Floor Statements

Mr. President, at this time I call up my amendment No. 2.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be suspended.

Mr. President. I am pleased we are at this point in time

when we can start debate on the Keystone XL Pipeline. We have had some good conversation on this floor while we have worked through procedural issues. I appreciate that we have been able to avoid a midnight vote, that we were able to work out an agreement. I thank my colleague and the ranking member, Senator Cantwell, for her assistance in getting us to this point, where we, during the daylight hours, can begin debate on amendments. These amendments, I think, are particularly timely and particularly important to where we are today from an economic perspective, from an energy perspective, and from an energy security perspective.

Keystone XL fits in with that. In front of us is the first amendment to the Keystone XL Pipeline, S. 1, and it is in the nature of a committee substitute. What I will assure Members is that the substitute we have in front of us is almost a mirror image of the bill we reported from the energy committee just last week. We reported it on a bipartisan basis. We had good discussion at that point in time.

But we have in front of us that substitute amendment. When we look to the amendment itself, it is pretty simple. We are truly talking about a two-page bill, a bill that is clear in content, a bill that is very readable in terms of what it does and what it does not do. Again, it spans just over two pages--pretty wide font, pretty wide margins. One can read it in a couple of minutes--and better yet, understand it.

That is because the bill itself is very simple. What this measure does is approve the cross-border permit that is needed to construct the Keystone XL Pipeline. It does this with important provisions. It fully protects private property rights. It requires all State and local obligations be met, including those related to siting. There has been some discussion that somehow or other the Senate is engaging in routing, engaging in siting. This bill does not approve a pipeline route. We are not a planning board. Our bill only approves the pipeline's cross-border permit. It only does that because we have been waiting for 6 years for this cross-border permit.

Some have suggested this is somehow some big giveaway. There is no subsidy in this bill. It is not a giveaway. It does not evade any regulations. It does not preempt any environmental study. It will not cost taxpayers a single dollar. Again, I would encourage my colleagues to look critically at the language of this bill. What this bill does is authorize a cross-border permit.

There has been a lot of discussion about the jobs created and the environmental pros and cons on both sides. We have had good, strong debate already, just as we have moved through the procedural process of this. But what I think is important for us as a body to appreciate is the point we are at now, the point where we as Members can take this simple, straightforward bill and offer amendments we believe would make it better or enhance it.

As we go forward, I am encouraging Members on both sides to bring their amendments forward. Let us have the give and take, the back and forth for which the Senate was once so famous. I have been asked: How are you going to handle amendments on the floor? Is it going to be a situation where the majority determines what the minority will introduce, what we will have an opportunity to debate and decide?

That is not how we are handling amendments on this bill. The majority leader has promised a full debate. He has said: It is not unlimited. We are not going to be on this for months, but we are going to give Members an opportunity to speak to the issues of the day, the issues of the day that are so important to our Nation's economy.

The Presiding Officer comes from an energy-producing State, as do I. We know the significance of energy jobs that come to our States and our local economy. We know the independence that comes when we are not reliant on others, particularly others who wish us ill, for a resource that powers our country.

We are seeing firsthand the benefits of good energy production throughout the entire country. So why would we not want to allow for a piece of beneficial infrastructure, a piece of infrastructure to cross a border from our closest friend and ally in Canada, moving a product to our refineries in the gulf coast where they are set up to handle this type of crude oil.

There has been a lot of discussion that this is just going to be a transference of oil from the north in Canada through the United States and exported to the rest of the world. But I think if we look to the facts that are laid out in the State Department's report, in their environmental assessment, we appreciate the fact that it makes no sense to use the United States just as a conduit, when our refineries, those refineries that are designed to handle the heavy crude, will be in a position to refine that crude for our benefit in this country, for those in Canada who are looking to again move their product.

What we are effectively going to be able to do is replace what we are currently receiving from Venezuela, which provides us with that heavy crude currently, which we refine in the gulf coast areas--in those refineries we will be able to replace that with oil from our friend and ally, Canada. I do not know about the Presiding Officer, but I would much rather have a relationship with Canada than Venezuela.

Again, the benefits, the merits of this legislation are very substantive. Keep in mind, this is not a case of first impression. This is not the first pipeline we have crossing the United States-Canadian border. There are 19 cross-border pipelines currently operating today. So as we work to develop not only a relationship around our energy, I think it is important to recognize the relationship we have with our friends to the north is important as well.

One of the issues we will see come forward for discussion on the floor is the environmental aspects of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the oil sands from which they stem. We will have an opportunity to discuss the issue of exports and the significance of our energy exports, in terms of the benefits to our economy, trade perspective, balance of payments, the significance of that, and the opportunities we have in other areas related to energy, energy efficiency.

I know my friend and colleague from Ohio wishes to speak to an amendment he will propose today. But this is a long time in the making for us to not only have the chance to talk energy but the opportunity for us to vote on energy-related amendments.

I have much I wish to relay and convey in response to some of the comments that have been made by colleagues on this floor in the past couple days. We will have an opportunity to speak directly.

As was noted in the agreement, we will have this measure in front of us. We will put some amendments forward this afternoon. We will not be voting on any amendments today nor will we be voting on any amendments on Friday, but we will have an opportunity for good, concerted discussion on Friday and going into next week.

On behalf of the majority leader, I have been asked to announce that the next rollcall vote will occur on Tuesday, January 20.

Amendment No. 2

But what that allows us is an opportunity again, beginning today, beginning now, to encourage Members to come forward with their amendments and based on the agreement we have outlined--two on the Republican side today, two on the Democratic side today--get those out there, get them on the table, get them up, let's talk about them. We will have the opportunity on Friday and will do more of the same on Tuesday. Then we can actually start moving through a process that I hope is good, robust, and encouraging--encouraging, not only for the American public--but also encouraging to members of this body.

I think it will be good for us in the Senate to get back to a habit of advancing amendments, of allowing the floor managers to work together to decide a process, to lay out initiatives, to have the back and forth, to take some tough votes--it is what we do or what we should do--and to get back to what we know to be regular order.

I want that to be a terminology all Members understand instead of just some who have been around for more years than others. Being able to get back to regular process feels pretty good today. I am pleased to begin this debate under regular process.

With that, Senator Portman was on the floor as we began our unanimous

consent request, but I understand we will defer to Senator Markey to first bring up his amendment and then turn to Senator Portman for his.

Madam President, we are awaiting the arrival of Senator Franken to bring up the amendment relating to U.S.-made steel that is part of the agreement we entered into just a little bit ago that would allow for a series of amendments to be brought forward to the floor. The first was my substitute amendment to S. 1; Senator Markey has brought forward his amendment No. 13; Senator Portman, his energy efficiency bill.

What I would like to advise Members is that these are the matters pending before the body at this point in time. We certainly welcome debate on these issues.

Obviously, energy efficiency is very key to any energy debate. The aspect of export is one also that is worthy of discussion and, I hope, good debate on both sides as we go forward.

I would encourage Members to speak not only to these issues, but if there are other issues they would like to have brought to the floor-- while we won't be in a position to allow other Members to offer their amendments at this time under this agreement, there is certainly plenty of time to be talking about them.

Prior to the entry of the agreement, Senator Sanders came to the floor and spoke about his intention to offer an amendment at a later point in time.

I again invite Members to be engaged, to be part of this open amendment process we are part of. I think for some it is new and it may take a little bit of getting used to, but that is a good thing. It is a good thing because these are areas that are worthy of debate on the Senate floor. When we are talking about jobs, when we are talking about our energy security, when we are talking about the strength of our economy, it is always timely to have this debate.

I will again remind colleagues that our next opportunity to discuss these issues will be Friday morning, when we will be in session to take them up.

I look forward to more discussion from across the aisle.

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

Mr. President, I defer to my colleague, the sponsor of this legislation, Senator Hoeven from North Dakota, to conclude his remarks within the remaining time so that we can begin our vote at 5:30 p.m. We appreciate his leadership on this bill.

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

Mr. President, yesterday morning those of us on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee had an opportunity for good discussion about our Nation's energy future. More specific to the agenda of yesterday's business meeting was a bill that would allow for a much-delayed project--the Keystone XL Pipeline--to advance. It moved through the committee favorably. It moved through the committee with bipartisan support.

As I noted to several colleagues yesterday, the discussion we had in the committee about the significance of this pipeline--the significance of its contribution to our Nation's economy from a jobs perspective and from a resource perspective is considerable. Obviously there was debate on both sides--I think good, healthy debate--and it is debate I hope we will see reflected on this floor in the next week and perhaps the week following as we have an opportunity to debate. But first we have to get onto that bill. We have that process in place. We will have a vote on the motion to proceed the first of next week.

I am anxious, as the new chair of the energy committee, to move the debate here in the Senate on issues that are so important to us in this Nation. When we think about our Nation's security--national security and energy security--and when we think about our Nation's economy and prosperity, so much of it comes back to energy, access to energy that is abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure. These are principles I have laid out about my views of energy. I am hopeful that the discussion we will have on this floor will help advance us as a Senate, as a Congress, and really as a country in moving forward on those policies that will only make us stronger and more secure.

I felt the debate yesterday in committee was kind of a precursor of some of the agenda items we will see on this floor that will be brought forward by way of amendments. I would encourage colleagues, as they think about next week and as they think about the debate we will have on energy, let's stick to energy. We haven't had a good, robust debate on energy in a long while.

We have a lot of other concerns. We have colleagues who want to bring up the President's initiatives as they relate to immigration or perhaps health care. We will have plenty of opportunity here in the Senate under Leader McConnell's management to hear and debate issues that are of great substance and weight. But we have waited far too long for our energy issues to be fully debated on the floor, so I am welcoming that discussion.

We heard a lot of good reasons within the committee and we have heard a lot of good reasons here on the floor why the Keystone XL Pipeline is significant, is important to this country. This morning I wish to take a few moments to discuss some of the arguments that have been made against it and perhaps provide some context, some rebuttal, because I think it is fair to acknowledge that the Keystone XL Pipeline evokes some strong feelings, but not all of what we have heard is perhaps as factual as we would like it to be. As we note often around here, people are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. So I would like to address some of the responses.

One of the issues we heard yesterday was that this bill is almost too much. Well, if those on the committee and on the floor would look directly to the language of the bill, it is pretty simple. The text of the full bill takes up fewer than two pages. It is roughly 400 words long. It doesn't take long to read or understand. It is pretty simple. It is a pretty simple measure. It approves this long-delayed cross- border permit that is needed to construct the Keystone XL Pipeline. That is all it does. It approves a permit. It doesn't give some grand sweetheart deal to a foreign company. It doesn't feather the nest of oil companies. It allows for a permit to cross the border between the United States and Canada to allow for a construction project, and it does this while protecting private property rights.

