Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 166

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Act provides sufficient protection for the national

interest in the scenic, natural, cultural and environmental

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

provides adequate opportunity for satisfaction of the

economic and social needs of the State of Alaska and its

people; accordingly, the designation and disposition of the

public lands in Alaska pursuant to this Act are found to

represent a proper balance between the reservation of

national conservation system units and those public lands

necessary and appropriate for more intensive use and

disposition, and thus Congress believes that the need for

future legislation designating new conservation system units,

new national conservation areas, or new national recreation

areas, has been obviated thereby.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the future of our Great State and will deal a devastating

blow to our economy.

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

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

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

beyond offensive.

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

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

federal overlords stopped trying to treat us like one.

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

We are staunchly opposed to this relentless and coordinated

effort to designate the Coastal Plain of ANWR as Wilderness.

This administration has deliberately ignored the input

provided by the most affected people within ANWR.

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

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

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

President Barack Obama and his lieutenants at the Interior

Department will permanently harm our people and all Alaskans

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

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

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

away.

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

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

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

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

They might learn that the Inupiat people who have lived on

and cared for these lands for millennia have no interest in

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

hope to have the same rights and privileges enjoyed by people

across the rest of the country.

That seems like a pretty fair request to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

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

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

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

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

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

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

I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kayla Dolan, a staff member on the staff of Senator Tillis, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge my colleague from Alaska, and I appreciate the comments he made this morning in his first speech on the Senate floor and in choosing to clearly focus on the opportunities that we have as a State and the challenges we face.

I do feel it is unfortunate that, as a State, it seems that our largest battle is against our own federal government. How unfortunate is that? I feel very fortunate to have him as a partner here in the Senate as we take on these initiatives that have such impact and are of such import to our State and to how we fit with the other 49 States. We have no shortage of issues to take up when it comes to Federal overreach and the impact it has on our Nation and our State and how we will be able to develop our resources. I look forward to working with the Senator in these different areas.

I do have to comment, given where we are in the discussions here on the Senate floor about the Keystone XL Pipeline and what benefit that infrastructure will provide to this country by way of a resource that will help us with our energy security and truly helps us with our national security, is it not better to receive oil from our friend and our ally Canada than it is from Venezuela? To me these are subjects that should not even merit that level of discussion because it is just common sense.

Yet this President and his administration have taken 6 years to get to a point where they may decide on this issue. It has taken 6 years to decide whether it is in our country's best interest to receive oil from a friend and neighbor rather than from those who would do us ill. And then in a stunning act on Sunday--in one breath--this administration has taken an area that has been identified as the greatest source of oil potential that we have in this country, outside of Prudhoe Bay, with an estimated mean average of 10.3 billion barrels, which could provide 1 million additional barrels a day that would come down the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which my colleague has talked about, and would help us to provide our Nation with the resource we need and would not only help us from a jobs and energy perspective but also from a security perspective.

On one hand, the President is saying, nope, I think I would rather continue to receive oil from Venezuela and Nigeria and all these other countries, and then on Sunday he just decides to put it off limits--the greatest source of oil we have identified in this country to date.

Just this morning, the President released his 5-year lease-sale plan, which is putting off--not deferring but withdrawing--areas in the Beaufort and the Chukchi, which will limit our opportunity for the 23 billion barrels of potential in the offshore there.

As my colleague has noted, the President has taken off half of the national petroleum reserve--the area we have designated for accessing our oil and gas resources. There is a move underfoot right now where this administration, I believe, is going to make the first production in NPRA and push it to a place where it will be uneconomic.

We have a stunning situation. This administration says they want an all of the above energy policy, except maybe in Alaska. We can't do it in ANWR. We are going to push you off of NPRA, and offshore we are going to make it that much more difficult for you. We are going to put the throttle on Alaska's energy opportunities for this country. We are going to put the throttle on Canada and say: Don't run it through the United States--not down into the gulf coast where we have these refineries.

What is he doing? He is putting our national security at risk with actions such as these.

So when we talk about Keystone XL, this is more than just a pipe or piece of infrastructure crossing the border. We are talking about energy security and national security. Then we have actions from this administration this week that choke off Alaska's energy opportunities. This is why I need my colleague in this fight. Believe me, the Alaska delegation is prepared for it.

It just causes us to wonder why. What are they thinking? What about energy security and national security for this country? We have the potential to be secure. North American energy independence is not a myth. It is real. But we have to have the will to make it happen--we certainly have the resources. We just need the ability, the opportunity to be able to develop them. So get out of the way and let us do that.

My colleague from Washington and I have been working all morning trying to see if we can't identify a series of amendments that we might be able to move to this afternoon. We would like to give colleagues a sense of how we are going to be advancing through these additional amendments, get some additional amendments up pending, and really lay out that process. I think we have had really constructive conversation this morning, and I am encouraged. Obviously, we have a few more issues to work out, but I am hopeful we will be able to announce--hopefully in the short term--a glidepath that will give Members a little more certainty.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota.

As we mentioned earlier, we had a very productive morning trying to discern the universe of amendments we may have before us. I think it is very clear that there is genuine interest on both sides of the aisle to find that path forward so we can come to a conclusion on S. 1 and do so in an orderly way--a way that respects the legislative process and a way that allows Members to have opportunities to advance issues they feel strongly about and issues that merit debate on this floor.

We have encouraged Members over the past couple weeks to present their amendments to us. At this point in time we have processed 24 separate amendments. We do have some amendments that are pending on the Republican side--seven to be exact. I do know that there are others that Members would like to be made pending. I have one myself, and I know the Senator from Washington will be speaking to several additional Democratic amendments which they would like to offer on their side. So I think we have discussed a process here to get us moving in that direction so that we can get the amendments pending, and then hopefully, perhaps as early as this evening--I don't want to make any promises--we can begin voting on these amendments.

What I would like to do at this time is turn to my colleague to not only speak to the gentlewomen's agreement we have in so far as a way forward but also to allow for a couple of amendments to be made pending on her side, and then we will come back and provide that opportunity on the Republican side.

Mr. President, I yield to Senator Collins from Maine to bring up an amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside to call up amendment No. 166.

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

Mr. President, the amendment I am offering this afternoon is pretty straightforward. It would effectively release wilderness study areas if, within 1 year of receiving the recommendation, Congress has not designated this study area as wilderness.

There has been a lot of discussion in the news of late with the President's announcement on Sunday that he is seeking to put an additional 12 million acres in the ANWR area--Alaska's North Slope-- into wilderness status, including the 1002 area which has specifically been designated for oil and gas exploration. I want to make sure people understand this is not just an ANWR amendment. This is about the wilderness study areas that we see that are currently on the books.

According to the Congressional Research Service, as of the beginning of this year, Congress has designated 109.8 million acres of Federal land as wilderness. Just over half of this wilderness is in my State of Alaska. We have over 57 million acres of wilderness in Alaska. Ninety percent of the wilderness under the management of the Fish and Wildlife Service is in Alaska.

As a practical matter, there is more out there. There are more acres that are proposed for wilderness designation. For example, the Bureau of Land Management manages 528 wilderness study areas containing almost 12.8 million acres located primarily in the 12 States in the West as well as Alaska.

We also have the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which has a wilderness study process through its land use planning to identify areas to be proposed as wilderness.

There is some history as to how we got to dealing with these wilderness study areas. Areas that are identified by agency officials as having certain wilderness characteristics--as identified under the 1964 Wilderness Act--were classified as wilderness study areas. BLM received specific direction in the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 to inventory and study its roadless areas for wilderness characteristics. By 1980 the BLM completed field inventories which designated about 25 million acres of wilderness study areas. Since 1980 Congress has taken a look at some of these. Some have been designated as wilderness and others have been released for nonwilderness uses. The BLM has also taken it upon itself to designate wilderness study areas through its land use process.

The point here is that once an area has been designated under the BLM or the Fish and Wildlife Service study regime, it effectively becomes de facto wilderness. The designation then limits and restricts the ability to do just about anything for fear that it might impair the suitability of the area for preservation as wilderness.

Until Congress makes a final determination on a wilderness study area, the BLM or the Fish and Wildlife Service manages these areas to preserve their suitability for designation as wilderness. Even if Congress has not acted--because it is Congress's purview to do so--the agencies have designated it as de facto wilderness.

My amendment says we are going to change this, and we have to change this. Congress needs to reassert itself into this equation. As the final arbiter of what is or is not designated as wilderness, Congress can and should make the decisions in a timely manner about the wilderness status.

What my amendment does is pretty simple. If Congress doesn't act within 1 year to designate as wilderness an area recommended for wilderness, the designation is released. It just goes back to multiple use. That way the agencies are not managing areas to preserve a possible wilderness designation as an option for Congress. Instead, they can get on with looking at a broader range of options for how to manage that land with the local people and other interested stakeholders through the land-use planning process that applies to each of the agencies.

Some may argue that Congress needs more time on this. I would say we have had plenty of time to review these areas. Some of the wilderness study areas have been pending since the 1980s. That is plenty of time to figure out whether they should be put in wilderness status. Congress needs to make decisions.

I ask my colleagues to support my amendment and take a look at what is contained and not just think about the ANWR situation but think about the applicability within their respective States.

I know that Senator Sessions was seeking recognition. As Members are seeking to come to the floor to get their amendments pending, we would like to allow them to have recognition.

At this point, I believe we need some clarification from the Senator from North Dakota.

Madam President, I know the ranking member had intended to offer an amendment on behalf of one of her colleagues, and she is off the floor right now. I want to respect the understanding we had, but I also want to respect that the Senator from Vermont is here and I believe prepared to speak to his amendment. I just want to acknowledge that Senator Cantwell intended to offer a couple of amendments.

I yield to my colleague.

Madam President, I rise and thank my colleague from Maine for bringing up this very important issue. I would like her to know that I join with her in a concern that has been raised with the President and this proposal.

As the mom of two young men who are just finishing their years in college--I have one who graduated last year and one who will graduate in May. Very early on we participated in the 529 plan that was offered in the State of Alaska.

In fact, in my early years as a State legislator, it was my legislation in the Statehouse that set up the University of Alaska 529 College Savings Plan, and our boys were direct beneficiaries of that, if you will, because it allowed us, as parents, to begin our savings in a way we knew, when it came time for them to go to schools, we would be as prepared as we could be at that point in time.

I don't think any family is ever really prepared, particularly for the extraordinary costs of higher education. We were fortunate in that our sons chose to attend schools that were not some of the most expensive schools in the country--they attended State universities--but what we paid as a family for their college education, and having two boys in college at the same time puts a stress on families that is very real. So the suggestion that somehow these 529s benefit a very limited group of families across the Nation, I think, belies the obvious.

I think we all try to do the best we can by our kids, and saving for their future when they are very young is important.

So when we have these programs that will allow and encourage families to do this, knowing there will be a tax benefit, it is important. It is important for the families, it is important for the young people looking to their opportunities in college and, hopefully, when they complete their college education, they are not bearing these incredibly crushing financial burdens.

Again, I applaud the efforts of my colleague and I look forward to working with her on this very important issue.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, we have a number of amendments pending on both sides of the aisle and there are other Senators who are working with us to offer them tonight. We will be working to set votes on many of these pending amendments tomorrow, with nongermane amendments set at a 60-vote threshold.

So if there are other Senators on either side who have amendments they intend to offer, they should be coming down to the floor to talk with the bill managers and get those amendments pending. We do intend to try to get to the third reading of the bill before the end of the week.

With that, I recognize the Senator from North Carolina, who is with us to offer an amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so that I may call up amendment No. 245 on behalf of Senator Barrasso.

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

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, January 28, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed: Cardin No. 75, Peters No. 70, Sanders No. 23, Cruz No. 15, Merkley No. 125, Moran No. 73, Whitehouse No. 148, Daines No. 132, Coons No. 115, Collins No. 35, Carper No. 120, Murkowski No. 166, Heitkamp No. 133, Gillibrand No. 48, Barrasso No. 245, Cardin No. 124, Daines No. 246, and Burr No. 92, as modified with the changes at the desk; further, that all amendments on this list be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption and that no second-degrees be in order to the amendments. I ask consent that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between each vote, and that all votes after the first in the series be 10-minute votes.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 27, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 27, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Perspectives on the Strategic Necessity of Iran Sanctions.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 27, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SR-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``President Obama's 2015 Trade Policy Agenda.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 27, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Fixing No Child Left Behind: Supporting Teachers and School Leaders.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 27, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I understand that S. 272, introduced earlier today by Senator Shaheen, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for its second reading, and I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, January 28; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and that the Senate then be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the Democrats controlling the final half; and that following morning business, the Senate then resume consideration of S. 1 under the previous order.

Mr. President, it has been a long day and we are at the end, but as Members can see, we have a path forward tomorrow, and I think that is good.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Reserving the right to object.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I object.

Objection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, close off ANWR permanently.

Second, make the offshore that much more difficult.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 41, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 11 a.m., Tuesday, January 27; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and the Senate resume consideration of S. 1. I ask that the time until 12:30 p.m. be equally divided, with the Democrats controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half. I further ask that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings.