here, either late this weekend or into next week. and that is the keystone pipeline. by delaying a decision for a year, the president essentially is saying we are denying 20,000 or more individuals from having -- from gaining work, from becoming a part of the process of building this pipeline, which is so needed and so important for the future of this country. we talk about our dependence on middle east oil and the blood and treasure that we've had to spend to keep those sea lanes open and that oil flowing to the united states, and yet we deny the opportunity to mine our own domestic energy sources and to use sources that come from canada, mexico, the united states, or off our shores. the keystone pipeline is a pipeline that, if constructed,

and when constructed, will bring a minimum of about 750 million barrels of gas -- of oil to this country for refining purposes. it will provide and estimated 20,000 new jobs directly and support hundreds of thousands of jobs in coming years indirectly. in my state alone, indiana, has indicated that at least 100 indiana companies would benefit from the pipeline. and this project has bipartisan support. 22 house democrats wrote a letter to president obama and said that it is in our national interest to have a presidential permit issued for keystone as soon as possible. that's supported by republicans on this side, and there are negotiations going on, but the president has said, if we send him a year-end bill that includes this, he plans to veto it. now, it's just -- it makes no

sense whatsoever. it is irrational to say that the number-one priority for this country is to get people back to work and provide jobs and here we have a ready-made job creator that is being postponed, i suppose, just to pacify some extreme environmentalist whose don't want one drop of oil or one piece of coal mined in this country or used in this country to provide energy resources. they think that all we need to do is switch to electric, which by the way is only produced through burning coal and oil to provide electricity to plug in your car, to make it work, or they want wind and solar. well, if you've looked outside the window here in washington or across most of the country in the last few days -- and this will last for the next several months -- you're going to see a lot of clouds and very little sun, and you're going to see very much wind. i checked the wind on the way over here. the flag was drooping down. you cannot run a factory, you

cannot run a business, you cannot even light this senate with alternative energy. and it is costing the taxpayers money. the keystone pipeline has the support of labor unions. these are the entities that will provide the labor. maker ayers wrote "for america's craft-skilled construction professionals, any construction of the keystone palestine begins with one word: jobs. throughout america's hardland, the keystone pipeline represents the prospect of 20,000 immediate jobs and as many as 500 indirect jobs but by a strong economic multiplier effect without one single dollar of government assistance." that's right. this is totally paid for by the private sector, providing 20,000 jobs immediately, supported by

republicans, supported by democrats, supported by unions, supported by right-to-work states, supported across the board by those who feel we need more energy independence, and i didn't think the president says -- and yet the president says, after having assured us that his top priority is jobs, the president says, nope, we're going to yield to some extreme voices on the environmental left that basically say, no more oil, no more pipelines, no more coal, fossil fuels are out. it's wind, solar, or batteries or nothing. so i think -- i'm just asking the president phs united state d states to reconsider this at a time when we are struggling to provide meaningful employment for people. a commonsense solution to one of our problems is right there

before us, and yet we hear from the president that, no, he's going to postpone the decision for a year to get past probably -- probably to get past the 2012 election. so it is a political decision, it appears, that is denying a lot of people work at a time when it is desperately needed. now, at the same time that the president is asking the congress to extend unemployment benefits, primarily because of failed economic policies, the white house is blocking this opportunity. and another immediate action the administration can take would be to accept a modest and responsible provision which would provide a reasonable time of delay on two costly e.p.a. -- environmental protection agency -- regulations that will deal another devastating blow to our

already fragile economy. in the next few days, the environmental protection agency is expected to finalize a rule that could threaten over 20% of the coal-fired power plant generation in the midwest and the southeast, and now we've learned that it also has a dramatic, adverse effect on power plants in the states of kansas, oklahoma, and texas. so a major part of the country will be affected by this. known as utility market h utilil force 1,100 of our factories to retrofit or close their doors. the closure of u.s. coal-fired power plants will accelerate during the next ten years because of this utility rule. the e.p.a.'s expected announcement on the utility rule comes just after this issued another rule that will cost an additional thousands of american

jobs because start january 1, the e.p.a. will begin requiring utilities to reduce power plant emissions that may cause air quality complications in neighboring states. that regulation, called the cross-state air regulation rule, or caspar, will require plants to install costly technologies in exchange for minimal environmental gains. the combined economic impact of the two regulations that i've just mentioned -- the combined economic impact of that is alarming. the indiana energy association estimates that the cost of these rulers will be between $6.5 billion and $7.3 billion just in my hone stat own state of india. and when you add the whole eastern half of the country, from mississippi on over, this

number goes up exponentially. the national economic research asoarkts estimates net employment losses of 1.4 million across the country as a result of the current e.p.a. rules and deadlines. and by 2016, they report that american ratepayers will see an average increase of up to 23.5%, in some places even more, of their utility rates. now, i want to say this: cleaning our air is a worthy goal and hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent under the clean air act, which i supported in the 1980's and early 1990's, because, as americans, we all want to clean our air. hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent by our utilities -- and we've been paying for it through our electric costs -- to clean the air. and the progress that we've made has been astounding. and the provisions that are

being offered -- that were being offered in a bill that senator manchin, a democrat from west virginia, and i offered together on a bipartisan basis do not turn back or unwind the progress that we've made. and in fact they don't deny further progress. all they do is simply extend the compliance date for a three-year period of time and coordinate that compliance date so that utilities can accomplish both of these goals as set out by the e.p.a., accomplish both of those goals but in a reasonable time frame, without having a damn moc--without having a damocles d over them. so we're asking for a little more time. we had a vote here which i supported which was to deny these rules. and i supported that because of

the substantial progress we've made and the tremendous economic cost it would be to impose these directly on the timetable e.p.a. has set forth. that vote, which was led by senator rand paul, was defeated. and so we've moved now to the next stage, the fallback, which is simply an opportunity to reach the goal but give us a little more time to reach it. and so i urge the president to consider the manchin-coats act, which is fair compliance act -- called the fair compliance act, bipartisan legislation to delay the implementation of these harmful e.p.a. rules. otherwise our utilities will not have the time to adequately prepare, we will be shutting them down. we're predicting blackouts.

we need every competitive advantage we can get to our manufacturers in order to compete around the world and get people back to work. let me say one more thing. we've spent the year here, disappointing from my perspective, in trying to address our dire fiscal situation. and we've tried just about everything and ever process and ever procedure that people can think of and each one of those that is achieved just either minimal results or failed completely. and so after evaluating and looking at the extraordinary effort in energy and time put into the process this year with very few results, it has become ever-clearer to me -- something that -- it has reaffirmed something that i believed from day one when i first got into politics -- that unless you put in place a balanced budget amendment to the constitution,

which will require members to come down to this well and before the president of the senate put their left hand on the bible and their right hand in the air and swear to uphold the constitution, which incorporates a balanced budget requirement, we're never going to get there. there is always a reason why something statutorily or all the effort, the gang of circumstancg of six, the committee of 12 rush to a crisis with raising the debt limit. the cliffhangers -- are they going to pass this or not pass this? are they going to extend the debt limit or not extend the debt limit? all the provisions from the appropriations process to cut spending and reduce government involvement and so forth have essentially failed. and what we need to do is what most states in this country do, what every business has to do, what every family has to do, and that is commit to balancing our

budget, not spending more than what we take in, and having a constitutional sworn-to agreement that this is what we will do before we adjourn every session and go home. my state of indiana has to do this. many states across the country have to do this successfully, and they do, because the transparency and the honesty and the forthrightness of members going before their constituents and saying, you know, that's a great idea that program, but we can't afford it. now, if you're willing to support our raising your taxes, we could naught in place. or if you're willing to support a cut in some other program, we could use that money it put that idea in place, but we as elected members and reading of the amendments of our constituents and of our states are sworn to uphold a constitutional amendment which will require us to balance our budget. and this is healthy for us. mr. president, i think my time is about running out.

i would ask unanimous consent for two more minutes and i'll wrap it up. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: thank you, mr. president. i thaipg my colleagues. -- i thank my colleagues. if we don't do this. if we don't have this, this ultimate enforcement mechanism, i fear that we will just continue what we've been doing for years and years and years, and that is falling far short of where we need to go and where i think most of us know we need to go: to make the tough decisions, to be honest with our constituents, to go forward and basically say, this is what our sworn obligation is, and we're going to have to fulfill this obligation. nothing else has succeeded in forcing this body to come together and in a bipartisan basis or even on partisan basis do what is necessary to get our fiscal house in order. and the people at this holiday season who are without work, are struggling to pay their

mortgage, struggling to save money for their kids going to school, struggling to pay the bills, wondering what the future is going to hold, can't find a job, woking two o working two o, they're all saying, we've got to get this country moving again and we cannot do that if we are plunging into debt or if the policies coming out of this administration are denying our people the right to work in jobs that are available for us, like the keystone pipeline, or regulations are running up our utility costs -- i can't even pay the utility costs, they say, barely pay them now. if they're going raise it 20%, 30% because of these regulations, and you can't just extend for a modsest perio modef time for clair, then it is not going a joyful time at christmas. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor.

and i suggest the absence of a . -- i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:# quorum call: president?

the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, i'd ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, i have a number of consents that i will offer. i ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 5:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for

up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. 2009, introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 2009, a bill to improve the administration of programs in the insular areas, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. casey: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the matter be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i have one unanimous consent request for a committee to meet during today's session of the senate. it has the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that this request be agreed to and that this request be printed in

the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: finally, mr. president, i just ask consent that following my remarks that senator hutchison be recognized for floor remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, thank you very much. i rise to speak about the payroll tax cut that we've been debating and considering these many weeks and also that we seem to be making some progress on today. and i know we'll hear more about that later today. i wanted to make a couple of points, first of all, about the issue itself and then a few points about what's happening in pennsylvania. i want to highlight some of the subsequent mail we've received about this issue and about the state of the economy and people's lives. but first and foremost, just by way of review, we've had a number of weeks now of debate about the payroll tax and putting in place an agreement where both parties can come together to make sure that we

put in place the payroll tax cut that we agreed to last year. and as many know, who have been watching this know what that means. instead of having an individual worker, an employee pay 6.2% as a payroll tax, we reduced that last year to 4.2%. i think it's vital at a minimum that we do that, that we extend it. now i have two pieces of legislation, two different versions to reduce that even more, to cut it in half and also to do the same for businesses. i think that's a good idea. but for whatever reason we haven't reached agreement on that. but we seem to have made progress the last couple of days, even in the last couple of hours coming together on an agreement on the payroll tax. we don't have an agreement yet but we're all working very hard because we all know both the benefits of it and the consequences of not extending the payroll tax cut.

the benefits are plainly evident. if we put in place this payroll tax cut, we can jump-start, kick-start job creation and move the economy forward. and i say that in light of some recent numbers that we have in pennsylvania. pennsylvania's unemployment rate has hovered around 8% for a long time. the number of people unemployed in our state, the 8% doesn't sound as high as some places, but that meant that over 500,000 people were out of work. it was just a few months ago when we had roughly 525 thousand people out of work. that number reduceed to about 513,000. fortunately just yesterday we got news that the number has fallen below 500,000 for the first time in a long time. we're at 499,000. not much below half a million. but that's good news for pennsylvania. what that meant is our unemployment rate went from 8.1

down to 7.9. so we're below eight. the national rate went below nine to 8.6. so you're seeing the unemployment rate nationally in a number of states, including pennsylvania, going in the right direction, meaning it's going down. the unemployment rate going down. the number of people out of work fortunately shrinking a little bit. we have a long way to go to completely dig out of this economic ditch that our economy has been in for a long time. one of the best ways to continue that progress is to pass a cut in the payroll tax again as we did last year. it was the right thing to do last year. it's the right thing to do this year, to continue the progress. we want to make sure we're doing everything possible so that our month-to-month job creation number is much higher than it's been. we've been averaging in the roughly 150,000 range of

private-sector job growth. that's not enough. we need that above 200,000. we need it above 250,000. if we take this step, it's not the only -- there's no magic wand to any policy that we pass here. cutting the payroll tax won't solve all of our economic challenges, but it is one of the most constructive, one of the most effective steps we can take. if we don't do it, here's the consequence at least as it relates to pennsylvania, a big state that has a lot of the economic challenges many states have. mark zandi, a respected economist, did some analysis just on pennsylvania f. we didn't extend payroll tax cut, which as we know, has the potential to benefit 160 million american workers in my home state of pennsylvania. last year that meant more than 6.5 million workers had a cut in their payroll tax, a tremendous

benefit for a state like pennsylvania. we grew in the last year about 50,000 jobs. that's the good news. the bad news could be if we didn't pass the payroll tax cut for pennsylvania -- for the country that would obviously have an impact on pennsylvania, the job loss number, according to mark zandi, would be just shy of 20,000 jobs lost in the state of pennsylvania in 2012 if we don't. if we don't pass another cut in the payroll tax. so it's vitally important for the commonwealth of pennsylvania. i think that applies for the nation as a whole. it is one of the steps. frankly maybe one of the few steps that the congress can take that will have a direct impact not just on the economy overall, but directly put dollars in people's pockets. take-home pay. that's what this whole issue is about for employees. what's going to be your take-home pay in 2012. we passed the tax cut.

it will be about $1,000. we don't pass the tax cut, it will be zero in terms of an extra benefit. working americans twhofb struggling through this -- working americans who have been struggling through this economy and suffering should have the right to expect that we take the action that they're telling us to take to cut the payroll tax. let me cite two examples, two constituents and then i'll conclude my remarks. here's a letter from a woman in pennsylvania, central pennsylvania. i won't give you her name. we don't have the authority to do that. but i want to read some of her words. here's what she says about how she perceives washington and what's happening here. just read you about two sentences: "please make sure" -- i'm quoting from the letter. "please make sure something is done in washington before the end of the year. i feel that no one should be able to have a break" -- talking about us here in congress.

"no one should be able to have a break before taking action on the tax breaks that will expire at the end of this year. if you all cannot do this, then you should all leave office and let someone in there who can work together to get things done. stay on the job -- stay and do your job." and then she has two exclamation points after the word "period." what she's telling us is we have to work together to agree not just on a budget for the next year but especially on something as fundamental as this payroll tax cut. so she said it very well and she encapsulated a lot of what people are feeling. i'm going to read you an excerpt from a second letter, a woman in the so-called lehigh valley in

pennsylvania. it's about tphaerpl and some of the -- her family and some of the economic challenges they have. she says -- and i'm quoting -- "now i find myself questioning whether or not anyone has an answer. and if they do, will it be too late. you see, over the last two years all four members of my family, myself included, have lost our jobs." unquote. that's one family in one part of pennsylvania talking about how many members of her family have lost their jobs. and she expects us to get our job done here, to come together and to work together to pass a cut in the payroll tax. later in the letter she says this, and i'll conclude with this quotation. "we need to put people back to work. only then can the economy get turned around. i don't care who comes up with a plan, but the parties need to

work together if this country is going to survive. my family's only one example. i know of so many others who are struggling and in an even worse position than we are." unquote. she's talking about other people being in a worse circumstance, and she's got all four members, including herself, of her family who have lost their jobs in the course of the last year or so. so if she can demonstrate, this woman from the lehigh valley of pennsylvania, if she can demonstrate that kind of empathy and compassion and understanding of what others are going through when she herself and her family have suffered so substantially in this economy, the least that we can do here in the united states senate, here in washington, the very least that we can do is come together and work together to get this job done. and the leading indicator of

that, i would argue, is making sure that we put in place a cut in the payroll tax so that at a minimum, as people are still doing holiday shopping and still wanting to have a bright and happy holiday and want to have some measure of peace of mind, some measure of security about next year, that they at least know that we came together and made sure that this payroll tax cut was in place. it's vital for the people of pennsylvania, and i think it's essential for economic growth across the country. we need to come together and get this done. mr. president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. hutchison: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, we seem to be heading to an agreement today. at this point, the house appears to be ready to vote on the conference report on the appropriations bills for the rest of the fiscal year, which would be until the end of september of next year. i think this is a good thing. we came to an agreement in august called the budget control act. it was a ten-year commitment to lower spending, lower our deficits and it requires a cap in each of the next ten years that would be a down payment on our debt. lower the deficits and lower the

debt. the omnibus appropriations bill obviously because it has so many different agencies in it rather than each separate agency bill going forward as we have done normally in the past in the senate, because it has so many, there are people who are going to disagree with parts of it. there is no getting around that. the military construction of which i am on the subcommittee and have chaired it in the past is part of this bill, so are many of the other bills that are very important for the functioning of our government. however, what the appropriations bill has done in the main is to stick with the agreement that we all made. in august, there was a lot of

negotiation on how we deal with the debt. you know, mr. president, to be honest, i didn't think it was enough. many of us didn't think it was enough, but we have not been able to come to terms between the two houses of congress and with the president on how we can do more and get the votes to do it and get the president to sign the bill. so i'm not saying that we're going to agree with everything in this omnibus appropriations bill, but every one of these bills did go through the committees, and they have been vetted and they did keep the agreement. we have lowered the spending across the board. we set the final 2012 funding at $1.043 trillion. this is $7 billion less than last year's level, and it is

also $100 billion less than the president's request. now, it's not enough for many people in this body, but we all voted in the majority, 74 senate members voted in favor of the budget control act, and the appropriations bills all have met those caps. that's something that i don't hear said very often in this body, that we have met the caps. i was vice chairman, the ranking member of one of the appropriations committees that was very important, that funded nasa, department of commerce, the department of justice. we met those caps, and it was hard. each one of the subcommittees in appropriations on the senate side met the caps, even though we had to cut and balance and set priorities and not fund some

of the important areas that we would like to have funded, but that's what choosing and priorities are, and that's why we made the agreement and we stuck to it. so when all of these appropriations bills are complete, we will have cut discretionary spending for two years in a row. for the first time in modern history, frankly, really cut, so now we are working toward cutting the deficits over a 10-year period as we agreed we would do. in the next few days, i hope that we're going to take 2012 off the books and immediately focus our attention on long-term deficit reduction and hopefully comprehensive tax reform. because, mr. president, the real issue is how are we going to get the debt down more? we are talking about a $15 trillion debt. if we cut the deficit

$1 trillion, it's a down payment, but i think we need to do more in a responsible way. but we can't do it all in discretionary spending. if we're going to do what the taxpayers elected us to do, we're going to deal with entitlements. we're going to deal with social security reform and medicare reform. everyone knows, common sense tells us that social security has changed since the time it was passed, and today when people are living longer and retiring later, but we haven't accommodated to those changes. we haven't set the actuarial table that would sustain social security for the next 75 years, and we could do it by just very

gradually, three months a year only increasing the age of retirement. put a cap on it at 68 or 69, and we could bring social security into balance. we would also have to make adjustments in the cost of living increases, but we would not have to raise taxes, and we would not have to deal with the core benefits in any reduction. so we can do this, and to make significant deficit reductions so that the $15 trillion start really coming down, that is our debt, we have to deal with social security reform. i have introduced legislation with senator kyl as my cosponsor that has done exactly that. other senators have introduced legislation. senator paul introduced legislation that would also bring down gradually the social

security deficits which would also bring down the debt of our country. this is responsible. i am going to push in next year to try to get the social security reform, but in the next two days, we're going to deal with discretionary spending because that's all we have on the table to deal with, and we are going to keep the agreement that we made in the budget control act which 74 members of the united states senate supported. the appropriators have kept their word. every single bill has had a cap on spending, and where we have the capability to deal with discretionary spending, and that's all we have, we can't deal with entitlements until we have entitlement reform, but in discretionary spending, the appropriators have kept their word and that's what we will be

voting on, to keep the word that 74 senators agreed was the right approach, we are going to vote on a bill that will be passed by the house today and hopefully passed by the senate tonight or tomorrow as our leader has said we will. i hope we can pass that bill. now, mr. president, we also have to deal with the long term. we're not going to be able to do it in the next two days, but surely when we come back next year we can take up tax reform. we can put our tax code in a better structure so that our corporations will bring their businesses that are now overseas back to america. those are going to be jobs in america. that's how we want to create revenue in this country, not by taxing the people who would hire people, but by having an equitable tax code that will

make corporations do their business here so that people will have jobs and they will increase the revenue and the economy of our country. that's the way we need to deal with the long-term. we need to deal with entitlement reform and tax code reform. we don't have a revenue problem in this country. we don't have a problem with people paying too little in taxes. we have a spending problem that has given us a $15 trillion debt. so i hope that as all of the families in america are settling in for the toidz, that we would be doing the work in washington that would assure a long-term future for these families, which means we're going to have to cut spending for the government,

that we're not going to increase taxes on the working people of our country, and that we would have regulatory reform that would allow our small businesses to grow without the heavy hand of government putting a blanket on their ability to grow. because when there is a blanket on the ability to grow, they are not going to hire more people, and that's the problem we have in this country right now. so we are making in the next two days, i hope, i hope that my colleagues will support the agreement that we made in august to start the down payment on the spending in this country, lowering it, lowering it from what the president -- the president sent over a budget that we have cut almost $100 billion. even in the face of the crisis that we have in this country on spending, the president sent us

a budget that was $100 billion more than we are going to pass in the house and senate because we made an agreement in august to cut spending. and, mr. president, the house is also going to send disaster relief which i will certainly support and they are going to send a bill that would pay for it with a 1.83% across-the-board cut in discretionary base spending, excluding the department of defense, military construction and veterans affairs. i think that's a responsible approach. i think with the budget that we are putting forward, with the appropriations, 1.83% across-the-board cut to fund disaster relief that we know is going to happen and be necessary in the next months, nine months of next year, that we should pay for that.