It allows Nebraska to find the best possible route for the pipeline, and it requires all State and local obligations to be fully met. This bill does not deal with routing through the States. It was suggested that somehow or other we here in the Senate and the House are kind of like a zoning committee. That is not what is happening. It doesn't deal with the routing. As we know, that discussion took place at the State level--and appropriately so. So what this measure does is it just allows for that cross-boundary permit.

Some of the other points raised were that somehow or other this bill provides subsidies--subsidies--whether to TransCanada or to others. It does not authorize a single taxpayer dollar for any purpose. It doesn't create any new tax credits. It doesn't reduce current tax rates. The bill is simply about approving the Keystone XL Pipeline. It is that simple.

I would encourage you to read it. Again, it is pretty brief.

Another question raised yesterday in committee: Why the urgency? Why the push right now? We are just in the first week of the 114th Congress. Why are we pushing so quickly to advance this?

Well, for new Members, such as the Presiding Officer, here today, this is the first opportunity you will have had to weigh in on the Senate floor on this very important legislation, but many of us who were here in the 113th Congress recall that it was just about 6 or 7 weeks ago that this same measure--in fact, the same language of this bill is what we had on this floor just before we departed at the end of the 113th Congress. We fell one vote short of cloture. We had 59 supporters in the Senate. We obviously had very significant Democratic support. Coming up with 59 votes was substantive. I think folks would remember that.

In effect, this is a little bit about unfinished business. We were working on it less than 2 months ago--a month and a half ago. We are now back in the 114th Congress. So what has changed? Well, what has changed is that the Presiding Officer is now a Member of the Republican Party, and our leader, Senator McConnell, is leading the Senate. We are now in a new Congress with new leadership, and the bill that has been introduced by my friend and colleague from North Dakota has 60 cosponsors--60 cosponsors--not people who have said: Yes, I think I am going to vote for this bill. These are 60 who have committed and signed their names, and we now have enough votes to pass it in this Chamber. So I think that is a good sign.

I think it is not a bad sign that what we are starting with is a bill that is unfinished business but also a bill that has strong bipartisan support, with 60 cosponsors. It is not very often in this body that we have legislation that has that level of support. So why not start this new Congress off with something that enjoys bipartisan support? I don't think it was the intention of our leader to start off saying: By gosh, it is going to be Republican ideas only. We are trying to find those ideas and those issues that will advance our country. I believe that moving forward with the Keystone XL Pipeline is something that will advance the best interests of our country.

So when we talk about timing, I think it is important to note that this is not only a good time, it is the best time to bring up Keystone XL. Our colleagues on the other side of the building are taking up the Keystone XL Pipeline today.

We had, of course, good news coming out of Nebraska this morning with the announcement that that litigation has been resolved, if you will, with the courts effectively upholding the pipeline route.

There have been some on the other side of the aisle who have suggested that we shouldn't cut off a process, that we shouldn't move until things have been resolved in Nebraska. And there are some who would say: Well, OK, that is something we do need to consider. It has been suggested that until that has been resolved, action on the Keystone XL Pipeline is somehow or other premature or untimely.

I want to speak to the aspect of timeliness and whether we are moving too quickly. The Presidential approval process is actually another reason we are starting on this bill in this Congress. A final ``yes'' or ``no'' decision has now been delayed by more than 2,300 days. I think the exact number is 2,303, and we are counting. That is more than 6 years--not to build a pipeline; we are not talking about it taking 6 years to build the pipeline; we are talking about 6 years to approve a permit to cross from the Canadian side to the U.S. side. The energy committee is on its fourth chairman since the initial cross-border application was filed.

We have seen a lot of process. We have seen a lot of talk here in this body. Literally everything that has happened during the Obama administration--the legislation that has moved, regulations, all of the extracurricular stuff that goes on outside--that has all happened while the Keystone XL permit has been pending. One has to look at this and say: 2,300 days and counting, over 6 years--it is pretty clear to me that the President really doesn't want to make this decision, and so if the Congress can step in and make it happen, the Congress should step in and make it happen.

I mentioned the decision coming out of Nebraska this morning and the fact that it allows--the pipeline route was effectively upheld. So that aspect of the process that individuals have been waiting for I think we can fairly say has been resolved.

In the Statement of Administration Policy--effectively the veto threat the President has issued on Keystone XL that I would note he issued the day we gavelled into the 114th Congress, before we started any of our business. In his veto message, the President said the legislation would cut short consideration of important issues relevant to the national interests. Again, I would just ask anyone, really? Some 2,303 days and we think we are somehow or other cutting short a process?

In his veto SAP, he states further that ``the bill would also authorize the project despite uncertainty due to ongoing litigation in Nebraska.'' Well, it looks as though that part of it has been resolved, so that can't be used as the excuse.

It is not just in that Statement of Administration Policy. Back in April the Press Secretary for the President, Mr. Carney, stated, ``Absent a definite route from Nebraska, the decision, as I understand, by State is that that can't continue until the situation in Nebraska is resolved.'' OK. We are letting you know now that the situation in Nebraska has been resolved.

Further, there was a statement that came out of the State Department on April 18 in which they note that a core reason for the delay is ``the potential impact of the Nebraska Supreme Court case which could ultimately affect the pipeline route.'' All right. The State Department also has word now that we are no longer waiting for that.

So when one talks about timeliness, when one talks about why it is imperative that we allow this permit to proceed, it is because it has been 6 years. It is because the decks have been cleared. It is an infrastructure that will benefit our Nation as well as our friends to the northern border.

I would like to talk about the issue of job creation. We have talked a lot about the jobs that are created with a potential Keystone XL project. We heard in the committee discussion yesterday that, hey, this is not as advertised. There are only going to be about 55 permanent jobs and only 4,000 construction jobs that will be created.

We have been saying it is closer to 42,000 jobs. There is a lot of water in between 4,000 and 42,000. Who is correct? I think it is important to note that the numbers we are talking about are drawn from the State Department's final supplemental EIS. It is one of those situations where if you are opposed to it you are going to grab some low numbers, and if you are supportive of it you might grab the high numbers. But I think you need to read the whole thing in context, my friends.

The final supplemental EIS goes on to say:

Construction contracts, materials, and support purchased in

the United States would total approximately $3.1 billion,

with another $233 million spent on construction camps. During

construction, this spending would support a combined total of

approximately 42,100 average annual jobs and approximately $2

billion in earnings throughout the United States.

It goes on further to say:

Approximately 16,100 would be direct jobs at firms that are

awarded contracts for goods and services, including

construction directly by Keystone. The other approximately

26,000 jobs would result from indirect and induced spending;

this would consist of goods and services purchased by the

construction contractors and spending by employees working

for either the construction contractor or for any supplier of

goods and services required in the construction process.

So, again, these aren't Lisa Murkowski's numbers that are drawn from the air or Senator Hoeven, the sponsor of this bill, conjuring up these numbers. These are the numbers that come from the State Department's final supplemental EIS. This is what they are saying--42,100 average annual jobs, $2 billion in earnings, 16,000 direct jobs,

26,000 jobs from indirect and induced spending.

The State Department estimates construction workers on a seasonal basis--4 to 8 months per period. On an annual basis that is 1,950 jobs per year for 2 years, and that is where they get the 4,000 construction jobs.

But think about it. The nature of the construction business is not that these are jobs in perpetuity. That means you build things, and once they are built you move on to build something else. Of course they are not permanent jobs because we are not in a permanent state of construction. The key here is to approve projects in a timely manner so that these good, skilled, qualified workers can go from one job to the next and have permanent, stable employment--not necessarily on the same project for their entire lifetime but to be able, as a welder, as a skilled technician, to move from one project to another.

I would support this project even if it were just 4,000 temporary jobs, but it is not. What we are talking about is supporting over 42,000 workers over a 2-year period. That is significant. It is significant given the unemployment levels we are at--we are at 5.6 percent now. Isn't this what we are wanting to do, to bring on new jobs?

In my State right now we are trying to figure out how we can move Alaska's natural gas to market, not only to benefit our State with revenues but to benefit jobs. We don't have a deal yet that allows us to build that pipeline, although our Governor today and our previous Governor and Governors before them have been working diligently to make that happen, and one of these days we are going to see it. But in the meantime, do you think Alaskans are saying: Well, we are not so sure we want this because these are only going to be temporary construction jobs. Absolutely not. We are building training facilities. We are getting our workforce kind of teed up for that day so that when it comes, we are ready because we want those construction jobs. We recognize it will be a construction project, and by its very definition it is not permanent.

Don't you think that bolsters my State's economy? Don't you think we are hoping every day that we are going to get moving on this project? Absolutely. Is it going to benefit my State? Yes. Is it going to benefit this country? Yes. Let's get moving on it, and let's get moving on Keystone XL.

I get a little frustrated when we talk about the jobs, and we have those who say we should dismiss the fact that if we can't get to a certain number of jobs, the project is not worthwhile. What we are doing is approving a nonsubsidized, nonfederally funded project. This is not costing us anything. This will be a benefit to us. It is not an entire industry, nor is it a multiple-year funding authorization for transportation projects around the country. I think those kinds of comparisons are inaccurate and to a certain extent unfair.

I suggest to those who criticize Keystone XL's job-creating potential to be careful. We don't want to put ourselves in a position where we are going to wind up opposing nearly all individual projects for any purpose all across the country just because they don't create enough jobs.

Take the Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee Program. It has funded some good programs, in my view, over the years. We have seen some renewable energy projects in recent years that I think have been beneficial to our region. By our count, more than one dozen of these projects would create less than 50 permanent jobs. We are not creating hundreds or even thousands of jobs. It will create less than 50 permanent jobs. One solar project created 7 permanent jobs, a wind project created 10, a geothermal project created 14, and we had a transmission line that created 15 permanent jobs. I think the question that has to be asked is: Should we have opposed these projects based on the number of permanent jobs that are associated with them? Is there a minimum number of jobs we are going to use as a benchmark for approval or denial or should we just be glad and encouraged when any new job is created because it means Americans have found steady work? This is what I thought we were working toward.

Keep in mind Keystone XL is one project. It is one project. It is one pipeline. There is one connector between Canada and the United States that connects up to a pipeline that has already been built in the South and will feed into our existing system. This is not brandnew frontier. We are allowing for a connector between Canada and the systems we have in the United States.

Keystone XL is one project. It is one small part of the employment that energy production and infrastructure development can provide for our Nation. We already have 19 cross-border oil pipelines. This is coming down from Canada in the North and coming up from Mexico in the South. We are already building up our LNG export capability and so much more.

Again, keep in mind this is not the first time there has been a request for a cross-border pipeline. We have 19 that are already in place. What makes this one so special?

I will have more to say on that issue in the future. I know our leaders are expected to come down to the floor shortly. I look forward to a good, honest debate about our energy resources, our energy opportunities, and our energy challenges. I think the American public is ready for this discussion.

