Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act of 2015

Mr. President, I am ready to go this morning. I have comfortable shoes on. I am ready for a good, long day and to process a bunch of amendments. I see the Senate doing its work. I know we have important business before the Senate. I know the Judiciary Committee is holding the hearing to listen to the comments from Loretta Lynch, who has been nominated to be Attorney General.

Obviously these are very important issues the committee is discussing today. Interspersed with all of that, we are going to be having a relatively long series of votes this afternoon, which makes it a little bit choppy and a little bit chaotic, but we have business to do in the Senate.

I am pleased we are at this point where I think we can honestly say we are looking at the final stretch in this discussion on the bipartisan, 60-sponsored bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline after more than 2,320 days of delay.

At this point we are past that last call for amendments on the bill. We have spent a lot of time over the past couple of days negotiating which of the roughly 200 first-degree amendments that have been filed would come up for votes. We have a pretty good list. Again, we have 18 of them that will be before us beginning this afternoon. There will be more we will be dealing with at a later point.

But I do think this is significant. I was reading the newspaper this morning, and there is no shortage of critics out there, folks who would say the Senate is broken and can't possibly be fixed.

There was an article from an opinion writer which stated: Within the midst of the Keystone debate, McConnell has had to retreat ``on his promise to allow freewheeling amendments.''

The article then goes on to state that yesterday not much of anything happened on the Senate floor where the pipeline debate had stalled.

In fairness, maybe the debate, in terms of processing amendments on the floor, had stalled out yesterday, but that did not mean there were not significant and serious negotiations going on between the majority and the minority about how we would proceed. Sometimes when someone tunes in and the Senate is in a quorum call, they think nothing is happening. They think the business of the Senate is not being conducted. I need to assure not only colleagues but those who watch this process on C-SPAN that in fact there is still good business being done.

I think that is what has resulted in our opportunity this afternoon to take up some 18 different amendments. There are amendments that are all across the board; 10 of the 18 pending amendments are from colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I think we are certainly being very generous in terms of what is out there. We are trying to ensure that Members who want a vote can have them.

Again, keep in mind, with a couple hundred amendments that come forward, we are going to have a lot of duplication. We are going to have issues people may want to make a statement about but might not necessarily want to ask for a vote on. But those that we have in front of us today--everything from issues relating to solar energy to LNG exports, to further discussion about climate change, wilderness, wind tax credits, the Land and Water Conservation Fund--are truly all over the map.

When it is suggested that somehow or other Senator McConnell as the majority leader is moving back from his commitment to allow for an open amendment process, so-called freewheeling amendments, I don't think a whole picture of what is happening on the Senate floor is being painted. In fact it is a very open and considerable process.

I made mention last week that we broke the records. We blew the top off in terms of the number of amendments we were actually able to process on the Senate floor. We moved through 24 amendments on this bill since the time we started it. Twenty-four amendments is pretty considerable, considering that in all of 2014 there were just 15 amendments that were considered the entire year. In fact, on Thursday alone we processed 15. If we do 18, as is on the roster today, that is pretty significant. I feel good about the point we are at. It is not just because we are churning through amendments, it is because of what the ranking member and I have been able to do as the floor managers on this bill, kind of working back and forth. Yes, sometimes it is tedious. Yes, sometimes it is frustrating. Yes, sometimes Members wish they had more time to talk or there were more hours in our day to process all of this,

but at some point in time I think we have to recognize when we spend 3 weeks on a bill, that is pretty considerable. When we are able to move 50 amendments--close to 50 amendments is where we may be at the end of this legislation and processing--that is of note.

What I appreciate is we are here this morning getting ready to kick off a long afternoon of votes and go back and forth with Members and disruption of their schedules and committee meetings and the inconvenience that causes. But again this is part of what happens around here. It is not a very tightly scheduled environment because we just have so much that is going on. But being able to move forward on this important legislation is good and necessary.

I think we are setting the stage for the balance of this Congress-- under the leadership of the Senator from Kentucky, the majority leader, a commitment to have wholesome debate--to have the opportunity for a process that is not only good for Republicans, it is good for Democrats. It is good for the Senate and for the United States.

Amendment No. 166

I want to quickly mention an amendment I will have up later this afternoon. This is amendment No. 166. I spoke very briefly to it yesterday when I called it up. But it would require wilderness study areas to be released if Congress has not officially designated them as wilderness within one calendar year. Right now what happens is that when a wilderness study area is designated, it can sit out there on the books almost indefinitely. There have been areas that have been sitting out there without congressional action for a couple of decades.

I don't think this was the point of the process. But I would suggest the amendment I have advanced is a critical one to our Western States, certainly to my State of Alaska.

Again, the news on Sunday of the President moving toward a wilderness designation of all of ANWR--with the exception of a very small slice but all of ANWR--all 19 million acres in addition to the 1002 area, the 1.57 million acres that have been specifically designated by Congress for further review and study.

Right now there are 528 wilderness study areas throughout Alaska and the other 11 Western States. Again, these designations have been made by over time by one administration or another. The next step forward in this process is that Congress needs to act, but Congress hasn't acted. We have had some of these that have been pending since the 1980s.

Again, as I suggested yesterday, if we have had something pending for 20, 30 years, I think that is plenty of time to say that Congress has had to review those areas. Even though we have not turned these into wilderness--in other words, even though Congress has not acted to designate these areas as wilderness, what happens to them?

They are treated and managed as if they are wilderness. Effectively, we have de facto wilderness. The law requires that only Congress determines whether an area is designated as wilderness. But what has happened is just kind of a lag, a lull, if you will, so they don't even need the congressional designation if in fact it is already being managed as wilderness.

We look at the intent behind this. It is clear it was never intended to be this way. We were never supposed to have millions of acres of de facto Agency-decided wilderness around the Western United States. We routinely pass public lands legislation into law. I would like to know we could do it a little more often. As recently as last month, it actually has included new wilderness. So we are not saying that in other areas these wilderness study areas don't get officially designated. There is that process, and we demonstrated that just during the lameduck here. But in the instances where Congress has decided not to act on wilderness study areas, agencies need to start looking at what that broader array of options is for managing the land, whatever that multiple use designation might be. They need to be looking at this critically with the local people in the area and with the other stakeholders who are involved in the planning process, but clearly they are not doing that on their own.

So what my amendment would do is essentially provide a 1-year timeframe for wilderness designations to be made. I think, again, that is more than enough time for Congress to consider debate and approve legislation for any area with wide support for a wilderness designation, so we will see that amendment this afternoon.

I know the Senator from Washington was on her way, coming from a committee meeting this morning, and had intended to speak. I see Senator Udall is also on the floor.

I yield to the Senator from New Mexico if he wishes to speak at this time before Senator Cantwell comes to the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I am glad the junior Senator from Alaska is in the Chair because I am going to be discussing things that are of great concern to Alaskans and really to those who care about the rule of law here and how it applies throughout all 50 States fairly and evenly. As I mentioned just a bit ago, I have offered an amendment that would deal with how wilderness study areas are treated. My proposal is one that would put a time limitation on these study areas.

I mentioned the amendment was precipitated by the President's announcement this weekend about additional areas of wilderness to be designated in Alaska. I have cited two. The 1980 lands bill, ANILCA--I think it is good for us to have a little bit of a refresher on what ANILCA actually did. In one fell swoop ANILCA designated nearly 60 million acres of wilderness in the State of Alaska. That is pretty substantial. It was more than any other President had ever designated at any other time prior to that.

