A bill to authorize the award of the Medal of Honor to James C. McCloughan for acts of valor during the Vietnam War.

Reserving the right to object.

Madam President, I am seeking clarification. Is the Senator from California asking that these respective Members have an opportunity to speak to amendments or to get their amendments pending?

Mr. President, again, I am seeking clarification here, because up until this point in time, what we have done, in order to get amendments pending, is the ranking member and I have kind of worked back and forth in terms of what it was that would come up as far as pending.

As far as Members just seeking to speak to amendments, I certainly do not have a problem with what the Senator from California has proposed. I am trying to get some other understanding. I was also--my understanding is that I had the time beginning at 5:15 p.m. reserved. I think there is a little bit of confusion here.

Mr. President, again, I am trying to understand. If Members just want to speak to their amendments, there is not a problem with what the Senator has suggested. It is just the question of whether we are getting amendments pending, because we have been going back and forth, side to side, up to this point in time.

I will be happy to put the microphone down and let the Senator from California speak to her amendment while Senator Cantwell and I talk about how we get more amendments pending. That way she can get talking.

There continues to be objection. I would like to meet with the ranking member to continue a process of back-and-forth to make amendments pending. I have no objection to the Senator from California speaking to her amendment at this time.

I object.

Objection.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls related to the cloture motions on Senate amendment No. 2 and S. 1 be waived.

Mr. President, we are here this evening, after the conclusion of two cloture votes where we have failed to get the sufficient 60 votes that are required to cut off debate and move forward on this bill.

As the floor manager, I will be working with my counterpart on the energy committee, Senator Cantwell, to define a list of amendments and define the universe we are talking about. Perhaps we can work toward an agreement that will allow for additional amendments to be processed and ultimately allow us to get to passage of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

This measure, S. 1, is a bipartisan measure that will work to create jobs for this country and will not only help with our relationship with our friends and allies to the north but is also widely supported by the American public. I am hopeful that what we will be able to do tonight-- by working with colleagues--is to again define how we will get to the final resolution of this very important bill.

Last week we saw this measure include several important energy efficiency bills--including the adoption of the measure of the Senator from Ohio--particularly the one provision that relates to water heaters, which is very time sensitive. We were also able to add two sense-of-the Senate provisions to S. 1. One provision relates to the oil spill liability trust fund and the other provision is related to the issue of climate change.

Here we are, more than 2 weeks into debate on the Keystone XL Pipeline, and we voted on a total of 24 amendments to the bill. We voted on more amendments last week than we did in all of 2014. In fact, Thursday was a long day for all of us. We moved out 15 amendments, and that was as many as we had voted on in all of 2014. In 2014, this Senate voted on 15 amendments. This past Thursday, we voted on 15 amendments in one day on this Keystone bill. We are now up to 24 amendments, and we have made some progress.

I am very aware that not everyone is fully happy with where we are right now. We hit our first bump in the road--back to regular order-- but that is the way we have to roll with some things every now and again. I hope we are at the point where we will be able to get back on track, a track that will allow for again closure of this very important measure.

I wish to remind Senators that we are in this place where we had to vote on cloture because we got to a point last week where a unanimous consent request to vote on the then-pending 12 amendments was blocked. I will also remind colleagues that invoking cloture on a bill does not end all debate. We still have up to 30 hours of additional debate time left, and during that time amendments that are germane to the underlying bill can still be called up, considered, and voted on. We have quite a few of those left.

In fact, at last count the amendments that have been filed to date-- there are 143 amendments that I have on my tally today that have been filed. I don't know if that is a current, up-to-the-minute accounting. We asked Members to have their amendments in by 3 this afternoon and second-degrees filed by 5 p.m. My point to colleagues is that there is still much to be done with this bill if your interest is voting on amendments.

I wish to repeat something that the majority leader commented on when we came into session just a little bit ago. We were on this bill just 2 months ago, and at that time there was a grand total of zero amendments that we voted on--zero. So now, as I mentioned, we have at least three that have been incorporated into the bill already--two sense of the Senate, one on climate, one on the oil spill liability trust fund, and one on energy efficiency. Again, there are some 140 to 150 amendments that have been filed.

I am glad we have this process going on. I am glad to see these amendments. For those who suggest that somehow or other the majority is closing down the opportunity for debate or to offer amendments, all we need to do is look where we were 2 months ago. Two

months ago this bill had zero amendments. Fast forward to today, and we have had votes on 24 amendments to this bill. We have adopted at least 3 of those amendments, and again there are some 140-odd amendments that are out there.

I want us to get through this measure, and I wish to do so in a way that is respectful to the process, respectful to Members, and that dignifies this institution. We have a lot out there, and I recognize that.

I have had Members from both sides of the aisle ask me: How do I get my amendment pending? How do I get it to the point so it can considered? We will be working on that issue tonight and into the morning.

I thank my colleague from Washington because I do think we have truly been trying to work in good faith.

My colleague from North Dakota has a few words on the process, and then I would like to reclaim my time for just a few more moments, if I may.

With that, I turn the floor over to the Senator from North Dakota.

I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his leadership on this issue. He has been persistent, diligent, and very articulate as we have moved through the process, and I appreciate that a great deal.

I thought I was going to be spending the vast majority of my time this week going through each of these many amendments that Members have presented. As I mentioned, we have 140-plus amendments. But my attention on Keystone and the issues in front of us was dramatically pulled away because of an announcement by the administration which I learned of late on Friday evening, and which was the first announcement today.

The fact is I am not in a very good mood right now. I am not in a very good mood, and I think it is probably true to say that most Alaskans are not in a very good mood, because folks back home woke up Sunday morning to the news that this President effectively declared war on our economic future in the State of Alaska.

I know those are pretty hard words. It has been suggested by some in the administration that perhaps I am overreacting. Let me tell my colleagues, when our economic opportunities as a State, which lie in our natural resources, are denied us as a State and the promises that were made when we entered the Union--the compact we made--we are now not able to see those promises, then there is nothing else. There is no other way to describe it than that it is a war on our economic future.

We have winter going on in Alaska right now. In my hometown where I went to high school, I think it was about 30 below this weekend. Up on the North Slope, temperatures are about 60 degrees below zero. It is pretty cold.

The President, in his video where he made his announcement that he is moving to put the Arctic Coastal Plain in de facto wilderness, described the area in the North Slope as fragile, that the wildlife is fragile. I will tell my colleagues, the area in the coastal plain, the area in ANWR is an amazing place. It is a special place, as are so many places in Alaska. It is an amazing place. I am blessed to call it home. But the President decided on Sunday that this was the perfect day to announce his unilateral decision to manage the Arctic Coastal Plain as de facto wilderness.

Now the coastal plain--and I don't have my maps, but we are going to be seeing a lot of maps of Alaska and ANWR coming up here. The coastal plain is the area on the very northern part of the State, and it is part of the nonwilderness portion of ANWR. People need to understand that ANWR is a huge area. It is 19.7 million acres. It is an area the size of the State of South Carolina. There are portions of ANWR that have been designated as wilderness and they were designated as wilderness back in 1980, along with other areas in the State of Alaska that were designated as wilderness. In fact, so much wilderness--close to 60 million acres of wilderness designated in 1980--so much so that there is actually a provision in the law, in ANILCA, that says, that is enough. Alaska has given enough, in the sense that more than half of the wilderness area in the United States of America is in Alaska. That is, Alaska has more than half of all of the other wilderness in all of the remaining 49 states. Alaska has more than half. So the sense was there will be no more wilderness declarations in Alaska. Yet, the President announces Sunday that, in addition to the coastal plain, effectively all of the balance of ANWR will be managed as wilderness.

So what does this mean to a State such as Alaska? Again, history is going to be important in this discussion going forward because the area in the coastal plain--the 1002 area--and it is designated as such because of a section in the law--the coastal plain was specifically set aside in 1980 for further study of its oil and gas potential. So a decision was made back in 1980 where we had more than 100 million acres in Alaska that were turned into Federal law, but it was recognized that this area--that 1.57 million acres--was unique because of its resource potential. It was identified in law as such. And it said, We are going to reserve this. We are going to study it for its oil and gas potential.

Then, in the 1980s, the Reagan administration did just that. They studied the coastal plain and they recommended that it be open to responsible energy development. Ever since then we have been seeking permission to open up just 2,000 acres on the coastal plain for that very purpose--for oil and gas exploration.

We are not talking about opening up the full coastal plain. We are not talking about touching any of the area that was designated as wilderness in 1980. We are talking about a development that would have an impact on an estimated surface area of 2,000 acres in a 1.57-million acre area that has been set aside specifically for this.

So when we think about what that means, we learn that 2,000 acres is .1 percent of the entire 1002 area. It is .01 percent of ANWR. When we put it into context, 99.9 percent of ANWR would remain untouched if all we were seeking to do was to access the 2,000 acres.

We also know that if we were able to access this small area within the coastal plain that we can gain access to an

estimated 10.3 billion barrels of oil. If we produce oil at that rate of 1 million barrels a day, it will last almost 30 years.

Right now we have an oil pipeline in Alaska, the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline, which bisects the State 800 miles from the North Slope down to Valdez, and it has been doing a fine job of providing resource to the country in an environmentally sound and safe manner. It is an engineering miracle. It is fabulous. What it lacks right now is more oil in the pipe. We are less than half full. So the State of Alaska is being aggressive in looking for how we might not only fill up the pipe to help Alaska and to help the country and to bring about jobs and bring about revenues, but how we can do so in a responsible manner.

We think we have some pretty high standards in Alaska, and we need to. This is extreme environment. It is tough working there right now, let me tell my colleagues. They don't shut down because it is cold. In fact, this is the only time of the year they can explore out there, because the environmental safeguards are such that we can't take exploration rigs out on the tundra in the summer where it might leave a mark. No. We wait until it is the coldest, the darkest, and the ground is frozen as far as it possibly can. So this is the time of year that we are hoping to be able to do more.

But what this President is doing is not only saying no to that 2,000 acres we are seeking to access that will be bringing us a million barrels a day, potentially, for 30 years and allowing for jobs and a resource--no to that 2,000 acres--he would say no forever. He would not only say no to oil and gas development, but no to anything else. No road, no airstrip, no nothing.

The President is saying the Congress has to make this decision, and in fairness, that is true. It is only the Congress that can make that decision to convert the coastal plain to permanent wilderness. But the reality is he has made this decision, and he has made it without us. What happens under this comprehensive conservation plan--this CCP--this area is now immediately treated as wilderness, with or without our approval. So that designation may not be there, but how is it being treated? It is being treated as wilderness.