I don't know what happens around the dinner table in the hometowns of Georgia, but I can tell you in Alaska we talk a lot about energy, and we don't talk about it because we are an energy-producing State. We talk about it because it costs us a lot of money to keep warm in a cold place. It costs us a lot of money because we are not part of anybody else's energy infrastructure.

We don't have transmission lines that connect us from one place to the other. We have what we have, and we are thankful to have it. We are ready to share it with others around the country and around the globe, but we in Alaska talk a lot about the affordability of our energy resources. We talk a lot about how we can access our abundant resources. We talk a lot about how to use our ingenuity and technology to advance us so we can have cleaner energy sources and move to a world of renewable energy, and that is so exciting for us.

We have a lot of fossil fuel in Alaska--and we have a lot of everything else--and we are excited to be developing our geothermal, our marine hydrokinetic, our biomass, our wind potential, and our solar potential. It is a little dark there now, but our solar potential in the summer is second to none.

We are excited as to what we might be able to do in understanding how we can tap into ocean energy resources. It is exciting. We need to do more as a nation when it comes to efficiency and conservation. We should be leading in that way, and that is why I am pleased we will have an opportunity to again revisit the merits of the legislation my friends Senator Portman and Senator Shaheen have been working on so long as it relates to energy efficiency and taking that up as an opportunity for amendment. We have such good issues to talk about-- issues that the American public is talking about because it impacts them, and it impacts their family budget. It impacts their opportunities for jobs, and it impacts our Nation's security.

I have not talked today about the security aspects of it, but it doesn't take a foreign policy analyst to understand that gaining the benefit from an energy resource from our friends in Canada is better than asking for that same resource from the OPEC nations or Venezuela or from any nation that might not like us. That is a debate that again is so core to what we are talking about with Keystone XL.

We have a healthy relationship with Canada. It is important because when someone drives to my State, which is a heck of a long drive, they have to go through more of Canada than anyplace else. I want to have a good relationship with Canada, but I can tell you our friends on the Canadian border are wondering what is happening in the United States. It has been 2,303 days, and we can't make a decision on whether we should benefit from a jobs perspective, an economic perspective, and a national security perspective.

I look forward to the discussion next week, and I look forward to a robust and full debate on good energy amendments that will be coming before this body.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Cathy Cahill for the 114th Congress.

To my friend and colleague from North Dakota, it is all about infrastructure.

In Alaska, my home State, we have boundless supplies of oil and natural gas, but until we were able to build that 800-mile pipeline across two mountain ranges to deliver oil from Alaska's North Slope to tidewater in Valdez, that oil didn't do anybody any good. Today,the oil pipeline in Alaska is less than half full.

So we are working to try to figure out how we can do more as a State to contribute more to our Nation's energy needs, to allow us as a State to be producing more for the benefit not only of our State but of the Nation as well, but we are held back by policies that limit us. So it is policies and it is infrastructure. It is absolutely infrastructure.

We are trying to move Alaska's natural gas to market as well. But, again, if we don't have the infrastructure, it sits. It stays. It doesn't benefit consumers, it doesn't create jobs, and it doesn't help any of us out.

So Keystone truly is about infrastructure. I thank my colleague from North Dakota for leading on this issue for years now and for reintroducing the legislation, S. 1, the first bill to be filed in the Senate this year. It will be among the first bills to pass in this new Congress and appropriately so. This is a measure that not only enjoys bipartisan support in the Senate, it enjoys broad support over in the House, and it enjoys support across our Nation for great reason. So why are we where we are? Why are we looking at this situation and saying there is so much frustration going on?

Senator McConnell has promised to allow open and full debate on the Keystone XL Pipeline project, the legislation in front of us. I think we are looking forward to it. As the chairman of the energy committee, I am looking forward to robust debate on Keystone XL and what it will provide for this country in terms of jobs and in terms of opportunities.

We are all frustrated. We are all frustrated by a President's decision--or unwillingness, really, to make a decision about this pipeline. It has been 2,301 days and counting since the company seeking to build it submitted an application for this cross-border permit-- 2,301 days. That is more than 6 years ago.

Yesterday the President was finally able to make a decision. He issued his statement of administration policy. In his statement he says that by advancing this measure, it would cut short consideration of important issues.

Excuse me, Mr. President--cut short a process that has been underway for over 6 years? That is amazing to me. Again, when we talk about decisions, let's get moving with this.

The President seems to be advancing some pretty interesting things when it comes to the energy discussion. He was quoted in an interview just this morning in the Detroit News. He basically told Americans that we are enjoying lower energy prices right now, but we had better enjoy them fast because they are not going to last.

He said we have to be smart about our energy policy. I am with you there, Mr. President. We do have to be smart about our energy policy. But to think the suggestion is just enjoy low prices while they last, take advantage of the sunshine--no. Mr. President, your energy policies need to make sense for today, for the midterm, and for the long term. For the long term and for the short term we need to make sure we have infrastructure that will allow us the energy supply that is so important to this country. It amazes me we would be so defeatist with this approach.

We have an opportunity in this Congress. We had an opportunity this morning in the energy committee. We had scheduled a hearing on the Keystone XL Pipeline. We were going to hear testimony on original legislation to approve Keystone XL as we did last year on a bipartisan basis. But as Members in the body know, there was objection to that unanimous consent. We had to postpone the hearing. I quite honestly was surprised. It would have been nice to know an objection was coming before we had organized the hearing, before we had invited witnesses, before we had completed all the preparation. We are going to do our best in our committee to adhere to regular order. I hope our colleagues will work with us.

I wish to introduce for the Record some of the testimony we received from the three witnesses who graciously agreed to participate in our hearing we had scheduled for this morning.

Andrew Black, president and CEO of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, described pipeline safety issues and the gains Keystone XL would bring to the American economy in terms of jobs and payrolls. An excerpt from his testimony is as follows:

While there is much controversy associated with the

Keystone XL Pipeline, the facts are that pipelines are the

safest way to transport crude oil and other energy products.

A barrel of crude oil has a better than 99.999 percent chance

of reaching its destination safely by pipeline, safer than

any competing transportation mode.

A second witness we had invited was David Mallino, legislative director of the Laborers' International Union of North America. In his testimony he explored the positive jobs impact of the pipeline and responded to some environmental concerns. Here is an excerpt from Mr. Mallino's testimony:

Regardless of characterizations by the project's opponents,

it is indisputable that jobs will be created and supported in

the extraction and refining of the oil, as well as in the

manufacturing and service sectors.

We also invited Greg Dotson, vice president for energy policy at the Center for American Progress. He submitted his testimony in opposition. We made sure we had opposition testimony presented as well. He discussed climate change. He responded to the arguments in favor of Keystone. While he may be an opponent of the pipeline and as usual would have been outnumbered by the supporters of the project, I will still reference his testimony for the Record.

A copy of the testimony of Mr. Black, Mr. Mallino, and Mr. Dotson

may be found on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee Web site.

I do believe that had we been allowed to hold the hearing this morning, we would have heard very strong bipartisan statements in support of Keystone XL from many members of our committee. The majority of our committee supports this pipeline and is already cosponsoring this bill.

I will close my comments by assuring members of this body, we are in day 2 of this 114th Congress. This is not going to be our only debate on energy legislation over the years. I know it has been a long 7 years since we have had comprehensive energy legislation. A lot has changed. A lot of people have great ideas to improve and reform our policies, and I welcome those ideas. I am looking forward to the debate, to advancing these proposals through the energy committee. I think we can make significant progress on supply and infrastructure, on efficiency, on accountability. Those areas in particular should be the forum or the focus of an energy bill that we would hope to report out.

We are going to work hard on the energy committee. We are planning on legislating. Keystone XL is a natural point for this Congress because it has been delayed for so long, 2,301 days. It is clear this President is not going to make a decision on this, so the Congress needs to make it instead.

I look forward to coming back to the floor in a couple days when we have S. 1 officially in front of us. We are going to have good debate on it. I look forward to working with my colleague who has been so determined on this issue for so long. His leadership has been key in getting us here, but we need to finish it. We need to make the connects so we can move the resource and provide jobs for this country and for our allies and friends in Canada.

I again thank my friend and look forward to these next couple days and the next couple weeks where we will have an opportunity to put this before the American people on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. President, I join with my colleagues and express my disappointment that we are again at this place: A good measure that has good, strong, bipartisan, bicameral support has been blocked. It has been objected to.

I made a comment last evening when we once again attempted to bring up the unanimous consent order to advance the energy efficiency bill. It kind of feels like ``Groundhog Day,'' the movie, where it is just the same scene over and over again, the third time to the floor on a measure that enjoys strong support. It kind of begs the question, why? What is the problem with it? But as both my colleagues Senator Shaheen and Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire have outlined in terms of the specifics, there is no opposition there.

As the cosponsor, my colleague from Ohio has pointed out these four provisions that are contained in this House measure have so much bipartisan support that it passed the House unanimously coming over here.

So we have to ask: If we cannot advance a measure in this body such as energy efficiency that enjoys this level of support, how can we do anything around here?

I asked the question months ago, when I was being stopped in the hallway by reporters asking: What is going to happen to the energy efficiency bill, and I was bullishly optimistic because, as I said, this is a measure that enjoys strong support. It enjoys strong support and it is common sense.

I said: If we can't demonstrate that, we can't get a measure such as energy

efficiency through both Houses and enacted into law, how are we ever going to get to the really thorny, difficult issues?

I have been working with my colleagues on the appropriating side of energy and water, the Senator from California and Senator Alexander from Tennessee working with us on the authorizing side. First it was me and Senator Wyden, and then it was me and Senator Landrieu, and in January it will be Senator Cantwell.

We will be trying to figure out how we are going to deal with the issues surrounding nuclear waste disposal. These are tough issues. These are contentious. We have got some issues that will face us in the new Congress relating to the export of our energy resources. These are also going to be contentious. How are we ever going to get to the tough ones if--on the easy ones, what we describe around here as the low- hanging fruit--we cannot get through this process?

So I have to say, it is late--it is not the 11th hour; it is beyond the 11th hour because we have just taken the last vote, the last vote of the 113th Congress. We are done, and what we are leaving people with is uncertainty. When we are talking about those ways that we as a Congress can help right some of the problems in this country--how we can get our economy on a better track, how we can move towards more jobs and job creation--the best thing we can do is offer a level of certainty.

Well, right now you have these manufacturers of these water heaters that are saying: We don't know whether we are going to have any kind of a reprieve from this regulation or not. So we are not only not going to be making these water heaters, but that means we don't have the workers, those in the manufacturing companies who are going to be there or the people that are selling them. Think about what we have done with this one hurdle that we just couldn't get around. Yet we couldn't get a straight answer as to what the opposition--what the push-back--was.

Something is wrong with this process when we cannot advance measures such as the energy efficiency bill, a measure that has been worked on for years--diligently and in good faith--in a very, very open and bipartisan way. So I am hopeful that the 114th Congress is going to bring with it not only some fresh air--fresh perspective--but a willingness and a commitment to move through a process. If there is an objection, it should be stated, and we can work it out. But to continue to block and block when we have the level of support on a measure that we have, that is just not right. There has to be a better way. So I have pledged to my colleagues, the sponsors of this bill and all of those who have been working hard on it, that we are taking this back up again in the new year. We are going to work to make sure this has, yet again, the committee process, now for the third time, and we will work to advance it to the floor. It is my hope that if someone has problems with it, they have a solution to fix it, and they then come down and offer their amendments, we will debate them, and we will move on. But we have to be in a better place than where we have ended this evening.

So it is with regret that I say we will take it up again next year. But my hope is that we will do right by our energy policy, by focusing not only on the production side, not only the renewable side, but our efficiency measures that we have included in this bill. We are going to do right for a lot of the right reasons.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I too want to join in the unanimous consent that has been raised by my colleagues Senator Portman and Senator Shaheen on this very important bill. I have to say it feels a little bit like instead of calling it the energy efficiency bill, we need to call it the groundhog day bill because it just keeps coming back. It is a measure that, as my colleagues have mentioned, is so commonsense. When we think about ways that we can do more to be responsible stewards of our energy resources and do more to reduce our costs, energy efficiency is just calling to us all.

What we have in front of us today is not the full-on energy efficiency bill that Senators Shaheen and Portman have been working so diligently on for so many years now, but it is a slimmed-down version coming across from the House, a House-drafted, Republican-sponsored, cost neutral bill that passed that Chamber on suspension back in March, as was noted, by an overwhelming margin of 375 to 36. There are four major provisions in the bill, but none of these provisions are controversial. Probably the most important to us right now is the time- sensitive provision that provides regulatory relief for our rural electric co-ops. Under a consent decree from 2010, water heater manufacturers have until just mid-April--April 16--of this next year to meet revised minimum efficiency standards from the Department of Energy.

So you have got a situation where, in anticipation of this deadline, companies that make certain types of water heaters are already stopping their production. As a result, you are going to have co-ops that will effectively no longer have the ability to purchase them and use them in their systems. So they are coming to us and saying, ``Help.'' We need to have some certainty here and now.

What we do in this measure--what the House does is simply exempt rural co-ops and creates a different, achievable standard for them. It is a compromise that has been forged by the co-ops, the industry, the Department of Energy. Senator Hoeven has been leading on this and has been great. This is something that needs to be addressed and it needs to be addressed now rather than later.

The remaining provisions within this measure are all voluntary efficiency programs. One focuses on the efficiency of commercial office buildings, another provides greater information about energy usage in the buildings, and then the third looks at energy-efficient government technology and practices.

Again, none of these are controversial. None of them impose mandates, penalties, or taxes. CBO has deemed them to cost nothing. So there is only benefit. There is only an upside. So, again, we have seen the full-on energy efficiency measure before us now two separate times on this floor. We have reported that bill from the energy committee on a strong bipartisan basis.

We really should be moving to do right when it comes to energy efficiency. Senators Shaheen and Portman have led that effort. The House has now acted. It is unfortunate that we will not be able to resolve this. But I am certainly committed to working with my colleagues in the new year to advance what, again, is just simple common sense.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, earlier there was a lot of discussion about the NDAA--the Defense authorization bill--and the very important provisions which are contained in that which will provide for our men and women who serve us so honorably. I concur with all who have spoken today about the importance and significance of this bill and why we should pass it and why we should pass it today.

An area of controversy that has certainly come up--and my colleague from Oklahoma has pointed it out very clearly--is the public lands package that has been attached to the NDAA. I will speak a little bit about where we are today and why we are dealing with this issue and why it is important that the Senate and Congress advance these public lands provisions for our country.

I had an opportunity to speak in greater detail yesterday, but I felt it was important to let colleagues know why we deal with public lands bills traditionally in a package.

The Presiding Officer comes from a Western State, but Hawaii does not have large portions of land held by the Federal Government.

In the 12 Western States, which includes Alaska--93 percent of the Federal lands that are held by this country are contained in these 12 Western States. What does it mean when you are a State like Alaska where some 68 percent of your lands are Federally held? What does it mean when you are a State like Nevada, where our majority leader is from, where 85 percent of your State is held in public lands? It means that when you want to do a conveyance, a conveyance doesn't come about just because you are able to get a real estate attorney and you have a transaction; it literally requires an act of Congress.

We are dealing with one provision in this public lands bill that Senator Franken, from Minnesota, has been working on. It is a conveyance of one acre of land that is currently held by USGS, and it is a conveyance to a school district. Most people around this country-- or certainly on this end of the country--would say: Wow, that really requires congressional action? That really requires a vote? That really requires the President to sign it into law? The answer is in the affirmative.

We have been processing, as a committee--on the Energy Committee and committees on the House side--public lands bills throughout this Congress. We have been working on some of these public lands measures not for months, not for years, but in several instances a decade. It has taken a decade to bring about some of these conveyances and these exchanges.

I believe it is important to set the record straight--for those who are suggesting that somehow or other this was conjured up in the dark of the night or that there has been no process for these bills--and let colleagues know about the procedural process that has led to its inclusion in the NDAA.

For the record, I will note that the process included not only the committees of jurisdiction for the lands bills but the committees who crafted the NDAA bill, leadership from both sides, and individual Members who all agreed to cobble together a package that was fair and balanced, bipartisan, bicameral, revenue neutral--which is exceptionally important--and also addresses the need for conservation on one end and economic development and jobs and prosperity on the other end. With this package of bills, one can see that compromise come together.

It has been noted that these public lands bills have nothing to do with defense authorization, but I will say that this is not without precedent. Adding lands to an NDAA bill has been done in the past. We have seen it in the past several NDAAs. What we did here was to amend the existing lands package within the House-passed NDAA--which is hardly out of balance or unusual.

As I said before, I would much rather have us move individual bills through the floor as we process them, but many Members have said to me: Well, your small lands transaction is important, but does it really rise to the level of occupying floor time? It is tough to win the undivided attention of the Senate on some of these measures.

Just because this issue doesn't rise to a level of keen interest in this body doesn't mean these issues are not critically important for individuals, communities, and States around our country, and so it is hard to put that together. But just because it is small or more localized or perhaps more parochial--like this one acre of land we are

trying to convey to this school district--doesn't mean we should disregard it or overlook it or not try to enact it because somehow or other it is not as important as the other things we do around here.

So knowing how valuable and precious floor time is around here, we worked together. We have been working together for months--again, in a bicameral and bipartisan way--to combine many of the bills that are in the package. The result of what we have in front of us is provisions that will help boost natural resources and community development while we are also advancing conservation. We are moving toward economic development in certain areas, creating jobs. We have opportunities in both Nevada and Arizona to create thousands of good-paying jobs and will increase our resources and our minerals security.

Other aspects of the bill focus on conservation. There are additional wilderness provisions that are in there, but again, as we attempt to achieve that balance, what we have in front of us is a good structure.

I want to make sure colleagues recognize that when we are discussing the concern my colleague from Oklahoma has raised, the concern he has so well articulated that within our National Park System we have a maintenance backlog that is awful--and in many cases it is overwhelming. To his credit, he has given keen attention to this maintenance backlog we have and has pressed us to do more to improve that situation. He put together a very considerable report that we are using in the energy committee to help build a series of necessary reforms that will be required to deal with our issues within the National Park Service. Thanks to Senator Coburn's good work on this issue, we will be able to see some true reforms.

I met yesterday afternoon with Director Jarvis in my office, and I made it clear to him as the head of Park Service that this is going to be an area on which we must be focused. Our national parks are a national treasure, but when we can't attend to their needs and ensure that they are maintained to the level that, as Americans, we all want, then we are failing on that.

He has a very good point when he says we need to be doing something about maintenance and backlog. I agree. We actually have a couple of provisions in this public lands bill that will help us with that, and one of them is the bill Senator Coburn has sponsored which will allow for donors to have discreet recognition within our parks. So if you want to give a private donation, there is a way for recognition. We also have a provision in here that will allow for minting of a coin, which again will help with private dollars. Those private pieces are very important, but we need to do more, we will do more, and my commitment is to help do that.

One of the things that I think are important to recognize with the park provisions that are included in title XXX is that it is critically important to recognize the local support these park provisions have that will encourage economic development, tourism, and recreation. The agreement includes five new national historic parks, and it transfers management of two existing Federal areas to the Park Service. All of the new historical parks have been formally studied and have been recommended for inclusion in the National Park System. They focus on specific historic sites of national significance.

Studies have also been done--and my colleague has referenced that--on potential additions to the National Park System. These study authorizations have previously passed the House under suspension or gone through the Senate by unanimous consent. Again, we are not trying to go through the backdoor. The study that has been conducted and the process that has taken place in both the House and Senate is to ensure that there is that local support and that this is not just something a Member wants to attach his or her name to, that this has local support, and that in turn will help us with some of the funding issues we are going to need to address for our park systems.

I wish to conclude my remarks quickly because Senator Flake was asked for a few minutes and I would like to defer to him. First, the issue has also come up about existing national heritage areas. I think it is important for colleagues to know that we do provide for limited extensions for existing heritage areas, but there are no new heritage areas that are created. I think it is important to recognize that when we talk about extensions, it is extensions of existing heritage sites.

So with that, if I may, I wish to yield to my colleague from Arizona, Senator Flake. We have been working not only with Senator Flake but with Senator McCain on a provision that will certainly not only benefit his State, but it will benefit the United States in terms of jobs, economic opportunity, and a mineral resource; namely, copper, that is extraordinarily important to us.

With that, I turn to Senator Flake.

I thank my colleague from Arizona. As he has pointed out, not only is this measure important to the State of Arizona, but the State of Nevada will also gain the benefit of being able to access copper resources in that region as well, bringing jobs and bringing a resource.

So contained in this package--and again a balanced package--we are talking about the Federal land conveyances for economic and community development. We have mentioned the opportunity for mineral production with two copper mines, one in Arizona, one in Nevada; an opportunity for increased timber production in my State. We will finally realize the obligation to settle the land claims with the Native people of the southeastern part of the State in

the Sealaska region, 40-some years after the promise for their lands conveyance. They are still awaiting their conveyance. This measure we have in front of us will not only fulfill that decades-old promise, but it will allow for a continuation of timber within their region, albeit very, very, very reduced.

But in order to move to that second growth transition the Forest Service is always talking about, we have to have an industry that is just staying alive, and this Sealaska lands provision will help with that. But it was also crafted in a way that took into account the concerns of the fisheries, the stewardship for other lands, placing additional lands in a conservation area--so again a key balance.

The other provisions that relate to our Federal lands and our ability to access them I think are important, making them productive. The provision allows for land management agencies with the needed authority to renew and process grazing permits and leases. This is a measure that my colleague from Wyoming and my colleague from New Mexico have been working on, and in terms of something that provides certainty to America's ranching community, this is so key, this is so important.

We also worked to expand the successful BLM permit streamlining program to boost oil and gas production from the Federal lands. So it is kind of the economic development piece, but the conservation piece I think is equally important. It does designate wilderness. It designates approximately 245,000 acres of wilderness in total. But I think what is important for colleagues to recognize is that just about half of those acres are already managed as if it were wilderness. In other words, they are in wilderness study areas or roadless areas. So again we looked at those measures where there was support at the local level, at the State level, represented by the Members of Congress who had worked over the years to gain the level of support for these provisions. There is no cram-down. There is no designation from the executive as to monument status. This is how the process is designed to work.

We also returned 26,000 total wilderness study areas to multiple use, again for greater activity on those lands.

We protect private property rights in all of our special land designations. There is no private property that can be condemned or acquisitions through eminent domain. Private activities taking place outside of the special land designation are not going to be precluded by such designations, and we have insured that there are no buffer zones or protective perimeters that would encroach on personal and public rights.

I have been asked about the impact on hunting and fishing on our public lands, because that is something that particularly those of us in the West care a great deal about. I have heard some concerns that there may be negative impacts. But I want to be clear that the wilderness bills in this agreement actually affirm the responsibility and the authority of the States for the management of fish and wildlife.

In the wilderness bills that we have in New Mexico and in Nevada, they have incorporated restating the law--this is section 302 of FLPMA--to provide assurances that the wilderness designations do not give the Secretaries any new authorities to close Federal lands to hunting, fishing or trapping that they don't already have.

So we have put in place protections again trying to find the balance between the conservation and the development, providing for access, ensuring that private rights are respected, ensuring that our opportunities for use and enjoyment as well as economic activity are preserved; trying to find a package that is balanced from the bicameral, bipartisan perspective, making sure we are not imposing costs; again, a revenue-neutral proposal. I think that is also worth stressing.

I have seen something out there that suggests there is an impact on direct spending from title XXX. The fact is it is revenue neutral over these next 10 years. We do not take anything from the Defense authorization perspective within this bill with this lands package. That was never the intent. It was not the design, and it will not impact that.

With that, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I understand there is still 5 or 6 minutes remaining of my time. If there are other colleagues who would care to speak on the significance of title XXX of NDAA, natural resources, and the related provisions, I am certainly happy to yield to them.

I thank my colleagues who have come to the floor on both sides of the aisle to speak to some of the specifics that are contained within this bill because I think it helps to understand why we are at this late point in the calendar with a package of different bills focusing in different areas, whether it is a small land conveyance, whether it is the creation of a wilderness area that has come about through a great deal of compromise and collaboration, or whether it is a collaboration that will allow for economic opportunity through mineral development, timber harvest, or grazing opportunities. I think it does speak to the diversity of what we are dealing with, with so many of our public lands and the reality that they are different all over. It is very different in Alaska from what my friend in New Mexico experiences. The similarity we have is that we don't have the ability to do it on our own; we have to come to the Federal Government.

What will happen is, whether you are in New Mexico or whether you are in Alaska or points in between, you have local consensus emerge around an issue. They bring it to the State, and the State works with us at the Federal level, Members of the House and Members of the Senate. We continue to work this process. It usually is a very collaborative process.

Just because it is collaborative does not mean we agree on every issue. There is a great deal of give and take that goes on, because when you are talking about your public lands, every acre is precious to somebody. I know that full well in the legislation we have been working on, the See Alaska bill, for almost a decade now.

The fishermen have certain interests, those who harvest timber have certain interests, the conservationists have certain interests, the school district has certain interests. So how we build this takes time. But it seems as though the only place we do not get time is here on the Senate floor. We do not have the time allocated to us, nor do--I would be happy to spend hours and perhaps days discussing issues such as we have raised in this public lands bill. But I do not think most of my colleagues are interested in debating a reversionary clause for a parcel of land in downtown Anchorage that can be sold so they can have an opportunity, in Anchorage, to build something new there. It just does not rise to that level of immediacy and concern.

So, again, we do the best we can to try to be balanced, to try to put together something that works for all. It is a balancing act. It requires a level of finesse. If we were to have put together a package that was overly weighted towards new wilderness or new parks, not only would my constituents back home not support it, I could not support it. We have to work together on bill packages of this nature.

I want to recognize the good work of those on the energy committee who have worked with us to construct something that is good, balanced and fair. I will acknowledge my chairman of the energy committee, Senator Landrieu, who has worked with us to find that level of balance.

I do hope that as we look at a new Congress, we will be working together as colleagues to try to figure out a better path for the endgame for these smaller bills. I have been part of way too many lands packages now where we have the same debate: Why is it attached to this? Why are we doing this now? I would like to get us to a place where there was a more certain process so that Members knew their small conveyance bill, their small study, did not get caught up in end-of- session kind of madness, or caught up in things that distract from what it is that delegation has been attempting to do for that State, for that part of the country.

I would ask my colleagues--I have spoken with many on this side of the aisle as well as the Democratic side of the aisle--let's be working together to figure out how we can relieve this bottleneck, because I sincerely want to do that. But what we have in front of us today is our opportunity to bring some finality, to bring some conclusion, to bring some resolve to issues that have been outstanding for a considerable amount of time, as I mentioned, in several instances almost a full decade.

Let's clear the deck. Let's move this lands package on this NDAA bill so that next Congress we can begin with the many public lands bills that are still in the queue, that are still waiting for a process. But you can count on me to be working with my colleagues to ensure that we have a way forward that will be more expeditious than we have seen historically.

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

Madam President, I wish to weigh in on this issue, because it is a critically important issue for my State--for all coastal States, or any State that has commercial fishermen, as my colleague from California and as my colleague from Louisiana know.

I appreciate the fact that we have come to a place where we are going to save these small fishermen from the potential burden of reporting to EPA for any incidental discharge from their vessels for the next 3 years.

I need to acknowledge the good work of my friend from California. She has recognized that we began this years ago, back in 2008, when we had to work together at that time to get a short-term extension to ensure that our small-vessel owners would not be subjected to these EPA requirements that most people would say: What is this reporting all about?

For those who need a little more graphic detail as to what we are talking about, when you take a commercial fishing vessel out, a 45-foot commercial fishing vessel, and you have a good day fishing, there are some salmon guts on the deck, a little bit of slime, and you hose it off. That would be an incidental discharge that would be reportable to the EPA. And if you fail to report, you could be subject to civil penalties. That is not what we are talking about here.

I think it is important to note that we have two leaders here in the Senate who perhaps approach some of the EPA issues from a different angle. Senator Boxer has been a staunch advocate for making sure that when we are talking about clean air and clean water, we are complying with those regulations. Senator Vitter has also been a staunch advocate for making sure our small businesses, our jobs, and our economic opportunities aren't stymied by these regulations.

So the fact that we have two Members coming together to acknowledge we have to do something to ensure these regulations do not impede the ability of our small fishermen, of our commercial operators in the water--those vessels below 79 feet--that we are not harming them.

In my home State of Alaska, we are talking about 8,500 commercial fishermen who were most anxious that 8 days from now they were going to be put in a position where they were effectively violating EPA regulations, subject to civil penalties, for the simple act of runoff off of their decks.

So I concur with Senator Boxer, this is something we don't need to be going from year to year to year to address. We don't need to inject this uncertainty into the operations of our hard-working fishing families. We need to have a permanent solution. I want to work with that permanent solution. Senator Vitter has clearly indicated he is willing to help us with that. Senator Thune in Commerce has made that clear. We know we have to address the ballast issues. We will do that. And I am looking forward to being engaged with that in the 114th Congress.

But for now, I think it is critically important that consensus has been reached. I acknowledge the good work of both the Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from California, and Senator Thune, for getting us to this point where we can take the pressure off of our small commercial operators and ensure that they can do what they do so very well.

I look forward to the next Congress where we are making this permanent and, again, where we are dealing with so many of the other issues. But I thank my colleagues today.

I thank my colleague and his comment about the courtesy for allowing him to go first. I think the Senator from Colorado was scheduled to go first, and we were just a little bit behind, so I was pleased to listen to my friend's comments about one of the provisions in this NDAA lands bill, and I thank him for those comments.

I also wish to acknowledge the comments of the Senator from Louisiana, our chairman of the Energy Committee. I have had the pleasure and privilege of working with her as the ranking member on the committee now for the past 6 to 8 months since she has held the chair. But even before that, I have had the honor and privilege of working with her on so many energy issues.

As the Senator from Louisiana was detailing the contents of this lands package that is contained within the NDAA bill, I was reminded of what a good partnership we have had working together on the committee. They are not exactly easy issues that come before us. They generate a level of controversy--certainly a level of debate and dialog--but there has always been

good, civil debate and dialog as we try to work through some very difficult issues.

As Senator Landrieu leaves the Senate at the end of this Congress, I want her to know, as I stated in committee just this morning, how much I have appreciated the good work she has done, not only on energy issues, but the good work she has done on behalf of the people whom she represents in Louisiana.

If there is anybody who exemplifies the word ``tenacious,'' it is Mary Landrieu, and I think the people of her State have enjoyed the benefit of the very tenacious approach and how my friend and colleague takes care of those she represents. I thank the Senator for that.

I too wish to add my comments this evening in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, and more specifically, to the public lands package, which is title 30.

As Senator Landrieu detailed in greater specificity, what we have here is a collection of smaller bills related to public lands. Just because a bill is small and somewhat discreet in terms of its area of impact, it doesn't mean these are not issues that are critically important to the people of that State, critically important to that region.

With so many of these bills that are now part of this package, we have spent months--and in some cases we have spent years--developing, considering, refining, amending, and working through these packages. We have spent weeks negotiating which ones will actually be in the package that we have before us in title 30. We have now arrived at this point where we have a bipartisan and bicameral consensus in support of it.

What I wish to do with my time this evening is to explain how this package is fundamental to economic development in our Western States.

I also wish to lay out what this package is as well as what it isn't because I think there have been some misconceptions about what is contained in this. I also want to provide a little bit of insight into the process by which we crafted this and why it is now time for the Senate to do what the House has already done in passing it by a very overwhelming margin.

But before we get into the substance of some of these measures, I think the Senate needs to understand why we want this package, why we need to pass it now rather than waiting until the next Congress or perhaps the one after that or perhaps whenever we have a slow day around here. So I will proceed to the basics of some of this.

It is probably best described by just looking at the map. The dominant landowner in the United States is the Federal Government. The Federal Government, like it or not, owns roughly 640 million acres of land. That is more than one-quarter of our country that is held by the Federal Government. Ninety-three percent of these lands are clustered in just 12 Western States. So we can see here our Federal fault line. These 12 Western States are areas where less than 50 percent of the land is owned or held by the State and private interests. When we look at this divide, on this side, more than 95 percent is state-controlled land.

So we have a situation where in many of our Eastern States the Federal Government owns just a small fraction of the lands. But if we look to some of our Western States and we look at the extent of Federal ownership, this is where the picture comes into greater focus. In Wyoming, 42.3 percent of the State of Wyoming is held in Federal lands. In my State of Alaska, 69 percent of the State of Alaska is federally owned. Nevada walks away with No. 1, where over 80 percent of the State of Nevada is held by the Federal Government.

For folks back on the east coast, what does that mean? Let's say it presents some real difficulties for us in the West. Say we want a minor land conveyance--not a big deal. But if a person lives in a State such as New York with less than 1 percent of Federal lands, chances are that person can go see a real estate attorney and they can have a document drawn up, and they might even be able to draw it up in 1 day or maybe it takes a couple of days, but a person can complete a transaction without too much difficulty. If a person tries to do a conveyance in 1 of our 12 Western States, where 93 percent of the Federal lands are, it is a different story. Chances are a person will not have the same luck as they might in New York. Even if they are seeking the smallest of land conveyances, say 1 acre--just 1 acre is all we want to move from the Federal side to the State side, to a local side, to the private side--a person does not go see an attorney. A person needs to go talk to one of the four Federal land management agencies to get approval for their request, and they are not done there. Then a person needs to go see their Congressman and their Senator because they need Federal legislation to make it happen. It honestly takes an act of Congress. In the East, in places where land ownership is different than it is in the West, people can handle all of these conveyances. We can work through some of what we are seeing in this public lands package. We can do it through private transactions. But in the West, it takes an act of Congress for a land conveyance.

That is why we see hundreds of public lands bills introduced each Congress. It underscores why their passage is so critical to economic development and to job creation in our country. I have to admit, I am pleased the Senator from New Mexico is in the chair today, coming from a State such as New Mexico, which is at 41.77 percent. The Presiding Officer knows full well what we are talking about when we talk about the imperative of our communities that are asking for a little relief when it comes to a land conveyance, and the level it rises to is not the city council, it is not the mayor or the legislator or the Governor, it is a Congressman and Senator, and ultimately signed into law by the President of the United States.

So what are we actually looking at in this package? After truly months of negotiations, perhaps a few near-death experiences, and many temptations to walk away, we have agreed to a balanced, budget-neutral, revenue-neutral, bicameral, bipartisan package contained in title 30. These provisions that are contained here will create jobs. They will create thousands of American jobs. They will cut the redtape to energy production. They will boost American mineral production. They protect multiple use and public recreation. They convey Federal land for community development. They protect our treasured lands through measured conservation, and they provide new means for private dollars to support our national parks.

We have included a bipartisan provision to streamline oil and gas permitting on our Federal lands. It is supported by the Western Governors' Association. It cleared the Senate by unanimous consent before the elections. So think about that. So many things get tied up in the politics of elections, but this was so important to so many, on a bipartisan basis, on a regional basis, we moved it through the Senate by unanimous consent.

We have included a provision to address the backlog of the grazing permit renewals for our western ranchers to ease their burdens. Then there is another provision we have included that will help to hopefully protect the collapse of the timber industry in Southeastern Alaska with the conveyance to our Alaska Native peoples--a promise that has been 40 years--40 years--in achieving.

We have included a major priority for Arizona. This is an issue Senator Landrieu spoke to, an extensively negotiated land exchange led by Senator McCain and Senator Flake. I know Senator McCain has been working on this for a decade to find a way to responsibly open a copper deposit that could meet 25 percent of our country's needs while at the same time taking incredible care to protect and maintain access to cultural resources and traditional uses of those lands.

There is another provision that relates to Nevada which also facilitates development of a different copper mine. But now think about this. We are going to have an opportunity in Nevada and in Arizona to extract copper. Our military needs copper. The construction industry needs copper. The automotive industry needs copper. The renewable energy industry needs copper. There are so many benefits to be had here.

We have some provisions that are contained in this package that perhaps generate fewer headlines but are still hugely important for local communities. Probably the best example of

this is a provision for a school in Minnesota. This is a measure we have been working on with Senator Franken. But it facilitates a land exchange of just 1 acre--1 acre to a school in Minnesota--a single, lonely acre. We probably have people saying, So do we really have to pass a bill in order to make that happen? The simple answer is yes. That is why we are here. That is why we are including these provisions--so many provisions--in this very important bill.

I also want to mention what the package is not--what it does not do, what it does not contain, and some of the parade of horribles that certain groups have been saying that in fairness, they are not looking again to the balance we have achieved with this overall package.

We saw some rightful concerns emerge before this title was finalized. Everybody's ears always perk up when they hear ``public lands package,'' wondering what it is going to be. But we have seen some inaccurate criticisms emerge even after the release. It is one thing if they haven't seen what is in it. It is another thing to look at it and then be critical of it.

As I mentioned earlier, this is a balanced, revenue-neutral package. We have taken great care to make sure it is not all focused on new wilderness, new parks. In Western States, and particularly coming out of Alaska, we are just not going to have the support we need if it is all focused on wilderness and parks, so it is not. There is a conservation piece, absolutely, and it is a strong conservation piece, and I think it is a good, balanced one. But we also have the very important development piece that is critical to what is contained within.

To those who have spoken out against creating new national parks, given the maintenance backlogs that I think we recognize--it could be as high as $20 billion. I get it. I agree with Senator Coburn that we must address the backlog issues, the maintenance issues, and I thank him for the scrutiny he and his staff have given to this issue and the report they came out with. We are going to be working to address that in a manner that is constructive and long term. I want to reduce the backlogs, and we will do it.

Again, this has been judged to be revenue neutral. Through its passage, we could make progress on the backlog issue.

One provision that is contained in the bill that will help is the authorization of a National Park Service commemorative coin. There are 75 Senators who are cosponsors that will allow for additional funds to be raised. Senator Coburn has a measure in here that will allow for appropriate recognition of volunteers to our national parks. We have also tailored this package to include the wilderness provisions, but it is a discrete number. All of these have strong local and congressional support. We are looking at less than 250,000 acres in all, and actually from a practical perspective, far less than that. Most of these provisions were sponsored by a House Republican. Some have been endorsed by a Governor or a State legislature. With others, we are simply making it official. Nearly half of what would become wilderness is already managed as if it were wilderness. It is in wilderness study areas or it is in roadless area designation.

This is not a zero-sum game because we should be focused on the productive value of our public lands above all else. But for those who are kind of keeping score--is this acre per acre--I want to remind people that the package transfers almost 110,000 acres of Federal land into State or private hands through conveyances, exchanges, and sales. We are also releasing more than 26,000 acres of land from wilderness study back into multiple use. Examples of what those lands could be used for include building of transmission lines or motorized recreation.

I know some have raised issues about the various studies that are contained within the bill which, in my view, are more a matter of due diligence than anything else. Because a further act of Congress will be required before any new park, any new museum or wild or scenic designation can be established, and then we have the funding aspect of it as well. So, again, these are studies. This is not the creation of a new museum. This is not the creation of a new park. These are studies.

I think it is also important to reiterate that we have taken great care to protect private property. We have forbidden the use of eminent domain and the condemnation of private property. We have also set a positive precedent by eliminating the potential use of buffer zones around designated lands.

Again, I am going to say it one more time: This package is the result of bipartisan and bicameral negotiation, weeks of meetings amongst Members and staff of the committees of jurisdiction, the committees that have crafted the overall NDAA bill, leadership in both Chambers, and many individual Members.

For those who would suggest that this package was somehow hastily assembled, that this is some kind of rush to judgment, it is at the end of a very long and actually a very traditional process. We have considered, debated, and amended these provisions over the course of Congress using the committee process and the House and Senate floor when we could. Every bill within this package has been reviewed by the committees of jurisdiction. We are not hopscotching over anybody. At least 30 bills have passed the House and 7 have passed the Senate. Even though we haven't devoted time to a large package of individual bills, some of these provisions have been considered in multiple Congresses. You may look through the list, and they look like reruns. It is because we have tried, and the process didn't allow for full completion.

What we have with title 30 builds upon the lands and natural resource provisions that were included in the initial House-passed NDAA. These were provisions that were primarily the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's jurisdiction.

We have seen in the past the NDAA bill include public lands packages. It has happened enough times that the House leaders actually name the House Resources Committee as official conferees to it. But I think what is very important for us to remember about this lands package is that what we have done, this effort, has taken no time and no funding away from our military or our veterans, nor has its inclusion held the NDAA back for a single moment here.

I think we would all prefer a process where we could take the time to bring up Senator Bennet's bill on the floor and talk about it and have him tell us about all the magic of this region, but we haven't seen that in this body in far too long. I would prefer that process where all these bills could be considered individually on their own, but know that we have reviewed everything closely. This is a revenue neutral package. We found the right balance and reached bipartisan and bicameral agreement. We don't need to start over. We don't need to be working these same bills in a new Congress. We don't need to see a groundhog's day with so many of these measures that are small but are so important to these Western States. It is time to finish this. It is time to pass these reasonable measures. So I would encourage the Senate to support this package as part of the larger NDAA bill so that we can fulfill our responsibility to those in the Western States and those who have public lands that we are happy to have, but we also need to know we can have a level of responsiveness within our system to allow us to work those lands.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in a few short weeks a thoughtful and inspirational military leader will retire after serving his country proudly for 36 years. Today I recognize and commend my good friend GEN Charles H. Jacoby, Jr., of the U.S. Army for his exceptional leadership over those 36 years, most recently in his role as commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and United States Northern Command. It has been a tremendous pleasure to work closely with General Jacoby. I know many of my

colleagues join me in congratulating him on a job well done and in wishing him well as he begins a well-deserved retirement.

General Jacoby graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1978 and received his commission into the infantry as a second lieutenant. His command experience include Commander, A Company, 2d Battalion, Airborne, 325th Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC, and Operation URGENT FURY, Grenada; commander, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC; commander, Joint Task Force-Bravo, United States Southern Command, Honduras and Operation FUERTE APOYO, Strong Support, Hurricane Mitch; commanding general, U.S. Army Alaska and deputy commander, United States Alaskan Command; and commanding general, I Corps, including a combat tour in Iraq serving as the commanding general, Multi-National Corps-Iraq. Prior to his current assignment, he served as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's director, Strategic Plans and Policy (J5) and as senior member, U.S. Delegation to the United Nations Military Staff Committee, the Joint Staff.