What we have seen since then, with the designation of wilderness, is there has been this fight going back and forth. There have been areas that have been requested for wilderness study areas. But this administration has really taken it a major step forward. On Sunday the President recommended that an additional 12.3 million acres within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be designated as wilderness--so an additional 12.3 million acres on top of the 60 million acres that we already have as wilderness in Alaska after ANILCA.

This action by the President means that these 12.3 million acres will immediately be managed as wilderness. As I have mentioned, right now there is no deadline or expiration for this designation. Even if Congress fails to act--and I am going to make darn certain we do not act on this wilderness proposal the President has advanced--these acres are being managed as wilderness.

Let me just show colleagues what it means for us right now. The small map of Alaska is up there in the corner. It is kind of unfair because it needs to be a much bigger map to get the context. Effectively, what the President is proposing is that in addition to the 7.16 million acres of wilderness that currently exist in the ANWR area--and the ANWR area is a big refuge, a big designation. A little over 7 million acres have already been designated as wilderness. That was done back in 1980. But what he is proposing now is effectively taking the whole balance of the refuge area and making wilderness out of that as well--so 12.3 million acres.

Now, keep in mind this also includes the 1002 area up on the northern part of ANWR. That is the area right, which was specifically designated by Congress for further study of its oil and gas potential. Back in 1980, when the wilderness designation was made for the one area--7 million acres of it--it was determined that refuge status would be afforded the balance of the area, and then the 1002 would be reserved-- reserved deliberately for study of its oil and gas potential.

That 1980 act was pretty clear in terms of the bargain that had taken place. I am going to read for the record the provision in the law that we refer to as the ``no more'' clause. It states:

This Act provides sufficient protection for the national

interest in the scenic, natural, cultural and environmental

values on the public lands in Alaska, and at the same time

provides adequate opportunity for satisfaction of the

economic and social needs of the State of Alaska and its

people; accordingly, the designation and disposition of the

public lands in Alaska pursuant to this Act are found to

represent a proper balance between the reservation of

national conservation system units and those public lands

necessary and appropriate for more intensive use and

disposition, and thus Congress believes that the need for

future legislation designating new conservation system units,

new national conservation areas, or new national recreation

areas, has been obviated thereby.

The act goes on to state that ``no further studies of Federal lands in the State of Alaska for the single purpose of considering the establishment of a conservation system unit, national recreation area, national conservation area, or for related or similar purposes shall be conducted unless authorized by the Congress.''

So the President is basically choosing to ignore the law as set out in ANILCA--the agreement that Alaska has contributed mightily with its share of wilderness.

I remind my colleagues that more than one-half of the wilderness in the entire United States of America is in the State of Alaska. Thus we wrote the law back in 1980 that says no more out of Alaska. They found that balance. Well, this President is tipping that balance.

The coastal plain holds an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil. I mentioned yesterday that if we can tap into these resources, we could see 1 million barrels a day coming down our Trans-Alaska Pipeline for nearly 30 years.

Think about what that would mean, Mr. President--1 million barrels a day filling up that Trans-Alaska Pipeline that is now less than half full, an additional 1 million barrels a day coming into this country. Right now, Americans are enjoying the lower prices of oil. But the President said: Don't get used to these low prices because they may go up. Well, they do not have to go up if we can provide more. If we can increase production in this country, we can theoretically decrease that cost. But we have to be allowed to access that.

Think about the source of good-paying jobs, energy security, billions of dollars in new Federal revenues. The energy security part of it is keenly important, but let us also think about the positive national security implications of energy produced in the United States. When we are producing more energy in this country and relying less on others, we are less vulnerable. We have greater ability to deal with hostile nations. Sanctions work better when we don't need to rely on that same oil that some of these nations would like to free up for other countries.

From a national security perspective, this is huge. This is where the intersection with the Keystone Pipeline is so interesting: that at the same time this administration has issued this wilderness study it is also fighting so hard to keep us from building the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would allow us to get crude from our friend and neighbor to the north and utilize it to our benefit. The President is saying: No, I don't want to do that.

I guess he would much rather receive it from Venezuela or wherever. He says he wants Brazil to be our big trading partner when it comes to oil.

Hello. Canada--they share a border. They are our friend. They are our closest friend, our strongest trading partner. Are we going to shut down such an opportunity as that?

And: Oh, by the way, that same week let's just go ahead and take off the table permanently one of the greatest reservoirs of crude we have here in the United States next. Let's just take that off the table, too.

What does that say? What does that say to other countries? That we don't care about our own energy security? I care about our energy security, and I care about our national security.

Again, it stuns me to think that what the President is proposing here is a measure that would take off limits permanently our ability as a nation to access the 1002 area to safely develop this enormous potential.

Keep in mind, we are not talking about accessing the full 1.5 million acres in the 1002. The legislation that has been before this Senate, back in 1995 and 2005, asked to open up 2,000 acres--2,000 acres--out of 19.5 million acres in the whole refuge.

The Presiding Officer knows Alaskans can do this safely. We have set and met the highest environmental standards in the world. We do it every

day. Our pipeline, our amazing 800-mile pipeline, has a decades-long record of responsible production. It has carried nearly 17 billion barrels of oil safely across our State, over 2 mountain ranges, multiple rivers, in areas where we are known to have a few earthquakes. It is an engineering marvel. It has served our State and our country well.

But instead of recognizing this unparalleled opportunity that we have, we are now facing a mounting lockdown of our resource potential. And the Presiding Officer knows the worst part is, it is not just ANWR we are talking about. Our offshore oil reserves are now also going to be restricted.

Just yesterday the President announced he was indefinitely withdrawing 9.8 million acres in the Beaufort and the Chukchi Seas from leasing. So now ANWR is going to be locked up, as well as the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. I don't have a map of these areas that have been taken off limits, but I can tell you that it is an area of roughly 9.8 million acres. There is some real question that I have in my mind. After reading the Interior's press release, I don't have any real comfort that the two sales that are being proposed--one in the Beaufort and one in the Chukchi--will actually stay on schedule.

The Secretary of the Interior is quoted saying that: Interior will continue to consider oil and gas exploration in the Arctic. It is not a very firm commitment, as far as I can see.

But when we look at it altogether--between the ANWR wilderness designation and the Arctic offshore withdrawal--Alaska has lost more than 22 million acres of land and water where energy could be produced for the good of this country, and it has happened in less than 1 week. It has happened over a span of 3 days--22 million acres.

So what is 22 million acres? It is an area about 563 times larger than where we are here in the District of Columbia. It is about 28 Rhode Islands. I know Rhode Island is a small State by comparison, but 28 of them adds up. It is about 4.5 times the size of the State of Massachusetts. Again, this is just to give you an idea of what was taken off limits, indefinitely, by this administration since Sunday.

My reaction to all this has been pretty strong. I think it is pretty obvious to anybody who would take a moment to think about it, but I am amazed our President can look at Alaska and think, this is what we need most right now.

We are facing a pretty significant budget shortfall. I know our Governor has spoken to the President and the Secretary of Interior about Alaska's situation. Then this is what he gets as a ``we will work with you''? I don't think so. This is not an indication of a Federal Government that wants to work with the State to develop its resources.

The Governor asked the Secretary of the Interior for an address, because he said he needed to send an invoice for the lack of any economy Alaska would be able to generate with these actions.

The one thing--the one thing more than anything else that could help our State--is to be able to access our Federal lands and our waters so that we can fill up the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, so that we can not only help Alaska but we can help the rest of the country. But that seems to be the one thing this President is intent on denying, whether it is in ANWR, whether it is in our offshore, or whether it is in our National Petroleum Reserve, where this President basically unilaterally took off about half of that in terms of availability of access.

