Floor Statements

May I ask a parliamentary inquiry. It would be this. Is it possible for me to speak for 5 minutes, then reserve the remainder of my time and have the Senator from North Dakota speak, and then I can reclaim the remainder of my time?

Mr. President, we are about to engage in a historic debate; that is, over whether the Canadians--a Canadian oil company-- should be allowed to take the dirtiest oil in the world, the Canadian tar sands oil, to have the United States accede to the construction of a pipeline, like a straw through our country, which would then go down to the Gulf of Mexico, with no promise from the Canadians that they will not export the oil from the United States.

So the issue which is raised, of course, is what is in it for the United States, since there is a very small number of jobs for our country once the pipeline is completed? We understand why the Canadian company wants to do this. If they can get that oil out onto the global marketplace, using the United States as the conduit, they can get a dramatically higher price for that oil. We understand their motivation. But what is in it for the United States of America?

Ultimately, we have to decide what is in our best interests. My amendment says that if this pipeline is constructed, the oil stays here, our country gets the benefit, and our consumers get the benefit. Otherwise, it is not about energy independence; it is not about North American energy independence. It is about a Canadian company exporting the oil, using the United States as a conduit, as a straw, as a pipeline. That is it. What is in it for us?

The American people right now are enjoying historically low oil prices. They love it. It is like a tax cut to every American. If this Canadian oil gets exported, you better believe it is going to act as a spur to raise the price of oil. The more oil that is here, the better for us. The more oil that leaves our country, the worse for us.

I will give you another number, if you want to know, because this is a Canadian export pipeline. The United States of America right now is the leading importing country for oil in the world. We are No. 1. We import net about 5 million barrels of oil a day. We are No. 1. We are the No. 1 importing country. Then comes China, then comes India, then Japan. Five million barrels a day--how can we be exporting oil when we are the leading importer of oil?

What countries do we import the oil from today, 2015? We import the oil from Saudi Arabia, from Venezuela, from Iraq, from Russia, from Nigeria. How can we be exporting our young men and women in uniform over to the Middle East in order to protect these ships coming in with oil in them and simultaneously be exporting oil out of the United States, while we are still importing 5 million barrels of oil a day?

That is what this debate is all about. It does not make any sense. This is the dirtiest oil in the world. This oil is going to dangerously add to the warming of the planet. The Canadian--the American Petroleum Institute will not promise the oil stays here, even though their ads on TV say that it is all about North American energy independence.

So we have a huge choice we have to make here. Do we want to help our economy? Do we want to help our national security, help our consumers, help our manufacturers by giving them this lower price of energy--which except for labor is the No. 1 component in industry in the United States--and keep that price low? The Markey amendment says: Yes, that oil stays here in the United States of America for our own strength, our own economy, our own consumers, our own job creation, and will not be sent off onto the world so the Canadian oil company can get a much higher price for that oil while we take all of the risk. We would not be Uncle Sam, we would be Uncle Sucker if we did not keep that oil here.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I thank the Senator very much. Year 2014 has just been reported by NASA as the single warmest year ever recorded in the history of the planet, going back to the earliest records. You do not have to be a detective to figure out what is going on. The world is dangerously warming. The United States can no longer preach temperance from a bar stool and tell the rest of the world they should be better while we continue to burn these fuels.

But if they are going to build this pipeline, at least the American people should be the beneficiaries of the Canadian activity to sell all of this oil out onto the global market. What we are being told is: No, we do not want any restrictions. We do not want there to be any way in which we can keep that oil here, to keep prices at least low for the American consumer and for American job creation, to keep oil here so we can maybe back out the Saudi Arabian oil, maybe back out the Kuwaiti oil, maybe back out the Russian oil that we are importing right now as we sit here. But we are being told we cannot do that. We are being told the Republican leadership thinks that is a bad idea.

When I asked the head of the TransCanada pipeline in the hearing if he agree to keep the oil in the United States, he just looked at me and said no. So this is what is going on.

What happens for the American consumer? Well, I will tell you what happens. It is a very simple formula. Every time there is a $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil, it knocks two-tenths of a point to three-tenths of a percentage point off of the growth rate of the American economy.

When Americans pay less for American oil and we import less foreign oil, consumers have more money in their pockets from that discounted American oil. That is like a direct economic stimulus for middle-class families and small businesses across the country. Analysts say the drop in oil prices will give hundreds of billions back to consumers and other parts of our economy. Every penny reduction in gas prices translates into $1 billion in consumer savings.

So when the polling is done on this issue and the American people are asked if they would support the exportation of American oil, by a 3-to- 1 margin people say, all across the country, regardless of party: No, do not export it. Keep that oil here to make America stronger here at home.

That is not Democrat. That is not Republican. That is not Independent. That is all people being polled across the board.

That is just common sense because they know the more oil we export, the higher the prices are going to be for consumers here because we have less oil. This is a simple debate.

The planet is running a fever. There are no emergency rooms for planets. We have to engage in preventive care. The Republican leadership thinks they have the votes in order to pass this bill which will dangerously warm the planet. My amendment says if that is going to be the case--and I am not voting for that bill--at least let's keep the oil here, at least let's get the benefit for consumers so we keep prices low for gasoline, prices low for home heating oil, prices low for jet fuel, prices low for diesel. Let's keep the oil here, let's get the benefit in our economy, and let's not allow oil companies to set the agenda.

The Republican leadership keeps saying it is all of the above. Ladies and gentlemen, this bill basically says: No. No, it is oil above all. That is what it is all about. It is not even oil that is necessarily going to stay in the United States, so it is a very simple argument I am making.

We import 5 million barrels of oil a day. They come from the worst places in the world that we should be dependent upon--5 million barrels a day. We export young men and women over to the Middle East to protect that oil coming in. The least we owe to those young men and women is when we get a chance to reduce our dependence upon imported oil, we take that chance, that we send that message to the rest of the world that we understand our Achille's heel. We understand what makes us weak.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Markey amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 1 minute.

To this amendment.

Mr. President, this is a motion to table the Markey amendment, which is an amendment to have every Member of the Senate be put on record as to whether or not the oil coming through the Keystone Pipeline

is then exported out of the United States. Each Member of the Senate should be recorded on that issue.

We import 5 million barrels of oil per day into the United States. We should not allow the Canadians to use the United States as a straw to be able to then go down to the Gulf of Mexico and send that oil out of the country. We export young men and women over to the Middle East in order to protect oil coming in from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is a chance to keep oil in America so we don't have to export it.

I do not believe the appropriate vote for Members is to support a tabling of the Markey amendment so that we don't actually reach the heart of this substantive issue, which is that we should be working to have energy independence in America. When we are importing 5 million barrels of oil a day from Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, we are in no way independent.

I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to speak.

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

Madam President, when the new Congress opens there is a choice as to which issues we should start to work on. Would it be infrastructure jobs, clean energy jobs, a minimum-wage increase for all of America? No, no. That is not what the new majority decides to bring up. No. Instead, it is a Canadian oil export pipeline.

Next week I am going to offer an amendment that the Senate will consider to ask whether we will put Americans first or oil companies first, whether we will keep this oil and gasoline here for Americans or send it to foreign nations to help them instead.

If my amendment is defeated, it will make clear this is not an energy plan that is ``all of the above,'' it is oil above all.

My amendment says that if we build the Keystone Pipeline, we keep that oil here. We keep that gasoline here. We keep the diesel, the jet fuel, the heating oil. We keep it all here, because if we send it abroad, what are we doing? We are helping Canadian oil companies get a higher price for their oil. We are acting as the middlemen between dirty foreign oil and thirsty foreign markets.

Without my amendment, there is nothing in the bill or U.S. law that would prevent this oil from being exported. Eighty percent of our refined fuel exports go out of the gulf coast, exactly where Keystone would end, and foreign crude oil--including crude oil from Canada--can be freely reexported.

We know what TransCanada's plan is because I asked him at a congressional hearing--a senior TransCanada official--whether he would commit his company to keeping the oil and refined products from Keystone in the United States of America, and he said no.

Why do the oil companies want to export this Canadian tar sands oil? Because they can get a higher price and make more profit.

Tar sands crude in Canada trades for $13 less than the U.S. crude benchmark. The international prices are $3 higher than our prices.

If we do all of this, if we build this pipeline and then we send this oil to foreign countries, then we have turned Uncle Sam into ``Uncle Sucker.'' Because, make no mistake, without my amendment this bill will not do anything to help people at the pump. It will just serve to pump up the profits for oil companies.

We shouldn't export in oil, even as we are forced to send young men and women to defend oil interests in the most dangerous parts of the world.

Let us have that debate. As we import--still--oil from the Middle East, coming into the United States on tankers, this proposal we are debating next week will actually export oil that is already in the United States. We still import millions of barrels of oil every single day.

What we hear from the Canadians, what we hear from the oil industry is that this is all about energy independence. Energy independence cannot, by definition, include the exportation of oil while the United States of America is still importing millions of barrels of oil per day. That is heading us away from, rather than toward, the goal of energy independence.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is at the heart of the issue of what it is that we must understand about this Keystone Pipeline debate. We want lower prices for consumers, lower prices at the gasoline pump, lower prices for home heating oil, lower prices for diesel, and lower prices all across America. It is akin to a tax break that is going into the pockets of every single American, giving them more spending money because they are paying much less for oil in all of its forms in the United States of America right now, and it is giving an incredible incentive for economic growth in America.

What makes America great? What makes America strong? What makes us strong is when we are strong at home. What makes us strong at home is our economy, because the stronger our economy, the stronger the United States is in projecting power across this planet.

That is why on this debate the exportation of oil is so central. It goes right to the heart of what we must be discussing and debating in our country. This is an incredible opportunity for our country.

Let's take it to the next step. The next step includes what is the taxation on the Canadian oil. There is a loophole, believe it or not, in the American Tax Code that allows tar sands oil from Canada--such as that that would flow through the Keystone Pipeline--to not pay into the Federal trust fund to respond to oilspills in the United States-- understand that?

Canadian oil, the dirtiest in the world, coming through the pipeline that the Canadians want to build through the United States, in the event of an oilspill, will not have paid into the oilspill liability fund for oilspill accidents in the United States.

I wrote to the Treasury Department in 2012 urging them to close this loophole through executive action, but their response indicated that they do not believe they have the authority to close this loophole on their own, and they need legislation to do so.

Yet there is nothing in this bill that would close this tax loophole for Keystone tar sands oil. Tar sands oil can be more difficult to clean up than regular crude but receives a ``get out of Canada tax- free'' card. That makes absolutely no sense. We are already importing more than 1.2 million barrels per day of tar sands oil into the United States. But oil companies don't have to pay into our cleanup fund to import that dirty oil.

There are roughly 30 oil companies importing tar sands crude into the United States. If you are one of those 30 companies, you are getting a great deal. But if you are one of the hundreds of other oil companies out there that do pay into the oilspill trust fund, you should hate this loophole, and the American people should hate that loophole as well because the Canadians and

their oil companies are not paying their fair share of the dues to be able to participate in our great American society. They want to build a pipeline like a straw right through the middle of the United States, send the dirtiest oil right down that straw, and if that straw breaks, if there is a spill, the Canadians have not contributed to the oilspill liability trust fund. Does that make any sense? Does that make any sense? Of course it doesn't.

That is why this debate is so important. The Congressional Budget Office says this is going to cost the United States of America hundreds of millions of dollars because the Canadians escape their responsibility of paying for the accidents. That is why Senator Wyden and I are working here to make sure we have an ability to close this loophole, and we are working with Senator Cantwell, the ranking member on the committee. Along with Senator Cantwell, we are going to make sure we have this important debate on the Senate floor.

I know Senator Cantwell was out here earlier today raising this issue, highlighting this issue, pointing out how unfair and unjust it is that the Canadians escape their responsibility to pay and that it is just another giveaway to the oil industry that ensures this is nothing more than a giveaway to those Canadian companies.

I say this on a day when it is being reported there are now 140,000 people in America employed in the solar industry--140,000. There is another 50,000 employed in the wind industry--nearly 200,000 people employed in industries that, for the most part, didn't really even exist in a meaningful way 7 years ago. That is how quickly our own domestic wind and solar industries have been developed--creating jobs here in the United States, creating growth here in the United States, creating opportunity here in the United States.