we should have disaster relief in our budgets in the future, and we should try to accommodate it right now. we're not going to withhold it for people who are in need, and we don't know if it's going to be wildfires or drought or hurricanes or tornadoes. we're not going to deny that help, but it should be budgeted just like everything that we do should have some sense that we have prepared for it. preparing for disaster should be part of our budget. there is not a business in this country that doesn't prepare for disasters, and the government should do it, too. so, mr. president, i hope that we will be on a trajectory to lower the spending, keeping our agreement of august with the omnibus appropriations bill that is going to be passed by the

house this afternoon and will come to the senate, and i hope we will be able to act by tomorrow on that piece of legislation that keeps the agreements we made. it is a down payment. it's not what all of us wanted, but i think we ought to put disaster relief in and i think we ought to pay for that with another 1.8% cut across the board. i think those things would be the responsible approach, and then we can start next year on the long term, and that would be regulatory reform, social security reform to make it solvent for 75 years at least, medicare reform. those are the things that will give us the long-term hopefully solvent government that will be the model for the world because is there any question that we need a model in the world right

now for fiscal discipline and responsible governing? and i hope america can provide it. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: $jáj=q

only by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. the execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives; but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. to facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that toward the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper

objects (which is always a choice of difficulties) ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate. observe good faith and justice toward all nations. cultivate peace and harmony with all. religion and morality enjoin this conduct. and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? it will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? can it be that providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? the experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices? in the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them, just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. the nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an hab

mr. mcconnell:man? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i rise to make some observations about the keystone pipeline. president obama has said his first priority is jobs. well, here's an opportunity for the president to show it. a pipeline provision that, according to some estimates, would create thousands of jobs right away. in fact, those are all the estimates i've seen, that this is a project that is ready to go. here's an opportunity for the president to say he's not going to let a few radical environmentalists stand in the way of a project that will create thousands of jobs and

make america more secure at the same time. the labor unions support the pipeline, the chamber of commerce supports the pipeline, out-of-work americans support it, and a growing number of democrats are expressing their support as well. here are a few of the comments we've heard from democrats just this very week: senator kent conrad of north dakota said -- quote -- "i personally think the pipeline is absolutely in the national interest. it'll help us reduce our dependence on foreign energy, at least foreign sources that are hostile to our interests." senator conrad further said, "i for one on this side hope that this would be part of a further package and i hope this is something we could work through in the coming hours." senator mccaskill, "if states' rights are being protected and

if this is something maybe that we can try to jump-start the approval process, make it go more quickly." representative clyburn, one of the leaders of the democratic conference in the house, "i'm very much for the pipeline. there's no question about that," congressman clyburn said. congress should do something not just to assist people who are struggling in a down economy or are out of work but to help incentivize job creation for our people at the same time. in other words, let's not just pass a bill that helps people on the benefit side. let's also include something that actually helps the private sector create the jobs americans need for the long term. this is the balanced approach americans want. one that extends help but also offers hope. this is just the kind of thing we should be doing around here.

both parties like it. the labor unions like it. why in the worl world wouldn't t want to put it in the package? the only reason the white house has given for opposing a pipeline provision is because they'd rather vote on it it alone. which makes no sense. you're either for the provision or you're not. so i would suggest that there is a rare opportunity to do something truly positive together on a bipartisan basis at the end of the year. let's finish this year on a truly cooperative bipartisan note. let's strengthen our nation's energy security, decrease the energy we import from overseas, create american jobs right now, and let's do it all on a bipartisan basis. as i said, there's bipartisan support for this project, and we need to get it done. we need to get it done now. the house of representatives has

been quite clear that they're not going to support a package that does not include the pipeline. frankly, i will not be able to support a package that doesn't include the pipeline. i think this is something we could all be proud of here at the end of the year, demonstrating to the american people that we can work together, not only to help those who are struggling through a continuation of the payroll tax holiday and an unemployment benefits package, but also create jobs at the same time in the private sector without a penny of the federal government's money by moving this pipeline along. after all, it's undergone three years of environmental studies. it's ready to go and the companies are ready to hire the people just as soon as we give them the sign on. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: thank you, mr. president. and i want to thank those who i've listened to e-mails i sent out that i'll be speaking on the senate floor. i want to take a few minutes today to kind of update everyone on this what first year in the senate has been like. it has been a tremendous privilege and honor. there isn't a dhai goes by -- there isn't a day that goes by that i don't get here and see this buildin building lit up ine darkness and it takes my breath away that i gues get to work he. i recognize what an honor and privilege it is to have this position, not just in this unique institution but i think

as americans we should always take a moment to recognize that in america on this floor, we debate and sometimes solve issues that other countries fight wars with each other about. and that's a real blessing that we have and a real opportunity to really be an example for the world and i'm grateful and feel blessed to be a part of it, and i want to thank the people of florida for the opportunity to do it. i want to share two observations as this year comes to an end and hopefully today or tomorrow or sometime this weekend we'll wrap up our work here in this body for 2011, observations that i have after my first year here. i think i'm three weeks away from having been sworn in for a first time. so there's a couple things that concern me. the first is this real lack of urgency. there are some major issues confronting america, and these have to be confronted. we need to look no further than to europe to see what our future holds, unfortunately, if some of the issues that now face us are not confront. that's not bipartisan or

hyperbole. this, it's math. this is a country that's now spending more money than it takes in at an alarming place and there's no plan in place to prevent that. that's not a republican concern or a democrat concern. that's the concern of every person who's grounded in reality that we cannot continue doing what we are doing now. and there are specific things that are in trouble that we should be very concerned about. medicare is very example. i have a very special place in my heart for medicare. number one, there are a lot of people in florida who are on medicare. and number two, in my own life, in my father's illness before he passed away and this year when my mother has suffered some spet backs i -- some setbacks in her health. i'm afraid it won't be there in the future and because we fail to act in a timely manner, people like my mother may sometime in their lifetime see their benefits decrease.

so i think we need to do everything we can to save medicare. we know for a fact and no one can dispute if we leave medicare the way it is now, that program will be in lost trouble. i hope there is a sense of urgency about that, about the fact that our economy is now smaller than our debt. $15 trillion. that's a lot of money. that we owe that our children and our grandchildren will so. that's a lot of money. that's a big deal. national security threats that we face, which are significant and have to be confronted. so almost a sense that somehow the major issues can wait until another election or another moment concern me, because these issues have a tendency to sneak up on you and a problem becomes a crisis and it is a lot harder to solve crisis than it is to solve profnlt so i hope we have a sense of urgency in regards to these issues. there is another thing i'd like to talk about, and it's really this rhetoric that in my opinion seeks to divide americans

against each other. basically pits americans against each other. the way the rhetoric basically goes, there are americans that are hurting, that are struggle, people that have lost their homes, people who have graduated from college and can't find a job, and three there's this thet there by some, including our political leadership and from time to time the white house, the reason you doing worse off is because there is a handful of people out there that are doing fao well, the reason you lost your job is because someone else is being too greedy, the return a losing your home is because someone else owns too many homes, the reason you're making too little money is because somebody else is making too much money. many a troubled by the rhetoric that pits people against each other. the second part of the argument is, give the government more power so we can step in and thriet wrong, so we can take away from the people that have too much and give to those

people that do not have enough. and let me tell you why i'm troubled by that. the first reason why i'm troubled by that is because it is absolutely not the kind of country we have been for 220-some odd years. it's not in our nature. americans have never been a people to drive through a nice neighborhood and say, oh, i hate the people that live in these nice houses. americans say, congratulations on your nice house. guess what? we will be joining us soon. we've never been people that go around and confront people that have been financially -- or look at people that have been financially successful and say, we hate you, we envy you because of how well you're doing. americans celebrate their success and say, guess what? we're going to be successful soon as well. i remember growing up -- i always tell people i am a child of privilege because i have the honor of having been born in countr--my dad was a bar ten dey

mom was a maid and stock clerk at kmart. we are not people of financial means. in terms of significant financial means. i always had what i needed. i didn't always have what i wanted. but i always had what i needed. i don't remember them telling us that the only way we could be more successful is if other people were less successful. somehow in order for us to climb the ladder other people have to come down from the ladder. on the contrary, what they would do is hold up these examples of success and inspire in us the hope that one day we could be there as well financially, in our career, what have you. we are a people that have always celebrated other people's success as long as we always had the opportunity to meet that success ourselves. that is the american nature. that is the american character. that is one of the things that makes us different from the rest of the world. and i'm afraid we could lose that or on the verge of losing that, and i'm really concerned that there are those in america's political leadership that are advocating that we

abandon that in favor something else. and i think it's wrong because it doesn't work. that thought process that somehow other people have to be worse off in order for you to be better off does not work. people get on boats, people jump fences to get away from that kind of thought process. people flee countries that do that because it doesn't work. it never has. it never has. and it will not work here. and the proof is in the numbers. let's put aside partisan political rhetoric and look at the numbers. in january of 2009, when the president was sworn in, he inherited a very bad economy. he inherited a bad economy. he inherited an economy, for example, that had 12 million people out of a job. an economy where gas was $1.85 a gallon, where the debt was at $10.6 trillion, where there were 39 million americans living in poverty in january of 2009. he inherited a bad economy.

for the first two years of his president did i, at least one of the first two years, he had 60 votes in the senate -- which is the way everything seems to happen around here -- he had a majority in the house -- he could have anything he wanted. he said, this is what i want. he wanted a stimulus package and he got t he wanted his health care package and he got t he wanted financial services reform. he got t let's look at the numbers. he became president, bad economy, got everything he wanted, what's happened since? now there are 13.3 million people unemployed, gas now at $3.27 a gallon, on average; the debt is now up to $15 trillion, and people in poverty -- 39 million when he took office; 46 million people now. so put aside partisan rhetoric just for a moment. he became president, he got everything he wanted, and everything got worse. those are the facts. is this because he's a bad person? of course not. ridiculous.

it's because his view of government and politics is wrong and those who share it are wrong. they're not un-american, they're not bad people. but the proof is it doesn't work. it hasn't worked anywhere else in the world to approach it this way and it isn't going to work here. it isn't going to work here. so i hope in this new year we'll reverse course on these things and instead embrace and take up the things that do work in america. what makes america become more prosperous? it isn't that complicated, guys. it isn't fortune 500 companies. it isn't big corporations. every country in the world has rich people. every country in the world has billionaires and millionaires. what makes us difference is that here -- bircht is that here, a worker can become an owner. an employee can become an employer. literally it happens all the time. you can't walk two blocks anywhere in this country and not meet somebody that didn't start a business out of the spare bedroom of their home, that didn't take a credit card, risked it all behind a great idea and today 20 people work for them. that's 20 families being fed.

20 families sending kids to college because somebody had the audacity to take their life savings in pursuit of their dream. and so they opened the business out of the spare dead room of their home, they opened a business out of the corner of their garage. nowadays sometimes with a laptop and an empty table at a starbucks. and it worked. and we've got to get back to that. and what stands in the way of that are three things above everything else. the first is a tax code that's crazy. it's not complicated, it's not burdensome, it's crazy. it's the craziest thing you've ever seen in your life. first off, it's full of loopholes and exemptions built in. and do you know what that helps? it doesn't help th the big guys. it doesn't help millionaires and billionaires and big corporations. these guys can handle this stuff. they may not like it but they can hire lawyers and accountants and lobbyists. they can figure this stuff out. do you know who a complicated tax code kills? the guy or gal trying to start a business out of the spare

bedroom of their home. so we've got to simplify our tax code. it has to be reformed. if there's the stuff in there that's the result of good lobbying instead of good policy, take it out. i hope we'll work on it. everybody here says they're for tax reform. let's do it. let's have some urgency. let's have some urgency behind that. the second is regulations. look, we need to have regulations. there's a glass of water. i don't want this thing to have poison in t. i want our air to be clean. we all want things and government has a role to play in those things. but let me tell you what happens when regulations go too far, when they seem to exist only for the purpose of justifying the existence of a regulator. you don't hurt the guys that have made it. you don't hurt the big corporations or the billionaires. these guys can hire lawyers to deal with all that stuff and they can hire lobbyists to come here and change all that stuff. it kills the people trying to start a business out of the spare bedroom of their home. and last but not least -- so we've got to simplify the regulatory system we have in this country as w. and finally, this debt. the debt is a problem because there's no plan in place to do anything about it. and people are afray. they are concern.