I noted that when the President made his announcement on Sunday, the video that went out showed beautiful pictures of the refuge area. Again, this is a big area. This whole refuge is about the size of the State of South Carolina. It is big and there are some amazing spaces--I am the first one to admit it, amazing spaces--just as there are all over Alaska.

But I watched that video as he was flying in his airplane to go to India, and I thought to myself: The President hasn't been to Alaska, even though he says he only has three States left to see and Alaska is not included. So I actually asked my staff to find out. By my count, the President has been to Alaska three times during his administration. And he told me, before he was President, he had never been to Alaska. So three times during his administration. All three times were basically to get fuel. And granted, to give him credit, on one of those times he did meet with the troops at Elmendorf, but he never went off the base. The other two times were in the middle of the night for as long as it took to get fuel.

In my mind, that is not visiting Alaska. That is not trying to understand who we are. We have some pretty beautiful, wide-open skies. But when you are flying at 35,000, 45,000 feet looking down, that is not how you get a view of Alaska.

So outside of this short meet-and-greet, outside of a bargaining chip to gain support from national constituencies, he is basically viewing Alaska as a refueling stop--which is no shortage of irony here in the fact that he is happy to refuel Air Force One in Alaska, but he doesn't seem to want fuel produced in Alaska.

I can get pretty frustrated and upset about this. Part of it is because so much of this comes without consultation with us, without listening to the vast majority of Alaskans--as if, once again, we are nothing but a territory and the promises that were made to us at statehood mean nothing.

I was born in the territory. It was not that long ago that Alaskans knew what it meant to be kind of kicked around by folks on the outside. We didn't have a voice. We thought statehood was going to change that. We thought that statehood compact--the promises made that Alaska would be able to deliver to its citizens based on the amazing resource wealth that we had--we thought that was going to count for something. Apparently, not enough.

I was a little bit surprised to read that the White House counselor, Mr. Podesta, thinks I have overreacted to these announcements and to others that I have been told may be coming--more to come--and he suggested my reaction is not warranted.

I would ask any one of the other 99 Senators here: Think about how you would respond if the citizens of your State woke up to a message that we are going to take 12 million acres away from you and your potential to develop in your State; and then on Tuesday, we are going to take away 9.8 million acres. But don't worry, we are the Federal Government, we are here to help. Alaskans want to help themselves. We want to be able to exercise that independence, that free spirit that so many of us in Alaska identify with. We want to help our neighbors, help our families. But this kind of help we don't need. Don't lock us up. Don't shut us out.

It was suggested in Mr. Podesta's comments, and I saw it in other press reports, that somehow or other the Interior Department felt compelled to move forward with the timing of these announcements because we were ratcheting up on ANWR. They suggested I had introduced a bill. I haven't introduced a bill. I do intend to introduce a bill. But to somehow suggest this was precipitated because the delegation is making a charge on ANWR is, at this time, unwarranted.

It did kind of make me wonder, maybe the White House isn't aware of how Alaskans feel about this. So in the few minutes I want to take this morning I want to read a few of the quotes from our State leaders who have come out against this decision since they were announced, particularly as they relate to ANWR.

We have a new, Independent Governor. As I mentioned, he has already had the opportunity to meet with the President and talk about Alaska's issues. Again, he has also met with the Secretary of Interior to talk similarly. Governor Walker says he is ``angry, very angry, that this is happening.''

Our State senate president, Kevin Meyer, said the following:

The impact of this decision, if allowed to stand, will harm

the future of our Great State and will deal a devastating

blow to our economy.

I spoke with our house speaker, a gentleman by the name of Mike Chenault from the Kenai Peninsula, an area where we have oil and gas potential in the Cook Inlet. They know about oil and gas. The speaker said:

The president just doesn't get it, or he does get it and

doesn't care about the will and voice of Alaskans. That's

beyond offensive.

In response to the President's ANWR announcement, Speaker Chenault also had some pretty choice words. He said:

Alaska's not a territory anymore and it's high time our

federal overlords stopped trying to treat us like one.

The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, whose shareholders, people who actually live on the North Slope, issued a press release stating that:

We are staunchly opposed to this relentless and coordinated

effort to designate the Coastal Plain of ANWR as Wilderness.

This administration has deliberately ignored the input

provided by the most affected people within ANWR.

Colleagues, remember that when this President is suggesting that this area needs to be named or designated as wilderness, the 1002 area, people live there. People live their lives there--children go to school and people work there. They fly in and out. They have a little grocery store. They try to make an honest living there. They subsist, absolutely; but people live there. To quote from the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, the corporation's shareholders who live there say, ``this administration has deliberately ignored the input provided by the most affected people within ANWR.''

I think the reason they have ignored it is because they forget people actually live there. How can people live in a wilderness?

Democratic State Representative Ben Nageak of Barrow, who is an Inupiat and born in Kaktovik, who lives in the affected area, wrote this:

President Barack Obama and his lieutenants at the Interior

Department will permanently harm our people and all Alaskans

with his colonial attitude and decision making . . . It's

terrifying to see the extent by which our pleas for time and

a fair hearing of our views fall on deaf ears 5,000 miles

away.

That is a State representative born and raised in this area, an Inupiat, who is saying 5,000 miles from here you are making decisions without listening to us, without listening to our people.

Our North Slope Borough Mayor Charlotte Brower didn't mince any words, either. She said that ``these types of paternalistic, executive fiats seem to be more appropriate for Andrew Jackson's administration than Barack Obama's.''

Pretty tough words. I am starting to think my words were pretty mild based on what I read from the mayor of the North Slope Borough and the Democratic State representative from Barrow.

Mayor Brower has invited President Obama and Secretary Jewell to visit the North Slope, and she asked them to meet with the people who actually live there before proposing these types of sweeping land designations. If the President and the Secretary actually accept that invitation, Mayor Brower concluded:

They might learn that the Inupiat people who have lived on

and cared for these lands for millennia have no interest in

living like relics in a giant open air museum. Rather, they

hope to have the same rights and privileges enjoyed by people

across the rest of the country.

That seems like a pretty fair request to me.

Even the New York Times interviewed a few Alaskans who didn't hide their feelings. One woman who said she had voted for the President twice said, ``He has just alienated an entire state.'' She described herself as being ``on the fence'' about ANWR before the proposal, but she added, ``without talking to any of us, just doing it by fiat-- that's not how you lead.''

I think she summed it up pretty well. What the President has done, the way he has done it--it is unfair, uncalled for, and it is unwarranted. So for it to be suggested by the counselor from the White House that my response is somehow overreacting or unwarranted, I think they should start listening to all of the people of Alaska. The presiding officer and myself were sent here to represent them and I think we are expressing pretty clearly where Alaskans are coming from on this.

This is wrong. It should not be tolerated. And we will not just sit back while this administration locks up our State and the potential of our people.

We have a lot more we will be discussing about this. Again, I mentioned on Monday that there was a trifecta with what we see coming out of this administration. I have been told by the Secretary that we would see his ANWR designation and that we would then see the 5-year lease sale that would take areas that had been in deferred status and completely withdraw them for an indefinite period of time, and that there would be a third announcement coming relating to the National Petroleum Reserve--the area where folks who said don't go to ANWR, go to NPRA, go to the National Petroleum Reserve. So the first company that tried to do so is trying to make it happen. What this administration is doing with the mitigation costs they are laying in front of them, the company will determine whether it is going to be economic. But my fear is that will be the third kick to Alaska.