I would assert this is in clear violation of the ``no more wilderness'' clause--the ``no more'' clause in ANILCA. It is so frustrating. It is so infuriating to think that we acknowledged that some 30 years ago, when ANILCA was passed, and that recognition--when so much of the State of Alaska was put off limits to any form of development, to place it in wilderness status and to have the Federal Government agree that we had done our part, that we had contributed enough of our lands.

The Presiding Officer is from a State that has wide open spaces. What do we do as a State if we have so much of our State--66 percent of the State of Alaska that is federally held? And we all know there are different aspects to Federal public lands. BLM lands mean something, Park Service means something, refuge status means something, and wilderness status means something else altogether. So when we acknowledged and the Federal Government acknowledged no more in Alaska, we thought that would be respected. We thought that might be respected. But, apparently, this President is going to choose to ignore it.

My colleagues can tell this is an argument and a debate I feel very strongly about, and I feel very strongly about it because I have been living with it my entire adult life. For as long as I can remember, we have been talking about how might it be possible to look into these extraordinary reserves and resources that we know are in the 1002 area. There have been highs and there have been lows. Back in 1995, when it was my father and Ted Stevens who were working this issue, they were able to successfully get it through the Congress only to have it vetoed by President Clinton. And then 10 years later, it was Senator Stevens and myself who were able to get it so close; we were one vote shy in the Senate. The House has passed ANWR, I believe Congressman Young told me today, on 12 separate occasions. Now we are back yet another 10 years later. So maybe this is an issue that keeps coming back every 10 years.

This wasn't the worst part of the news I was dealing with this weekend. At the same time I was given a heads-up that the administration was going to be releasing this CCP--this comprehensive conservation plan that will treat ANWR as wilderness--I was told that we are going to see the announcement of the administration's 5-year lease/sale plan. That is substantial for us. As folks know, we have been trying to advance the leases that have been sold in the Beaufort and in the Chukchi for some period of time, and it has been a tortured process, as many people know. But what we are told is that with the lease/sale that will be announced, portions of the Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi Sea will be indefinitely withdrawn from the next 5-year plan for the Outer Continental Shelf which, again, is due to be released.

I think it is important to know we have had deferrals off of our coasts in the Beaufort and the Chukchi, but these are no longer going to be deferrals. They are going to be withdrawals, which means that not only will they not be included in this lease sale from 2017 to 2022, but they will stay in place until such time--it is an indefinite withdrawal--as the next President, whoever he or she may be, should decide to change it. It is different than a withdrawal.

What it then says to us is, okay, no, we are going to lock up ANWR permanently so that the resources that may be available to you--as much as a million barrels a day coming down through your pipeline to supply this country--no, put that off limits, and, oh, the offshore you want to try to advance, we are going to make it a little more difficult because we are going to take these areas and we are not going to include them in this 5-year lease sale. In fact, we are going to indefinitely withdraw them.

This could have significant impact on our ability to access the estimated 23 billion barrels of oil of Alaska's North Slope. Again, when we are talking about how we are going to fill up that pipeline, we have been working toward those opportunities offshore. But there is a third gut punch to Alaska that is coming--a third.

Remember, all these were supposed to be unveiled this week. What a week.

First, close off ANWR permanently.

Second, make the offshore that much more difficult.

And third is in the area where all those who said no to wilderness, go over to the National Petroleum Reserve, that is where you should be accessing this oil. Well, okay, that is where folks are going. ConocoPhillips is trying to access some leases in the National Petroleum Reserve. These are leases that were awarded in 1998, so more than a few years to be working through all of the issues here.

What we learned was that the terms and conditions of the mitigation that are going to be required by the Department of the Interior to allow Conoco to proceed with the alternative that would allow for a short road to access the pad, those mitigation costs and other requirements are going to be so much that the project will no longer be economic.

Think about it. Years in the process and the permitting and the cost that goes into it, years to get there.

I don't think most people know--do you realize how much oil is produced on Federal lands in Alaska? It is a real easy answer because it is a big fat zero. There is none. There is no oil that is produced on Federal lands. We have been trying to make it happen.

We have been going to the National Petroleum Reserve because we have been put off limits with ANWR. It hasn't been made permanent wilderness. We haven't been able to access it because that too takes permission from Congress. So the whole area where our State has these resources--these reserves, ANWR to the east, Beaufort, Chukchi offshore, National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska--what this administration is doing is saying this ``all of the above'' strategy for an energy plan for America, we are starting to think in Alaska that means everybody but Alaska.

I just can't articulate the anger, the frustration. As I tried to convey my thoughts to the Secretary, I said, I am just not sure if this administration doesn't care about Alaska and its people at all or whether you even think of us. But I have come to the conclusion that they still view us as a territory, a

place where you could come in and do what you will because you are a territory. Well, we are not a territory. We are 1 of the 50 States. We are one of those stars on that flag. Last time I checked, we had just as many rights as any other star on that flag.

What is coming at my State and the arrogance with which this administration is treating us is unacceptable, and it will not stand. Everybody wants to know, what are you going to do about it? What are you going to do about it? I am going to make sure that people understand who we are, that people understand that there are human beings who live in the 1002 area. You are going to take an area and declare it wilderness. People live there. Children go to school there. Yes, we actually have a polar bear watch to make sure the kids don't leave their homes early in the morning to go to school when it is still dark, and there might be a polar bear out there.

Things are different in Alaska, but we still live there. We still want a quality of life for the people that is not unlike what we would have here. We don't want to have communities where we still have no sanitation facilities, where people are hauling their human waste in a bucket in the corner of the house and dumping it in a lagoon. We don't want to be in that situation. But you know what, it seems as though we have to get permission to do anything, and that permission is routinely denied. Or if it is denied, they delay it indefinitely so that it adds to your cost.

We pay more for our energy. We pay more to keep warm in the State of Alaska than you do anywhere else. You might say, of course, it is colder up there. You know, back here it is going to be cold in New York. There is nobody in New York who is paying $10 a gallon for fuel like the people in Kobuk are paying. There is nobody in Massachusetts who is going to get hit by this storm and it is going to be cold and is paying $7.50 for fuel like the people in Fort Yukon are paying.

We live there because we want to live in Alaska. It is an amazing place. We make a lot of sacrifices. But one of the sacrifices that we won't make, one of the things we will not give up, is to be treated like some second-class citizens, to be treated like a territory that has no rights. So when we are full participants and we say there are special places in Alaska that should be wilderness--and we signed off on that in 1980--then negotiate with us. Talk to us about what happens next.

But I made the statement--again, it is harsh words, but I have suggested that this administration is one that is willing to negotiate with Iran, but they are not willing to negotiate with Alaskans. Those days are over. Those days are over.

We have some issues to deal with in front of us right now as we move through the legislation in front of us. We have been focused on energy for a good couple of weeks-plus now. I am glad of that. I am glad we are going to be able to work through a process where we can move through some of these amendments. But know that the words I have spoken tonight on the floor are words that come from my heart as an Alaskan.

This is not about politics. This is not about me being able to wield some muscle because I have the gavel in the interior appropriations committee. This is about Alaska as a State and our rights as a State. This is about a compact that was made with the State of Alaska, about how we would be able to use and access our lands, how we would be able to care for the people who call Alaska home. This is pure passion that drives my comments, and my comments will be echoed not only by the full Alaska delegation, as small as we are, but by our Governor, by our legislature, by our elected officials, by people who live all around the State, including the people who live in the coastal plain in ANWR.

This is serious, and Alaskans are going to take this very seriously. You will be hearing a lot more from us.

With that, I thank my colleagues for the indulgence of time.

I yield the floor.

Point of inquiry: Do I understand that the Senator from Rhode Island wishes to make his amendment pending or just speak to the amendment?

Mr. President, I do know the Senator from Washington and I were hoping to get a plan and a proposal for colleagues so that they would better understand how we might proceed tomorrow. And because we haven't had that opportunity to do that as of yet, I would like the chance to consult with Senator Cantwell here. My concern is that if we start getting all these amendments pending right now before we reach some kind of a path forward, it could get complicated.

Mr. President, I know our colleague from Delaware is wishing to speak. If I may just proceed to do the closeout and he would be able to speak after that.

I was going to give some comments in addition to my colleague from Alaska about the process and where we are and respond to some of the comments she has made. If the Senator from Rhode Island could wait a few minutes, is that possible?

I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. We are here tonight because we haven't ended debate on the Keystone Pipeline bill. We haven't ended debate because our colleagues voted to not end debate on this important measure, and I think for good reason.

Our colleagues from both sides of the aisle got to offer amendments last week, to discuss them, and have a chance to vote on them. I would say this is a very different process from what happened in December, where basically an up-or-down vote was going to be given on a process.

So I am glad my colleagues--like from Michigan where they had a major tar sands spill in their State--who want to offer amendments on pipeline safety can do so. I want my colleagues to be able to offer amendments as it relates to security and safety, particularly when it relates to safe drinking water and the issues of the pipeline.

Since this bill has been introduced, two major pipeline spills have been discovered. So just within the time we have been on this bill, 3 million gallons of brine spilled from a pipeline in North Dakota. That was discovered on January 6, the same day we started with this bill being introduced.

On Friday North Dakota officials discovered that the contamination from the spill reached the Missouri River. So on January 17, 30,000 gallons of oil were spilled into the Yellowstone River, a different incident, from a pipeline that broke in Eastern Montana. It temporarily shut down drinking water services for 6,000 people in Glendive, MT. So you bet these issues are important to me, and they are important to my colleagues. I hope we do not have to rush through the process of having a vote on these amendments. I think all of my colleagues see the Thursday night event, where the discussion was, let's get four or five amendments or six pending amendments and then coming back 1 hour later to table them is not the kind of legislative process we are used to here.

I hope in the next couple of days my colleague and I can work on these in a much more productive fashion, with the list of amendments that Members want to offer and a timely way to debate them. Hopefully my colleague from Alaska and I could actually work

with our colleagues, and either get some of them accepted or work for a vote schedule that would actually allow us to have the vote and have the debate as opposed to tabling.

This Senator is not arguing that any side does not have a right to table an amendment. I am simply saying: I think colleagues want to know what the process is going to be and whether they can discuss this.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a story that is about one of those pipeline spills. It is about the Federal Government issuing warnings to the pipeline company in November about the concerns regarding those spills.

To me this is an issue where we have had some debate about the pipeline and the oilspill liability trust fund. I would hope we would come back to that issue because these issues about spills and safety and security should be part of the debate. But I go back to the larger issue which is I hope we turn down this legislation overall.

To me all of the issues we are talking about, whether it is about safe drinking water, whether it is about oilspills and the requirements on these companies or if it is about whether TransCanada can take U.S. property under eminent domain or whether it is about the route itself, all of these questions in my mind are premature for us, the Congress, to decide.

Over 60 percent of the American people say they want this pipeline decided in a normal process. They want the State Department, in this instance because it crosses a border, to be the entity that determines national interest. So I do not want to predetermine that when there are so many important issues to be negotiated. The very company that wanted to negotiate with the State Department on this pipeline was negotiating some of the original routing. Yet at the very time the State Department was telling them the original routing would not work, they were here trying to persuade Members to vote for the authority to override the President and to give that routing, which we now know was flawed.

I do not want to be premature about this. I do not want to be premature about cutting off debate. I want to get to these amendments before us and get the bill done with the input of my colleagues, given that the debate was brought up to the floor.

If you ask me what I want to debate, I would be debating some other legislation because I do not think this bill is going to be signed by the President of the United States.

I would be debating energy tax policy on clean energy items. I would be debating other things that I think would be impacting more our energy strategy for the future, our economy, and job creation. I think there are a lot of those out there. I hope my colleague from Alaska and I, once this debate is over with, will be able to sit down and talk about these issues, in a bipartisan fashion, and work with the committee.

In 2007, we passed the Energy Independence and Security Act out of the energy committee on a bipartisan basis. It was landmark legislation that unleashed a lot of investment. It unleashed investment in making sure we had higher fuel efficiency cars in our country, which was good for the consumer because they got a car that got more mileage. It made investments in things such as the smart grid and other energy infrastructure.

I hope that is what we will get back to, because when I look at what is happening--I know my colleague from Alaska just talked about some of these issues as it related to Alaska. I know she means what she says when she says she is speaking from the heart and working hard for Alaskans. I visited Alaska with her and my colleague, then-Senator- from-Alaska Mark Begich. I visited many parts of Alaska.

I understand. Alaskans want to have an economic opportunity. They want their energy to be cheaper. I would say I am empathetic to the issue because we have five refineries in the State of Washington. We are the fifth largest refining State in the Nation. A lot of our oil comes from Alaska. So I can tell you that people in the Northwest are furious that even though we have those refineries--so a lot of refining capacity and the oil comes from Alaska--we still have some of the highest gas prices in the Nation. Many times we have asked for various investigations about why we have the highest gas prices in the Nation and why this issue continues to plague us.

I know my colleague, when she speaks about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or ideas about more drilling, that it is about getting more oil supply. But more oil supply from Alaska has not helped Washington consumers have cheaper gasoline prices.

So I want to continue to diversify our economy off of fossil fuels and onto other things. I hope we will get a chance to work on an energy bill that does that. If I could just address for a couple of minutes the issue of the President's decision to move forward on a plan that would help preserve the Arctic wildlife refuge as wilderness. My colleague from Alaska mentioned this issue is something that has been going on for some time. She is right.

The predecessors that she and I--the former chair of the energy committee, Scoop Jackson, and the former late Senator Ted Stevens-- everybody has

been a part of this. I actually was here at a pretty dramatic floor debate on this issue in 2005, in which some people wanted to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, even to the degree that they put that as a rider on the Defense bill. We were able to stop that. I think that was the will of Congress, that they did not want to see drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

But we have had this discussion since 1960, when Dwight Eisenhower set aside originally 9 million acres, and in 1980, thanks to the work of Scoop Jackson, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which expanded the refuge to 19 million acres.

I have visited the refuge. I do believe it is a critical habitat for wildlife and the Gwich'in people who called this the sacred place where life begins. It is truly special. I do think we have had many discussions about this. This action probably will not be the last of them, but I do applaud the President for taking the Arctic refuge, which is habitat for 45 different species of land animals, 36 different species of fish, 180 species of birds--and has the greatest variety of plant and animal life of any park or refuge in the polar Arctic. I do believe it is an ecosystem and an ecosystem that is unlike anything else we have in the United States.

So I am proud the President has taken what has been a refuge that was lacking a plan and has now put a wilderness plan in place or the elements of what it will take to preserve those various species and animals and that very special place.

I know my colleague feels very strongly about the President's announcement. I think a refuge plan that is based on science and public comment--we have had a plan, but this is the first plan to say we are going to protect this area. It recommends 12 million acres of refuge, including the coastal plain as wilderness. It is one of the most pristine and unique public places.

I am confident America can meet our energy needs without opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I am convinced we can come up with an energy strategy that is much more compelling for the future of the United States, one in which we can lead and one in which we can help other countries, whether it is what the President did with China in getting an agreement or working with India or all the things we are doing to try to be a leader in what is energy efficiency and ways to impact the marketplace so consumers can look for cleaner, more efficient uses of fuel.

So this is going to be a continuing debate in this Congress between a 19th century view of energy policy and a 21st century view of energy policy. I would ask my colleagues to think about these countries the President has just recently visited. He went to China. No one thinks China's air standard is what we should have in the United States. India has had its own challenges. They have hundreds of millions of people who are without electricity needs.

So the question is whether these sources of energy are going to be that solution, whether a dirty source of fossil fuel is going to be the solution or whether we can work together on cleaner energy solutions. I think we can do that.

In fact, I am excited the United States can be a leader in these technologies, which will result in more job growth, just as those previous energy bills did when we worked together for higher fuel efficiency standards, for more energy efficiency, to come up with more sources of diversified fuel. I am very confident we are going to, in the next few years, usher in a new era of aviation.

We have already proven we can fly airplanes with a 50-50 drop in jet fuel. We now have to prove we can manufacture those large sources and get planes flying on that. What a great accomplishment that will be in reducing carbon emissions and giving the flying public and those airlines something that is much more affordable than what we have been dealing with for the last 10 or 15 years.

I look forward to my colleague and I working tomorrow--some tonight and a little bit starting early tomorrow--on how we move forward with this legislation. I know my colleague and I see a path forward. Similar to any two people who are trying to manage a bill on the floor, we also know we have all of our colleagues to work with because nothing in the Senate operates unless it operates through our process and working collaboratively or, I should say, it can work, it is just going to take a very long time.

So we pledge to work in the next few days to try to get an amendment process that will not be prematurely cut off after 1 hour of a pending bill but will come to terms, and hopefully our colleagues will work with us to limit the number of those amendments and we can move forward to legislation that we think will help our economy grow.

Madam President, we are trying to figure out how to do a fair division of the time that remains. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Stabenow and Peters have 5 minutes between them to discuss an amendment they have been working on, followed by Senator Cardin, who would have 3 minutes to explain his, followed by myself having 2\1/2\ minutes to discuss my amendment, then Senator Heitkamp would have 5 minutes after that, and then the remaining time for Senator Sessions. Because that would be equal. That would add to our having as much time as Senators Sessions or Murkowski, whoever at that point wants to speak.

Well, some will ask for amendments to be pending. I know I will. Some will not ask that; they just want to be heard. But there is 30 minutes left in the debate. Your side just finished. Obviously, if we do not want to be fair, somebody could grab the time on our side now and talk for 30 minutes. We do not think that is right. We are trying to divide it up between our side and your side. So I have divided about 15 minutes on our side and given 15 minutes to Senator Sessions, who wanted to be heard on the matter.

Reclaiming my time, we have already wasted 4 minutes of the 15. The Senator can object if she does not want to allow us to have an amendment pending, but I am going to start off here. Is the Senator still objecting? Instead of Senator Sessions, I will give--now it is about 12 minutes to you at the end. Is that all right with the Senator?

Well, if I might say this: Every Senator has a right to ask unanimous consent on anything. If the Senator does not like it, she can say, ``I object.'' I do intend to--I cannot speak for anybody else. I want to make my amendment pending because it is germane. I want to make sure it is heard. It is about public health. So if my friend does not want to agree to this unanimous consent, then I think what we will do is I will hold the floor and I will yield to colleagues for questions and they can make their points.

I do not understand my friend's objection to the way we have it laid out.

Well, I am going to take the time now--the entire time-- and yield to colleagues for them to ask me questions. So I will speak for 2 minutes or less and then I am going to ask unanimous consent on my amendment.

We want to have a study of the significant human health impacts of the Keystone Canadian XL tar sands pipeline. I do not believe they were adequately addressed in the supplemental environmental impact report or completely analyzed.

I held a press conference with doctors from Canada who spoke about the adverse impact on the health of people living near the pipeline. We have had spills along the pipeline in Michigan, in Arkansas. Those spills are not adequately cleaned up as we speak.

As Senator Cantwell informed me, there have been an additional two spills since the new Congress came into session. From extraction to transportation to refining to waste storage, misery follows the tar sands. We know there are dangerous air pollutants and carcinogens that have been documented from tar sands refining--all of this to help a Canadian private company make a whole bunch of money, and we cannot even keep the oil in this country.

Are you kidding me? Thirty-five permanent jobs. The least we can do is have an in-depth health impact study before we approve this pipeline.

I am very sad to say--you know, we still have this kind of gag-athon going on from the other side. They would not even let people speak for 1 minute on their amendment. That is why I am grabbing the floor here. I could not even get agreement to divide up the time, so I am taking the time.

I will be happy to yield to my friend from Michigan, through the Chair.

I could not agree more with my friend. Her question is pertinent and to the point of this debate. We are giving permission to a Canadian company to come through and use America as a passthrough. They are going to leave behind petcoke, leave behind spills--they have already done it before with the tar sands pipeline. This is the hardest oil to clean up.

I absolutely know that my friend Senator Peters has a question as well.

Without losing my right to the floor, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so that I may call up my amendment. I will wait for the objection to be heard. I am not going to plow through this.

That was my amendment No. 128. I am very disappointed, because what the Senator is talking about, making sure the pipelines are safe, and what I am talking about, a health study, are quite related.

I know my friend from Michigan wanted me to yield for a question. I am happy to do so.

If I could answer the question posed to me by my friend-- he asked do I think there ought to be an open amendment process. Not only do I think there should be, we were promised an open amendment process. What occurred here at midnight on Thursday night, before the Senate left--some of our colleagues who are running for President went out to my beautiful State to make their case, as they have every right to do. But instead of staying on Friday, we adjourned on Thursday night. It was anything but an open amendment process.

I see the Senator from Massachusetts on the floor. He had a critically important amendment. He asked for 60 seconds to explain his amendment. I have been here over 20 years. I have never seen a situation, ever, where five Members in a row, five great Senators representing their great States, were told: Sit down; we are gagging you. That is what happened. This is wrong. So we are going to be asked to proceed today and shut down the amendment process even further. I do not know how the Senate is going to vote. However the Senate votes, it votes. But the bottom line is, this has been anything but an open amendment process. My friend is absolutely right.

I know the Senator from Maryland wanted to ask me a question.

I thank my friend for the question.

Again, we were promised an open amendment process.

I wish to make a point to my friend who has worked so hard on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I am so appreciative of his work. Do you know, if an amendment like yours does not pass, what it means is that American companies will be treated in a much harsher fashion than a Canadian foreign oil company--in other words, because the other side is just saying: No more facts, no more information, no more environmental impact statement--even though we know there are health impacts due to the tar sands.

The Senator has pointed out the possibility of having a bad impact on drinking water. We have seen what has happened in West Virginia when we don't worry about that.

So my friend is absolutely right, and I am honored that he asked me to comment on this particular amendment. And I hope that he will ask--I know you are pending. I hope that you are going to get a vote on this amendment one way or another.

I know some other colleagues may want to ask a question.

I am pleased to yield to the Senator.

I say to my colleague from North Dakota, of course, I agree with her. We don't agree on the tar sands pipeline, but we do look for common ground, and she has found it. The importance of inspecting the infrastructure can't be overstated.

I say to my friend, before she leaves the floor, this is a picture of a recent spill. Actually, it was 2013. It still has not been cleaned up in Arkansas because the pipeline burst--200,000 gallons of tar sands burst from the pipeline, and it spilled all over the streets of a subdivision. Residents were exposed to high levels of benzene, a known carcinogen, and hydrogen sulfite. They suffered from dizziness, nausea, and headaches--all classic symptoms of exposure to the chemicals found in tar sands.

Rainfall causes oil to float to the top of the soil and off gas. What is happening here is it still has not been cleaned up.

My friend has an amendment that would say: Let's inspect the infrastructure to make sure things such as this do not happen. Of course, I support it. I hope she will vote her conscience and hopefully vote to keep this amendment process open.

I know my friend from Massachusetts has a question, and I yield to him if he does.

The Senator has to ask if I would yield for a question.

I would say in response to my friend's question, I was so shocked when the Senator asked for 1 minute to explain his amendment and we heard multiple Republicans saying: No, no, a thousand times no.

As Senator Durbin said, this is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. I grew up thinking that was true. I never saw this before where colleague after colleague after colleague after colleague was essentially shouted down. I haven't seen it here.

It has reached a new low with a Republican majority since. They absolutely won a huge election victory. There is no question about it. There was the promise that it would be an open process, and then we can't even have colleagues talk for 1 minute.

I know the Senator from New Jersey has a question as well. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey, because time is running out at 5:30.

Yes, I will.

Senator Booker should be proud of this contribution to this debate and what he is doing in the environment committee.

Let me say quickly--because I know we are running out of time--here is the deal. You raised the golden standard--NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. The underlying bill says everything is satisfied. All you want to make sure of in your amendment is that if there is new information which shows this could harm the public--maybe cause more cancer, cause more asthma, and cause other problems--that we need a supplemental EIS, that we need a supplemental study before we approve this pipeline. Right now, they are not letting you offer that amendment.

My time has expired. I thank the Chair very much for his patience.

Madam President, I came to the floor to speak about a measure that is supported by Members of both sides. I was listening to the remarks by the minority whip on who commemorated the life of Ernie Banks.

Remembering Ernie Banks

I began school in Chicago in the early 1960s, when Ernie Banks was playing, and it is to be noted for the record that my grade point average would have been higher had I not spent so many afternoons at Wrigley Field watching the Cubs play. During that time all the games were played during the day, and

as such I missed a few classes to watch our beloved Cubs.

But our beloved player--perhaps the most beloved player in baseball history--Ernie Banks was a true delight.

I wish I had time to speak more on that particular issue, but what I would like to direct my attention to is a bipartisan-supported measure, S. 1. The American people, in November, said: Get back to Washington. Work together, and get things done. And one of which was the Keystone Pipeline. It has bipartisan support. In fact, on the motion to proceed to this measure, 10 Democrats joined Republicans in this effort. And that is what we are debating here.

Medical Device Access and Innovation Protection Act

But I am here to talk about a second bill that certainly deserves to be in the top five of pieces of legislation that have bipartisan support and will hopefully result in passage and then sent to the President. And, hopefully, with a number of Democrats joining Republicans in these efforts, the President will take a second look at his veto threats on measures that have bipartisan support.

It was Winston Churchill who said that a nation trying to tax itself into prosperity ``is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.''

Unfortunately, one of Indiana's most vibrant, growing industries is stuck in the bottom of the bucket because of a small provision tucked away in the 2,000-page ObamaCare law, which imposes on them an excise tax, a 2.3-percent excise tax on every sale they make of medical devices, hindering innovation and job creation.

Medical device manufacturers in my State directly employ over 20,000 Hoosiers and indirectly support thousands of additional jobs. These are jobs that pay well above the average--56 percent higher wages than the average wage rate in Indiana. So these are top-quality jobs, providing significant employment for a significant number of Hoosiers.

We have more than 300 FDA-registered medical device manufacturers in our State, and this is true of many other States. This industry is boosting our State's economy, our Nation's economy, and producing technologies that are changing and saving lives.

Products ranging from wheelchair van lifts to artificial knees, hips, and shoulders, to catheters used in heart procedures, have improved or saved the lives of many Hoosiers and countless others not only in my State, not only in America, but across the globe.

Since the implementation of this excise tax--passed in the ObamaCare Act in 2010, imposed in 2013--this destructive tax has caused companies to freeze hiring, lay off workers, and shelve plans to expand and build new facilities.

A survey by the Advanced Medical Technology Association found that the device tax forced manufacturers to let go of or avoid hiring 33,000 workers in 2013.

Look, I thought we were trying to get people back to work. I thought we were working to pass bipartisan legislation that would benefit this country and benefit those who are seeking employment.

Cook Medical of Bloomington was forced to table plans for a major expansion because of the device tax.