-- and people are afraid. they are concern. they are worried. and rightfully so about investing money in an economy that doesn't have a plan to pay its bills. and so i hope we'll reefs course on all those things -- reverse course on all those things because if we do, it will lead to prosperity. and let me tell you what prosperity will lead to t. will lead to more jobs. more jobs will lead to more taxpayers. more taxpayers leads to more revenue. and more revenue means we have money to pay down our debt and do the things that government should do, like our national defense, like invest in infrastructure and in our people. like provide a safety net to help those who cannot help themselves. but to do that, it all starts with embracing the fundamental principle of america's prosperity. and that is that we have never been a nation of haves and have notes. we are a nation of haves and soon-to-haves, of people who have made it and people who will make it. and that's who we need to remain. if we desire to provide our children what we had, an american century, which is what the 21st century can be, should be and will be, if in

2012 this body and our leadership reverses course from the direction we are headed and places us on a path that's true to our heritage as a people and embraces for our children and grandchildren the future they deserve. a prosperous and growing ameri america, where all things are possible, where anyone from anywhere can accomplish anything. or the son of a bartender and a maid can be a u.s. senator. and where anyone watching, no matter where you start out in life, can accomplish and be anything you want to accomplish if you're willing to work hard, play by the rules and have the ability to do it. and so with that, i want to wish all my colleagues and the people of florida and the people of the united states a -- a merry christmas, a happy hanukkah, a happy new year. may god always bless our country and may 2012 bring us the safety and prosperity for our nation and for the world. thank you very much, mr. president, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: up to 15

minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i take the opportunity while the

floor is relatively quiet to come and explain one of the votes that we are going to be asked to cast tomorrow. in fact, it's very timely that i'm here on the senate floor at 2:00 in the afternoon because the house i understand just passed house resolution -- or house concurrent resolution 94, and i am going to ask the senate to reject that resolution when it comes here tomorrow for our vote, and i'm asking democrats and republicans to join with me in voting no on that resolution, and i'd like to take a few minutes to explain why. i think pictures are worth a thousand words, so let me just use four to save time. this is about disasters in 2011. this whole issue is about how we

should budget for disasters, and it's an important debate that has been one of the many debates that congress has had over this last year, and we're wrapping up that debate in the next 48 hours. so this is a part of that debate, and i think pictures speak louder than words. this is a picture of joplin, missouri, a town that was virtually wrecked by a massive and monster tornado and tornadoes. this is a picture of the mississippi river flooding in cairo, illinois. the mississippi river this year was at one of its highest levels in some places in over a century, and we received our own share of that flooding in louisiana, which sits at the base of this great mississippi river basin, so our people as

well as people along the entire mississippi river valley experienced unprecedented flooding. the lonely couple and distraught couple sitting looking like in the middle of an ocean is actually nags head, north carolina. this is what happened to their beach home as water virtually surrounded them and destroyed that community, again this year with hurricane irene, and down here on the far right is a picture of the fires that raged and devastated through texas that experienced one of the worst droughts in the recorded history of texas. and i could show, mr. president, the sad thing about this debate is i could show picture after picture after picture of communities in our country

devastateed by tornadoes, fires, hurricanes, disasters that strike without warning, whose impacts are virtually impossible to measure until months afterwards because of the extraordinary damage. in fact, the weather service just this month did a recalculation of 2011 and declared it to be one of the worst disasters -- disaster years since records have been kept, saying that they had now concludeed and enough evidence had come in that we had over 12 disasters in one year, in this year of 2011, over a billion dollars each. so this year was a real outliar, but -- outlier, but sadly, mr. president, and we have heard this in your state, we have

heard it in my state of louisiana, we have heard it around the world that unfortunately these pictures may not be an aberration, that these pictures may show what is to come, that these disasters -- while 2011 was a very bad year, people are starting to think with the changes in temperature and climate change for whatever people think the reasons are for that, no one should disagree with the consequences of changing temperature which are violent weather episodes. so the question, mr. president, is what are we going to do about it and what is the right way to move forward? let me show you what the wrong way is before i explain the right way. this is the wrong way to respond, and this has been suggested by some of my republican colleagues. they suggest that when the water rises on your home or when the

tornado rips you out of your bed and the roof falls on you and your family or when the river water rises and you look out of your second floor window over your 100 or 200-acre farm and you can't see anything and your cows are swimming and your horses are swimming as well, that what you should do is climb on your roof, call washington, call the hotline and identify the offset in the federal budget to provide the cost of your rescue. i mean, it is raiseable. it's supposed to be funny. it is a funny cartoon, but when you think about it, it's really not funny to tell the american people that in order to be rescued, you need to call the budget office of the federal government, identify an offset and then we will send a rescue

to you and to respond to your emergency. it's not funny. and the american people aren't laughing. and so i'm going to ask my colleagues to vote no on h.r. 94 tomorrow because that is exactly what h.r. 94 does. i should get a big pen and write if you think that grandma here with the cat and the phone is what you want your constituents to look like, then you just go right on and vote for h.r. 94. but i'm not going to vote for that concurrent resolution because our leaders wisely, both republican and democratic leaders wisely in august, in anticipation of this issue already provided for disaster funding in the budget control act, already provided for it. we don't have to tell our

constituents that before we can send money to help you in joplin or to nags head, north carolina, or to cairo, illinois, or to san antonio or dallas, texas, for your fires, that you have to identify an offset because we wisely said within the budget control act, within our efforts to close the budget gap, we are prying for disaster -- providing for disaster funding, and that's what we have done. but some members of the house will continue to want to adhere to trying to identify an offset before disasters can be responded to. they say things like we should pay for disasters in the year that we respond to them.

i'm going to present a chart in just a minute when it comes, but i want to try to explain this, the second reason why this is a faulty way forward, is that in 2005, which wasn't that many years ago, the federal government allocateed $45 billion -- allocated $45 billion -- actually, i think this number is about $68 billion, and i'm going to show the chart in a minute -- in one year, and that year was the year of katrina, which was the -- and rita, which were the number one and number three most violent and disastrous and costly hurricanes in the history of our country. they happened in the same year to the same state or to the same area, which was mississippi, louisiana and texas. you know, we got the brunt of two of the worst storms that

literally flooded a metropolitan area or flooding an area greater than the size of great britain, and that amount, mr. president, was $68 billion. if we followed the poor logic of some on the republican side that we had to pay for this disaster in that year and the budget, i think we would have probably had to eliminate half of the discretionary budget of the united states of america, and i'm going to get that exact number, but it's ludicrous to think that you would be able to find $68 billion in the budget in that one year. in fact, the whole homeland security budget -- it wouldn't be half. the whole homeland security budget is $42 billion. so let me repeat. instead of half of the federal budget, we would have had to completely eliminate the entire

homeland security budget of the united states of america, plus another couple of smaller budgets to meet the $68 million -- billion dollars requirement. it just doesn't make any sense, and it's not right. it's not the right way to budget. it violates the budget control act, and it is so hypocritical that some on the other side are requiring this for domestic expenses when they don't require the same thing for foreign expenses or international expenses, and i'd like to put up this next chart. i mean to pour salt on the wound here -- and i don't quite understand this politics. i don't understand the math. i don't understand the budgetary consequences, and i don't

understand the politics. wrong on all three counts, because this is what those that voted for h.r. 95 have to go home and explain to their constituents. they're going to have to go home and say when i was in congress, i allocateed $823 billion for the war in iraq and required no pay-for. and then i went back to congress and spent $557 billion in afghanistan and didn't say a word about that. and then i went back and added a medicare drug benefit for $180 billion and we didn't pay for that. and then i went back and sent checks to everyone when george

bush was the president. those checks cost $124 billion, and we didn't require any offset or budget implication for that. but when americans, who had their homes destroyed, their farms flooded, their businesses ruined by disasters, i can't send a dime unless we take it out of health, transportation, or education. so they said "no" to this little $8.1 billion, after spending a grand total of $1.68 trillion on all of these items. so i don't understand the math, i don't understand their ramifications to the budget, and i most certainly don't understand this politics. and i don't agree with it,

because i think the american people should come first. their needs for disasters should come first. and we cannot possibly, because of the erratic nature of disasters themselves did, i we might think we're powerful here in the senate but we're not more powerful than god and we're not more powerful than nature -- and i'm not saying that god causes these storms, but nature has a way; we are not that powerful and we do not know and can't predict when these will happen. all we can do is respond. and we have responded appropriately in the senate version of this bill. our bill will provide funding for fema, for the corps of engineers within the budgetary control structure. it will allow us to pay for this

over time in future negotiations, which is the wise thing to do. but it will not require us to use disasters or will not force us to use disasters that occur in this country as an excuse to continue to wring out costs from health, transportation, and education. and so, mr. president, as my colleagues know, i feel very strongly about this, and i'm proud to say that i think many, many democrats and hopefully some republicans feel strongly that their constituents here at home should come first, that the budget should provide for immediate response when people are victims of floods or tornadoes or hurricanes or other disasters. i think most people in the senate understand that 2011 was

a tough year. it was an historic year. but the sad thing is, i think we also understand it could repeat itself. and using these disasters, when it was not the case for the war in iraq, was not the case for the afghanistan war, was not the case for medicare, was not the case for the rebate checks. but when it comes to disasters, we can't seem to find $8.1 billion within the budget control structure? i don't, like i said, understand it. we've seen this cartoon before. i won't go into it, but i think it says beautifully why this is the wrong approach. and again these pictures speak 1,000 words. this is what disaster looks like. i wish i had something to show what it feels like to lose

everything and then when you have lost everything, trying to provide confidence to your own family, to your own children and to your neighbors, to then listen to the debate in congress that says we write a blank check to iraq, a blank check to afghanistan, a blank check here, and yet when this comes to funding for disasters, we have to have this argument? so i'm going to ask my colleagues to vote "no" on h.r h.r. 94 tomorrow. in voting "no," we will reject to finthe find-the-offset-now requirement. the agreements made between the leaders back in august, to include this in the budget control act. we will send a powerful signal to our constituents that they

come first and that distear victims should really come first in the budget, not -- and that disaster victims should really come first in the budget, not last. that we understand how difficult it is to rebuild their communities and the federal government will be a reliable partner that they can depend upon in their time of need. and so i'm going to submit the rest of my statement for the record. i think i've outlined the strongest points. there may be another expression of a different side of this argument. i haven't really heard a good one yet. but i look forward, if any of my colleagues want to come down and take the opposite side of this argument, i am around. i'm not going anywhere. i'll be here today. i'll be here tomorrow. i'll be happy to debate them on the floor on this. but as the chair of the homeland security appropriations committee, i have to take a strong stand on this because our budget is the one that basically gets called on to fund these

disasters. again, if i have to follow the requirement to fund them in the year that the money is spent, one year, i'm going to have to come to this floor and tell everyone, we're not going to have a homeland security bill this year because we just had a category 5 strike miami, and the bill is, like they said last night on the weather channel, it will exceed $40 billion, so i'm just going to have to give up our whole bill and we'll have no security for the united states to pay for the disaster in one year. this is the chart that i wanted to show. this is how erratic funding can be. this is funding from 2003 to 2012. in 2003 we spent basically a little over $1.7 billion. then it jumped up to a little over $6 billion.

then katrina, rita, and which will marks which was in florida -- and wilma, which was in florida, moved us all the way up to $45 billion in 2005. then we fell back to $7.8 billion. you can see the erratic nature of these storms. it's impossible for us to even get a really good average. so -- the only thing we can do is put a baseline in our bill, and then it disaster strikes to respond and put it in the budget control act over our 302(b) allocations. dpiew do it that way, you're going to end up having to scramble -- if you don't do it that way, you're going to v. end up having to scramble every year to calculate what it was the last year. it's either going to be education that gets gutted or health that gets gutted or agriculture that gets gutted or homeland security. and i don't want to have to be

the one to call the thousands of border patrol agents that i've helped to fund in my budget or be able to call senator john mccain or senator kyl and say, i'm sorry, we have to lay off all the budget -- the border patrol agents along the border in arizona for a year or two because we had a big storm in miami and i have to send the motion tmoney to miami. who ever heard of such a thing? that's what the republicans in the house have sent to us. it should be rejected on its face. there is a better way, mr. president, to move forward on this, and the way is in the budget control act that our leaders wisely have already agreed to. so we'll have this vote tomorrow. again, i think i have raised three excellent points about why the house approach is wrong and why our approach is correct. if someone wants to come debate it, i will be happy to maybe try

to explain it a little bit more. and i the final thing l a say on thi-- andthe final thing i'll ss is it makes it even more hypocritical -- i can understand some on the other side say we need to find a way to pay for it even if we've gocialted, et cetera. but when the other side refuses to put even a penny on the table, it makes it even harder to achieve what we're trying to achieve. so i thank you, mr. president. i hope that my colleagues will hear these arguments and let me know if there's anything further that we can explain on it. but i think the picture says a thousand words. i'll close with this again. no american should have to sit on their roof while the water

rises and identify an offset to finance their own rescue. we are a stronger nation than that. we are a bigger nation than that. and we most certainly can provide the funding for fema, for the corps of engineers, and other funding in the way that our budget control act stipulates in this budget. and i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call lifted.

the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you.

mr. president, i'm here to urge that my colleagues in congress and the obama administration provide the funding for the low-income home energy assistance program or liheap. as you know in connecticut, liheap provides immediate critical heating assistance for families and seniors in need during these freezing cold winter months. last year more than 45,000 new hampshire households received liheap funds. that's more than 106,000 individuals. but, unfortunately, this year many of those families have been on waiting lists. funding for the program has been in limbo at a time when temperatures are dropping. now, the department of health and human services here in washington has released $1.7 billion but so much more is needed. and making matters worse, the energy information administration projects a 10%

increase in the price of heating oil this winter. that's the highest average winter price ever predicted. in new hampshire, more than half of our homes rely on home heating oil. it's one of the highest percentages in the country. and the number o number of famit need assistance is growing every day. state offices are being forced to change funding, eligibility levels for funding as they grapple with uncertainty over future funds. now, mr. president, there are two things that can be done in order to immediately address this situation before it escalates into a serious and -- an even more serious crisis. first, congress needs to pass an omnibus appropriations bill as soon as possible. and i'm really pleased to see the positive progress on this issue that there has been an agreement announced on an omnibus appropriations measure

and hopefully we're on track to pass that bill either today or tomorrow. now, the omnibus includes nearly $3.5 billion in funding for liheap but we need to get that money out the door. so the second thing that can be done once congress as that spoken is that the administration needs to release additional liheap funds as quickly as possible. the $1.7 billion that's already been released is not enough, but the knowledge that additional liheap funds are pending in the omnibus bill and that we're about to pass that should give president obama the assurance he needs to release more money. i hope once the budget is pass passed, the administration will release these additional funds as soon as possible because at this holiday season, what better

gift could we provide to though families in need than to make sure they have funds to keep their houses warm this season? now, i know it's difficult to argue for more funding these days because our deficit challenges are clear. in fact, here in the senate, we've already voted -- and i was one of those votes -- for more than a trillion dollars in cuts to federal spending this year. and i've continued to call for a comprehensive, balanced, bipartisan plan that looks at both rev news and spending. i've -- both revenues and spending. i've been part of a working group here, a bipartisan working group, that now has over 40 senators calling for a $4 trillion deficit-reduction proposal over the next ten years. but when we cut our budget, we need to look at wasteful spending, at duplicative programs and at subsidies to industries that no longer need our help. and liheap, energy assistance

for low-income families, doesn't fall under any of these categories. it's not a frivolous program. it's a program that ensures that the vulnerable citizens in new hampshire and across this country are not forgotten and left in the cold this winter. i've been hearing from people across new hampshire about the difficulties they're going to face if this funding isn't available and available soon, and i want to just share one of these stories. it's the story of kim brandelini from nashua. in 2010, kim suffered a series of strokes that left her disabled and unable to work. liheap funds covered nearly all of her monthly fuel costs then, last year. but this year, because of the cuts, she's on the waiting list. she doesn't know how she's going to pay to heat her home. she already owes the oil company $600, and last year she had to

pay $6,000 to replace a broken boiler. kim's only 44 years old. she's raising a son all by herself, and previously she served for 14 years in the army reserve. kim doesn't deserve to be in this situation. in nashua, which is one of the warmest parts in new hampshire, the average nightly low is below freezing for nearly half of the year, and if we don't find a way to fund liheap now, kim and thousands of others like her will have no way to keep their families safe and warm. we need to act and we need to act quickly. already, the delay in funding liheap has prevented states like new hampshire from taking advantage of more affordable bulk purchases of home heating oil. the bottom line is now that we have a budget agreement, we need to release additional funds so

that thousands of new hampshire families stay warm and don't have to make impossible choices between their basic needs this winter. we can't leave families like kim brandilini's out in the cold this winter, so i'm hopeful that we can get this budget passed as soon as possible and that the obama administration will release additional liheap funds before christmas and the end of the year. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: is rescinded.

mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would like to address the senate on the subject of the keystone x.l. pipeline which has been reported to be part of the proposed package that will contain the extension of the payroll tax holiday anded unemployment, expiring unemployment insurance benefits. there have been some who raised questions about the pipeline and some who have said they object to it being included in the package, but i'd like to just hopefully shed a little light, maybe not so much heat but a little light on the subject coming from a state like mine, which is an energy-producing state. we are very familiar with the oil and gas pipelines and the safety measures need to be undertaken to keep them safe and to keep them from contaminating

the environment. but this is not some sort of alien technology or something that the industry and -- does not have the expertise to deal with in a safe and secure and appropriate manner. the legislation that's being proposed would, in the payroll tax holiday would require the secretary of state to issue a presidential permit within 60 days of enactment unless -- and this does not take the president out of the equation. it says unless the president publicly determines that this project is not in the national interest. so if for some reason really beyond my comprehension president obama were to determine that building this pipeline was not in the public interest, he could, under the items of this legislation, he could essentially veto it.

but once the permit is approved, trans-canada would be able to start construction on parts of the project outside of nebraska. now, why outside of nebraska? as you may recall, mr. preside mr. president, that a number of people in nebraska, including their leadership here in the senate, had concerns about the route of the transtranscanadian pipeline, the keystone x.l. pipeline, within nebraska itself. but nebraska leaders have taken it upon themselves to come up with a new route -- they will do so -- which will satisfy concerns there about the contamination of the aquifer in that state. but the one point i would like to emphasize is that we have been talking a long time since the financial crisis in september of 2008 about what we need to do to get our economy back on track and to create jobs.

indeed, there was a lot of discussion back during the passage of the stimulus that we needed shovel-ready jobs. but as you'll recall, there was a lot of things that went into the stimulus that did not include infrastructure development. in fact, infrastructure was comprised only a very small fraction of what the spending on the stimulus actually did. but i think it's -- first of all, let me just make clear what we're talking about. this is a -- this chart demonstrates the existing keystone pipeline. in other words, there's already a ski stone pipeline but it goes from alberta in canada and terminates in illinois. that's the -- the orange. and so what we're really talking about is an extension, an expansion of the ski stone pipe -- of the keystone pipeline, and it terminates in potterpotteryin -- port arthur,e

we have a lot of refineries and it can be made into gas lean, jet fuel and the like. so this is the proposed route, as you can see the expansion hooking up in southern nebraska, steel city, with the existing pipeline, going down to cushing, oklahoma, but then the expansion would be down into texas, into houston and -- and port arthur. this is a -- another i think educational document. this actually is the crude oil and we fined products pipelines that currently exist in the united states. so lest anybody feel like we're doing something new, novel, that's never been done before, let me try to disabuse them of that notion. this is, as you can see, a hug huge -- a huge spider's web almost of oil and gas and refined product pipelines

throughout the united states. not surprisingly, you see a lot of them concentrated down in my state, in texas. but importantly, a good portion of that pipeline traffic emanates from our trading partner, our number-one trading partner in the world, canada, a friends an -- a friend and an ay and a safe source of oil and gas down into the united states. and i think some people who perhaps wonder about this pipeline and wonder what it all means, this will help allay any concerns or some concerns they might have that, you know, we're somehow doing something novel or risky or that we haven't done in the past. pipelines are simply one mode of transporting oil and gas. you can do it other ways. you can put it on a tanker truck and drive it down our highways. i happen to think that this is a better and safer way to do it than loading up a bunch of

tanker trucks, going at -- down our highways. you could do it through barges, through our inland waterways. you can -- but the pipeline is simply the most efficient and safest way of doing it. and, of course, as we all know, these pipelines are by and large buried and more or less unseen. so this is a transportation network for our nation's oil and gas that most people probably are not even aware of. and that's i guess a good thing, but it's important that people understand what we're talking about. these pipelines move crude oil from oil fields on land and offshore to refineries where it's turned into fuels and other products. you can see down here in the gulf of mexico, for example, where we have tremendous reserves of oil and gas, and you can see how the pipelines extend even beneath the water out into the -- the gulf of mexico.

