Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have 3 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

committee on the judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 7, 2017, at l0 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

select committee on intelligence

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, March 7, 2017 from 2:30 p.m., room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold a closed hearing.

select committee on intelligence

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, March 7, 2017 from 2:20 p.m.-2:30 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold a closed busines meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the ``Senate Committee on Indian Affairs rules for the 115th Congress'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 245., the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2017.

Over 10 years ago, Congress passed the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act. This act was a step in the right direction to economic self-sufficiency for Indian tribes and energy independence for our Nation.

It created a process for Indian tribes to govern the development of their energy resources while reducing costly bureaucratic burdens of Secretarial review, approval, and oversight. But after more than 10 years, the act has not been implemented in a manner beneficial to the tribes or efficient resource development.

Bills have been introduced for the past four Congresses to improve and clarify the process but none of them have been signed into law. It is past time Congress acts and gets this bill across the finish line to be signed into law.

The bill that I am introducing today would improve, clarify, and make predictable the process for tribes to enter energy resource agreements and development. I would like to highlight some of the key provisions in this bill.

The bill provides clarity regarding the specific information and time frames for Secretarial decisions required for tribal energy resource agreements. This bill recognizes the need to engage tribes by requiring more robust technical assistance and consultation with Indian tribes in the planning and development stages for energy resource development.

It would further facilitate the Secretarial approval process for mineral development by allowing Indian tribes and third parties to perform appraisals. This bill also includes renewable energy resource development by authorizing tribal biomass demonstration projects to assist Indian tribes in securing reliable, long-term supplies of woody biomass materials.

I would like to thank Senators Barrasso, McCain, Lankford, Moran, and Heitkamp for joining me in cosponsoring this bipartisan bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in advancing this bill and getting it signed into law expeditiously.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 5 minutes to make comments but also that my colleague from North Dakota be allowed to make comments, as well, and that we be allowed to complete those comments prior to the afternoon recess.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the service and sacrifice of Colt Eugene Allery, a sheriff's deputy in Rolette County, ND, who was killed in the line of duty on January 18. Deputy Allery was just 29 years old and leaves behind his fiance, Alexandria, his four children and stepdaughter, along with many family and many friends.

Deputy Allery was dedicated to serving the public and spent the last 5 years working in law enforcement. He started his career as a corrections officer, serving as a police officer in Rolla, ND, and as a tribal police officer for the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, a tribe of which he was a member.

He became a deputy with the Rolette County Sheriff's Office just 3 months ago. His colleagues remember him for his friendly and positive disposition and his commitment to making his community and our State safer. He was also well known in St. John, the tight-knit community where he was raised by his grandparents. He was known for always serving his friends and his family. They say Colt was happiest when he was doing things for others, which is why he chose law enforcement as his career.

Deputy Allery's life is a reminder to each of us of the enormous debt we owe to all of the men and women in law enforcement who leave home every day and go to work to protect us and help make our communities and our States safer places--places that we are proud to call home.

My wife Mikey and I extend our deepest condolences to Deputy Allery's family and friends during this difficult time. Our thoughts and prayers are with his loved ones and his law enforcement colleagues, in the coming days and months and especially today, as Deputy Allery is laid to rest. May God bless him and his family.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and turn to my colleague from North Dakota.

Mr. President, for all the people of North Dakota, we thank Colt for his service, and we ask that God bless Colt Allery and his entire family.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have ten requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

committee on armed services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 24, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.

committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 24, 2017, at 10 a.m.

committee on commerce, science, and transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 24, 2017, at 10:15 a.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

committee on finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 24, 2017, in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

committee on foreign relations

The committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 24, 2017, at 12 p.m.

committee on homeland security and governmental affairs

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 24, 2017, at 2:30 p.m.

committee on the judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 24, 2017, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

committee on small business and entrepreneurship

The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 24, 2017, at 10:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nomination of Linda E. McMahon to be Administrator of the Small Business Administration.''

committee on veterans' affairs

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 24, 2017, at 3 p.m. in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

select committee on intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 24, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building.

Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my esteemed colleagues from the State of Florida and the State of New Hampshire in discussing the legislation before this body. I worked with the Senator from New Hampshire on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, and we are working to fund Homeland Security. That is what this bill does. The bill we are trying to proceed to fully funds Homeland Security.

My question is, How do we finish a bill if we can't start? All we are asking for is to proceed to a bill that fully funds the Department of Homeland Security. So I have been listening to my colleagues talk about the need to fund Homeland Security and that is exactly what this bill does--fully funds the bill.

Now I understand they want to make changes to the bill, but again I ask the question how do they make changes to a bill if they are not willing to proceed to the bill, get on the bill, debate the bill, and offer their amendments?

So that is where we find ourselves and that is why it is so important that we proceed to this DHS funding bill. This is a bill that has passed the House.

At the end of the day, both Houses of Congress have to pass the bill. We can't just pass it in the Senate and they can't just pass it in the House. The House has passed this bill.

Now we need to take it up. We need to have the debate, we need to offer amendments, have votes on those amendments, and pass the bill-- pass the bill that fully funds DHS. Again, I emphasize, this bill fully funds the Department of Homeland Security.

We are ready to legislate. We are willing to go back and forth on amendments, one Democratic amendment for every Republican amendment, but when that was offered last week on this floor by the majority leader, it was rejected by the other side of the aisle.

This leads me to believe that what my Democratic colleagues are asking for is that the only DHS funding legislation the Senate consider is legislation endorsed by the President. Moreover, they don't seem to be interested in amendments, in allowing the Senators and those Americans--whom we represent--to have a voice in this process.

My colleagues know that is not how the Senate works. When our Founders sought to build a government of checks and balances, with a strong legislative branch and mechanisms to prevent the Executive, the President, from imposing his or her will on the rest of government, I doubt this is what they had in mind; that we simply rubberstamp what the President wants.

Today's cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the DHS appropriations bill offers all Senators a choice. We have a choice today. Senators can choose to legislate a solution to this DHS funding impasse to prevent a DHS shutdown or they can choose to defend the President's Executive action.

That is exactly what is going on. As Senators we must be willing to engage with one another to pass a bill. We must be willing to engage, to debate, and to vote on amendments.

Often there are many sides to an issue. In fact, sometimes it feels as though there are 100 different perspectives, and of course there are. But the ability to merge our diverse viewpoints into legislation, that is the strength of the Senate. That is the only way, short of one party possessing 60 votes, the Senate can function. Many of our friends on the other side of the aisle are asking this body to rubberstamp the President's approach, but the Senate was not intended to be a rubberstamp. We must be willing to take that first step toward funding DHS together, and that first step is proceeding to a bill. In order to consider amendments and develop consensus, we simply must be able to move to the legislation and consider it on the floor today.

Let me remind my colleagues why this funding is so vital.

The Department is responsible for so many essential security programs. I think it is important that we take a few minutes to talk about the funding that is in this bill, full funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

This bill provides $10.7 billion for Customs and Border Protection, CBP, including record levels of personnel, tactical infrastructure, technology, and air and marine assets. It provides $5.96 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, and maintains a record 34,000 adult detention beds and 3,828 family detention beds.

This bill strongly supports the vital missions of the Secret Service and provides for our cyber security efforts. The bill provides more than $10 billion for the Coast Guard for its many missions, including search and rescue.

Since Homeland Security is a national effort, the bill continues critical funding for grant programs to State and local firefighters, emergency managers, and law enforcement. The bill also provides for research and development, TSA's aviation security screening operations, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and E-Verify, which supports businesses across the United States in hiring legal workers.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute to complete my remarks.

This bill does not fund the President's Executive actions--and rightly so.

Since we haven't had regular order in this Chamber in years, it seems there may be some reluctance to allow the Senate to work as it is designed to do: to proceed to legislation so that we, as a legislative body, can engage in a healthy debate. It is time the Senate proceed to the DHS appropriations bill without further delay. I urge my colleagues to vote to proceed to H.R. 240, the DHS appropriations bill.

With that, I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

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

Madam President, I would like to speak on the subject of the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Keystone XL approval bill which we passed in the Senate will be voted on this afternoon in the House. I believe the House will pass the bill with a strong bipartisan majority, just as we did in the Senate.

This bill is about energy, it is about jobs, it is about economic growth, and it is about national security through energy security. I have been on the floor in the Senate talking about all these issues as we worked on this bill. The Keystone XL Pipeline approval bill was the first bill we took up in the Senate in this Congress, S. 1. I think there were on the order of 250 amendments filed on the bill and we voted on more than 40 amendments with rollcall votes. We debated, Senators brought forward their amendments, and we voted on the bill and the bill passed, as I say, with a strong bipartisan majority.

Now the House will vote, as I say, this afternoon on the bill as well. I think it is remarkable that today is the day we will pass the bill completely through the Congress. I think it is remarkable because it is on the very same day the President has sent to the Congress an AUMF, authorization for use of military force, to deal with ISIS. It is on the very same day the President has sent us an AUMF, authorization for use of military force, to actually send our soldiers, our men and women, our combat resources to the conflict in the Middle East, the very same day we are passing legislation that will help our Nation with the production of more energy, not only in the United States but also working with our closest friend and ally, Canada.

This pipeline is about the infrastructure we need to help us move to energy security, meaning that we produce more energy than we consume. Today in the United States we consume about 18 million barrels of oil a day. Of that total, we produce about 11 million barrels a day, and we import from Canada about 3 million barrels a day. So if we do the math, that means there are about 4 million barrels a day we need to import from other countries. We get about half of that from OPEC, roughly 2 million barrels a day. The Keystone XL Pipeline will move 830,000 barrels a day. Some of that will be produced in Canada, some of it will be produced in the United States, but it will move 830,000 barrels a day to our refineries. That is almost 1 million barrels a day we don't have to import from somewhere else.

So go back to the math. I just said we were importing from countries other than Canada 4 million barrels a day, half of that from OPEC-- about 2 million barrels a day. This project is almost half of what we are importing from OPEC right now. That is why I say it is remarkable on the very same day that we are working to build energy security for this country, where we are working to develop the infrastructure we need to move oil from where it is produced to where it is refined and consumed in this country, we are also dealing with the conflict in the Middle East. OPEC--we are getting oil from the Middle East and we are dealing with conflict in the Middle East. Let's break that cycle, right?

At the point that we produce more energy than we consume, we are more energy secure. It is not only about growing the economy and creating jobs, but that means we don't have to get oil from OPEC anymore. That is one more reason we may not have to be involved in a conflict in the Middle East in the future. So here we are in a bipartisan way in the Congress doing the work the people sent us to do in the Senate and in the House on a project that has overwhelming bipartisan support, on a project where all six States on the route of this pipeline--Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas--all of the States have approved it.

They didn't have to particularly hustle because they had 6 years to do it. The administration has held up this project for 6 years. Here we are with something that Congress overwhelmingly supports on a bipartisan basis. All six States that have this pipeline have approved it, and the American people overwhelmingly support it.

In poll after poll, 65 to 70 percent of the American public said, yes, build this infrastructure, create an energy future where we produce the oil and gas we need in America and we work with Canada. We the American people don't want to rely on OPEC or the Middle East anymore for our energy. We don't want to have to import oil from the Middle East. That is what this legislation is all about.

On the very day we are approving this bill through Congress, we are getting the President's request for the use of military force. He is sending that agreement to us and, I believe the President is saying to us, Congress, join with the Obama administration to work to deal with the terrible problem of ISIS, and we need to do that.

We are going to give that AUMF, authorization for use of military force, careful consideration. I think the Congress will work its will. Then we will, together, as representatives of the American people--the Executive and the legislative branch--work to defeat ISIS.

Just as the President is sending that document today, we are sending him a document. We will be sending him a law dutifully passed by both the Senate and the House in a bipartisan way and saying, Mr. President, we need you to work with us too. Just as you want Congress to work with you on an authorization for use of military force, we want you to work with us on behalf of the American people who have spoken loudly and consistently that they want energy security.

Mr. President, we need you to work with us to build that vital infrastructure so we can produce our energy here at home and work with our closest friend and ally, Canada, and not be dependent on energy from the Middle East anymore.

Don't be fooled--don't be fooled. We are in a battle right now for global market share to determine who is going to produce energy in the future. Is it going to be OPEC? Is it going to be Russia? Is it going to be the United States? Who is going to produce energy in the future? The reason the price at the pump has come down over $1 over the course of the past year is because we are producing so much oil and gas in the United States and because we are getting more from Canada. More supply pushes prices down. If that were a tax cut, it would equate to more than a $100 billion tax cut for the American consumer. So what is going on?

On a global basis OPEC is pushing back, because they know if they push back, instead of our industry and our energy industry in this country continuing to grow, it starts to shrink again. Who is back in the driver's seat? OPEC is back in the driver's seat. What do you suppose is going to happen then? Prices will go right back up, and that benefit consumers get at the pump we will not have anymore. Also, that security issue I am talking about we will not have because we will have to continue to bring in oil from the Middle East. This is about a long- term strategy for national security.

It is more than just sending our combat resources into a conflict. A long-term strategy for national security also includes energy security, and just as the President is sending us an AUMF today, we are sending him legislation today that will make our Nation more energy secure. I hope the President will join with us in that endeavor on behalf of the American people.

Thank you, and with that I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, both from Alabama and from Maine, for coming down to the floor and saying: Let's do the work of the Senate. Let's advance to this Department of Homeland Security bill, let's offer amendments, let's have the debate. Let's fund the Department.

But let's make sure we do it in the right way, and where we protect the checks and balances built into this government by our forefathers.

For the last few days I have come to the floor to call attention to the importance of voting ``yes'' on the motion to proceed to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill for 2015--H.R. 240.

I wish that weren't the case. I had hoped that by now we would be much closer to passing a funding bill for the Department; that the Senate would have proceeded to the DHS appropriations bill, and that we could begin the process of debate, of considering amendments, and of developing consensus--of getting our work done.

Yet here we are on the third day, just trying to proceed to funding the Department of Homeland Security--a Department that everyone agrees is vital.

That is what this bill does: It funds the Department fully and completely, and it does it in the right way by enforcing the law.

I don't have to tell my colleagues that the defining attributes of the Senate come from the Senators' ability to debate and to amend legislation. Debate and amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 3 minutes.

Mr. President, I would be willing to defer in the order too if my colleague from New Hampshire prefers to go, and I can follow; either way.

I wish to thank the Senator from the great State of New Hampshire.

Debate and amendment. Debate and amendment. That is what we are talking about.

We are talking about going to this bill that funds the Department of Homeland Security and having the debate and offering amendments. That is what I am asking for. That is what we need in order to address the issues such as the one that my good friend and colleague from New Hampshire raised on Tuesday. She is the ranking member on the Appropriations Subcommittee of the Department of Homeland Security. She made a request in terms of a parliamentary point of order--budget point of order--and she made the inquiry. It is a valid point of order, one that can and should be debated, and we should have the opportunity to vote on it. But we can't vote on it unless we proceed to the bill. So let's proceed to the bill. Let's have that debate. Bring up the point of order, and let's have a vote. And let's have amendments. That is how we do our work in the Senate.

But despite the best efforts of Republicans to provide that opportunity for debate by proceeding to this bill to move forward, we are met with no's from the other side of the aisle. In essence, we are being filibustered--a tactic that was decried as obstructionist in the previous Congress.

In case my friends on the other side of the aisle think this is going unnoticed, they should check the headlines. Look no further than an article from CNN on Tuesday: ``Democrats block funding for DHS to protect Obama immigration orders.''

Or the Washington Times: ``Democrats filibuster DHS spending bill, block GOP on amnesty debate.''

These headlines speak to a central flaw in the arguments of those who say we need a DHS bill, but then vote against this Senate proceeding to that very bill.

