arrangement. I'm sure they'd be happy to explain.
McCain's amendment to repeal the Jones Act is a common-
sense solution to the problems facing a key American industry
and the pain of the U.S. economy. The amendment, as well as
any broader proposal to kill off the Act, deserves widespread
support from conservatives and liberals alike. Efforts to
dispense with this archaic protectionist boondoggle will no
doubt meet fierce resistance from entrenched interests, labor
unions, and opponents of free trade. However, those same
groups stand only to benefit from efforts to make the U.S.
fleet more competitive and less costly. American mariners
have what it takes to compete on a global scale, and they
should be given the chance. More competition translates to
more opportunity, and perhaps the expansion and
revitalization of a crucial sector of our economy. Where
artificial monopolies and ancient restrictions can be
removed, American labor, American business, and American
consumers will have a chance to thrive.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Alaska.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I would like to talk about an amendment I
filed along with my colleague Susan Collins of Maine to support the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the LIHEAP program.
As the Senate continues to debate whether to bypass a longstanding
Presidential permitting process and essentially rubberstamp the
construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline--which, to be clear, would
likely benefit major oil companies and could have a harmful consequence
on our environment--I wish to take the opportunity to highlight a
Federal program that helps our country's most vulnerable citizens,
including seniors, meet their home energy needs.
The bipartisan amendment led by Senator Collins and me, along with
several of our colleagues, expresses the sense of the Senate that the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program--better known as LIHEAP--
should be funded at no less than $4.7 billion annually to ensure that
more low-income households--those with children, senior citizens,
individuals with disabilities, and veterans--are able to access this
critical assistance.
I must commend Senator Collins. She and I have taken the lead on this
effort over many sessions of Congress. Her efforts are extraordinarily
critical for the continued support of this program, and it is no
surprise that once again we are both together urging our colleagues to
support this program.
LIHEAP is the main Federal program that helps low-income families,
seniors, individuals with disabilities, and a growing number of
veterans across the country pay their energy bills. It provides vital
assistance during the cold winter months often seen in the Northeast,
the Northern Plains, and across the northern part of the country, and
also during the summer months in areas of the Southeast and Southwest
where air-conditioning is absolutely critical to the health and welfare
of seniors. Unfortunately, we often read very disturbing reports of
individuals, particularly seniors, with serious medical conditions that
can become fatal because they simply can't afford the cost of air-
conditioning or home heating.
This is not a program that is regionally specific; this is a program
that has a national impact and, as such, has to be supported. It is an
indispensable lifeline that ensures recipients do not have to choose
between paying their energy bills and affording other necessities such
as food and medicine.
The funding also supports many small businesses, such as oil heating
companies. They see the benefits of LIHEAP as well. It goes to pay
utility bills, which indirectly affects small businesses and individual
ratepayers across a broad spectrum. So the benefits of this legislation
are not just for the specific recipients but also for the overall
economy of our States and for small businesses, and that has to be
noted.
We also recognize that there are many more households eligible than
receive the benefits simply because the funding levels are
insufficient.
Despite bipartisan efforts over many years--again, with Senator
Collins being right there--funding reductions in 2011 and 2012, along
with sequester cuts, mean LIHEAP funding has declined more than 30
percent since fiscal year 2010, from $5.1 billion down to about $3.4
billion. This raises another bigger issue.
We have seen our deficit decline significantly, from 9.8 percent of
gross domestic product now to about 2.8 percent. In fact, that is a
little bit below the 40-year average of deficits in the United States.
This hasn't been just because of magic; it is because we have been
cutting programs. This is an example of one of the programs we have cut
very significantly, and it is a program that aids so many people in our
communities--particularly seniors and people with disabilities. This
deficit reduction has been hard won, and one of the costs has been
supporting these people. The money has shrunk, so obviously the number
of people serviced has shrunk. The number of households LIHEAP funds
has declined by 17 percent, from about 8.1 million households to 6.7
million households, and they have seen this impact directly. Those
receiving assistance have also seen their average LIHEAP grant reduced
by about $100, down to about $400. This is estimated to cover less than
half of the average home heating costs for a household this winter,
meaning that many low-income families and seniors will have fewer
resources available to meet other basic needs.
I must point out that we are seeing a temporary reprieve from very
high energy prices--particularly oil prices in the Northeast--because
of geopolitical developments that have impacted the price of oil. But
that is not the solution. The bills these people face, even in this
economic climate as well as meteorological climate, are still
significant and challenging to people of very limited means. For many
people, this is an issue of safety, it is an issue of their health, and
it is an issue of just being able to get by and make ends meet.
So the need is clear, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support
of LIHEAP and in support of this amendment.
In this context, we need to be proactive in terms of recognizing
something we can do on a bipartisan basis that works.
I do believe I should also comment at this moment on the underlying
proposal, the Keystone XL Pipeline.
We understand this TransCanada pipeline would move crude oil from the
Canadian tar sands--one of the dirtiest sources of fuel on the planet--
to refineries on our gulf coast. There are many ways to extract
hydrocarbons, and this is one of the most environmentally challenging
ways. Constructing this pipeline runs counter to what we should be
doing on a much broader basis, which is addressing climate change and
protecting the environment.
I was struck yesterday at a meeting of the Senate Armed Services
Committee--and the Presiding Officer is a distinguished and very
valuable member of that committee--where we listened to Lt. Gen. Brent
Scowcroft and

[[Page S382]]

Zbigniew Brzezinski, two of the foremost experts on national security
policy. General Scowcroft was National Security Adviser for President
George Herbert Walker Bush, and Dr. Brzezinski was National Security
Adviser for President Carter and was integral in negotiating the Camp
David Accords between Israel and Egypt. I was struck, when asked about
the big issues we face, that General Scowcroft said: Well, there are
two big issues--cyber security and climate change. When you have these
very authoritative individuals--again on a bipartisan basis--
essentially saying climate change is a big national security issue,
that is the context in which we have to view so many things, in
particular this issue of the Keystone Pipeline.

The second issue is the obvious need in this country to create jobs.
In fact--no pun intended--that is job number 1 for us. Now, there are
jobs associated with the pipeline. Even if they are of short duration,
they are still pretty good jobs. But the point has to be made that we
have to do much more--particularly for our construction workers--than
one single pipeline. I have been told that long-term employment of the
pipeline, once it is built--will be very small.
We have to do much more. That is why I think we have to be very
serious about an infrastructure program that goes way beyond Keystone
and includes roads, bridges, sewers--all these things we have let
decline. If we look at the spending levels--once again, a victim of our
deficit reduction, a victim of the cuts we have made--we are at a level
now where we are not doing what our fathers, grandfathers,
grandmothers, and mothers did, which is invest a lot of money in
building infrastructure for a productive America. We have been missing
in action for the last several years as far as doing those things we
used to do routinely--building new highways, building new sewer
systems, improving our pollution control systems, all of those things.
We have to do that.
We also have to do those things in the context of climate change--in
other words, look at alternative energy and not just replicate what we
did 20 or 30 years ago because this is a different planet.
According to the BlueGreen Alliance, a coalition of labor unions and
environmental groups, repairing America's crumbling infrastructure
could create 2.7 million jobs across the economy, increase GDP by $377
billion, while reducing carbon pollution and other greenhouse gas
emissions. So it is not thousands of jobs; it is millions of jobs. It
is not one project; it is a commitment to improving, advancing, and
rehabilitating our infrastructure in every part of the country, while
at the same time dealing with climate change, which is so central.
So, I would like to see us, as we move past this debate, move
vigorously into a debate about infrastructure.
There is another issue too, and that is this debate about where the
oil is going. Well, given the global market for petroleum products, it
could go to parts of the United States, but it could easily go
overseas. A lot of that is a factor of the price and the demand. We
have seen a lot of oil going into Asia in particular. I think that
trend will continue for several reasons. One reason is that they have
done less, relatively speaking, than many other parts of the world in
terms of lowering their dependence on oil and moving to alternative
fuels. So the potential is that a significant amount, if not all, of
this product--even though it reaches the gulf coast--will not be used
in the United States. That is another factor we have to consider.
Bypassing the administration's traditional legislative review process
with respect to Keystone is not the way to proceed. We have to get our
energy policies right. I think we have to recognize climate change. We
have to be sensitive to a whole host of issues. We also have to
recognize that an energy policy is not just producing and getting these
products into the marketplace, it is also making sure that very
vulnerable Americans can afford these products, whatever their prices
may be. That is where LIHEAP comes in.
I am very pleased, once again, that this is a continuation of a
bipartisan effort Senator Collins and many others have pursued for the
benefit of families all across this country. When we are doing that, I
think we are doing the best possible work we can for our constituents
and our Nation.
With that, Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Ms. Mikulski pertaining to the submission of S. Res.
No. 35 is printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 71

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand today to encourage my colleagues to
support my amendment No. 71. This amendment would solve a problem that
has severely hamstrung oil and gas development on Federal lands, a
problem that is particularly severe in the Western United States and
that involves excessive delays in the issuing of permits by the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management.
Federal law requires the BLM to approve or deny these permits within
30 days. They have 30 days to go one way or the other. But according to
a report issued last year by the inspector general within the U.S.
Department of Interior, BLM took an average of 228 days to approve each
drilling permit in 2012--228 days. That is 7\1/2\ months. That is a lot
longer than the 30 days under Federal law. In Moab and in Salt Lake
City, UT, the average processing delay is 220 days. In Price, UT, the
backlog is around 250 days. It doesn't have to take this long. In fact,
to explain why, let's look at how States handle it.
State governments, by comparison, process these same permits in 80
days or less.
Approval of these permits is further complicated by endless
environmental reviews, reviews that sometimes can take years upon
years. The result of all this redtape is a serious backlog of about
3,500 permits.
My amendment would address this problem in a few ways. First, it
would require BLM to issue a permit within 60 days of receiving an
application. If the permit is denied, the BLM would be required to
specify the reasons for its decision to deny the permit and to allow
the applicant thereafter to address any issues.
The amendment would also address delays stemming from reviews under
the Endangered Species Act and under the National Environmental Policy
Act. Reviews under these statutes are required to be completed within
180 days. To provide companies with certainty and to hold BLM
accountable, if either of these deadlines is not met, the applications
would be deemed approved.
Significantly, there are currently 113 million acres of Federal land
open and accessible for oil and gas development. Much of this Federal
land contains abundant domestic energy resources. In Utah alone we have
hundreds of acres available for drilling, acres that are currently
being held up by bureaucratic delays. My amendment would ensure that
Utah and other States in the West that are dominated by Federal land
can access the energy, the vast wealth that lies within their borders,
and provide the United States with a reliable source of domestic energy
production.
Look, our security--our energy security and our national security,
more broadly--depends ultimately on our ability to produce energy. I
understand that fuel prices right now are down relative to what they
have been. We cannot get too secure in this. We cannot assume it is
always going to be the case. Certainly, when the Federal Government
insists on owning this much land--roughly one-third of the land in the
United States as a whole, roughly

[[Page S383]]

two-thirds of the land in my State of Utah--if we are going to own this
much land within the Federal Government, we should be using the
resources within it.
We need to make sure we are using that land to shore up our energy
independence. The less energy independent we are in this country, the
more dependent we become on other countries that are producing their
energy, that are using their natural resources--countries such as Saudi
Arabia and Venezuela and other countries where there are a lot of
people growing wealthy off of our petrodollars and where many of those
same people are using our own petrodollars to fund acts of terrorism
against us, countries that are often hostile to our interests.
We need to do this because it makes sense economically and we need to
do this because it makes sense from a national security standpoint as
well. But in order for any of this to work, we have to have procedures
in place to make sure that those people who choose to go out and want
to develop land--want to develop Federal land that has already been
identified as suitable for oil and gas production within Federal
lands--that they have some modicum of due process, that they have some
ability to predict what the procedural outcome is going to be, what set
of procedures they will have to follow and what kind of timeline they
will be facing as they approach this often lengthy process.
We do need to be careful. We do need to be sensitive and we need to
make sure we are developing our natural resources in a way that
respects our environment and doesn't endanger our health or that of our
Federal land, but this can be done in a way that doesn't have to result
in open-ended and completely unforeseeable delays.
For this reason I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this
amendment, amendment No. 71, with the understanding that as they do so,
they will be shoring up America's energy independence, and with it,
America's national security.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MORAN. 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. MORAN. I also ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as
in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Veterans Health Care

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, thank you very much for recognizing me to
take the opportunity to address something I hope can readily and easily
be solved. If common sense prevails--and we know it doesn't often
enough here in our Nation's Capital--one, the Department of Veterans
Affairs certainly, in my view, can solve this problem. If common sense
doesn't prevail there, then surely the Senate, the House of
Representatives, and the President could agree upon a legislative fix
that is really nothing more than common sense. I am talking about a
veterans issue--one that is certainly prevalent in a rural State such
as mine. My guess is it is a problem that occurs in a State such as the
Presiding Officer's as well.
I was very pleased. I came to the Senate floor and talked about the
importance of passing and approving the CHOICE Act. We remember the
scandal of last year in which it became clear the Department of
Veterans Affairs had significant problems across the country. The VA
hospital in Phoenix was a poster child for bad behavior that resulted
in potentially the death of veterans. One of the things we did to try
to help the Department of Veterans Affairs better take care of
America's veterans was to pass the CHOICE Act. We did that in August of
last year. It was signed into law, and it is now being implemented by
the Department of Veterans Affairs.
There are many issues that are associated with the implementation of
this bill, but let me raise one. The crux of that legislation is this.
If you are a veteran and you live more than 40 miles from a VA facility
or if you can't get the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide the
services within 30 days or the timeframe in which you need those
services, then the Department of Veterans Affairs is required by law to
provide those services, if you choose, at a place of your choice,
presumably your hometown.
This is about service to our veterans in their hometowns across
Kansas and across States around the country. The theory is that the
Department of Veterans Affairs is incapable of providing those services
perhaps for a number of reasons, including lack of the necessary
professionals. Therefore, let's take advantage of the professionals we
have at home in our hometowns. Let the veterans see his or her hometown
physician. Let the veteran be admitted to his or her hometown hospital.
It is a pretty commonsense kind of reaction to the inability of the
Department of Veterans Affairs to meet the needs of veterans across our
country--provide another option. If that is the choice of the veteran,
that veteran wants to have care at home, give them that option.
As a Senator from a State such as Kansas, this makes sense to me even
in the circumstance in which the Department of Veterans Affairs can
provide the service. For 14 years I represented a congressional
district in Kansas, the western three-fourths of our State. The
congressional district is larger than the State of Illinois and has no
VA hospital.
We pushed for a number of years and were successful in opening
outpatient clinics so veterans could get that care closer to home than
the VA hospital, and those outpatient clinics provide--or at least
intended to provide--routine care.
Here is the problem today. The law says if you live more than 40
miles from a VA facility, then the VA must provide the services at home
if you choose. The Department of Veterans Affairs is defining facility
as any facility, including the hospital or the outpatient clinic. That
doesn't seem too troublesome to me until you take it to the next step,
which is, even if the VA hospital or the outpatient clinic doesn't
provide the service that the veteran needs, they still consider it a
facility within 40 miles.
In my hometown, where I grew up, we have had an ongoing dialogue with
one of our honored veterans. He needs a colonoscopy. My hometown is
nearly 300 miles--250 miles from the VA hospital in Wichita. There is
an outpatient clinic, a CBOC, in Hays, 25 miles away. But guess what.
The outpatient clinic in Hays doesn't provide the service of
colonoscopies.
One would think the veteran in my hometown could go to the local
physician or the local hospital and have the colonoscopy performed and
the Department of Veterans Affairs provide and pay for the services.
But no, because there is an outpatient clinic within 40 miles, even
though it doesn't provide the colonoscopy, our veteran is directed to
drive to Wichita. Incidentally, we have calculated the mileage expense
of the veteran doing it. It does not make sense economically, either.
But regardless of that, it certainly doesn't make sense for that
veteran.
I have said this many times over the years as we have tried to bring
services closer to home to veterans. If you are a 92-year-old World War
II veteran and you live in Atwood, KS, up on the Nebraska border, how
do you get to the VA hospital in Wichita or in Denver?
Our initial attempt was to put an outpatient clinic closer. The
problem with that--we now have an outpatient clinic in Burlington, CO,
and an outpatient clinic in Hays, KS. But that is still 2\1/2\ hours
from Atwood, KS. If you are a 92-year-old World War II veteran in
Atwood, KS, how do you get to Hays or Burlington, CO? The answer is you
probably don't.
Our veterans are not being served. We attempted to address this
issue. Let me say it differently. We addressed this issue in the CHOICE
Act and said that if you are 40 miles from a facility, then the VA
provides the services at home. The VA is interpreting that facility--
the word facility--just to mean any facility there regardless of what
service it provides.
In many instances--I take Liberal, KS, where there is a CBOC. They
haven't had a permanent physician in their CBOC in almost 4 years. But
yet Liberal--the CBOC in Liberal--counts as a facility even though
there is no physician who is regularly in attendance at the clinic.
These issues ought

[[Page S384]]

to be resolved in favor of whom? The veteran. Whom, of all people,
would we expect to provide the best service to? In any capable way we
can, whom would we expect to get the best health care in our Nation? I
would put at the top of the list those who served our country.

