Floor Statements

Mr. President, we continue to talk to Members on both sides of the aisle to set up a path toward passage on this bill that will include some amendment votes on pending amendments and others that are waiting in the queue. We will look to set some of those votes tomorrow after lunch.

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, following the remarks of Senator Coons.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we are back to continue debate and voting on amendments to this bipartisan Keystone XL bill.

I will focus on two main subjects today. The first is to speak to what I think is the good progress we have made on this bill, moving us toward ultimately a final vote and final passage. I believe we probably surprised a few people yesterday by adopting an amendment on climate change that few thought would be adopted. We have now processed a total of nine amendments. Some would say, well, nine is not much, but just to put it into context, last year, the Senate held just 15 rollcall votes on amendments. That was in all of 2014. Over just a couple of days here in this new Congress, we are already at 60 percent of last year's total, and it is still January. We have eight amendments that are pending at this moment and set to be voted on today. We will work out the timing and order of those votes. My hope is that we will exceed last year's total today.

I believe our productivity has been good. I appreciate the cooperation of the ranking member on the committee. What we have been able to do with this measure is important because I think it stands in pretty stark contrast to what we have seen in recent years and, quite honestly, to the delays the Keystone XL Pipeline has faced over those years.

The second part of my comments this morning--I wish to provide a little bit of perspective about how long this cross-border permit has been pending, awaiting a final decision by the President.

Sometimes when we talk in terms of the raw numbers, some ask: What does that really mean? What does it mean to be on the 2,316th day that has passed since the company seeking to build this pipeline first filed its first permit with the State Department?

It has been more than 6 years, more than 76 months, and more than 330 weeks.

The President noted in his State of the Union Address this week that Keystone XL was just a single oil pipeline. And he is right--it is just a single oil pipeline. We have multiple pipelines that cross the border. We have hundreds of pipelines that cross the country. So it begs the question: How and why has it taken so long to get action

on just one single pipeline? Why has it taken so long?

There have been a lot of examples we have heard on floor. I mentioned yesterday that President Obama was still a sitting Senator when the permit application was filed. Others have said the iPad was not even out on the market when the first permit was filed. We heard that 2,300 days is longer than it took the United States to win World War II, longer than Louis and Clark's expedition to explore the West, and longer than Project Mercury, which put the first American into space. There have been a lot of comparisons in terms of what it really means to be longer than 2,300 days.

I mentioned on the floor many times that in Alaska we are seeking to try to advance our natural gas resource, and in order to do so we need a big pipeline to move from the North Slope down to tidewater, and so we are working to train welders because we know that when that day comes and we have the opportunity to build that line, we are going to want Alaskans to have those jobs. They may be temporary in that you don't weld a pipeline forever, you do it until the job is complete, but those are good jobs for those Alaskans and for people who come up to our State.

The Fairbanks Pipeline Training Center in Alaska does a fabulous job. In my opinion, it is the best pipeline training facility we have in the country. Every year, graduates from the training center are sent out, ready to go to work on projects such as Keystone XL. We are probably talking about seven sets of welders who have graduated at this point, and we need to keep approving projects that can help these young people or those who have been retrained as welders to get jobs. That is what they are waiting for.

We can even think about this length of time which has ensued since the first permit application has been pending in terms of flying to Mars and back. We could probably complete about three roundtrips from here to Mars and back, depending, of course, on the distance between the planets, but I am just putting it in context.

If we wanted to stay closer to home, we could describe those 2,300 days in terms of how many times we could hike the Appalachian Trail-- probably 10 or 12 depending on the weather. One of these days I would like to hike the Appalachian Trail. I don't know that I have the time, it is one of those issues when you think about how long this has been pending before this administration.

Today I will add one more example to show the comparison. At this time in the football season, we are all focused on what is going on with Super Bowl XLIX, which is coming up in 10 days now. We will see Super Bowl XLIX pit the reigning NFL champions, the Seattle Seahawks-- in Alaska we don't have our own professional football team, so we kind of adopted the Seahawks. I will let my colleagues know that I will be standing with the ranking member in rooting for the Seahawks on the big day next week. A lot of folks are excited about it, and we will be watching it. The game will be played next Sunday.

For the moment, let's look back to September 19, 2008, when the first cross-border permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline was first submitted to the State Department. Let's specifically focus on the Seahawks because they provide a pretty good example of how much has changed over the past 6 years. Back in September of 2008, the Seahawks were about to start a season in which they would have a record of just 4 and 12-- winning 4 games and losing 12. At that point they were still a good team and we were still rooting for them, but they were a pretty different team. For starters, the Seahawks had a head coach. Their current coach, Pete Carroll, was still at the University of Southern California coaching the Trojans. Their star running back, Marshawn Lynch, was about to start his second year in the NFL as a member of the Buffalo Bills. It would be another 2 years before Lynch joined the Seahawks and just over 3 years before the Nation discovered his love of Skittles during the game against the Philadelphia Eagles.

The most famous members of the Seahawks secondary--the Legion of Boom--are Richard Sherman and Earl Thomas. Back in September of 2008, both were still in college, respectively playing for Stanford and the University of Texas.

Of course, we cannot forget Russell Wilson. A lot of Alaskans are rooting for him to get a second consecutive Super Bowl as the starting quarterback for the Seahawks. Back in September of 2008--he played just a handful of college games at that time. He was a redshirt freshman at North Carolina State.

My point here is not necessarily about football--although that is what a lot of us are talking about--it is to demonstrate that a lot can happen over the course of 2,300 days, and it does, whether we are talking about what goes on in politics, in world events, or the world of sports. My point is that it should probably take the Federal Government less time to approve an important infrastructure project-- what the President himself has called just a single oil pipeline--than it takes to build an NFL championship team.

I would like us to get to the point where we are done discussing the merits of this important project and be done in the sense that we can move forward not only with Keystone XL but move forward as a nation when it comes to North American energy independence and providing jobs and greater economic benefit to this country.

I am pleased with the process we have had on the floor over the past couple of days. I look forward to the series of amendments on which we will have votes this afternoon--likely after lunch--and the opportunity to be in further discussion about these issues that I think have been pent-up for a period of time.

With that, I acknowledge my colleague on the energy committee and co- fan of the Seattle Seahawks.

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

Madam President, for the information of all Senators, we are working now to set up votes on several pending amendments to the bill. These votes should be after lunch today. Right now, we are looking at 60-vote thresholds on the Fischer amendment, along with the Boxer side-by-side, the Sanders amendment, and the Lee amendment.

I do understand that the Boxer amendment is now filed at the desk.

Amendment No. 18, As Modified

I ask unanimous consent that the Fischer amendment, No. 18, be modified with the changes at the desk.

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

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

Madam President, we have a number of Members who have asked to come to the floor to speak over the course of these next couple of hours. Many will be speaking to their specific amendment on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Again, we encourage folks to use this time, while we have a little bit of time before we move to the votes this afternoon.

I see that my colleague from North Carolina is here to speak. I would welcome his remarks at this time.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:50 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed: Boxer No. 113, which is a side-by-side to Senator Fischer's amendment; then Fischer No. 18, as modified; Manchin No. 99; Sanders No. 24; Lee No. 71; Murkowski No. 123, which is a side-by-side to Senator Wyden's amendment; Wyden No. 27; Blunt No. 78, as modified; Cornyn No. 126, as modified; and Menendez No. 72, as modified; further, that all amendments on this list be subject to a 60- vote affirmative threshold for adoption except for Cornyn No. 126 and Menendez No. 72, which are germane, 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 to call up my amendment No. 123.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the Blunt amendment, No. 78, with the changes at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the Cornyn amendment, No. 126, as modified with the changes at the desk.

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

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to make sure we understand the vote was scheduled to begin 3 minutes ago. As part of the unanimous consent agreement, there was not a time allowed for Senator Boxer to speak. I don't have a problem in giving-- --

I am happy to make sure that is allowed. It wasn't included in the consent, but I am certainly happy to allow for the minute as Senator Boxer has asked.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we had a robust discussion yesterday on two amendments that dealt with the issue of climate change. I think we had a very clear and resounding vote on the one that had a perfectly reasonable statement that climate change is real; climate change is not a hoax.

I also supported the amendment of my colleague from North Dakota on this same topic. I think it was important that we had that debate.

What I am hoping we can do now is get beyond the discussion as to whether climate change is real and talk about: What do we do? How do we move forward to those technologies? How do we make a difference with reasonable steps such as greater efficiency, a no-regrets energy policy that makes our energy supply even cleaner.

I want to move on to that. But I think at this point in time, with what we have had in front of us, we could have a whole series of amendments that basically restate the same thing.

I would like to move us beyond that conversation, and I look forward to that. But at this time I move to table, and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that a motion to table is not debatable.

I object.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, for the same reasons that I just expressed in the previous amendment that was before us, I would suggest that we move to table this amendment.

I will make that motion now to table the Sanders amendment, and I would ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I wish to remind Members that we are trying to keep a schedule here. We have six more amendments to go in this stack, and we are supposedly at 10-minutes per amendment. We have not been following that. I urge Members to stick close so we can move more expeditiously.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 123

Mr. President, we have the sense of the Senate that would express that all forms of bitumen or synthetic crude should be subject to the 8-cent-per-barrel excise tax associated with the oilspill liability trust fund. This is important because right now we have a legitimate but unintended loophole on the books, and it is also a matter of fairness because conventional oil pays into the trust fund. We need to address this, and I commend my colleague Senator Wyden for the effort he has done. But the problem that we have is that as we work to enact legislation to update our laws, we have to make sure it is consistent with the Constitution, which requires revenue-raising measures to originate in the House.

If we agree that we want to close this loophole, which we should do, we need to allow for the House to address this. Otherwise, we face a blue slip issue, and quite honestly, it would act as a poison pill to the Keystone XL bill. The sense of the Senate expresses to do it legitimately through the Constitution.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, again, let me remind my colleagues that while we may agree we need to address this legal--but there is a loophole in the law. As many of us have just voted, 75 I believe, we say we need to address this oilspill liability trust fund issue.

Doing so in the manner that the Senator from Oregon has suggested does create a blue-slip problem. It would cause this bill to fail. It is not constructive to do so. The sense of this Senate that we just passed, I think, sends clearly the message that we want to address it, but we need to do it in a constitutional way. I would ask Members to vote no.

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

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we have just gone through a considerable period processing some votes. I appreciate the patience of colleagues as we have gone through it. As the majority leader mentioned, we want to figure out what the next tranche--the next grouping of amendments--will be, and then we will be able to figure out the path forward.

It is the hope of myself and the ranking member of the committee that we be able to get through a few more votes this evening, at a minimum, but also to set up a more clearly defined path for the coming days ahead, for tomorrow and Monday.

So I ask for the indulgence of Members as we call up a few amendments now to get them pending, and then we will work together to figure out what those votes will actually look like--which votes we will actually take up this evening.

Again, I think the opportunity to get amendments pending on both sides is good. It gives everybody an idea of the lay of the land and gives them a chance to look at the amendments we will bring up.

So at this point in time I wish to call up an amendment. When I have concluded, I will turn it over to the ranking member and an amendment will be called up on the Democratic side, and then we will come back to this side. We will alternate back and forth to get these amendments pending so Members can know what it is we have in this universe out there.

Amendment No. 67 to Amendment No. 2

With that, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up Sullivan amendment No. 67.

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

I turn to my colleague, Senator Cantwell.

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up Murkowski amendment No. 98.

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

I turn to my colleague from Arizona at this time.

Mr. President, at this time I turn to my colleague from Texas.

Mr. President, I turn to my very patient colleague from Kansas, Mr. Moran.

Mr. President, I would like to turn to my colleague from Montana.

Mr. President, we now have in front of us six amendments that are pending on the Republican side, six amendments that are pending on the other side of the aisle. We indicated we wanted to try to get these up, alternating back and forth. I think we have a pretty good range in front of us. Recognizing that it is important Members have an opportunity to take a look at the now 12 amendments that are pending, I think it is our hope that we would be able to, as the chairman and the ranking member, sit down and figure out how many of these we might be able to move to a vote this evening and dispense with some of them.

I think it is pretty clear we will have a difficult time perhaps advancing such a plan with everything tonight. So if we could have a little bit of time to work through an agreement to present to Members-- I think right now people are taking a little bit of a break from the floor activity, and that is appreciated, but I want to give them notice as to where we are.

It is my hope we will be able to come to an agreement relatively shortly in terms of how many amendments we might be able to take up and vote on this evening, thus giving Members a better chance as to whether we are staying in for the long haul tonight or perhaps just for a shorter period, but we need a little bit of time to take a look at that.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Washington stating that. This is by no means saying this is it for the night. I am just saying give the floor managers an opportunity now, with a dozen amendments that we have in front of us, to figure out what it is that we have. This would probably be a great time for people to speak on either their amendments or other amendments that they might wish to bring pending, but I am not suggesting this is our finite list of amendments. This is what we have for this moment in time, having gone back and forth. That is all I am suggesting.

Mr. President, I think it was the intention of the ranking member and myself that we go back and forth. We have done that, six each time now. I don't have other Members on our side who are either present, which we have asked them to be, or have asked me to offer on their behalf. I am certainly not suggesting to the Senator from Vermont that he should not be allowed to get his amendment pending. I am just trying to keep with the agreement we have that we go back and forth.

Through the Chair, I am sure we will have other amendments. Again, I want to defer to the Senator's ranking member on that as far as whether we bring it pending at this moment in time. It might be possible after we reach our agreement that we have another set of back-and-forths to get these pending agreements put forward.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

In November, Father Chad Zielinski, the deputy wing chaplain at Eielson Air Force Base near Fairbanks, received what he regarded as an odd early morning telephone call. The call came from the Apostolic Nuncio, the Vatican's ambassador to the United States. The Nuncio informed Father Zielinski that he had been selected by Pope Francis to serve as the Catholic bishop of Fairbanks.

His immediate reaction: This makes no sense; how can this be? There must be some mistake. But there was no mistake. In December, Bishop Zielinski was ordained and installed to lead the Diocese of Fairbanks. The Catholic Anchor newspaper reports that Bishop Zielinski is the first active duty military chaplain in recent history to shepherd a diocese. At age 50 he is also the 11th youngest of the 267 active U.S. Catholic bishops.

The selection was met with great enthusiasm throughout interior Alaska and especially in our military community. Before being called to the priesthood, Bishop Zielinski served on active duty in the Air Force. He was ordained a priest for the Catholic Diocese of Gaylord, MI, in 1996. But after the events of September 11 he saw a need for Catholic chaplains in the military and rejoined the Air Force.

His Air Force career was varied. Bishop Zielinski served as Roman Catholic cadet chaplain at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs and as a chaplain recruiter assigned to the Air Force Recruiting Service. He also served at Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota and at RAF Mildenhall in Suffolk, England.

And he served three tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan--his first in Baghdad in 2003 and his last in Afghanistan where he served 18 forward combat positions, where religious services were punctuated by the sound of live gun fire. On one sad day, the convoy in which he was traveling was hit by a rocket, killing one of the drivers, who also happened to be a parishioner. That day ended with the bishop conducting a funeral. Needless to say, Bishop Zielinski was regarded as an exemplary chaplain and I have no doubt that he will be an exemplary bishop.

The Diocese of Fairbanks, the most northern and geographically diverse in the United States, covers some 410,000 square miles. It holds 46 parishes, most of which are in the Alaska Native villages. I am excited about Bishop Zielinski's elevation and I look forward to working closely with him in his new and important role as a leader in our faith community.

On January 25, 1975, Father Fred Bugarin was ordained as a priest in the Archdiocese of Anchorage by Archbishop Joseph T. Ryan. This week marks the 40th anniversary of Father Fred's ordination. On Saturday evening, friends of Father Fred will gather in St. Anthony's parish hall to celebrate his 40 years of faith and service. I join with the Anchorage community in expressing my appreciation to Father Fred for his good works.

Father Fred was born in the Philippines and migrated to Anchorage with his family in 1963. He was age 14 at the time. He graduated from West High School in 1967 and went on to study humanities and theology at the University of Dallas/Holy Trinity Seminary. Following his ordination, Father Fred was assigned to St. Benedict's parish as an assistant pastor. In 1978 he was selected as the first resident pastor of Sacred Heart parish in Wasilla and served there until 1981. He was subsequently promoted to direct the permanent diaconate and ministries program for the archdiocese.

Five years later, while on sabbatical, Father Fred set out on a new direction--to reconnect with his roots in the Philippines and enrolled at the East Asian Pastoral Institute in Manila where he became immersed in East Asian thought and culture. Father Fred signed up for the Maryknoll Associate Priests Program and upon completion of the training he was sent off to Mindanao in the southern Philippines. Father Fred had much to learn. He grew up in the northern Philippines and the language and culture of the southern Philippines was much different. Yet he was determined to connect with the people he served no matter how steep the learning curve. It was the right fit--a 5-year contract turned into an 8-year experience. What was to have been a short sabbatical turned into a life changing event.

Upon his return to the United States, the Archdiocese of Anchorage assigned Father Fred to Kodiak Island, a diverse community with an economy revolving around the fishing industry. Blue collar workers, mainly from the canneries, made up the bulk of the parish. During fishing season the population includes Filipinos, Salvadorans, Mexicans, Vietnamese, Samoans and Laotians among others. Father Fred regarded Kodiak as a laboratory for incorporating what he learned through his work in the Philippines.

After 5 years in Kodiak, Father Fred was reassigned to St. Anthony's parish where he remains today. He is known throughout Alaska for his work in building inclusive parishes and is active in interreligious activities in Anchorage. Since 2003, Father Fred has been involved with Alaska Faith and Action Congregations Together, has taught foundations of Christianity at Alaska Pacific University and has facilitated fatherhood workshops for the Alaska native community. In 2011, Father Fred was awarded the doctor of ministry degree from the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, CA.

Father Fred has left a very powerful impression on every community he has served. He is an inspiration to his fellow pastors. I am honored to recognize Father Fred for his good works and wish him many long years of continued service to his faith and to his community.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 22, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 22, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 22, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Jobs and a Healthy Economy.''