So it has been a bad week, a bad week for Alaska. But you know what, we are not people who are deterred by bad news, by bad weather. We have a way to roll with it.

I was looking at the front page of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner yesterday. They had a little recap of what is going on with the weather. It is about 52 below zero in Fort Yukon and 51 below in Fort Greely where we base our ground-based missile defense system. We are pretty proud of what we do. We can still provide for the defense and protection of this country and do it in some pretty cold weather.

In Fairbanks, where I went to high school, I think the weather this morning was 47 degrees below zero, but the kids still go to school in this kind of weather. We are doing what we do up north. It is not easy, but it is an amazing place and the people there are pretty resilient. We have been kicked this week, but that doesn't mean we are down. It means we are just getting started.

With that, I will have more to say about the process in front of us this afternoon, where we are with Keystone; but again, I am pleased that we have a good series of votes to keep us busy this afternoon, and I appreciate the indulgence of colleagues as we go through a process that can be very disruptive as they are trying to meet with constituents and pursue committee business. But I think we recognize that we want to be on a path toward completion of this bill, and I thank them for their cooperation.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would urge colleagues to oppose the Cardin amendment.

In review, it appears that it is designed to halt the construction of this pipeline before it even begins. The amendment tells the President to provide this analysis of the potential risks to public health and environment from a leak or rupture and to provide that to every municipality and every county along the route, as well as to the Governors. Then the Governor can petition the President to effectively locate the pipeline somewhere else, at which point, again, construction could never commence.

The Governors of Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska have already approved the pipeline route through their States. So this amendment is an effort, I think, to build that opposition over contamination fears and in turn, pressure those Governors to reverse their positions and halt the pipeline's construction.

I think it is important for colleagues to understand the risks to the water supplies along the pipeline path were examined by the State Department's final SEIS. They were found to be not significant. Again, I will vote no on this amendment and strongly encourage my colleagues to join me with this.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I am not entirely certain I like this amendment. This is the first I have heard PHMSA may not have the resources to do its job. It does seem fair to have PHMSA come tell us if they do not have adequate resources.

What I most strongly oppose with this amendment is its attempt to tie the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline to an unrelated pipeline in a different State. There is no limit for the PHMSA study and certification included here, so we could be looking, in addition to the already 2,300-some-odd days this delay has been in place, at further delays.

If my colleagues from Michigan are interested in a PHMSA study, I recommend they introduce their effort as a stand-alone bill so it can be considered by the committee of jurisdiction. If it is needed, we can move it through the regular order and certainly consider it in the future.

I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I remind colleagues that we are on 10-minute votes.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the sponsor of this bill knows that I, too, am a supporter of solar, and I think we all are, but it is important to recognize what this measure would do. When we are talking about the benefits to this country and how much it will cost, it is important to understand this.

When this was first introduced in the 110th Congress, the goal of 10 million solar roofs legislation was too costly, but we have since seen decreased costs and growth in the solar industry that have made this Federal assistance unnecessary. We have seen the residential solar market grow, we have seen the costs drop. The cost of the solar systems have dropped about 60 percent in the last 4 years. Despite these trends, we are not close to reaching that 1 million mark let alone the 10 million installations. So the real question is, How much is this going to cost us to achieve?

The proposed rebate per system is the lesser of 15 percent of the initial capital cost. This puts the Federal Government on the hook for up to $100 billion to pay for these installations.

We can debate the merits of jobs and job creation, but I again urge my colleagues to oppose the Sanders amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment is virtually identical to the text of what we saw last year. It was tabled by a vote of 52 to 43. This amendment is not relevant to this debate. It is as unnecessary now as it was the first time we voted on it.

To the extent it is legal for a person or a company to make a campaign contribution, Federal and State election laws require public disclosure of those campaign contributions. Any other more general political activities a company or a person may choose to engage in are governed by existing laws and regulations as well. For that reason, I am going to be opposing this amendment for a second time and would encourage my colleagues to do as well.

Mr. President, I had a conversation with our colleague from Delaware, and I told him I think this is an area where we might be able to work together.

I had actually introduced an amendment that deals with the adaptation that helps to assist those communities that have been affected by climate. We see that up in the coastline of Alaska. Senator Merkley has an amendment that also deals with adaptation. This is about resilience.

I am going to oppose the sense-of-the-Senate at this time because of some of the language. I get a little confused or am not certain we are stating it in the right manner. But I do think this process has been healthy in the sense that by having an opportunity to have amendments come forward, we find out where there might be areas where we can work to develop future initiatives that we all might be able to support on a bipartisan basis. I look forward to working with the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I thank both Senators, and I ask unanimous consent that the 60-vote affirmative threshold on the Collins amendment be vitiated, and I urge its adoption by voice vote.

Mr. President, I have had an opportunity to speak on this amendment several different times. Effectively, what we are doing is releasing wilderness study areas if within 1 year of receiving the recommendation Congress has not yet designated the study area as wilderness.

Effectively, what is happening is designations will come from the administration. Congress is the entity that is to approve them. But in the interim these areas are managed as de facto wilderness. In fact, many areas have been managed as de facto wilderness for decades because the Congress has not acted.

So simply, what we do in this amendment is to put a time period. Until the Congress makes a final determination on the wilderness study area, these areas will be determined not to be wilderness and not managed as such. But they are putting a time parameter on that so that they are not managed as wilderness areas indefinitely.

I would urge a ``yes'' vote from my colleagues.

Mr. President, claiming the 1 minute in opposition. As the Senator from New York has described, this would apply to the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act to underground ejection of natural gas. Currently the Safe Drinking Water Act expressly prohibits this application.

This amendment to add the requirements to the Safe Drinking Water Act is beyond the scope of the immediate Keystone debate. We are debating the approval of a pipeline that is going to carry oil, not gas. If the Senator from New York wants to debate the issues of fracking--most certainly those issues are before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and the Safe Drinking Water Act--I would welcome a stand- alone bill. We will have those discussions, but on this measure I would oppose and encourage Members to vote against the Gillibrand amendment.

I would remind Members we are so close to wrapping up this series of amendments. If we can ask the folks to stick around for these final few and keep to the 10-minute line. I know Senator Feinstein is looking to encourage the women of the Senate to gather for a meal later on, and that would be important for us.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Murkowski substitute, as amended, be considered original text for the purposes of further amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of S. 1 tomorrow, Thursday, January 29,

there be 15 minutes equally divided in the usual form and the Senate proceed to vote on the following amendments in the order listed: Barrasso No. 245; Cardin No. 124; Burr No. 92, as modified; Daines No. 246; Vitter No. 80, as further modified with the changes at the desk; Udall No. 77; further, that all amendments on this list be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption and that no second-degrees be in order to any of the pending amendments to this bill. I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between each vote and that all votes after the first in this series be 10-minute votes.

I further ask that once these amendments have been disposed of, the Senate agree to proceed to the motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote on S. 1; that the motion to reconsider be agreed to and the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the bill, upon reconsideration. I ask consent that if cloture is invoked on the bill, as amended, all time postcloture be considered expired at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I think Members have been given the outline for tomorrow morning that will take us through a final vote on cloture so that we can get to final passage of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

I appreciate the consideration and the courtesy of all Members. It has been a long day. We have worked through about a dozen additional amendments, if my count is correct, and we have done it in pretty good order. We have done it while there have been a number of committee meetings going on, which can be very disruptive, but I think with the level of cooperation we have had, we will be able to conclude our business at a relatively civilized hour this evening.