The committee that passed this legislation, the CHOICE Act--it says
in the language--the conferees recognized the issues I just described
and added report language that allows veterans to secure health care
services that are either unavailable or not cost-effective to provide
at a VA facility, which was intentionally included to give the VA
flexibility to provide veterans access to non-VA care when a VA
facility, no matter what size or location, cannot provide the care the
veteran is seeking.
Yesterday I introduced S. 207. I would ask my colleagues to join me.
Again, I guess my first request is, Could the Department of Veterans
Affairs fix this problem on their own? If not, I would ask that my
colleagues join me in fixing this legislatively with one more directive
to the Department of Veterans Affairs saying, if they cannot provide
the service at the CBOC, then it does not count as a facility within
the 40 miles.
This is a problem across our States. I had my staff at a meeting in
the VISN in which they were describing how they were going to implement
the CHOICE Act. They put up a chart in which they show how they are
going to have a mobile van work its way through the area of our State
and Missouri and talked about how that will then satisfy the 40-mile
requirement.
Why is the VA bending over backward to avoid--let my say it
differently. Why is the VA not bending over backward to take care of
the veteran, instead of bending over backward to make sure it is the
most difficult circumstance for a veteran to get the health care they
need at home?
We ought to always err on the side of what is best for veterans, not
what is best for the Department of Veterans Affairs--if you could ever
make the case that providing services someplace far away from the
veteran is good for the VA.
I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to speak to this
issue. It is an important one. I have mentioned it to a number of my
colleagues. They have described similar circumstances in their State. I
have met with the Department of Veterans Affairs personnel. I serve on
the veterans' committee, have since I came to Congress. We will work in
every way with the veterans' committee, Republicans and Democrats, to
make certain there is a fix to this issue.
But I want to highlight the manner in which the Department is
implementing the CHOICE Act is not the way Congress intended, and it is
not the way that benefits the veteran. Finally, let me say that even if
there was some circumstance in which the Department does not have the
authority to do what we are asking them to do in the CHOICE Act, they
have the ability today to provide non-VA care whenever they deem it
necessary.
There is also the opportunity for them to use a pilot program that
many of us have in our States. I see the Senator from Maine is on the
floor. They have a pilot program, the ARCH Program, in which we are
trying to provide services to veterans at home. There are a variety of
ways the Department can solve this problem. I ask them to do that.
In the absence of their solution, I ask my colleagues to join me in
sponsoring, in debating, in potentially amending but most importantly
in passing and sending this bill to the President so we can resolve
once and for all that the Department of Veterans Affairs is created for
the benefit of the veteran, not the Department.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. KING. Mr. President, first, as an original cosponsor of the good
Senator's bill, I compliment him for taking the leadership position he
has on this issue, for bringing it forward and so eloquently expressing
his support for it.
This is an important bill. I think it is one we all can agree on, on
a bipartisan basis. Let's get it through and to the President.

Cyber Security

Mr. President, I start with a question, a basic question: Why are we
here? Why do we have those jobs? What is it we are supposed to do? The
clearest expression of the answer to that question comes from the
preamble to the Constitution, which lays out exactly what our
responsibilities are.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.

This is the purpose of the Constitution. It is the purpose of the
government. The most solemn responsibility of any government, I would
submit--any government, anywhere, any time--is to provide for the
security of its citizens, to provide for the common defense. That is
our most solemn and fundamental responsibility.
We are not doing that right now. We are avoiding, missing,
obfuscating, and not dealing with one of the most serious threats
facing our country. I refer to the threat of cyber attack. Every
intelligence official I have talked to in the last 2 years, every
military official, everybody with any knowledge of the defense and the
security, the national security of this country, has emphasized that
the most serious threat we face right now is cyber.
What does that mean? Cyber attacks. The disabling of critical
infrastructure, attacks on our businesses, financial systems. This is a
direct threat that is heading at us like a freight train on a track.
The problem is we see it coming, but we are not doing what we should to
deal with it.
To say it is coming is kind of an understatement. This is an unusual
chart, but it goes in time from 2004 until today. It is basically the
frequency and size of cyber attacks in our country. The bigger bubbles
are bigger attacks. The smaller bubbles are smaller attacks. From 2004
to 2006, a few but not many. It is bubbling up and it is about to boil
over. Each year we have seen more attacks, larger attacks, more serious
attacks. The evidence is overwhelming that this is a threat we are
facing. Sony was a wake-up call if ever there was one. What if the Sony
attack had been the New York Stock Exchange or the railroad system,
where cars bearing toxic materials are derailed, or the natural gas
pipeline system or any other of the critical infrastructure of this
country, financial or physical, would have disabled us?
I was at a hearing yesterday in the Armed Services Committee. We had
the testimony of two of the wisest men in America--Brent Scowcroft,
Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who was the National Security Adviser to
President Ford and President George H.W. Bush, and Dr. Zbigniew
Brzezinski, who was the National Security Adviser to Jimmy Carter--
talking about threats.
Brent Scowcroft said he believes the cyber threat was analogous to
the nuclear threat: People would not be killed, but our country could
be destroyed. He saw this as one of the two fundamental threats we
face. Yet what are we doing in Congress? Not much. It is as if we got a
telegram from Admiral Yamamoto in 1941 saying, I am steaming toward
Pearl Harbor and we are going to wipe you out, and we did nothing, or a
telegram or a text message from Osama bin Ladin saying, We are heading
for the World Trade Center, what are you going to do, and we did
nothing.
We have the notice. It is right in front of us. Yet we are not
acting. What are the risks? The biggest risk is in the nature of our
society. The good news is we are the most technologically advanced
society on Earth. The bad news is we are the most technologically
advanced society on Earth--because it makes us vulnerable.
It is what they call an asymmetric vulnerability. We are the most
vulnerable because we are the most wired. We are in the most danger
because of our technical advancement. What can they do to us? This
gives you an idea of how this risk is accelerating and how it fits.
This is the number of devices in the world connected to the Internet.
Back in 2003 it was very few. By 2010 we were up to 10 billion devices
connected to the Internet. The projection is, by the end of this year,
we will be at 25 billion devices connected to the Internet. By 2020,
not that long from now, 50 billion

[[Page S385]]

devices will be connected to the Internet and therefore vulnerable to
cyber attacks.

Critical infrastructure, I have mentioned. The financial system, what
would it do to the country if all of a sudden everybody's bank account
disappeared? Most of us, many workers in America, have their--we do not
see cash money or a paycheck. It goes electronically into our bank
account. What if all of that just disappeared? Chaos would ensue.
The same thing with transactions on the New York Stock Exchange or
the great transactions of our banks. It would be chaos that would
tumble through the economy and then into people's daily lives.
Transportation could be paralyzed. The simply act of messing around
with how red and green lights work in a major city could paralyze a
major city for hours, if not days.
The transportation of toxic or volatile compounds could be
compromised. Of course, the energy system, the electrical grid, we do
not realize how dependent we are on these modern facilities until they
go down. Periodically in Maine, when I was Governor, we had an ice
storm where three-quarters of our people lost electricity for sometimes
2 weeks at a time. We learned what a disaster that was. One of the
things we learned was that home furnaces, heating oil furnaces, need
electricity to fire. People got cold. It was not just: Gee. I cannot
watch TV tonight. It became life threatening.
The second area of vulnerability is financial. Data breaches, that is
something that is happening all of the time. Then, finally, property
ideas, theft of ideas. Where are these threats coming from? All over
the place. North Korea, Russia, China, Iran. Terrorist organizations
are now looking into the cyber field--hackers for hire, somebody in
some country or somebody's basement somewhere in the world who hires
out to take advantage of the vulnerability, particularly of the Western
countries and particularly the United States.
We are already incurring huge costs, the cost of these data breaches,
the cost of protection against these data breaches. Our financial
system is spending a huge amount of money to protect itself from these
breaches. We have to act. We have to act. It is beyond time to act.
My favorite quote from Mark Twain--and there are many. But my
favorite is: History doesn't always repeat itself, but it usually
rhymes.
History doesn't always repeat itself, but it usually rhymes.
Nothing new ever happens. This would not be the first time in history
a great nation ignored threats to its existence. In August of 1939,
Winston Churchill, in talking about the House of Commons, but he could
have been talking about the U.S. Congress:

At this moment in its long history, it would be disastrous,
it would be pathetic, it would be shameful for the House of
Commons to write itself off as an effective and potent factor
in the situation, or reduce whatever strength it can offer to
the firm front which the nation will make against aggression.

Earlier in the thirties he said--and this is a perfect analogy of
where we are today:

When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now
that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the
remedies which then might have effected a cure.

We are at the line between manageable and too late. I would argue it
is almost over that line. Now is the time that we have to act, but we
aren't acting because of a variety of reasons: the complexity of our
process--four committees have to consider cyber legislation; the
differences with the House; the differences with the White House. There
are all kinds of complications in our system which seem to be
preventing us from acting.
Again, Churchill is appropriate:

There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the
Sibylline Books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of
the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed
unteachability of mankind.

Boy, that is a dark judgment. Continuing:

Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would
be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of
counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation
strikes its jarring gong--these are the features which
constitute the endless repetition of history.

Let's act before the crisis starts. Let's act while we still have
time.
There are at least three bills that I know of that are available. One
is a bipartisan bill that was heavily negotiated in the Intelligence
Committee, came out of the committee I think 12 to 3 last summer. That
is available. It is a new Congress, but the ink is barely dry. There is
a bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee. A bill that came out
of the homeland security committee in December of 2012--and lost in
this body by a couple of votes--from my friends Senator Collins and
Senator Lieberman also dealt with this problem. In other words, we
don't have to start from zero. We don't have to invent these solutions;
we just have to have the will to put them in place. Yet we don't act.
People say: Well, we have national security, Senator. What are you
talking about? We are spending almost $600 billion a year on the
defense of this Nation.
And the answer is yes, but in some ways it reminds me of the famous
Maginot Line of France in the thirties. The Maginot Line has come to
symbolize a faulty defense premise, which really isn't true. The
Maginot Line worked. The problem was that the Maginot Line stopped. It
went from Switzerland to the Belgian border. It stopped at the Belgian
border, and the Germans came around it and behind it and overwhelmed
France in 6 days. So the problem wasn't that the Maginot Line was not
an effective defense--and our defense budget certainly is not
ineffective; it is absolutely essential. But we are not defending the
whole frontier. There is a piece of it, like Belgium, that is
undefended, and that is our failure.
So what are we going to say when the crisis strikes? What are we
going to say when we go home to our citizens in our home States when
the financial system goes down and people can't get their money? There
are threats of violence and violence across our country when toxic
waste is spilled in our waterways. What are we going to say? ``Well, we
would have done something about it, but that was in four committees,
and that was really hard'' or ``You know, we just got in this argument
with the White House and couldn't work it out'' or ``Gee, we would have
solved it and your paycheck wouldn't have disappeared except the
House--you know how they are.'' Can you imagine trying to defend
yourself with that kind of argument? You would be laughed out of the
place.
Come on. Let's do this. I don't know exactly how to proceed, except
maybe those four committees should get together, talk to each other,
and say: Let's bring a bill to the floor.
I would like to see this body decide that we are going to pass cyber
protection legislation between now and May 1. There is no reason we
can't do it. The bills are drafted. We just have to pull ourselves
together and take collective responsibility for defending our country.
If we don't do this--a friend and colleague on this floor yesterday--
we were talking about it, and he said: It is political malpractice if
we don't get this done.
This is a threat we know about. It is important. It is serious. We
know at least some of the important things we have to do to coordinate
better between the government and the private sector. We know how we
can help to solve this; we just have to summon the political will to do
it. And it isn't even that controversial. There are differences here
and there, but this isn't one of the big fights in the Senate where we
have great ideological differences, this is one where we should be able
to come together. It is a lack of coordination and a lack of political
will.
I don't know how I can say this more strongly. I think this is one of
our most fundamental responsibilities. I go back to the preamble to the
Constitution--the primary reason that governments are established and
that our government was established, one of the basic reasons is to
provide for the common defense. If we don't do that in the face of this
threat, shame on us. This is one of the most solemn responsibilities we
have as Senators, as Members of the Congress, and as members of the
Federal Government of the United States.
I deeply hope that the next several weeks and months will be a time
of productive discussions and a commitment to at least an attempted
solution, the beginning of a solution to this

[[Page S386]]

grave threat facing the United States of America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The Senator from Wyoming.

The Budget

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss several issues that
I hope Congress will consider in this Congress.
First, I intend to work this year to address our Nation's spending
problems because I sit up nights worrying about our Nation's debt and
how it will affect our children and grandchildren. As chairman of the
Budget Committee, I will have a hand in handling that, so I have more
responsibility.
We have a spending problem in this country, and we cannot spend our
way to prosperity; rather, we have to stop spending more than we take
in and find a way to start paying down $18 trillion. The debt is
growing. In fact, last fiscal year we spent $469 billion more than we
took in. This fiscal year we are projected to spend $550 billion more
than we will take in.
The money on which we actually get to make decisions is about $1,000
billion. I could say $1 trillion, but $1,000 billion seems to me like a
lot more. When we talk about one, we don't pay much attention, whether
it is a penny or a dollar or a million or a billion or a trillion, but
if we put it out in real terms, we are talking about $1,000 billion
that we could actually make decisions on, and we go ahead and spend
half more than that, half more than we take in. How long do you think
we can do that?
Well, it is affected by interest. We have to pay interest on the
money we spend that is in addition to the money we take in. Right now
we are able to borrow that money at only 1.9 percent. Only? That
amounts to $251 billion that we are paying in interest. It doesn't do a
single program, just pays interest.
How many people think the interest rate is going to stay at 1.9
percent? Well, nobody does. In fact, the projections for this year for
that interest rate, as we sell our bonds, is for 2.1 percent and going
up. The average would be 5 percent. Let's see--$250 billion. If that
doubled, that would be $500 billion. That could happen in 1 year. That
would be an extra $250 billion that we couldn't spend out of that
$1,000 billion that we now get to make decisions on, which is only two-
thirds of what we actually spend. We have a spending problem, and it is
catastrophic in the long run.
People would like us to balance the budget, and I have noticed that
24 States have already passed a constitutional convention balanced
budget amendment. There is a provision--article V of the Constitution
says you can have a constitutional convention, and there are ways of
having it happen, and that is by two-thirds of the States saying they
want to have one. The way all those are being phrased is as though it
would be limited to a constitutional convention on the balanced budget
amendment only, but there is no provision to keep it at that. The only
real provision in article V is one that says that no matter what you do
in a constitutional convention, the thing that cannot be violated is
that all States have equal representation in the U.S. Senate. Since we
are the least populated State, that is one of my favorite parts of that
article, and that is my favorite article. But everything else could be
tapped. There are 10 more States that are considering that resolution.
If all 34 of them pass it, we will have a constitutional convention.
If we had to balance that budget in 1 year, that would mean we would
have to cut $550 billion out of $1,000 billion. In other words, we
would have to make a 50-percent cut to balance the budget.
The real tragedy of this--I am not even talking about paying down the
national debt; I am just talking about what we would be able to spend
after we pay interest because we overspend.
So we are trying to get it on a track where we can at least see the
end of the tunnel and hope that is not the light of a train coming our
way. So far it is. That is one of the things that keep me up. Several
Members of the Senate have ideas on how we can do that, and I intend to
work with them in an effort to find real solutions, eliminate some of
the budget gimmicks we have had in the past, and I have some ideas I
hope my colleagues will consider. One of them is my penny plan. That
cuts the overall spending by 1 percent for 3 years to balance the
budget. It is a little pain for virtually everybody. Everybody gives up
one penny out every dollar they get from the Federal Government. The
plan doesn't mandate any specific cuts. Congress would have the
authority to make targeted cuts and focus on the worst first. That is
what we ought to do--focus on the worst first, and there is plenty of
worst-first out there. If we focus on identifying and eliminating all
of the wasteful spending that occurs in Washington, we might not have
to cut important programs and services. Let's not make the cuts hurt.
Let's be smart about the spending cuts and prioritize how we spend
taxpayers' money.

