co-pays, no deductibles, osteoporosis screenings, for physicals forks preventive care that their doctors order. one million ohio seniors at no cost. and to tell a quick story, i was at a -- every thursday anybody from ohio can come to a coffee we have in our office, thursday mornings at 8:30 when the senate's in session, and a family came by. they were pretty conservative. i assume they probably were not necessarily voters for me. it didn't really matter. we're talking about a bunch of issues. and then the mother of said -- said to me, she said, thank you for the affordable care act. and i said, yeah. and she said, see my son over there? he's 15 years old. >> and i said, yeah. and she said -- he was across the room. when he was seven, she said, he was diagnosed with diabetes. and she said, i've counted sin since -- since he was diagnosed 34 times -- i counted, she repeated -- 34 times i was turned down for insurance, my family was turned down for insurance.

last week she told me, i got insurance because of the affordable care act because we don't allow under federal law now that that be done. let me share for a a moment, if i could, a handful of letters that i've gotten from people who have written me because of the affordable care act. and i'll just share these letters. rachel writes from cincinnati, you "since 2508, my husband and i insured ourselves through individual insurance. we had to go without insurance simply due to the incredibly high cost of insurance offered in our area. i'd also been denied insurance due to a preexisting condition. all that changed since we were able to sign up via the healthcare.gov side. imagine my surprise when i heard that a d.c. circuit court struck down the subsidies that people like myself receive. i receive a subsidy because health insurance has become so expensive that it's unaffordable

for some of us. i fear i will not be able to afford insurance if we lose our subsidy." linda from madison county just west of columbus writes, "my husband and i i have personally benefited from the portion of the bill that did away with lifetime maximum payments. i suspect at that may have saved our retirement and kept us off welfare rolls. i had a colleague at work that benefited from the portion of the bill that aallowed her son who suffers from a potentially fatal illness to stay on her insurance through age 26 at which time he graduated with a master's degree and got a job. "that's exactly what this was written for, a 23-24-year-old graduated from college, going on to get a master's degree, preparing himself, herself for something better in life. that young man could stay on his parents' health insurance plan until he got his master's degree, until he got a job at 27 with insurance.

chandra writes, "i recently commented to some friends about the surprising benefits i'm receiving under the affordable care act. one of my friends suggested that i share my story with my elected officials. because of the a.c.a., we're able to switch to my husband's insurance without worrying that i would not be covered due to my pregnancy being a preexisting condition. the a.c.a. had a real impact on my family because i was able to accept this new job." the question, mr. president, is why do some members of this congress, all of whom, i believe -- or almost all of whom are receiving government-sponsored health insurance benefits, a good government insurance plan, why do they want to deny it to people like chandra and people like rich l and others? -- like rachel and others? "i'm not the type of individual that urd a first think of when thinking of the beneficiaries of the a.c.a. i have a master's degree, my

husband and i work full-time. both of our employers have full a full range of benefits. a few years ago we began to grow our family. there were no co-pays for my prenatal care or potential well visits. when my son was born, i immediately saw the true impact of the affordable care act. babies have many well visits and the cost of co-pays has been a burden to some of my friends. we didn't have that financial burden thanks to the a.c.a. thanks to a combination of good insurance and the affordable care act, i was the recipient of a very nice double electric breast pump. i think became the first employee of to utilize the a.c.a. provisions for nursing mothers. i had the opportunity to take a better job." she goes on. the question again, mr. president, is why -- why do they want -- why do a punch of politicians who have good

insurance paid for by taxpayers, why do they want to take the benefit away from the 25-year-old young man -- young 25-year-old man who now has insurance on his parents' plan before he goes out and finishes school? why do they want to take away the insurance that a family now has so when their daughter has an ear ache they can actually go to a family doctor instead -- that will be paid for because of the insurance rather than d to n insurancemergency room? why the politics of repealing obamacare, of repealing the affordable care act and taking these benefits away from so many americans? 500,000 in ohio having insurance, 100,000 more young people, a million ohio seniors getting benefits with no co-pays and no deductibles. preventive care that helps them living longer, healthier lives. that, mr. president, is really the question.

i yield the floor. you. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: thank you, mr. president. i rise to commend the historic agreement reached yesterday between the united states and china, the world's largest emitters of carbon pollution. this is the latest and perhaps most consequential in a string of actions that president obama has taken to fight climate change. today we have hope, hope because this agreement puts the world on a path towards solving climate change, hope because the world's two largest emitters have found common cause in protecting public health and economic opportunity for their citizens and for the world. hope because we are once again reminded what american

leadership and political will can accomplish. president obama and the president of china have recognized that climate change threatens our families, our jobs, our health, and our way of life. they deserve our thanks, as does secretary kerry, for his tireless work and dedication to this cause. mr. president, we can solve this. we know what we need to do, and we know how to do it. today we see what political will can accomplish. i'm now more hopeful than ever that we can help warming below 2 degrees celsius by the end of the century. this is the level that scientists say is necessary to stay below in order to avoid catastrophic global consequences. together our two countries account for about 40% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. we have a responsibility to act early and to act together, and this agreement puts us on that path.

the agreement recognizes that the united states and china must take short and long-term measures to reduce emissions and encourage the development of clean energy. this represents a major shift for china, which had struggled to balance economic growth with growing pollution and has now agreed to cap carbon pollution for the first time ever. it's difficult to overstate what an achievement this is, especially a full year before the next round of international negotiations in paris. as secretary kerry said today, this is a major signal to other countries that they should also put forth ambitious emissions reductions goals well before international negotiations start in 2015. in addition, china has agreed to get a full 20% of its energy from zero-emission sources by 2030. this means that china will have to deploy close to 1,000

gigawatts of new zero-emissions power plants. that is the amount of electricity the entire united states currently generated and shows just how serious china is about addressing this problem. american leadership was crucial in forging these goals. it wouldn't have been possible without the president's clean power plan, which will reduce emissions from the power sector by 30% relative to 2005 levels by the year 2030. this agreement goes beyond even those ambitious targets and in the coming months a understand years it'll be important for this president and the next to maintain and strengthen the environmental protection agency's ability to protect americans from harmful pollution. despite near universal consensus among climate scientists that the clean power planning is part of the solution to fighting climate change, today that plan is under aattack in congress.

right after the president announced this historic agreement, climate deniers in congress started rolling out every tired argument in the book to stand in the way of public health and economic success. in fact, one of our colleagues here has already dubbed this plan unrealistic and called it an ideological war. these claims are the last bastion of a hopeless cause that ignores what we see all around us: farmers, fishermen, small-town mayors. theirs is an untenable position because poll after poll shows that americans do care about this issue. they impair it deeply. americans care because they know that fighting complng is really about protecting their children's health, protecting economic opportunity, and leaving our children a world better than our own. mr. president, we are seeing the deniers' arguments collapse around them. one of their favorite tropes was to claim that u.s. actions are

meaningless without action from china. well, it looks like that argument took a fairly big hit yesterday. in fact, the u.s. did act first by developing the clean power plan. the rules haven't even been finalized, but they're already giving us the leverage to reach major international agreements. as excuse after excuse faicialtion we'll see climate deniers retreat to tired claims that anything we do to reduce pollution will hurt the economy. but, remember that we have heard these claims before. they were wrong then and they're wrong now. the list is long, so i'll mention just a few, taking the lead out of gasoline, putting catalytic converters in cars, reducing acid rain. all were met with panicky claims of economic devastation. but what we've learned is that keeping our air and our water clean actually helps our economy. this agreement between the

united states and china is historic. it's a real breakthrough and it gives us hope that we'll be able to confront and resolve one of the greatest challenges of our time. but it's still just an agreement. we need to follow through with action. we must listen to the american people and amplify their voices as they call for action to preserve our health, our economy, and our way of life. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana is recognized. ms. landrieu: mr. president, thank you so much. i was on the floor earlier today and have been on the floor since we convened back into session, our first session since the elections, and i've been very

heartened by what i've heard from colleagues like the senator from hawaii, who just spoke, our colleague from montana who just spoke, our colleague from tennessee who spoke, the leadership, particularly leader reid, majority leader-to-be mitch mcconnell and the senator from texas senator cornyn, all came to the floor and said they heard the message of the american people that now is the time to stop the bickering, stop the fighting, stop the gridlock, and take action on things that the american people know are the right things for our country focused on building jobs and economic hope for the middle class. they see in our country and in louisiana we're doing very well economically, in large measure because of this extraordinary opportunity for an energy

renaissance that is under way as we speak; energy jobs, petr petrochemical jobs, manufacturing jobs. so our unemployment rate is.5%. our general unemployment rate is much lower than the national average and has been for many years. but people even in my state with these very positive numbers, middle-class families are seeing their incomes stagnate their way of life not progressing as -- their economic progress not moving as forward as it could. so while people are happy and doing well in some parts of the country, every leader came to the floor and said, we heard the american people; we want jobs, we want economic opportunity, we want the middle class put first, we want gridlock put last, and we want you all to roll up your sleeves and get the job done.

that was the message. so i came to the floor at 2:00, the first minute that we opened, to claim the floor to say, let's begin with trusting each other, moving forward, and passing the keystone pipeline. which is a bill that has enjoyed bipartisan support and has the 60 votes on this floor for passage. now there is strong objection from the 40 members who have been opposed. of course they have a right to be opposed. we have debated this for five years. but the process is let's vote and let the process move forward. so i am very encouraged that in the two hours and 15 minutes that i've been on the floor that the house of representatives has actually heard this call and has

decided to introduce, and the rules committee will be meeting tonight, and i understand they want to introduce the identical bill to the hoeven-landrieu bill which will give a clear path. it is a stand-alone keystone only with private property rights language that is very important to the republican base, but it's also very important to democratic members. for me personally and my state, but for many rural states on the democratic side, we cannot allow international companies to expropriate our properties here. it cannot happen. i'm a strong advocate for building pipelines everywhere but there are private property rights that have to be followed. so the language carefully drafted by senator hoeven and myself respects the private property rights of american

citizens. i understand the house is going to take that language and the straight-up, no attachments, no riders, no anything and except for the keystone language as it is written and is filed and is pending, and pass that out of the house. so we've already made some progress in getting the keystone project built, or moving forward. now i want to put into the record a couple of headlines of magazines and articles that i think helped to underline, or underscore what i'm trying to say. the "science" magazine editor and chief says "time to move forward on keystone pipeline." labi, which is 20 louisiana chambers of commerce, support

the keystone pipeline. this is the louisiana association of business and industry, a recent headline. "the washington post" on the keystone x.l. pipeline, "put policy ahead of politics." that's what we're doing today. "illinois review," this is one of the most important. "afl-cio says keystone x.l. is not just a pipeline, but a lifeline. the largest labor unions in our country have rolled up their sleeves. they are in this fight. they are telling us, democrats and republicans, but mostly to the democratic caucus because they are part of our base, vote for the pipeline. this is jobs for average middle-class working people that we need. and we deserve, they say, in states like yours, mr. president. ohio and illinois and

pennsylvania. in states like colorado and new mexico, new york. i could go on and on. in west virginia. now remember, my state -- not that we don't need good jobs, but our unemployment rate is very low. we have jobs and opportunities pouring in to louisiana and texas, the energy coast of america. we're proud of it, and we're proud not only to produce these jobs and this energy but we're helping to refuel a renaissance of manufacturing in the midwest. we're exceedingly proud of this. we are not just creating jobs for ourselves, we're creating jobs for the midwest, for the manufacturing renaissance of america. we are allowing for the expansion of the economy on the east coast and providing help for the west coast. it's what we do. it's what america's energy coast does. and no coast does it better than we do. and we're connecting to a partner, canada, which is better

for us in many ways than venezuela or even some of our friends in the mideast. and we don't -- not every friend is our friend in the mideast. we're getting oil from our best friend, our best trading partner, our best ally that have equal economic standards as we do and even some higher environmental standards than we do to create economic opportunity for our country. so i wanted to submit this for the record. there are no other senators to speak, so i'm going to yield the floor in a minute. we're still in time of morning business until votes at 5:30. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. landrieu: thank you.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from florida is recognized. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask consent that i be able to show a device in the course of my presentation about exploding air bags.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. nelson: mr. president, it's been quite a bit in the press about defective exploding air bags this is a part of a steering wheel with the air bag deployed. in the steering wheel, the driver would be like this with their hands on the steering wheel. and when the impact occurs and the air bag is deployed, instantly, if you've seen that kind of impact, and the air bag, because of the chemicals inside the steering wheel, causes an

explosion that comes out of already existing holes in the metal that contains the air bag, and it deploys the air bag like this so that the, in this case the driver -- in the case of the passenger the same, but it's not a steering wheel like this. and that protects and has saved countless, thousands and thousands of lives. well, the fact is that we now know there are four people in this country that are dead and there are 100 that are injured, and that's not including the international office, because of the defective air bag that has been manufactured by a japanese

manufacturer. and what its defect is that instead of the chemicals exploding to inflate the air bag, it explodes with such force for all of this that is contained within the steering wheel, before it explodes, there is metal. when the explosion, the chemical explosion occurs, it's supposed to go through the air holes and fill the bag. but instead, what has happened in the explosion, it's with such force that some of the metal becomes shrapnel and comes through the bag and in effect becomes lethal projectiles that

harm either the driver or the passenger. for example, on this exploded air bag, i want you to see the size of the hole that was ripped in this bag here. here's another one. a hole that was ripped. there are holes in other parts of the bag. now, obviously this isn't supposed to occur. and, as a matter of fact, i visited with a constituent from central florida. this is a fire fighter with a young wife and a young child, and a piece of shrapnel in this particular constituent's case came into his eye, and he has lost that eye forever. and therefore his occupation as a firefighter, he will not be

able to fulfill the financial support for his family as a firefighter. four people in this country confirmed are dead. 100 are injured. so we have a federal agency that is supposed to be protecting us. it's called the national highway traffic safety administration. and they have recently because of the attention brought to this matter, they have come out and have said they want these recalls, but the recalls first started out at about 4.7 million. it's been doubled to 7.8 million. it is increasing all the time, and it's -- it's expected that it will be in the range of 11 million in this country and

16 million recalls worldwide. normally, if you could get the recalls done once it occurs, once the defect is known, then the public is protected, but it seems like similarly to some dragging of the feet of automobile manufacturers and their parts manufacturers in the past that is what is occurring here. and what we are also seeing is a federal agency that in this senator's opinion has not been right up front, forward leaning and aggressive to protect the public. and thus, i have requested of the secretary of the department of transportation to get into this and to do several things.

first of all, to make sure that all these recalls are happening, with but secondly if you are a person who knows of the recall because the automobile manufacturer has sent you a letter, are you going to be wanting to drive around if they tell you that they can't fix it immediately, are you going to be wanting to drive around in an automobile that could suddenly explode and cover you with metal shrapnel, severely injuring or killing you? of course not. so where is the automobile manufacturer with regard to giving a loner until that air bag can be replaced with a safe one or where are they with regard to providing are rental

car? for the automobile company to say we will disable the air bag, until we can get the proper replacement, that's not a solution because often the seat belt and the air bag are designed to work in conjunction with each other to protect the safety of the driver and the passenger. so driving around in a disabled air bag is not a solution. the solution is prompt replacement of the defective, lethal air bags or until they can be replaced to give the customer another automobile that is safe.

now, along the way, someone came up with the brilliant idea in the federal agency that they were going to issue just regional recalls. under the assumption that high humidity in fact is one of the causes. which they don't know that, but that's one of the suspicious causes. but what does a regional recall do for the protection of the public? aren't we a mobile society? and if you say that you have high humidity in my state of florida and texas and other southern states, well, aren't we a mobile society in which people in other parts of the country that own automobiles come to our states? of course we are.

and oh, by the way, how about some of the states in the north that have high humidity in the summer if, in fact, that is a cause? so to say that the solution to the problem is a regional recall is totally ridiculous. and the federal regulatory agency should not be issuing these kinds of edicts if we are serious about protecting the public. i have recommended in a letter that has been signed by several of our colleagues to the secretary of transportation, secretary fox that he start imposing the maximum fine allowed by law per day against the automobile manufacturers for

any days that are missed in replacing the defective air bags so that the people will not have to drive around in cars with this defect. mr. president, while we were home over this recess over the election, i had an air bag explode and demonstrate its force. it is severe and it is quick as it has to be in order to protect the passenger in an automobile accident. but if that air bag is defectively constructed so that the explosive force becomes like a hand grenade exploding and sending pieces of metal into the human body, that the very device

is supposed to protect, then it's time for action. mr. president, i hope that the folks that are manufacturing and installing these defective air bags indeed are hearing these words of warning. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. coburn: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: i wanted to spend a few minutes just talking about a bill that passed the house that has 37 bipartisan cosponsors in the senate that came out of my

committee, and it's an important transparency item for the american taxpayer. it's called the taxpayer's right to know. and what most americans don't realize is that there is only one agency that knows how many programs it has. only one. the rest of them -- none of the rest of the federal agencies know how many programs they are running. they can't put them down, can't list them on a piece of paper. and the g.a.o. has recommended for a long period of time starting about three or four years ago that we should be putting this down when we got the truth in transparency and the truth in accountability act and the transparency act through president obama, we started this process where the g.a.o. would look for duplication and report it to congress. so we have a bill that's passed unanimously in the house.

it's a bipartisan bill that came out with a voice vote out of our committee, and all it says is every agency ought to have to list all their programs every year. so we can know what they're doing. and g.a.o. says that will help immensely in terms of eliminating this $200 billion to $300 billion a year in duplication. and we're going to have some -- some requests later today for unanimous consent requests, and we have a bill that's on the floor that the majority leader has once again filled the tree, which allows no amendments whatsoever on the bill. this bill should be down here, should be standing on its own, should be passed because nobody can honestly object for us not -- the agencies not knowing what programs they run, not having a complete list.

i mean, it's counterintuitive that anybody would vote against that. it makes no sense that we don't know that. we know we need to have that. it's an easy vote for everybody, and the majority leader isn't going to allow an amendment to that. so we're not in a new day yet with this president majority leader. this is something that helps every american, democrat or republican. it helps us run our government more efficiently, more effectively. it's a good government amendment. and yet, it's not going to be allowed. so i'm just -- i'm disheartened that here at the end of the year we could actually do some things together that would actually allow us to accomplish real things for the american people that will make a real difference in the long run, but we won't because we don't want to have what was guaranteed to the

minority when the senate was set up as the right to offer amendments. with that, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. a senator: mr. president, i ask for be recognized for up to five minutes. minutes. i would ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: and i ask unanimous consent to address the senate for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: mr. president, one of the great honors of being a member of the united states senate is the participation in the confirmation process the constitution dictates to us on federal judges and other critical appointees like cabinet members of the president. i have today a distinct honor and privilege to recommend to all my colleagues in the senate a georgia lawyer who's been nominated by the president of the united states for the approval -- with the approval of senator chambliss and myself to the northern district of georgia court. her name is le leighmay.

she's an unbelievably accomplished individual. she graduated from the georgia institute of technology, one of the top three engineering schools in the united states of america, with honors in 1993. and then in 1998, she graduated from the university of georgia law school with a juris doctorate degree and a manage giewmanagecum laude of other cl. from 1998-2000 she served as law clerk for judge dudley bowen in thatlanta, georgia. she's a partner in one of the leading law firms in our state. her practice focuses on complex civil litigation in both the state and the federal government. and she's currently the vice chair of the litigation section of the atlanta bar association. her a.b.a. rating is unanimously very qualified. she is a very talented, very deserving person. i thank the president for his nomination. i thank kathy rumler, who is his leading at the time for her cooperation in this nomination. and i close my recommendation to my colleagues by telling you this.

please vote for the confirmati confirmation -- vote for the cloture motion today to vote on confirmation tomorrow. if for no other good reason, let me tell you what happened to me this may. i was asked to address the university of georgia's graduation ceremony in athens, georgia, in may. as i -- after the speech i made, i went back to the dressing room, in the green room, and the dean of the law school came up to me and said, i just want you to know, mr. isakson, you nominated one of the smartest people to ever graduate from the law school in the university of georgia when you nominated leigh may. i can't think of a higher recommendation or better recommendation and i commend leigh may to my colleagues in the senate with my highest recommendations in hopes you will vote for cloture today and vote for confirmation tomorrow to confirm leigm may to the northern district of georgia. and i yield back my time. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. reid: i ask that it be dispensed with. the presiding officer: i ask that we road to calendar number 856. the presiding officer: question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor please say aye.

all those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. and morning business is closed. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: lesley joyce abrams to be united states district judge for the middle district of georgia. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion at the desk and ask that it be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of lesley joyce abrams of georgia to be united states district judge for the middle district of georgia signed by 17 senators as follows: mr. reid: i dishact the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to

proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor please say aye. all those opposed, please say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 857. the presiding officer: question is on the motion to proceed. all knows in favor please say aye. all those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have have t the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nominate nation. the clerk: mark howard cohen of georgia to be united states district judge for the northern district of georgia. mr. reid: i send a cloture to the desk. in fact, it is already there. i ask that it be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in

accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of mark howard cohen of georgia to be united states district judge for the northern district of georgia, sooned by 17 senators as -- mr. reid: i ask that the reading of the names be waived. officer without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection.. mr. reid: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all thois in favor please say aye. those opposed please say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 858. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed please say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to.

the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. eleanor louise ross of georgia to be united states district judge for the northern district of georgia. mr. reid: there is a cloture motion i ask to be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of eleanor louise ross of georgia to be united states district judge for the northern district of georgia signed by 17 senators. mr. reid: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye.

all those opposed please say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i withdraw my motion to proceed to s. 2609. the presiding officer: the motion is withdrawn. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 499. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to proceed to s. 2655, a bill for the authority of the federal government, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion at the desk i ask to be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: we the we, the undersigned senators in corns the provisions of the standing rules of the senate move to bring debate to a close calendar number 499, s. 2685, a bill to reform the authorities of the federal government, and so forth and for other purposes, signed by 18 senators as -- mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived.

the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: mr. president, there are three -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: thank you very much. there are three unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session. they have the approval of senator mcconnell and me. i ask consent the requests be agreed to and the requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: what is the order now -- the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume executive session. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture cloture on the moss nomination. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: i'd like to ask unanimous consent that following the leader remarks on tuesday, november 18, the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 371, which is s. 2280, a

bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline, that there be up to six hours of debate equally divided between opponents and proponents, that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time and the senate proceed to vote on passage of s. 2280. that no amendments, motions be points of order be in order to the bill prior to the vote on passage. that the vote on passage be subject to a 60 affirmative vote threshold. and let me include something. i'm sorry. i ask unanimous consent that as if in legislative session, that following the leader remarks, if you could please include that. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: reserving the right to object, mr. president, it's been since 2012 since we've

been trying to get this keystone pipeline approved and on the president's desk. our leader on our side has been the senator from north dakota, senator hoeven, but we've all supported this effort because we believe the state department estimate that roughly 2,000 jobs would be created once approved. and the oil, if it doesn't come to the united states and isn't turned into fuel here, it will be shipped to china. unfortunately, the majority has blocked this pipeline several times, but it has been stalled way too long. so i'm glad to see some progress is being made, albeit at this late date, after a dramatic election on november 4. i would ask the senator to modify her request so that if the senate passes s. 2280 and

has received from the house a bill that is identical to s. 2280, then the house bill will be read three times and passed with no intervening action or debate and, thus, we can send this bill directly to the president without further action. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: will the senator so modify her request? ms. landrieu: reserving the right to object, let me thank the senator from texas for engaging today. i appreciate it. and most importantly, i appreciate his comments earlier on the floor about rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. he was one of the first speakers this morning when our senate convened, and i was here when he spoke. and i just want to thank him for his very insightful and courageous words that said that we should roll up our sleeves and get to work. he knows very well that i and about 12 to 15 members on our

side have been working very, very hard with him and his leadership and all the members of the republican side to move the keystone bill forward. i think the senator also knows that the bill that senator hoeven and i drafted respects this process, wanted to see the process complete and acknowledges that the process is now complete and it's time to move. so because the house heard these words today and have decided to introduce the identical language in the hoeven-landrieu bill, and it looks like to me, which is very good news, senator -- i think you will agree -- that they are prepared to pass it, i really can see no reason to object to what you're asking for. and i consider it extraordinary progress, and i'm very happy that i came to the floor at 2:00 to get this ball rolling. and i was here in time to hear the senator's remarks about

let's get to work. so let's get it done. we can get it done in the lame duck. i will accept the senator's counter. the presiding officer: the request has been modified. is there objection to the modified request? mr. cornyn: mr. president, a point of clarification. it is my opinion understanding the senator from louisiana is not objecting to my amended request and has not posed another modification. so i believe the question is, is there an objection to my modified request? i hear no objection from -- ms. landrieu: let me clarify -- the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: let me clarify because i want the record to reflect this. the senator from louisiana has absolutely no objection to the house of representatives taking the exact language of my bill with senator hoeven and passing it. why would i object? i mean, i've been working on this for four years. why would i object to that?

the record should reflect it. the senator from louisiana has no objection whatsoever, and i'm encouraged that the house is taking the exact language of a bill that i carefully drafted with senator hoeven. he is the lead. i am not. it's his bill. he is the lead. i'm just the chair of the energy committee. and i really want to thank senator tester and others that helped to craft a bill that the house would accept. and so i have no objection to that. the presiding officer: is there objection to the modified request? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators in in accordance with provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of randolph d. moss of maryland to be united states district judge for the district of columbia, signed by 17

senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of randolph d. moss of maryland to the united states district court for the district of columbia shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: