A bill to deny admission to the United States to any representative to the United Nations who has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist activity against the United States and poses a threat to United States national security interests.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, we are in the midst of a debate about extending unemployment insurance for millions of Americans who are unemployed, some of whom have been out of work for some time. It is a problem for the country.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of Americans who want to work but who have stopped looking for a job is 3.1 million. Over 91 million Americans are outside the labor force entirely. According to a recent report in CNN Money:

Only about 63 percent of Americans over the age of 16

participate in the job market, meaning they either have a job

or are just looking for one. That is nearly the lowest level

since 1978, driven partly by baby boomers retiring but also

by workers who had simply given up hope after long and

fruitless job searches.

As a matter of fact, we saw at our budget hearing this morning a chart which showed the decline in workers by age group, and it was interesting. The younger workers had the biggest decline in percentage working, and the older, 62 and above, are working at a greater rate than they were in previous years. So that is an interesting statistic. But we do have a problem, particularly among a lot of our younger people finding work.

At the same time we are having these difficulties, this administration has engaged in a systematic dismantling of the protections our immigration laws provide for American workers, producing for them--our workers--lower wages and higher unemployment. That is just a fact. Why are wages down? And wages are down, as we heard from all witnesses, Republican and Democratic, in the Budget Committee this morning. Wages have declined significantly in the last 5 years. They have been declining, just at a lesser rate, since 1999.

In fact, our review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement published statistics for 2013 reveals that under the guise of setting priorities for enforcement of our laws, this administration has determined that almost anyone in the world who can enter the United States then becomes free to illegally live, work, and claim benefits here as long as they are not caught committing some felony or serious crime.

Based on what the President has said, and what the Vice President has said, it would appear an individual could come to America on a work visa, and 1 day after the visa has expired just continue to stay in America and be able to work and could be confident that they will not be deported because the policy of this government is not to deport people unless they catch them at the border entering illegally or they have committed a serious crime.

A recent report this week shows that even the serious crime issue is cloudy. An independent report earlier this week said one-third of those--68,000--who had been involved in criminal activity in some way are not being deported. So this applies not only to

those who unlawfully enter our borders but also those who enter on a legal visa and don't leave when that visa expires.

The President and Members of Congress are arguing, it appears, based on the bill that cleared the Senate, for a historic surge in the amount of legal immigration into our country at a time of high unemployment. The White House has preposterously claimed, amazingly, that an influx of new, mostly lower skilled workers will raise wages. This is a conclusion not supported by any credible academic evidence or even the Congressional Budget Office's own report analyzing the massive Senate immigration bill. The CBO concluded the bill would add 46 million mostly lesser skilled legal immigrants by 2033 and that average wages would fall for one dozen years if it were to become law and unemployment would increase and per capita GDP--growth in America-- would decline, I think for 20 years.

And, apparently the House of Representatives is considering proposals to bring in hundreds of thousands of guest workers at a time when we are talking about extending unemployment for Americans who can't get jobs.

Dr. George Borjas at Harvard has found that high immigration levels from 1980 to 2000 resulted in an 8-percent drop in wages for American workers without a high school degree. Let me repeat that. This is Professor Borjas at Harvard, raised in Cuba and immigrated to America. He is perhaps the most authoritative academic in the world on immigration and its effect on wages and the labor force. He found that high immigration levels from 1980 to 2000--and he studied that carefully, using census and other data--resulted in an 8-percent drop in wages for American workers without a high school degree. Eight percent is a lot. It is several hundred dollars a month for a person who didn't graduate from high school. Actually, it is about $250 a month. So there is a reason workers who are earning $30,000 and less support a reduction in net immigration levels by a 3-to-1 margin. Working people know what is happening out there. They know their wages are going down. They know particularly lower skilled people, some young people who didn't get to graduate from high school or who got in trouble, are not having much success at all.

Average household income has fallen steadily since 1999, and only 59 percent of U.S. adults are now working. African-American youth looking for work cannot find jobs. We don't have a shortage of workers in this country--we do not have a shortage of workers in this country. We have a shortage of jobs. That is a fact.

Some might ask: How can you be so sure of that, Senator? I believe in the free market, and I tell the chamber of commerce and the big hotel magnates, if we have a shortage of workers, why aren't wages going up? Wages are going down. We don't have a tight labor market. We have a loose labor market, and it is impacting adversely American workers.

The idea that we ought to double the number of guest workers who come into the country legally when the President of the United States is not going to enforce immigration laws and we will not use comprehensively the E-Verify system indicates we are going to see a decline in wages for average Americans out looking for jobs.

The President's own economic adviser, Gene Sperling, former Director of the National Economic Council, recognized this, saying recently that ``our economy still has three people looking for every job,'' three people for every job. Majority Leader Reid has cited that statistic on the Senate floor as well.

So this Senate passes a comprehensive immigration bill that doubles the number of guest workers. Don't think these are workers who are going to work seasonal jobs in agriculture. They will be able to move throughout this country and take jobs from wherever, providing businesses with a ready source, a new source of additional labor that helps keep the labor market loose.

My amendment, the Accountability through Electronic Verification Act, is a proven way to help out-of-work Americans. This legislation was introduced in this Congress by Senator Grassley and cosponsored by myself and Senators Boozman, Corker, Enzi, Fischer, Hatch, Johanns, Lee, Vitter, and Wicker. So we have offered legislation to deal with this, and I have offered it as an amendment to this unemployment insurance legislation, but I have been told it will be blocked. We will not get a vote. The leader has filled the tree.

What this proposal would do is it would create some jobs for Americans who are out of work. It absolutely would. It would work, and it would immediately help create jobs. That is why the establishment doesn't want to see it happen, if you want to know the truth.

The legislation would permanently authorize and expand the E-Verify Program. That is a simple Web-based tool that allows employers to maintain a legal workforce by verifying the work eligibility of employees. E-Verify works by checking data against records maintained by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration. It is quick and easy. An employer simply puts in a Social Security number, it runs against the Social Security database, and an employer receives an answer as to whether this person is a lawful applicant for a job.

Although in 1986 Congress made it unlawful--in 1986--for an employer to knowingly hire or employ illegal aliens, these laws have never been effectively enforced. They just have not. They have gotten comfortable with this, not having it enforced. Under current law, if the documents provided by an applicant for a job to an employer reasonably appeared to be genuine, then the employer has met its obligation.

Incidentally, shortly after the 1986 amnesty law was passed, when it was promised amnesty would not be granted again, the now-assistant to President Obama and the Director of the Domestic Policy Council, Cecilia Munoz, who was then a senior policy analyst of La Raza, led the charge to undo these enforcement provisions. So the person chosen by President Obama to be the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and who has been given the responsibility to deal with immigration, use to work for La Raza where she sought to undo enforcement.

Ms. Munoz authored a report for La Raza entitled ``Unfinished Business: The Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986.'' In that report she argued that Congress had a moral obligation to ``repeal employer sanctions'' and that workplace enforcement is ``inherently discriminatory.''

Now think about that. The person the President has chosen, who is supposed to be helping us create a lawful system of immigration in the United States, has as her prior effort written a paper that says basically it is a moral requirement of America to repeal any employer sanctions. This is the mentality running our government today; that it is morally wrong to say to employers they should only hire people lawfully in our country. She went on to say that any kind of workplace enforcement--apparently in which our employers would be disciplined or punished if they violate the law--is inherently discriminatory.

Because identity theft and counterfeit documents became a thriving industry after the 1986 amnesty, Congress created an E-Verify program in 1996.

In 1996, after realizing this was turning into a joke--nobody was following the intent of Congress and anybody could produce false documents--Congress passed a law which said we would end this game and create a system that would work. Employers required to use E-Verify today include the Federal government, certain Federal contractors and employers of certain immigrant students. The program for other employers is voluntary and free for them to use, and it has been very successful throughout the country by any who use it.

According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in fiscal year 2012, 98 percent of queries resulted in a confirmation of work eligibility immediately or within 24 hours. So most of them overwhelmingly immediately access the computer system, put in a Social Security number and other data they require, hit the computer button, and it quickly comes back. On a few occasions there is a question and it may take up to 24 hours.

It is not slowing down employment, it is not a big burden on employers, and it protects them from being accused of deliberately hiring illegal

aliens if the report comes back that the Social Security number matches. According to a January 2013 USCIS customer satisfaction survey, E-Verify received an 86 out of 100 in the American customer satisfaction index scale--19 points higher than the customer satisfaction rating for the overall Federal Government.

There is no objection to this. The only objection to it is by certain business lobbyist groups and certain activist immigration groups who don't want it to work, and they want to keep other businesses from using it because it does in fact identify people in the country who are not allowed to take jobs and it would keep them from receiving these jobs.

This legislation would make the program mandatory for all employers within 1 year of enactment of the law. This legislation would also increase penalties for employers who do not use the system when it is mandated or continue to illegally hire undocumented workers.

Employers would be required to check the status of current employees--but within 3 years--and would be permitted to run a check prior to offering someone a job. In other words, they can run a check before they actually offered a job and determine whether the person was lawfully able to take the job. This could help them a lot.

Employers would also be required to recheck those workers whose authorization is about to expire, such as those who come to the United States on temporary work visas.

This legislation would require employers to terminate the employment of those found unauthorized to work due to a check through E-Verify, and would reduce employers' potential liability for wrongful terminations if they participated in E-Verify.

The legislation would establish a demonstration project in a rural area or an area without substantial Internet capabilities--although there are not many left--to assist small businesses in complying.

The legislation also addresses identify theft concerns by ensuring that the Social Security Administration catches multiple uses of Social Security numbers--different people using the same social number to get jobs with a fake document and a false Social Security number.

And for victims of identity theft, this legislation would amend the Federal criminal code to clarify that identity fraud is punishable regardless of whether the defendant had knowledge of the victim. So this provision addresses a 2009 Supreme Court decision holding that identity theft requires proof that the individual knew the number being used belonged to an actual person.

E-Verify has been proven to deter employers from hiring illegal workers and will help put Americans back on the payrolls.

Since I have seen legislation move through Congress--comprehensive reform legislation that is going to fix our immigration policies--one of the things I have observed is that whatever works is what gets objected to. If someone offers a bill which appears to work but doesn't work, that will pass. E-Verify has been proven and will work to deter employers from hiring illegal workers, and will help put Americans back to work. That is why we apparently don't have any ability to get it up for a vote. A number of States have enacted E-Verify laws, and it is working in those States with great results.

According to a 2013 Bloomberg government study entitled ``Early Evidence Suggests E-Verify Laws Deter Hiring of Unauthorized Workers'':

Soon after E-Verify laws were signed in Arizona,

Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina, unauthorized

workers in specific industries appeared to drop off employer

payrolls. This prompted employers in many cases to fill

positions with authorized workers, American workers who are

here lawfully, maybe a young 22-year-old African American who

needs a job, would like to get married, maybe raise a family.

With respect to my State of Alabama, the Bloomberg study says:

Employment trended lower immediately after the law was

enacted. Employers then added more crop production workers in

the months before [the law] took effect, when compared with

the same period the year before. That growth in production

jobs was among the largest in the nation. This study

hypothesizes that authorized hires probably filled the jobs

of unauthorized workers who had left the state.

Isn't that what we would like to see? Wouldn't we ask people to come to the country lawfully? We admit 1 million people a year for permanent residence on a guaranteed path to citizenship absent serious criminal activity. We are generous about immigration. Make no mistake about it. But we do need to make sure that people who don't follow the law, don't wait their turn, don't meet the requirements of American immigration law--they shouldn't be able to come unlawfully and take jobs when Americans are out of work in record numbers.

Regarding South Carolina's law, the study found this:

The number of crop production workers fell. . . . And then

hiring surged as the law took effect in 2012. Farmers say

they added workers because their normal labor supply

vanished.

The study also found that:

[t]he state's commercial bakery industry had been losing

workers, then gained them as E-Verify took effect.

So people who were unlawfully there couldn't get past E-Verify. It exposed them as being unlawful, and the businesses lost workers. But then they hired people back, and the people they hired back were lawful workers--either here as immigrants lawfully or native born.

The study, which is based on research from the Pew Hispanic Center, goes on to say this:

[t]he abrupt shifts in employment across multiple

industries convey a similar narrative: soon after E-Verify

laws are adopted, workers drop off employer payrolls and, in

a number of industries, new hires fill those vacant

positions. The robustness of this effect reinforces the

likelihood that this phenomenon is due to something other

than chance.

Our goal must be to help struggling Americans move from dependency to independence, to help them find steady jobs with rising pay, not falling pay. Making E-Verify permanent and requiring all employers to use it is one simple thing we can do to work towards that goal.

Let me just say, the E-Verify system is already established. The system is in place. It can accommodate the increase in inquiries. It is all a computer system. It is all done virtually instantly. It is not as if we have to create a new system or add tens of thousands of people to make it work. The system is already working and it can handle larger numbers.

Our policy cannot be to simply relegate more and more of our citizens to dependence on the government for assistance while importing a steady stream of foreign workers to fill available jobs. That is not in the interest of this country or our people.

I would just like to add that Senators Grassley, Lee, Vitter, Enzi, Boozman, and Hatch are cosponsors of this amendment. We know what is being said out there. We are being told that Americans won't work, they are not looking for jobs, and that businesses can't hire. The Bloomberg study on how the E-Verify system has been implemented indicates quite different.

According to a report on Syracuse.com on January 8, 2014:

In Syracuse [New York], thousands showed up for the Destiny

USA job fair on June 14, 2012. More than 50 employers

interviewed candidates for roughly 1,600 jobs.

On January 29, 2013, a Fox affiliate in Atlanta reported:

Northside Hospital held a job fair Wednesday, but had to

call it off early due to the overwhelming number of people

that showed up looking for work. The hospital was hoping to

fill 500 jobs.

On May 17, 2013, news outlets in Philadelphia reported:

More than 3,700 job seekers overwhelmed the Municipal

Services Building in Center City for a job fair Friday

morning intended for ex-offenders. . . . The city anticipated

a big crowd and therefore doubled the staff to handle the

responses, but the crowd was still too big to handle, forcing

the event to be cancelled and leaving hundreds on the plaza

outside.

We need to help ex-offenders find jobs. I am aware of a major corporation in Alabama, in talking to a Federal judge recently, which said they will start taking a chance on former offenders. Properly examined and picking the right ones, they found out they are doing fine. We shouldn't be denying young people--particularly young men--who may have gotten in trouble at a younger age ever being able to have a job. One of the goals this country has to have is to help our ex- offenders in employment.

On May 20, 2013, the New York Times reported in an article entitled, ``Camping out for five days, in hopes of a union job,'' the following:

The men began arriving last Wednesday, first a trickle,

then dozens. By Friday there were hundreds of them, along

with a few women. They set up their tents and mattresses on

the sidewalk in Long Island City, Queens . . . and settled in

to wait as long as five days and nights for a slender chance

at a union job as an elevator mechanic. . . . There were more

than 800 by sun-up Monday. . . . The union accepts 750

applications for the 150 to 200 spots in its four-year

apprenticeship program.

There are more examples, and I could go on. But I do believe this idea that Americans won't work is not correct. If we take a person who has been unemployed for a while and place them in a position where the labor is physical, it takes a while to get in shape. If you are going to play ball, it takes a while to get in physical condition. People going into the Army are not expected to meet the physical fitness test the first week. They build up to it.

Businesses have to participate in this effort, too. Businesses need to understand they are not entitled and cannot expect--for the government of the United States to produce perfectly fit, well-trained people for every single job they would like to fill. Sometimes they have to hire people, train them on the job, let them work into it and learn the skills on the job. It is some new idea, apparently, that businesses have to have so much training. We certainly need to use the job-training programs in this country to more effectively train workers for real jobs out there. It is a valid criticism of our trade schools and some of our community colleges that they are not focusing on reality. But my State has done a great job--a far better job than in most States--and I saw a report recently about how Mississippi is doing an excellent job. I believe our program is at least as effective, if not better. So we are doing better. But businesses have always had to bring people into their workplaces and train them to handle the physical challenges that some jobs require.

Madam President, I thank the Chair for an opportunity to share these remarks. I am disappointed that when we are talking about unemployment in America, we have a Congress and a Senate refusing to even allow this amendment to come up for a vote. Without a doubt it would work, be fair, and would simply make it more difficult for people who are not here lawfully, who shouldn't be able to get jobs in America--would make it more difficult for them to get that job, freeing that position up for unemployed Americans who need to get in the workforce and off the welfare rolls. That is the goal.

We have a huge number of welfare programs. We spend $750 billion a year on means-tested programs to help people who are lower income, and that is 50 percent more than the defense budget, more than Social Security, and more than Medicare. Those programs are not working well. They need to come together in a coherent whole with a unified vision. The vision should be to help people who are in stressful circumstances; help them aggressively, in a practical, realistic way; put them in a job-training program that would allow them to take a job. We could easily do that with the money we are spending now. We would have more Americans working and off the welfare rolls. We would save billions of dollars at the same time. They would make more money, be more fulfilled, have more self-respect, and reduce the budget deficit at the same time.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the unemployment insurance legislation we are currently considering. While we all want to help those who are unemployed, the real solution is to get them a job, is to create a growing economy and more jobs. We need to get this economy going. One way we can do it is by empowering our energy sector.

That does not mean spending more government money. What it means is taking the shackles off billions in private investment that is ready to go into energy development in this country. In 2011, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce commissioned a study. The study took a look at the energy projects that are stalled in this country due to government bureaucracy and redtape.

That study found there are more than 350 energy projects, projects that will both produce renewable energy as well as projects that will produce traditional energy that are stalled at a cost of $1.1 trillion to the American economy, at a cost of almost 2 million jobs for the American people.

I want to take a minute to read from that report:

In aggregate, planning and construction of the subject

projects would generate $577 billion in direct investments,

calculated in current dollars. The indirect and induced

effect, where we apply the multiplier, would generate an

approximate $1.1 trillion increase in U.S. Gross Domestic

Product, GDP, including $352 billion in employment earnings

based on present discounted value over an average

construction period of 7 years.

Furthermore, we estimate that as many as 1.9 million jobs

would be required during each year of construction.

Two million jobs. Many of these projects are still blocked by government redtape and the permitting process. That is why I have introduced a States First All-of-the Above Energy Plan for our country to get these projects going. If you think about it, it just makes sense. The States, after all, are the laboratories of democracy. Let's make them the laboratories of energy for our country.

The right energy plan is about much more than just energy. It means economic growth, it means national security, and it means jobs--jobs for those who are currently unemployed and jobs at a good wage. Today I am offering amendments to the unemployment insurance legislation that will do all of those things.

The first one I wish to talk about for a minute is the Energy Security Act. I am pleased to join with the senior Senator from Wyoming Mr. Barrasso and also our ranking member on the Energy Committee, Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, as well as other cosponsors on the legislation, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, obviously a big energy- producing State, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, and Senator David Vitter of Louisiana.

What the Energy Security Act does, quite simply, is first it approves the Keystone XL project. This is a more than $5 billion pipeline that has been in the permitting process now for more than 5 years. We are now in the sixth year of the permitting process trying to get a permit from the administration. We have thousands of pipelines all across this country, millions of miles of pipeline, and here is a project that for 6 years the administration has held in limbo.

The latest greatest technology moves Canadian oil, our closest ally, Canada, moves oil from Canada as well as oil from my State, North Dakota, and Montana to refineries across the United States. We import 50 percent of our oil. Do Americans want to get that from the Middle East or do they want to produce it here in our country and get it from our closest friend and ally, Canada? That is an obvious answer. That is why in poll after poll, 3 to 1, Americans want this project approved. But it remains in limbo, now in its sixth year of the permitting process on the part of the administration.

So when I talk about those 350 projects, when I talk about $1.1 trillion in GDP, when we talk about almost 2 million American jobs that study performed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce identified, you can see what they are talking about when you talk about this project that has been held up now into the sixth year.

The legislation, the Energy Security Act, would approve that project, but it would also approve the 24 pending applications that would allow us to export LNG, liquefied natural gas, to our allies who need that help. Right now in this country we produce 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year. We consume about 26 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is growing rapidly. Believe me, I know. We are flaring off natural gas in our State that we want to get to market. We need a market for that product. But right now we are not allowed to export liquefied natural gas to countries such as the NATO countries.

Look what is going on in Eastern Europe, such as what Russia is doing in Ukraine. What is next? One of the reasons Russia is able to take that kind of action and the European Union is reluctant to put sanctions in place as a response is because Europe, Ukraine, are dependent on Russia for natural gas for energy. Over one-third of the supply of the EU's energy comes from Russia.

So we have an opportunity here. We can create economic activity. We can create jobs. We can use that natural gas we produce beyond what we need here at home to help our allies and at the same time stand up to Russian aggression. That is why I say this is about jobs. This is about getting our economy growing. But this is also very much about national security, our national security here at home, energy security for our country, but also security working with our allies to stand up against the kind of aggression we see from Russia and from President Putin right now.

In terms of jobs, the Obama administration's State Department, their own State Department, has estimated the Keystone XL Pipeline during the construction phase will create more than 40,000 jobs. That is just that one project, more than 40,000 jobs. If you look at some of the studies, very conservative studies on job creation that will occur by approving these LNG applications, the National Economic Research Associates identifies more than 45,000 jobs that would be created by expediting approval of those permits.

Let me give you two examples so you understand the magnitude of what we are dealing with here. Cheniere Energy wants to invest $11 billion in an export facility at Corpus Cristi, TX. That is not one penny of government spending--not one penny. We have a huge deficit and we have a huge debt. We have got to get on top of it. That means controlling our spending, but that means we have to have economic growth.

So here are companies willing to invest and create jobs and create economic growth and create tax revenues--not raising taxes, creating tax revenue. Why in the world do we hold them up? How does that make sense? How is that common sense? Here we are on an unemployment insurance bill where we are going to spend more government money to pay people who remain unemployed when we could approve these projects and put them back to work at good-paying jobs. Instead of growing the deficit, we could actually create tax revenues from a growing economy-- again, not higher taxes, from a growing economy that helps reduce our deficit and debt.

So the Cheniere Energy project, $1 billion investment facility in Corpus Christi, creates a market for some of the natural gas that is now being flared off, according to the Perryman Group, 3,000 direct construction jobs, far more indirect jobs during the construction phase. Here is another project. Exxon wants to build the Golden Pass LNG facility at Sabine, TX, which is on the border between Texas and Louisiana. That is a $10 billion investment. Perryman Group estimates that between both the direct construction jobs and indirect jobs, on the order of 45,000 jobs for that project during construction, almost 4,000 permanent jobs.

So you can see when we talk about NERA, the National Economic Research Associates, saying, hey, there are going to be 45,000 jobs for these projects, that is a very conservative estimate. It creates so much more--not just good-paying jobs but also a growing economy, cash revenues to help with the deficit and national security, and security working with our allies at a critical time, a critical time in Eastern Europe.

In addition, I have offered other legislation I filed, that I am now offering as an amendment to this unemployment insurance bill--again, legislation that will create jobs and help people get back to work.

The second one I want to mention is the Empower States Act. The Empower States Act gives primary regulatory responsibility to the States when it comes to regulating hydraulic fracturing. The reality is, a Federal one-size-fits-all approach does not work for hydraulic fracturing, because the way hydraulic fracturing is done across this country is different in different States. The way they hydraulically fracture in States, for example, in West Virginia, where they are going after natural gas is very different than the way they do it in North Dakota where we are going after oil. We drill down 2 miles, 2 miles vertical drill bore to reach the oil, and then we drill out for miles at that level.

We produce primarily oil and natural gas--huge amounts of natural gas and gas liquids as a byproduct--but we are miles away from any potable water, which is much closer to the surface, so it is very safe. The water that is produced--both the frack water as well as the water that comes up with that oil and natural gas--we put back downhole through saltwater disposal wells, in essence recycling the water. Anything that can't be reused goes back downhole and that creates a recycling process.

That is different than the way it is done in the Marcellus shale in places such as New York, Pennsylvania, and it is different than the way it is done in West Virginia and different than the way it is done in the Utica shale in Ohio. There are some similarities with the way it is done in Texas in the Eagle Ford, where they also drill for oil.

But the point is, the way this is done, the technologies that are used, even the product we are going after--and certainly the formations are different across the country.

When we put a Federal one-size-fits-all approach in place, it doesn't work. Not only does it not do the job in terms of making sure we have the right kind of regulation, it holds up projects. It prevents job creation. It doesn't allow our economy to grow. It doesn't empower us to produce the energy that could be produced across this country with the right approach, with the right energy plan.

As far as job creation, our State is now the fastest growing State. We have the lowest unemployment, and we have the fastest growing economy, 7.6 percent in the most recent statistic versus a 2.6-percent average for the other States. Again, this is about creating a growing economy. It is about creating jobs.

Also, I am offering the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act legislation I filed as an amendment to this bill. DEJA is a series of bills that has already passed the House. This is all legislation that has already passed the House. So we know if we can get a vote in the Senate, the legislation we can pass in the

Senate has already gone through the House. We are already a huge distance on the journey to getting this done.

What does the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act do? It does exactly what the title says. It reduces the regulatory burden, it sets goals, it helps us produce more energy and create jobs.

For example, we establish an American energy development plan for Federal lands. We have all of these Federal lands--millions and millions of acres of Federal land both onshore and offshore. The Department of Interior should have a plan to develop energy on those public lands, and they should set goals to do so. This legislation would require them to do just that.

We freeze and study the impact of EPA rules on gasoline regulations. That benefits all Americans at the pump, not only small businesses that are looking to hire people but families, all consumers.

We provide onshore oil and gas leasing certainty, meaning that the Department of Interior has to approve the permits within a stipulated, reasonable period of time. It advances offshore wind production. This is about producing renewable energy as well as traditional energy. It streamlines the permitting process. It provides access to the National Petroleum Reserve for development in Alaska. It requires the BLM to hold live Internet auctions. Let's use this new technology to encourage investment in job creation and energy development in new and creative ways.

It establishes rules on surface mining that make sense, commonsense rules. It increases States' revenue sharing for Outer Continental Shelf drilling, offshore drilling, and it also offers lease sales off the Virginia coast.

Clearly, developing these new areas creates revenue for the States, creates revenues for the Federal Government, creates more energy for our country, and creates more jobs--not spending Federal money, investing hundreds of billions of private dollars that are currently sidelined in these new and exciting projects.

Finally, I am offering the stream buffer rule legislation that I filed as a stand-alone bill. I am offering that as an amendment as well to this UI bill. The Department of Interior wants to implement a Federal one-size-fits-all rule for stream buffer zones, meaning mining proximity to rivers and streams. Again, a one-size-fits-all, one-size Federal approach for every situation does not work. Allow the States to take the primary role in regulating the stream buffer zones and let them do what makes sense.

With all of this legislation, we can empower hundreds of billions in private investment. We can put that investment in good old-fashioned American ingenuity into getting our country going, getting our economy growing, and getting our people back to work.

We can do it. The way we can get started is simply by voting. That is what we do in the Senate. That is what we do in this Senate forum. Let us put forward our ideas and let's have a vote. If it passes, we can do these things. But why in the world wouldn't we get a vote? That is what this body is all about. Let's have the debate. Come to the floor and let's have a debate. Let's debate each one of these and a lot more. That is what we do. Then let's vote. That is how we will decide. That is what the American people expect us to do. They sent us to the Senate to do just that.

The question I have is why aren't we voting on these amendments and a lot more if we are serious about getting people back to work? If somebody wants to come down and refute this, come on down, do it, and then let's vote.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today marks the beginning of National Sexual Assault Awareness Month. It comes at a time when Congress is about ready to take up reauthorization of the Justice For All Act--a law that has improved public safety, strengthened victims' rights, and delivered justice all across this country. I am proud to be the lead Republican sponsor of this bill, and I am even prouder of what it has accomplished and what it will continue to accomplish.

Thanks to the Justice For All Act and similar initiatives, law enforcement agencies across America now have greater resources to reduce the

rape kit backlog. I might just explain. A rape kit is, as it sounds, a forensic collection of evidence collected at the scene of a sexual assault. Much to our chagrin, we have learned over time that many of these rape kits--this forensic evidence--is not forwarded to a lab for testing and, thus, the DNA of the assailant is not identified. So we realized that local jurisdictions needed more resources and more guidance and more expertise when it came to testing these untested rape kits because of the incredible evidence it provides, both to acquit people who have been falsely accused of crimes, as well as to identify, indict, and convict serial sexual assailants.