So this, colleagues, is really what we should be debating. But once again, when the Republicans are in control, we do not debate all of the above. We don't debate wind and solar and biomass and energy efficiency and oil and gas and nuclear. The Republicans always make it one subject, and that is oil above all, not all of the above.

So I am looking forward to this debate. It goes right to the heart of the security of our country, the economy of our country, and the environment of our country. This is the dirtiest oil in the world. This oil is going to contribute dangerously to the warming of the planet. Last year--2014--was the single warmest year ever recorded in the history of the planet--2014. You don't have to be Dick Tracy to figure out this is a problem that we are passing on to the next generations without the debate this issue must have if we are going to discharge our responsibilities to those next generations.

The Keystone Pipeline is the central opportunity we are going to have to raise this issue of global warming, of the national security of our country, of making our economy stronger, and of ensuring we discharge our responsibility to the next generation.

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

I rise for recognition to speak on this issue.

I thank the Presiding Officer very much and I thank the Senator from Washington for her great leadership on this issue.

We are having the beginning of an historic debate here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We are debating whether the dirtiest oil in the world, the tar sands from Canada, is going to be brought through the United States in a pipeline, like a straw, and brought right down to Port Arthur, TX, to a tax-free export zone so that it can be exported out of the United States.

What is in it for our country?

Well, when you think about it, we are going to take the environmental risk, but the benefits flow to the Canadian companies. The benefits flow to the oil companies. This whole argument that it deals with American energy independence is false, and the way in which we are going to ensure that we are protected is that we are going to bring an amendment out here on to the Senate floor to debate whether this oil should stay in the United States. We export young men and women overseas to protect these ships coming back from the Middle East with oil. Why should we export the oil that is already in the United States when it can reduce our dependence? That is our challenge, and we must deal with that.

As well, the Canadians under existing law are exempt from paying a tax into an oilspill liability fund. That can no longer continue as well. That is upwards of $2 billion over 10 years to deal with oilspills in the United States created by Canadian oil, and they are exempt. That is wrong. That is just plain wrong. So this is a very important debate, but it goes right to the heart--let's admit it--of energy independence in the United States. That oil should not come to our country, go right through it and out. We have a responsibility to the young men and women we send around the world to not provide any false advertising about this oil and where it is going to go.

Net Neutrality

Secondly, I want to talk a little bit about net neutrality. We are coming up to the first anniversary of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the rules the Federal Communications Commission had put on the books to protect the Internet, to ensure that it is open, that it is entrepreneurial. Network neutrality is just a fancy word for nondiscrimination, just a fancy word for saying that it is open, that entrepreneurs, that smaller voices have access, so they cannot be blocked by communications behemoths. This is an issue that goes right to the heart of job creation in the United States of America.

Consider this. In 2013, 60 percent of all of the venture capital funds invested in the United States of America went toward Internet- specific and software companies. That is all you have to know. That is 60 percent of all venture capital money. That is why 4 million people have registered with the Federal Communications Commission their views that net neutrality is central to this entrepreneurial activity in our country. The FCC is going to promulgate or announce the beginning of the promulgation of new regulations in February. We are on the first anniversary right now of the rules having been struck down. There are none.

From my perspective, this goes right to the heart of the new generation of companies. Yes, we have Google and eBay and Amazon and YouTube and all rest of these first-generation companies, but there are new companies like Dwolla and Etsy that are at the heart of the new job creation, and we have to make sure they and others like them are not denied access.

So, in both of these issues, net neutrality and on the pipeline issue coming down from Canada, it is all about

job creation. It is all about making sure that if America is going to take the risk, America should get the benefit. And it is not going to on the pipeline issue. It is not. This is the dirtiest oil in the world. This is going to contribute to dangerous global warming.

Yet the oil companies are going to be able to sell it out on the open market. And why? Because the price of a barrel of oil on the open market is $17 higher than it is in Canada. You don't have to go to a business school to figure out this model. Get it out and onto the open seas, sell it to China, sell it to Latin America, sell it to other countries around the world. That is what this is all about. That is what is at the heart of this entire Keystone Pipeline agenda.

It is wrong for us to be short-circuiting a process that will guarantee that the environment of our country, the environment of our planet is, in fact, protected by the President and by the process that has been put in place.

I am so glad we are finally having this debate to make sure we put all of the facts out on the table.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

I seek recognition, pursuant to the consent agreement, to call up amendment No. 13.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

If I may speak briefly on the amendment, I thank the chair of the energy committee. I thank her for her courtesy and the Senator from Ohio as well.

While we will not be having the full debate at this time on the Senate floor, we are in fact beginning with a critical issue, an issue that relates to climate change, American energy independence, the impact that legislation can have upon consumers--drivers in our country in terms of how much they are paying at the pump.

It deals with actually the mission of young men and women in our country who go overseas in order to protect tankers of oil that are brought back to our country.

So the first question that will be asked in this debate is whether the oil, which is going to be delivered through this pipeline from Canada, is going to stay in the United States of America.

The Canadian tar sands oil is the dirtiest oil in the world.

The pipeline, similar to a straw, is going to be built through the United States down to Port Arthur, TX, a tax-free export zone. You don't have to have an MBA from business school to figure out what this 3-by-5 card looks like.

It is something that basically says, since the price of a barrel of oil on the global market is $17 higher than what the Canadians can get for the tar sands oil--that they want to get it out of the country, which is why it is going to end in Port Arthur, TX, an export zone.

What the amendment I am going to be making on the floor of the Senate says is that if the oil is drilled for in Canada, put through a pipeline in the United States, that oil cannot be exported, that oil stays in the United States, and that the promise of energy independence in our country is in fact what this agenda is all about. Because otherwise the United States is taking all of these environmental risks, the planet is taking all of these environmental risks, but the economic benefits are not flowing to consumers, drivers in the United States who finally feel some relief at the pump--that they are not feeling--that they are being tipped upside down and having money shaken out of their pockets on a daily basis.

The oil companies have made many claims about this pipeline. They have said it was for North American energy security, but it is about exporting oil. They have said it is about reducing prices, but it is about getting the highest profits. They said it would not harm the environment but it in fact will worsen climate change and risk dangerous oilspills.

They have been trying for 6 years to get this pipeline built, even when it is clear that we do not need it. So this is the Keystone ``export'' pipeline--the KXL.

So this first amendment that we will be debating is one that says: No, you cannot export it. We must keep that oil in the United States. We must ensure that it is in fact something that benefits the American people. Otherwise, the Canadians are just ripping this oil, this dirty oil from their soil in Canada and putting it into a pipeline that then will be exported, which will only ensure that the planet gets hotter, that it becomes more dangerous for future generations.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a very important debate. The planet is running a fever. There are no emergency rooms for planets. We have to engage in preventive care.

If this action takes place, and all we are doing is allowing Canadian oil to go through our country and out the other end, then we haven't done anything for the American consumer or for the planet.

I look forward to a more complete debate on this issue, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I seek recognition to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, the issue we are going to be debating over the next 2 weeks in the United States is really a story about two gasoline stations.

In July of 2008, the average price of gasoline in America was $4.11 a gallon. In January of 2015 in the United States of America the price is $2.21 a gallon. That is great for every driver across our country, and that is great for Americans who buy home heating oil. They are saving a lot of money this winter and the predictions are that it will continue throughout the rest of this year. That is great.

However, it is not great for the oil companies. It is not great for the Canadians. It is not great for Wall Street. They are not happy with this incredible benefit that is now flowing to Americans all across our country who now have a gasoline station that has $2.21, on average, as to what people will pay.

What does the Keystone XL Pipeline truly stand for? It truly stands for the Keystone ``export'' pipeline. That is right. What the Canadians want to do is to basically construct a straw through the United States of America, bring that straw down to Port Arthur, TX, which is a tax- free export zone, and then export the oil out of the United States.

Why would they want to do that since they advertise that it is all about North American energy independence? There is a simple reason. The price of tar sands oil in Canada right now is getting $13 less per barrel than it would get in the United States, but it is $17 less than if they can get it into ships and send it around the world. That is the very simple economic strategy of the Canadians.

How do I know this? Because during a hearing in the House of Representatives I asked the head of the pipeline for TransCanada: Would you accept an amendment to keep all of the oil here in the United States of America? He said: No.

By the way, I asked the same question of the head of the American Petroleum Institute. He said: No.

There is a lot of false advertising going on here. On one hand they say this is great for American energy independence. On the other hand, when we say let's have an amendment on the floor of the Senate that will keep the Keystone oil here in the United States, they say: Oh, no. They are absolutely opposed to that.

Logically, we have to reach the conclusion that their goal is to get the extra $17 per barrel which they will get if they can start selling it to China, Latin America, and other parts of the world. That is the plan. There are no two ways about it.

By the way, that should be their plan. That is what their responsibility is--it is to the shareholders of their companies.

What is the strategy for the American driver? That is whom we have a responsibility to. We need to make sure they get the lowest possible price. My goodness. They have been tipped upside down and had their money shaken out of their pockets at gas stations all across our country for years, and finally the day of deliverance has arrived and they have $2.21, on average, for the price of a gallon of gas, and now we are told the price of oil is too low. We have to get it back up again. Of course, the best way of accomplishing that is to start exporting oil because the less there is in North America, the higher the price will be for American drivers and for American home heating oil consumers. It is a very simple plan.

It is not about helping Americans at the pump. It is about pumping up the prices so oil companies will have new profits. It is very simple. If it is not that, then just accept an amendment that keeps all the oil here. It is a simple thing to do, and then the rhetoric matches with the reality of what is going to happen. The oil should stay here, but they will not accept that, and they have made that clear.

This is all part of a wish list we are going to see on the Senate floor for the rest of this year. This is the Big Oil wish list of 2015. We start with the Keystone ``extra large export'' Pipeline to take oil and send it out of the country. Then they want to lift the ban on the exportation of U.S. crude oil, which is now on the books--a ban on U.S. crude oil. This is Canadian oil. There are no laws against that. Then they want to begin exporting our natural gas, even as consumers and businesses and natural gas vehicle firms are enjoying record-low prices, which in turn is transforming the American manufacturing sector and our relationship with natural gas in America. They essentially want to declare war on the Environmental Protection Agency and their authority to protect Americans against pollution and to make sure the fuel economy standards of the vehicles which we drive continue to rise and rise.

Honestly, if we want to tell OPEC we are serious and keep them awake at night, then we should keep the oil here so the prices will drop, and we also need to increase the fuel economy standards and consume and import less oil. But that is not going to be the agenda that comes out here on the Senate floor from the majority. It is going to be just the opposite. In a way, that is why this first debate is actually a preview of coming attractions of what will be happening out here on the floor of the Senate throughout the course of this entire year.

There is kind of a Keystone kabuki theater that is debuting this afternoon on the Senate floor. The reality is this bill will never become law. The President is going to veto this bill. There are not enough votes to override the veto. So instead what we have is just a preview of this entire agenda, notwithstanding the fact that they are not going to be supporting a national renewable electricity standard or dramatically increasing the energy efficiency laws in our country or making sure the Canadians finally have to pay their taxes for the oil liability trust fund which they are now exempt from. American oil companies have to have a trust fund--in the event there is an oil spill in the pipeline--but the Canadians don't have to have a trust fund. Over 10 years, that is $2 billion that American companies have to pay, which Canadians don't have to pay, to make sure that something is done to protect against oilspills.

Back when the Democrats took over the House and Senate in 2007, we worked together to put together a comprehensive energy bill. What was in it? Dramatically increasing the fuel economy standards of the vehicles in our country, having a new biofuels law to expand that production, and making sure that energy efficiency in America was enhanced dramatically. We worked on a bipartisan basis, and President Bush, a Republican, signed that bill because it was done in a bipartisan, ``all of the above'' approach.

That is not what this is all about. This is not ``all of the above''; this is ``oil above all.'' That is the strategy the Keystone Pipeline embodies--shouts. It is not balanced. It is not where we should be as a country.

So I say let's have an amendment to the bill that keeps the oil here in the United States. Let's have this debate here on the floor. Let's match up the rhetoric of the oil stays here with protection of the American economy and the American driver within the reality that we voted for that to keep it here. Let's have that debate. I think it is important because otherwise the Canadians and the American Petroleum Institute will continue to engage in false advertising about where this oil is going to be used.

So from my perspective, this is the dirtiest oil in the world that is going to contribute mightily to an expansion of global warming. We know that 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded in history-- notwithstanding the fact that it snowed here in Washington, DC, yesterday--the warmest year in history. That

is what I think the green generation out there knows as they look at this issue. What are we going to do to make sure we avoid the catastrophic consequences of a dangerously warming planet?

We have to engage in preventive care of this planet. There are no emergency rooms for planets. We have to engage in preventive care to make sure we do not pass on this ever-increasing danger to future generations. We are going to get a chance here to debate this. The Keystone Pipeline is a good example of how there is not, in fact, a balanced policy.

I asked for an amendment on the floor so that we can debate whether the oil goes through a pipeline from Canada--the dirtiest oil in the world--like a straw, potentially causing environmental catastrophes across our country, and then gets exported around the rest of the planet.

I think this is the kind of debate the American people expect the Senate to engage in.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize the outstanding career of Rebecca L. Schmidt, who retired in 2014 after 30 years of dedicated service in the Federal Government. For the last 8 years of her career, Ms. Schmidt served the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as the Director of the Office of Congressional Affairs. In that position, she brought to the agency a fresh approach to congressional relations, implementing a more rigorous and proactive liaison role with congressional offices as well as expanding the office's outreach to other Federal agencies and external groups. She received the Meritorious Executive Presidential Rank Award in 2010 in recognition of her valuable contributions to the agency, including her organizational and communications skills and her ability to build better relationships between the NRC, Congress and community groups.

Ms. Schmidt started her career in the Congressional Budget Office, and later was selected for the Presidential Management Intern Program, where she participated in executive development assignments throughout government. Ms. Schmidt's assignments included working in the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation for the Army Chief of Staff; the Budget Division at Army Western Command Headquarters, Hawaii; the Management Secretariat and the National Security Division at OMB; and the House Budget Committee.

She later worked for the U.S. Army Support Command in Hawaii, where she supervised analysts responsible for formulating long-run strategic plans and performing management studies for the installation. For the next 7 years she worked for the Congress serving as a senior defense and international affairs analyst for the House Budget Committee and then as a senior professional staff member of the House Armed Services Committee where she briefed Members of Congress on technical budget matters and legislative language for the Defense authorization bill.

Following her time working for Congress, Ms. Schmidt spent the next 10 years working for the Secretary of Defense. Her service included evaluating costs and benefits for operating bases as the Deputy Director of the Base Closure Office; serving as staff assisting the members of Secretary Cohen's Defense Reform Task Force; and as a budget analyst developing the Department of Defense's 5-year budget for the Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller. Prior to her work at the NRC, Ms. Schmidt served 6 years in the Senior Executive Service as the Associate Director for Budget Presentation and Congressional Liaison in the Office of the Secretary of Defense for the Comptroller. She was responsible for preparing the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Comptroller for all budget hearings before Congress.

Over the years, she worked for four NRC Chairmen, three Secretaries of Defense and four congressional committee chairmen. She contributed her knowledge of nuclear, defense, and budget process issues and became skillful in political strategy, strategic planning and management analysis. During her three decades of public service, she demonstrated integrity, a commitment to excellence, and outstanding leadership.

Ms. Schmidt received a bachelor's degree from Wittenberg University and earned a master's degree in public policy analysis from Duke University. She has remained a loyal supporter of the Blue Devils since her graduate school days, and her blue frosted cupcakes and enthusiasm for her basketball team will be greatly missed by her congressional affairs staff during March Madness and regular season games.

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

Madam President, I rise to speak briefly to say that Dr. Murthy is about as well qualified to be Surgeon General as anyone has ever been. He brings a unique set of skills, background, and perspective that is going to serve our Nation very well. It is my hope the Senate will take this great opportunity to ensure he is given the position to serve our country with his incredible background in the way that I know all Americans are ultimately going to come to be very proud.

I want everyone to know that in Massachusetts we are very proud of him. We in Massachusetts know that he has developed a skill set which is much needed for the 21st century, much needed in an era where diseases cross international boundaries, where there is a recombinant of DNA of disease that increasingly, because of the global nature of the world we live in, is coming back here to the United States. This is our opportunity to put a real leader in this position--a leader who then can give leadership not only to our own country but to the rest of the world as well.

So I urge an affirmative vote for Dr. Murthy to become our new Surgeon General.

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

Mr. President, I rise to add my words of admiration for this great person, for this great legislator. Just to tell a brief story, it was back in 2006, in a lameduck session just like this. The Democrats had won and were about to take over the Senate. The Democrats had just won and were about to take over the House--a different passage in time. But throughout all of 2006, even in the minority, Mary Landrieu was moving a bill to open up a vast new area in the Gulf of Mexico for drilling for oil and natural gas.

I was over in the House. I was from Massachusetts. I did not want this bill to pass. I wanted to actually save it for 2007 when the Democrats were in control. We could pass it in an energy bill by the end of 2007, which would have included this provision. Mary passed it through the Senate--bipartisan, as usual. If we look up bipartisan, if we Google it, Mary's picture actually comes up.

Over in the House, because of all of her momentum, I lost and that bill passed. Again, tens of thousands of new jobs fell to Louisiana through Mary Landrieu.

It was about a week later when I was out shopping and here comes Mary right toward me with her daughter in her riding outfit.

Mary said: I want to introduce you to Congressman Markey.

I said to her daughter: Well, you have to add a few additional words because your mother just defeated me quite badly just last week and passed a big bill for Louisiana, for whom your mother always calls her people, the people of Louisiana.

There isn't anybody who understands better the spirit of legislating, about protecting your home State and respecting those who are maybe not in agreement with you but are not your enemy but somebody whom you try to work with.

After the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico I was the lead Democrat in the House on the Natural Resources Committee with jurisdiction over that, and Mary again was outraged that such damage could be done to her fishermen, to her tourism industry, to her people in Louisiana. She worked hard to make sure billions of dollars would ultimately go back into the gulf to ensure that her fishermen, her tourism industry, and her people were protected.

Then, after having served in the House for 37 years, I arrived in the Senate with a great concern that a bill I had been working on in Massachusetts, which was the dramatic rise in the insurance rates for homeowners and businesses right along the coastline of Massachusetts, and I had to introduce legislation not only to work on the issue, but when I arrived in the Senate, Mary Landrieu was already here, already working on that bill, all ready to protect her homeowners, her small business people from outrageous increases in insurance rates that would have basically made their homes unaffordable.

Throughout my career, all I can tell my colleagues is one constant is this great, legendary legislator, somebody who embodies all the best of what this institution stands for. I just want to let her know how proud I have been to be able to serve with her here and how proud I am to be able to tell a story of the time when she just beat me flat-out because that is just how she plays. She plays it for her State every time, and no waiting if it is Louisiana. I know all the people of Louisiana know that about her.

So congratulations on your great career.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was absent from the rollcall vote on the nomination of Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Had I been present, I would have opposed his nomination.

Mr. President, Senator Rockefeller's nearly 50 years of public service has left West Virginia and our country a better place. Whether it is promoting health care, education, economic growth, or veterans, Senator Rockefeller has led the way, acting to improve the lives of hardworking Americans.

When it comes to protecting consumers and children, Senator Rockefeller has been a legislative partner and a national leader. I want to especially point out his tireless efforts to increase educational opportunities for children around the country.

The E-Rate has proved essential and exceptional in linking up schools and libraries to the Internet. The E-Rate has democratized access to brighter futures and better technology. The E-Rate is the only technology that has been deployed as fast in poor neighborhoods as it has in rich ones.

Chairman Rockefeller, your legacy will live on for decades to come. Whether in rural areas, or urban ones, affluent, or low-income communities, all corners of our great Nation will continue to feel your impact.

Finally, I want to personally thank you for your friendship throughout my tenure in Congress.

These walls will feel emptier without you next year.

I wish you, your wife Sharon, and the rest of your family many more years of fulfillment in your next endeavors.

This debate is really about some simple fundamental principles. Keystone is a Canadian export line. That is what the oil is going to do. It is going to travel from the dirtiest tar sands fields in Canada through a pipeline like a straw through the United States, down to the Gulf of Mexico, and then be exported out of the United States of America.

How do I know this? I know it because I made the amendment on the floor of the House of Representatives saying this oil stays in America. Do you know who opposed it? The American Petroleum Institute and the Canadian Government. This is the Canadian Keystone export pipeline. We take all the environmental risk and this oil goes out of our country.

Ladies and gentlemen, we still import approximately the same amount of oil in 2014 as we imported in 1975 when we put the ban on exportation of oil on the books. We are still exporting young men and women overseas into the Middle East to protect tankers coming into our country, and we are going to build a pipeline for the Canadians down to the Gulf of Mexico so they can use us as a straw to send it down and then export it out of our country? Where is the American angle on this?

I keep hearing that it is about American security. Do you want to know what this is all about? I will tell you what it is all about. The Canadian companies want to make more money. They want to take the oil from Canada, bring it down through the United States, bring it to the Gulf of Mexico, and then send it to Europe, Latin America, and China. Why? Because they will pay more for this oil than the United States will pay for this oil. They will make billions of extra dollars once they can get it on a ship because the price for world oil is set at a price, which is called Brent, but it is the global price.

Well, in the United States, because of fracking, because of our rise in domestic energy production, and because of our dramatic increase in fuel economy standards, we are producing more oil and consuming less simultaneously, and the price of oil at the gasoline pump for people who use home heating oil as a way of heating their home is going down dramatically.

What does that translate into? Well, every time the price of a barrel of oil goes down just 1 cent at the pump, it is $1 billion into the pockets of the American consumers--$1 billion. So from July of 2008 until today, it has dropped from $4.11 to $2.88 at the pump, and Americans all across America are not afraid to go to a gasoline station right now and fear that they are going to be tipped upside down and have money shaken out of their pockets because they can pay $2.88 and it is dropping.

If we keep the Canadian oil in the United States, that price is going to drop even more because we will have to import even less than we do now from the Middle East. That helps consumers. That helps our economy. That should be the plan, not taking all these environmental risks and not getting the economic benefits.

The lower the price is, the greater the economic activity in our country. Manufacturers start to say: I will build my plant here. The price of energy is much lower. There is much greater economic activity because people have more money in their pockets to buy other American products other than

oil, and they buy them in their neighborhoods, they buy them in their communities. That is what this should be all about.

What is this debate not about--I mean decidedly not about? It is not about solar, it is not about wind, and it is not about energy efficiency. It should be. If we are going to debate an energy future for our country, it should not be oil above all; it should be all of the above.

So right now what we are hearing from the other side is that they just might not support the extension of the wind tax break, even as wind has now created 80,000 new jobs in the American economy. They are not talking about extending the solar tax break for another 5 years, which they should be. That has creating 142,000 new jobs in the American economy. And I will tell you why. Because this is an agenda to make sure the oil industry gets what they want on the one hand, and they can starve their competitors on the other--wind, solar, energy efficiency.

Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman had a bill that addressed energy efficiency. It has been dying here on the floor of the Senate for the last 2 years. What is its biggest problem? I will tell you what it is: It creates 190,000 new jobs in energy efficiency which would reduce the need to use fossil fuels to generate the same amount of electricity because the single wisest way to consume energy is to not consume it in the first place so you don't have to take the money out of your pockets. That is energy efficiency. That is working smarter, not harder. Shaheen-Portman, dead. The Republicans killed it. The wind tax break, dead. The solar tax break is not going to be extended.

If we are going to have a debate in our country, if we are going to talk about job creation, if we are going to have something that really deals with the future of our country, let's put solar, wind, energy efficiency, biomass, and geothermal--let's bring them all out here. Let's have a big debate and not just something that has the Canadians use America as a conduit--as a straw--to get their oil out of our country so they can make an extra $5 or $10 or $15 for every barrel they sign. You don't have to go to Harvard Business School to see this business plan on a 3-by-5 card. If you get it out of America, you make $10 to $15 more per barrel. It is simple. There is no thinking required here.

What is in it for us? The dirtiest oil in the world goes through the United States so that Canadian oil companies can make money. It makes no sense, not if America is generating hundreds of thousands of new jobs with wind and solar and the tax breaks in those industries are on the table to be killed. We should be trying to use this as a debate about the big issues. Yes, reducing greenhouse gases, but it is job creation and it is national security. If that oil stayed in America-- this Canadian oil--and if wind and solar and biomass and geothermal were given those incentives, we could tell those Arab nations that we don't need their oil any more than we need their sand. That is what we should be talking about out here, that plan. That is not what we are talking about, however. We are talking about something that is very narrow and only creates jobs in the short run. Once the pipeline is built, it takes almost a handful of employees to run that pipeline. Rather than creating the permanent jobs in wind and solar, the permanent jobs in energy efficiency, the permanent jobs in solar panel manufacturing--how do you possibly expect the American people to think this institution is serious if we are not going to be having that kind of a debate?

Ladies and gentlemen, don't kill the production tax credit; don't kill the solar tax breaks in 2 years. Let's have the big discussion about where America is going. Let's do it in a way that has a comprehensive plan which is ultimately put together.

I say to you right now: Do not build this Canadian Keystone ``export'' pipeline. Don't build it until we have the debate, which this country expects. Young people in campuses all across the country expect a debate on wind and solar; they expect a debate on using technology. We are the brain country; we are the technology country. We are the country that can invent our way into this new world--into reducing greenhouse gases and breaking our dependence on imported oil. That is who we are as a nation.

We put a man on the Moon in 8 years. We were challenged, and we did it. We invented new metals and new propulsion systems. We are the can- do Nation. We invent the new technologies that young people want. We are not doing that here today. We are just helping the Canadians take oil and send it right out of our country.

If they would accept an amendment to say this oil stays here in America, that would change the debate a little bit. If they were willing to add wind and solar tax breaks and efficiency incentives, that would change the debate. But they are not going to do that.

Mr. President, I ask for one additional minute.

By the way, I just served over in the House in the last 4 years when the Republicans--the tea party--took over the House of Representatives. What did they do on an ongoing basis? Cut incentives for renewables, cut the energy efficiency budget, kept passing bills that stripped the Environmental Protection Agency of its ability to regulate pollution and its ability to increase the fuel economy standards, not just for cars but for boats and planes. That is not the direction our country should be going in.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

I also have to say at the same time that I have the highest respect for Senator Landrieu. She is a passionate and dedicated and articulate force fighting for her State and fighting for her beliefs. There is no one in this entire institution whom I respect more than her and her passionate belief and the cause she is championing out here on the Senate floor, but at the same time, I respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on the Keystone Pipeline.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes.

Mr. President, I respect the Senator from Louisiana, and there is no more fierce advocate for this pipeline in our country. She has been a relentless advocate for that pipeline. I am not going to speak on this issue today, but I look forward to a much more extensive debate that we will have next week. But there is no one more vulnerable than the Senator from Louisiana in her advocacy.

Remembering Tom Menino

I rise today to speak about Tom Menino, our great mayor from the city of Boston who just passed in the last month. He always looked out for the little guy. He always stayed true to the people who elected him, and he stuck by his principles.

In every neighborhood across the city, Boston mourns the loss of our great mayor, Tom Menino. We mourn along with his wife Angela, his family, and everyone who ever was touched by Mayor Menino. But we will fill that void with the love and respect that we have for the life and the legacy of this extraordinary man.

Boston loves Tom Menino because Tom Menino loved Boston with all of his heart. Tom Menino wasn't satisfied with leading the best city in America. He wanted Boston to be the best city in the world. He was an urban architect without equal, attuned to every detail in every neighborhood. He forged a more inclusive Boston, where diversity is embraced. Tom Menino was everyone's mayor.

In a poll a few years back, half of all Bostonians in the poll said they had personally met Tom Menino. That really captures how Tom Menino approached his job, but we all know how he viewed those poll results-- that his job was only half done.

Yet Mayor Menino's vision for Boston was global, and he pushed the city into a new era of innovation. He helped our shining city on a hill illuminate its light of innovation across the world, building a beacon of entrepreneurship and ingenuity. He laid the foundation for Boston's economic leadership in the 21st century, including spearheading Boston's Innovation District and developing the seaport area.

The Innovation District is supporting the companies and industries that are creating jobs today, and Mayor Menino has ensured that Boston will continue to be a national leader in biotechnology, clean energy, and health care for generations to come. He did all of this while keeping Boston's historic character alive. Tom knew what potholes needed filling, but he also knew when to leave the cobblestones alone.

So today, if you take a drive around Boston--or, as Tom would want you to do, take a bike ride--you would see there is no place in Boston that hasn't felt the caring imprint of Tom's hand: kids playing on new playgrounds in safer neighborhoods; poor communities with better access to life-saving health care; entrepreneurs and investors collaborating on the next big thing.

Boston will move into the future a stronger, brighter, safer, and healthier city because of Tom Menino. So today we honor his life and his legacy. Tom Menino is a man and a mayor for the ages.

Rest in peace, Mayor Tom Menino.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to congratulate the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, WHOI, on the 50th anniversary of the commissioning of the deep-sea, human-occupied submersible Alvin.

Alvin was commissioned on June 5, 1964, at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in Woods Hole, MA. It is owned by the U.S. Navy and operated by WHOI. In one of its first missions, it responded to a national emergency in 1966, locating and helping to recover a hydrogen bomb that had accidentally dropped into the Mediterranean Sea.

In 1974, Alvin brought scientists for the first time to the mid-ocean ridge during Project FAMOUS, the French-American Mid-Ocean Undersea Study, and revealed a seafloor that scientists had not imagined. Project FAMOUS proved that submersibles could effectively explore the deep seafloor and marked the beginning a new era of exploration.

Alvin discovered and explored previously unknown and unexpected communities of deep-sea organisms that thrive in the absence of sunlight, sustained not by photosynthesis but by chemosynthesis. This discovery was one of the most profound of the 20th century, because it completely transformed our conceptions of where and how life can exist on this planet; reconfigured our search today for life on other planetary bodies; and opened entirely new lines of microbiological and biogeochemical research, including those that have led to commercial and pharmaceutical applications.

Over the following decades, Alvin discovered several previously unknown seafloor environments harboring a diversity of chemosynthetic communities, including high-temperature black-smoker chimneys that spew like undersea geysers in the Pacific, 1979; cold-seep habitats sustained by hydrogen sulfide, methane, and other hydrocarbon-rich fluids seeping from the seafloor Guaymas Basin, Gulf of California, 1982, and in the Gulf of Mexico, 1983; and ``Lost City'' environments, where seawater reacts with mantle rock, peridotite, to produce methane and hydrogen in the Atlantic, 2000.

Alvin has also explored another type of seafloor habitat--seamounts, or ancient undersea volcanoes--with their diverse communities of deep- sea corals, fish, and other organisms, in the Gulf of Alaska, the Pacific, and the Atlantic. Scientists aboard Alvin have discovered many hundreds of previously unknown marine species.

Alvin has contributed to other events of historical significance, exploring and bringing back images of the wreck of the Titanic in 1986 and responding to the Deepwater Horizon disaster, by investigating impacts to deep-sea habitats in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

Alvin inspired scientists and engineers to develop new generations of deep-submergence technology; including remotely operated vehicles, ROVs, tethered by fiber-optic cables and free-swimming autonomous underwater vehicles, AUVs. These vehicles are now routinely used for naval activities and national security, oil exploration, maritime, and other industries, environmental and fisheries monitoring, and disaster response, and are now being developed for use under ice in polar regions and to explore other planetary bodies.

Alvin resumed operations in 2014 after a major upgrade, funded by the National Science Foundation, Office of Naval Research, and WHOI, which dramatically enhanced its capabilities. An anticipated second phase of this Alvin upgrade will increase the submersible's diving capacity from 4,500 to 6,500 meters, 14,000 to 21,000 feet, allowing it to reach 98 percent of the seafloor.

Alvin has been a workhorse for U.S. scientists, safely taking nearly 2,600 individual researchers on more than 4,700 dives to the ocean depths and is the only deep-sea human-occupied vehicle in the National Deep Submergence Facility for the U.S. oceanographic community. Alvin has thrilled and inspired generations of schoolchildren around the world with its adventures and discoveries and become an icon for exploration and a symbol of American ingenuity.

The accomplishments and discoveries achieved by this single submersible and the scientists, engineers and ship's crew who built, use, and operate it during its first 50 years demonstrate the importance of continued support for the development of deep-submergence technology and exploration of the largest portion of Earth's surface and its last frontier the ocean.

Alvin is a national scientific treasure and we are proud that it calls Massachusetts and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution home.

I ask to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

I rise today to speak about an issue that is fundamental to our democracy and vital to the future of our Nation. This is an issue so important that it requires us to take the monumental step of amending our Constitution.

This is not an action any of us should take lightly, but our democracy is under assault and I will not stand by and watch the damage being done without trying to do something to repair it.

Because of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, a tsunami of

undisclosed, unlimited campaign funding is corrupting our democracy. Our government is supposed to be about checks and balances. Citizens United and the recent McCutcheon decision make it more about who is writing the checks and how big is their bank balance.

In the 2012 election, 60 percent of the contributions to super PACs came from just 159 donors. Sixty-four percent of the money raised by the Senate candidates came from a mere .04 of 1 percent of the population.

Our government is in jeopardy of no longer being of the people but instead becoming of and for the wealthy. The voices of the majority of the American people, those of middle-class families, seniors on fixed incomes, workers making minimum wage, are being drowned out by an ocean of campaign cash. This is utterly undemocratic and it needs to stop.

Congress has tried to stop this tidal wave of unlimited money, but the Supreme Court interprets the First Amendment not as a guarantee of free speech but of who can pay to speak. As a result, our democracy is in peril.

Campaign finance limits don't limit our free speech. They increase it by ensuring that every citizen can be heard and that no one gets unfair access to our government at the expense of everyone else. Campaign finance laws don't stifle democracy, they enhance it.

We need to fix our broken campaign system. We need a constitutional amendment that overturns the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions.

Our democracy is based on the fundamental principle that all voters, and each and every vote cast, are created equal. People, not dollars, are the true currency of our Constitution and democracy.

That is why I will be voting for Senate Joint Resolution 19, to support a democracy for all attitudes in the United States.

Net Neutrality

I also rise in support of another principle that enshrines democratization to access of information and ideas: net neutrality.

Net neutrality is as basic to the functioning of the Internet as nondiscrimination is to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, net neutrality is just a fancy word for nondiscrimination.

The Internet is a success today because it is open to anyone with an idea. An open Internet enables freedom of expression and the sharing of ideas across town or across the world. Yet the vitality of this open platform is at stake. The FCC is currently considering a proposal that could allow broadband providers to charge Web sites, applications, and services more for faster delivery times to consumers. We cannot allow that to happen.

That is why I am proud to stand with the netizens--all Internet users--to show what the Internet would look like with fast and slow lanes.

Today is our battle for net neutrality. Today we demonstrate on our Web sites what paid prioritization really means: Web users stuck on a bumpy gravel path while the select few whiz by on a sleek highway with their Internet E-Z passes.

In solidarity with netizens everywhere, I have posted on my Web site a symbol familiar to Internet users everywhere--the loading symbol you get when your video is waiting to appear because there is congestion on the net. My Web site today, along with countless others, serves as a harbinger of the dark days that lie ahead if we let the broadband behemoths win.

I believe we should never forget that the net comes with a manufacturer's guarantee: No one should have to ask for permission to innovate.

To prevent this from happening, this summer I led 12 of my Senate colleagues in urging the FCC to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service under title II, enabling the Commission to put the strongest rules on the books to prevent discrimination.

Internet access today is like traditional phone service was decades ago, it is essential for everyday living. But if the ISPs have their way, the FCC would turn the Internet from a democratic ``Field of Dreams'' into an exclusive set of gated communities.

But the good news is the online activist community--the Netroots and the startups, the Internet investors--have spoken out in favor of implementing title II to protect net neutrality.

I will continue to join with my colleagues in the Senate to fight for an open and nondiscriminatory Internet because the future of our country depends upon it.

I yield back the remainder of my time and I suggest the absence of a quorum.