On the one hand, they are saying we need a bill, but they won't go to the funding bill that is here before us. That is exactly what we are voting and trying to do, is to proceed to the DHS funding bill--with an amendment process, with open debate.

Yesterday, one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle stated that if the Senate takes up H.R. 240, the homeland security appropriations bill, it would simply be a delaying tactic.

Well, how can moving to the bill that directly addresses the DHS funding issue constitute delay? In order to pass the DHS funding bill, we have to be allowed to proceed to the bill. The truth, of course, is the delay is in fact coming from those who won't allow us to take up the bill, debate it, and consider amendments and pass it.

Mr. President, I yield to my colleague.

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

Mr. President, yesterday I spoke about the importance of voting yes to proceed to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill for 2015, H.R. 240. That motion was unsuccessful. Despite all the voices from the other side of the aisle expressing support for the Department of Homeland Security, they refused to actually proceed to debate the bill.

My friends on the other side of the aisle have expressed concern that the bill is not 100 percent of what they want. In my experience, it is rare for anyone to get 100 percent of what they want when it comes to passing legislation, and that is certainly true when it comes to passing an appropriations bill. I am not talking about a vote on final passage or even a vote on amendments. I am talking about a vote to proceed to the debate on this bill. In addition to having the opportunity to offer amendments, an important part of the debate on a bill is the ability of any Senator to raise a budget point of order.

My counterpart, the distinguished ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, has pointed out that there are budget points of order against the bill. But the point I would make is that in order for her to raise the budget point of order, you have to actually proceed to the bill.

I am certainly willing to acknowledge her budget points of order, which she brought up on the floor yesterday, but the point I am making is we have to proceed to the bill in order to debate those budget points of order and, in fact, vote on them.

The minority refuses to move to the bill because they object to the amendments added by the House of Representatives. The House went through its process, and now it is time for the Senate to go through its process. That is how the system works. That is regular order.

Last week, after the consideration of many amendments, we passed the Keystone XL Pipeline bill with a bipartisan vote of 62 Senators. There were rollcall votes on 41 amendments.

Since I introduced the Keystone bill, I would have thought it would have been great if we could have just passed it with an up-or-down vote, but that is not how the Senate is designed to legislate. Instead, we vote to proceed to a bill so we can debate it, offer amendments, and work to develop consensus.

I am aware that it has been a long time since we had regular order in the Senate. We are not used to bringing a bill to the floor and debating amendments. But instead of embracing regular order, something we were denied in the previous Congress, we can't even proceed to debate and offer amendments on this bill--an important bill that we need to take up and address.

The contents of H.R. 240 represent the bipartisan prerogatives and priorities of Congress. Again, the House went through its process. What we are asking for now is for the Senate to do the same--to go through the process, go to the bill, and do the work we were sent here to do.

I discussed the merits of the bill at length earlier, but I will go through some of the highlights again just to remind my colleagues what is in the bill and why we are here. This bill will support the economic prosperity, public safety, and security of the American people.

This bill provides $39.67 billion in net discretionary appropriations, plus $6.4 billion in disaster funding. That includes $10.7 billion for Customs and Border Protection, CBP, and that is an increase of $119 million over fiscal year 2014. It supports record levels of personnel, tactical infrastructure technology, and air and marine assets.

The bill provides $5.96 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE. It maintains a record 34,000 adult detention beds and 3,828 family detention beds.

The bill provides strong support for the Secret Service, an organization that requires congressional oversight, given some of the recent incidents, and is $81 million above fiscal year 2014 funding.

The bill provides the funding necessary to construct the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, NBAF, in Manhattan, KS.

It provides more than $10 billion for the Coast Guard, including the 8th National Security Cutter, and takes a serious step to address the near-term, heavy-ice breaker needs with $8 million for preserving the ship Polar Ice.

The bill supports our cyber security efforts, both protecting government operations and working with the private sector to share threat information and protective measures.

Since homeland security is a national effort, the bill provides continued funding for grant programs to State and local firefighters, emergency managers, and law enforcement.

The bill also provides for research and development, TSA's aviation security screening operations, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and E-Verify, which supports businesses across the United States in hiring legal workers.

Finally, the bill provides a requested $7 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund to assist with recovery costs for communities when they are hit by natural disasters.

What the bill does not fund is the President's Executive actions. The House bill includes several amendments that are targeted at reversing the President's actions and articulating priorities for immigration enforcement. If that is concerning to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, then allow us to proceed to the bill so we can debate these important issues.

We have returned to regular order in this Chamber, and with that comes the responsibility to debate, offer amendments, and vote on legislation. That is

what we are asking to do, and that is what we are calling on our colleagues to do. That is what the American people want us to do. That is what we are here to do.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of proceeding to H.R. 240 so we can do our work.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will.

Mr. President, I am pleased to respond to the question of my counterpart on the Subcommittee on Homeland Security in the Senate, and I want to begin by acknowledging and stating again that I enjoy working with her. We have worked together on other committees and other issues, and I think there will be other issues we will work on together.

I am pleased to have this discussion with her because this is exactly the kind of debate we are asking for. We are asking to proceed to this bill so we can debate and, in fact, offer amendments. So what we are saying is--whether it is our colleagues on the House side or whether it is Members of the Senate--let's follow regular order, have the discussion, have the debate, offer amendments, and see where we end up.

Now, I believe the President's actions exceeded his authority in regard to his Executive order regarding immigration. Let's have that debate. Let's go to the bill so we can actually do the work we were sent here to do, where we discuss, debate, and offer amendments. If my esteemed colleague feels there is an amendment she should offer that would change this bill to bring it in line with the opinions of House Members or other Members of the Senate, then she will have the opportunity to do that, as will her colleagues, as will we. That is the point.

So the answer to the question is: We don't know where we end up if we don't get started. So let's get started. That is what we are saying. Please join with us. Just as in our committee, we will have many committee meetings where we will debate issues and where we will take amendments from our fellow Senators who are on that committee. But we can't do that if we don't bring the bill to the committee and get started. That is what we are asking to do on the Senate floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to respond to some of the points made by the Senator from New Hampshire. She indicated defunding provisions, but understand that this relates to Executive action undertaken by the President. The very same prioritization in terms of enforcement is funded in the underlying bill

for enforcement of immigration law. Those prioritizations are there.

The other point I wish to make is that the Senator speaks about funding the Department of Homeland Security and their desire to fund the Department of Homeland Security. That is exactly what this bill does. This bill fully funds the Department of Homeland Security. There really is consensus between the House and the Senate that it does it very well. That is what this bill does. It funds the Department of Homeland Security.

So they are saying they want to fund the Department of Homeland Security. That is what this bill does, and that is why we have to proceed to it in order to accomplish full-year funding for DHS.

The third point I will make briefly is that the Senator referred to a bill that she is sponsoring with the Senator from Maryland to fund DHS--to fund the Department of Homeland Security--and she wants to proceed to that bill. Well, the way to do that is to vote with us to get on the bill before us--H.R. 240--and then they can offer that as an amendment, and we will debate it and we will have the vote.

So if the Senator from New Hampshire wishes to have the opportunity to debate her legislation and vote on her legislation, then let's vote to invoke cloture on this motion to proceed, let's proceed to the bill, and we will allow our colleagues to offer amendments which we can debate and vote on. We are offering the other side the opportunity to do exactly what they have asked to do.

Most importantly, again, I wish to go back to the point I just made. This bill fully funds the Department of Homeland Security for the full year, and we are being blocked from going to the bill, debating the bill, allowing amendments on the bill, and getting to the final product for the American people, while working with the House. Remember, we have to produce a product that passes the House, too, to fund the Department of Homeland Security for this country.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to highlight the importance of voting yes to proceed to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill for 2015, H.R. 240. This bill, which has passed the House, is necessary to protect our borders, fight terrorism, and defend communities under threat from natural disasters. The list of national security-related programs this bill provides resources for is long, but before I speak to those programs in greater detail, I will reinforce the importance of proceeding to this DHS appropriations bill.

DHS's funding expires on February 27. To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who do not want to proceed to this bill, I would just point out, we need to take up this DHS appropriations funding bill and debate it--to let the Senate do its work.

We just passed a Keystone bill after the consideration of more than 40 amendments. At the end of the day, we were able to produce a bill that garnered 62 votes. I urge my colleagues to let the Senate do its business. Vote yes on cloture on the motion to proceed.

Now I would like to walk through some of the things this bill funds. I want to remind my colleagues how critical these DHS operations are to the economic prosperity, public safety, and security of the American people.

The bill provides $39.67 billion in net discretionary appropriations plus $6.4 billion in disaster funding.

Let's take a look at some of the critical security functions this bill provides.

The bill provides $10.7 billion for Customs and Border Protection--an increase of $119 million over fiscal year 2014. It supports record levels of personnel, tactical infrastructure, technology, and air and marine assets, including 21,370 Border Patrol agents; 23,775 Customs and Border Protection officers; miles of fencing and border roads; fixed and mobile surveillance and detection technology; aircraft and vessels outfitted with the latest sensor technology, as well as unmanned aerial systems; reused technology from the Department of Defense, such as tethered aerostat radar systems.

The bill also includes funding for a biometric exit pilot program in airports in 2015, as well as improvements to the Department's biometric system to support exit implementation in the future.

The bill provides $5.96 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE--an increase of $689 million over fiscal year 2014, which is a 13-percent increase.

It holds the administration's feet to the fire by maintaining a record 34,000 adult detention beds.

It responds to the recent flood of families coming across our border by significantly increasing family detention beds from 96 to 3,828.

It provides increases for the criminal alien program and for fugitive operations, both of which are critical to identifying, apprehending, and removing the criminals that the administration claims are a priority.

The bill provides increases for Homeland Security Investigations to combat human trafficking, cyber crime, child exploitation, and drug smuggling.

It also includes $50 million for the Visa Security Program and supports enforcement to address visa overstays.

In addition, the bill provides strong support for the Secret Service, an organization that requires reform and congressional oversight, given recent incidents, with $81 million above fiscal year 2014.

In addition to funding increases associated with preparations for the 2016 campaign season, the bill provides $25 million to begin addressing security needs at the White House complex.

Recognizing the need for a state-of-the-art biosafety level 4 research facility to prepare for and respond to animal-borne and other biologic threats, this bill provides the funding necessary to construct the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility.

The bill provides more than $10 billion for the Coast Guard. It continues our commitment to recapitalization of the Coast Guard fleet, including funding the 8th National Security Cutter. And it takes a serious step to address nearer term heavy ice breaker needs with $8 million for preserving the Polar Sea.

The bill supports our cyber security efforts as a nation, both protecting government systems and working with the private sector to share threat information and protective measures.

Since homeland security is a national effort, the bill continues funding for grant programs to State and local firefighters, emergency managers, and law enforcement--$467 million for State homeland security grants, including $55 million for Operation Stonegarden related to border security; $800 million for the Urban Area Security Initiative, port security grants, and transit security grants; $680 million for fire assistance grants; $350 million for Emergency Management Program grants.

For research and development efforts, funding is provided consistent with fiscal year 2014 levels. The Science and Technology Directorate supports research and development at our national labs, with our university partners, and in the private sector to meet homeland security needs.

The bill also provides for aviation security screening operations by the TSA, law enforcement training needs by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and E-Verify, which supports businesses across the United States in hiring legal workers.

Finally, the bill provides the requested almost $7 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund to assist with recovery costs for communities hit by natural disasters.

What the bill does not fund is the President's Executive actions. The House bill includes several amendments that are targeted at reversing the President's actions and articulating priorities for immigration enforcement.

The President's actions overstepped his authority. His actions put illegal immigrants ahead of legal immigrants who are hoping to be a part of the American dream, who are following and respecting the Nation's laws.

The immigration system is broken, but it cannot be fixed through Executive actions that exceed the President's authority. Instead, it should be accomplished through legislative reforms that start with border security, do not provide amnesty, and respect the rule of law.

I leave my colleagues with this thought: We need to support these vital national security programs. Vote yes on cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill, and let's get to work.

With that, I yield the floor.

I will.

Mr. President, I would like to respond to my colleague from the State of New Hampshire. I thank her for her work on our Appropriations Committee on the Department of Homeland Security and--

I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to respond.

Mr. President, she and I will be continuing to work together on this and other important issues, but the reality is that we need to proceed to this bill so that we can get the funding in place.

Let's proceed to the bill. Let's have the debate. Let's have amendments. Let's do the work of the Senate on this important legislation. That is why we need a ``yes'' on this cloture motion to proceed--so we can get on this funding bill and go to work, have debate, have amendments, and do the work of the Senate on funding DHS, which is very important for our country.

Cloture Motion

Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Washington as the bill managers. I think they have done an exceptional job. I know that is not just my opinion, but it is the opinion on both sides of the aisle. It is not just that they were able to do the work on this bill, but actually to facilitate the debate that really enabled us to move through an open amendment process and a return to regular order. It is not easy to do. Because, obviously, we had people who had ideas on a whole variety of issues, and, clearly, we have strong support for legislation, but there are those who oppose legislation as well. So to find a way to keep that amendment process going and with more than 40 amendments and, of course, to get to a final vote and pass the legislation is a real testament to both of the bill managers.

I thank all of the Members of this body who supported the legislation. A bipartisan vote getting more than 60 votes is no small achievement for any piece of legislation. Of course this bill already passed the House.

We are already conferring now with the House on whether we will need to go to conference or hopefully get their concurrence, but obviously our objective is to put it on the President's desk as soon as possible. This is an important step in building the kind of energy plan this country needs. We can't get to energy independence or energy security without building the infrastructure we need to move that energy from where it is produced to where it is consumed.

We have to remember that, yes, this is about working with our closest friend and ally, Canada. Some of the oil in the pipeline will be moved from oil production in Canada, but it is also about moving our domestic oil in this country from States such as mine and from the State of Montana and moving that oil as safely and as efficiently and effectively as possible and moving it in a way that actually produces less emissions than if we try to move all that oil on trains, which is what is being done now.

Moved on trains, we are talking 1,400 railcars a day instead of moving it through a pipeline. It is not only a safety issue, it is not only a cost issue, it is not only an efficiency issue, it is about producing less emissions and making sure we don't create congestion on our railroads to move all of the other goods we want to move. This is about building the kind of infrastructure plan for energy and other things we want for this country. I hope the President now will join with us. Clearly we are going to move this to his desk, and I hope he will work with us. That is what the American people want.

If we look at this legislation, if we look at this Keystone XL Pipeline project, it is about energy. It is about jobs. It is about helping to grow our economy. It is about working to achieve national security in terms of energy security. It is about building the right kind of energy plan for the future of our country.

Here is where we are. This process was started over 6 years ago. Not only has this Congress, both the House and the Senate, now advanced this bill in a bipartisan way with strong bipartisan majorities in both Chambers, but every State on the route, all six States on the route have approved this project as well. We have the Congress that has approved it on a bipartisan basis. We have all six States that are included on the route. They have approved it through their processes. We have the supreme court in the State of Nebraska which has adjudicated, legislated in that State. That has been resolved.

Our closest friend and ally, Canada, wants us to work with them on energy security for North American energy security, but most important of all the American people want this done. In poll after poll, the American people overwhelmingly support this project. Over the last 3 years, the support has ranged from 65 percent to 75 percent. Even in the most recent poll that came out this month, 3 to 1, 65 percent to 22 percent, the people want the President to sign this bill. Again, I hope the President will join with us and work with us and support this legislation as we work with our leader on the energy committee and with our ranking member.

We don't agree on everything, obviously, but there are things we can work on together. We are working to build the right kind of energy plan for this country to get energy security. There will be more work to do, but I hope the President will join us in a bipartisan way and sign this legislation.

Again, my thanks to the bill managers, to the Members of this body who supported the legislation. I appreciate it very much.

I know the good Senator from Texas has a few words, but I will first yield the floor back to the Senator from Alaska.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.