My biennial appropriations bill would allow for each of the
appropriations bills to be taken up for a 2-year period. That means
agencies would know what they are doing for 2 years. What happens right
now is we don't meet the spending deadline--which is October 1--until
sometime into the next year. So they not only don't know what they are
going to do for 2 years, they don't even know what they are going to do
for the year they are in. We need to solve that problem.
My biennial budgeting bill actually breaks up the spending into two
pieces. We do 12 of the bills, so we do the six tough ones right after
the election and then we do the six easy ones before an election to
make that a little easier to get done. But each of them would allow the
agencies to know what they are going to do for a 2-year period, and it
would allow the appropriators to scrutinize the details of those
budgets. When you are looking at $1,000 billion, how much detail do you
think you can look at when you have to do that each and every year? So
I am suggesting that we only have to do it once every 2 years for half
of the budget, and I think that would get us into a position where we
would be cutting that worst first.
Of course, the Defense appropriations bill would be taken up each
year, just as we take up the authorization bill. Some people have
mentioned that we are funding some things that aren't authorized right
now. They were authorized before, but the authorization date has
passed, so technically they are not authorized to happen. I was curious
as to how many of those there were. I found out there were over 250
authorizations. So how many of those are current? Well, 150 of them are
out of date. We are still spending the money, but we haven't looked at
the program to see if that is what we intended for them to do and if
that is how they are using the money and if it is getting done. It is
about time we did that.
Eliminating duplication and waste as well as improper payments could
be a real part of the solution this year because those are avoidable
wastes of taxpayer dollars. The Government Accountability Office has
reported that 31 areas of the Federal Government are in need of reform
to eliminate duplicative and unnecessary programs. Consolidating
programs and agency functions that overlap could save $95 billion.

Additionally, in fiscal year 2012 there were nearly $100 billion in
improper payments. That is the last time we have an accurate record--or
inaccurate record of inaccuracies. These are payments that shouldn't be
going out the door to people who are no longer eligible for benefits or
overpayments of benefits or, in the worst cases, payments to people who
are deceased. Ending waste and duplication could not only help out our
fiscal house and get it back in order, but it could restore some
confidence in the ability of government to operate effectively.
Additionally, I believe that now is the time to deal with the
problems we have seen each day since ObamaCare was implemented.
Premiums are skyrocketing for many people this year, while small
businesses continue to hold off on hiring new workers or are keeping
people on a part-time schedule so they do not have to go out of
business.
We should repeal this law because it is bad for consumers and bad for
businesses. We need real health care reform that gets health care costs
under control and ensures that rural health care providers can afford
to continue to provide vital services. We can redo that so we provide
what the President promised but hasn't provided.
I am also hopeful this Congress can take up tax reform legislation.
This will be a challenge since the President

[[Page S387]]

said he wants $1 trillion more in revenue from the Tax Code. I disagree
with that premise because I don't think Washington needs to spend more.
Tax reform shouldn't raise any more money for the Federal Government
than the current system does, but if done correctly tax reform may
generate additional revenue through economic growth. That revenue can
be used to reduce the deficits and pay down the debt. I hope we can
work on a bipartisan basis to take our Tax Code off of autopilot and
make it more simple and more fair for everyone--families, small
businesses, corporations, and particularly individuals. As the only
accountant on the Finance Committee, I am ready to roll up my sleeves
and get to work on tax reform.
I also hope Congress will work to improve our economy and make energy
more affordable by approving the Keystone Pipeline that we are debating
now and fighting against the President's war on coal--the only
stockpileable energy source we have. The Keystone Pipeline application
has been pending for more than 5 years, and the State Department has
had five reviews of the project and wants more. Every one of those
reviews has determined the pipeline would cause no significant
environmental impacts and that the pipeline would create thousands of
jobs. Let's get it built.
Similarly, we need to encourage coal production and prevent the
administration from restricting this low-cost, reliable, stockpileable
energy source. The coal industry provided--directly and indirectly--
over 700,000 good-paying jobs in 2010, but since being sworn into
office, President Obama's rulemaking machine has released rule after
rule designed to make it difficult and more expensive to use coal.
Instead of running from coal, America should run on coal, and I hope
this Congress will embrace its abundance and its power and its
potential. With the ingenuity of the American people, there isn't any
problem I have seen where we couldn't solve it. So let's just go to
work on having cleaner energy and putting some of that incentive into
using coal.
We need to challenge the President's other regulatory overreach as
well. President Obama has issued more Executive orders, more
regulations and other Executive actions than either Presidents Bush,
Clinton or Reagan. In fact, last month USA Today reported this
President is on track to take more high-level Executive actions than
any President since Truman, with 195 Executive orders and 198
Presidential memoranda under his belt. This year we need to fight the
abuse of Executive power, whether it is used to grant illegal Executive
amnesty to illegal immigrants or to regulate all bodies of water on
public and private land or to make unconstitutional political
appointments. I will be reintroducing my constitutional amendment to
allow States to repeal Federal regulations and hope to work with my
colleagues on other efforts to fight regulatory overreach.
I am confident we can make real progress for America this year on
these and other issues because I believe the Republican leader has
established regular order. I expect we will use the committee process
so Senators can offer constructive amendments and debate bills in that
forum, where they are intensely interested in that legislation. I am
hopeful we will also have an amendment process on the Senate floor so
all 100 Members of the Senate have an opportunity to improve the bills
we consider. Each of us has a different background and each of us looks
at every proposal from a different point of view. Working together we
can make things better for the American people, and I hope we will do
it this year.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I wish to take a couple of minutes to
talk about the pending business--the TransCanada tar sands pipeline. I
think it is helpful to start out by recognizing that we actually
haven't had a global energy bill in the Senate going back to 2005. So
it has been about 10 years since we have truly looked at our entire
energy policy in this country and set a new course for what we should
be doing in the future.
Despite the fact I think bumper stickers are a little dangerous, I
thought it would be helpful to at least try to encapsulate the general
direction we should be going--the short and sweet of what lens we
should be viewing our national energy policy through. I think if I had
to boil that down to a simple and concise statement, what I would say
is simply fewer imports and cleaner fuels. So as we look at different
proposals over the course of this upcoming Congress, I think it will be
very helpful, particularly on the energy committee and on the floor, to
view these projects through that lens.
Oddly enough, we are not dealing with a major energy policy as the
very first thing the Senate considers as its pending business. We are
dealing with one single project put forward by TransCanada, an
international corporation, that has spent millions and millions of
dollars over the last few years lobbying Washington for this particular
project.
A lot has been said about the tar sands and about oil sands, but one
of the things I think would be helpful to talk about is the fundamental
difference between the oil that is produced around the United States
and tar sands production. At the end of the line we are talking about
the energy that is produced, but at the front end there is an enormous
difference between oil that is drilled in Southeast New Mexico,
Northwest New Mexico, in West Texas, in North Dakota or Colorado and in
the tar sands. If we look through that same lens of fewer imports and
cleaner fuels, tar sands development fails on both of those fronts.
We talk about more dependency in the United States on importing
energy, and here we are talking about a substantially dirtier fuel
source. In fact, we aren't allowed props on the floor, but when having
this conversation in caucus, I brought some tar sands with me so I
could show people the difference between oil and tar sands and how just
toxic and sticky it is and how it represents a step backward in our
overall energy policy in this country.
When thinking of oil production, most people think of putting a well
in place, you case the well, and there is a well pad. It has an impact,
certainly, but it is substantially limited compared to what we are
seeing going on in the boreal forest in northern Alberta right now.
This is a picture of northern Canada. For those of us in arid
Southwestern States, I can't tell you how envious we are of the kind of
water one finds in this part of Canada. Also, the fish and wildlife and
the forest resources are substantial. If we look at this picture, some
people would say: That is the kind of place one might want to see as a
national wildlife refuge or a national park. This is what the boreal
forest looks like before tar sands production.
The thing to remember is that tar sands are not drilled for. They are
not produced the way oil and natural gas is produced. Tar sands are
mined, and they are strip mined. Let us see a picture that exemplifies
the boreal forest and then the tar sands production area in the back.
This in the front is how it started out and the back is what you have
once you are producing the tar sands.
We heard from our colleague from Wyoming in his statement recently on
the floor that there is no significant environmental impact from this
project. But when we look at tar sands production, I don't know how we
can look at a photo such as this and say there is no significant
environmental impact.
Let's look at the next picture, and we can take an even closer look
at what the tar sands look like when it is in production. We are
talking about an enormous area across northern Canada impacted in this
way. As we can see, the tar sands is not oil, it is sand and bitumen
together.
To be able to process tar sands, to send it through this tar sands
pipeline--the Keystone or any other pipeline--to be able to produce it
and refine it is a very complicated process. You start by removing the
forest cover, then you scrape off the topsoil, and after that you dig
up the remaining tar sands and then you have to heat those up and
process it to get the energy-bearing oil portion out. Just to be able
to move it through a pipeline you have to heat it up, you have to
pressurize it and you have to add caustic solvents.
One of the reasons it has been so incredibly difficult to clean up
the existing tar sands spills in places such as Michigan and Arkansas
is because--unlike oil, where we have a fair amount

[[Page S388]]

of experience, though it is not easy to clean up--there are additional
solvents and because the very sticky nature of this substance makes it
almost impossible to clean up. We have had very little luck cleaning up
tar sands spills to date.
We see in the front of this picture the boreal forest--or what is
left of it--and then we see acres and acres and acres, thousands upon
thousands of acres of tar sands production. So I think the first thing
that is important for people to know is that this simply is not
traditional oil and gas development. It is not clear a well pad, drill
a hole, and produce oil. It is the kind of impact that if it were
proposed for New Mexico or New York or California or even Texas we
would have enormous outcry. We don't have the kind of open-pit mining
and strip mining we once had in this country, but that is what it is
most analogous to.
That said, another one of the claims that has been made repeatedly
about this particular project is that the emissions it would create are
inconsequential. So it is helpful to look at the emissions to
understand that, because tar sands are fundamentally not only harder to
handle but fundamentally dirtier from a pollution point of view than
traditional oil resources. It is instructive to look at the difference
between if we created the same amount of energy from domestic New
Mexico, Texas, Colorado or North Dakota crude oil versus if we produced
that energy from tar sands.
Once again, we get an idea of the emissions just at the source of the
tar sands development here, but if we were to build this tar sands
pipeline and we burned all of that produced tar sands that will move
through it, the incremental pollution impact of that, the incremental
carbon pollution--not the base pollution of whether we created the same
amount of energy from oil sources or from some other sources of energy,
if we used oil from the United States to create this energy--not
looking at that but just the increment of burning tar sands oil instead
of conventional crude oil, it is the equivalent of putting 285 million
cars on the road for 1 year.
So the addition of carbon pollution to the atmosphere is anything but
inconsequential if we look at it from the point of view that it is the
equivalent of doubling Pennsylvania's cars--putting another
Pennsylvania's worth of auto traffic on the road every year for 50
years.
What that doesn't take into account is the additional carbon released
simply because we are cutting down all the forests, eliminating the
peat bogs, and fundamentally industrializing an enormous portion of
Alberta and Canada. That increment is another 6 million cars' worth of
carbon pollution on the road for 1 year.
So that brings me to: What difference does this make?
We may have seen in the news a few days ago how 2014 was the hottest
year on record. I wish I could say that was an anomaly. Unfortunately,
it is not. Fourteen of the last 15 years have been record-setting
years. And if there is something we know from our geologic records--
from ice cores, from the science that has been done at NASA and NOAA
and analyzed by our national labs and our university scientists--it is
that over time the amount of carbon pollution in the atmosphere--the
parts per million of carbon dioxide at any given time--tends to
correlate with temperature. It doesn't matter if it comes from a
volcano, it doesn't matter if it comes from the exhaust of a car. But
because we have added such an enormous increment in recent years, since
1880 and the Industrial Revolution, we can see that as the parts per
million of particles go up over time--this is the CO<inf>2</inf>
concentration over that time period from the Industrial Revolution to
today. It is actually not quite up to date because, unfortunately, we
are now up here above 400 parts per million. Over that same time
period, the average temperature has gone up year in and year out, with
fluctuations, but the trendline continues to go up to a very dangerous
level.
Adding an additional increment of carbon pollution is simply not
something we can afford at a time when we need to be showing real
leadership in terms of cleaning up our energy sources, moving forward
to a clean energy future, and putting Americans to work here,
domestically, with that approach.
The temporary jobs this tar sands pipeline will create are not
inconsequential. But since this has been sold as a jobs program, it is
worth stepping back and talking about how much of a permanent impact
this is going to make. I would make the argument that if we were truly
serious here in the U.S. Senate about the type of temporary
construction jobs this pipeline would create, we would get serious
about passing a transportation bill--and not only passing a
transportation bill, but financing transportation in this country,
financing infrastructure in this country the way we have historically.
We have a deficit of trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure at
this point in this country because we won't pay to maintain it. In
fact, our parents' generation built an infrastructure that is the envy
of the world. With the current approach in the Congress, we haven't
even had the decency to maintain the infrastructure they built and pass
it on to our children unimpaired, much less create additional
infrastructure of the type we saw from previous generations.
So if we look at the permanent jobs, as articulated in the
environmental impact statement, we are talking about 30 to 50 permanent
jobs from Keystone. That is slightly less than a single McDonald's,
although I would argue that construction jobs are usually higher paying
than McDonald's. But it gives us a sense of the kind of scale we are
talking about in terms of permanent jobs. If we compare that to just
regional projects in individual States--a transmission line in the
Southwest, three times as many jobs as that; an electric vehicle plant
in the West in Nevada, substantially many, many increments of permanent
jobs more, which once again brings us to the fact that in this
recovery, just in the third quarter of 2014, we saw 18,000 in clean
energy jobs created in this country.
We need jobs in this country. We need energy in this country. And I
would argue that the sooner we commit ourselves to a clean energy job-
intensive future, the sooner we will address the real challenges that
are in front of us.
I continue to urge the President to exercise his discretion and his
veto of this. I suspect it will pass the U.S. Senate. But the sooner we
get through this process, my hope is that we can return to a real
debate about how we address the science that all the scientists have
said is out there. We did make a big step forward yesterday in that the
Senate for the first time--and the Republicans in the Senate in
particular for the first time--accepted the reality of climate change.
Unfortunately, right now the policy prescription is to make that
climate change worse.
It is time we had an Apollo project for clean energy in this country.
That will take transition. That means we are going to continue to
produce fossil fuels as a part of that transition. But the sooner we
get serious about investing in research and development, the sooner we
get serious in terms of scaling the very real and economically
competitive technologies we already have, the sooner we get serious
about building infrastructure, such as transmission lines to carry
renewable energy from parts of the country where it can be produced
today to parts of the country where it will be consumed, the sooner we
will lead the world and put this country back on track to be the world
leader in not only energy but in clean energy.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Roe v. Wade

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today is the anniversary of a tragedy.
Forty-two years ago today, the Supreme Court announced its creation of
a right to abortions for virtually any reason at all virtually at any
time. The result of that decision is a tragedy for our society, for our
culture, and for our precious life lost.