but these pipelines move crude oil from -- to refineries where it is turned into fuels and other products and then from the refineries to terminals where fuels are trucked to retail outlets. one amazing thing about this, this literally happens 24 hours a day, seven days a week out of sight and out of mind to most americans. now let's talk a minute about safety, because this is something that no one has an exclusive claim to concerns about our environment and safe safety. under the law, any spill associated with one of these pipelines has to be reported. a spill of five gallons or more, to the department of transportation. there are already a number of federal agencies that regulate this industry that include the u.s. pipeline and hazardous materials safety administration, the u.s. environmental

protection agency, and the u.s. federal energy regulatory commission. now, once this oil gets to the refineries, the u.s. refining sector has invested a lot of money in upgrades throughout the country to adapt to the world' changing oil supply, including the increasing percentage of the world's oil that is so-called heavy crude. my understanding is what comes out of the sands, oil sands in canada is heavy crude, which requires different -- a little different refining capability. but refineries in the u.s. gulf region have long received heavy crude from other countries and are well positioned to receive and to handle these supplies from canada. mr. president, i think it's important for us to contemplate also not just the economic aspects of this source of oil to

be consumed here in america that's not dependent, for example, on imported oil from the middle east and subject to whether it's whether -- weather conditions or hostile environments which otherwise might cause economic or national security concerns here in america. we hear from time to time that iran that we know has growing aspirations for regional influence in the middle east and now with the end of the iraq -- america's involvement in the iraq war, we know that iran is going to rush in to try to fill some of that vacuum there. and i'm -- i'm concerned about it. but more to the point today is that 90% of the persian gulf's oil exports and 40% of the global seaborne oil trade goes through the straits of hormuz,

which would be a local first place for the -- logical first place for the iranian government, should they decide to create havoc, to choke off the oil supply through that vital area. the straits of hormuz, of course, are very porn in a geopolitical sense. the point i'm trying to make here is it's not only a matter of jobs -- but it is a matter of jobs in america with the construction of this pipeline -- it's not just a matter of how we protect our environment, which is very important, how do we regulate this industry in a way that protects the health, safety and welfare of the american people, but this is a national security issue as well. it also is a -- is very important in terms of just simply the price of gasoline. i'm not an economist by training but i -- i do no understand when

there's more of something and the given stable demand that you're liable to lower the price when there's a greater supply, purely a matter of supply and demand. i looked on-line at the price of gasoline a year ago. it was $2.8 98 a gallon, price f a gallon of regular gasoline. today it's about 27 cents higher. of course, it's been much higher, as you know. but my point is, this is a stable and secure source of oil used to make gasoline and other refined petroleum products that will help bring down or at least stabilize the price of gasoline for consumers. we all know that during the current economic environment, people are living under much more constrained circumstances. they're having to make choices that i wish the federal government would make more often and that is what things you have to have today, what things you'd

like to have but you can put off tomorrow, and what things you maybe would like to have but you're going to have to end up doing without because you simply can't afford it. well, gasoline is one of those things that people need in order to drive their kids to school or to drive to work. and the increased price of gasoline because of geopolitical uncertainty, because of concerns about supplies, natural disasters like -- or disasters like we had in the gulf of mexico, all those cause disruptions or concerns about disruptions in supply that cause gas prices to go up. and so this is another good reason, i believe, why we need a stable source of additional oil. and, again, from a friendly nation, one of our number-one trading partner, which is the -- is canada. but let me just go quickly over a few other little factoids that people might find interesting.

this is a $7 billion project. and as i said, it is the largest shovel-ready infrastructure project in the united states current. ly. it -- current. it has been under review by the federal government for three years. this is not some knee-jerk or impulsive decision that we're asking to be made here. this is something that has been carefully reviewed for its environmental impact. the good news, at a time when unemployment remains unacceptably high is that this project is estimated to cause the creation of about 20,000 jobs. we all know that the number-one problem in america today is too many people out of work. the number-two problem in america today is too many people out of work. and the number three problem in america today is too many people out of work. this would create jobs at a time when we sorely need them, and that's why this project has gained the kind of bipartisan support that gives me great hope

that we will somehow knock down the impediments to building this pipeline so we can get people back to work and we can get that stable oil supply and create economic development in the private sector when we need it most. it's estimated this pipeline would ultimately generate about $20.9 billion in new private sector spending. we all know that with the federal government down around 15% of our g.d.p. because of the recession and slow economy, while spending is up around 25% of g.d.p., we need to do two things. we need to cut federal spending but we also need to increase growth in the private sector which will produce additional revenue to the treasury and help us close that deficit gap and begin to chip away at the debt. this pipeline and the jobs it would create and the tax

revenues that would be generated will help do that. this is also important to our relationship with our trading partner, canada. as you know, the north american free trade agreement, which is a big deal in my state, in texas, because of the trade agreements between canada and the united states and mexico, but this recognizes that our trading relationship with canada is the the -- is literally the most important one of the united states, and there is something in it for us as well in that for every dollar the u.s. spends on canadian products, 91 cents is returned to the united states. there is a close economic security and relationship between the united states and canada. this pipeline would also encourage development of additional oil resources in the northern part of the united

states. north dakota is current -- currently has i believe somewhere on the order of 3% or 4% unemployment, and one reason why it does is because they have discovered i can get a confirmation out of senator hoeven perhaps, but one reason why north dakota has been booming, in addition to great leadership, has been the fact that the bakken formation there has been a source of a huge supply of oil. and of course building this pipeline would help further enhance the ability to develop oil and gas resources and put them in the pipeline and get them into the refinery and get them to market. this is one of the big dangers i think we also need to highlight, mr. president. in a world where we are so interconnected and where there are so many options available to our trading partners like

canada, the fact is if we don't create this pipeline expansion and markets for these products in the united states, then canada is going to sell it to china or other parts of the world. the presiding officer: may i remind the senator that we are operating under a ten-minute term limit? the senator has consumed 17 and there is now another senator on the floor. mr. cornyn: i would ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional three minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: thank you. so, mr. president, this is as close to a no-brainer as i think we can identify, but i want to say it also has particular benefits to my state which i am honored to represent. transcanada's direct investment of about $1.6 million in texas for the construction and development of the pipeline will lead to gains in business activity in the state of texas on an estimated $2.3 billion in

total expenditures and $2 billion in output. the increased economic activity stimulated by the transcanadian investment in texas will generate tax receipts during construction of an estimated $41.1 million to the state and $7.7 million to local taxing entities. once these facilities are completed, they will have a useful life estimated at not less than 100 years. using reasonable assumptions regarding valuation and tax rates, these are estimateed to yield more than $1.1 billion in property taxes to local governments in the state, which are the primary source of funds for public education, among other things. so i recognize the distinguished senator from north dakota here is on the floor, and i want to yield to him. i appreciate the opportunity to address this issue, but i would point out that this project has

strong bipartisan support. i would just invite my colleagues who perhaps are not as familiar with the importance of this pipeline project to the economy of the united states and job creation and not aware that this is -- this is nothing new. this is something we have done before safely in a environmentally responsible way to join us and perhaps reconsider their view so we can get this done and help get 20,000 americans back to work. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i rise to speak on the subject of the keystone pipeline and i am pleased to follow my esteemed colleague from the great state of texas. i think it's only appropriate that i follow him, both because of the -- i agree absolutely with his remarks and i think it shows the importance of this project from north dakota to texas, across this country, this

is an incredibly important project. so i'm pleased to be here again today to address it. before i begin, mr. president, i would like to ask unanimous consent that russ evanbeau who is an intern for me be allowed floor privileges today. it is his last day and i would like to get him on the floor if i could, so i do ask unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection, he shall have privileges of the floor. mr. hoeven: thank you, mr. president. not only is it nice to welcome him to the floor on his last day, he has done an outstanding job working for me, but he has my chart, so i'm glad that we're able to get him on the floor. the legislation that we have authored on the keystone pipeline is included in the house package that provides an extension for the payroll tax cut, and it's very appropriate that it's in that package. and so i come today to talk

about some misperceptions that i'm hearing out there in regard to this legislation. the first is that somehow this is an add-on to the payroll tax holiday extension legislation in that it's an add-on and some of it shouldn't be in there. i'd like to address that because that's absolutely where it should be. it's a jobs bill. the extension of the payroll tax cut, the payroll tax holiday is about helping create more jobs in this country. it's about helping people who are out there working hard every day. it's about stimulating economic activity. it's a tax reduction to help get this economy going and help get people back to work. keystone is a jobs bill. it belongs in a jobs package. this is a jobs package. this is about creating jobs. without the federal government spending one penny. in fact, this will generate hundreds of millions of state and local tax revenues.

it will generate private investment, but it will create jobs. this is a jobs package. so i want to address that misperception i have heard from time to time that, well, does this belong as part of a jobs package? of course it does. this is about -- this is how we create jobs. i appreciate greatly the esteemed senator from texas talking about some of the things that are going on in north dakota, and he's absolutely right. now, texas has a long history with the energy industry. north dakota is increasingly becoming a stronger and stronger energy player, in all types of energy. we have wind. we have hydro. we have biofuels. we have biomass, solar. and we are now the fourth largest oil and gas -- oil-producing state in the country. and next year we'll be the third largest oil-producing state in the country behind only alaska and of course number one texas.

but to do that, we need infrastructure. we need to be able to transport our oil, oil that we produce, to the refineries around the country. through the keystone pipeline, we will put 100,000 barrels a day of oil that we produce in north dakota into this pipeline and get it down into the gulf refineries. so this isn't just about moving canadian crude into the united states. this is about moving our own domestic product as well. and as the senator from texas may have explained, there is a backlog of oil in cushing right now, which is a hub for oil. we need to move that oil from cushing, oklahoma, down to the gulf coast refineries in texas and louisiana. this pipeline will move that product to these refineries. so, again, it's not just about moving canadian crude into the united states. this is about moving product throughout the united states as

well where we have serious bottlenecks. and when we have those bottlenecks, our producers in north dakota get less. they face a discount. if the product has to move by rail or by truck, we suffer a discount. that affects not only the oil companies themselves but it also affects the individual producers, the mineral owners who get a royalty payment. so this is about truly creating economic activity. but the first point that i want to emphasize is that this is absolutely -- absolutely is and should be part of this jobs package. the second point that i want to talk about for just a minute is that somehow -- i mean, the concern has been expressed that somehow we're rushing this process. somehow that we're not taking enough time in terms of approving this pipeline. so, gee, maybe that could create an environmental concern. nothing could be further from the truth.

we are taking more time than we have for almost the exact same project that has already been approved. this red line here on this chart is the keystone pipeline. the keystone pipeline returns from alberta, canada, down to patoka, illinois, brings product down to refineries in the united states. that pipeline has not only been approved but built. it moves 590,000 barrels a day of oil from the alberta, canada, area down to our refineries. that has been approved, built, move almost 600,000 barrels of oil a day. this is the keystone x.l. project right next to it. very, very similar project. so i want to talk a little bit about the time line on these as well. i was formerly governor of north dakota. while i was governor, transcanada built the keystone pipeline. now they are working to build

the keystone x.l. pipeline. well, let's walk through that time line for just a minute. first, let's start with the keystone pipeline. that project was initially applied for permit on april 19, 2006. the final environmental impact statement was issued two years later -- actually, less than two years later. it was issued january 11, 2008. so in less than two years, this project, very similar, less than two years, they got a final environmental impact statement, and within 60 days, amazingly enough, within 60 days after that final environmental impact statement, it was signed off and approved by the state department, had final approval. all right. so all within a two-year process for that project. well, now let's talk about the keystone x.l. project.

all right. keystone x.l., transcanada, same company is building it. same company is building both projects. they filed for a state department presidential permit september, 2008. so that's when they filed for their permit. they went through the whole process. they got a final environmental impact statement on august 26, 2011. 2011. three years. so the -- this project, the whole project was approved in less than two years. this project, we have already been at it for three years. so if we're talking about, this is rushing, somehow rushing the project? almost an identical project fully approved from start to finish in two years, we're sitting here three years later and we don't even have approval yet and we're rushing somehow? the process. furthermore, the department of

state indicated that, okay, after all this environmental work, after three years, three years of environmental work, the state department says well, we're going to have a decision out before year end, meaning now, before the end of this year. the state department says we're going to have a decision. so myself and others who have been working on this say that's great. finally we're going to get a decision. then all of a sudden the administration says no, no, not going to have a decision. we're going to need another 18 months. we're going to need another 18 months somehow because the route through nebraska, there's concern about the route through nebraska. that was the concern. so the state of nebraska then -- let's make sure i got my dates right. the state of nebraska said okay, we are concerned in nebraska, but we're going to address the problem. we're going to solve the problem. so the state of nebraska has a special session on november 1 of

this year, concluded november 22. in their special session, they agreed that they would reroute the keystone x.l. pipeline as to the route in nebraska. the concern was that it went through western nebraska, what's called the ogallala aquifer or the sandhills region. there's a lot of irrigation there. even though there is another pipeline there, they said we don't want it in that part so we will agree to reroute the pipeline in nebraska. all this legislation provides, the legislation we've written -- there have been other bills on this but the legislation included in the house package, that we're working to get passed here in the senate, here's what it says. it says 60 days after the bill is passed, the president, the department of state has to make a determination on whether or not this project is in the national interest. they don't have to say yes. they can say yes or they can say

no, but they have to determine whether it's in the national interest 60 days after the bill is passed. but as to the nebraska piece, nebraska's department of environmental quality will work with e.p.a. and state department and take the time they need to reroute in nebraska. because that was the concern. it doesn't set a time line on how fast they have to do it. it says you have the time you need to reroute and address the concern that was raised. so this legislation is all about solving the concern that was raised so this project can go forward. it does not set a time line on it. again, where is this rush that could somehow create an environmental issue? it's not there. the point is this: if we don't pursue this project, this oil will still be produced.