It was during General Jacoby's assignments as commanding general, United States Army Alaska, and deputy commander, United States Alaskan Command, that we forged an enduring friendship based on trust and mutual respect. We have worked tough issues over the years, and I have always known him to be a man of his word. He is a great friend of mine and a true friend to Alaska.

General Jacoby has served as the commander of NORAD and USNORTHCOM for the past 3\1/2\ years with great distinction. He provided inspired vision, strategic focus and priorities, consistent operational and organizational excellence, and exceptional hands-on leadership not only for the people of his two commands but also in support of the commands' many international, interagency, nongovernmental organization, State, local, and private sector partners. Further, he honed important working relationships between USNORTHCOM and the National Guard, especially in implementation and execution of the dual status commander concept.

Perhaps most importantly, he was recognized earlier this year for his efforts to strengthen military ties between the United States and Mexico by General Salvador Cienfuegos Zepeda, Secretary of the National Defense Forces, and Admiral Vidal Francisco Soberon Sanz, Secretary of the Navy. They honored General Jacoby in a formal military ceremony attended by thousands of the Mexican military as the only U.S. military officer ever to receive the Mexican Military Merit 1st Class Award and the Mexican Naval Award, the highest awards possible for a non-Mexican, for his many contributions in support of the Mexican armed forces.

General Jacoby's unique combination of experience, charismatic leadership, and intelligence served him well as the commander during difficult times overseas and at home with some tough decisions about the future of our country. His long and distinguished record of exceptional service to our country serves as the gold standard for general officers, and we wish him and his family all the best. To this battle-hardened infantry paratrooper, we say a fond ``keep your feet and knees together'' as you jump into the next exciting chapter of your life.

Thank you, Madam President. I assure my colleagues from Iowa, California, my colleagues from around the country, that as a Senator from an oil- and gas-producing State, a State where we have fossil fuels in abundance, that I, too, am focused on that next generation of energy security.

I want to do what we can to develop those renewables, whether it is geothermal, whether it is our amazing hydro capacity, whether it is what we have with our oceans or our tides, our winds, and our Sun.

I also recognize very cleanly that when we are talking about energy and energy security, we also need to think about the geopolitics and our national security when it comes to energy use and our vulnerability.

There is a lot of discussion on this floor right now about the Keystone XL Pipeline and the number of jobs it will bring.

I think we recognize that when we build something, there is that flurry of activity. There are those jobs that are very real, very good, very promising but can stretching jobs--jobs come and they go. What do we have left after they have completed Keystone XL Pipeline?

What we have is in a very real sense an energy lifeline, a lifeline that connects our friend and neighbor, Canada, to the north, to our opportunities for refining capacity in the Gulf of Mexico, our opportunities within this country to be more energy secure, to be less energy dependent.

I wanted to take just a few minutes this afternoon to not necessarily talk about the jobs perspective of the Keystone XL Pipeline, as passionate as I feel about that, but I wanted to focus on just a couple of points. One is the artificial chokepoints that are created in North America if we do not move forward with the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Earlier this month, the Energy Information Administration, EIA, published a report on world transit chokepoints for the global oil and gas trade.

There are about 90 million barrels a day of oil on that world market. Of that, 56.5 million barrels, about 63 percent, is transported by ship. It is moving around on our oceans.

This maritime trade that we see is dependent on a few chokepoints. We have heard of some of them--obviously, the Strait of Hormuz, 17 million barrels a day go through the Strait of Hormuz. We have the Strait of Malacca, where there are 15.2 million barrels a day. We also have the Suez Canal and the Sumed Pipeline, and the Bab el-Mandab between Yemen and the Horn of Africa.

Effectively what we have are these very tight chokepoints where this flow of oil that comes around the world, around the globe, moves through.

Meanwhile, the Keystone XL would have the capacity of about 830,000 barrels per day. These are barrels that are secure, both economically and strategically, from a reliable friend and ally.

When we talk about the pros and cons of approving this pipeline, I think it is important that we think beyond just the benefit to our country, the benefit that Canada will have as a trading opportunity, but think about it from a national security perspective, from a global security perspective. By not approving the Keystone XL Pipeline, the President is creating an artificial chokepoint here. Other pipelines are full. We know the rail capacity is under severe constraint.

So think about it. We already have enough chokepoints out there in some of the most volatile points of the world. So factor this into the discussion that we have at hand.

The other point I would like to make is the integration of Keystone as a source of supply when we are talking about North American energy independence. We talk about that a lot on the energy committee. It is important when we talk about integration to understand how this piece from Canada fits into the source of supply for the Americas.

Again, EIA back in January published a report. This was on liquid fuels in the Americas. North and South America hold about 536 billion barrels of proved oil reserves. Back in 2012 the crude production was 19 million barrels a day. In North America, Mexico, Canada, and the United States, this is the lion's share of the Western Hemispheric production that we have right here.

So integrating our markets between the U.S. and the Canadian side just makes sense. In fact, it is the economic reality that is already on the ground. Last week I came to the floor talking about Keystone XL. I said: Why? Why is it such an issue, such a dilemma when we have 19 existing cross-border oil pipelines between Canada, Mexico, and the United States? They have been operating. They have been providing a resource to the benefit of both nations for years, for decades. Now we are twisted in knots, arguing for 5 years about whether or not the Keystone XL should proceed. I think we are going to look back on this a generation from now and we are going to wonder why and how we blocked this historic integration of our energy markets.

Then, the last thing I want to raise here is how the U.S. refineries--particularly those in the Gulf--are truly best prepared for the Canadian crude and thus bringing great benefits to Americans as a result of the pipeline. We have the total refinery or distillation capacity here in the Americas of about 27.7 million barrels per day. This was last year's number. Roughly one-third of the world's refining capacity is here in the Americas. In North America nearly onethird of that capacity, 17.8 million barrels per day, are here in the United States. Specifically, for heavy crude, we have over half of the world's choking capacity here in this country.

The largest refineries in the Americas are down in the gulf coast as well as in Venezuela. There are others on the west coast, in the Midwest, and some on the east coast. But if you look at the map of where the refineries are--in the Americas and really globally--it is obvious the destination for the Canadian oil is in the gulf coast area.

This is a debate on Keystone XL that has generated a lot of emotion and a lot of discussion about how, if you are opposed to it, what we need to do is cut off this Canadian supply and somehow or other we will be at a new phase in our energy production and consumption. Our reality is the Canadians will continue to produce. The good news, I think for all of us, is that the Canadians are utilizing technologies and innovation in the industry that have come a remarkably long way in how they access the crude in Alberta and how they are able to process it in a way that truly is better for the environment.

So for those who are concerned that we must stop this pipeline dead in its tracks now, and if we do so, we will be a nation that has moved on beyond oil, I think that belies our reality.

I am one who wants to make sure we are pushing ourselves always to utilize our smarts and our technology to do better as we access our resources and do so in an environmentally responsible way. But I also want to make sure that as a nation we have energy policies which are directed toward resources that are affordable, abundant, clean, diverse, and secure. The security aspect of it is something I do not want my colleagues to forget.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, and to our leader on the floor and to the colleagues who have come together to talk about this important issue for us as a nation from an energy perspective--and we mentioned the jobs and the benefits that flow to our Nation's economy. When we talk about the issue of energy independence, there was a time when people would scoff at the notion that as a nation we would ever have a level of independence. I guess I look at it and say energy independence to me is a place where we are no longer vulnerable for our energy sources from those who would wish us ill. What has happened to this Nation in the past half dozen years has been transformational.

We talk about the shale revolution. We talk about a renaissance. What this means to us is that we are truly approaching that point where we are more energy secure and from a national security perspective. The vulnerability we once had is greatly lessened because of our own ability to produce our own resources for our people.

It is not just within the continental United States. It is Alaska as we point out, but it is North America. We are talking about North American energy independence and what that entails and what that means. When we think about where we have come and the fact that next year we will be producing more oil than Saudi Arabia, who would have thought that the United States would be in this perspective. Who would have thought we would have a conversation about energy abundance rather than energy scarcity.

It hasn't happened because this oil has just suddenly migrated to North America. It has always been there. It has been our technology. It has been our ingenuity that allows us to access it. Think what we can do when we partner with our friends and neighbors whether it is Canada to the north or Mexico to the south. So when we talk about energy independence and energy security, the Keystone XL Pipeline is kind of that corridor that helps connect us as two nations. The benefits that derive to both of us are quite considerable.

We are talking about jobs for America and we should be. I think we also need to recognize that when we are talking about the Keystone XL Pipeline, it is about a trade relationship with our closest neighbor and truly our closest ally and the benefits that come to both of us because of this relationship.

There is a phrase that is used. We say the United States and Canada are joined at the well--literally joined at the well. This is something the Congressional Research Service actually says.

There are currently 19 cross-border oil pipelines that are already operating between the United States and Canada or Mexico. This is in addition to all of the dozens of natural gas, electric transmission lines. These are oil pipelines that are crossing the border with Canada into Montana and into North Dakota, into Michigan, into New York, into Washington, into Vermont.

One would think this Keystone XL was the first pipeline to ever cross the border from the north to the south. It is some new precedent setting. There were 19 cross-border oil pipelines.

Back in 2009 this administration, this Obama administration, came to a decision about the Alberta Clipper project. This was yet another pipeline from Canada to the United States. There were arguments for and against. But ultimately Clipper was approved just as Keystone XL should be approved. So when we are talking about plowing new ground here, I think it is important for people to recognize there is no new ground that we are plowing here. This is just a reticence and a reluctance from an administration to do what I think people across the country believe is the right and the reasonable thing, not only from a jobs perspective, from an economic perspective, but from an energy security perspective as well as a relationship with our closest friend and ally.

I know my colleague from Kentucky had an opportunity to serve with our former colleague here, Senator Ted Kennedy. I am not going to ask the Senator whether he recalls the quote, but I think it is important to kind of put this in context. We have not as a nation always been opposed to importing this crude from Canada. As I mentioned, 19 cross- border agreements are in place today. But back in 1970 the Nixon administration announced they were going to place a quota on Canadian oil exports. This was when things around the country were getting dicey.

It was Senator Ted Kennedy who led the fight against this. He said-- and this is a quote from a Senate hearing back in March of 1970. Senator Kennedy said:

The reason why Canadian oil has never been restricted in

the past is obvious. Canadian oil is as militarily and

politically secure as our own and thus there can be no

national security justification for limiting its importation.

So not only is this an issue that has been going on for a long time, both sides of the aisle recognize that there is an imperative when you come together with your allies for a resource that we recognize is a benefit to all, creates jobs for all.

So I ask my colleague from Kentucky, because he has not only served in this body for considerable years, but he has been through these debates over the decades. The question is: Why is this Keystone XL Pipeline being held out to be such a groundbreaking initiative that this President would put a hold on it for 5 years?

Madam President, I have introduced legislation to authorize the Federal Government to dispose of a piece of property on Alaska's North Slope that it no longer needs or wants but is of great importance to the Inupiat residents of the North Slope.

Specifically, I am introducing a companion bill to legislation that has also

been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by my friend and fellow Alaskan, Congressman Don Young. This legislation would enable the Olgoonik Native Village Corp. of Wainwright, AK to purchase at fair market value the 1,518-acre Wainwright Short Range Radar Site, SRRS, located in northern Alaska.

Originally deployed as the location for a Distant Early-Warning, DEW, Line radar station in northern Alaska, President Harry Truman withdrew the site for use as a military radar station during the Cold War in 1952. That station expanded in 1957 to enable the Air Force to track aircraft or rockets entering U.S. air space from the polar region. The station at Wainwright actually had a rather short lifespan, as its radars were replaced by more powerful systems in other locations starting in 1963.

In the years since then, the buildings and a fuel tank farm near an airstrip at the site--located several miles southeast of the village of Wainwright on Wainwright Inlet--have been abandoned by the U.S. Air Force. In 1974, the site was given to the Federal Bureau of Land Management, BLM, to manage. In 1976, the lands, then located in the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4, were formally transferred from the Air Force to Department of the Interior's control when the area was renamed as part of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. While the site over the years was used by the National Weather Service as a short range radar site, the land is no longer in Federal use and has undergone environmental cleanup and restoration efforts. Those efforts began in 1998 and were completed in August 2013, with final testing and removal of contaminated soils expected to be finished by the end of summer 2014.

Management of the lands around the site has changed significantly with time. With passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971, the Wainwright Native Village Corporation, Olgoonik, received title to the surface estate of about 175,000 acres surrounding the village. The subsurface of the lands were owned by the Arctic Slope Regional Corp., ASRC, part of the nearly 5 million acres that ASRC received from the lands claims settlement for the benefit of its nearly 8,000 Native shareholders who live in Arctic Alaska.

Olgoonik Corp., which has a variety of subcompanies, won the Air Force contract through its Specialty Contractors subsidiary, to demolish, clean up, and remediate the DEW Line site. Its development corporation has also acquired a lease on 27.5 acres of the site to allow its use for economic activities of benefit to the villagers. The company is now seeking to pay fair market value to buy the entire site, which would allow use of the existing fuel tank farm near the site's 6,000-foot runway. The site could well be used in the future to support activities in the Arctic Ocean, a northern port becoming an issue of great interest in Alaska given the reduction in the Arctic ice pack and concerns about greater maritime transit of the Northwest Passage.

Normally, legislation would not be needed to permit the sale of a surplus tract because BLM could use its existing authority to surplus the site and dispose of it. However, in passage of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska Act, NPR-A, in 1976 Congress included a provision that does not permit the BLM to dispose of property inside the NPR-A without congressional approval. Thus, legislation in this case is needed simply to permit disposition of the surplus tract.

Under my legislation, Olgoonik will be allowed to purchase the site but only after the corporation pays for a required land survey and pays for an appraisal, based on fair market value for the property. I should add that this legislation is only being introduced after talks among the village and regional Native corporations, the city of Wainwright, and the Wainwright Traditional--tribal--Council resulted in signed resolutions of support for Olgoonik's acquisition of the site. All Native entities supported the legislation during a formal BLM tribal consultation effort that occurred on June 23, 2014, reaffirming a November 2013 resolution that supported the legislation and land sale/ purchase. All parties agreed to support the land acquisition after careful consideration of the environmental issues involved with future management of the tract.

Clearly, the legislation is best for the BLM as it will relieve the agency of the cumbersome effort to manage the isolated parcel, which is located far away from other BLM land holdings inside NPR-A. It is best for the environment as the agreement among the corporation, city, and tribe will guarantee that no activities occur on the land that are not acceptable to village residents--the land's need for subsistence hunting being best protected by ownership by the Native Corporation. And the land sale will be best for the citizens of Wainwright and the entire North Slope as it will guarantee that any development activities will be controlled by residents of the village and not outside interests.

This is the best outcome for all concerned, and I hope this legislation will be given swift consideration and passage by Congress.

Madam President, are we in a quorum call presently?

Madam President, I have come to speak about the two nominees on the executive calendar who are before us this afternoon. Norman Bay and Cheryl LaFleur are nominated to be commissioners on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, an increasingly critical, independent regulatory commission.

As the Senate has considered these nominations, there has been kind of a weird drama that has played out throughout the entire community that follows the FERC and, as I understand, the agency itself has been really very distracted by it. Many are concerned the wrong person is set to take over as chair of the FERC and that the Commission is at risk of losing its reputation for objectivity. So for the benefit of Senators who are not on the energy committee and for members of the public who have not followed the controversy surrounding these nominees, let me provide a little bit of perspective this afternoon.

Both nominees have been serving at the FERC. Ms. LaFleur currently leads the agency as its chair. She has done so with distinction for the better part of a pretty difficult year. This is a year that has brought about the polar vortex and challenges to bulk power system reliability. The other individual, Mr. Bay, is an employee. He is the director of the agency's Office of Enforcement. He was appointed to that post by its somewhat controversial former chair, John Wellinghoff of Nevada.

If confirmed, Mr. Bay will become the first FERC employee in the agency's history who would go directly and immediately to the commission itself, despite just 5 years of relevant experience. Furthermore, Mr. Bay will not only be elevated to the post of commissioner; President Obama has announced that Mr. Bay will be designated as chairman after his confirmation. That means that Ms. LaFleur, the FERC's only female commissioner, will be demoted when Mr. Bay takes over as chair. How soon Ms. LaFleur's demotion will take place is unclear at this moment.

At the energy committee's business meeting to consider these nominees, there was a lot of talk about a deal that would allow Ms. LaFleur to remain as chair for a period of time. It was suggested that this would give Mr. Bay some much needed on-the-job training as a rank and file commissioner. So there was a lot of discussion going back and forth. I was certainly part of that discussion. But talk of a deal and confirmation of a deal, giving the assurances that certainly this Senator has sought and yet was not given--talking about a deal and getting a deal are two different things.

So as we discuss where we are with these nominees, I think it is important to recognize that even if Ms. LaFleur stays on for a period of months--whether it is 9 months as some have suggested the deal is or a different period of time--what we understand is that Ms. LaFleur will only be allowed to continue in an acting capacity.

So stop and think about this. We have President Obama who has nominated Ms. LaFleur twice for high office, and despite what I think has been her distinguished service as a commissioner and as chair of the FERC, the White House dismisses her as an acting chair. The administration reportedly has limited her authority even to hire staff. As some have suggested, this is just a technicality and this is what happens within the Commission. That is not my understanding at all. I would view it as an affront. If one is going to be the chair, one should have the full authorities of the chair.

Even though I disagree with ``Acting'' Chair LaFleur on some key policy matters, by all accounts, from both Republicans and Democrats, she is doing a good job. She is fair. She seeks balance. She has the temperament I think we need for this commission. She has the personal qualities of leadership we look for. She clearly has the experience. She has 25 years' worth of experience, in fact. I certainly hope she will be easily confirmed this afternoon. In fact, I hope Chair LaFleur's bipartisan support has not hurt her prospects.

Chair Landrieu observed during the committee's consideration of these nominees that Ms. LaFleur's renomination ``was not a sure thing just a couple of months ago.'' But we have to ask: Why not? Why wasn't the renomination of the only woman serving as a FERC commissioner--a Harvard-educated Obama appointee from Massachusetts--why wasn't she a sure thing from the get-go? Was it her bipartisan appeal? I would certainly hope not. Was it her good work as a chair? Again, I hope not. To me, those are reasons one would choose her to lead the FERC, not someone else.

One hint came from our majority leader, Senator Reid. He recently told the Wall Street Journal that Ms. LaFleur ``has done some stuff to do away with some of Wellinghoff's stuff.'' Now, he didn't really define what ``stuff'' that was and didn't acknowledge that much of Mr. Wellinghoff's ``stuff'' was either controversial or incapable of withstanding legal challenge.

Before we turn to Mr. Bay and his unprecedented promotion from Director of the Commission's Office of Enforcement in the face of Ms. LaFleur's demotion, let's discuss the agency the White House proposes he would lead for just a second. Why does the chairmanship of the FERC matter so much? Well, the Presiding Officer sits on the energy committee. She knows. She is watching this. She is looking at the issues of reliability. In the energy world, FERC regulates ``midstream everything.'' The chairman is its CEO, and under his or her leadership, FERC regulates interstate natural gas and oil pipelines, LNG import and export facilities, the sale of electricity at wholesale, the transmission of electricity in interstate commerce--basically the Nation's bulk power system, practically speaking, its high voltage transmission networks, also the reliability of the bulk power system, the licensing of hydroelectric facilities and the safety of dams. The list goes on and on.

One further example is the safeguarding of sensitive information about our critical energy infrastructure--information that was compromised by FERC during the tenure of former Chairman Wellinghoff. That series of events is now subject to an ongoing inquiry by the inspector general of the Department of Energy, and it is a breach that Ms. LaFleur has vowed will not happen again.

Given the significance of this agency, let's consider Mr. Bay. So, beyond the demotion of Ms. LaFleur, and beyond his lack of relevant experience, what is causing me pause? To begin, there are questions about the fairness and transparency of the functioning of the FERC Office of Enforcement during Mr. Bay's tenure there. I haven't resolved those questions, but I know others are looking at them. Senator Barrasso has called attention to some of the questions. He has called for an independent review of the facts in dispute.

Second is the question of the circumstances under which Mr. Bay would recuse himself from at least 43 different matters, including some high profile matters that have been pending in the Office of Enforcement on his watch. But, unfortunately, Mr. Bay apparently doesn't see a need to recuse himself from these proceedings.

Third are the answers that Mr. Bay provided to questions from those of us on the energy committee. At best, many were unclear and, at worst, his responses were simply evasive.

Finally, I keep coming back to the deal--the waiting period that was needed to attract enough support on the Democratic side to report Mr. Bay's nomination from committee. So we

have to ask the question: What are those terms? Will the acting chair have the opportunity to serve fully and completely as chair? Will it be clear that Mr. Bay is not a ``shadow chairman'' or a ``chairman-in- waiting'' during this crucial period? At a minimum, before we make a choice about who should lead the FERC, the President owes Senators a clear time line of who will be in charge and what the powers are that will be given to him or her.

FERC is just too important a commission. It is too important for appointees to be handled in this way.

So, today, I am going to be supporting the confirmation of Ms. LaFleur. In fact, I am pleased to support her, even though I don't always agree with her policy views. But I do regret I will not give my support to Mr. Bay, and I urge other Senators to withhold their support as well.

With that, I would yield the floor.