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 22, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining Job-Based Health Insurance and Defining Full-Time Work.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to

meet during the session of the Senate on January 22, 2015, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on January 22, 2015, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 22, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to William Treadwell and Samin Peirovi effective today through June 1, 2015.

Mr. President, we are back again with the Keystone XL Pipeline, S. 1, the bipartisan 60-sponsor bill in front of us. We had a good day yesterday debating three amendments and ultimately disposing of them. We have a half dozen of them in front of us this morning and this afternoon.

I think it is worth noting, there have been several Members who have come to the floor to give comments about the State of the Union last evening delivered by President Obama. It was his sixth official State of the Union Address. It marked the sixth address that he has given to the Congress and the Nation while this project has been under review the whole time throughout his entire administration. Every one of those State of the Union Addresses has happened at a time when the Keystone XL application has been pending. It puts into context how long we have been considering this legislation.

The President didn't really speak much to the demerits or the opposition to Keystone XL--it was basically a quick reference--but he did in a manner attempt to compare this bipartisan, subsidy-free bill to major taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects. Whether it is our highways or bridges, the need is clear. But I think we also recognize those are projects that are taxpayer-funded that will require millions and perhaps billions of dollars a year. What we are talking about with the Keystone XL is something where we don't have any Federal subsidies going in. It is not taxpayer-funded. I think it is important to make sure that we understand the difference.

What we didn't hear last night was how this project could be advanced. Once again, there was no indicator. I would like to remind everyone that we are sitting at over 2,300 days where we have not had a Presidential decision. I think the good news for us here on this floor is the debate on this issue is not going to last that long, thankfully.

Again, we moved into regular order, and I think it was helpful for Members of the body to not only know that there was a series of amendments that were called up, but that we were able to have debate on them, and then we were able to dispense with them.

The majority of the Senate voted to table two of those proposals, but then when it came to the Portman-Shaheen bill, the energy efficiency provision, we were able to move that by a vote of 94 to 5, demonstrating again a great deal of support for this small energy efficiency provision. I wish it had been bigger, in fairness to the bill sponsors who have been working so hard for years on that. We just advanced a very small piece of that. I think we have more to do in the area of energy efficiency, and I am looking forward to working with them on that.

What we have in front of us now at this point in the process is we have a bill that will approve the cross-border permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline and we will work to deal with some aspects of energy efficiency. I think that is some good progress.

Once again this morning I will encourage Senators. We have called for an open amendment process, but as the leader has reminded us, it is not open-ended. We are not going to be on this bill indefinitely. So move to file your amendments. If you want a vote on them, you need to be filing them now and talking to us now.

We are at 77 amendments that have been filed and that was as of last night. So there is clearly already a line, and my hope is we will be able to dispense with this half dozen today.

Briefly speaking to the measures that we have from each side, we have Senator Fischer's amendment 18; Schatz amendment No. 58; No. 33 is the Lee amendment; we have Senator Durbin's amendment 69; we have Senator Toomey's amendment 41, as well as the Whitehouse amendment No. 29.

I spoke a little bit on a couple of these measures yesterday, and I will be speaking more this afternoon before we move, hopefully, to votes.

I do want to take a minute before I turn it over to Senator Cantwell to be recognized and then to Senator Hoeven. There have been several sense-of-the-Senate amendments that have been filed--presented on the issue of climate change. I think it is important for people to note that in order to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, as the legislation itself lays out, there is no climate change provision that is required. I find it a little ironic that in neither of the two pending amendments that we have before us--Senator Schatz's and Senator Whitehouse's-- neither of them actually quotes the parts of the State Department's final EIS that explains, I think in pretty fair detail, that this project will not significantly contribute to climate change. In fact, the State Department found that without the Keystone XL Pipeline greenhouse gas emissions associated with transporting Canadian oil could actually increase, and the estimate is increasing somewhere between 28 and as high as 42 percent. One might ask, how can that be? The reality is that not only is a pipeline less costly and more efficient, but it has the least environmental impact in terms of any additional emissions.

So I think it is important to recognize that when we are talking about the oil coming from Canada, oil that Canada is producing for lots of different reasons that benefit Canada, that that oil is going to move. So our challenge is, is that oil going to move in a manner that benefits Americans with increased jobs and opportunities? Is it going to help fill our refineries in the gulf coast? Is it going to help from a safety perspective in terms of transporting a product in the safest manner as well as providing the least environmental impact?

The State Department also provided in the EIS that:

Approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project,

including the proposed project, is unlikely to significantly

impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands or the

continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the

United States based on expected oil prices, oil sands supply

costs, transport costs, and supply and demand scenarios.

I think we are going to have some discussion this afternoon about what is contained in the State Department EIS. At 1,000 pages the full EIS is substantive. There is an executive summary that helps us all out and distills all of this. But I think it is important that Members look at what that report outlines.

I previously mentioned that we have about 77 amendments in front of us that have been filed at this point in time. We have nine, as of this morning, separate sense-of-the-Senate or sense-of-the-Congress amendments relating to climate change.

I have noted that this is the first time we have had an energy- related bill on the floor in a while where there has been an opportunity for debate. You will recall that this same measure was on the floor in December when the Democrats were in charge. The floor was managed at that point in time by the Senator from Louisiana, obviously very passionate in her support of the Keystone XL Pipeline. But in that debate there was no opportunity for amendments. You didn't see colleagues on either side of the aisle able to offer any amendments. We didn't see any amendments on climate. Now we have nine climate-related amendments here. So when you think about the urgency, we are having folks coming down and saying we must act on this now. I will remind people the reason we are able to

have this debate and the reason we are able to have votes on this issue is because we are operating under a regular order process where we are allowing for amendments, whether it is on issues such as climate change or whether it is on issues such as dealing with exports as we took up yesterday. We are not going to agree in many of these areas, but at least we are going to get back to being a deliberative body that not only talks about issues, but has an opportunity to vote on them.

So, again, I think we are probably going to hear a lot of different conversations about climate change.

I want to point out an article before I conclude this morning. This is an article that ran November 27, 2014, just a few months ago. It ran in the Financial Post, and it is entitled ``New emissions from Canada's oil sands `extremely low,' says IEA's chief economist.'' The article has some interesting quotes that I think are relevant to our discussion.

The first line of that article states:

As an energy advisor to some of the world's most developed

economies, Fatih Birol worries about critical issues

including security of energy and the impact of fossil fuels

on the climate. One issue he does not spend any time worrying

about, however, is carbon emissions from oil sands.

Mr. Birol is quoted as saying: ``There is a lot of discussion on oil sands projects in Canada and the United States and other parts of the world, but to be frank, the additional CO2 emissions coming from the oil sands is extremely low.''

So here we have a statement by IEA's chief economist. If we combine that with what we have contained in the State Department's final EIS-- again, I think these are important statements of support or fact to have on the record.

As we are debating these amendments today, I encourage everyone to keep in mind that oftentimes much of what we hear can be a little amped-up. I understand the passion that goes on, but we need to make sure we are looking critically at the facts as they exist.

I am just going to conclude my comments this morning by saying that what is happening in Canada--the simple facts are that Canada is producing its oil and it will move that oil to markets. Canada is our strongest partner, and they supply us with more oil than any of our other trading partners. So Canada is going to continue to produce oil, and they will move that oil.

The question is, Who will ultimately benefit from that production of oil? Will the United States gain the benefit of those construction jobs? Will the United States gain the benefit from the crude that will come down through the line and go into the gulf coast and benefit from the refineries that are built to handle and process that heavy crude coming from the north?

I want the United States to be a participant in this important project for a lot of different reasons, and I am encouraged that more than 60 of my colleagues seem to share that view.

We will continue the discussion through the series of amendments we have before us today. I know my colleague from North Dakota is prepared to speak, but at this time I will turn it over to my ranking member, the Senator from Washington.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the comments of the ranking member of the energy committee and her focus on energy innovation. I think we can look to that as not only a bright spot in our economy where we have seen great progress in recent years, but we have also seen great enthusiasm and an optimism about the future of our country when we allow our great minds to work on some of the problems of the day to get us to these advanced solutions.

The Presiding Officer and I come from an energy-producing State. We are also a State that has some of the highest energy costs in the country. Right now in the village of Fort Yukon, they are paying $7.25 for a gallon of fuel. Up in Kobuk--in the northwest part of the State-- they are paying $10 for a gallon of fuel. The rest of the country is enjoying a price break because of the drop in fuel, but in Alaska, when there is no neighborhood filling station that is connected to a road that is connected to someplace that brings people somewhere, people have to bring in their fuel by barge or by plane. The contract for that fuel in July--July's prices were not what they are now. Folks are locked in. Talk about being frozen in someplace--well, their prices are also frozen in.

So we know and understand the challenges when it comes to energy. We know and understand the challenges when it comes to paying to keep your house warm or your lights on. We have every interest--every interest-- to make sure that we are pushing out, that we are being innovative, that we are being as efficient as we possibly can be when it comes to energy use and consumption. I want to urge us, to push us, to be really aggressive in pushing us toward those technologies that will allow us, in a small-population State that has no real energy grid, so to speak, to figure out how we can be more self-sufficient, get us off diesel, get us off $10-a-gallon oil in Kobuk, AK. We have to figure this out.

We are talking about the challenges we face, but as we begin this good, robust debate on issues such as the climate, I think we need to be careful about what we are doing in response to the issue of a changing climate. If the answer is to increase energy costs, if it is to implement a carbon tax, if it is to make it more expensive, if it is to cripple our economy, then we don't have the ability to move out on these technologies because they are expensive.

We need to have a strong economy. We need to figure out how we can address climate through adaptation, mitigation, and new technologies that are going to take us to cleaner fuel sources, to renewable energy sources we have in great abundance in Alaska and elsewhere. But it takes money. It takes a strong economy. So I am not willing to do anything that is going to put the brakes on our economic strength and viability.

This is a good part of the discussion. It is very germane to where we are right now.

I mentioned in my comments that we currently have six amendments pending to the bill. Our side would like to set up votes on these amendments, with a 60-vote threshold required for any amendment that is not germane. We are working on a side-by-side right now on the Schatz amendment as well as a potential modification to the Fischer amendment. But I don't think there is any reason why we wouldn't be voting on most, if not all, of the pending amendments shortly after lunch today. Once we have gotten through those amendments, Senator Cantwell and I will queue up the next batch of

two to three amendments from each side so we can continue to make progress on this bill.

At this time, I turn to my colleague Senator Hoeven, the sponsor of S. 1, who has been waiting to address the body.

Mr. President, I don't know how much time the Senator from North Dakota is seeking this morning. Maybe that would help the Senator from Vermont in understanding the schedule.

Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Vermont is just going to speak to an amendment he has filed. He is not seeking to call up the amendment; is that correct?

No objection, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for Senator Hoeven or his designee to offer his amendment No. 87, as modified; further, that the time until 3:15 p.m. this afternoon be equally divided in the usual form; that following the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed: Lee, No. 33; Durbin, No. 69; Toomey, No. 41; Whitehouse, No. 29; Hoeven, No. 87, as modified; and Schatz, No. 58; 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 unanimous 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.

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

When Canadian oil sands are refined, they produce petroleum coke, which is this high-energy, mostly carbon, coal-like substance, but it does have economic value. It can be used for fuel; it can be used for smelting; it can be used for producing dry cell batteries and other purposes.

The EPA's own Web site states--and this is from their Web site-- petroleum coke itself has a low level of toxicity, and there is no evidence of carcinogenicity. The EPA's hazard characterization has also shown there are no adverse environmental effects associated with petroleum coke piles and the EPA's words are ``they are essentially inert.''

I have listened to the comments of my colleague from Illinois, and I appreciate the concerns those in neighborhoods have, but I think it is important that we recognize we are not trying to skip the science. We are not trying to add regulations for the transport and storage of something that is apparently not hazardous, according to the EPA.

Mr. President, before we proceed to hear from the sponsor of this amendment, I would just remind Members that these are 10-minute votes. It would be good--we have four more that we need to do. It would be good if we could stick to our 10 minutes.

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

I yield 1 minute on our side to the Senator from Oklahoma.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, we have an amendment before us, a side- by-side to the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Hawaii, and what we do within this side-by-side is effectively lay out findings contained within the administration's EIS that outline the environmental impact of a Keystone XL Pipeline, recognizing the impact to the environment will be less if this line is actually constructed.

We further go into a sense of the Senate that acknowledges--again after the vote we just had--that climate change is real and that there is an impact.

With that, I would recommend that folks look at the language that has been offered. I will be supporting the Hoeven amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I urge colleagues to oppose the Schatz amendment. There is a distinct difference between this amendment and what was previously considered in the sense of the Congress, which would refer to human activity that significantly contributes to climate change, and the issue of degrees. And I would suggest to colleagues that the inclusion of that word is sufficient to merit a ``no'' vote at this time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, at this time I know Senators are interested in coming to the floor and offering their amendments. We have been discussing a process forward on this side of the aisle.

Earlier in the day Senator Fischer had been working on an amendment that she has agreed to modify. I understand that the other side has a side-by-side that they will ask for consideration on.

I know the Senator from Louisiana will be on the floor to speak on an amendment he would like considered, and I understand there are a couple of other Senators on the other side who wish to speak as well.

There will be no more votes today on these amendments, but again, given the interest in this subject, I encourage Members to come down and speak to their amendments. We would like to figure out that process to get a series of amendments pending.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Blunt, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 78, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, we are wrapped up here for the evening so far as amendments, and I just want to thank colleagues for the discussion we have had today, the opportunity to bring forward some issues that clearly generate their own level of passion and emotion, and again the chance to bring forth issues we have been waiting for some period of time to have before us.

While some may suggest these are hard issues and hard votes to take, nobody ever said voting should be easy here in the Senate. The issues that come before us are issues the Nation considers and that we as their representatives should take seriously. So sometimes there are hard votes, and we will argue and debate over the wording and critically, and that is appropriate.

So again, looking forward to tomorrow, we have an opportunity to have now eight amendments that will be pending tomorrow afternoon, and I look forward to the continued discussion and a new day.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 21, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 21, 2015, at 2:30 p.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Protecting the Internet and Consumers through Congressional Action.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 21, 2015, at 10:30 a.m. in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 21, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Iran Nuclear Negotiations: Status of Talks and the Role of Congress.''

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 21, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Fixing No Child Left Behind: Testing and Accountability.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on January 21, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 21, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

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

Mr. President, we are back on the bill before us, a measure that would allow for the permit to be approved to allow for construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada into the United States. We had good discussion last week, certainly on Friday.

We have several amendments that are pending before the body. The Senator from Massachusetts has one on oil exports, Senator Portman on energy efficiency, and there is another measure sponsored by Senator Franken relating to American steel. Obviously, it is important that we begin to process these amendments because we have a significant amount of interest in the issues in front of us. At this point in time there are--we had over 50 filed amendments as of Friday evening. As of this morning, we maybe have more on deck. There is clearly a great deal of interest not only on Keystone XL but other energy-related amendments as well.

As we work through finalizing the events for this afternoon, I would like to alert Members that we would like to have votes on at least the three pending amendments that are before us that I just mentioned, hopefully by midafternoon. We are aware the Senate will close early today because of the President's State of the Union this evening. So my hope is that we would be able to process these three.

It has come to our attention that Senator Portman's amendment may need to be modified. He is in the process of doing that, and it may be that we will be able to accept that amendment this afternoon by voice vote.

At this point in time, I would encourage Members to come to us as the floor managers here, and let's figure out how we can get these amendments pending before the Senate. On the Republican side we have three folks who are queued up ready to offer theirs when it is appropriate. As we had agreed last week, we will go from side to side in terms of the amendments that will be considered. Hopefully this will be the beginning of a good, constructive week as we turn to regular order here in the Senate processing amendments.

With that, I would turn to my colleague on the energy committee, Senator Cantwell, for any comments she might care to make.

Mr. President, I believe the sponsor of this legislation, Senator Hoeven, would like to address the Chamber for a few minutes this afternoon not only on the amendments that are pending but the bigger picture of Keystone XL.

Mr. President, I will take a couple of minutes before we vote to speak to the Franken amendment. I think all of us want to buy American and buy local whenever and wherever we can. We strongly support that since it does mean jobs--whether we are talking about a pipeline or otherwise.

But I think the bigger question here--and what we have in front of us with the Keystone XL Pipeline--is what this amendment would do. This amendment would mandate specific materials for the Keystone XL pipeline, and I think we need to put this into context. This pipeline is a private project. This is not a federally funded infrastructure project. This would be the first time that Congress has directed or forced private parties to purchase domestic goods and materials.

We actually asked the Congressional Research Service to look into this to see if there was any other instance at the Federal level where private parties were told that they must purchase 100-percent domestic goods and materials, and so far the answer to that inquiry has been that they can find no instance of that.

I think we need to be careful about this as a precedent because if we are going to direct this particular project--the Keystone XL--to have this requirement on it, where do we go next? What will happen to the next project that we have? Will it be the next pipeline or the next renewable energy project? Where does this slippery slope go?

I think it is fair to note that TransCanada has made a commitment to have 75 percent of the pipes for this project come from North America, and fully half of that--more than 332,000 tons of steel will come from the State of Arkansas.

I am with the Senator from Minnesota. We want to make sure we get as many jobs as we absolutely can and make sure they are good-paying jobs--whether it is in steel making or widget making or welders. This is about jobs. This is what we want to do to encourage jobs. I think we need to be very cognizant of what this particular amendment would do. This amendment--for the first time ever--would direct a private entity to utilize all American-made products throughout the process of the construction.

It is important to note that the American Iron and Steel Institute has been a strong supporter of the Keystone XL Pipeline. We have all received a letter--they called it a Steelgram--from the American Iron and Steel Institute. They let us know very clearly and in no uncertain terms that they support Keystone XL. They said it is essential that Congress act to ensure the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline without further delay. Again, I agree.

We need to get moving on it. We need to do it without delay. I do think it is interesting to note that the amendment does allow for the President to waive the requirements for American materials based on certain findings he can make. I appreciate that is in there, and I think that is good. But think about where we are. It has been 3,200- and-some-odd days now where we have been waiting for the President to act to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline. So I don't have any real confidence that he will move to act quickly on any kind of a waiver requirement.

I just wanted to put that out there before we moved to take up the amendments that we have pending before us this afternoon and note that we will be doing that in a few short minutes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Portman amendment No. 3 be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. President, at this time I call for regular order with respect to Markey amendment No. 13.

Mr. President, I move to table the Markey amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Is there a request from the Senator from Massachusetts to speak to this amendment for 1 minute? What is the request?

I move to reconsider the vote.

I now move to table the Franken amendment, No. 17, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Shaheen be recognized to speak for 1 minute and that Senator Portman be recognized to speak for 1 minute.

I know of no further debate on the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we have disposed of three pending amendments that were before us. As we mentioned earlier, we are looking forward to Members coming down to the floor to offer their amendments. We have agreed to a process here this afternoon.

Today will be a somewhat truncated day on the Senate floor because of the State of the Union Address, but it is our hope that we will be able to get three amendments pending on our side and three amendments pending on the Democrats' side.

The Senator from Nebraska, Mrs. Fischer, is prepared to speak to her amendment, and then we will move to the other side of the aisle. After that, I will be calling up an amendment from Senator Lee. We will then go to the Democratic side and come back here for a third round.

Just to give Members an idea of what we will have in front of us, we will not be having votes on these amendments today, but I do think it should be clear to Members that we will be looking forward to doing a similar series of votes tomorrow. So I would encourage folks to come to the floor, talk to us, and let's get this process moving.

With that, Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up Senator Lee's amendment No. 33.

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

Very briefly on Senator Lee's amendment--he will be here to speak to it--this is a measure which would ensure that the rate of legal fees that are paid in Endangered Species Act cases would be consistent with those in other cases that are eligible for lawyer's fee compensation. Right now there is no cap on the hourly rate lawyers can be paid in connection with lawsuits that are brought regarding violations under the ESA. So this amendment would standardize the award of attorney's fees to parties prevailing against the Federal Government by applying a $125-an-hour rate cap under the Equal Access to Justice Act requirement. This applies to small business-related claims, among other things, and this would apply the same standard to ESA cases.

This is a measure Senator Lee will come to the floor to speak to further, but I would just give a little preview of that.

Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up the Toomey amendment No. 41.

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

Mr. President, obviously, Senator Toomey will come to the floor to speak to his amendment.

I wish to follow up on the comments of the Senator from Illinois, who was referring to petcoke. Senator Toomey in his amendment is attempting to deal with a situation in specific parts of the country that are impacted by coal refuse. Coal refuse, as it is defined in his amendment, effectively comes about from some centuries-old, 19th century mining operations that left behind this coal refuse in certain parts of the coal mining regions around the country. They remain a legacy problem that is acknowledged, a legacy problem that creates environmental issues, including contamination of local streams with heavy metals, acid, and mine drainage, that, again, I think we all recognize there is a responsibility to address.

The good news is there is a solution to cleaning up this problem. Coal refuse powerplants take this coal and these waste piles and turn them into energy and heat for consumers, for businesses. They follow EPA regulations. This is not a situation where we are bypassing EPA regulations when it comes to the emissions issues. But remediating these mine sites, removing these waste piles, and at the same time generating electricity with the coal and applying the basic ash from the process reclaims the land at a lower cost. So we are able to do several things at the same time. We are dealing with an environmental issue that has been in place for far too long. We are generating electricity that can be used to the benefit of consumers and businesses, and we are also able to reclaim the land.

So it is viewed, clearly, as a win here. It also creates some jobs. It improves the environment and it boosts economic growth.

Burning these coal waste piles is basically a carbon-neutral process because the carbon in these piles is currently being emitted into the atmosphere through the slow chemical process that is at play there, and we also have fires that burn within these piles. So just sitting there is not an answer to a better environment and reduced emissions.

The plants that burn this waste coal cannot economically be as clean as plants using higher quality coal. But the side benefits of removing these waste piles, again, from the perspective of dealing with emissions, generating electricity, and reclaiming the land--the benefits do compensate for the differences that are out there.

Historically, environmental regulators have recognized these benefits. They have carved out the plants from regulatory standards that would cause them to shut down. There have been EPA regulations recently that have failed to sustain this approach and, thus there is the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania that would allow these coal waste plants to run.

I encourage my colleagues to look at this amendment in front of us and consider the merits as Senator Toomey has laid out.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I think discussions we have had just in the past hour here since we have had the vote and the various amendments we now have pending before us--this is a good conversation. This is a good discussion and debate for us to be having as a body. We haven't had energy-related issues brought before this floor in some years now. We had a very limited debate on Keystone back in December, but I am hopeful that with the opportunity for amendments--and again, not just some amendments we on our side have handpicked and then decided what the Democrats might be able to move on their side--an opportunity for some real issues to be brought forward and to be debated on this floor.

The Senator from Rhode Island is very passionate on the issue of climate change. I think it is fair to say that he has singlehandedly raised the awareness not only in this body but for those loyal followers on C-SPAN.

When it comes to the issue of climate change, I think the Senator comes up once a week with his charts and a series of speeches that I think is meant to educate colleagues. I don't agree with all of it. I think that is a fair statement to say. But what is equally fair is that there is a care and concern for not only our country and our country's environment--truly the public

safety of our people, a care for our land, the stewardship we have as Americans--but it goes well beyond our borders to that of our entire globe, our entire planet, and how we care for planet Earth and how we move forward responsibly.

One aspect of the energy debate that I continue to advance is that we must ensure that if we are to make advances when it comes to caring for our environment and truly the whole issue of global climate, we have to be a nation that is economically secure in the sense that the technologies we will have to help us be cleaner in all that we do, do not come without cost. Here in this country, we have been the leaders, we have been the innovators when it comes to clean-energy technologies, and we should challenge ourselves every day to do more in that regard, to build out, to push out that R&D so that we are making--whether it is making clean coal truly clean, whether it is advancing those clean energy technologies.

I, for one, coming from a fossil fuel-producing State, am a huge proponent of nuclear-powered generation in this country because I believe very strongly that it is the cleanest energy source we have at this point in time.

So what are we doing in this country to make sure our energy is abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure? These are the challenges I put out to my colleagues.

I clearly appreciate the need that we have in this body and in this country to be moving forward with technologies that allow us to have reduced emissions, to have a cleaner environment, but I also want to make sure we do so in a way that doesn't cripple our economy. So how we lead in this way, which I believe we must, while keeping our economy where it must be--in the front and moving forward all the time--is our great challenge.

Again, I look forward to the debate we will have. I am pleased we were able to process the amendments we had before us today. I look forward to advancing those that we have pending in front of us now and to good, continued, and robust discussion on this floor.

I note the majority leader is here, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, it is good to be here on the Senate floor talking about where we are in the process to hopefully finally move toward approval of a permit to allow for construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

It has been interesting--the past couple speakers this morning have all mentioned that they don't understand why the first order of business in this new Congress should be this measure, that there are a lot of issues out there. And there certainly are. There will always be issues in the Senate. This is what we do. These are all weighty issues. But I would remind my colleagues that one of the reasons we are moving early to the Keystone XL Pipeline legislation is because in many ways this is a bit of unfinished business.

It was just 6 weeks or so ago that we had this measure before us on the floor of the Senate. It was before this body for debate--a good debate--led by our former colleague from Louisiana who was absolutely passionate--absolutely passionate--in her defense of why this was timely, important, critical that this measure be approved. We had that debate, and unfortunately in the final vote we were shy one vote and so we did not see passage. It was a measure that was in front of us because it was timely and also because of the work this body had done to advance it. The energy committee had hearings, process, and we had a bill in front of us.

It is the first week of this session, and we have a lot of measures that we will be taking up that are extremely important, but they are perhaps not as primed, if you will, for action on the Senate floor because that legislation hasn't been drafted. The committees have not met to work through some of the legislation that will be before us.

So why not move to advance the Keystone XL Pipeline, a measure that will provide for good-paying jobs in this country; a measure that will work to enhance that relationship with our closest friend and ally to the north, Canada; a measure that will help us from an energy security perspective when we are able to displace oil coming in from places such as Venezuela with oil coming in from Canada. That is a relationship that this Senator would much rather enhance and further.

So for a host of different reasons we are on this measure in the second week of this new Congress. I am pleased we are at this place where when we reached unanimous consent earlier to proceed to consideration of amendments on this bipartisan bill. It has been interesting. As I have talked to not only colleagues but reporters out in the hallways--just people having conversations--and there was a fair amount of skepticism that if Republicans were to regain the majority, would we return the Senate to what we know as regular order, where there is a processing of amendments and a regular committee process, but that is what we are doing, folks. Those who are observing what is going on, beginning today, are seeing something that hasn't been seen around here in a number of years. It was unfortunate that we hadn't had that process, but it is never too late to do the right thing. It is never too late to get back to a deliberative process that allows for the open exchange and consideration of ideas on the floor.

When we talk about an open amendment process, clearly it is not just open for amendments for those of us on this side of the aisle. It is an open amendment process for the full Senate so Members on both sides can offer their ideas and work to get votes on them. The majority leader has said several times that this process is going to be open, but it is not going to be open-ended. We are not going to be on this measure for a full year or even a full month, but we will be taking the time to do the deliberation that I think is important. I think you have already got some people saying: Oh, we are spending enough time on it. It is a mixed message with those saying it is not timely, we shouldn't be taking it up, and then others complaining that we have been on it now since last week. I think it is important for Members to know we are expecting to see amendments filed. We are expecting to see Members come to the floor to call up amendments. I would encourage Members not to wait until the last minute because to use the majority leader's words, this is not going to be open-ended. So let's get to our business and let's get it done.

We have three amendments that are currently pending before the body. Before I speak to each of those, I would like to very briefly address my support for the underlying bill from the perspective of Alaska and being one who is immersed in Alaska's energy process and politics.

I heard from more than a couple of folks back home who have seen the debate and discussion playing out, whether it is on C-SPAN or in the media, and I have been asked: We understand Keystone is in the national interest. We get that. But is it truly in Alaska's best interest? Folks back home are a little worried right now. We are seeing the price for oil sink to lows we have not seen in years, sitting around $46 a barrel today. It has certainly had an impact on our State's budget-- dramatically so. It is not just Alaska, I think we are seeing it in other oil-producing States. It is good news to have lower oil prices, but it is kind of a double-edged sword for some.

The questions that are being asked at home are legitimate, fair, and very important questions such as: OK. How does this fit in with the Alaska piece?

We certainly have large-scale infrastructure projects, particularly energy projects of a serious magnitude.

We have a world-class oilfield in Prudhoe Bay and the connector that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline provides from Prudhoe Bay down to tidewater in Valdez, an 800-mile silver ribbon that bisects our State, is truly a modern

marvel. A State can have the resource, but if they don't have the infrastructure to move the resource it doesn't do them much good. It doesn't help their economy and it doesn't help fund education if they cannot move it to market.

As I mentioned, Alaskans are a little nervous right now. A New York Times article recently described what is happening in Alaska. The journalist described it as economic anxiety hanging over the State because of the drop in the price per barrel of oil. When a State relies on oil for about 90 percent of its revenues to fund its budget and the price drops dramatically, they notice it.

One way to deal with the variations and variables in price is to have sufficient production. Alaska is suffering from this economic anxiety because our oil production, which was over 2 million barrels a day, has dropped precipitously over the past couple decades. We are now talking about an oil pipeline that is less than half full. What does that mean to a State such as Alaska when the artery for the State's revenues is not pumping at an optimum level? We are in that place right now. As a State we are looking at what can we do to make a difference when it comes to production because there will be price variables. As long as OPEC is in play there will be price variables we are not able to affect as much as we would like.

We have the resource. We have an estimated 40 billion barrels of oil in our Federal areas, offshore in the Chukchi and Beaufort, on our coastal plain within the NPRA. We are not looking at a situation in Alaska where we are running out of oil or about to run out of oil. Our problem straight up is our limited ability to be able to access it. The holdback we get, the pushback we get from our own Federal Government, the policies that keep us from being able to access that resource has been our challenge.

Now back to the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline is not going to be carrying any Alaskan crude. Don't get a mixed message. We have a pipeline. We have already built it. It is waiting to be filled back up. The need isn't infrastructure in Alaska but permission-- consent from the Federal Government to access our lands, access our waters to achieve that energy potential.

When I am talking to Alaskans about the imperative for Keystone and how it intersects with Alaska, there are a couple of messages. The first one is simple. There is plenty of demand within just the United States for all the oil Canada and Alaska can produce at the same time. The demand is there, even with the surge we have seen coming out of the Bakken and the amount of increased production we have seen domestically in this country. We are continuing to import that oil. Again, it is better for us to rely more on ourselves. The world view that supports the construction of Keystone XL is the same one that leads to new production in my State of Alaska; that is, the recognition that affordable energy is good. This is my mantra. I keep advertising it. I have a bumper sticker that says ``energy is good.'' Affordable energy is good. The understanding is that low prices result when world markets are well supplied along with the desire to achieve North American energy independence. This is something I feel very strongly about.

Approving the Keystone XL Pipeline is not going to eat into the markets for Alaska's oil. This is an important message for Alaskans to understand. In fact, it is going to help us preserve the markets we have because right now our North Slope crude is shipped predominantly to the west coast--makes sense, it is in closer proximity--where it is refined into gasoline and other petroleum products for use in the lower 48.

We take it down our 800-mile pipeline, put it to tidewater, and it is refined on the west coast. We enjoy the benefit of it here. But this ANS crude--Alaskan North Slope crude--as we call it, is now finding itself in competition from the shale plays out of the Bakken. So what we are seeing is, without a Keystone XL Pipeline oil, the oil that is being produced out of the Bakken is finding a home somewhere. It is not just sitting there. It is being moved.

Where is it being moved to? It is being moved to refineries that have capacity. It is going west. It is going west to those west coast refineries that are used to getting Alaska crude. Keep in mind that as it moves west, if we don't have the pipeline, how is it moving there? How are we moving it? We are moving it by rail, predominantly.

Again, we will have that discussion about the environmental impacts of rail or truck versus a pipeline and the safety and emissions issues. If you want a cleaner way to transport oil, it will be in a pipeline. If you want a safer way to transport oil, it will be in a pipeline. We have had this discussion in the past--and again, so Alaskans understand--and the Keystone XL Pipeline will benefit us in terms of being able to continue to send our crude to those west coast refineries.

We have heard--I believe repeatedly and incorrectly--that the Keystone XL Pipeline is a foreign project that is going to carry Canadian oil to the gulf coast. We know where the name TransCanada derives from. We know that much of the oil to be transported will be from Alberta, but I think it is important to acknowledge that we have about 100,000 barrels of Bakken crude that will come from North Dakota and Montana and down through the midcontinent. If we have the Keystone XL Pipeline constructed, it will avoid the west coast.

The last point I will make for the folks back home, for whom I work and who are following this issue, is that I really think the Keystone XL Pipeline is a test for us. It is a test of whether we as a nation can still review, license, permit, and build a large-scale energy infrastructure project. We are looking at that in Alaska. We need to know that can continue to be done in this country, because if we cannot do it even here in the lower 48, where the costs are lower and there is an existing infrastructure that you tie into, which the Keystone XL will--you have the southern leg already completed--if we can't demonstrate that we can get beyond the process of permitting a leg of this pipeline over the Canadian border and into the United States, what confidence do we have that we are going to be able to do other big energy infrastructure projects? That worries me a great deal.

When people say that we are rushing this too quickly or that it is premature or that we need to let everything play out, I think we need to remind ourselves that 6 years is a pretty long time to play something out. Most companies don't have the wherewithal to wait something out over the course of 6 years because the cost of constructing this pipeline has not gone down during this intervening time period. If anything, the costs are going up. We know the costs are going up. We are working on the Keystone XL Pipeline right now, but it is just the first step of many I believe we need to take and to do in order to improve our energy policies.

I will be continuing my conversation with Members to explain how my State has an awful lot to offer our country--whether it is increasing the flow of oil in our Trans-Alaska Pipeline or getting production up so we are not half full and instead are full, so we can share that resource with people throughout the country. As we look to move our natural gas--our amazing quantities of natural gas--that massive infrastructure project is a way in which we can work to advance that resource.

Alaska has so much to offer the country, but we need to have the chance and the opportunity to do so. Our pipeline up north is already built. It was completed just after I got out of high school. In fact, I was privileged to have the opportunity to work up in Prudhoe Bay at that time and saw what actually happened out there in the oil fields. It has operated successfully, safely, and efficiently for decades. It has far surpassed what we believed we would be able to ship through that line, but it remains surrounded by billions and billions of untapped oil that can be brought to market, which would then bring in jobs, generate revenue, and keep prices as low as possible, and increase our security. We all want that.

This is a conversation that will continue until the conditions of Alaska's Statehood--those promises that were made to us back in 1959 when we became a State--are fulfilled and we are allowed to produce our resources as a State.

So watching what is going on with Keystone is something that is of great interest to the folks back home. We will continue to watch it and hopefully be encouraged that we do the right thing from a jobs perspective, from a revenue perspective, from an economic perspective, and an energy-security perspective.

We have three amendments which are pending. I was privileged to be sitting in the Chair a little while ago when the junior Senator from Massachusetts spoke about his amendment. His amendment relates to exports from the Keystone XL Pipeline. My colleague from Massachusetts is not from a big oil-producing State, as I am.

I believe it is fair to say that his State cares a lot about the cost of energy. They have cold winters, infrastructure challenges, and other issues as it relates to energy, and I appreciate that. But it is important to understand what my colleague's amendment would do. It would specifically prohibit the export of oil that is brought into the United States through the Keystone XL Pipeline, as well as the export of the finished products made from that oil. It is not just the raw crude that is put into the line. It is what goes down to the refineries in the gulf coast and is then refined into products--whether it is diesel or some other product. It is saying that the export of that should be prohibited.

Basically, his amendment is a full-on, flat-out statement saying that you can't have any aspect of it--any drop of that--leave this country. It essentially says that all of this--every ounce of this new Canadian resource--will be brought into this United States and will stay here.

My colleague has raised the concern that the United States should not be that passthrough entity. He used the terminology that it is similar to a straw from Canada down to the gulf, and then it goes out the back end from there. The President, in a comment, used the term conveyor belt and that the United States should not be that conveyor belt. The argument is that we should not just be a passthrough where Americans get none of the benefits. Well, if we didn't get any of the benefits, I think we should be talking about that.

It is important to know this is not the first time we have had this discussion or this idea in front of us. Back in early 2012, it was part of an amendment that came before the floor. It was defeated 33 to 65. We had many of our Democratic colleagues join with all of the Republicans to reject a statutory ban on exports.

I am hopeful this amendment that has been offered and is pending will see the same fate and ultimately be defeated by at least the same margin. I say that because I think it continues to be unnecessary, and I strongly believe it takes our export policies in the wrong direction.

This is not just Lisa Murkowski saying this takes us the wrong way. The Department of Energy has looked critically at the issue of the Keystone XL oil being exported and whether or not that makes sense. In their analysis--and they state it pretty succinctly--they say: Without a surplus of heavy oil in PADD 3--that is the gulf coast area--there would be no economic incentive to ship Canadian oil sands to Asia via Port Arthur, which is where it is coming out of.

The Department of Energy's conclusion--they had a pretty broad discussion about it. But their conclusion was then reinforced by the State Department in its final supplemental EIS for Keystone, which is a document that everybody should read--granted that it is 1,000 pages long, or thereabouts, but there is a summary that helps to condense so much of it. In the State Department's final EIS, they say that ``such an option''--that being export--``such an option appears unlikely to be economically justified for any significant durable trade given transport costs and market conditions.'' Think about that. I believe these conclusions make some pretty good sense here.

The purpose of the Keystone XL Pipeline is to bring Canadian and American oil--let's not forget the 100,000 barrels coming out of Montana and North Dakota--to the gulf coast. It does not make any sense to bring oil all the way--850 miles--to refineries that can refine it-- remember, these refineries in the gulf coast are set up to deal with exactly this type of oil. So we have the line that brings it from the north to the south where you have refineries that are able to handle this. So tell me why it would make sense to just use this pipeline as a passthrough--as a conveyor belt or straw--and then ship it to refineries around the world that will add that transport cost to it. As the State Department EIS said, it would not be economically justified.

It is important to understand, again, what is going on down there in the refineries in gulf coast, and the State Department looked at that. What they found was that the traditional sources of heavy oil used on the gulf coast are declining. Why are they declining? What we traditionally see coming in as imports there--coming in from Venezuela and Mexico--has been drawn down or lessened, if you will, for a host of different reasons, but not the least of which is because we are producing more here in the lower 48 States in the Bakken.

We have talked a lot about the misalignment that is going on within our refineries and what is being produced and what we are capable of refining. But again, what we are seeing in the gulf coast is an ability to take on more capacity for this heavy oil. The opportunity to refine the product that is coming out of Canada there in the gulf coast refineries is real. It is there.

Now, I think it is important to be honest here. I don't want to be written up in somebody's fact checker. Believe me, we looked at that. There are small amounts of oil from Keystone XL that could be reexported as a matter of economic efficiency, but that should not give anyone a reason to panic or get everybody all excited. It may come as a surprise to some, but the reexport of Canadian oil that is not commingled with the domestic crude is already completely legal. It is already a routine matter where the Commerce Department just routinely signs off on it. This is no big deal. There is no change in policy that is dramatic.

The Obama administration has already approved dozens of licenses to reexport crude oil all across the world.

I think it is important to recognize that this amendment offered by my colleague from Massachusetts would not just block the export of the crude, it would block the export of finished products. As he said, it would be everything. It would be the crude, and it would be everything that is then produced. Every bit we have he would have stay here. But blocking the export of finished products would be a reversal of existing law and current practices. And think about it--just from a practical perspective, how do we enforce this? How would we realistically enforce this measure of diesel that came from this refinery, from this pipeline here in the lower 48--that we can go ahead and export--and this is what we do. It is not any great state secret. We move our refined products, and we do so in a significant way to the benefit of our Nation. So how do we fence off everything that comes out of Keystone XL and say: The refined product from this particular pipeline can't move outside this country. It creates potential havoc, and maybe that is the point.

I think the Senate should recognize that this amendment is not going to improve this bill. I don't think it will change anybody's mind. I don't think it is going to bring new support. I think it is meant to kind of poison the well and perhaps ensure that this pipeline will never be built and that it can't operate.

I encourage my colleagues to look at a couple different documents. I mentioned the final supplemental environmental impact statement the State Department did. It is an important read for the critical analysis that went into it. I have cited those areas where they speak specifically to the impact of the export. There are others who have reviewed not only that but other documents, other outside facts.

I mentioned that President Obama had made reference to the conveyor belt theory or tagging Keystone XL as being a conveyor belt for the oil. He made that statement when he was in Burma in November. His specific words were that it would provide ``the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else.''

So the fact checkers got on President Obama for that and did a pretty good analysis. I felt it was a pretty good

analysis. They laid it out in clear English and ultimately decided that the President was going to be awarded three Pinocchios for that statement. For those who aren't familiar, if a person makes a significant factual error or obvious contradiction, they get three Pinocchios.

But it wasn't just the Washington Post and Glen Kessler who did this assessment. We also had another fact check come out of PolitiFact, and they also rated that statement mostly false on their Truth-O-Meter.

I ask unanimous consent that both of these fact checks be printed in the Record.

Again, I think it is important to have a full understanding of what we are talking about when we talk about the export of Keystone XL and the imperative that in order for something to work, as the Senator from Massachusetts has suggested that we are just going to have this passthrough, it has to make sense for those who are moving this product. There has to be economic justification at the other end. And what makes sense is to move that product to the gulf coast, where our refineries have the capacity to handle that heavy crude, turn it into product there, and continue to create jobs within that region.

I am not going to support the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts, which I think is obvious from my statement, but I believe it is important to give some of the background. I would commend to colleagues some of these articles I have referenced.

There are two other amendments that are pending before us, and I will speak very quickly to the amendment that has been offered by the Senators from Ohio and New Hampshire. They have once again teamed up to offer this bipartisan amendment on energy efficiency. They have worked very closely on these issues over the years. We are to the point where we can't think about energy efficiency without thinking Portman or Shaheen, so I commend my colleagues for their diligence. I have been happy to support them in their efforts, and I am happy, quite honestly, that we will have an opportunity to vote on an amendment that does relate to energy efficiency. It is not the full-on energy efficiency bill my colleagues introduced previously, but it is an amendment with text that is identical to the measure that came out of the House, the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act. This is a bill that moved through the House 375 to 36 during the last Congress, toward the end. We tried to move it through in the Senate, and we came close to advancing it by unanimous consent, but there were still a few outstanding concerns we couldn't get around, so it is back before us once again. But really nothing has changed since then, and in my view this is a good reason why this proposal is really regarded as important and noncontroversial. It is cost-neutral. It contains four provisions, one of which is extremely time-sensitive.

Sometimes people don't want to get down into the weeds of certain aspects of what we are dealing with. The time-sensitive provision we are dealing with is these energy efficiency standards related to water heaters where we have a consent decree from back in 2010 that our water heater manufacturers have until April 16 of this year--so actually 3 months from today--to meet these revised minimum efficiency standards from DOE.

The problem we have is that DOE's standards effectively ban production of these grid-enabled water heaters that many of our rural co-ops use for electrical thermal storage or demand response programs. So instead of saving energy, these revised standards now threaten to actually work against these goals. So we have a bizarre, unintended consequence in this situation.

We have been working for a couple of years now to address this and to fix it, and now it is urgent. Now we have to deal with it because, again, we are at 3 short months. The manufacturers are worried about what the Congress is going to do. Is it going to be resolved? Should I be building any of these? Thanks to the cooperation of the Senators from Ohio and New Hampshire, we have an opportunity to have this measure in front of us once again.

There are three other provisions in this amendment that are equally noncontroversial. They all relate to voluntary efficiency programs. One focuses on the efficiency of commercial office buildings. Another provides greater information about energy usage in those buildings. The third looks at energy-efficient government technology and practices.

This is one that I hope we will be able to advance without further delay. This is really a commonsense effort to fix a real problem for our rural co-ops.

More importantly, let's embrace energy efficiency around here. We are now involved in the discussion about

increased production, which is very real. I started off my comments by talking about Alaska's desired contribution to the national energy economy, but I view energy from a three-legged stool perspective: We have increased production. We have all the technologies that are going to allow us to achieve our potential with our clean and renewable resources, which is hugely important, but we also have the efficiency and the conservation piece. We don't talk about that enough around here. We need to do more. Shaheen-Portman is one way to get us there, albeit in a very small way.

The last amendment we have pending is an amendment offered by my colleague from Minnesota on the other side of the aisle, who also serves on the energy committee. He has introduced an amendment that would require that all of the iron, the steel--that all the manufactured goods that are used to construct Keystone XL be produced right here in the United States.