700,000 barrels a day. 700,000 barrels a day of canadian crude. it will still be produced. but instead of coming down to our refineries in the united states, instead of creating jobs in the united states, instead of reducing our dependence on oil from the middle east, the oil's going to china. that pipeline instead of going south will go west. the product will be put on oil tankers and it will go to chinese refineries. there, in the chinese refineries, there will be higher emissions, lower environmental standards. so you're going to have more emissions, more environmental impacts. so again i come back to the point, are we going to create more energy independence for ourselves? are we going to create more jobs here? are we going to send that product to china? because that's the choice. that's the real choice. iwant to deal with reality, real

terms? that's the choice we face. look, this project is about creating jobs. it belongs in a bill that is about creating jobs. this -- and i'll wrap up, mr. president. this legislation is about reducing our dependence on oil from the middle east. 700,000 barrels a day, not to mention the product that helps my state of north dakota, montana and others moved on to our refineries in texas and louisiana. and this -- with this pipeline, we will have better environmental stewardship, not worse. this is a project that we need to move forward. we have drafted this legislation. we have worked on a bipartisan basis to get legislation that addresses the concerns. it's time to move forward. i urge my colleagues to support the legislation. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. sanders: i wanted to talk on a number of issues, but i will tell my friend from north dakota, i very strongly disagree

with him about this keystone x.l. pipeline. for those of us who are concerned about global warming and all of the destruction that is currently taking place because of global warming and will increase in years to come, this keystone x.l. pipeline is exactly what we should not be doing. but before i get to keystone, mr. president, i wanted to suggest that at this particular moment, at the very end of the congressional session -- by the way, mr. president, before i go further, i should ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 7:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: i was saying, mr. president, at this moment before the end of the year's work, it's a strange moment in congress because you have behind

closed doors negotiators from the house and the senate, republicans and democrats trying to put together large and complicated bills. and the concern that i have -- and i speak only for myself, but i think other members in the senate feel the same way -- is that we're suddenly going to be given a fait accompli, a complicated and long bill with many implications, many very important provisions. and then we're asked to vote on it with really not having had much input into the bill or even the ability to digest it fully and know what it means to our constituents. let me just touch on some of the issues that concern me. and let me also say that what i am going to be referring to are reports in the media. i don't know what will be in the final product. i'm not sure that anybody does.

but here is some of what the media is reporting that might be in the payroll holiday tax bill, or what might not be in it, for that matter. one of the issues that i believe very strongly is that at a time when the middle class is disappearing, when poverty is increasing, and when more and more americans understand that the wealthiest people are doing phenomenally well, and yet their effective tax rate is the lowest in decades, an issue that warren buffett keeps reminding us about, that it is almost definitely going to be the case that while we continue to cut programs or raise revenue from the middle class and working families, the wealthiest people in this country will continue to avoid paying any more in taxes.

so we have a situation where the kwreufbgt tax rates -- effective tax rates on the wealthiest people in this country are the lowest in decades. yet once again as we talk about deficit reduction, we're going to caught this program, we're going to cut that program. and yet the wealthy millionaires and billionaires are not going to be asked to pay one nickel more in taxes. i think that is wrong, and people should understand that in all likelihood that is exactly what will happen again. furthermore, we have major corporations, companies on wall street, oil companies who in recent years have made billions of dollars in profit and yet have in some cases, believe it or not, not paid one nickel in federal corporate income tax because of a wide variety of loopholes. we have a situation where we're losing tens and tens of billions

of dollars, $100 billion a year because of all kinds of tax havens which exist in the kay men islands -- cayman islands, bermuda, large corporations can shelter their money, not pay taxes. and then the result is revenue declines in the united states, and my friends in the republican party suggest cut this, cut that, go after social security, go after medicare, go after medicaid, go aviation, go after -- go after education. go after environmental protection. yet once again the wealthiest people in this country will not pay a nickel more in taxes. large corporations will continue to enjoy huge tax loopholes. second of all, as somebody who believes that it is absolutely imperative that this country transforms its energy system away from fossil fuel, away from greenhouse gas emissions, and moves to energy efficiency and

sustainable energy, i am very concerned that in the legislation we will be dealing with today or tomorrow, or sunday, whatever, that there will not be an extension of important programs for renewable energy. and one of the most important is the 1603 renewable energy extender. and this is a treasury grant program which helps provide financing for renewable energy projects by converting an existing tax credit into a grant. this one program which costs barely more than $1 billion has leveraged $23 billion in private investments. it supports 22,000 renewable energy projects in all 50 states of our country. it has created up to 290,000

jobs. and if we do not include the 1603 program in legislation, it will expire at the end of this year. and what we have seen time and time again, whether it is wind, whether it is solar, is if we do not extend these programs, investments in these technologies significantly decline. we lose jobs. we lose our ability to compete internationally in terms of becoming a leader in sustainable energy. so i hope very, very much, mr. president, that what i am hearing in the media and other sources is not correct. i hope in fact that the 1603 treasury grant program is included in any legislation that we vote on.

that's an issue of major concern to me. mr. president, we have today a declining middle class. we have 50 million people who have no health insurance. we have a lot of elderly folks who despite medicare pay a great deal of money out of their own pockets for health care. and what i am hearing -- again, i don't know what will be in the final package. what some media reports suggest is that there are proposals out there to increase medicare income-related premiums by 15% starting in 2017. and also that there are some ideas out there which would decrease the income which beneficiaries pay these income-related premiums to $80,000 for an individual and

$160,000 for a couple. what this would mean is that older people will have to pay more for health care -- in some cases they just can't afford to do that. and i hope very much that that does not happen. when we talk about medicare in this country, we have got to talk about the overall health care crisis which is not only that 50 million people are uninsured. it is not only that health care costs for all health insurance companies are soaring, or virtually all of them, but we have to ask why it is that in the united states of america we end up spending almost twice as much per capita on health care as do the people of any other country. just yesterday in my office i had a member of the australian parliament. in australia, all people have

health care as a right. prescription drug coverage is largely covered by the government. their costs for prescription drugs are much lower because their national health care program negotiates prices with the drug companies. yet, in our country the situation is very, very different. so what we want to do is not ask middle-income people to be paying more for their health care at a time when many of them are paying already more than they can afford. so the changes in medicare, which i have been reading about, is something that concerns me very much. there's another area out there which i think will have profound implications for our economy. the house republican leadership passed a bill recently as part of this conference negotiations

going on now to slash unemployment insurance in half and cut up to 40 weeks of unemployment benefits. if this legislation were to become law and i certainly hope it will not, it could lead to the loss of 140,000 jobs and hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers who lost their jobs through no fault of their own losing their benefits. so here we have a situation where in real terms, 25 million americans are unemployed or underemployed, long-term unemployment is the longest on record. we have more people who are experiencing long-term unemployment than in any time that we can remember. and the solution that our republican friends want to bring about after fighting to make sure that millionaires and billionaires are not asked to pay more in taxes is to slash

unemployment insurance at a very significant way. now, there's another issue dealing with employment above and beyond unemployment insurance, and that is that the house republican bill, the ideas that they are bringing into the conference, would freeze federal employees' pay through 2015 and over a period of years reduce the civilian work force by 10%, cutting some 200,000 decent-paying jobs. let's be quiche. for federal employees there has already been a freeze, pay freeze for the last two years. those are the nurses in our veterans' administration hospital. those are people who are making 30,000, $40,000 a year, there is now a proposal to once again extend the freeze to them. this is a real cut in real wages

because inflation is going up for our federal employees. but what concerns me equally, it's not only the impact that this freeze would have on federal employees, it really sends a signal to every employer in america who says, well, yeah, i know you guys haven't gotten a wage increase in a number of years, i know that i've asked you to pay more for health insurance, yeah, we've cut back on your pensions, but guess what, in washington the congress says they're going to once again for the third year freeze federal pay, and in fact, they're going to ask federal employees to pay more for their pensions which means a cut for many federal employees. well, if the federal government can do it, says private employers all over america, so can we.

one of the points president obama has been making and why he has fought for a middle-class tax cut is that he wants to put more money into the hands of working families. i understand that. i agree with that concept. but what is the sense of providing tax breaks for the middle class on one hand, the concept of which i support, -- i ask unanimous consent for two more minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: what is the sense on one hand saying we need to put money into the hands of the middle class through a tax cut and in the other hand send a green light to employers all over this country who will now look at the federal government and say to their employees hey, federal government has frozen wages for a third year, cut back on pension programs, and we are going to do that as well.

lastly, but not least, for whatever reason my republican colleagues in the house have put into this mix of a payroll tax holiday a demand that the keystone x.l. tar sands project be completed, that the president be forced, as i understand it, to make a decision on this within the next several months. the reality is, mr. president, that among many other factors, the inspector general of the state department has -- is currently investigating whether or not the state department acted inappropriately in finding -- in appointing a particular company to do the

environmental study, which amazingly enough given the fact i think they had a conflict of interest ended up in a very positive light. so the inspector general is now looking at a conflict of interest issue in terms of the environmental study, which will take a bit of time. furthermore, i think many of us understand that at a time when greenhouse gas emissions are rising rapidly in this country and all easter the -- over the world, at a time when virtually the entire scientific community tells us that global warming is an enormously significant problem for the future of our planet, at a time when we're seeing increased floods and droughts and extreme weather disturbances, anyone who has studied the issue understands that in terms of global warming, the keystone x.l. tar

sands pipeline is a very, very dangerous project. producing energy-intensive tar sands oil, emits 82% more carbon pollution than conventional oil according to the e.p.a. okay. with that, mr. president, let me conclude but just suggest that i think we need to be discussing publicly some of the issues that we may be voting on in a very short period of time. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. sessions: mr. president. the presiding officer: the distinguished senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, we'll be voting, i understand, on three pieces of legislation from the house. one is the massive omnibus bill

that would include nine of the 13 appropriations bills that should be brought up individually and voted on individually with amendments on each one. they've all been cobbled together now at the end of the year and -- in one giant omnibus bill with only a few hours for us to review the contents of that massive enterprise. in addition, there will be a vote to offset certain emergency expenditures, in other words, pay for these new expenditures with savings elsewhere in the government rather than borrow the money for it. add to our debt for it. and a third vote will be in effect to fund this -- appropriate the money that would be so offset or spend it by borrowing it if it's not offset.

