vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 96, the nays are 1. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted if the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent i be permitted to speak as if in morning business for up to 10 minutes, following my remarks that senator warren be served for two -- researched for two minutes and senator landrieu recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, in this week of verdict i'd like -- veterans' i'd like to speak about a brave marine who is frap a friend of mine and a championship of america's veterans. congressman lane evans of illinois passed away last wednesday. he was only 63 years old. lane had been battling parkinson's disease for nearly 20 years. a few years ago another illness began attacking his memory. one cruel disease ravaged his body as the's assaulted his brain but his spirit and quiet courage remained unbroken to the end. lane evans and i were both elected to the house of representatives in 198 .

two surprised democrats elected in traditionally republican downstate congressional districts. we were sons of blue collar families. we both learned our values from our parents and neighborhoods and the nuns and priests at school. we learned from politicians his who were leaders in our state like senator paul simon. lane and i worked together in congress. he retired in 2007 long before his time. we remained friends. i used to visit him and when i did are, we'd share our stories about political adventures. lane evans was funny with a razor-sharp intellect and he was courageous. he joined the marines two weeks officer graduating from high school. it was 1969, lane was 17 years old. military service was a transition in the evans family. his dad had served in the navy. one of lane's brothers was

serving in vietnam so lane was stationed stateside and then in okinawa. after two nears years in the marines he used the g.i. bill to graduate and then he earned a law degree from georgetown. he came home and started a successful law practice in rock island. in 1982 lane evans decided to make a run for congress. he may have been the only person in the beginning who thought he had a prayer of winning. he'd never run for office before. he was all of 31 years of age. and he looked like he was 21 on a good day. history was against him. voters in that district had only elected a democratic congressman once in the previous century. and that had been only for two years. alane evans worked hard, got lucky when the incumbent congressman lost to a hard-right challenger. on election night in 19le 2, lane -- 1982 he and i were

elected for the first time. it was my third try to get elected, his lane's first. he never lost after that. he served 24 years in the house. his voting record was often to the left of many of his constituents. but he was unapologetic. voters reelected lane over and over because they knew he was honest, forthright anden cared about them. he was straightforward and sincere. he was a man of principle who would vote his conscience no matter what. when it came to constituent service, he set the standard. they were so good at cutting through red tape that the chairman of the national republican congressional committee joked that -- quote -- "two-thirds of the people in lane evans even district think he signs their social security checks." his speeches were always packed and not because he was a great speaker. people came to his speeches because of what happened after. he never left a speech until everyone in the audience who wanted to speak to him this had their chance.

lane's dad was a firefighter, his mom a nurse. and in the blue collar neighborhood where he true up their incomes made the evans family better off than most of their neighbors. as a young lawyer and member of congress lane evans foughtor for people like the parents of his childhood friends who worked shifts, he was a champion of blah collar works and senior citizens. lane fought for fair trade, a fair minimum wage and the right to collectively bargain. he worked for a cleaner environment and protection of family farmers. he fought to give students from working-class families to get a good college education. he was a giant on the house armed services committee and understood the rock island arse familiar natural was more than an arsenal for the nation's defense, it was an important employer in his district. most of all, most of all, lane evans fought for veterans. this week of veterans day is a time to remember how much lane evans minutes to america's veterans and their families. he made veterans' concerns the

cornerstone of his career. he was the first chairman of the vietnam era veterans caucus and to serve as the ranking member of the veterans' affairs committee. he was the ranking member of the house armed services committee. during his time in congress there was no federal program for veterans that didn't bear lane evans' mark. veterans today enjoy increased education benefits, improved health care, strengthened home loans, judicial review of benefits, additional the countries for veteran-owned businesses and a host of other benefits because of the leadership, determination and heart of lane evans. from his earliest days in congress, lane evans pushed for action on issues helping vietnam veterans. he was an outspoken advocate to address the embarrassment of the homelessness and substance abuse among vietnam virus. in his first term he led the effort to establish a pilot program to establish community based centers 40 to help with

counseling in posttraumatic stress syndrome. it's since grown to include centers all across america. he led the fight to get compensation to veterans exposed to agent orange and their kids born with spina bifida. it was not just his war that concerned him. he was one of the first to push for more information about the gulf war syndrome. he supported increased opportunities for women in the military an early supporter for full civil rights for gays in the military. the c.e.o. of iraq veterans of america said about lane in materially days of the iraq and afghanistan wars lane was one of the first members of congress to take on issues like p.t.s.d. and t.b.i., traumatic brain injury. lane evans worked to include parkinson's research as part of funding for the v.a. to make sure veterans suffering from this disease received the best possible care. he worked with senator leahy, then senator hagel and the

vietnam veterans of america to push for a u.s. and international ban on the production of antipersonnel land mines. he was awarnedded the vietnam veterans of america 30s annual president's award for outstanding achievement in 1990. in 1994 the amvets gave him the civil helmet awar, the oscar of veterans honors. this is how he explained his commitment to veterans. our veterans, those returning from. those who scaled the cliffs of normandy,about those who survived the brutally of korea and other battlefields who are now serving have earned the assurance the veterans administration, their system, will be there when they need it just as we practice on the battlefield to leave no one behind, we should not slam the door on any veteran who needs the v.a. system. now, the best way to honor his memory is by more than just a speech on the floor of the senate, it's to continue his work on behalf of america's

veterans, continue to work to make the v.a. responsive to the massive number of disability claims that have been filed since iraq and afghanistan. and make sure that every veteran receives respect, health care, job training and the opportunities that they've earned. there's another way we can honor this champion of veterans and that's by naming the year old v.a. medical center in galesburg, illinois, the lane a. evans community based outpatient clinic. this center is in the heart of what was congressman lane evans' congressional district for so many years. and nearly 4,000 veterans a year seek services there. i'm honored that it's a bipartisan effort to name this center after congressman evans led in the house by congresswoman cheri bustos. lane loved the marines because they salute their lowest members. i hope my colleagues will join me in honoring one of the marines' finest members by supporting this proposal to name the outpatient clinic in

galesburg, illinois in his honor. lane evans was laid to refs at the rock island arsenal on the date the 289th anniversary of the marine corps. i remember so many years ago 18 years ago, when lane and i were at a labor day parade. i didn't think much of it, just another par he parade and another campaign. he noticed something was wrong that day. he realized his left hand was numb and had no feeling. he continued to work even after he had been diagnosed with early parkinson's. it mate it difficult for him to stand without pain or to even smile easily. he never, ever complained. when his legs locked unwhen he was in terrible pain eat tell his friends i'm so lucky, he couldn't carry mail, but i can still do my job as a congressman. as we say in illinois, thank heavens for lane evans and thank the good lord he devoted his

life in congress to the people he loved in his district and the veterans of america. i offer my condolences to lane's family, especially his three months brothers, to his brothers and sisters in arms and to all of us who loved him and were touched by him. his gentle wife. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president, i rise today to honor a departed friend and a committed public servant, tom menino. he was a devoted husband to angela, loving father to susan and tom jr., and adoring grandfather to six grandchildren. for 20 years tom served as mayor of bostonaged led the resurgence of our city. he believed in economic growth and building communities, fighting for hospitals, scientific research, and innovation while simultaneously strengthening our neighborhoods, expanding our parks, and knitting diversity into a community of equals.

mayor menino knew that our fortunes depended on our work together as one people, one community, as one boston. he did everything he could to create that united boston. reports are that mayor menino had personally met more thank half the residents of boston. in our happy moments, red sox championships and in our darkest moments, we knew we could always count on tom to be there. mayor minino lived u's boston ip to it's. on behalf much a grateful people, i urge my colleagues to come together to pass a resolution noaa introduced yesterday by myself and senator markey celebrating the life of mayor tom menino. thank you, and i yield.

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: mr. president, i thank my colleagues for allowing a ten-minute discussion today by unanimous consent on an important issue that the congress is taking up today over on the house side, debate on the keystone pipeline is starting. and i understand that there could potentially be a vote as early as tomorrow. i am so pleased to have been one of the spark plugs that helped to get us moving, not in the next congress but in this lame duck session of this congress. the american people spoke loudly and clearly, not only in my

state of louisiana but around the country, wanting us to work together to get the job done. i was very pleased that the republican leadership brought to the floor the early childhood education bill that senator lamar alexander has been leading. i think that's a very, very important bill. i frankly don't think it's more important than the keystone pipeline, however. so i was pleased yesterday to come to the floor and offer, as chair of the energy committee, my own priority list of what i think is most important, and i say that with sincerity because i actually support both very strongly. i have several amendments to senator lamar alexander's bill that have not been adopted, and i understand, unfortunately, will not be allowed for debate. so i don't know if i'm going to be able to vote for cloture on his bill, although i have strongly supported it. my record is as strong as anyone's in this chamber, so i'm going to be interested to see if

the lamar alexander bill will allow amendments on the floor. irm i'm hoping they will. and if i can get at least a vote on the amendments that i have pending to that bill, i will absolutely, whether my amendments pass or fail, vote for it because it is the will of the body, and we must do something on early -- not something. we must invest more money, we must have more quality programs for early childhood education. it is an absolutely cornerstone of strengthening and building the middle class. and in my state, that's what we're focused on. and i can't go anywhere without people telling me, senator, thank you for your fight for education. senator, thank you for your fight for early childhood education. and, senator, thank you for fighting to take student loans down from 11% -- the rate on student loans -- to 3%. and in most of -- almost every

day of this last election cycle, that's what i was talking about at home, and i know the members that were in elections or either not in elections heard clearly from the american people this time that we've been home working how important what we do here can matter, can make a difference in their lives. they don't want government intrusion, but they do want government to function so that they can get good college education, they can get good job training, they can start businesses that can grow profits for themselves and their communities. so i look forward to that debate. and i am very happy that the republican leadership rushed to the floor to put down a bill on early childhood education, because i think they heard from the american people that just talking about tax cuts for the wealthy and tax cuts for people making over $1 million a year and tax policy -- yes, it's important, but what's really important is fighting for the

middle class. so i am -- i want to just say congratulations to senator lamar alexander from tennessee. that's the first bill that the republicans have put down in this lame dorks an lame duck, ak forward to working with them. but the first bill that weigh put down, and i put down as chair of the energy committee -- unusually for democrats because we don't have our whole caucus supporting it, but we have a good strong part of our caucus supporting it -- is a bill that's going to actually create immediate, immediate high-impact jobs for this country today. soon, as it's billed -- sns thi- --as soon as this bill passed. there will be an immediate, dramatic push from the oil and gas industry and from the energy

industry broadly, alternative energies, wind, solar, coal, clean coaltecnologies because the vote on keystone and the president's signature of keystone is a signal, a strong signal -- it is a green light that america is ready to go, that we are following the science, that we are following our process, that we are respecting private property rights and, yes, we are respecting states in their views of where these pipelines should be cited. no state -- not nebraska, not west virginia, and not louisiana -- wants to be told by the federal government where pipelines are coming through on private property. no state. so nebraska does have an issue that has to be resolve. they have an issue that has to be resolved about where that pipeline should be laid, and the

republican party should most certainly respect states' rights. and where that pipeline should be laid. but the bill that senator hoeven and i have acknowledges that process. it also acknowledges private property rights, and it says that it's time to build the keystone pipeline. now, this was not an last week election, you know, wake-up call. i have been working on passing the keystone pipeline before i was the chairman, all during my chairmanship, prior to -- you he no, years ago and then as a senior member of the committee and now as chair. i have not stopped and came very, very close to getting a vote on this floor before the election. and, frankly -- and the reporters should know this -- it was really held up by the politics of both sides.

that is the absolutely truth. the politics of both sides. and i see senator manchin here, who is a strong supporter, and he might talk a little bit about that. both sides have some blame as to why we couldn't geat to a vote. but i'll let the record speak for itself. this is the pipeline. this is what has to be built. as you can see, it doesn't even come into louisiana, but it most certainly impacts my state. but it impacts the entire country. these are already the pipelines that we have in america. this is just another important pipeline because it connects canada, our greatest ally and our great economic partner, with the refining strength of america, which is not only in louisiana and texas but primarily in louisiana and texas, and begins to move a great product produced with the highest environmental standards in the world, approved by this

administration's environmental department saying it meets the environmental standards of transportation, et cetera, and it meets the standard of this administration's state department when it comes to is it america's interest? they said, yes, it is in america's interest. that standard has been met. so let's build the pipeline. came to the floor yesterday. the republicans brought their early childhood education bill to the floor. i'm so proud they did that. i brought keystone pipeline. and because i did, it seemed to have moved lots of things, which i'm happy about and i think the senator from west virginia might want to comment a little on that. but it seemed to have shaken up a few nings an things and movedw things because senators that are focused and can build coalitions can actually get things done. so i think we're going to end up

getting a vote on the keystone pipeline, and i'd like to yield for a question. mr. manchin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: let me just say this to all of our colleagues here and all my friends on the republican side and my friends on the democratic side: this is the greatest opportunity we have had in the four years i've been here to have truly a jobs bill, at that quality jobs bill that pays high wages. almost every state in the nation benefits by this keystone pipeline. if we want to take the politics out of this, take all of our names off this. senator landrieu says take her name off. take my name off. take ive's name off. let's find out what really rise to help all men's. this is one bill we have been traig to bring to the forefront. senator landrieu has brought hometowns -- she is a the first time that four years ago explained to me how important this was and how it interconnected all of us. i am appreciative of that. so we're -- march i have in a

fight for her life here and i pray to the good people of louisiana understand the fightert thafighterthat she is. with that you will being said, she is willing to take her name off if this piece of legislation will move forward so that you in montana, me in west virginia can get some high-quality jobs. we're all benefiting from this. it makes our nation secure. if you want to protect our people, have a secure nation, and don't go chasing energy all over the world, it takes us places we don't want to be and shouldn't be, this does all of this to secure our energy as far as making us energy independent. i just saw after the election -- i accept that. i'm on the democrat side. i heard loud and clear the people of west virginia, the changes they want. what they really told us is we want you all to do something. if you got a chance to help us with a good job, do it. don't argue over our politics. it seems like you're more scerned about your own status of

being a politician or being elected official than you are about mine, which is basically paying my bills, taking care of my family and being able to be a good american. that's -- so what we're saying, we thought we heard that loud and cleemplet i will say to all my friends on the republican signed all of us on the democrat side, take a moment and listen to what we just told us. it was told to us, do our job. that's what senator landrieu is trying to do, move this important piece of legislation forward and do the job we're supposed to. the best politics is good government. if you do something good, as a republican and as a democrat, we all get credit for it. we do something bad, then we try to blame each other who did it worse than the other, we all get blamed for it. this is the best thing that we've had for the last four, five years. we've had a hard time getting to this point to almost get a vote for it and now they wnts to say, well, one upmanship. we'll see if it can come over

from on the house side from a person in a race with senator landrieu. forget about all of those people. just pass it. give us a vote an pass it. that's all we're asking for. i think we do that the people will say, i think they heard us. i think they heard the result tz that have election tuesday and they're starting to do something. that's what we're here and that's why i'm on the the floor with senator landrieu and the people willing to fight for the jobs that americans need, not just in lewis and west virginia, too, and also montana. thank you, mr. president. ms. landrieu: thank you. mr. president, how much time do i have remaining? the presiding officer: the senator has already consumed ten minutes. ms. landrieu: can i ask unanimous consent for one minute to close? the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you. i think the senator pointed out some key points, not only how important this palestine is for the middle of america but for --

this pipeline is for the middle of america but for the economy. whole kufnlt the pipeline and the supplies that are coming and the workers to build this pipeline come from all over the country. and the businesses that supply the gadgets, the widgets, the steel, the trucks, foreclose lifts, the equipment, cranes come from all over this country. but more important than the pipeline itself which is going to move hundreds of thousands of crude oil from canada, which we would much prefer to deal with and trade with than let's say venezuela or other countries that don't share our values; more importantly than that it's going to transport it in the safest way. without this pipeline this oil will be produced. we cannot stop canada from producing it. they are going to produce it, and it is going to be moved east and west by mail or by truck or

moved south by truck. we cannot put any more trucks on hour highways or crowd our rail. i see senator markey who is going to speak against the pipeline and why from his perspective it is not the right thing to do. i respect those views. i strongly disagree with him but i respect him. i strongly disagree with his arguments and we will have those debates in the coming days. but the point is this, whether you support the senator from massachusetts or you support the senator from louisiana's views, the point is we need to vote. that is the process. i believe we have the 60 votes on this floor to pass this bill. i believe we've always had the votes to pass this bill. if we can just get it to a vote. now the president will then, as is the process, the senate has to pass a bill, it has to go to the house, and then it has to go

to the president. he can sign it or he can veto it. i do not have at this date any indication that he will veto this bill. he can issue a veto warning on in an hour. he can do it tomorrow. he can do it next week. that's not the point. the point is the senate must begin to be the senate again. let the president worry about being the president. let the house worry about being the house. let the senate be the senate. i ask for 30 more seconds. the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. landrieu: let the senate be the senate. that's what my voters said. i think that's what voters in tennessee said. that i think's what voters in north carolina said. and i think that's what voters in massachusetts said. let the senate be the senate. we are the greatest deliberative body in the world. let's debate. let's vote. let's get the work done. let the chips fall where they

may. the public can accept that. they cannot accept, and they should not have to accept gridlock, game playing and raw politics on the great floor of this united states senate. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: i rise seeking recognition to speak for three minutes. the presiding officer: the senator may proceed. mr. markey: i begin by just saying how much i respect the gentlelady from louisiana, and there is no more fierce advocate for this pipeline exists in this country than her. she has been a relentless advocate for that pipeline. i'm not going to speak on this issue today, but i look forward to this much more extensive debate we're going to have next week but there is no one more formidable than the senator from louisiana and her advocacy.

i rise today to speak about tom menino, our great mayor from the city of boston who just passed in the last month. and he always looked out for the little guy. he always stayed true to the people who elected him, and he stuck by his principles. and in every neighborhood across the city, boston mourns the loss of our great mayor, tom menino. we mourn along with his wife angela, his family and everyone who ever was touched by mayor menino. but we will fill that void, fill it with the love and respect we have for the life and legacy of this great mayor, of this extraordinary man. boston loves tom menino because tom menino blofned with all his heart. he wasn't satisfied with boston being the best city in america. ested the best city in the world. he forged a more inclusive

boston where diversity is embraced. tom menino was everyone's mayor. in a poll a few years back, half of all bostonians -- and the poll said they personally met tom menino. that captures how tom menino approached his job but we all know how he viewed those poll results. that was a job only half done. yet mayor menino's vision for boston was global and he pushed statistic into a new era of innovation. he helped our shining city on a hill illuminate its light of illumination across the world build ago beacon of entrepreneurship and ingenuity. he laid the foundation for boston's economic leadership in the 21st century including spear heading the boston innovation district and developing the seaport area. the innovation district is supporting the companies and industries that are creating jobs today. and mayor menino that is ensured that boston will continue to be a national leader in

biotechnology, clean energy and health care for decades to come. he did all of this while keeping boston's historic character alive. tom menino knew what potholes needed filling, but he also need when to leave the cobblestones alone. and so today if you take a drive around boston, or as tom would want you to do, take a bike ride, you'd see that there is no place in boston that hasn't felt the caring imprint of tom's hands. kids playing on new playgrounds in safer neighborhoods. poor communities with better access to lifesaving health care. entrepreneurs and investors collaborating on the next big thing. boston will move into a stronger future, a brighter, a safer, a healthier future because of tom menino. and so today we hoorn his life -- we honor his life, his legacy, tom menino as a man, a legacy for the ages. rest in peace tom menino. i yield the floor.

mr. graham: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you, mr. president. i will be making a unanimous consent request to bring up the corker-graham-mccain-ayotte- ru bio legislation. senator murphy, i think is going to speak here in a second. but if i may, two things. i'd like to reserve 20 minutes of time to be divided between myself, senator corker and senator rubio to speak about the topic. but i would now like to make a unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: i ask unanimous consent that at the time to be determined by the two leaders but no later than november 24, 2014, the committee on foreign relations be discharged from further consideration of s. 2650 and that senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third time and the senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill with no

intervening action or debate. further, if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. must havemr. murphy: mr. presid, reserving the right to object, just to make a few brief comments prior to my colleagues speaking on their request on the underlying bill, it is my understanding that the request is to bring a bill to the floor that would create an extra constitutional process by which the house and senate would convene on a possible statement or resolution of disapproval, an agreement that has heretofore not been negotiated between the united states and our allies and iran with respect to that country's nuclear program, nuclear ambitions. i think we are all of one mind in that we are hopeful that these negotiations are concluded successfully, that we are able to stand together and say that

we have used diplomacy rather than military might in order to dislodge from iran any prospect of obtaining a nuclear weapon. but we are at an absolutely critical moment in these negotiations, and i believe that the underlying bill which is being asked to be brought to the floor today would undermine those negotiations by sending a message that congress does not stand with the president as he and his team negotiate a final agreement. there is going to be a legitimate question as to what congress's role is but we won't know that until we see the agreement. we won't know whether it rises to the level of a treaty. we won't know whether we need to pass legislation to immediately repeal sanctions versus having them temporarily suspended. this bill has not gone through the committee process, and while it raises, i think, some legitimate questions of what congress's role is going to be if there is ultimately an

agreement worked out between the p-5 plus one and iran, it is premature at this point to set into process, to set into law a process by which we would vote and agree up or down until we understand what the agreement is in the first place. that is my primary reason for standing here and ultimately registering an objection. i do worry as well that it would send a fairly chilling message to our negotiators and to those who are in the room if the signal is that the united states congress is not giving the full authority to this president under the constitution in order to negotiate an agreement which is ultimately going to be, we hope, to the benefit of u.s. and global security. so i know my colleagues have time constraints and want to speak on this underlying bill. with that, i would object to the unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. graham: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate my colleague very much for speaking in a way that

we can all have some time on the issue. number one, about chilling messages, this is a pretty chilling message from the supreme leader of iran about three days ago. nine questions about the elimination of israel. in this tweet -- and i'll read some of it later -- the ayatollah, the supreme leader in iran, talks about how to an anniihilate the state of israel. also an ie iowa inspector talked about elements of the iranian nuclear program that have been hidden but that make it larger than we all suspect. what are we trying to do? i would like to bring the iranian nuclear program to an end through peaceful means. by end, i mean the following: i would welcome a deal that would allow the iranians to produce

peaceful nuclear power but without the capability of turning that program into a weapons program. i fear that we're on the trood a north korean -- on the road to a north korean outcome where the international community gave a rogue regime a small nuclear program to be monitored by the united nations and the rest is history regarding north korea. i've asked several times the administration, tell me the safeguards that exist in these negotiations with iran that did not exist in north korea, and i've yet to get an answer. it's pretty openly known that the administration and the p5 plus one considered a right to enrich uranium as part of any deal with iran. to that i say of all the nations on earth given their behavior, name one country that you would put in a category ahead of iron when it comes -- of iran when it comes to denying them the ability to have a centrifuge that one day could be used to make a weapon. the idea of giving an enrichment capability to the iranians given