This is sort of unique in many ways because people who commit rape don't just do it one time. Many times they will do it time and time again until they are caught. Worse yet, this is a crime of opportunity. Many times it involves children as well, as we know. So now we know that thanks to the Justice For All Act and similar initiatives which have allowed these rape kits to be taken off the evidence locker shelf and tested, that what has been a national scandal, which has allowed violent criminals to remain on the streets, is now being addressed more and more.

I am not here to suggest that everything that can be done has been done, but it is important for us to make sure these rape kits are tested and to get these serial sexual assailants off the streets and brought before a court of law and justice.

Even a relatively small reduction in the backlog can lead to major gains in public safety and peace of mind. In the city of Detroit, for example, the processing of 1,600 old sexual assault kits, including some from the 1980s, allowed authorities to identify 100 different serial rapists, ten of whom were convicted rapists already. So this is powerful evidence. Incredibly, police sometimes keep this forensic evidence for 20 or 30 years, and it is still susceptible to being tested, and for the rapist to be identified and to be taken out of circulation.

In the city of Houston, meanwhile, a backlog that once reached 6,600 untested rape kits is now in the process of being completely eliminated--thanks, in large part, to the support provided by this legislation.

I wish to take a second to highlight the SAFER Act, which was included in the Violence Against Women Act and which passed just this last year, and the fact that it funded a provision of the Justice For All Act known as the Debbie Smith Act. I have had the pleasure of meeting Debbie Smith for whom this legislation was named, and she has become a tireless advocate for the sorts of reforms and improved funding that are contained in the SAFER Act and in the Justice For All reauthorization.

The SAFER Act mandated that more of the money the Federal Government granted must be used to actually test old rape kits as well as dedicate a portion of that money to inventory--evidence that had been sitting on police evidence locker shelves or had been sent to laboratories but had not yet been tested. This law, passed in 2013, has already played a crucial role in making Federal support available for tackling the rape kit backlog.

I was proud to introduce that legislation and I am proud to sponsor reauthorization of the Justice For All Act. As I said a moment ago, I am enormously gratified and proud of what these laws have helped us accomplish. Upholding victims' rights and keeping dangerous predators off the street are two of the most solemn obligations the government has, and we should never forget it.

With hundreds of thousands of rape kits still untested, we have a long way to go; there is no question about it. It is encouraging to see the progress that has been made. Hopefully, this will encourage us to take even further steps to make sure these untested rape kits are tested and the people who are innocent are vindicated from any charges. But the people who commit serial sexual assault, both against other adults and minors, should be and will be brought to justice.

The Economy

Shifting gears to the economy, I wish to repeat a call I made yesterday and once again urge the majority leader in the context of the legislation we are currently considering to allow Republican ideas for economic growth and job creation to come to the floor for a vote.

I realize President Obama has stubbornly chosen to stick with the same policies that have given us the weakest economic recovery following a recession since World War II. It is also the highest--the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression. Indeed, after promoting the same fiscal and economic strategy for the last 5 years--a strategy that involves higher taxes, more Federal spending, and more debt--the President and his allies seem to see no reason to change course. His proposed budget for 2015, for example, would increase Federal spending by $791 billion. It would also increase taxes by $1.8 trillion over 10 years, and increase our national debt by $8.3 trillion. That is on top of the $17 trillion already--about $56,000 for every man, woman, and child in America.

For those keeping score, the President has already raised taxes by $1.7 trillion during his presidency and increased our national debt by four times that much. In other words, if more taxes and more spending were the path to prosperity for this great Nation, America would be booming, unemployment would be at zero, and our economy would be chugging along, creating new jobs right and left. Instead, the evidence is in. We are experiencing stagnation and mass unemployment. It is said that insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over but somehow expecting a different result. If that is the definition of insanity, then maintaining the current policies of spending, tax, and debt are the definition of insanity.

There has to be a better way, and there is, if only the majority leader would allow the Senate to do what it is supposed to do. This body used to once be known as the world's greatest deliberative body, where we had the great debates on the issues of the time, and then we had a vote, and we all accepted the majority vote in those instances. But now, the new tactic by the majority leader seems to be to bring a bill to the floor without going through a committee where members of that legislative committee are allowed to offer amendments and to get votes on those amendments to help shape the committee product. We don't even do that anymore, and we didn't do that on this underlying unemployment insurance extension bill we will be voting on this week.

So Members of the Republican Conference--the Republican Members of the Senate--have offered 45 amendments, all of which are designed to improve the underlying piece of legislation and not just kick the can down the road. I would think the majority leader and the President of the United States would welcome our efforts to try to improve the underlying legislation--but apparently not.

For example, can't we do a better job, let's say, of directing Federal dollars for workforce training efforts in places such as West Virginia and Texas so that for the good jobs that do exist, we could match the skills of these people who have been unemployed for a long time to those good jobs that pay very well and do exist in abundance. So we have 45 different suggestions and ideas we would like to offer in the spirit of cooperation and trying to do our jobs as Members of the Senate. However, so far, the majority leader has steadfastly and, I might add, stubbornly, pushed for another extension of unemployment insurance without anything else attached that would actually improve workforce training and programs that would upgrade stale skills for people who have been unemployed for a long period of time so they can qualify to do the good-paying jobs that exist.

One of the favorite parlor games here in Washington, DC, is to spin various narratives to explain what is happening in Washington. Sometimes I have heard the majority leader and others say the Republican Party is the party of no. Well, that is a false narrative. We have 45 different amendments that would improve this underlying legislation. We have been shut out and, more importantly, the 26 million people I represent in the State of Texas have been shut out of this debate and this discussion and this effort to come forward with a better product. Isn't that what we are here for?

I mentioned some of these ideas that have been proposed yesterday. For example, I mentioned a bill, sponsored in different forms, by the senior Senator from Maine and the junior Senator from South Carolina that would relieve the burden of ObamaCare, which has been complained about mightily by organized labor and others, that has compelled--or induced, I should say--employers to take 40-hour workweeks and shrink them to 30 hours or less in order to avoid ObamaCare penalties. So this amendment would relieve that burden on workers and businesses by restoring the traditional 40-hour work week. Why wouldn't that be a subject worthy of debate and a vote in the Senate?

I mentioned a separate bill introduced by the junior Senator from South Carolina that would modernize workforce training and eliminate duplicative governmental programs. There are more than 40 different government programs that purport to train people to improve their job skills all across the country.

I have had the chance to visit some of those locations in Texas, and they do a very good job. But rather than have 40-plus different programs, why don't we have 1 or 2 and use the extra money from all that duplication in order to put more money into these programs so they can train more people and get them back to work faster? That is another of the amendments that have been shut out of this process so far.

I also mention legislation sponsored by the senior Senator from Utah and the junior Senator from Kentucky respectively that would eliminate ObamaCare's job-killing tax on medical innovation--something that I believe, if allowed to come for a vote, would receive an overwhelming majority vote on a bipartisan basis in the Senate.

Also, the junior Senator from Kentucky has a piece of legislation that would make it easier for Congress to block major regulations that cannot pass a simple cost-benefit analysis.

Meanwhile, the junior Senator from Wyoming and the senior Senator from North Dakota, whom I see on the floor, have a bill that would expedite the approval of natural gas exports to our NATO partners in Europe and to Ukraine and help relieve that stranglehold Vladimir Putin and Russia have on Europe because they control most of their energy supply. It would also approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, thereby creating thousands of well-paying American jobs and would transport North Dakota oil and Canadian oil all the way down to Texas, where it would be refined into gasoline and jet fuel and create thousands of jobs in the process.

In addition, another amendment that has been offered on this underlying legislation that would help the economy grow and help get people back to work and rein in excessive Federal regulation that is killing jobs--the senior Senator from Oklahoma has a bill that would stop new EPA regulations until--until--the Agency could tell us exactly what the impact of those regulations would be on jobs and the economy.

So most of the ideas I have listed have been submitted as one of these 45 amendments to the underlying unemployment insurance bill. Yet the majority leader, who is the traffic cop on the Senate floor--the rules of the Senate give him complete, 100-percent discretion to decide which amendments are going to get a vote and which will not--the majority leader seems determined to prevent any votes on any of these ideas.

If we are truly serious about job creation and if we are truly serious about doing everything possible to get America back to work-- because of the dignity work provides and the means it provides people to provide for their own families and to pursue their dreams--why on Earth would we deny Members a chance to vote on these job-creating pieces of legislation? Well, unfortunately, I think we got a little bit of a peek into the majority leader's playbook last week when he and others had a press conference upstairs and talked about this agenda they had for the time from the present through the election. And they were pretty candid about it. This is an agenda they dreamed up in conjunction with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The majority leader said as much in his announcement. In other words, this is a political plan by the political arm of the Democratic Senators' campaign committee. So this is not about finding solutions or else the majority leader would welcome these suggestions we have offered.

I would say to the majority leader, do not allow votes on these amendments simply to placate me and others of my political party. Do not do it for us. Do it for the 3.8 million people who have been unemployed for more than 6 months. Do it for them. Do it for the untold numbers of people who have simply given up looking for work. Our labor participation rate--the percentage of Americans actually in the workforce--is at a 40-year low. So it is not only the tragedy of the unemployment numbers that we see reported, it is people who are not reflected in those unemployment numbers because those statistics do not count people who have given up. And that is what the low labor participation rate indicates. These are the people who need our help, and they are the ones who deserve a vote on these constructive suggestions to the underlying piece of legislation. I hope the majority leader will reconsider.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, it is April Fools' Day, but it sure feels more like ``Groundhog Day'' because we are once again here considering an extension of unemployment benefits for the millions of Americans who have been out of work for months, and some of them even for years.

While assistance to those without work serves an important purpose in helping Americans transition, we are failing to address the underlying and more important issue: How do we grow the economy and create jobs for all of our citizens?

A growing economy creates new opportunities for Americans to find meaningful work, and with meaningful work comes an opportunity for Americans to improve their economic security and advance up that economic ladder.

It is one of the reasons Senator Wyden and I started the Economic Mobility Caucus. We wanted to study the facts and explore policy improvements that can make a difference to increase the likelihood that all Americans can do just that--improve their standard of living and move up that economic ladder to a better life.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, their monthly report indicates that 10.5 million Americans are unemployed; 7.2 million Americans are working part time because they cannot find full-time work; 2.4 million Americans want to work but have stopped searching. What a sad circumstance that is for those folks.

Our labor participation rate is hovering around its 35-year low at 63 percent. While those statistics and the lives these numbers represent are pretty discouraging, I want to talk about a piece of good news. We know we can create jobs and we can create a growing economy, and we know from the facts, from the studies, that entrepreneurship, starting a business, giving Americans a chance to pursue the American dream, is the key.

The Kauffman Foundation in Kansas City has studied entrepreneurship. They make clear that most new jobs come from young companies created by entrepreneurs. In fact, since 1980, nearly all of the net new jobs that have been created in our country have been created by companies less than 5 years old. It kind of makes sense. Big businesses often are looking for ways to

cut costs, reduce their workforce. New businesses wanting to succeed increase their workforce. In fact, these new businesses create, on average, 3 million jobs each year.

Unfortunately, the number of new business startups, those business formed each year, are around their lowest total since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began keeping track over 40 years ago. So while we know that startup companies have a great opportunity to create jobs, we are creating the fewest number of startup businesses in nearly 40 years.

A couple of authors, John Dearie and Courtney Geduldig--they are authors of a book called ``Where the Jobs Are''--point out in that book that ``the vital signs of America's job-creating entrepreneurial economy are flashing red alert.'' John and Courtney spent an entire summer traveling the United States. They met with more than 200 entrepreneurs in dozens of cities to learn about the challenges those entrepreneurs are facing.

What they found is no surprise to anybody in this Chamber. They are the same issues I hear when I am back in Kansas. Those who start a business struggle with access to money, to capital to start that business; a lack of skilled talent; a complex Tax Code; a regulatory burden; and, boy, a lot of uncertainty, most of it, much of it, resulting from the action or lack of action here in Washington, DC.

A few years back I set out with a bipartisan group of Senators to address the challenges entrepreneurs face. Together we developed legislation that is now called Startup Act 3.0 to help create a better environment for those whose dream it is to start a new business. The Senate majority leader is frequently talking about allowing votes on legislation that has bipartisan support. This bill, Startup 3.0, is such a bill.

I spent time working with Senator Warner and Senator Coons, Senator King and Senator Klobuchar, as well as Senator Blunt and Senator Rubio. We introduced what I would say is a very commonsense approach to addressing factors that influence an entrepreneur's chance of success: taxes, regulations, access to capital, access to talent.

This legislation has been introduced as an amendment to the unemployment insurance extension bill the Senate is now considering. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have been denied having a vote on what is clearly a job-creating measure. I have offered this as an amendment to other bills on the Senate floor, but if the past is any example of what will happen on this bill, the chances of us being able to offer the amendment, have it considered and voted on, do not look very probable.

Startup 3.0 makes changes to the Tax Code to encourage investment in startups and provides more capital for those who are ready to grow and hire. To address burdensome government regulations, this legislation, now this amendment, requires Federal agencies to determine whether the cost of new regulations outweighs the benefits, and it encourages Federal agencies to give special consideration of the impact proposed regulations would have on a startup business.

As any entrepreneur knows, a good idea is essential to starting a successful business. So Startup 3.0, an amendment now to this bill, improves the process by which information that is funded by Federal research, information that is garnered by Federal research, is more readily available to those who want to start a business, so that tax- funded innovations can be turned into companies that spur economic growth.

Finally, Startup 3.0 provides new opportunities for highly educated entrepreneurial immigrants to stay in the United States where their talent and new ideas can fuel economic growth and create jobs in America.

For more than 2 years, Startup Act 3.0 has earned praise from business owners, from chambers of commerce, from economic development officials, from entrepreneurs, from economists, and elected officials. Recently, the California State Senate passed a resolution calling on Congress to pass Startup Act 3.0. The President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, when it was in existence, had voiced strong support for several of the bill's provisions.

Unfortunately, none of that support from across the country has progressed in the Halls of Congress to see this legislation seriously considered. I can tell you that the reason Congress has not been able to address our economic challenges is not for lack of good ideas. In my view, it is a lack of leadership in the Senate and within the administration, within Washington, DC, to address the challenges Americans face.

There are plenty of good ideas that can provide immediate relief to Americans, many ideas in addition to Startup 3.0. Some of those examples are a 40-hour workweek. The House is poised to pass legislation. Some of my colleagues are proposing amendments here in the Senate to change full-time employment from 30 hours, as outlined in the Affordable Care Act, back to 40 hours.

Small businesses, restaurants, school districts, and community colleges across Kansas and around the country are already cutting hours to comply with the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act. By fixing this provision, we can make certain that hard-working Americans have the opportunity to work more hours, earn a bigger paycheck, or find full-time employment.

Many of us believe--in fact, a large majority of the Senate in a bipartisan way believes--that approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline will help us in two ways: reduce energy costs in the United States, a very important factor in new jobs and expanding the economy, as well as increasing employment during the construction of that pipeline.

A recent poll by Washington Post and ABC News shows that Americans support this 3 to 1. Again 80-some Senators voted in moving forward with the Keystone Pipeline. Yet it has not happened. The President has not made a decision in regard to Keystone Pipeline, has stalled this issue. Nothing in the Senate would suggest the leadership of the Senate is ready to move this ball forward.

The President talks about trade promotion authority, spoke about it in one of his State of the Union Addresses. Yet that is another issue that has not been considered by the Senate. The President apparently has backed off of this issue out of deference to politics. Yet we know--we certainly know this in Kansas--that the airplanes we make in south central Kansas, the wheat we grow in western Kansas, the cattle we grow in our State, that we raise in our State, clearly much of the economic activity that comes from those activities occurs because we are able to sell those agricultural commodities, those manufactured goods around the globe.

Millions of Americans can be better off if there is greater opportunity for what we manufacture, the agricultural products we grow, if they have a wider market. The President and this Congress, particularly the Senate--not this Congress, the Democratic majority here--have focused much of their attention on, for example, the bill we are on, extending the unemployment insurance timeframe, apparently in the near future increasing minimum wage.

Consider these facts. There are 3.6 million Americans at or below the minimum wage level. Minimum wage workers make up 2.5 percent of all workers, and 55 percent are 25 years old or younger. So it is a relatively small portion of the workforce and a young portion of the workforce. I am certainly willing, happy to have a debate about the need to increase the minimum wage, to extend unemployment benefits, in part because I want the Senate to operate.

One of my greatest complaints since my arrival in the Senate is the Senate no longer functions as it has historically, in which issues of importance to the country, whether they are Republican issues, Democratic issues, American issues, middle of the road--this place takes up those issues very rarely. I am willing to have a debate about what is proposed here.

But what I am thinking we are doing is we are missing the real issues if we only deal with those. The minimum wage and extension of unemployment benefits is a symptom of a larger problem. It is that Americans want and need jobs. In my view, this Senate and this President have done nothing to increase the chances that Americans have a better shot at finding a better job.

We have to grow the economy. By growing the economy--I think that

sounds like something that is far removed from the everyday lives of Americans. But growing the economy simply means we are creating greater opportunities for American men and women, for husbands and wives, for sons and daughters, for families to have the opportunity to pursue a career they feel comfortable in, that is satisfactory to their economic needs, and gives them the hope they can improve their lives financially.

So growing the economy is about creating a greater opportunity for every American to pursue what we all have grown up calling the American dream. Unfortunately, the facts, if you believe the Congressional Budget Office, indicate that raising the minimum wage will increase unemployment. In fact, the numbers I saw--this was not the CBO score, but a Texas university study indicated that raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour or more would reduce jobs in my home State by 27,300 jobs.

I doubt that voters care much about CBO reports or about a Texas university study, but they are acutely aware--they see it every day in their own lives--of the lack of opportunity, the dearth of jobs, the reduction in hours, the reduction in opportunity. These reports make clear they are happening because of failed policies and the refusal of the Senate and the President to address the broader issue of what can we do to create jobs for Americans.

I thought the message of the 2010 election, the election where I was brought to the Senate on behalf of Kansans--I thought the message that we all would have, should have received, the message of the election, was the desire for every American to have the chance to improve their lives through a job, through a better job, and through a secure job. In my view, it is time for us to focus on growing the opportunities for all workers everywhere.

With a willing Congress, including leaders who understand these challenges and are willing to address them, I am certain we can create greater opportunities for millions of Americans, including those who no longer or who currently have no meaningful work. The lack of a job is terrible. I think there is a certain moral component, a sense of well- being, a sense of who we are as human beings when we have a job that not only fulfills us financially but gives us a sense of purpose in our daily lives.

As the Senate considers a short-term extension of unemployment insurance, we must not lose sight of that longer term goal of creating an environment for job creation. Again, I would offer Startup Act 3.0, a bipartisan amendment, a bipartisan piece of legislation offered as an amendment, as an opportunity to do that, as part of the consideration of the extension of unemployment benefits. There is no better way to create jobs than to support entrepreneurs and to foster the development of new businesses.

Small business is, as we always say, the backbone of American jobs. So let's stop having this ``groundhog day'' moment every few months and let's start tackling the challenges that entrepreneurs across the country are telling us about, that Americans are telling us about, that we learned in the 2010 election mean so much to every American.

Unfortunately, this President and this Senate have done nothing to improve the chances that every American has a better job and a brighter future. Please, this is so important. There is so much we can do. Too many times we focus on what we are unable to agree upon. But there is so much we can agree upon, so many things we can do. The American dream depends upon us doing so and doing so now.

I yield the floor.

I commend my colleague, the Senator from North Dakota, not only for his leadership on so many energy initiatives, but for the proposal he has put forth this afternoon.

I am pleased to be able to join him in support of those various measures--measures that, as he has outlined, will not only as a nation allow us to move forward and take that leadership role, which we so rightly have and should use as something to benefit not only ourselves and our economy, jobs within the Nation, but to benefit other nations. The proposal he has advanced--again, that I am pleased to join him on-- is one that allows for incredible jobs and opportunities with the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, provisions that will allow for expedited processing of our LNG exports.

It recognizes, again, that when we produce more in this country--when we produce more of a resource that not only allows us to be more energy secure, but that also helps our friends and allies around the world, it also helps to truly effectively reduce the cost of that energy to American consumers.

How can this possibly be a negative? How can this possibly be bad when it adds to jobs, when it strengthens our economy, and when it makes us more secure as a nation.

There are many win/wins that we see in these energy proposals we have in front of us that Senator Hoeven has offered. But, again, if we only have an opportunity to kind of talk aloud about them but never actually have the chance to move them forward through a legislative process so they can actually become law so we can actually see those benefits play out, it doesn't do us much good.

I appreciate what my colleague has outlined this afternoon through his proposals. I know we will have an opportunity to speak further to them tomorrow, and I look forward to doing that as well.

King Cove

I want to take 5 minutes in this late afternoon to continue to educate not only my colleagues but folks within this administration and around the country about an injustice that continues to unfold in a small corner of my State, a very remote part of my State in southwestern Alaska for the small community of King Cove. There are about 950 people who live in King Cove.

I have been fighting since I came to the Senate, and before I came my father took up this fight, in an effort to get a small connector road, a small 10-mile, one-lane gravel, noncommercial-use road that will allow the people of King Cove access to an all-weather airport so they can get out in the event of medical emergencies.

We had another one last night. I had an email saying the weather had completely taken over in the gulf in King Cove, and there was an emergency call that went out. It was for a 58-year-old fisherman who had been injured. He had been out on a Seattle-based processor called the M/V Golden Alaska.

This fisherman happened to live in Seattle, and he was onboard this boat. They were out near Unimak Island, which is out toward the chain in the North Pacific, when this fisherman was accidentally sprayed with a high-pressure hose and it severely injured his eye. It was 1 a.m. when this incident happened.

We have this big vessel, a big processing vessel of 305 feet, heading from Dutch Harbor to Seattle when the accident happened. I don't have a map with me, but if we can envision, there is a lot of big, wide-open ocean, and medical care is a long way away. This fisherman couldn't wait for that medical care. The closest deepwater port was King Cove.

King Cove got the word that they had an injured fisherman onboard and they said: Look, our clinic can't handle somebody who has critical needs. See if you can take the boat over to Cold Bay so that not necessarily he can get medical care, he could get on an aircraft out of Cold Bay that could fly him the 600 miles or thereabouts to Anchorage for the medical care he needed. But the problem they faced was they had wind gusts of up to 60 miles per hour. They had rough seas, very rough seas.

The ship's captain said: I am not going into Cold Bay. I am not going to try to hoist a man who has been severely injured in his eye--I am not going to try to hoist him up a 20-foot ladder at the Cold Bay dock. We are not going to do that.

So they went into King Cove, a safer, more protected cove, and they were able to get the gentleman there at 11:30 a.m. The physician's assistant--we don't have a doctor in King Cove, we have a PA, somebody who basically does a good job in stabilizing folks. She contacted the emergency room in Anchorage.

The ER folks said: Look, you have to get this guy to an ophthalmologist as

soon as you possibly can in order to preserve as much of his eyesight as possible.

As I mentioned, not only does King Cove not have a doctor, they don't have any kind of a eye specialist. The nearest ophthalmologist is in Anchorage, more than 600 miles away.

The PA, Katie Eby, did what health professionals at the clinic always do in an emergency like this. She calls for help to our Coast Guard. She begs the Coast Guard to come. The Coast Guard says they will come, but they can't come now. They can't chance the weather to get in there. They are not going to risk a pilot and his crew to get into this situation where we unnecessarily put even more lives at risk. They said: Look, we are going to have to wait until the conditions improve and the winds die down. So the physician's assistant tries to stabilize the fisherman, manage his pain as best she can and basically she waits, holding the hand of a man and telling him the Coast Guard will come.

The Coast Guard did finally make it in around 3 in the afternoon the next day. So this injured fisherman waited 13 hours for the winds to settle.

The problem with this story, of course, is there were other alternatives for this fisherman who had been injured, who had to wait in pain wondering if he was going to go blind, if he was going to completely lose his eyesight while he was waiting for the Coast Guard helicopter to come in, to pluck him out, to fly him over to Cold Bay, and have a flight take him to Anchorage. The other alternative--the safe, reliable, affordable way out is a 10-mile, one-lane, gravel, noncommercial-use road. If that fisherman could have been put in an ambulance and taken across that road, a dozen hours could have been spared.

Yesterday's medevac marks the fifth medevac by the Coast Guard in this current year. In 2014, we have had five Coast Guard medevacs. Keep in mind, each one of these medevacs costs around $210,000 per flight. So for those who are saying we can't have a road in King Cove because it is going to cost the taxpayers money, it is costing the taxpayers money because we are footing the bill for the Coast Guard.

Thank goodness the Coast Guard is there. But we are also putting the lives of these men and women--our fine coasties--at risk when we are doing this. If we had a road, who is building the road? It is the State of Alaska. Who is maintaining the road? It is the Aleutians East Borough. This is not the U.S. taxpayer who is paying for this, again, 10-mile, one-lane, gravel, noncommercial-use road.

There are options here. But the Secretary of the Interior has determined she wants to look at other options. She wants to find other alternatives. The fact of the matter is we have been looking at alternatives for a long time now, and those alternatives have been tried and failed or studied and reviewed and discarded.

But the one thing we are pretty sure of is that this fisherman from Seattle who was injured and had to wait 13 hours to get out--we are pretty sure we could have put him on an ambulance across that road--if one existed--and he would not have had to wait for 12 hours.

We are pretty sure that the 63-year-old woman who suffered heart issues on Valentine's Day and had to wait hours and hours for the Coast Guard to pluck her out of King Cove before she was able to safely make it to the hospital in Anchorage, we are pretty sure she could have been spared some of that agony.

We are pretty sure that a couple of weeks ago when a father who had been crushed by a 600-pound crab pot--his pelvis crushed and his legs broken--that for hours and hours and hours he waited in the King Cove clinic to get medevaced out, and of the fact that his infant son, a 1- month old baby named Wyatt who was there in respiratory distress also had to be medevaced out on the same day, only that baby had to make it through the night in the arms of the physician's assistant, and the PA knowing and feeling the infant was in distress and actually feeling him stop breathing.

If we had a road in place, with the agony of not only the individuals who have been injured but the loved ones who care about them, there are better alternatives, and, it is very clear to me, alternatives that work for the people who live there and the people who are in the area-- the fishermen.

Maybe I am taking this a little too personally because my oldest son crabbed in the Bering Sea this winter. He was out in those waters. He was out in that foul weather. He was working in a very dangerous industry. Anybody who has ever watched ``Deadliest Catch'' knows what I am talking about. Both my sons fish in these areas. They go through the Gulf of Alaska. They go through Nunivak Pass every year as fishermen. If something should happen to them or to somebody else on their crew, and the closest deepwater port for them happened to be King Cove but the weather was to the ground, I want a road for them.

I want a road for the people in King Cove. I want a road for the Seattle fisherman who is transiting back. It is a lifeline. It is a way to get to help. Right now, the one thing keeping these people from getting help is the Secretary of the Interior because she has concluded that we cannot build a 10-mile, one-lane, gravel, noncommercial-use road without disturbing the waterfowl, the black brant, and the geese that go through the Izembek.

We have all heard my story on this many times before. We know we can build this small road and have it coexist peacefully with the birds that go through there. We know the people who live there will continue to care for the waterfowl and the wildlife just as they have for thousands of years.

I don't want to keep coming to the floor and ranting about why we need this road. I don't want to make it appear we are sensationalizing the injuries of men, women, and children for the purpose of winning this fight. But I am not going to have somebody die out there when we could have found a safer and saner path forward.

So I am going to keep coming to the floor. I hope the Secretary of the Interior is listening, that folks in the administration are listening, and that they understand we in Alaska can be responsible for the lands where we live, and we can provide for the health and safety of those who are out there and those who are transiting through. But we need this Secretary to do the right thing for the people of the State of Alaska and provide for a life-saving road.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.