i would just share to my colleagues one particular thing, and the presiding officer, senator whitehouse is on the budget committee and our staff looked at that and looked at these budget numbers, i would just advise my colleagues that they should, i believe, vote to offset this additional expenditure. and this is the reason: the reason is the budget control act this summer was part of an effort where republicans said we will raise the debt limit but we want you to cut spending. and we need to cut back on spending because we've had a series of deficits the likes of which the nation has never seen before. we've got to do better and we need to reduce spending. our democrat colleagues resisted. so when it was finally ton a $900 billion plus reduction in spending was to occur over ten

years, plus the committee of 12 was supposed to find $1.2 trillion more if they could. if they couldn't, there would be an automatic cut of that. about $2.1 trillion savings over ten. experts have told us we need at least $4 trillion in savings over ten, not $2 trillion. but it was a step in the right direction, and that was the best that could be done under the circumstances. so the bill moved. and that was passed. what i want to say is that under that legislation, it was discovered that this year, the fiscal year we're in that began october 1 -- we're already in it -- we were going to spend one thousand $43 billion instead

of 1,000 fifty we spent last year. we're only cutting $7 billion out of the discretionary portion of our budget. not the -- not the social security and medicare and other programs that are going up every year, food stamps, college loans, pell grants. those things continue to go up in a far -- far more than this. but we were going to cut at least the discretionary accounts by $7 billion. from 1,050 billion to 1,043 billion. but we're not going to achieve that. just as has been so often the case we promise reductions in spending but don't get there. you would think that we could find $7 billion. you would think that's not too

much to ask this government that's been increasing spending at a substantial rate, to reduce spending a little bit. in fact the first two years of president obama's administration, nondefense discretionary spending went up 24%. in those two years. dramatic increases. so to reduce spending to try to get this huge deficit under control is not too much to ask, in my opinion. indeed, we are spending -- borrowing 40% of every dollar we spend. we will net spend about $3.6 trillion and take in about $2.2 trillion or $2.3 trillion. that's just not any way to continue to do business. it will be the third straight year that's happened. so we are looking for some improvement and i just would say

to my colleagues this one little offset, $8 billion in additional spending, will determine whether or not we have any reduction in spending or whether in fact contrary to our promises this summer we will spend more this year than last year. these are the numbers as we have calculated them from the budget committee staff. the regular appropriations would be this year 1,043 approximately, $1.043 trillion. but they've got disaster spending of $11 billion to that, which means we would spend 1,054 billion dollars above the 1,050 we spent last year. we would indeed be spending more, not less. and the house has sent over a

bill that would offset $9 billion of that which would bring the total spending this year to 1,045 billion dollars, and the senate -- and that would reduce our spending from last year 1,050 by $5 billion. not as much as we promised in the budget act but at least a modest reduction. it's a very important vote. it's a symbolic vote. it says are we honest with the american people when we go before the american people and produce a bill that says we're going to spend less than we spent last year, even if it's a small amount, and we can't even achieve that? perhaps that's why people are unhappy with us. we've been promising to do something about the debt situation in this country, and assuring people we're thinking about it, but we haven't done much. as a matter of fact we've done

almost nothing. so i would just urge my colleagues to think about that as you cast your vote on this portion of the house legislation that will come over that hasn't been discussed much among our colleagues, not particularly understood, but i do think it's important. i think it's an important symbolic vote. are we willing to do that? it would amount to about a 1.86%, less than 2% across-the-board rescission to offset this spending on the other spending items, exempting defense and some other items. so defense of course has taken dramatic cuts already. they're working on very dramatic cuts and as a result of the failure of the committee of 12, they will take an additional huge cut to defense, having defense department take on a percentage basis and on a

real-dollar basis far more in reductions than any other department. of course this is not war spending. war is in a separate o.c.o. account, overseas operations contingency account. mr. president, i thank the chair and wanted to share that what my colleagues. also i appreciate senator hoeven, governor hoeven from north dakota's presentation on the keystone pipeline. i do truly believe and agree with my friend from vermont that unemployment is a tremendous problem for us. what i don't agree with is that it can be fixed by borrowing and spending and taxing. that's what we've been seeing -- seeing to -- seeing

lately. i would suggest that one way to deal with unemployment is not spend any government money, get the government bureaucrats busy, examine this pipeline. we've got pipelines crossing this country all over. we bring those under control, bring that -- an analysis to a conclusion, approve this pipeline and it will add 20,000 real jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs and make this country more safe and secure from foreign energy exploitation. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the distinguished senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i rise to discuss the omnibus appropriations conference bill that i guess will be before this body at the pleasure of the

members of the appropriations committee. i call my colleagues' attention to the size of this bill. 13 agencies of government, all appropriations bills, and none of this because of the pressing issues of the calendar will betope any appropriation -- amendment, open to any amendment. not an amendment. of all of these funks of funk -l of these functions of government, and the cost in this particular bill $915 billion. if you add -- these are nine

appropriations bills of the 12, nine of the 12 appropriations bills contained here, $915 billion that we will probably be considering because of the fact that we all have to get out of town, which i'm one of those. we will have a vote sometime toim, and we will be able to tell our constituents that we have completed our task perhaps for the year -- at least as far as funding the government to continue, as we threaten to do, as we seem to do now every year, although i'm not sure that people are as frightened as they used to be. now, this bill before me is 1, 1,924 pages long, and -- no, no,

excuse me, it's 1,221 pages long, contains funding for nine of the annual appropriations bills for a grand total of $915 billion. if you add the three appropriations bills already enacted, we are going to spend $1.043 trillion. and this is a fantastic improvement because last year it was $1.1 trillion. so i'm glad that our constituents, who we promised when we, some of us like me ran for reelection, said we'd get this $15 trillion debt under control and we go back to washington and eliminate reckless and out-of-control spending, i'm sure they'll be plebe pleased to know that instead of $1.1 trillion, we're a now down to $1.043 trillion, a

reduction of approximately 5%. you can get a better deal than that at the macy's christmas sale. and of course not to forget the earmarks -- mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for as long as i may consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: so here it is -- here it is. i am confident that no average member of the senate -- i mean "average" -- what i mean by that is not a member of the appropriations committee has had a chance to peruse this hernia-inducing piece of legislation. and if it sound like i am a little cynical and a little angry, it's because i am, and the american people are cynical and angry. now, there are 535 members of congress. all of us are sent here by our constituents to represent them.

i think the american people and our constituents should know that this is a report on this bill that's signed by 37 members of the house and 17 members of the senate. there's 535 members. these are the ones that put this together. it's full of hundreds of earmarks, of pork, unnecessary spending, of projects in the defense portion fl bill, whic o, which i'lling talking about, which wasn't requested by the men and women of the military. artifact museums for guam, medical research, which has --

in the defense appropriations bill that has nothing to do with defense, and then we begin to wonder why the american people have such a low opinion of our performance here in our nation's capital. i saw a poll that it's as low as 9%. hopefully that's not representative -- most of them are, maybe, 10%, 11%, 12% approval. so this -- we were debating a bill last year that had $1.1 trillion and contained 6,488 earmarks, that totaled $8.3 billion. so now we have a bill that's $915 billion, and this year we have no traditional earmarks but

$3.5 billion in unauthorized spending in the department of defense portion of this bill alone -- alone in this bill, the defense appropriations part of it is $3.5 billion that has never had a hearing, never been considered by the armed services committee. if it was, it was rejected. so we've got $3.5 billion just in the defense part of the bill that nobody wanted or asked for, neither the military nor the services nor was there a heari hearing. it added $3.5 billion in the department of defense alone. you know, i think the men and women in the military deserve better than some of these earmarks that i will talk about. so here we are. we're in a rush. we've got to beat the clock. we haven't even moved to this

piece of legislation yet. we haven't even moved to it yet. moved to it, in case some of our constituents don't know, there will be a call made to everybody's office, please agree to a few hours time agreement so we can have a vote sometime tomorrow and we can all go home. and we will. and we will, and we will. you know, we will not -- there will not be a single amendment, not a single amendment, debated and voted on on this bill on this floor. you know -- and i'd like to say that we didn't see it coming. the fact is, we did see it coming. in keeping with the regular order and the legislating requirements of the senate, the armed services committee, which i am a proud member for many years, scheduled and conducted more than 70 hearings, vetted the president's budget request and reported a bill out and seven months later we moved to

the floor of the senate. meanwhile, the appropriators -- and we did authorize funding, and we did authorize hundreds of millions of dollars. and the appropriators, they decided that they knew better. we have a fundamental problem in the united states senate, and we are unable to engage in the process of authorizing prior to the regular appropriations, and what's the outcome? a handful of people -- a handful of people, all good, honest, decent people, i am sure -- an unelected staff disperse hundreds of billions of dollars, often in a manner that directly contradicts the will of the authorizers, those who are entrusted in their committee assignments to authorize what's necessary to defend this nation. so here we are -- here we are, the 11th hour, ram through a

measure so we can get out of town for the holidays, and i will talk about some of the provisions, most of which are in the defense appropriations portion of this. section 8083 of this bill permits the secretary of defense to transfer operations and maintenance funds. now, my friends, operations and maintenance funds are supposed to be to buy the gas, the spare parts, the things that keeps our military machinery moving. that's what operations and maintenance funds -- so, $33 million goes to guam, goes to guam. this funding is in direct contradiction of the explicit direction that was in the conference report, which prevented this because we knew that it was coming. so such the omnibus bill was --

if this bill was subject to amendment, i would immediately seek to strip the funding from this bill. let me be clear. this funding that i'm talking about for guam is a bridge to nowhere. the money in part to provide the government of the guam funds to buy 53 civilian school buses. they put money in the defense bill here,53 school buses, 53 repair kits for the buses for $10.7 million. $10.7 million to buy school buses and repair kits for guam. why? why would we want to do that? because we are -- because -- their reasoning is because we are redeploying marines from japan. but we have paused that redeployment in the authorization bill because we don't know exactly how to do it. so we are pausing the redeployment of marines.

meanwhile, the appropriators move forward and put $10.7 million to buy civilian school buses, not one single marine, sailor, or airmen has been assigned to guam as part of the intended buildup that would justify in any way using that money. what else are we buying with the $33 million? well, $12.7 million is intended to be used for a cultural artifacts repository. i am not making that up. $12.7 million of your tax dollars is buying a cultural artifacts repository in guam in the name of the redeployment of the united states marines from japan, which is not taking place. and they claim that it's related to artifacts that will be dug up during the major military construction projects that have been planned for guam as part of

the buildup. but we have put -- with the agreement of the pentagon, we have put it on hold. so i guess it's important when you are doing a military construction project to preserve the artifacts. but -- well ... so the money intended for this cultural artifacts repository is, at best, early, much less if it were ever needed. so here we are wit with an investment of at least $33 million on a bridge to nowhere that -- to hold artifacts that will never be dug out of the earth. the money in this defense appropriations bill for this cultural artifacts repository is actually going to be spent to