30 years of lying, deceit, american blood on their hands and recent tweets about annihilating israel to me is insane. so all we're asking is that any deal negotiated between the p-5 plus one come to this body for a discussion and a vote, and senator corker is the primary author of this legislation, and here's what i could tell the world. nobody wants any more war, but we do not want to allow the iranians, given their behavior, a capability one day to develop a nuclear weapon. and that's exactly what they have been trying to do. they've lied about their program. they have been deceptive about their program. they have blood on their hands when it comes to killing americans in iraq. they are the chiefs -- one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the world. the idea that we would give them an enrichment capability just astounds me. we're telling our allies, south korea and the u.a.e., if you want a nuclear program fine,

don't enrich uranium. there are 15 programs in the world that have nuclear programs without an enrichment capability. to concede one to the iranians is the ultimate act of throwing the mideast into further chaos. because the sunni arabs, the shia persians will want a capability of their own of like kind or greater. the worst possible outcome is to give a regime this dangerous the capability or the potential to one day to make a bomb. one centrifuge in the hands of people with this mentality is one too many. and to my iranian, to the iranian people, my beef is not with you. my beef is with your leaders who have taken the world down a dark path. this legislation is pretty simple. bring the deal to the senate. we'll have a right to file a motion of disapproval. we'll have a vote. we'll have a debate. and if it's a good deal, it will be approved.

if it's a bad deal, we will stop it. i can't imagine the senate and the house sitting on the sidelines and ignoring something this important. to senator corker, who will soon be the chairman of the foreign relations committee, this was your original idea. we have tried to perfect it, but i really believe that what you tried to do months ago to make sure that the congress would have a check and balance over any deal with the iranians was smart. it would enhance the administration's hand when it comes to negotiating because they would have to tell the iranians it's not just us you have to please. you have to go before the representatives of the american people. that would lead to a better outcome. and if it truly is a north korea in the making, we'll have a chance to stop it. president obama wants to deal too badly, in my view, but at the end of the day, let's wait and see what happens. i just want to let the iranians and the administration know beforehand we will not sit on the sidelines and watch you go

it alone. this is one decision the president will make that the congress has to be read in on and have a say about. this is not the time to let president obama go it alone. the stakes are too high for israel, for the united states, for the world at large. and what do i fear the most? i fear that over time we will give the iranian ayatollahs the capability to develop a nuclear weapon and name one technology that they have developed that they haven't shared with terrorists, and it will surely come our way. to our friends in israel, no israeli mother can ever go to sleep at night thinking her children with safe and the future of that country is secure if the iranians have a nuclear capability. when the ayatollahs say openly they wish to destroy the state of israel, annihilate the state of israel, i believe they mean it. when the jewish people say never again, they speak based on path

experience. of all the scenarios in the world that could throw this world into a chaotic situation beyond what you see today, it would be to allow the ayatollahs in iran a nuclear weapon. the sunni arabs would want one of their own. israel will never know a minute of peace. and i fear that it would come our way. so i would like to now yield to senator corker who could explain the details of the legislation, why we are asking this to be taken up before the end of negotiations. a week from monday, the deadline comes to an end. i want everybody at the negotiating table to know that this deal is so important for the united states and the world that the congress needs to have a say. barack obama should not be able to make any deal with the iranians that's binding unless the congress approves and the iranians should never be allowed to have a nuclear capability,

period, that could be turned into a weapon. with that, i would yield to senator corker. mr. corker: well, thank you. i want to thank the senator from south carolina for his distinguished leadership on so many national security issues. i understand his frustration with our inability to -- to actually take a vote on something that is such a commonsense measure. i also respect the committee process, as you can imagine, with the role that i play and wish that our committee would actually take up this piece of legislation. i actually tried to offer something very similar to this in committee, and i actually did offer it, and the bill that it was being offered to was taken down. so again, i understand and no vote taken because again of not wanting to deal with this issue, so i thank the gentleman from south carolina for desiring to make something happen on this, and as he mentioned, all of us want to ensure -- all of us want a negotiation that is successful.

i can't imagine this person -- a person in this body that doesn't want the negotiations between the p-5-plus-1 to end up with a good conclusion, a good long-term conclusion, but i agree just based on the signals that are being sent, there are just a lot of concerns, bipartisan concerns, concerns that have been expressed on this floor by people of both sides of the aisle because people understand that this body, along with working with the house, put in place the sanctions that have actually gotten us to the place that we are in the negotiations. and just the initial agreement that was put in place was so much weaker than even the u.n. security resolutions that passed over and over and over relative to iran. so i agree that by having us making the final say on this negotiation, it gives the administration some added strength that they were unable to show in the beginning. obviously, iran is trying to

tilt towards those within their own body, their own citizens that certainly are concerned about negotiations and continue to bring that out throughout the negotiations. it seems to me that wonk would be an outstanding countervailing force, and obviously something of this magnitude, especially when congress brought us to the table, this is the kind of thing that should be weighed upon. what the bill would do is obviously give us the opportunity within a defined amount of time to -- to vote up or down on whether we agree that this should be put in place or not. it also puts in place some enforcement mechanisms, and then it also puts a clock on the negotiations. so again, we can't have these continual extensions. i recently read the newest book that henry kissinger wrote. it was a great -- great book to read, but it put in place -- one of the chapters focused on these iran negotiations and lays out the fact, and i know the

distinguished presiding officer today knows this well because he focuses so much on nuclear issues, and like me is very concerned about proliferation around the world. i have enjoyed working with him on both -- on the foreign relations committee. but it's interesting, one of the chapters lays out the progression that's occurred, and iran just by stalling each time these negotiations take place ends up in a better place, and again i think all of us were very sthokd with the interim agreement that was put in place first. so i think this is a very commonsense piece of legislation. let me just point out something that my friend from south carolina did not point out. without this, this is what's going to possibly happen. i hope it isn't, but could possibly happen. the administration can enter into a deal the way we have crafted the sanctions, no

permanent -- no permanent arrangement can be made to undo the sanctions. only congress could do that. but the way the sanctions regime has been put in place, the president in many cases does have the ability on a temporary basis to do away with the sanctions. it is evident that the administration very much wants something to happen. i want to see something happen. but the way this has gone, it appears that they want something to happen that possibly will not stand the test of time, so let's say they enter into an arrangement by november 24. they undo the sanctions temporarily. if that happens, basically the work that's been done around here for years is over, it's done because it would be impossible from a practical standpoint to ever get those sanctions back in place, especially sanctions with the

many other countries that are involved. so if the president enters into an agreement and temporarily does away with sanctions, i think everybody in this body understands it's going to be almost impossible for those to be put back in place. and so the damage is already done, and that's why it's so important from my perspective with congress having played the role that congress has played to help put us in this position, very important for congress to have the opportunity to have a congressional review that this bill lays out. so look, i think it's pretty evident with the denying, if you will, of this bill coming to the floor, which was expected. i think it's very evident that congress is not going to have the opportunity between now and the 24th to weigh in. it's my hope that somehow if these negotiations end up putting us in a very, very bad

place. i hope that doesn't happen. i hope the outcome is much better than what is anticipated. but if it ends up being, unfortunately, something that's not good for our country, i hope what will happen is the next time we ask to bring this bill up, because of the time -- time being of the essence, the next time it would be brought up, hopefully members of this body would agree that congress should weigh in florida rightful manner, congress should weigh in to make sure that we don't enter into a deal as a nation that puts us in a very bad place over the longer term relative to what iran is doing. so i thank the presiding officer for allowing me to speak. i do not see senator rubio here in the body. i yield the floor. it's my sense he may come down and want to speak to this, but i do want to say again in closing, all of us here hope the administration puts our nation and the world in a place to know that iran will not have the

capability of developing nuclear weapons. that's what this piece of legislation is about. without it, i hope the administration still does that, obviously, and that we make up on november 25 surprised but happily surprised that we have ended up in a place that will stand the test of time. i yield the floor. it's been a while, but i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: if we're in a quorum call, can i ask to speak up to five minutes, to vitiate the quorum call and speak for up

to five minutes? the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: mr. president, as you know and many members, i have come to the floor now on several occasions since we arrived back here at 2:00 yesterday to talk about an important piece of legislation that i have sponsored with senator hoeven, and i understand that senator hoeven is going to be speaking about the keystone pipeline in a few moments. so i will only take five minutes and will stay here as the discussion on keystone goes forward. but yesterday at 2:00 i came down to the floor of the senate when the senate opened to say how important i thought it was that we listen and hear what the voters said, not only in my state but in kentucky, in texas, in south dakota, in north dakota, all over the

country, regardless of whether people were democrats, republicans, left or right or center, they want us to get our job done. and i think one of the most important jobs that we have here as senators is to vote, and i have been frustrated along with many members on both sides of the aisle about why we have not been able to vote on some very important pieces of legislation. and one of the most important pieces of legislation and that's why i came down at 2:00 to claim time at my seat, i've been here for 18 years, this is louisiana's seat, to say one of the things that we've got to talk about right now, not next year, not next week, but right now is the keystone pipeline. and i know, mr. president, you and there are other members of this body, mostly on the democratic side, that are not strong supporters and have expressed that view. i understand it, i respect it,

but i don't agree with it. and so it's time for us to have a vote. and so because of i think the advocacy yesterday when senator -- from west virginia came down, the senator from north dakota, senator heitkamp, who has been a very strong and effective advocate -- and i want to give a shoutout to both my colleagues from west virginia and from north dakota. they have been tireless in their efforts trying to build a 60-vote margin. you know, in the old days we could pass bills with just 51 votes, and that was -- some people, you know, really want to go back to that and i have mixed feelings about it because -- but it would be great if we could pass things by just a simple majority. but the rules of the senate, which we operate under, which we have not requested to change, which i don't believe will change any time in the fear

future -- near future, require us to have 60 votes. so we've worked and worked and worked to try to get 60 votes and i've said since may if we could just get this vote to the floor, i believe we have the 60 votes to pass it. so it looks like that's going to happen, and i could not be happier. i could not be more grateful to the house of representatives for taking up not their bill, not their bill, but senator hoeven's bill and my bill. they're debating it right now, and i believe will pass it. now, i don't know how many democrats will vote for that bill but i think there will be some. i don't know how many. but i believe that there are 60 votes in this united states senate to pass the keystone bill and send it to the president's desk. now, what president obama does with it, i don't know. i am urging him to sign it. 75% of the people in our country

want this keystone pipeline built. there are jobs at stake, it is a signal america is ready to be energy independent. and when i say energy independent to the -- my good friend and president, presiding officer from massachusetts, i, of course, mean more oil and gas, i'm from an oil and gas state, we have coal sedates states but we have states that have solar and wind and drop-in fuels and new technologies. and so -- but this pipeline is a symbol that america is ready to do what it takes to become energy independent. and to use the resources to create jobs for the middle class. i see the leader and i appreciate that signal. so i will just conclude but be part of this colloquy today, if allowed, to continue to talk about the importance of this, happy the house has taken up the

hoeven-landrieu bill, the exact language of the bill, you can call it whatever you want, put any name that they want on the bill as long as it gets passed because that's what we need to do for the american people and i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, for six long years, six years, the obama administration's been dragging its feet on the keystone pipeline. and for as long as anyone can remember, one senator has worked harder than any other to ensure that those feet are always held to the fire. and that's our friend, the senior senator from north dakota. senator hoeven has been a tireless advocate for the shovel-ready jobs project. female the people of north dakota are lucky to have him in their corner. like the experts, senator hoeven knows that keystone would create literally thousands of

jobs, like the experts senator hoeven knows that keystone would have almost zero net effect on our climate, and like the people we represent, he understands that keystone is just common sense. he's done just about everything possible to make the administration come to grips -- come to grips with that obvious point. senator hoeven along with leaders in the house like congressman cassidy succeeded in assembling and leading an impressive keystone coalition that literally crossed party lines. that's why the opponents of keystone have been so afraid to let the senate take a free and open vote on it because they feared senator hoeven and congressman cassidy were right, that there's overwhelming bipartisan support for ending the president's blockade of these very, very good jobs. now, after so many years of obstruction, we finally get the vote. after six years we finally get

the vote. we can credit the people's choice of a new senate majority for finally getting these gears turning. but we never would have gotten to this point without the tireless leadership of senator hoeven in the senate and congressman cassidy over in the house. so i want to thank senator hoeven for all of his great work on this. we hope we can celebrate a well-deserved victory for the american people and i understand that we have colleagues on the floor here as well. i thought we did, anyway. i thought we had senator hoeven here. i'd be happy to yield to any of my colleagues for any thoughts or questions they might have. ms. landrieu: i'd like to have a question if i could, the majority leader. majority leader?

minority leader. the chair? mr. hoeven: mr. president? ms. landrieu: i ask to be recognized. the presiding officer: the republican leader --. mr. mcconnell: i believe i have the floor and i believe senator hoeven is going to ask a question. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota is recognized. h.o.v. i'd like to thank the majority leader but ask thoim repeat his question. i was engaged in conversation when you directed the question to me. mr. mcconnell: i was talking about your leadership on this over the last six years and the difficulty of getting action here in the senate, and it almost seems to me as if it took the election by the american people to choose a new majority for next year to get the attention of the current majority to go forward on the issue that senator hoeven that be talking to us about one

virtual daily basis here for six years. mr. hoeven: mr. president, i'd like to respond the minority leader. that's been the case, that we've worked for sometime to get a vote on the issue. we had actually passed the measure back in 2012 attached to pay troll tax holiday. at that time, the president turned down the keystone x.l. pipeline project on the basis of the root in nebraska. that work has been done and rerouted and some time ago we put together a bipartisan bill. it is a bill that i drafted and wrote. senator landrieu from louisiana agreed to cosponsor it. we have all 45 republicans on the bill, and we have 11 democrats. we have 56 cosponsors on the legislation, but we've not been able to bray the bill to the floor -- bring the bill to the floor. so i really had anticipated that we would have to wait until the new congress in order to get a

vote on the bill because, as you said, the american voters spoke and particularly with the new members that we have coming, we'll have more than 60 senators that support the legislation. so i'd anticipated that we would have to go into the new congress to get a vote on the bill. however, the cosponsor on the bill, senator landrieu, yesterday requested that we call the bill up, and she worked on her side, we worked on our side to get unanimous consent to get a vote on the bill. so we're certainly happy to vote on this important issue for the american people. we'll have a vote in the house on the very same bill. they now have taken up the very same bill, and i believe it will pass easily tomorrow in the house. and then on tuesday we'll have a vote on our bill here, senate bill 2280.

we hope that we'll have 15 democrats. if we do, we'll pass the bill and send it to the president for signature. now, if we don't get to the 60 votes, i believe that we'll still be able to bring the bill back in the new congress and have the 60 votes. so i believe we'll now be able to advance this bill to the president. the question is, what does the president do? the indication was from one of his spokes perntion traveling with him is he may well veto the legislation. if that happens, i still think, again, based on fact that the american people overwhelmingly support this legislation, that we will be able to come back, work with our colleagues on a bipartisan basis and perhaps make this legislation part of a broader energy bill or attach it to an appropriations measure. but i think we'll be able to

find other legislation that we can attach this bill to that makes it very likely that we can either override a veto or maybe the president wouldn't vietnam - wouldn't veto it. because at the end of the day, what this is all about is. mr. moran: energy produced -- mr. hoeven: because at the end of the day, what this is all about is more energy for this country, produced here. 42,000 jobs, okay. so it is about energy. it is about jobs. it is about the infrastructure we need to build the right kind of of energy planning for our country, whether you come from north dakota or kentucky or texas or louisiana or wherever. we've got to have infrastructure as part of our energy plan. and it is about national security. americans do not want to have to depend on getting oil from the middle east. they want to produce it here at

home. and thi they want to work with r closest ally, canada. and we want the jobs and the economic activity that comes with it. so that's where we are. that's the game plan to get this legislation passed. and that's what this is all about. this is about moving forward on approving the keystone x.l. pipeline, something that the american people, when asked, the polling shows anywhere from 65% up to about 75%, they overwhelmingly support it. and so that's what this issue is all about, and now is our chance to show that we can move forward and act in a bipartisan way and get this done for the people of this great nation, and we're hopeful that we can get it in the lam lame duck. that's great. and if we can't, then we'll go right back to work on it in the new congress. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, if i could, is it strikes me that there was some intervening

event here between the difficulty of getting a vote the last few years and the apparent ease of getting a vote now. and it strikes me -- i would be interested in the observations of my colleague from north dakota -- it strikes me this intervening event was the election, and it could be that the voices of the american people have already altered the agenda in the senate, even before the senate officially changes hands in january. and maybe the voices of the american people have finally been heard on this important issue that the senator from north dakota has been talking about week after week after week for a very long time. so i can say to the senator from north dakota, when there is a new majority here, if we come up short between now and the entd of the year, we'll be back and

back and back looking for ways to make sure the voices of the american people are heard. and all of these new jobs are created. so i hope, as the senator from north dakota has indicated, that we'll come to a favorable conclusion sooner. but i assure the senator from north dakota that we'll come to a favorable conclusion later, if not sooner. i see the senator from texas -- mr. cornyn: would the senator yield for a question? mr. mcconnell: i will, yeah. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i agree with the republican leader -- thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i agree with the republican leader that our leader on this issue for years now in the senate has been the senator from north dakota, and north dakota is a big energy-producing state -- second, i must point out, to my state of texas, but they're

making some rapid developments in that area. and a lot of texans have gone temporarily to north dakota to help them with the technology, and they are doing a great job. and, believe me, it is creating a lot of jobs. and these aren't minimum-wage jobs. these are high-paying jobs. there's labor shortages. and what we need to do is train more people to qualify for these good, high-paying jobs. but i just wonder whether the republican leader or really i'd be interested in anybody's point of view, what's -- beyond the election, i think there's going to have to be some changes of heart on the other side of the aisle, because, as the distinguished senator from north dakota pointed ow, we've gotte n close but never achieved that 60-vote goal.

there are going to have to be some folks on the other side of the aisle that are going to have to have a change of heart and vote for the bill, which i hope they do. but this has been the main embedment -- the main impedestrianment, no -- the main impediment, no opportunity for a vote. i think we have two impediments: one is the need for additional democratic votes to actually meet that threshold. and then as the senator from north dakota pointed out, we don't know whether the president has been chastened or has learned anything from the election or he's going to be influenced at all in his decision. i know the senator in north dakota has been a bulldog on this issue. he's not going to let this one get away from him, nor should he, for all the reasons mentioned earlier.

the 42,000 jobs and a lot of this oil, if it doesn't come in this pipeline across from canada to the united states, most of it's going to be real estate fined in south -- refined in southeast texas and turned into gasoline and jet fuel, which is going to help bring down prices because you'll see a glut of additional supply. but if we don't use it in the united states, this is going to be shipped to china or other places that are rapidly buying natural resources. so i'd be interested if the republican leader has a view, how do we get over those final hurdles of getting democratic votes next tuesday to get to the 40e6-vote threshold and how do we get the president to sign this for a president who is a at least so far refused to reasoning to the american people? mr. mcconnell: you and i were both in an election this year, and there's in question that

this jobless recovery is the biggest issue in the country. and here we've had a project which has cleared all of the environmental hurdles, been sitting around for literally six years, and i don't know what the latest estimate of job creation is. i would ask my friend from north dakota, what's the latest estimate? or how many new people would be put to work constructing this pipeline, ready to go to work? mr. hoeven: mr. president, there's been a whole range of numbers offered. but i think to really cut through to a number that people should be able to accept and agree on is to take the number that the state department has put forward in the environmental impact state. i think there's been either four or five environmental impact statements done on this project over a six-year period going all the way back to -- starting in september of 2008 when trans-canada initially applied

for approval of the keystone x.l. pipeline, which is the sister palestine to the keystone -- sister pipeline to the keystone pipeline. i actually started working with this project when i was governor ans have continued when i came to the senate. you go trans-canada originally applied for the permit back in september of 2008. so six years this has been going on and in the environmental -- in the final environment all impact statement, which stated the project will have no significant environmental impact, stated that very clearly, they also said it will create about 42,000 jobs. and these are good-paying jobs. these are construction jobs, and other titchetypes of jobs that e good-paying jobs. so here's a project, when you include the canadian piece and so forth, abou, not going to coe

government one penny, will create by the state department's own admission, will create 42,000 jobs, will generate hundreds of millions in tax revenue to help the state and help with our deficit and debt, and it's to move oil not only from canada but from my state of north dakota and montana to refiningries in texas and louisiana and other places that need the crude and right now that crude is coming from places likes venge have en or the middle east. so it's a job creator. it is awful these other benefits, and i -- and again -- it is all these other benefits, and i -- and again, it is an excellent example of the kind of infrastructure we need to build the energy plan this country needs. and i would ask, mr. president -- mr. president, i would ask the minority leader if i have answered his questio adequately? mr. mcconnell: what the administration is best at is

either destroying jobs or preventing new jobs from being created. in my state, as a direct result of the environmental protection agency, we've lost 7,000 coal mining jobs during the obama years. for every coal mining job, you lose three more jobs. we have a literally depression in eastern kentucky, largely caused by the obama environmental protection agency. so you begin to get the picture. whether it is preventing 42,000 people from going to work or taking the employment away from up to 21,000 kentuckians, what this administration seems to be best at is either destroying existing jobs or preventing new jobs from being created. i'm happy there is an energy boom in texas and an energy boom in north dakota. i'm pretty darn unhappy we don't have an energy boom in kentucky. we have a de-prerks again as a

result of this administration and its environmental protection agency. mr. mcconnell: would the senator yield for aanother question? mr. mcconnell: yeah, i would be happy to yield. mr. cornyn: i ask the senator from kentucky, i think you've described how the administration appears to not just have a war on coal but a war on hydrocarbons, a war on anything other than wind turbines and solar panels. the president said he's for all of the above. we're a big "all of the above" state. we've got a lot of sunshine and wind. we produced more from wind energy than any other state in the country. but it's hard to understand this ideological battle against coal and oil and gas from anywhere other than just an ideological perspective. and i think the senator has pointed out well, both the senator from north dakota and

the senator from kentucky, that theers -- these are good, high-paying jobs. one of the biggest problems we've had in the country for the last 30 years has been stagnant wages. the middle-class wage earners are not seeing their wages go up. one of the sure-fire ways to make them go up is to develop more domestic energy, whether it's coal or whether it's oil or gas because these are good, high-paying jobs, i can tell you not just in north dakota where i'm sure it is hard for restaurants to find people to work there because there's so much demand in the oil and gas business. in the perman basin, in the midland odessa area where i know the senator from kentucky visited many times, there is a shortage of labor and wages skyrocketed because as a result of the demand of taking advantage of this natural resource. i would just ask obviously the

members of this senate who have been vitally interested in the issue under the development of our friend from north dakota, has been acknowledgement, i think it's only fair to acknowledge congressman bill caskey. the bill that the house will pass tomorrow and send over here is chiefly the work product of congressman bill cassidy. mr. mcconnell: it certainly is. we commend him for his good work and that bill will be headed over this way. i'd also, mr. president, make the observation with regard to the president's approach to energy, the announcement in china yesterday which, as i read it, gives the chinese 16 years to do anything to reduce their carbon emissions while we're going full speed ahead here

destroying american jobs or trying to prevent the creation of new jobs in north dakota. my goodness, as i said earlier, it seems to me what this administration is best at is either destroying existing jobs or preventing new jobs from being created because of this obsession, as the senator from texas pointed out, with hydrocarbons of any kind. i see the senator from south dakota here as well, and i wonder if he may have a question. mr. thune: yeah. i would say to my colleague from kentucky -- and i appreciate the leadership of our colleague from north dakota in constantly, persistently trying to get this in the senate here for a vote. my state of south dakota, like so many others, stands to benefit enormously from this. of course we're a neighbor. in north dakota, we wish we had the direct energy production that the senator from north dakota has. but we have a lot of indirect benefit from that. in fact, the state department, the president's own state department -- not the oil

companies, the state department. has said my state of south dakota would create 300,000 jobs and $100 million to the economy and generate $20 million in property tax revenue. and i happen to come from a county through which the pipeline would pass, a small rural county in south dakota. my father still lives there. he's 94 years old. and the school district there is very concerned about staying open. and they know that when this pipeline is built, the easement that they will have to get will generate property tax revenue that very well could keep that school district going. so many of the local governments out there in my area of the state are incredibly supportive of this important project. i guess as i have looked at this and, you know, we now have had plenty of time to look at it since it's been kicking around for six years and have had environmental impact statements which have come back and said they will have minimal impact on the environment, if you're

serious about job creation, and we've all had discussions about the jobs this would create, economic activity it would create. i have to say one thing about my state. we have a rail crisis. we've been battling for a long time with the limited capacity in rail and so much of the oil moving out of the balkan is going out on rail. that makes it harder for us to get our agricultural commodities to the workplace. what is happening is we're consistently stressed. the one thing the pipeline would do is it would allow for about 100,000 barrels a dave what do you call it -- a day of what do you call it sweet light crude to be put on the pipeline and therefore not on the railcar. and that saves about a unit train a day, which is significant given the kind of harvest we're dealing with in south and north dakota. i guess i would say to my colleague from kentucky, and i appreciate the arguments he's

made not just with respect to this specific issue but also what the administration's policies are doing to energy production in this country and the cost of energy and what that means for middle-income families, what that means for businesses, what that means for jobs, it is like an all-out assault and keystone pipeline is one of many policies where this administration is in a position to do something good for the economy, something good for jobs, something good for energy development in this country and lessening that dangerous dependence we have on foreign sources of energy. so i would say to my friend from kentucky and would ask him in terms of, i know there are probably, you don't have the direct and indirect benefit that we have up in the north dakota and south dakota but i know he's got an awful lot of energy development in his state, what these policies are doing to jobs in a state like kentucky. i know you hear every day from your constituents about this administration's assault on these industries that are so basic and so important to our economy, so important to jobs,

and providing a better, stronger, if you will, future for middle-income families in this country. i'm curious to know the senator from kentucky shares the same concern about jobs and the economy and cost of energy and everything else that i do in, we do in the northern part of the country. mr. mcconnell: i thank my friend from south dakota. i think the energy revolution is wonderful and we ought to embrace it. as i was saying earlier, what's happened in my state as a result of the war on coal, 90% of our electricity in kentucky comes from coal-fired generation. we've been among the top five of the lowest utility rates in the country in any given year for as long as anyone can remember. so the war on coal is not only a war on coal miners, it's a war on all of kentucky because our utility rates are beginning to go up, which is going to make energy less affordable for people on fixed incomes in my state, make us less able to compete for other industries.

so i repeat, i'm thrilled at what's going on in north dakota and what's going on in texas, but we'd like to have some of that job growth ourselves. and calling off this environmental protection agency, which is, seems to be just hellbent to take coal out of the equation, is a heavy, heavy price to pay for this ideological crusade which the president seeks to lead on a worldwide basis and says to the chinese, you don't have to do anything for 16 years while we take away our own jobs and opportunity. mr. cornyn: i wonder if the senator would yield for one last question? i see the senator from alaska here, and i hope she'll join us in this discussion. mr. mcconnell: i will. mr. cornyn: to follow up on a really important point that hadn't been explored about made

by the senator from south dakota, he's talked about the implications of more american energy self-sufficiency and what that might mean in terms of geopolitics. we know, for example, that putin, vladimir putin uses energy as a weapon in the ukraine and europe basically to try to intimidate people and keep them from resisting his invasion of independent republics like ukraine. but i think it's really -- it's really significant because for so long we've been dependent on imported energy from the middle east, which, as we know, have been a real challenge because of the instability there, the old conflicts and sectarian strife. but i'd be interested if the senator from kentucky or perhaps other senators have some observation about what this means in terms of the safety and the security of the united states as we become increasingly

north american energy self-sufficient. and we haven't even talked about mexico, and they are just now beginning to open up their domestic energy production to the kinds of things we're already seeing in north dakota and texas and alaska and elsewhere. and it really promises not only jobs, but the great opportunity for us to become a safer, more stable source of this necessary energy supply. mr. mcconnell: mr. president -- madam president? sorry. obviously what's happening here is america is on the way to being energy independent. and natural gas and oil. we have the ranking member of the energy committee here on the floor as well, and i wondered if she had a question. ms. murkowski: madam president, and to our leader here on the floor and to colleagues who have come together to talk about this important issue for us as a

nation from an energy perspective -- and we mentioned the jobs and the benefits that flow to our nation's economy -- when we talk about the issue of energy independence, there was a time when people would scoff at the notion that as a nation, we would ever have a level of independence. i guess i look at it and say energy independence to me is a place where we are no longer vulnerable for our energy sources from those who would wish you go ill. -- who would wish us ill. what has happened to this nation in the past half dozen years has really been transformational. we talk about the shale revolution. we talk about our renaissance. but what this really means to us is that we are truly approaching that point where we are more energy secure and from a national security perspective,

the vulnerability that we once had is greatly lessened because of our own ability to produce our own resources for our people. but it's not just within the continental united states. it's alaska, as we point out, but it is north america. we're talking about north american energy independence and what that entails and what that means. when we think about where we have come and the fact that next year we will be producing more oil than saudi arabia, who would have thought that the united states would be in this perspective? who would have thought that we would have a conversation about energy abundance rather than energy scarcity? and it hasn't happened because this oil has just suddenly migrated to north america. it's always been there. but it's been our technology.

it's been our ingenuity that allows us to access it. but think what we can do when we partner with our friends and neighbors, whether it's canada to the north or mexico to the south. and so when we talk about energy independence and energy security, the keystone x.l. pipeline is kind of that, that corridor that helps connect us as two nations. and the benefits that derive to both of us are quite considerable. we're talking about jobs for america, and we should be. but i think we also need to recognize that when we're talking about the keystone x.l. pipeline, it's about a trade relationship with our closest neighbor, and truly our closest ally. and the benefits that come to both of us because of this relationship.

there's a phrase that is used. we say that the united states and canada are joined at the well. literally joined at the well. this is something that the congressional research service actually says, that there are currently 19 cross-border oil pipelines that are already operating, already operating between the united states and canada or mexico. and this is in addition to all of the dozens of natural gas, electric preservation lines. these are oil pipelines crotion the border with -- crossing the border with canada into michigan, into new york, into washington, into vermont. you would think that this keystone x.l. was like the first pipeline to ever cross the border from the north to the south. it is some new precedent setting. there are 19 cross-border pipelines. back in 2009, this

administration, this obama administration came to a decision about the alberta clipper project. this was yet another pipeline from canada to the united states. they were able -- there were arguments for and against, but ultimately clipper was approved just as keystone x.l. should be approved. so when we're talking about plowing new ground here, i think it's important for people to recognize there's no new ground that we're plowing here. this is just a reticence and a reluctance from an administration to do what i think people across the country believe is the right and the reasonable thing not only from a jobs perspective, from an economic perspective, but from an energy security perspective as well as a relationship with our closest friend and ally. i know that my colleague from kentucky had an opportunity to -- to serve with our former

colleague here, senator ted kennedy, and i'm not -- i'm not going to ask you, my friend, whether or not you recall the quote, but i think it is important to kind of put in context. we have not as a nation always been opposed to importing this crude from canada. as i mentioned, 19 cross-border agreements in place today. but back in 1970, the nixon administration announced that they were going to place a quota on canadian oil exports. this was when things in the -- things around the country were getting really dicey. it was ted kennedy, it was senator ted kennedy that led the fight against this, and he said said -- and this is a quote from a senate hearing back in march of 1970. senator kennedy said -- "the reason why canadian oil has never been restricted in the

past is obvious. canadian oil is as militarily and politically secure as our own, and thus there can be no national security justification for limiting its importation." so not only is this an issue that has been going on for a long time, both sides of the aisle recognize that there is -- there is an imperative, an imperative when you come together with your allies for a resource that we recognize is a benefit to all, creates jobs for all. so i ask my colleague from kentucky because you have -- you have not only served in this body for considerable years but you have been through these debates over the decades, and the question is why, why is this

keystone x.l. pipeline being held out to be such a ground-breaking initiative that this president would put a hold on it for five years? mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i would say to my friend from alaska, i'm perplexed by that, that, -- by that. as she has pointed out, having a cross-border pipeline is not exactly something new. as our champion here, senator hoeven, has pointed out repeatedly, it's cleared every environmental test. we can't figure out why this is happening other than some misplaced, ideological crusade that the president wants to lead, not approved by congress. we all remember what it was like here in 2009 and 2010. our friends on the other side had 60 votes, they could do whatever they wanted to, and they could not pass cap-and-trade when they owned the place. they passed obamacare, they

passed the stimulus, they passed dodd-frank. they couldn't pass cap-and-trade. the president obviously feels so strongly about this, he is willing to give the chinese a 16-year pass, willing to ignore congress and go full speed ahead. i think part of that ideological rigidity is reflected in the challenge that our friend from north dakota has had here for a number of years in getting a decision made which by any objective standard ought to be a no-brainer. my goodness. this is about as close to a no-brainer as you'll ever run into. and so i came out here for the specific purpose of praising the great work of the senator from north carolina. without him, we wouldn't be where we are today on this issue. and i wonder if he has any further question or observation to make? mr. hoeven: mr. president, i'd like to thank the -- madam president, i'd like to thank the minority leader.

i'd like to thank all the members of our caucus for joining on this bipartisan legislation. you know, we're continuing to work across the aisle to get 60 votes. you know, at the end of the day you have to go back to what this is all about. this is about building an all of the above energy plan for this nation. and you can't build an all of the above energy plan for the nation if you don't have the infrastructure to move that energy around the country. and we're seeing what's happening. because we have been blocked on building these pipelines, now we're not able to move our grain to market, because there are so many rail cars now trying to move crude oil. 700,000 barrels a day out of our state alone. and it's growing. keystone ahone will replace 1,400 rail cars a day that are

now carrying oil. that's ten unit trains. so you see this is about so many aspects of our economy and strengthening our economy and creating good-paying jobs that people want. and that's why the american people, that's who we work for, that's who we represent, that's who we heard loud and clear in the election. the american people want us to work together, they want us to get jobs going, get this economy going, build the right kind of energy future, get our budget deficit under control, and that means we have to do the fundamentals, and when we talk about building infrastructure, we're talking about the fundamentals, and that's what's going on here. this has been six years. we need to get this economy going, and that starts with common sense. this is common sense. this is common sense because it's about energy, it's about jobs, it's about growing the economy, it's about national

security, it's about not having to get oil from the middle east and it's about doing what the american people overwhelmingly time and again have told us they want us to do. and so again i want to thank the minority leader and i will turn to him and just again say, you know, i believe that we can find a way either in this lame duck or in the next congress, and i would ask him in the next congress -- and i believe it to be true -- as majority leader, you will make this a priority as part of an energy plan for this country. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, let me wrap it up by thanking again the senator from north dakota for his extraordinary leadership on this issue and assure the american people that we will be back. hopefully it will be approved and signed by the president sooner. if not, he will have another opportunity later. with that, madam president, i yield the floor.

ms. landrieu: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i have most certainly enjoyed this colloquy and have been down on the floor most of the day, including through its entirety. i am extremely disappointed i couldn't get any member of the other side to recognize me for questions. and i see the minority leader leaving the floor now, will he knows that i have many questions for him that he just does not want to answer, but, you know, that's his prerogative. you know, i thought we came here to work together. i'm standing here, have worked with senator hoeven on this bill, and before senator hoeven leaves the floor or senator barrasso or senator murkowski, if they would stay, i would just like to thank senator hoeven for his extraordinary leadership on this bill, and although the other side doesn't acknowledge any of the leaders over here like yourself or senator manchin or senator baucus that's no longer here but was a strong

voice for keystone many years ago or some of the other democratic senators, i want to personally thank senator hoeven for his leadership and thank senator murkowski for her extraordinary leadership on this issue. she has been a real partner to me in the truest sense of the word and in the greatest spirit of bipartisanship. and of course she had an experience that not many senators have. she was defeated by her own party in her own state. they chose someone else and ran against her, which is really unusual. and did not support her in her re-election even though she and her father have chaired on and off the energy committee for years, and i have been a strong partner not only with lisa but with her father, with the senator from alaska, but her father frank. but the republican party didn't support her in her last

election, and so she had to sign in on an independent ticket, and i was one of the first people to call her and say go, girl, let's get it done, and she did. and so i have the utmost respect for senator murkowski. i have the utmost respect for her father. i have the utmost respect for ted stevens. and i stood with ted stevens until the end, even though my party went against him. i would fight for him to this day if he were here, because some of us actually really believe in bipartisanship. lots of people around here talk about it, but that's really it. and the evidence that i am going to give you -- and i'm sorry that senator from kentucky is not here to defend himself. i want the quote that you wrote down. and he might come back to the

floor when he hears what i am going to say. and i'm going to speak for one hour. the senator from kentucky who will be the majority leader but has not left his partisanship in kentucky because you just saw it on display here, he can't help himself. i mean, he cannot speak for three minutes without mentioning the president. he had his back turned the whole time. would not even acknowledge anyone over here. he does a lot of talking about bipartisanship. but his statement just yesterday was i'm confident dr. cassidy will use his position to succeed where senator landrieu failed. i don't necessarily think this is failure to get a vote on the keystone pipeline. i think this is a great victory, and i want to share this victory with senator hoeven who is a

leader. i also want to put into the record the senator from kentucky had a lot to say about everybody else not doing their job. i want to just say that on at least one occasion, he didn't do his either. on march 16, there were -- there were 15 senators march 16 in 2011. not 2012. not 2014. not 2013. not 2012, but 2011. i think that's before you were here. you weren't even here, the senator that's presiding. on march 16, 2011, when secretary clinton was still the secretary of state, there were

16 members of the senate that signed a bill -- that signed a letter to her asking her to approve the keystone pipeline. i'm going to read those names because i think it's important. my name is first, amazingly. i'm very proud of that. didn't even remember it. mary landrieu. orrin hatch circulated a letter with me, senator orrin hatch. max baucus. kay bailey hutchison, my dear friend from texas. pat roberts from kansas, another dear friend. mike enzi from wyoming. lisa murkowski, of course her name would be on here from alaska. senator john cornyn from texas. john barrasso from wyoming. mark begich from alaska, who just unfortunately lost his race because of several reasons, one of which is that people talk a lot about bipartisanship, don't really honor it and nobody

better than mark begich has shown a willingness to work across party lines, but he is no longer with us, but he signed this letter. roy blunt from missouri. john hoeven from north dakota. and ron johnson. but you know a signature that's not on this letter is mitch mcconnell. now, maybe mitch mcconnell was too busy to sign this letter, but his name is not on here. now, am i saying that mitch mcconnell has not been a supporter of keystone pipeline? absolutely not. senator mcconnell has supported this project. but what i am saying is that senator mcconnell has not been truthful with the american people about actually how this has all evolved. to support that claim, which is a strong one, on may 7, 2014, senator reid offered a vote on

the x.l. pipeline. senator mcconnell objected. on may 12, 2014, senator reid offered a vote on keystone pipeline. senator mcconnell objected. that i believe was connected with the energy efficiency bill with senator portman. senator inhofe objected and senator mcconnell did nothing to help. on june 25, senator reid offered x.l. pipeline, senator mcconnell objected. i want to underscore this. i'm not sighing that senator rid is -- is a supporter of the pipeline. but he has asked for a