[[Page S389]]

Since even before America's founding, the law was on a steady march
toward protecting human beings before birth. In the 19th century,
medical professionals and civil rights activists led a movement that
succeeded in prohibiting abortion in every State except to save the
mother's life. America had reached a consensus on the importance of
protecting the most vulnerable. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court swept
all of that aside, imposing upon the country a permissive abortion
regime that the American people to this day have never chosen or
accepted.
The debate over the morality and legality or policy of abortion
begins with one inescapable fact--every abortion kills a living human
being. Many have tried mightily to avoid, obscure, distract from, or
ignore that fact, but it will not go away. Every abortion kills a
living human being. That fact informed President Ronald Reagan when he
wrote a moving essay titled ``Abortion and the Conscience of the
Nation'' in 1983.
He wrote, ``We cannot diminish the value of one category of human
life--the unborn--without diminishing the value of all human life.''
The real question, President Reagan said, is not about when human life
begins, but about the value of human life. I believe that remains the
real question today.
Today the United States is one of only seven nations in the world to
allow abortion into the sixth month of pregnancy and beyond. That list
of nations includes such champions of human rights as China and North
Korea. Yet, in 1948, the United States voted in favor of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes in its preamble the
inherent dignity and inalienable rights of ``all members of the human
family.''
Article 3 of the declaration states that ``everyone has a right to
life.'' Words such as ``universal'' and ``inherent'' and ``all'' are
unambiguous and clear.
Our embrace of the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings in
1948 stands in jarring contrast to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe
just 25 years later, that the life of any human being may be ended
before birth.
The Supreme Court might have thought in 1973 that it was settling the
abortion issue. By 1992, however, the Court conceded that the rules it
created in Roe simply did not work and issued revised regulations in a
case titled Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The Court said then that the
contending sides in the abortion controversy should ``end their
national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the
Constitution.''
National division on any issue, let alone one so profound as the
taking and the value of human life, will not end simply because the
Court says so. The division over abortion not only continues, but has
remained largely unchanged even after dozens of Supreme Court decisions
and four decades of insisting that abortion is a constitutional right.
The Supreme Court can render opinions on constitutionality, but it is
limited in its ability to forge lasting consensus. That is the
provenance of our great deliberative bodies where the people are truly
represented.
More than 70 percent of Americans believe abortion should be illegal
in most or all circumstances. That figure has not changed in 40 years.
What has changed is that more Americans today identify themselves as
pro-life than pro-choice. Large majorities favor a range of limitations
on abortion and last November elected scores of new pro-life Senators
at both the State and Federal level.
We must not avoid the fundamental question of the value of human
life, for no question is more important. Do we still, as we once did,
believe that every human being has inherent dignity and worth?
Two nights ago, in his State of the Union Address, President Obama
spoke about the values that are at stake in the public policy choices
we must make. Is there any value more important than life itself? He
spoke about expanding opportunities for individuals, but the first
opportunity that must be secured is the opportunity for life itself.
For many, the right to abortion is a symbol of progress. However, the
idea that an act resulting in killing a living human being should be
held up as a step forward, as a light to guide our way, strikes me as
deeply misguided. We should instead be deepening the conviction that
all human beings have inherent dignity and worth. That has been and
should remain the foundation of our culture, society, and even our
politics.
In his 1983 essay, President Reagan wrote that ``we cannot survive as
a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and
should be abandoned to abortion.''
Today's tragic anniversary is a reminder of how our Nation's survival
depends on respecting the essential dignity and worth of every human
individual. Resting in the balance is how we ultimately define who we
are as a people and what we strive to be as a nation.
This is an important issue. It is not one that should be slighted
over. It is an issue that should strike at the heart of every person in
this body. It is an issue that we all should stand up to strengthen and
fight against in the case of this issue of abortion.
I am so grateful that so many people feel the same way, and that more
and more people in this country are starting to realize every human
life is important and that this society has sometimes gotten off track
and not respected the rights of human beings. I think Roe v. Wade led
us there, and we should be let out of Roe v. Wade by those who know
there is a better way to have the sensitivity that society deserves to
have, should have, and I believe will have in the future.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Presiding Officer. I heard the words of my
friend, and he was eloquent in his remarks, but I don't think he would
be surprised to know that I see this issue very differently.
Before Roe v. Wade was decided in the 1970s, women died because they
could not end a pregnancy even if they were raped. There are bodies
buried in America, and we don't know the cause of death because if a
woman tried to end an unwanted pregnancy--sometimes as a result of rape
or even incest--she would be considered a criminal. And that is what
you hear from my colleagues on the other side. They say, let's go back
to the last century--let's undo Roe v. Wade.
It is hard for me to believe that here I stand in this century
arguing that women should be respected, that families should be
respected, and that everyone's religion should be respected. I support
a woman's right to choose, and that means if your religion says you
will never end an unwanted pregnancy, I support you.
I believe this decision should be between a woman, her doctor, her
family, and her God. I don't think any Senator should get in the middle
of a woman's private life. It is dangerous to do so, it is wrong to do
so, and to do so in the name of doing something that is going to help
the family--it doesn't make sense to me.
The Republican Party used to be the party of individual freedom and
individual rights. When I was on the board of Planned Parenthood so
many years ago, before Roe v. Wade, do you know who was very active and
on their board? George Herbert Walker Bush. This was an issue that was
embraced by Republicans and Democrats--individual respect and rights
for women and caring about a woman's health. It was not a partisan
issue.
I don't see how interfering with a woman's health, or her right to
choose, in any way is helpful to her in a time of need. It should be
her decision within the law. We don't want to go back to the last
century.
I was glad to see that the Republicans in the House pulled a bill off
the floor because it was so nasty to women. It didn't even allow women
the right to terminate a pregnancy at a certain date if the woman was a
victim of rape. They pulled it, but then they replaced it with another
terrible bill that also limits a woman's right to choose.
My Republican friends would make doctors criminals and put them in
jail for years and years. They would make women criminals. They have
even had a bill that said that a grandmother should be put in jail if
she helps her granddaughter. As a grandmother, that was too much for
me. How dare some Senator come down here and tell a

[[Page S390]]

grandma what to do for her granddaughter? This is the party of
individual freedom that always decries too much government? Come on.
This is putting the government right in the middle of our most personal
decisions. It never used to be that way, but that is the way it is now.
Everyone deserves respect for their views. They should not be taunted
for their views, and that is why the right to choose makes so much
sense. You don't tell someone that the government says you must do A,
B, or C. You tell the person within the law--within Roe, which was a
modest decision at the time--you make a decision, we respect that
decision, and we don't need to know about it.
Putting Senators in the middle of our private lives is not why I came
to the Senate. We have a lot of work to do. We have to work on good
jobs. We have to pass a highway bill. We have to make sure this planet
is habitable for people. Talk about kindness. Think about future
generations who have to live on a planet that is increasingly
inhospitable. Scientists tell us if we don't do anything about climate,
at the end of the day it may be an uninhabitable planet.

We have a lot of work to do. We all do. It seems to me we should
start off by doing what government should do, not putting ourselves in
the middle of private lives.
Again, I greatly respect my colleagues whose views are different than
mine. All I ask them to think about is this: If we embrace the right to
choose, then we are saying to women all over America that this is a
tough decision and we understand that. Make it with your God. Make it
with your loved ones. But we are not going to be right there in the
middle of people's living rooms telling them what we think is right,
because that is not why we were elected.
I am glad I happened to be on the floor to follow the remarks of
Senator Hatch. I feel very strongly about this. As many of my
colleagues know, the Democratic women of the Senate and several of our
Republican women colleagues will continue to fight against saying to a
woman that she has no right to make a most private, most personal
decision without satisfying U.S. Senators, most of whom are men, by the
way. It is just not right.
Speaking of polls, because I think Senator Hatch mentioned one,
people want us to have a moderate approach on this. They don't want
abortion on demand and neither does any pro-choice Senator. Roe v. Wade
spelled it out. In the early stages we know a woman has that right;
later, only if her health or her life is threatened. It is pretty
modest. It makes sense. Leave it alone. That decision was made in 1973.
Don't turn the clock back in this century.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:50
p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following
amendments in the order listed: Boxer No. 113, which is a side-by-side
to Senator Fischer's amendment; then Fischer No. 18, as modified;
Manchin No. 99; Sanders No. 24; Lee No. 71; Murkowski No. 123, which is
a side-by-side to Senator Wyden's amendment; Wyden No. 27; Blunt No.
78, as modified; Cornyn No. 126, as modified; and Menendez No. 72, as
modified; further, that all amendments on this list be subject to a 60-
vote affirmative threshold for adoption except for Cornyn No. 126 and
Menendez No. 72, which are germane, and that no second-degrees be in
order to the amendments. I ask consent that there be 2 minutes of
debate equally divided between each vote, and that all votes after the
first in the series be 10-minute votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 123 to Amendment No. 2

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my
amendment No. 123.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski] proposes an
amendment numbered 123 to amendment No. 2.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that all forms of
unrefined and unprocessed petroleum should be subject to the nominal
per-barrel excise tax associated with the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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

Amendment No. 78, as Modified

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the
Blunt amendment, No. 78, with the changes at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING BILATERAL OR OTHER
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS REGARDING GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) On November 11, 2014, President Barack Obama and
President Xi Jinping of the People's Republic of China
announced the ``U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate
Change and Clean Energy Cooperation'' (in this section
referred to as the ``Agreement'') reflecting ``the principle
of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective
capabilities, in light of different national circumstances''.
(2) The Agreement stated the United States intention to
reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by one-quarter by 2025
while allowing the People's Republic of China to double its
greenhouse gas emissions between now and 2030.
(3) Analyses have shown that policies limiting greenhouse
gas emissions lead to a material increase in electricity
prices.
(4) The people of China will not see similar electricity
price increases as they continue to emit without limit for
the foreseeable future, at least until 2030.
(5) Increases in the price of electricity can cause job
losses in the United States industrial sector, which includes
manufacturing, agriculture, and construction.
(6) The price of electricity is a top consideration for job
creators when locating manufacturing facilities, especially
in energy-intensive manufacturing such as steel and aluminum
production.
(7) Requiring mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in
the United States while allowing nations such as China and
India to increase their greenhouse gas emissions results in
jobs moving from the United States to other countries,
especially to China and India, and is economically unfair.
(8) Imposing disparate greenhouse gas emissions commitments
for the United States and countries such as China and India
is environmentally irresponsible because it results in
greater emissions as businesses move to countries with less
stringent standards.
(9) Union members, families, consumers, communities, and
local institutions like schools, hospitals, and churches are
hurt by the resulting job losses.

[[Page S391]]

(10) The poor, the elderly, and those on fixed incomes are
hurt the most by increased electricity rates.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) the Agreement negotiated between the President and the
President of the People's Republic of China has no force and
effect in the United States;
(2) the Agreement between the President and the President
of the People's Republic of China is a bad deal for United
States consumers, workers, families, and communities, and is
economically unfair and environmentally irresponsible;
(3) the Agreement, as well as any other bilateral or
international agreement regarding greenhouse gas emissions
such as the United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate
Change in Paris in December 2015, requires the advice and
consent of the Senate and must be accompanied by a detailed
explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may
be required to implement the Agreement and an analysis of the
detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of
the United States which would be incurred by the
implementation of the Agreement;
(4) the United States should not agree to any bilateral or
other international agreement on greenhouse gases that
imposes disproportionate and economically harmful commitments
on the United States.

Amendment No. 126, as Modified, to Amendment No. 2

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the
Cornyn amendment, No. 126, as modified with the changes at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski], for Mr. Cornyn,
proposes an amendment numbered 126, as modified, to amendment
No. 2.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To ensure private property is protected as guaranteed by the
United States Constitution)

At the end add the following:
(e) Private Property Protection.--Land or an interest in
land for the pipeline and cross-border facilities described
in subsection (a) may only be acquired consistently with the
Constitution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Amendment No. 72, as Modified

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Menendez amendment, No. 72, be modified with the changes that are at
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

In section 2 of the amendment, strike subsection (e) and
insert the following:
(e) Private Property Protection.--Land or an interest in
land for the pipeline and cross-border facilities described
in subsection (a) may only be acquired from willing sellers
and consistently with the Constitution.

Amendment No. 99 to Amendment No. 2

Ms. CANTWELL. On behalf of Senator Manchin, I call up his amendment,
No. 99.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell], for Mr.
Manchin, proposes an amendment numbered 99 to amendment No.
2.

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding climate change)

After section 2, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE.

It is the sense of Congress that Congress is in agreement
with the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific
community and a growing number of top national security
experts, economists, and others that--
(1) climate change is real;
(2) climate change is caused by human activities;
(3) climate change has already caused devastating problems
in the United States and around the world;
(4) the Energy Information Administration projects that
fossil fuels will continue to produce 68 percent of the
electricity in the United States through 2040; and
(5) it is imperative that the United States invest in
research and development for clean fossil fuel technology.

Ms. CANTWELL. I yield to Senator Boxer so she can call up her
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

Amendment No. 113 to Amendment No. 2

Mrs. BOXER. I call up amendment No. 113.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an
amendment numbered 113 to amendment No. 2.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding federally
protected land)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING FEDERALLY PROTECTED
LAND.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) Presidents of both parties have designated public land
to preserve the land for current and future generations and
to honor the national heritage of the United States, and that
designated public land includes--
(A) the Statue of Liberty;
(B) the Grand Canyon;
(C) Acadia National Park;
(D) African Burial Ground National Monument;
(E) the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park;
(F) Muir Woods National Monument;
(G) Arches National Park; and
(H) Devils Tower National Monument;
(2) outdoor recreation, including recreation within Federal
land, adds over $600,000,000,000 into the economy of the
United States and supports more than 6,000,000 jobs;
(3) Federal land, such as National Parks, National
Monuments, or other federally designated land, conserves
historic, cultural, environmental, scenic, recreational, and
biological resources, and positive impacts include--
(A) economic opportunities and small business creation;
(B) local tourism in gateway communities;
(C) new direct and indirect employment opportunities;
(D) recreational opportunities; and
(E) environmental, historic, and educational opportunities;
and
(4) regions surrounding National Monuments have seen
continued growth or improvement in employment and person
income.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) Congress should acknowledge the benefit that public
land designations provide to local and regional communities
and economies; and
(2) designations of federally protected land should
continue where appropriate and with consultation by local
communities, bipartisan elected leaders, and interested
stakeholders.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes just
before the vote starts to explain this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want
to make sure we understand the vote was scheduled to begin 3 minutes
ago. As part of the unanimous consent agreement, there was not a time
allowed for Senator Boxer to speak. I don't have a problem in giving--
--
Mrs. BOXER. Excuse me for interrupting. I assume we have at least a
minute to talk about our amendment.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to make sure that is allowed. It wasn't
included in the consent, but I am certainly happy to allow for the
minute as Senator Boxer has asked.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you. I have a minute. I actually asked for three,
but as I understand, I have a minute. Is that where we are?
I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you so much. I know what a hard job it is to get
this bill moving, and I am trying to be very helpful. I am offering an
amendment I didn't expect to offer because basically my amendment says
that we should acknowledge the benefit that parks provide to our local
and regional communities and their economies for small business and
enhanced local tourism and how much they contribute to employment and
provide opportunities to

[[Page S392]]

our families. Can my colleagues imagine America without Yosemite,
Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, the Statue of Liberty, Natural Bridges in
Utah, Scottsbluff in Nebraska, Muir Woods in California, Glacier Bay in
Alaska?
These were all protected by Republican and Democratic Presidents, and
in many cases, by Congress. Why do I offer this? It seems to me we
shouldn't have to argue about this. It is because my friend, the
Senator from Nebraska, Mrs. Fischer, has an amendment that I think is
very dangerous. I know she modified it, and I appreciate that, but at
the end of the day, it is so vague that I think it is going to lead us
right to the courthouse door.
For example, if a President now or in the future, Democratic or
Republican, decided in California--because the community really wanted
it--to declare a national monument as we just had recently, in many
cases, I would tell you this: Under this Fischer amendment, what would
happen is there would have to be under consideration what does this do
to other monuments, to other parks, to the budget deficit.
If someone who did not like this said, I am taking this to court
because the President didn't consider this, you would not have any more
national monuments, and you would not have all the beautiful iconic
things we have such as the Grand Canyon and Scottsbluff. I think it is
a bad amendment. I know my friend is trying to make a point, but I
think we should defeat it and pass the Boxer amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to a vote in relation to amendment No. 113, offered by the
Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 13 Leg.]

YEAS--55

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

NAYS--44

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

NOT VOTING--1

Reid

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

Amendment No. 18, as Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 18, as modified,
offered by the Senator from Nebraska, Mrs. Fischer.
The Senator from Nebraska.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, our national parks are facing $13
billion in maintenance needs. The entire Federal land of States is
looking at $22 billion in needs. We want to keep these resources and
parks open for our children and grandchildren to marvel at and enjoy.
All of us have unique and special areas within our States, but we in
Congress have the responsibility to care for the natural resources of
our country.
This amendment has been softened so that the limitations are now just
considerations. Let's vote yes on this amendment to take care of the
resources we have so that future generations can enjoy them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment
would open the courthouse door over disputes of whether to place worthy
lands under protection because of challenges that there are not enough
resources or certain issues were not considered ahead of time.
Let me give one concrete example. A little over 1 year ago the
President designated the Harriet Tubman Park as a national historic
monument. It was a prerequisite to becoming a national park. That could
have been challenged in the courts and it could have prevented the
protection of that land. That could have been done.
What this amendment does--and it was not intended to do that--is add
additional bureaucracy to the protection of worthy lands. I urge my
colleagues to reject this amendment. I think it will do harm to the
protection of necessary lands in our country.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 14 Leg.]

YEAS--54

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

NAYS--45

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

NOT VOTING--1

Reid

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

Amendment No. 99

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 99, offered by the
Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, for the Senator from West
Virginia, Mr. Manchin.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, we can all agree climate change is real
and that 7 billion people have had an impact on the climate. We have a
responsibility. We can all agree we need to

[[Page S393]]

act to address the potentially devastating impact of climate change.
The Energy Information Administration predicts the United States will
continue to rely on fossil fuels for almost 68 percent of our energy
through 2040. That is right, the Department of Energy.
My amendment basically says that right now the only baseload fuels we
have are coal and nuclear and that is going to expand to natural gas.
What we are asking for is we need a Federal commitment from the
President to Congress to invest in the research and development of
fossil energy so we can use the cleanest and most environmentally
responsible way possible and find that technology to do it so we are
responsible.
My amendment does recognize these facts. I ask for a ``yea'' vote and
appreciate your support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the Manchin amendment is a side-by-side
to my amendment, which will follow.
The first three provisions are exactly the same: Climate change is
real, it is caused by human activity, and it is already causing
devastating problems.
We agree on that. But what my amendment says, importantly, is that
according to the scientific community, it is imperative the United
States transform its energy system away from fossil fuel to energy
efficiency and sustainable energy as quickly as possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we had a robust discussion yesterday on
two amendments that dealt with the issue of climate change. I think we
had a very clear and resounding vote on the one that had a perfectly
reasonable statement that climate change is real; climate change is not
a hoax.
I also supported the amendment of my colleague from North Dakota on
this same topic. I think it was important that we had that debate.
What I am hoping we can do now is get beyond the discussion as to
whether climate change is real and talk about: What do we do? How do we
move forward to those technologies? How do we make a difference with
reasonable steps such as greater efficiency, a no-regrets energy policy
that makes our energy supply even cleaner.
I want to move on to that. But I think at this point in time, with
what we have had in front of us, we could have a whole series of
amendments that basically restate the same thing.
I would like to move us beyond that conversation, and I look forward
to that. But at this time I move to table, and ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to
reply.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that a motion to
table is not debatable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not debatable. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MANCHIN. I am asking for unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is asking for
unanimous consent.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the original agreement said that,
further, that all these amendments be limited to 60-vote affirmative
threshold adoption, except for Cornyn and Menendez, and that no second-
degrees be in order. So the original agreement we entered into allowed
for this vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent agreement was for a vote
in relation to each amendment, and the motion to table is in order.

Quorum Call

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll, and the following Senators
entered the Chamber and answered to their names:

[Quorum No. 2 Leg.]

PRESENT

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Nelson
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schumer
Scott
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present.

vote on amendment no. 99

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The yeas and nays have been previously ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 15 Leg.]

YEAS--53

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

NAYS--46

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

NOT VOTING--1

Reid

The motion was agreed to.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, 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.

Amendment No. 24

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 24, offered by the
Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, we are walking down a very dangerous road
as a nation when we reject the findings of the vast majority of
scientists on one of the most important issues facing humanity, which
is climate change.
A vote to table this amendment is a vote to reject science, and that
is a very bad idea for the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for the same reasons that I just
expressed in the previous amendment that was before us, I would suggest
that we move to table this amendment.
I will make that motion now to table the Sanders amendment, and I
would ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is still 30 seconds remaining for the
Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. This is a vote that our kids and grandchildren who will
have to live with the consequences of climate change will remember.

[[Page S394]]

I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 16 Leg.]

YEAS--56

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

NAYS--42

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

NOT VOTING--2

Graham
Reid

The motion was agreed to.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CORNYN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 71

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate prior to a
vote in relation to amendment No. 71, offered by the Senator from Utah,
Mr. Lee.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand to urge my colleagues to support this
amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to expedite the process by
which the Bureau of Land Management processes applications for a permit
for drilling on Federal land. We all know that drilling and the
production of oil and natural gas in our country on Federal lands is an
essential activity for our energy security and therefore for our
national security.
The fact is that although these applications are supposed to be
handled in an expedited manner, they are not. The average right now for
them to be processed is about 7\1/2\ months. That is too long. We need
a simple up-or-down ruling by the Bureau of Land Management, especially
given the fact that these lands, once they get to this stage, have
already been deemed by the Bureau of Land Management as suitable for
oil and gas leasing. I therefore urge each of my colleagues to support
this amendment and thereby secure our energy security.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, speaking against the Lee amendment, I
strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this because it is an amendment
relating to oil and gas permits on Federal land. I guess if colleagues
want to keep trying to loosen environmental regulations, then maybe
they should support this amendment.
This amendment would impose new limitations on the Secretary of the
Interior and their ability to process permits for drilling and provides
a waiver for the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered
Species Act if necessary reviews have not been completed by an
arbitrary deadline, and it waives judicial review of these actions.
So I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to remind Members that we are
trying to keep a schedule here. We have six more amendments to go in
this stack, and we are supposedly at 10-minutes per amendment. We have
not been following that. I urge Members to stick close so we can move
more expeditiously.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 17 Leg.]

YEAS--51

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

NAYS--47

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

NOT VOTING--2

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

Amendment No. 123

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 123, offered by
the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski.
The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have the sense of the Senate that
would express that all forms of bitumen or synthetic crude should be
subject to the 8-cent-per-barrel excise tax associated with the
oilspill liability trust fund. This is important because right now we
have a legitimate but unintended loophole on the books, and it is also
a matter of fairness because conventional oil pays into the trust fund.
We need to address this, and I commend my colleague Senator Wyden for
the effort he has done. But the problem that we have is that as we work
to enact legislation to update our laws, we have to make sure it is
consistent with the Constitution, which requires revenue-raising
measures to originate in the House.
If we agree that we want to close this loophole, which we should do,
we need to allow for the House to address this. Otherwise, we face a
blue slip issue, and quite honestly, it would act as a poison pill to
the Keystone XL bill. The sense of the Senate expresses to do it
legitimately through the Constitution.

[[Page S395]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am glad Senator Murkowski has now agreed
that the outlandish tar sands loophole, which rips off taxpayers and
communities, must be closed. The difference between our amendments is
that Senator Murkowski's amendment is a nonbinding resolution to close
the loophole sometime down the road. My amendment, in contrast, closes
the loophole now.
The argument Senator Murkowski makes against my amendment is that it
is a revenue measure that should start in the House. The fact is that
there is a House revenue measure at the Senate desk right now that I
would be happy to call up and amend as a substitute to my amendment to
close the loophole that ends the tar sands double standard harming our
communities and taxpayers. That way we will be acting in a
constitutional fashion and the Senate makes clear we want to close the
loophole today.
I will close by saying that until I can propound the unanimous
consent request to do just that, I intend to go along with the
Murkowski amendment. After its consideration, I hope my colleagues will
vote for my amendment because closing this flagrant tax loophole is too
important to wait.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 23, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 18 Leg.]

YEAS--75

Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Hoeven
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Portman
Reed
Rounds
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Udall
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--23

Boozman
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Inhofe
Isakson
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Perdue
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Toomey

NOT VOTING--2

Graham
Reid
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, 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.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to remind everybody these
are supposed to be 10-minute rollcall votes. To the extent that you do
not make it in the 10 minutes, you inconvenience everybody else. I
would hope people would be respectful of their colleagues and stay
close to the floor and vote during the 10 minutes.
We have actually reached a milestone here that I think is noteworthy
for the Senate. We just cast our 15th rollcall vote on an amendment on
this bill, which is more votes--more rollcall votes on amendments than
the entire Senate in all of 2014.
I particularly want to commend Chairman Murkowski and Senator
Cantwell for their fair and open process that has been engaged in. This
is the way the Senate ought to work.
Now the question I know on everyone's mind is: What do we do next?
Right? It is Thursday night. We have a current tranche of amendments.
We are having a little difficulty getting our friends on the other side
of the aisle to offer their amendments so they can be considered.
In order to consider amendments, they need to be offered. So here is
where we are for the evening: We are going to finish this tranche.
Chairman Murkowski is interested in setting up an additional tranche of
amendments tonight. Once she has been able to set up an additional
tranche of amendments for tonight, we will be able to announce the way
forward for later.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first, I want to thank the majority leader
for the compliment which he has placed to the constructive minority in
the Senate. We know that under the rules of the Senate, this procedure
could have been stopped at any moment by any Senator. Yet we have
worked in good faith with the good leadership of Senator Murkowski,
Senator Cantwell, and Senator Boxer. We want to continue to.
We have had a number of amendments considered here. Many of them had
Republican responses which we have accommodated. Many of your
amendments had Democratic responses which you have accommodated. I
think we have done that in good faith. We have not threatened any
filibusters. We have not tried to stop the process, and we do not want
to. We think we have constructive amendments. We want to bring them
forward. We would like to have a vote.
I agree with the Senator completely, this is a constructive use of
the Senate floor and the Senate procedure on a critical issue relative
to our environment and energy policy in this country.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Illinois. He is entirely
correct. We are open for business. When we finish this tranche, I hope
Senators on both sides who have additional amendments to be considered
will come and offer them.
After we get an additional tranche of amendments that are pending,
then I think we will be in a better position to announce the way
forward.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 27

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 27, offered by the
Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is very significant that more than 70
Senators just voted for a nonbinding resolution to close an outlandish
tax loophole that favors Canadian tar sand producers over American oil
and American taxpayers. That vote was for a nonbinding resolution. The
next amendment that I offer allows the Senate to actually eliminate the
flagrant loophole now.
As for the blue-slip question, this amendment is an amendment that we
ought to pass now and then add to an appropriate House revenue measure.
This amendment, colleagues, ends the double standard today. To say to
your communities, to your taxpayers, and to your producers that Canada
should essentially get a free ride is not right. Let's actually do the
job now.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, again, let me remind my colleagues that
while we may agree we need to address this legal--but there is a
loophole in the law. As many of us have just voted, 75 I believe, we
say we need to address this oilspill liability trust fund issue.
Doing so in the manner that the Senator from Oregon has suggested
does create a blue-slip problem. It would cause this bill to fail. It
is not constructive to do so. The sense of this Senate that we just
passed, I think, sends clearly the message that we want to address it,
but we need to do it in a constitutional way. I would ask Members to
vote no.

[[Page S396]]

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there is a constitutional point of order
that lies against the pending amendment.
It was filed and offered by my friend, the ranking member of the
Senate Finance Committee, the senior Senator from Oregon.
A constitutional point of order lies against the amendment, numbered
27 because it violates article 1, section 7, clause 1 of the
Constitution, commonly referred to as the origination clause. The
origination clause states that ``All Bills for raising Revenue shall
originate in the House of Representatives. . . . ''
In addition, the pending amendment is not germane to the bill we are
debating, and is not expected to pass. I reserve the right to raise
this constitutional point of order against amendment No. 27 in the
unlikely event that it passes. I will hold off for now on raising this
point of order to spare the Senate an unnecessary vote.
However, I want to put everybody in the Senate on notice that, in the
future, I reserve the right to raise this constitutional point of order
regarding any proposal that violates the origination clause. In the
Senate, revenue proposals should first be processed in the committee of
jurisdiction in the Senate, which is the Senate Finance Committee.
I will vote ``no'' on the pending amendment and urge my colleagues to
do the same.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Lee).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 19 Leg.]

YEAS--50

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

NAYS--47

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

NOT VOTING--3

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

Amendment No. 78, as Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate in
relation to amendment No. 78 offered by the Senator from Alaska, Ms.
Murkowski, for the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Blunt.
The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment,
cosponsored by Senator Inhofe, the chairman of the Environment and
Public Works Committee; by Senator Capito, the new chair of the
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety.
This amendment simply says the United States should not be bound by
commitments where we are the only party that has a commitment made in
the agreement with China. We agree to reduce emissions by 27 percent
between now and a point in the future; the Chinese agree to increase
emissions between now and 2030.
The amendment also says the President should have these kinds of
agreements approved by the Senate. It also says the United States
should not enter any international agreements that are
disproportionately a disadvantage to us.
I urge support of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I will speak for the Senator from New
Jersey, although this is a foreign policy question in general.
Let me say this: In the next 10 years, 50 percent of the new
buildings that are going to be built in the world are going to be built
in China. They are the most energy-inefficient buildings on the planet.
So when we reached an agreement through the President of the United
States to work together as a way to reduce energy consumption and
greenhouse gases, guess what is going to win. American business,
American product, and we are selling it to them because we have an
agreement to work together to be more energy efficient.
So I don't want to slow down this President or any President in
cutting deals to get U.S. products into markets because they agree we
need to deal with this issue. Please don't slow down the ability to get
U.S. product into foreign markets. Oppose the Blunt amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Blunt
amendment, as modified.
Mr. VITTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Lee).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 20 Leg.]

YEAS--51

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

NAYS--46

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

NOT VOTING--3

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

Amendment No. 126, as Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes equally divided

[[Page S397]]

prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 126, offered by the
Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, for the Senator from Texas, Mr.
Cornyn.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the next amendment following the Cornyn
amendment seeks to prohibit the use of eminent domain in the building
of the Keystone XL Pipeline, but eminent domain is actually irrelevant
to this bill. This is actually designed to confuse things and
ultimately end up being a poison pill. I think it is accurate to say
that the distinguished Senator from New Jersey is no fan of the
Keystone XL Pipeline, so he wants to add this provision to the bill to
make it impossible, basically, to implement.
The bill doesn't authorize or mandate the use of eminent domain to
take any property; it simply approves a cross-border permit. The
decision on how the property should be taken should be and will be made
by the individual States in a process overseen by State courts and
subject to the U.S. Constitution. My amendment simply reiterates that
the standard in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies.
I ask all Senators to vote for the Cornyn amendment and to vote
against the Menendez amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, what I am not a fan of is a foreign
company coming to the United States and taking the property of U.S.
citizens. This amendment seems innocuous, but it embraces the seizure
of private property for private gain to the full extent of the
Constitution.
Ten years ago my dear friend from Texas decried the Kelo decision and
advocated for severely restricting the use of eminent domain for
private gain. Now, with this amendment, he endorses it.
The Founders of our country and its Constitution never envisioned
having a company from another country come to the United States and use
eminent domain to take the property of U.S. citizens for private
purposes. That is what we are trying to avoid with the Menendez
amendment.
If you vote for the amendment by the Senator from Texas, you in
essence will continue to allow the opportunity for any foreign company
to come into the United States and take private property of U.S.
citizens for private purposes. That is not what we want to see.
Vote no on the Cornyn amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment,
as modified.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Lee).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 33, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 21 Leg.]

YEAS--64

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

NAYS--33

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

NOT VOTING--3

Graham
Lee
Reid
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 72, as Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 72, as modified,
offered by the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. This amendment protects private property from unjust
seizure by foreign corporations using eminent domain proceedings
against the will of those who are not willing sellers.
Let me read a letter from the Nebraska landowners to the majority
leader.

Dear Senator McConnell, our farms and ranches are
definitely at risk of tar sands and benzene spills. We ask,
even knowing that you support the Keystone Pipeline, that you
vote for Senator Menendez's amendment that makes it clear
TransCanada cannot take land from unwilling sellers. We ask
you to stand up for our property rights and not permit
eminent domain be used for private gain.

I wish to yield the remainder of my time to Senator Tester.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I support the pipeline. I think it has a
lot of good benefits, but make no mistake about it, if you do not
support the Menendez amendment--and there are a lot of Aggies on the
other side of the aisle. If you do not support this amendment, you will
allow a foreign corporation--a foreign corporation--to come in and use
eminent domain to take the property. We don't want to go down this
line.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senate has spoken on the preceding
amendment and overwhelmingly affirmed the Constitution as the only
standard that should apply under these circumstances.
The standard being proposed by the Senator from New Jersey is an
anti-States rights amendment, and it is designed to be a poison pill on
this Keystone XL Pipeline, which he obviously does not support and
wants to use every means to kill.
I would ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Lee).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 22 Leg.]

YEAS--43

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

NAYS--54

Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Carper
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Perdue

[[Page S398]]

Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NOT VOTING--3

Graham
Lee
Reid
The motion was rejected.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MORAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have just gone through a
considerable period processing some votes. I appreciate the patience of
colleagues as we have gone through it. As the majority leader
mentioned, we want to figure out what the next tranche--the next
grouping of amendments--will be, and then we will be able to figure out
the path forward.
It is the hope of myself and the ranking member of the committee that
we be able to get through a few more votes this evening, at a minimum,
but also to set up a more clearly defined path for the coming days
ahead, for tomorrow and Monday.
So I ask for the indulgence of Members as we call up a few amendments
now to get them pending, and then we will work together to figure out
what those votes will actually look like--which votes we will actually
take up this evening.
Again, I think the opportunity to get amendments pending on both
sides is good. It gives everybody an idea of the lay of the land and
gives them a chance to look at the amendments we will bring up.
So at this point in time I wish to call up an amendment. When I have
concluded, I will turn it over to the ranking member and an amendment
will be called up on the Democratic side, and then we will come back to
this side. We will alternate back and forth to get these amendments
pending so Members can know what it is we have in this universe out
there.

Amendment No. 67 to Amendment No. 2

With that, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment
and call up Sullivan amendment No. 67.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski], for Mr. Sullivan,
proposes an amendment numbered 67 to amendment No. 2.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To restrict the authority of the Environmental Protection
Agency to arm agency personnel)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. POWERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

Section 3063(a) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1); and
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(1) and (2), respectively.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I turn to my colleague, Senator Cantwell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. I know our colleagues have been working throughout the
day on these amendments, and I applaud them for their cooperation. As
the Senator from Alaska said, oftentimes these needed side-by-sides--
people need to see these. We have various committees that have been
involved in these amendments, so I appreciate the patience of our
colleagues.
I think going back and forth tonight on getting another set of
amendments pending is a good idea because we have many Members on our
side who have amendments they are very interested in having votes on. I
appreciate them being here tonight. So I call on Senator Cardin to
offer his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

Amendment No. 75 to Amendment No. 2

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside to call up amendment No. 75.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] proposes an
amendment numbered 75 to amendment No. 2.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide communities that rely on drinking water from a
source that may be affected by a tar sands spill from the Keystone XL
pipeline an analysis of the potential risks to public health and the
environment from a leak or rupture of the pipeline)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. COMMUNITY RIGHT TO PROTECT LOCAL WATER SUPPLIES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) there are 2,537 wells within 1 mile of the proposed
Keystone XL pipeline, including 39 public water supply wells
and 20 private wells within 100 feet of the pipeline right of
way;
(2) 254 miles of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would
traverse over the shallow Ogallala Aquifer, the largest
underground fresh water source in the United States,
underlying 8 States and 2,000,000 people, including 10.5
miles where the groundwater lies at depths between 5 and 10
feet and another 12.4 miles where the water table is at a
depth of 10 to 15 feet;
(3) on July 26, 2010, a pipeline ruptured near Marshall,
Michigan, releasing 843,000 gallons of tar sands diluted
bitumen into Talmadge Creek, flowing into the Kalamazoo
River;
(4) the Talmadge Creek tar sands spill is the costliest
inland oil spill cleanup in United States history, and the
Kalamazoo River continues to be contaminated from the spill;
(5) on March 29, 2013, the first pipeline of the United
States to transport Canadian tar sands to the Gulf Coast, the
ExxonMobil Pegasus Pipeline, ruptured, spilling 210,000
gallons of tar sands diluted bitumen in Mayflower, Arkansas;
and
(6) following the Pegasus Pipeline tar sands spill,
individuals in the Mayflower community experienced severe
headaches, nausea, and respiratory infections.
(b) Petition To Protect Local Water Supplies.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act and prior to construction of the
pipeline described in section 2(a), the President, or the
designee of the President, shall provide to each municipality
or county that relies on drinking water from a source that
may be affected by a tar sands spill from the pipeline an
analysis of the potential risks to public health and the
environment from a leak or rupture of that pipeline.
(2) Notification to governors.--The President shall provide
a copy of the analysis described in paragraph (1) to the
Governor of each State in which an affected municipality or
county is located.
(3) Effect on construction.--Construction of the pipeline
described in section 2(a) may not begin if the Governor of a
State with an affected municipality or county submits, not
later than 30 days after receiving an analysis under
paragraph (2), a petition to the President requesting that
the pipeline not be located in the affected municipality or
county.
(4) Withdrawal.--A Governor may withdraw a petition
submitted under paragraph (3) at any time.
(5) Right of action.--A property owner with a private water
well drilled into any portion of an aquifer that is below the
proposed pipeline described in section 2(a) may sue the owner
of the pipeline for damages if--
(A) the well water of the property owner becomes
contaminated as a result of--
(i) construction activities associated with the pipeline;
or
(ii) a rupture in the pipeline; and
(B) the property owner demonstrates that the well water was
safe prior to construction and operation of the pipeline.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I will be very brief.
This is an important amendment, as it deals with the rights of
property owners to clean water. The Ogallala Aquifer is the largest
aquifer in the western part of the United States, and the Keystone
Pipeline would bisect that. At some point the aquifer is only 5 feet
from the surface. Private owners drill wells to get their drinking
water, and there is no protection in the event there is a spill. A
spill is a real possibility. We have seen in prior cases in Michigan
and Arkansas the impact of spills from this tar sands oil and the
damage it can cause.
My amendment is pretty straightforward. It allows our Governors to be
able to challenge the safety of their drinking water. It is a States
rights issue. It gives the property owners whose wells could be
contaminated by this the right of action. I ask my colleagues to
favorably consider this amendment.

[[Page S399]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

Amendment No. 98 to Amendment No. 2

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment to call up Murkowski amendment No. 98.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski] proposes an
amendment numbered 98 to amendment No. 2.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress relating to adaptation
projects in the United States Arctic region and rural communities)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) President Obama has committed $3,000,000,000 from the
United States to the Green Climate Fund of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change;
(2) any payments the United States ultimately makes to the
Green Climate Fund will be redistributed to finance
adaptation and mitigation efforts in developing countries
that are parties to the Convention;
(3) none of the eligible developing country parties to the
Convention is an Arctic nation;
(4) the residents of the Arctic, many of whom represent
vibrant indigenous and traditional cultures, too often face
social and economic challenges that rival those in developing
countries;
(5) despite the fact that the United States is an Arctic
nation, President Obama has made no similar effort to provide
financial assistance to the residents of the United States
Arctic region, even though many of those communities have
opportunities for adaptation projects;
(6) similar opportunities for adaptation projects exist
across rural communities in the United States;
(7) the United States should prioritize adaptation projects
in the United States Arctic region and rural communities
before allocating any taxpayer dollars to the Green Climate
Fund; and
(8) to the extent that Congress appropriates any taxpayer
dollars for adaptation, those funds should first be applied
to known and anticipated adaptation needs of communities
within the United States.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. I wish to recognize the Senator from Rhode Island to
call up his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

Amendment No. 74 to Amendment No. 2

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment
to call up my amendment No. 74.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] for himself, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Casey, Mr. Coons,
and Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 74 to
amendment No. 2.

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Program should be funded at not less than
$4,700,000,000 annually)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. FINDINGS AND SENSE OF THE SENATE.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
(1) The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (referred
to in this section as ``LIHEAP'') is the main Federal program
that helps low-income households and senior citizens with
their energy bills, providing vital assistance during both
the cold winter and hot summer months.
(2) Recipients of LIHEAP assistance are among the most
vulnerable individuals in the country, with more than 90
percent of LIHEAP households having at least one member who
is a child, a senior citizen, or disabled, and 20 percent of
LIHEAP households including at least one veteran.
(3) The number of households eligible for LIHEAP assistance
continues to exceed available funding, with current funding
reaching just 20 percent of the eligible population.
(4) The average LIHEAP grant covers just a fraction of home
energy costs, leaving many low-income families and senior
citizens struggling to pay their energy bills and with fewer
resources available to meet other essential needs.
(5) Access to affordable home energy is a matter of health
and safety for many low-income households, children, senior
citizens, and veterans.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that LIHEAP should be funded at not less than $4,700,000,000
annually, to ensure that more low-income households and
children, senior citizens, individuals with disabilities, and
veterans can meet basic home energy needs.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this is a bipartisan amendment, which I am
proud to sponsor with Senator Collins of Maine. It would express the
sense of the Senate that we should fund LIHEAP, the Low Income Heating
Assistance Program, at $4.7 billion. We have seen a significant
diminution of the LIHEAP funding over the years.
This amendment helps every aspect of the country. It helps low-income
households, particularly seniors. It would help immensely families
throughout this country. In the winter it is about heating oil in New
England and Alaska and all through the north and central plains. In the
summer it is about cooling in the southwest and the southeast. If
families and households can't get access to these resources, they have
to make a hard choice between literally paying for their energy or
sometimes their rent or sometimes their food. This program has been
long supported on a bipartisan basis. We should aim for this figure.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I turn to my colleague from Arizona at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Amendment No. 103 to Amendment No. 2

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment
and call up my amendment No. 103.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Flake] proposes an amendment
numbered 103 to amendment No. 2.

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the evaluation and consolidation of duplicative
green building programs)

On page 3, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

SEC. 4__. EVALUATION AND CONSOLIDATION OF DUPLICATIVE GREEN
BUILDING PROGRAMS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrative expenses.--The term ``administrative
expenses'' has the meaning given the term by the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget under section 504(b)(2)
of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010 (31 U.S.C. 1105 note; Public Law
111-85), except that the term shall include, for purposes of
that section and this section, with respect to an agency--
(A) costs incurred by the agency and costs incurred by
grantees, subgrantees, and other recipients of funds from a
grant program or other program administered by the agency;
and
(B) expenses related to personnel salaries and benefits,
property management, travel, program management, promotion,
reviews and audits, case management, and communication about,
promotion of, and outreach for programs and program
activities administered by the agency.
(2) Applicable programs.--The term ``applicable programs''
means the programs listed in Table 9 (pages 348-350) of the
report of the Government Accountability Office entitled
``2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication,
Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance
Revenue''.
(3) Appropriate secretaries.--The term ``appropriate
Secretaries'' means--
(A) the Secretary;
(B) the Secretary of Agriculture;
(C) the Secretary of Defense;
(D) the Secretary of Education;
(E) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(F) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;
(G) the Secretary of Transportation;
(H) the Secretary of the Treasury;
(I) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency;
(J) the Director of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology; and

[[Page S400]]

(K) the Administrator of the Small Business Administration.
(4) Services.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term
``services'' has the meaning given the term by the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget.
(B) Requirements.--The term ``services'' shall be limited
to activities, assistance, and aid that provide a direct
benefit to a recipient, such as--
(i) the provision of medical care;
(ii) assistance for housing or tuition; or
(iii) financial support (including grants and loans).
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than October 1, 2015, the
appropriate Secretaries shall submit to Congress and post on
the public Internet websites of the agencies of the
appropriate Secretaries a report on the outcomes of the
applicable programs.
(2) Requirements.--In reporting on the outcomes of each
applicable program, the appropriate Secretaries shall--
(A) determine the total administrative expenses of the
applicable program;
(B) determine the expenditures for services for the
applicable program;
(C) estimate the number of clients served by the applicable
program and beneficiaries who received assistance under the
applicable program (if applicable);
(D) estimate--
(i) the number of full-time employees who administer the
applicable program; and
(ii) the number of full-time equivalents (whose salary is
paid in part or full by the Federal Government through a
grant or contract, a subaward of a grant or contract, a
cooperative agreement, or another form of financial award or
assistance) who assist in administering the applicable
program;
(E) describe the type of assistance the applicable program
provides, such as grants, technical assistance, loans, tax
credits, or tax deductions;
(F) describe the type of recipient who benefits from the
assistance provided, such as individual property owners or
renters, local governments, businesses, nonprofit
organizations, or State governments; and
(G) identify and report on whether written program goals
are available for the applicable program.
(c) Program Recommendations.--Not later than January 1,
2016, the appropriate Secretaries shall jointly submit to
Congress a report that includes--
(1) an analysis of whether any of the applicable programs
should be eliminated or consolidated, including any
legislative changes that would be necessary to eliminate or
consolidate the applicable programs; and
(2) ways to improve the applicable programs by establishing
program goals or increasing collaboration so as to reduce the
overlap and duplication identified in--
(A) the 2011 report of the Government Accountability Office
entitled ``Federal Initiatives for the NonFederal Sector
Could Benefit from More Interagency Collaboration''; and
(B) the report of the Government Accountability Office
entitled ``2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce
Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and
Enhance Revenue''.
(d) Program Eliminations.--Not later than January 1, 2016,
the appropriate Secretaries shall--
(1) identify--
(A) which applicable programs are specifically required by
law; and
(B) which applicable programs are carried out under the
discretionary authority of the appropriate Secretaries;
(2) eliminate those applicable programs that are not
required by law; and
(3) transfer any remaining applicable projects and
nonduplicative functions into another green building program
within the same agency.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, in its 2012 annual report on opportunities
to reduce duplication and achieve savings, the GAO noted that in 2011
there were 94 Federal initiatives to foster green buildings in the non-
Federal sector. This report highlighted many initiatives that provided
similar types of assistance, grants, technical assistance, tax credits,
and so forth. This obviously doesn't sound like a recipe for proper
oversight if this is still going on 5 years later.
This amendment would help tackle the problem simply by requiring
agencies to evaluate and eliminate duplicative green building programs
consistent with GAO's recommendations.
We ask GAO to study these things, and we often don't follow through
and make sure the agencies follow up on the recommendations. This is
simply ensuring that happens.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I call on the Senator from Vermont to
offer his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

Amendment No. 30 to Amendment No. 2

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up amendment No. 30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes an amendment
numbered 30 to amendment No. 2.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike a provision relating to judicial review)

Beginning on page 2, strike line 24 and all that follows
through page 3, line 10, and insert the following:
(d) Private Property Savings Clause.--Nothing

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this will be set aside in a moment. First,
I wish to note that my amendment is simply to make sure that if people
have appeals on actions under this law, they be able to appeal in the
courts within their jurisdictions and not have to trundle their way to
Washington, DC. Too many people think Washington has the answers to
everything.
My amendment simply says it is a States rights issue. It says the
appeals will be in courts within their districts. That is a simple
explanation. I spoke earlier on the floor, and I will speak more when
the amendment comes up.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at this time I turn to my colleague
from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

Amendment No. 15 to Amendment No. 2

Mr. CRUZ. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment
and call up my amendment No. 15.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cruz] proposes an amendment
numbered 15 to amendment No. 2.

Mr. CRUZ. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To promote economic growth and job creation by increasing
exports)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. EXPEDITED APPROVAL OF EXPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS TO
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION MEMBER COUNTRIES.

(a) In General.--Section 3(c) of the Natural Gas Act (15
U.S.C. 717b(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(c) For purposes'' and inserting the
following:
``(c) Expedited Application and Approval Process.--
``(1) Definition of world trade organization member
country.--In this subsection, the term `World Trade
Organization member country' has the meaning given the term
`WTO member country' in section 2 of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501).
``(2) Expedited application and approval process.--For
purposes''; and
(2) in paragraph (2) (as so designated), by inserting ``or
to a World Trade Organization member country'' after ``trade
in natural gas''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to applications for the authorization to export
natural gas under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C.
717b) that are pending on, or filed on or after, the date of
enactment of this Act.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, this is an amendment to allow expedited
export of liquid natural gas to WTO member countries. It would have
benefits to our country in terms of jobs and economic growth as well as
substantial geopolitical benefits to our allies. I expect to debate
this further in the coming days.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I call on the Senator from Rhode Island
to offer his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

Amendment No. 28 to Amendment No. 2

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment to call up my amendment No. 28.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page S401]]

Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Whitehouse] proposes an
amendment numbered 28 to amendment No. 2.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require campaign finance disclosures for certain persons
benefitting from tar sands development)

At the end, add the following:

SEC. __. CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURES BY THOSE PROFITING FROM
TAR SANDS DEVELOPMENT.

(a) In General.--Section 304 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1974 (52 U.S.C. 30104) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(j) Disclosure by Tar Sands Beneficiaries.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Initial disclosure.--Every covered entity which has
made covered disbursements and received covered transfers in
an aggregate amount in excess of $10,000 during the period
beginning on January 1, 2013, and ending on the date that is
165 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection
shall file with the Commission a statement containing the
information described in paragraph (2) not later than the
date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
subsection.
``(B) Subsequent disclosures.--Every covered entity which
makes covered disbursements (other than covered disbursement
reported under subparagraph (A))and received covered
transfers (other than a covered transfer reported under
subparagraph (A)) in an aggregate amount in excess of $10,000
during any calendar year shall, within 48 hours of each
disclosure date, file with the Commission a statement
containing the information described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Contents of statement.--Each statement required to be
filed under this subsection shall be made under penalty of
perjury and shall contain the following information:
``(A) The identification of the person making the
disbursement or receiving the transfer, of any person sharing
or exercising direction or control over the activities of
such person, and of the custodian of the books and accounts
of the person making the disbursement or receiving the
transfer.
``(B) The principal place of business of the person making
the disbursement or receiving the transfer, if not an
individual.
``(C) The amount of each disbursement or transfer of more
than $200 during the period covered by the statement and the
identification of the person to whom the disbursement was
made or from whom the transfer was received.
``(D) The elections to which the disbursements or transfers
pertain and the names (if known) of the candidates involved.
``(E) If the disbursements were paid out of a segregated
bank account which consists of funds contributed solely by
individuals who are United States citizens or nationals or
lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in
section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(20))) directly to this account for
electioneering communications, the names and addresses of all
contributors who contributed an aggregate amount of $1,000 or
more to that account during--
``(i) in the case of a statement under paragraph (1)(A),
during the period described in such paragraph, and
``(ii) in the case of a statement under paragraph (1)(B),
the period beginning on the first day of the preceding
calendar year and ending on the disclosure date.

Nothing in this subparagraph is to be construed as a
prohibition on the use of funds in such a segregated account
for a purpose other than covered disbursements.
``(F) If the disbursements were paid out of funds not
described in subparagraph (E), the names and addresses of all
contributors who contributed an aggregate amount of $1,000 or
more to the person making the disbursement during--
``(i) in the case of a statement under paragraph (1)(A),
during the period described in such paragraph, and
``(ii) in the case of a statement under paragraph (1)(B),
the period beginning on the first day of the preceding
calendar year and ending on the disclosure date.
``(3) Covered entity.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `covered entity' means--
``(i) any person who is described in subparagraph (B), and
``(ii) any person who owns 5 percent or more of any person
described in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Person described.--A person is described in this
subparagraph if such person--
``(i) holds one or more tar sands leases, or
``(ii) has received revenues or stands to receive revenues
of $1,000,000 or greater from tar sands production, including
revenues received in connection with--

``(I) exploration of tar sands;
``(II) extraction of tar sands;
``(III) processing of tar sands;
``(IV) building, maintaining, and upgrading the Keystone XL
pipeline and other related pipelines used in connection with
tar sands;
``(V) expanding refinery capacity or building, expanding,
and retrofitting import and export terminals in connection
with tar sands;
``(VI) transportation by pipeline, rail, and barge of tar
sands;
``(VII) refinement of tar sands;
``(VIII) importing crude, refined oil, or byproducts
derived from tar sands crude;
``(IX) exporting crude, byproducts, or refined oil derived
from tar sands crude; and
``(X) use of production byproducts from tar sands, such as
petroleum coke for energy generation.

``(C) Tar sands.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term
`tar sands' means bitumen from the West Canadian Sedimentary
Basin.
``(4) Covered disbursement.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `covered disbursement' means a
disbursement for any of the following:
``(A) An independent expenditure.
``(B) A broadcast, cable, or satellite communication (other
than a communication described in subsection (f)(3)(B))
which--
``(i) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal
office;
``(ii) is made--

``(I) in the case of a communication which refers to a
candidate for an office other than President or Vice
President, during the period beginning on January 1 of the
calendar year in which a general or runoff election is held
and ending on the date of the general or runoff election (or
in the case of a special election, during the period
beginning on the date on which the announcement with respect
to such election is made and ending on the date of the
special election); or
``(II) in the case of a communication which refers to a
candidate for the office of President or Vice President, is
made in any State during the period beginning 120 days before
the first primary election, caucus, or preference election
held for the selection of delegates to a national nominating
convention of a political party is held in any State (or, if
no such election or caucus is held in any State, the first
convention or caucus of a political party which has the
authority to nominate a candidate for the office of President
or Vice President) and ending on the date of the general
election; and

``(iii) in the case of a communication which refers to a
candidate for an office other than President or Vice
President, is targeted to the relevant electorate (within the
meaning of subsection (f)(3)(C)).
``(C) A transfer to another person for the purposes of
making a disbursement described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
``(5) Covered transfer.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `covered transfer' means any amount received by a
covered entity for the purposes of making a covered
disbursement.
``(6) Disclosure date.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `disclosure date' means--
``(A) the first date during any calendar year by which a
person has made covered disbursements and received covered
transfers aggregating in excess of $10,000; and
``(B) any other date during such calendar year by which a
person has made covered disbursements and received covered
transfers aggregating in excess of $10,000 since the most
recent disclosure date for such calendar year.
``(7) Contracts to disburse; coordination with other
requirements; etc,.--Rules similar to the rules of paragraphs
(5), (6), and (7) of subsection (f) shall apply for purposes
of this subsection.''.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, this is a measure that will allow a
needed beam of daylight to be shown on the politics behind this bill we
are on. As everybody knows, it is a little bit unusual to some that the
opening measure of the new Republican majority would be a project that
advantages a foreign oil company.
This measure would require the disclosure of political donations made
by companies that stand to earn more than $1 million from this project.
This is the kind of information the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly said
citizens are entitled to know in order to make appropriate decisions,
and in our democracy we should put our citizens first.
I will speak further about this amendment on a later occasion, and I
yield the floor at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I turn to my very patient colleague
from Kansas, Mr. Moran.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

Amendment No. 73 to Amendment No. 2

Mr. MORAN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set
aside to call up amendment No. 73.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

[[Page S402]]

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Moran], for himself and Mr.
Cruz, proposes an amendment numbered 73 to amendment No. 2.

Mr. MORAN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To delist the lesser prairie-chicken as a threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973)

At the end of the amendment, add the following:

SEC. ___. DELISTING OF LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN AS THREATENED
SPECIES.

Notwithstanding the final rule of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service entitled ``Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for
the Lesser Prairie-Chicken'' (79 Fed. Reg. 19974 (April 10,
2014)), the lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus
pallidicinctus) shall not be listed as a threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that sets aside the
endangered threatened species listing of the lesser prairie chicken. It
is an important issue to the citizens of Kansas but also to Texas,
Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Colorado.
I look forward to having this conversation and debate on the Senate
floor at the appropriate time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. I call on the Senator from Delaware to offer his
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

Amendment No. 121 to Amendment No. 2

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up my amendment to the Murkowski substitute,
amendment No. 121.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper] proposes an
amendment numbered 121 to amendment No. 2.

Mr. CARPER. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To impose a fee of 8 cents per barrel on oil transported
through the pipeline)

At the end of section 2, add the following:
(f) Fee.--
(1) In general.--A fee of 8 cents shall be imposed on each
barrel of oil transported through the pipeline referred to in
subsection (a).
(2) Use of fee revenue.--Revenue from the fee imposed under
paragraph (1) shall be deposited in the land and water
conservation fund established under section 200302 of title
54, United States Code.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President and colleagues, you will recall from our
debate earlier this evening concerns raised about the equity of--most
oil that is consumed and transported through this country or into this
country pays a fee. It is an 8-cent-per-barrel fee that goes into the
oilspill liability fund. One source of oil that does not pay that 8-
cent-per-barrel fee is derived from the oil sands. There has been some
discussion of whether--I think there is a fair amount of agreement that
that does not seem right, it doesn't seem equitable, and it is not fair
to assess an 8-cent-per-barrel fee on all these other sources of oil
but not apply that to oil derived from tar sands.
What I seek to suggest with my amendment is that an 8-cent-per-barrel
fee be assessed on the oil derived from tar sands and the revenues
derived therefrom would be deposited not in the oilspill liability fund
but rather in the land and water conservation fund which has been in
existence for many years.
I believe the balance in the oilspill liability fund is measured in
the billions of dollars. The balance in the land and water conservation
fund is not. The moneys are much smaller, much more modest, and that
money provides funding in all 50 States. Many of us know the need far
outweighs the money appropriated every year for this program.
The land and water conservation fund is also established not just to
provide the revenues for national parks--and we are always looking for
moneys for national parks. We just expanded our national parks system.
How are we going to pay for that? The amendment I hope to offer would
help to address that.
The land and water conservation fund was also established to help
protect rivers, lakes, and critical habitat for wildlife, areas that
may be impacted by the construction of this pipeline or a possible
spill from this pipeline or from another spill.
Again, that is what I am asking. I will be concise. No fee is now
paid on tar sands oil. I believe it should be the same as that which is
assessed against other sources of oil.
What I would suggest is rather than put the moneys derived from that
8 cents on the tar sands oil--rather than that money going into the
oilspill liability fund, which is quite robust, to instead deposit that
in the land and water conservation fund where we could use it in all 50
States for a variety of good purposes. That is the nature of my
amendment. I hope I have the opportunity to offer that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to turn to my colleague
from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

Amendment No. 132 to Amendment No. 2

Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside to call up amendment No. 132.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Montana [Mr. Daines] proposes an amendment
numbered 132 to amendment No. 2.

Mr. DAINES. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding the designation of
National Monuments)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL
MONUMENTS.

It is the sense of Congress that the designation of
National Monuments should be subject to--
(1) consultation with each unit of local government within
the boundaries of which the proposed National Monument is to
be located; and
(2) the approval by the Governor and legislature of each
State within the boundaries of which the proposed National
Monument is to be located.

Mr. DAINES. In Montana we understand our resource use must be done
responsibly. We also know that Montanans who live and use the land
every day understand how to best protect these resources.
Unfortunately, the current administration, as well as past
administrations, both Republican and Democratic--their efforts to
stretch the intent of the Antiquities Act threatens Montanans' ability
to manage our State's resources. It is a trend we are seeing in other
States as well.
Too often these unilateral designations ignore the needs of the local
communities, of sportsmen, of farmers and ranchers, small business
owners who are directly impacted by these new designations.
The amendment I am offering simply expresses the sense of Congress
that all future national monument designations should be subject to
consultation with local governance and the approval of the Governor of
that State and the legislature of that State in which the designation
would occur.
This amendment ensures the people affected most by these designations
have a seat at the table and their voices are heard.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. I would like to call on the Senator from Massachusetts
to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Amendment No. 25 to Amendment No. 2

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up my amendment No. 25.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page S403]]

Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], for himself
and Mr. Wyden, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Merkley, Mr.
Booker, and Ms. Baldwin, proposes an amendment numbered 25 to
amendment No. 2.

Mr. MARKEY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To ensure that products derived from tar sands are treated as
crude oil for purposes of the Federal excise tax on petroleum)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. INCLUSION OF OIL DERIVED FROM TAR SANDS AS CRUDE
OIL.

This Act shall not take effect prior to the date that
diluted bitumen and other bituminous mixtures derived from
tar sands or oil sands are treated as crude oil for purposes
of section 4612(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
which may be established either by an Act of Congress or any
regulations, rules, or guidance issued by the Commissioner of
the Internal Revenue Service or the Secretary of the Treasury
(or the Secretary's delegate).

Mr. MARKEY. I ask that the amendment be put in order for debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we now have in front of us six
amendments that are pending on the Republican side, six amendments that
are pending on the other side of the aisle. We indicated we wanted to
try to get these up, alternating back and forth. I think we have a
pretty good range in front of us. Recognizing that it is important
Members have an opportunity to take a look at the now 12 amendments
that are pending, I think it is our hope that we would be able to, as
the chairman and the ranking member, sit down and figure out how many
of these we might be able to move to a vote this evening and dispense
with some of them.
I think it is pretty clear we will have a difficult time perhaps
advancing such a plan with everything tonight. So if we could have a
little bit of time to work through an agreement to present to Members--
I think right now people are taking a little bit of a break from the
floor activity, and that is appreciated, but I want to give them notice
as to where we are.
It is my hope we will be able to come to an agreement relatively
shortly in terms of how many amendments we might be able to take up and
vote on this evening, thus giving Members a better chance as to whether
we are staying in for the long haul tonight or perhaps just for a
shorter period, but we need a little bit of time to take a look at
that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, we did go back and forth on these
amendments, but I heard Senator McConnell say he wanted Members to
offer amendments. We have several Members who want to offer amendments.
I hope there will be a time that those Members will be allowed to get
their amendments pending before this body.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from
Washington stating that. This is by no means saying this is it for the
night. I am just saying give the floor managers an opportunity now,
with a dozen amendments that we have in front of us, to figure out what
it is that we have. This would probably be a great time for people to
speak on either their amendments or other amendments that they might
wish to bring pending, but I am not suggesting this is our finite list
of amendments. This is what we have for this moment in time, having
gone back and forth. That is all I am suggesting.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I have a pending amendment. Does the
Senator object to my bringing that up? I would like to bring that up;
can I do that?
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think it was the intention of the
ranking member and myself that we go back and forth. We have done that,
six each time now. I don't have other Members on our side who are
either present, which we have asked them to be, or have asked me to
offer on their behalf. I am certainly not suggesting to the Senator
from Vermont that he should not be allowed to get his amendment
pending. I am just trying to keep with the agreement we have that we go
back and forth.
Mr. SANDERS. Would it be OK if I brought mine up and the Senator
could catch up to it later? I am sure there will be another one.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Through the Chair, I am sure we will have other
amendments. Again, I want to defer to the Senator's ranking member on
that as far as whether we bring it pending at this moment in time. It
might be possible after we reach our agreement that we have another set
of back-and-forths to get these pending agreements put forward.
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. MORAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Barrasso). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 73

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, earlier this evening an amendment of mine
was made pending to the legislation that we now have before us,
amendment No. 73.
I thank my colleagues for allowing that amendment to become pending,
and I look forward to the opportunity now, while we are determining the
remainder of the evening's schedule, to describe the nature of
amendment No. 73.
I have a copy of the amendment in front of me. It is a short
paragraph, but it is one that has significant consequences to the
people of Kansas. But in addition to the people of Kansas, it has
significant consequence to the people of Colorado, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, and Texas.
The story we are talking about is the lesser prairie-chicken. In
March of 2014, the lesser prairie-chicken was listed not as an
endangered species but a threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act.
It is true the numbers of birds declined in 2012 and 2013. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service had their explanation for why there was the
decline in the population of those birds, both those who live on the
land but as well a number of wildlife experts--people who are very
interested in conservation practices in our State--believe and agree
that the primary reason behind the bird's decline in population was the
historic and prolonged drought that our area of the country has
experienced in the past several years.
There is less habitat for birds generally in our State and across
this region of the country, but the reality is that it is because we
have had so little rainfall. We have been in a drought in a significant
part of the Nation, in our part of the country, for a number of years,
and as a result there is less habitat and a decline in the bird
population. What many believe is that with the return of rainfall, with
the return of snow this winter and the moisture it will provide, we
will have increasing wildlife habitat for the lesser prairie-chicken
and a large number of birds and other wildlife in our State and in the
surrounding States where this is a significant issue.
There are some exceptions that have been written into the
designation, but the reality is that there are huge, ongoing,
significant economic consequences to the listing as a threatened
species of the lesser prairie-chicken in Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma,
New Mexico, and Texas. Front and center of that, of course, are the
consequences to agriculture. It is how we earn a significant portion of
our living in our State. Land values, for example, have dropped as a
result of this issue. Oil and gas exploration has been disrupted. Wind
energy projects that have been an important component of our State
economy and particularly a benefit to the economy of rural Kansas have
been harmed as a result of this listing. These disruptions have driven
down county tax revenues that are used for essential services in some
of the most challenging and difficult parts economically of our State,
from damage to Main Street,

[[Page S404]]

and certainly harmed a portion of Kansas that always struggles to be
economically viable.
The listing, in my view, was based on an artificially low population
estimate due to the drought I described. I guess I failed to mention
that 1 year ago this was a bird which could be hunted in Kansas. So,
again, it was prevalent enough to be able to be pursued by those who
hunt, but because of the drought the population declined. In fact,
every Kansas county that is included in the habitat area was
experiencing a D3-Extreme or a D4-Exceptional drought, according to the
U.S. Drought Monitor, again highlighting that what we need here is
rainfall and moisture that comes from snow and rain and that listing
this as a threatened species doesn't create the moisture necessary to
create the habitat for the return of the population of the bird.
What we really have asked for is an opportunity which has been
offered and suggested by conservation groups in Kansas, by the Kansas
Department of Wildlife and Parks, and by the Kansas Farm Bureau and
others to work together to find a solution short of this listing to
increase bird population in Kansas. And I assume that is true in the
other States as well. We are looking for a cooperative effort to
improve habitat, and the fact is that the listing as a threatened
species has been so disruptive that we have been unable to get what we
would say is a more commonsense, less broad-brush approach to solving
this problem in place as compared to the heavy hand of this listing. We
stand ready, willing, and able to provide that kind of local effort to
improve habitat and bird population.
This amendment would not mean the lesser prairie-chicken would never
be listed again, but it gives Kansans and others the opportunity to go
back and make certain that efforts at the local level are given a
chance to work before the very dramatic and devastating implementation
of this decision to list the bird as threatened.
So this is a relatively straightforward and simple amendment that
will take the lesser prairie-chicken off the list as a threatened
species, give Kansans and others the opportunity to improve the
habitat, reduce the economic damage that is being done in our State and
the States that surround us as a result of this listing, and then give
us the opportunity to again work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to find a better solution and one that, I might add, may be
more easily found once the rainfalls return to the State of Kansas.
I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to describe this
amendment, and it is certainly my request and I look forward to it
being an amendment that would be considered tonight, later this
evening.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill 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 (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Remembering Wendell Ford

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was saddened to learn today of the death
of Senator Wendell Ford of Kentucky. Wendell Ford was a skilled
political mind and as warm a human being as any U.S. Senator has ever
been.
During my first 2 years in the U.S. Senate, Senator Ford was the
assistant Democratic leader, the same job I have today. I was
fortunate, able to learn by example from one of the best. And how
fortunate the people of Kentucky and all Americans were to have had the
benefit of Wendell Ford's public service.
Senator Ford served in the Senate for nearly a quarter of a century.
Before that, he served the Bluegrass State as a State senator,
Governor, and lieutenant governor. He defended America in uniform
during World War II.
Maybe because he had already accomplished so much before he came to
the Senate, he never worried about headlines. Instead, he was content
to work quietly, diligently, effectively--often with colleagues from
across the aisle--to solve problems.
The last desk Senator Ford occupied in the Senate was once occupied
by another great Kentucky Senator, ``the great compromiser'' Henry
Clay. Like Henry Clay, Wendell Ford believed that compromise was
honorable and necessary in a democracy. But Wendell Ford also
understood that compromise is, in Henry Clay's words, ``negotiated
hurt.'' So Wendell Ford tried, whenever possible, to work out
disagreements between the scenes, away from the cameras, where Senators
could bend and still keep their dignity.
In 1991 Wendell's quiet bipartisan style convinced a Senator from
across the aisle, Mark Hatfield of Oregon, to join him in sponsoring
the motor voter bill. Working together, this Democrat and this
Republican Senator convinced the entire Senate it was time to pass this
landmark bill. To this day the motor voter bill remains the most
ambitious effort Congress has made since the Voting Rights Act of 1965
to open up the voting booth to more Americans.
Wendell Ford distinguished himself in the Senate as a determined foe
of government waste and duplication and a champion of campaign finance
reform.
His raspy voice was unmistakable. His good humor and wise counsel
were indispensable in some of the most important debates. He will be
missed.
I know our entire Senate sends their condolences to Senator Ford's
wife Jean and to all of Senator Ford's family and friends.
I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to thank the senior Senator from
Illinois for what he said about my dear friend Senator Wendell Ford.
I was fortunate to come here to the Senate the same year that Senator
Ford did. We were different in age, and I must say, different in
experience. He had a lot more experience than I did, and I relied on
his experience and his help. We traveled together, and we talked
together so often. He had the unfailing characteristic of the best of
the Senators--both Republicans and Democrats. He always kept his word.
He was always very honest and direct with you. If he made a commitment,
you could go to the bank with it.
I remember the night we had a dinner for his retirement. There was a
dozen of us that came in that year. There were only four left and three
were retiring that night--Wendell Ford, John Glen, and Dale Bumpers. It
was wonderful to listen to the three of them reminisce about the
Senate.
I said to Wendell Ford at that time: Save me a seat on that lifeboat
as you are leaving. I thought how lonely it would be without him.
Fortunately, I have a good friend like the senior Senator from Illinois
to fill the void.
But Wendell Ford had probably more knowledge and sense of politics--
not just knowledge but sense--of how to work things out, how to get
liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats together, than
most people ever have.
He had a raspy voice, but he was good natured, with a sense of humor.
And when I go back through the people I have met, the 300 or more
Senators I have had the opportunity to serve with, I think of Wendell
Ford as one who epitomizes what a Senator should be.
I had talked to him just a few months ago. I will speak more about
him later on, but I think the Senator from Illinois has given probably
as good a description of this wonderful man as any of the rest of us
might, and I thank him for that.
I yield the floor.

Quorum Call

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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll, and the
following Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names:

[[Page S405]]

[Quorum No. 3 Leg.]

Boozman
Cantwell
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Durbin
Hirono
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McConnell
Murkowski
Perdue
Sanders
Sasse
Schumer
Tillis
Vitter
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is not present.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms
to request the attendance of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from
Kentucky.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Lee).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Reid), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 5, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 23 Leg.]

YEAS--89

Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Gillibrand
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
McConnell
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--5

Blunt
Grassley
Heller
McCain
Wicker

NOT VOTING--6

Franken
Graham
Lee
Manchin
Menendez
Reid
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With the addition of Senators who did not
answer the quorum call, a quorum is now present.
The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Can we have order in the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. McCONNELL. The Senate is not yet in order, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. McCONNELL. My colleagues, here is the situation. Earlier today we
cast our 15th rollcall vote on this bill. That is more votes than we
had on all amendments on the floor--rollcall votes--throughout all of
2014. We have now voted on 19 rollcall amendments, and here is the
situation in which we find ourselves at 10 o'clock on Thursday night.
There are 12 amendments pending--6 Democratic amendments and 6
Republican amendments--but our good friends on the other side will not
agree to vote on their own amendments.
So we find ourselves in a unique situation. We have opened up the
Senate for amendments for both sides. Our colleagues, both Republicans
and Democrats, have had more rollcall votes on amendments than all of
last year combined. Yet our Democratic friends don't even want to agree
to vote on the amendments they have pending.
We are left with only one way to avoid having to invoke cloture on
each amendment, which would tie up the Senate for weeks, in order to
provide our colleagues on the other side an opportunity to vote on the
amendments they said they wanted to vote on. So there is really only
one way to go forward, and so what I am going to do is ask unanimous
consent that starting at 10 o'clock the Senate proceed to vote in
relation to the following amendments in the order listed: Sullivan No.
67, Cardin No. 75, Murkowski No. 98, Reed No. 74, Flake No. 103, Leahy
No. 30; Cruz No. 15, Whitehouse No. 28, Moran No. 73, Carper No. 121,
Daines No. 132, and Markey No. 25; further, that all amendments on this
list be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption and
that no second-degrees be in order to the amendments. I ask consent
that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between each vote and
that all votes after the first in the series be 10-minute votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the
majority leader came to the floor this evening and commended the Senate
for the work we have done. He pointed out the constructive, bipartisan,
good-faith efforts that have been made on both sides. Earlier today we
disposed of 10 separate amendments, 5 on each side. Those amendments
were given to us yesterday. During the last 24 hours there has been
active negotiation back and forth on side-by-side amendments. In fact,
the Republican Senator from Missouri and the Republican Senator from
Nebraska asked to modify their amendments while they were still
pending. There was a good-faith effort to make these amendments ready
for floor consideration, and they were. They were brought before the
Senate, and they were voted on in an orderly way. We all know that in
the rules of the Senate you can stop the train. No one did on this side
of the aisle. We moved forward in an orderly way.
Now at 8 o'clock this evening, 12 more amendments have come forward,
6 on each side. The majority leader is correct. What we are trying to
do, as we did with the previous 10 amendments, is to work through these
in an orderly fashion, and we propose that we start considering them
tomorrow morning.
Those who are interested in--the staff who are interested, the
Members who are interested can work to put these 12 amendments in
order. We will start working on them as early as the majority leader
wants to work tomorrow morning and start working through the amendments
and those others that may be offered. But I would say, if we are going
to continue in the spirit of good faith, bipartisan cooperation, then
let us work together as we have leading up to today to come to the
point where we can have a vote on those amendments.
There are others that may be offered on both sides. But for these
pending amendments, we are ready to commit to you that we will be here
first thing in the morning, and let's start considering them.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me just say one more time, I think
everybody understands. What we have here are at least six Democratic
amendments that presumably they understand because they offered them. I
assume they know what is in them because they wrote them and offered
them. Yet they do not want to vote on them.
We have been on this bill for a while. We have already had more
rollcall votes on this bill than the entire Senate had on every bill
through the whole year of 2014. I think it is time that we start moving
forward.
So since there is an objection to setting votes on the pending
amendments, there is really only one way to ensure a vote on these
amendments absent a cloture motion, which I was explaining earlier. If
we had to file cloture on each of these amendments, we would be on them
for weeks trying to help our friends on the other side get votes on
amendments they offered.
So given the fact that they are reluctant to vote on their own
amendments, which presumably they understand, the only way to go
forward is to table their amendments. So I, therefore, intend to begin
tabling the pending amendments, ensuring a vote on the proposals they
have offered, which presumably they understand, but moving the process
along tonight.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
Mr. McCONNELL. For a question only, without losing the floor.

[[Page S406]]

Mr. DURBIN. Did the majority leader not notify the entire Senate that
we would be working on Fridays?
Mr. McCONNELL. I am not suggesting we are not working on Friday. I am
suggesting we are working tonight.
Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the majority leader, we are prepared to
start working in an orderly fashion on Friday, as we did earlier today.
Mr. McCONNELL. Well, I have not said anything about Friday. Did
anybody hear me say anything about Friday? We are talking about right
now.

Amendment No. 25

Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 25, offered by the Senator from
Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment
and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
1 minute to speak on my amendment before it is voted upon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

Quorum Call

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Durbin, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll, and the following
Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names:

[Quorum No. 4 Leg.]

Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
King
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Perdue
Peters
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present.

vote on amendment no. 25

The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The yeas and nays have been previously ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Hatch), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken)
and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 42, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 24 Leg.]

YEAS--53

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

NAYS--42

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

NOT VOTING--5

Franken
Graham
Hatch
Lee
Reid
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Vote on Amendment No. 121

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with
respect to Carper amendment No. 121.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. McCONNELL. I move to table the Carper amendment and ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for 1 minute,
please.
Mr. McCONNELL. Objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Lee).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons),
the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken), and the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 38, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 25 Leg.]

YEAS--57

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

NAYS--38

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

NOT VOTING--5

Coons
Franken
Graham
Lee
Reid
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Vote on Amendment No. 28

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call for regular order with respect
to the Whitehouse amendment No. 28.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. McCONNELL. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent for just 1 minute to defend
my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. May I ask unanimous consent for just 1 minute?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Lee).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons),
the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken), and the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.

[[Page S407]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 26 Leg.]

YEAS--52

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

NAYS--43

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

NOT VOTING--5

Coons
Franken
Graham
Lee
Reid
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Vote on Amendment No. 30

Mr. McCONNELL. I call for regular order with respect to Leahy
amendment No. 30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. McCONNELL. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and
nays.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1
minute to explain the States rights amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the request from the
Senator from Vermont?
Mr. PERDUE. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons),
the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken), and the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 41, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 27 Leg.]

YEAS--53

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

NAYS--41

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

NOT VOTING--6

Coons
Franken
Graham
Kirk
Lee
Reid
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Vote on Amendment No. 74

Mr. McCONNELL. I call for regular order with respect to Reed
amendment No. 74.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. McCONNELL. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 1
minute on the Reed-Collins amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CORNYN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Lee), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons),
the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken), and the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 45, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 28 Leg.]

YEAS--49

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

NAYS--45

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

NOT VOTING--6

Coons
Franken
Graham
Kirk
Lee
Reid
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Cloture Motion

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion on the pending
substitute to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Murkowski
amendment No. 2: the Keystone XL pipeline approval act.
Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Richard Burr, Jerry
Moran, John Thune, Marco Rubio, Johnny Isakson, Kelly
Ayotte, Ben Sasse, Deb Fischer, John Boozman, David
Vitter, Tim Scott, Roger F. Wicker, Richard C. Shelby,
Michael B. Enzi, Roy Blunt.

Cloture Motion

Mr. McCONNELL. I send a cloture motion on the underlying bill to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 1, a bill to
approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Richard Burr, Jerry
Moran, John Thune,

[[Page S408]]

Marco Rubio, Johnny Isakson, Kelly Ayotte, Ben Sasse,
Deb Fischer, John Boozman, David Vitter, Tim Scott,
Roger F. Wicker, Richard C. Shelby, Michael B. Enzi,
Roy Blunt.

Unanimous Consent Request

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that at 9:30 a.m. Friday, the
Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the
order listed: Sullivan No. 67, Cardin No. 75, Murkowski No. 98, Flake
No. 103, Cruz No. 15, Moran No. 73, and Daines No. 132; further, that
all amendments on the list be subject to a 60-vote affirmative
threshold for adoption and no second degrees be in order to the
amendments. I ask consent that there be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided between each vote and that all votes after the first in the
series be 10-minute votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, now that we have purged the calendar of
five of the six Democratic amendments, the majority leader tells us it
is time to vote.
It doesn't strike me that this is in the best interest of what we are
trying to achieve. We are going back and forth in a bipartisan,
constructive fashion. I would like to ask the majority leader is he
prepared to be in session tomorrow and to consider Democratic and
Republican amendments and work through the list, including the ones he
just tabled?
Mr. McCONNELL. Does the Senator from Illinois intend to object to my
consent?
Mr. DURBIN. What I am asking is to try to amend this so it does have
some balance. The majority leader mentioned one Democratic amendment
and at least five or six Republican amendments to be considered
tomorrow.
Mr. McCONNELL. We just had votes on Democratic amendments that the
Senator's Members offered and he didn't want to agree to have a vote.
Mr. DURBIN. The Record will reflect the spirited debate on those
amendments when the majority leader wouldn't even give the authors 60
seconds to describe what was in the amendment.
Mr. McCONNELL. Am I correct the Senator from Illinois is going to
object?
Mr. DURBIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators,
the next vote will be Monday, at 5:30 p.m. The assistant Democratic
leader and I have agreed to announce no more votes tonight.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________