I think all of us want to do all we can, certainly, to encourage more jobs and job creation here in this country and to put in place policies that would allow us to do so. I do appreciate that the Franken amendment inserts language in the amendment that allows--or I guess it avoids a conflict with our international trade agreements because we know that could have really threatened the bill. It would actually have given the President real reason to threaten to veto this bipartisan bill. But they have addressed that within the amendment. I also appreciate that the amendment allows the President to waive the requirements for American materials based on findings he makes. So that is language which is included in it.

But I have to tell my colleagues, we are sitting here at 2,310 days since the initial cross-border application was submitted for this project. I was reminded that when the initial application was first presented, the President was then Senator Obama. That much time has elapsed. So I see this language, and I think it is included in this amendment in good faith, but I just can't be convinced that the President would actually exercise this type of a waiver in a timely manner. He certainly hasn't demonstrated it at any point throughout this whole, long, drawn-out process we have been on with Keystone XL after 6 years.

So I am going to be opposing this amendment for the same reasons I opposed it when we had it in front of us in 2012. It was included as part of a broader amendment at that time, but it did fall on a pretty strong bipartisan basis.

These are important issues to be thinking about and considering, and I did take good time to review this. Again, I think all of us want to do more to encourage job production, job creation. I buy American and I buy local wherever and whenever I can. I strongly support the use of American materials in American projects, whether it is in my State or around the country. I know the Presiding Officer probably does as well, as does the Senator from Minnesota. But in considering whether we here in Congress should mandate specific materials for the Keystone XL Pipeline, I have come down on the side that we should not mandate that.

I think we need to look at several things. First off is the commitment that has been made to buy American without any sort of mandate, without any requirement coming out of Congress. Fully 75 percent of the pipe from this project is going to come from North America. That is the commitment that has been made, and I understand that more than half of that--about 332,000 tons--is going to come from Arkansas alone.

Again, this is a commitment that has been made to ensure that America does derive benefit, that we do see those--direct and indirect--induced jobs. When you make a commitment, you say that we will pledge a full 75 percent of the pipe for the project that is going to come from North America. I think that is important. It was important enough that TransCanada announced this 3 years ago. So this is not just something they have decided in order to help facilitate this--that we are going to say 75 percent. They made this commitment a while ago.

Here in Congress we passed the Buy American Act, and that act specifically is applied to projects that are Federally funded. But keep in mind here that when we are talking about Keystone XL, this is a private project. Keystone XL gets no subsidies. It will receive no taxpayer dollars. It will be built to the government's specifications. We have seen that when you look to that final SEIS, where the additional mitigation measures are required once the permit is approved. It will be built to government specifications, but I don't think the government should decide what it is actually built with. We are going to define the parameters in terms of mitigation, but, again, this is a private project. This receives no Federal funds, and it would be somewhat precedent setting. So I asked the Congressional Research Service to see if they can identify for me any other projects where the Congress has sought to force or direct private parties or a private company to purchase domestic goods and materials--so all of the materials that go into it and not just the steel but everything else in there. They have been looking. They have some pretty sharp folks over there at CRS. So far, they have not been able to come up with an example in our laws. I am concerned about this, quite honestly. As much as I support ``Buy American'' and making sure that we receive the benefit of these jobs from creating these products, I am concerned about the Congress' setting a precedent here. I think it potentially puts us on a pretty slippery slope.

If we are going to set the precedent here for Keystone XL and say, well, you have to do it for pipelines, why wouldn't we do it for other energy sources? Is that going to be a requirement we are going to place on wind turbines?

I know some of my colleagues are in some States where they are manufacturing good made-in-America wind turbines. I am all for that, but is that a policy we are going to take on--where we are going to say, no, it is an important industry, it is an important sector, and so we are going to require that it all be made in America? If that is the case, why not on our vehicles? Why not everything?

I worry about that. I worry about the precedent. I worry about where we go beyond Keystone XL if that is the requirement. I think it is also important to listen to the industry's perspective on this position. The American Iron and Steel Institute have been a huge supporter of Keystone XL for years now. They have 19 different member companies, major producers such as U.S. Steel. They have 125 associate members.

On January 8--actually, right after we came into session--before this amendment was even filed, the American Iron and Steel Institute sent every one of us a Steelgram reiterating their support for Keystone XL, and their letter is pretty definite. They are not nuanced about it. They say:

It is essential that Congress act to ensure the approval of

the Keystone XL Pipeline without further delay.

I think we should listen to those words. Those words aren't coming from a TransCanada. They are not coming from an oil company. They are coming from associations and workers around the country who believe earnestly and honestly that construction of this pipeline will be good for this country and it will be good for these families. So let's listen to them. Let's agree that 2,310 days and counting is more than enough time to make a decision.

We saw the Nebraska Supreme Court come out with their determination that the decision that came out of Nebraska was not unconstitutional. So it clears away that excuse, if you will, or that reason to say we can't move forward.

There is really nothing holding up a decision at this point in time other than the President's unwillingness to move on this issue. I think if we want to move forward and provide good jobs--and we have had the debate about how many jobs are really created. Is it the 42,100 that the final SEIS states in terms of direct and indirect jobs?

If you want just to focus on the permanent jobs, that is definitely a much lower number--35 to 50 permanent jobs. But you know what. When you build something, there is the opportunity for good, honest work for well-paying jobs for welders, for truck drivers, for operators. People are looking for an opportunity such as this. They want to be

part of building something. I can tell you that in Alaska, when we are debating how we are going to move our natural gas to market and how we are going to build this natural gas pipeline that will move this, nobody is saying that we can't build this because it is only going to provide temporary construction jobs. That is not what we are talking about. They know that there is benefit there. They are hoping they are going to be part of that benefit.

When we talk about where we are with some of these amendments coming forward, I think it is good to have this debate. I think it is good to have this discussion, whether it is talking about exports, because that is a legitimate part of the discussion, talking about requirements that may be placed on construction. But I think we have to remember we are not the zoning board here in the Senate or in the Congress. This bill doesn't have anything to do with siting. We are not determining the route. That is what the States do and rightly so. What this 2-page, 400-word bill does is approve the issuance of that permit to allow for construction, but we are not the ones determining that this is the way the line goes.

I would urge colleagues to look critically at the language and see exactly what it does. Understand that when we are talking about the benefits and burdens of a pipeline, it is true that pipelines are not 100 percent fail-safe. Not much that we build is 100 percent fail-safe, but what we try to do at every turn and at every opportunity is to make it as close as possible. But when you look from a safety perspective, from an environmental perspective, the safest and most environmentally sound way to move this oil is in a pipeline. It is not putting it in rail to other parts of the country. It is not putting it on the roads as we are seeing. Those are the options right now. Whether people in this body or across the Chamber here object, Canada is accessing their resource. They are accessing their resource, and they will move their resource. Right now the way they are moving it is in a way, quite honestly, that adds to emissions, has greater potential for a spill and for an environmental incident. So I am looking at it from the perspective that Canada is going to move that. They have made that very clear.

In fact, there was an article just a couple of days now, in the Wall Street Journal--and it is talking about the impact of lower oil prices and the impact on what is happening in Canada as an oil producer. Are they slowing down their production in response to lower oil prices? Absolutely not. What we are seeing is almost--I don't want to describe it as a doubling down because that is an inaccurate phrase--but what we are seeing is continued effort within Canada to access their oil resources. Some of the statements that are made by some of the Canadian oil companies are really quite telling. They say that Canadian Natural is a company that will ``ensure the oil sands will continue adding to the global oil glut for a long time to come, regardless of the price of crude.'' They go on to say: ``It's not well understood just how robust the oil sands are. If you stopped expansion of the oil sands tomorrow, you would have no decline in the production base for decades . . . But few of the largest producers in Canada envision scaling back production at their oil sands operations.''

So what we are seeing is there was big investment up front with the oil sands in Canada and accessing a resource that is plentiful, but if you are to believe some of the statements from these Canadian companies, they are going to continue to produce their resource, even in the face of what we are seeing--declining world oil prices.

If Canada is going to continue to produce, how is that product going to be moved? I would rather it be moved safely through a pipeline, with fewer emissions through a pipeline, and to a part of the country where we are set up to accommodate that resource in our refineries so that we can refine that product to our benefit.

To me, that makes sense. So we will have good and--excuse the pun-- energetic debate about amendments in these coming days. I think you can see from my comments we are going to have some amendments that I like and some that I am not supporting. But what I am looking forward to is the fact that we are at a point that we are describing as regular orders. We are going to be voting on amendments, perhaps quite a few, as we move toward the final passage of this bipartisan bill. I look forward to the exchange that we will have.

I thank you for your attention, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time on the motion to proceed to S. 1 now be expired and the Senate proceed to a vote on the motion to proceed; that if the motion to proceed is adopted, the bill be reported and that Senator Murkowski be recognized to offer a substitute amendment, the text of which is at the desk.

I further ask that the following amendments be in order to be offered during this week's session by Senators Cantwell and Murkowski or their designees: Markey amendment No. 13 related to oil exports; Portman amendment No. 3; a Franken amendment related to U.S. steel; and that the consideration of these amendments be in the order listed and the bill be for debate only during this week's consideration.

Mr. President, I have discussed the process going forward on this bill with our leader, the majority leader, and Senator Cantwell. It is our intention to work together so the two bill managers or their designees continue to offer amendments in an alternating fashion.