I appreciate the good work of my partner and ranking member Senator Cantwell in getting us to this place. I am hopeful that with the number of amendments we have outlined for the morning and then the handful of germane amendments we will have in the afternoon, we will be able to move on to other business before the Senate. But I thank my colleagues for all of the effort and cooperation we have had to this point.

I thank our colleague for his kind comments. We do have one more consent request here very briefly.

I ask unanimous consent that the order of votes on the Burr and the Daines amendments be reversed.

With that, Mr. President, I again thank Members for their cooperation today and look forward to yet another productive day tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I return to the floor today to discuss the legislation under consideration. As I did yesterday, I wish to begin by again thanking both the Senator from Alaska on our side of the aisle and the Senator from Washington on the other side of the aisle, who are the bill managers--the legislation managers in this case--of the Keystone XL Pipeline approval legislation that I put forward along with Senator Manchin. I wish to begin by thanking both of the managers for their diligence and for their bipartisanship and for working together to advance this legislation, but I also want to make sure all of the Members of this body get a chance to bring their amendments forward, debate those amendments, and have a vote.

This afternoon we have scheduled 18 votes, and that is great. Some of those amendments I support; some I oppose. But we are going to do what this body is supposed to do and what the American people elected us to do, and that is to have this discussion and then vote.

We are working to advance energy policy for this country that can not only truly help create more energy, jobs, and economic growth but also really address the national security implications of making our country energy secure. By that, I mean producing more energy than we consume and working with Canada, our friend and ally, to do that so that we don't have to depend on OPEC to do that and on parts of the world where there is great instability and where our interests are not aligned with the interests of some of those countries.

Also, it enables us to actually weaken some of our opponents that are petro-dependent, countries such as Iran, which is now trying to build a nuclear weapon, as well as, right now, Russia, which is invading its neighbor Ukraine, one of our allies, where we are trying to stop the adventurism of President Putin.

By truly becoming energy secure, by providing more supply of energy, we not only benefit every American at the pump--Americans are saving billions of dollars when they pull up to the pump. That is not only good for American consumers, it is good for our small businesses.

Energy is a foundational industry that strengthens every other industry out there. It makes us more competitive in the global economy across the board. As I say, it weakens some of our opponents. So that is really the debate in which we are engaged.

Yesterday I started to respond to some of the critics who oppose this legislation on the basis of saying this is a project for Canada and not for the United States, and that is not true at all. This pipeline would not only move crude from Canada to our refineries, it would also move crude from production in the United States, including in my State of North Dakota, which now produces 1.2 million barrels of oil a day-- second only to Texas--as well as Montana. So it also moves domestic crude to our refineries as well.

Furthermore, it really is about making our Nation energy secure, working with Canada to become energy secure so we don't have to depend on OPEC. That is very much a national interest issue for this country, for this Nation, and for all Americans. I spoke about that a little bit yesterday.

The second issue I would like to address is some of the environmental issues. I started to do that yesterday, but I deferred at that time because anytime we can get people to come to the floor to offer their amendments and make them pending, that is what we want to do. At that point we started getting people to come offer their amendments, and the bill managers, through their hard work, were able to get agreement, and we now have 18 amendments pending on a precloture basis. So we have made real progress in getting everyone involved and hopefully building more bipartisan consensus and getting on the energy debate the American people want and getting to a result where we can actually produce legislation that will help our Nation.

So I started to get into the second point I wanted to discuss, which is some of the environmental aspects of the oil sands development and how technology is being deployed, with hundreds of millions of private dollars invested in new technologies that are not only producing more energy but doing it with a smaller environmental footprint. That helps to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of oil that is produced in the oil sands.

There are two projects I wish to speak about to give examples of how, if we continue to work to empower this kind of investment in new technologies, we get not only more energy more cost-effectively and more dependably but we also get it with environmental stewardship.

The first project I will speak about is a project that has been undertaken in the oil sands in Alberta, Canada. Going back to this earlier chart, we can see that it is up in the Hardisty area, and this second chart is a picture of the project. It is one that is undertaken by the Shell Oil Company. It is called their Quest project. I will read a little bit about the project.

Shell Canada will this year complete the world's first oil

sands carbon capture and storage project.

This is CCS--carbon capture and storage--something we have been working to develop in this country and apply to fossil fuels, not only things such as oil and gas but also coal. This is the new carbon capture technology. They will complete the world's first project. Continuing:

The project, called Quest, will begin permanently storing

CO2 by the end of the year and will permanently

store more than 1 million tons per year.

Let me read that again.

The project, called Quest, will begin permanently storing

CO2 by the end of the year and will permanently

store more than 1 million tons per year. Quest reduces the

emissions from Shell's upgrader by 35 percent--that's the

equivalent of taking 175,000 cars off the road each year.

Shell will transport the CO2 50 miles north via

pipeline and permanently store it more than a mile below

ground under impermeable rock formations.

My point is that here is an example of where a private company is working with the Province of Alberta on this project to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in carbon capture and storage technology that will not only apply to the oil sands, but--think about it--this is also technology that is not only being developed but deployed on a commercial scale in production that we can now take advantage of and use in this country to produce more energy from multiple sources-- again, smaller footprint, lower greenhouse gas.

Isn't that the solution to better environmental stewardship where we get more energy that we produce here with our closest friends and allies, with better stewardship through investment by private companies in these new technologies and, in this case, working with Alberta? Alberta is also investing in this technology, but this is the innovation of our country, of our companies. This is the kind of ingenuity and

innovation that helps us build the kind of future we want. In this case, it is a secure energy future by deploying these new technologies.

The other point I will make as we look at this chart is that under the old system of oil sand production--remember, it is excavation, so they would be digging up this area and then extracting the oil from the oil sands. But under this new system of development, which is called in situ, they are actually drilling wells, and then they put steam down the hole to bring the oil up, and then they capture the CO2 and store it underground, so smaller environmental footprint and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Since 1990 the greenhouse gas emissions on a per-barrel basis for oil sands production has gone down by 28 percent. So they have reduced it by almost a third. These new technologies will reduce it further going forward.

This is about finding good solutions to create jobs and economic activity and energy security and take us into the future. That is why I wanted to discuss that project for just a minute.

A second project I will reference is Exxon's Kearl project, spelled K-E-A-R-L. Just by way of preface, Exxon currently produces over 100,000 barrels of oil a day in the Canadian oil sands. They are going to increase that amount this year to 345,000 barrels a day. Their objective is to get to half a million barrels a day of oil produced in the Canadian oil sands. They are investing $10 billion in this project. That is their investment in this project and these new, better drilling techniques.

Let me tell my colleagues a little bit about their project. Exxon is doing it differently than Shell and Quest. They are employing different technologies but investing $10 billion to reduce the environmental footprint, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but produce a lot of energy for Canada and for our country.

Exxon's Kearl project will use cogeneration for steam, which a low- energy extraction process to recover oil, and heat integration between the extraction and treatment facilities to minimize energy consumption. As a result, oil produced from Kearl will have about the same life- cycle greenhouse gas emissions as many other crude oils refined in the United States as a result of technologies which significantly enhance environmental performance--again, smaller environmental footprint, lower greenhouse gas emissions.

This is how we work to address the challenges we face, whether it is producing energy or anything else. We deploy these new technologies that enable us to do it better.

Other environmental innovations for Kearl include onsite water storage to eliminate river withdrawals in low-flow periods and progressive land reclamation, which will return the land to the boreal forest.

I wish to emphasize that for a minute. What we see around this site, which is actually the Shell site--this is the boreal forest. I have been to Hardisty, and I have seen the oil sands production. I was also taken out to areas where they had reclaimed land that had been formerly used to produce oil sands. Now we can't tell the difference between the land that has been reclaimed and the land that hadn't ever been used in terms of oil production. I was there and I looked at both and I couldn't tell the difference. Of course, that is subjective. You want to return it to the state it was in before it was tapped. With this newer production, there is a much smaller area that we would ultimately have to return to its original state.

I wanted to touch on those two projects for a few minutes as well as point out that the Alberta Government actually requires that all land used in the development of oil sands has to be returned to the same or equivalent condition when it is no longer in use.

The final point I wish to touch on for just a minute or two is another issue that has been brought up, which is pipeline safety. There have been some references to recent pipeline spills--one in Poplar, MT, actually not too far from where I live in western North Dakota. But the spill is from what is called the Poplar Pipeline, which I believe is owned by the Bridger Company. It is a pipeline that goes underneath the Yellowstone River. It was built in the 1950s, so we are talking about a pipeline that is over 50 years old. Isn't that just the point, that whether it is roads or bridges or buildings or pipelines or transmission lines or anything else, we have to make the investment in new facilities rather than just continuing to rely on old facilities?

That is what I want to emphasize about the Keystone XL Pipeline project. This is an investment of $8 billion, not a penny of government investment but $8 billion in private investment in new steel and new technologies.

Also, the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration--PHMSA--the division of the Department of Transportation that oversees pipeline safety, has required 57 special conditions for this pipeline to make sure it is as safe as possible. I am going to touch on some of those to give a sense of what they are.

The whole point is that here we are trying to create a business climate, a business environment where companies can put billions of dollars into these new technologies and this new infrastructure so that we can have energy as safely as possible, with the best stewardship possible, so we aren't relying on pipelines or other infrastructure that is more than 50 years old.

We are trying to get that upgrade. We are not doing it at taxpayer expense. We are getting tax revenues. We will get hundreds of millions of tax revenues that will come back in from private sector projects where we are trying to empower that investment. At the same time, the PHMSA, the Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, has all these requirements that they are making part of the approval process--57 different special safety conditions for the Keystone XL Pipeline. They are conditions such as puncture resistance. For example, TransCanada is required by PHMSA in the environmental impact statement to ensure that the steel used in the pipeline can withstand impact from a 65-ton excavator with 3\1/2\-inch teeth.

There is corrosion resistance coating, making sure it has a coating on it that is resistant to corrosion. There is cathodic protection. Cathodic protection is applied to a pipe so where it connects to other--it could be structures such as a bridge. It could be any place where the pipes are connected to make sure those other connections don't rust through into the pipe.

For maintenance, TransCanada must submit certification that demonstrates compliance with all 57 conditions before they commence operation of the pipe.

Airplanes will patrol the right of away at least 26 times a year. They will send cleaning and inspection tools through the pipeline once a year to collect and analyze basic sediment and water.

Compare all of this to a pipeline that was built 50 years ago and laid on the floor of a river--versus a pipeline now, where if they have to cross a river, they use directional drilling. So they go down 25 feet below the river and put the pipe 25 feet down in the rock below the river, versus older pipelines that were just laid in there. Again, this is the new technology--the new safeguards.

In horizontal drilling and directional drilling the pipe will be buried approximately 25 feet below riverbeds. So if there any riverbeds that cross, that is 25 feet below using directional drilling.

There are automatic shutoff valves. So they will have automatic shutoff valves and they will be placed every 20 miles along the pipeline route. Extra miles will also be placed where there are protected water crossing and other areas of higher consequence. They can be closed remotely on either side of the line, isolating a damaged area within minutes of detection.

Again, it is about making sure if there is an issue of any kind, that you can minimize and mitigate any kind of spill.

With 100 percent weld inspections, there is a requirement that 100 percent of welds are inspected rather than just some of the welds under a test basis.

With satellite monitoring and leak detection, Keystone XL will have more than 13,500 sensors feeding constant and detailed information about flow rates to the control center 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That is so that if any kind of a leak is detected, it is immediately shut down so you minimize the amount of product that would leak.

Those are the kinds of safety features--and there are 57 of them-- required by the administration's Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration. When we talk about pipeline safety and somebody comes in and says there is this pipe that broke so we should never have another pipe, we need to talk about that and address that in a sensible way.

We have over 2 million miles of pipe in this country. The point is we do need to build new pipelines and upgrade them and take other steps to make sure the system is safe. But you don't do that by blocking investment in the new technologies and the new pipeline that will help us move product more safely, more cost-effectively, and more dependably.

Those are the three issues I wanted to address. Again, I covered some of them yesterday, but I wanted to make sure that any time we had somebody coming down to offer amendments, we deferred to those individuals. I am pleased now we have 18 amendments pending on a whole gamut of issues related to this project, to this energy discussion, and to our efforts to advance a better energy future for our country.

Again, I look forward to the debate this afternoon, to voting on these amendments, and to continuing to advance this legislation on behalf of the American people.

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

Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the bill managers for their hard work today and for their efforts in the work that was done in a bipartisan way on this legislation. I know both the bill managers have spent an awful lot of time putting together these amendments, and I think they have really bent over backward to make sure Members on both sides of the aisle have had an opportunity to file their amendments, to make those amendments pending, and to get votes on the amendments. So I would like to express my appreciation to both of them for all the work they have done and for the process today in voting on amendments.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the underlying measure benefits specific investors, specific corporations, and pushes regulatory approval of a specific project. In that sense, it has all the earmarks of the biggest earmark ever.

We have learned from other history with earmarks that when you have a project that benefits specific investors and specific corporations and specific entities, there is a valuable premium on having the public know about the campaign contributions relative to that project.

This bill requires the disclosure of over $10,000 in campaign contributions from entities that will make more than $1 million off this project. It is the type of transparency that many of my Republican colleagues had been for before they were against it.

I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. President, I am here now for the 87th consecutive week the Senate has been in session to urge action on climate change.

We have had an interesting couple of weeks on the Keystone Pipeline, but from a climate change and carbon pollution point of view, this would obviously not be helpful. Indeed, it would

be a disaster leading to as much as 27 million--27 million--metric tons of additional carbon dioxide emitted per year. To put that number into some perspective, that is the equivalent of adding 6 million cars and trucks to our roads for 50 years. So it is a very considerable carbon price to pay.

We have seen a poster used on the Senate Floor that says it will have no environmental effect. That is not precisely true. Indeed, precisely the opposite is true. This is the environmental effect it will have, and it is considerable. The report referred to went on to say that it would be offset by the fact that this fuel would go out by rail anyway. But that offset was conditioned on a fuel price above $75 per barrel of oil, and we are at $50. So there is no way that conclusion can stand, and the underlying fact is what prevails--27 million metric tons of additional carbon dioxide.

It is obviously very bad from an environmental perspective. It is a lot of ``not much'' from a jobs perspective. Every 4 days we add more jobs than the construction of this pipeline just through the economic recovery that is taking place.

This is a little bit hard to explain, particularly when you think that this bill is going to be dead on arrival at the White House. We have known from the beginning that this is going to be vetoed. But it has allowed the oil and the fossil fuel industry to show their hands. This is all being done on behalf of a foreign oil company and on behalf of the fossil fuel industry.

When we look at what we have been through in the past couple of days, there are some interesting choices the Senate has made if you are a foreign oil company. If you are a foreign oil company, we will let you use eminent domain to extinguish the property rights of farmers and ranchers and take their farms and ranches away. If you are a foreign oil company, we will exempt you from the oilspill recovery fund--the Federal excise tax on petroleum--so you don't have to pay the taxes American companies have to pay. If you are a foreign oil company, we will not require you to use American steel in a pipeline being built across America being touted as a source of American jobs. If you are a foreign oil company, we won't require you to sell it in the American market even though it is touted as a product that will help balance America's energy portfolio.

So, so far, not much good to show for all of this but one thing, and that is that this exercise has at last brought the issue of climate change to the floor of the Senate.

We have not had much debate about climate change since the Citizens United decision back in 2010 allowed the fossil fuel industry to cast a very long shadow of intimidation across this body. They spend a huge amount of the money that has been freed up by Citizens United. They spend a huge amount of dark money that flows post Citizens United. And since then, the Republican Party has been virtually muzzled on that subject. So having Republicans talk about climate change on the Senate floor was something of a revelation, and I don't think we should underestimate the importance of that or undervalue what was said.

The senior Senator from North Carolina came to the floor and said this:

The concept that climate change is real, I completely

understand and accept. To the point of how much man is

contributing, I don't know, but it does make sense that man-

made emissions are contributing.

. . . the greenhouse gas effect seems to me scientifically

sound. The problem is that how you fix this globally is going

to require more than just the U.S. being involved.

Which I think we all agree with.

The senior Senator from Alaska, who is our chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the floor manager on this very bill, agreed, stating that she hopes we can all, quoting her, get beyond the discussion as to whether or not climate change is real and talk about what do we do.

I look forward to that discussion about what do we do. It is not enough just to say, OK, we finally concede that climate change is really happening. We really do have to get on to what do we do.

Even if you disagree with me that climate change is real and very significant and consequential for our country, if you will spot me that there is just a 10-percent chance that I am right--even just a 2- percent chance that I am right--when we consider the possible harms, it is something that grownup adults and responsible people ought to take a look at and come together and decide what to do.

We have been through some very notable benchmarks. We hit for the first time last year 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere for more than 3 months. They have been tracking this in Hawaii, at the top of the mountain at the Mauna Loa laboratory for decades now, and 400 parts per million for more than 3 months is a new record.

To put that in context: For as long as human beings have been on this planet, all the way back to when we were living in caves, the range of carbon in the atmosphere has been 170 to 300 parts per million. So we are well outside the range that has been our comfortable safe range for human habitation of this planet during our entire human experience, and 400 is a big move when our entire range is only 130 points and now we are 100 parts per million out of that.

Some of this lands in the oceans. The oceans have absorbed about a quarter of all our carbon emissions. We can measure their pH level. This isn't complicated. This isn't something we have to do with elaborate computer models.

What we see is that the pH level of the oceans is changing rapidly. The oceans are acidifying rapidly. When I say rapidly, they are acidifying at a rate that we have not seen in 25 to perhaps 30 or 50 million years. Indeed, some studies say nothing like this has been seen on the face of the Earth for as long as 300 million years. When we consider that our species has been around for about 200,000 years, that is a pretty long window to be launching new and dramatic changes in our oceans.

There is nothing new about the science that supports this. John Tyndall wrote the first report about the greenhouse gas effect to the British Academy of Sciences in 1861. The pages who are here and have studied history will know that 1861 was the year President Lincoln took office. So the scientific community has been aware of the greenhouse gas phenomenon since Abraham Lincoln was driving up and down Pennsylvania Avenue in a carriage with his top hat on.

There is not much new that is there, and the latest data is clearer and clearer that we just continue apace to warm the planet.

Professor Jonathan Overpeck is at the University of Arizona, and Arizona is certainly feeling the heat. Professor Overpeck said:

The global warmth of 2014 is just another reminder that the

planet is warming and warming fast. . . . Humans, and their

burning of fossil fuels, are dominating the Earth's climate

system like never before.

It is equally clear, when we look at the oceans, they not only absorb a lot of the carbon dioxide and acidify as a result--they absorb most of the heat. In fact, they absorb 90 percent of the excess heat that has been trapped by the greenhouse gases that we have flooded our atmosphere with.

I certainly see that in Rhode Island, where Narragansett Bay's mean winter water temperature is up 3 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit since we had our big hurricane of 1938. That is significant, because it means more likely storms. It is associated with sea level rise. We have 10 more inches of sea level at the Newport Naval Station. So if the 1938 hurricane were to repeat itself now, it would have 10 more inches of sea to hammer against our shores. And that is not a complicated measure, either. We do that with thermometers.

So since the Industrial Revolution, human beings have dumped 2 trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air and into the atmosphere. Said another way, that is 2,000 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide.

The notion that has no effect, when we have known since Abraham Lincoln's day that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and when we put that much in and when we can measure that it is at 400 for the first time in human history--connect the dots. How much does it take? It is really pretty obvious.

Folks who remain skeptical--well, I know, I am not a scientist. I get that. So ask one. That is all I request. And I don't think that is too much to ask of colleagues. And, by the way, do me one favor. You can ask the scientist that you please, but please don't ask a scientist who is in the pay of the fossil

fuel and the denial industry. There are a bunch of them who are out there. They turn up at all the usual denial conferences. They write in the denial journals. They take money from the denial organizations that all have fossil fuel industry funding behind them. Go to someplace neutral.

For instance, go to your own State university, like the University of Arizona or the University of Oklahoma. The dean of the relevant department at the University of Oklahoma signed the IPCC report and started Climate Central. Ask your own university. Ask any major scientific organization. All the major recognized scientific organizations in the United States of America are on board, agree that this is real, agree that this is important, agree that it is vital, and believe that we are actually near the tipping point that may make the damage irrecoverable.

If you don't want to go to your home State university and if you don't want to go to America's major scientific societies, try NOAA and

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

Mr. President, later this month, on February 27, funding for the Department of Homeland Security will run out. I think we all agree this is a critical time for our country's national security, and it is important that we fully fund Department of Homeland Security to protect Americans against terrorist attacks.

But in recent days several of my friends across the aisle have spoken on this floor asserting that Republicans are trying to force a Department of Homeland Security shutdown. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Essentially, their argument is that unless Republicans choose to completely agree with President Obama's egregious constitutional violation of executive power to implement major changes in our immigration laws--an issue which is clearly the responsibility of the people's elected representatives--then Republicans will be responsible for any lapse in DHS funding.

So to put all this in perspective regarding this situation and the assertion that a few of my colleagues have made, let me give you some thoughts. First, let's remember how we got into this situation to start with. In 2008, a Presidential candidate by the name of Barack Obama said the following:

I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest

problems that we are facing right now have to do with trying

to bring more and more power into the executive branch and

not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to

reverse when I am President of the United States of America.

He went on to say when he was President:

America is a nation of laws, which means that as President,

I am obligated to enforce that law. I don't have a choice

about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for

changes in the law so that we can have a country that is

respectful of the law but also continues to be a great

country of immigrants.

Here is the key statement:

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend

deportations through executive order, that is just not the

case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has

passed.

I could go on and on about what the President has said about his limitation of powers both as a candidate and as the President of the United States. Of course, he has violated and trampled on every word he has said, broken many promise he has made, and taken just the reverse position on everything he said about this issue on the Senate floor as a Senator and now as President.

So Republicans have responded by simply saying: ``That is a violation of your Executive power. We think these issues ought to be debated and worked through the people's representatives, as they have been in the past.''