In 2013 testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, Cook Medical chairman Steve Ferguson stated:

Cook has made the difficult decision that without repeal

[of the medical device tax], we will move important new

product lines outside of the U.S. Our previous plans to open

up five new manufacturing facilities in American towns are

now on hold as we use capital intended for these projects to

pay the device tax.

The negative impact of this tax is not only felt by large employers such as Cook Medical, it also hurts gross sales of companies that are not making a profit but are developing innovative new ways to find benefits for the health and safety, and even the life, in many cases, of those who need these medical devices.

As a result, these companies are not profitable because they are having to pay the tax. They are struggling to launch new innovations to save and improve lives. For instance, a small Warsaw, Indiana-based manufacturer, which develops and sells orthopedic implants for children, had to shelve two important projects simply because it had to use its resources to pay the medical device tax.

After the tax was implemented, an employee of that company shared his story with me. Because of this tax, he said, the manufacturer is now largely inhibited from working on important new products, such as a device that reduces a wheelchair-bound child's discomfort.

How ironic that ObamaCare, which the President said would increase the health benefits for Americans in coverage, is actually a barrier to improving lives and health outcomes.

Last week, I joined nine of my Senate colleagues, including five Democrats, to introduce the Medical Device Access and Innovation Protection Act. Our legislation would eliminate this tax and has strong bipartisan support.

During the last session of Congress, 79 Senators voted to pass a bipartisan amendment to the fiscal year 2014 Senate budget resolution that called for the repeal of this device tax--79 Members, 34 Democrats and 45 Republicans. It does not get much more bipartisan than that.

So we are hoping that while this may not be labeled S. 2, it certainly stands in the top three or four issues that have strong support and will respond to the call of the American people in November to get back to Washington, get together, work on things with bipartisan support that are going to improve our economy and get people back to work, and get it up to the President.

I hope my colleagues will see that this egregious, harmful tax, tucked-away in the Affordable Care Act, will force us to move forward, repeal it, and result in the kind of improvements the American people are asking us to address. It is long past time for Washington to stop punishing medical device innovators in Indiana and across the country. I am urging my colleagues to support this bill.

I yield the floor.

Thank you very much to my friend and colleague and leader from California.

I first want to say thank you to Senators Murkowski and Cantwell who have worked so hard with Senator Boxer moving forward a process that, until Thursday night, was working very well going back and forth.

Before we authorize the building of a new oil pipeline in America, it is important for us to consider the safety of pipelines we already have.

In 2010, a pipeline that runs from Canada through Michigan spilled nearly a million gallons of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River, causing the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history.

That cleanup cost $1.2 billion.

Nine days ago, another pipeline broke in Montana, and for the second time in 4 years, tens of thousands of gallons of oil emptied into the Yellowstone River, making that water unsafe to drink.

Right now in Michigan, we have a 61-year-old pipeline which runs along environmentally sensitive areas and goes beneath the Straits of Mackinac and our magnificent Great Lakes.

That pipeline carries 1.2 million gallons of tar sands oil per day and has undergone only a few upgrades since it was first installed in 1953. A spill would be devastating, not only to the region but to all Americans--because the Great Lakes are a vital source of our Nation's fresh water supply.

Yet none of the companies transporting heavy tar sands crude are required to pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which would ensure that taxpayers are not footing the bill.

When we offered an amendment to fix that, the Republicans said no.

America's economy is only as strong as our natural resources, and those resources are threatened every time a pipeline breaks.

Making matters worse, Republicans said no to amendments that would keep the oil in America, guarantee the pipeline be built with American steel and use American workers.

So Americans take all of the risks with very few, if any, rewards.

Because Republicans refuse to make this Canadian oil company pay into the oil spill fund, American taxpayers may have to bailout the company if the pipeline breaks.

So, before our Colleagues vote on behalf of the oil companies to approve the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, it is critical that we pass the amendment that my friend and partner from Michigan and I have introduced.

This amendment ensures that we address the safety of the pipelines that we have now--before beginning construction on Keystone. And it would ensure that the heightened safety standards being applied to Keystone exist in pipelines around the Great Lakes.

The Republican majority has promised an open amendment process, so I certainly hope that when my colleague from Michigan offers this amendment in a few moments, the Republican majority will allow a vote on this critical pipeline safety amendment--even though Big Oil may not like it.

Again, the American people are taking all of the risks when the oil will not even stay in America. The least Congress can do is guarantee the pipelines are safe.

I would ask my friends to join with Senator Peters and me in saying that before we authorize the building of a new oil pipeline in America that we have to consider and strengthen the safety of pipelines, the pipelines we already have. In 2010, a pipeline that runs from Canada through Michigan spilled nearly 1 million gallons of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River--this has been talked about before--causing the largest inland oilspill in U.S. history.

So we need to vote on Senator Peters' and my amendment. The cleanup itself cost $1.2 billion. Nine days ago, another pipeline broke in Montana. For the second time in 4 years, tens of thousands of gallons of oil emptied into the Yellowstone River, making that water unsafe to drink. So would my friend from California agree with me and share concerns that under the Straits of Mackinac--and our gorgeous, beautiful Great Lakes--we have a 61-year old pipeline that runs through environmentally sensitive areas, goes right under the water, and has only been upgraded a couple of times since 1953?

Before we pass this Keystone Pipeline bill, we should make sure our Great Lakes have the pipeline safety we need, as well as all of our pipelines across the country.

Would my colleague agree with that?