Because there is an association between the Department of Homeland Security funding and funding for certain aspects of immigration, Republicans thought it would be worthwhile to bring a debate to the floor so the public could hear what we have to say on this issue and so that we could make adjustments through this process.

Having suffered through 6 years of this Presidency--4 years for me-- led by a then majority leader of the Democratic Party, with Republicans not being allowed to debate on the floor any significant issues that perhaps did not fit the Democratic agenda, new management has taken over here and opened up the process so that we can again be the people's representatives and speak and debate on the floor, offer amendments--winning some, losing some--and come to a conclusion.

Looking for the right vehicle, the only real vehicle, that would allow us to at least debate and offer our amendments in opposition to what the President is trying to do has been totally stifled through Democrat filibustering, not even allowing us to move forward with the bill. So we are stuck here in a difficult situation, wanting to address this egregious abuse of the power constitutionally designated to the President and at the same time needing to fund our necessary security needs through the Department of Homeland Security.

By not allowing us to even bring this issue to the floor of the Senate and debate it back and forth, offering amendments to address each Senator's various concerns, we neglect to move forward on legislation that addresses these two important needs: Number 1, the funding of our national security through DHS, and Number 2, the issue of the President's constitutional overreach.

So we stand here frustrated with our inability to be able to go forward in the way the American people expect us to go forward, in the way this Senate has traditionally operated. Here we stand in a stalemate because one party says: ``No, we don't even want to let you talk about it.'' One party says: ``No, we don't even want to take it up, offer our amendments.'' Maybe they are afraid they will not pass. That is how it works here.

The irony is that at least eight Democrats, as I count, were very critical when the President issued his Executive order regarding immigration. They basically said: ``Yes, that does exceed his powers, and he should not have done that.''

Here is an opportunity for them to weigh in with their votes instead of just their rhetoric. Yet they will not even allow that to happen.

So we are caught here in this dilemma. But let me make a couple of things absolutely clear, at least from my perspective. I do not believe a departmental shutdown is the appropriate response to this issue. Funding and paying for essential functions of the Department of Homeland Security at a time when threats have never been higher is absolutely critical. So we have to achieve that by whatever means.

By the same token, addressing this egregious constitutional violation and the President's broken promises relative Executive power on immigration is a key issue the American people want debated now. It needs to be debated. Both sides have agreed that we need immigration reform. But it ought to be done through the people's representatives and not through the wishes of the President of the United States when he does not have the power to make these changes.

So I trust that we will be able to work through this in the next several days leading up to our recess or the end of this month when we have to come to a conclusion. We are working hard to do that. We just would like the opposing party, the Democrat Party, to allow its Members to say where they stand, to offer changes, to offer alternatives, and to offer amendments. It is important enough for us to do what we were sent here to do, and that is to represent the people in this country on the critically important issues that lie before us.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am here this afternoon to discuss the two concerns I have about the bill currently before the Senate--the regulation that would grant immediate approval of the Presidential permit necessary to construct and operate the Keystone XL Pipeline.

First and foremost, I believe a thorough regulatory review process is critical for any major infrastructure project, particularly one that will cross our country's border. Regulatory review enables the identification of economic impacts from a major project and, more importantly, environmental impacts that infrastructure projects such as the Keystone Pipeline may bring.

We shouldn't trade transparency for expediency when it comes to the construction of an international project that has such scope. I can't support a bill that sacrifices these important protections. That is why I voted in the past against legislation to allow the Keystone XL Pipeline to circumvent the normal review process, and that is why I intend to again vote against this bill.

I also have a number of concerns about the impact of the Keystone Pipeline on our environment. In the past 2 weeks, we have had a spirited debate on this floor, and a number of my colleagues have come to the floor to talk about the pipeline oilspills we have seen in this country.

Just a few days ago, an oil pipeline burst, leaking 50,000 gallons of crude oil into the Yellowstone River in Montana. Yet this spill pales in comparison to the 2010 Kalamazoo River oil spill where over 1 million gallons of oil sands poured into Talmadge Creek in Michigan. The cleanup has already cost more than $1 billion and taken over 4 years to complete. In fact, to date there has been no authoritative study on how the spills of oil sands crude may differ from those of conventional crude oil. This means we have no idea about the spill's long-term effects on the health of wildlife in that river.

The other issue that has been raced onto the floor is the fact that right now, because of the way we define crude oil, TransCanada-- supporting and planning to build the Keystone Pipeline--is not required to pay into the federal oil spill liability trust fund, which would ensure taxpayers against any spills. So we have this out-of-state, out- of-country foreign company that is coming in to build this pipeline, and yet they are not required to pay, as any American company would be, into the oil spill liability trust fund. That, to me, doesn't make sense. Circumventing the regulatory process for Keystone prevents us from understanding the health hazards that we would face should another spill occur.

I am also concerned that construction of the Keystone Pipeline will increase carbon emissions and undermine some of the most critical climate policies that we have in place. The pipeline poses threats to our environment that have already been identified. Tar sands greenhouse gas emissions are 81 percent greater than those of conventional oil. That is because the production of oil sands crude is more energy intensive, or more greenhouse gas intensive, than conventional crude production. Additional processes are required to extract the oil, remove the sand, and dilute the oil so that it can flow in a pipeline.

In addition, if the pipeline is approved, much of the boreal wetlands in Alberta, Canada, which act as a carbon sink, would be destroyed, releasing 11 million to 47 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

One of the reasons I am concerned about circumventing the regulatory process is because I believe this could set a precedent for a rushed approval of infrastructure projects currently under consideration in New Hampshire.

In New Hampshire, we have two projects that really merit careful consideration and thorough review that could be affected by a precedent that says we should ignore the regulatory process. In New Hampshire, the Northern Pass transmission proposal, which proposes to deliver hydropower from Quebec into the New England energy markets and goes through northern New Hampshire, would bring power to southern New England, but New Hampshire wouldn't benefit. And any suggestion that we would circumvent the

process is a real concern to people in New Hampshire who would be affected by that project.

The other project is the potential reversal of the Portland-Montreal pipeline, which, if the determination were made to do this, would send oil sands through many New Hampshire communities, and that oil would then be shipped to foreign countries.

So if we set the precedent of trading transparency for expediency with Keystone, without requiring the completion of a comprehensive approval process, local communities in New Hampshire may not have a meaningful voice in the process that deals with Northern Pass or reversing the Portland-Montreal pipeline. I think that is unacceptable.

These three projects--Keystone, Northern Pass, and Portland- Montreal--have one important thing in common: They should undergo the comprehensive environmental and safety approval process required by existing law, and that should be done independent of politics.

Circumventing the Presidential permitting process for cross-border pipelines and electric transmission facilities avoids the due process that is needed to determine whether these projects are in the best interests of the country.

In New Hampshire, Northern Pass and the Portland-Montreal pipeline have raised serious concerns for people who live in areas impacted by these projects. That is why I worked with the entire New Hampshire congressional delegation in a bipartisan way to ensure that both projects undergo a transparent, thorough, and comprehensive review process. That allows the input of local communities who will be affected by these projects.

Like people in New Hampshire and across the country, I share concerns about our Nation's energy future. Throughout my career I have fought for smart policies that will reduce energy costs in New Hampshire and across the country, that will help create jobs, and will protect our air and water from pollution.

But I don't believe mandating a project that bypasses the approval process is a smart policy. We need to be smart and thoughtful about our energy future. I think it would set a dangerous precedent for other projects that could have serious consequences in New Hampshire and in other States around the country.

I appreciate the debate we have had here on the Senate floor about the Keystone Pipeline, but I will be opposing this bill.

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