president obama has said that he will veto that legislation. the house and senate are out on thursday and friday for party retreats, house and senate republicans will be holding a joint retreat for the first time in the ten years. senate democrats are meeting in baltimore. now live to the senate floor. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. our father in heaven, you know our thoughts from afar. teach us how to live to honor your name. rule in our lives, injecting our intentions with such purity that even our motives can withstand your scrutiny.

have your way on capitol hill, surrounding our senators with your power and love. deliver them from fear and uncertainty, as you inspire them to stay within the circle of your will. lord, bless and consecrate their labors today, and use them to serve the common good as you strengthen them during the hour of temptation. we pray in your mighty name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america

and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the senate will receive a message from the house of representatives. the clerk: mr. president, a message from the house of representatives. the presiding officer: madam clerk. the clerk: mr. president, i have been directed by the house of representatives to inform the senate that the house has passed h.r. 3, an act to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline in which the concurrence of the senate is

requested. the presiding officer: the message will be received. the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: tatted senate will debate the motion to proceed to s. 1, to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline, with the time equally divided until 5:30 p.m. at 5:30 p.m. we'll have a vote to move to proceed to s. 1. if all time is used, the senate will end at midnight tonight. it is my hope that chairman murkowski can work with senator cantwell to begin to process amendments under the regular order. the senate will be out of session on wednesday and thursday of this week to accommodate our respective conference retreats. we will return for consideration of the keystone bill on friday, and senators should be working

with the bill managers to get their amendments into cue. before proceeding to my remarks i would like to say a word about what's been happening in paris. we've seen some remarkable displace of support -- displays of support for the french people. we've seen defiant recommitments to the ideals of free expression and the french people should know that the u.s. senate stands in solidarity with them, as they work to recover from such awful terrorist atafntle attacks. they should also be assured that we are prepared to cooperate in whatever appropriate way we can. now, mr. president last week the house of representatives voted on a bipartisan basis to pass a keystone jobs and infrastructure bill. meanwhile, the senate energy committee got the process moving in this chamber, as it debated and approved a bipartisan keystone measure as well.

the committee consideration allowed senators from both parties to offer amendments and make their voices heard. it's the kind of serious legislating many senators have been waiting a long time to see. it's the latest example of congress getting back to work under a new republican majority. and later this afternoon we'll consider a cloture motion that would allow us to proceed to a similarly open debate here on the senate floor. i know senators from both sides are hungry for a real senate debate. i know they want to offer amendments. i know they're anxious to finally have their voices and the voices of the people they represent heard here on the senate floor. so i expect the cloture motion to pass on a bipartisan basis. of course, we had originally hoped to start this process last thursday. we wanted to spend friday working on this bipartisan jobs bill but the senate lost that opportunity when some colleagues across the aisle objected to

beginning the debate. now, moving forward what i would urge is for our democratic friends to work with us, as the new republican majority continues to bring more openness to the senate. the changes we will be making are ones that many democrats have indicated they wanted to see swsm the reforms we're implement wooing giveing would give a real voice. we need to work together to ensure positive change takes hold. i'm hopeful that will happen. here's one consequence of that gay i mentioned. the nebraska support has since eliminated what has to be the last conceivable pretext to veto the keystone jobs bill. we will be starting the senate debate at a time when the rationale for building this pipeline has almost never never been more obvious. i know the american people would welcome a change in posture from

the president. i know that supporters in both parties are determined to get a bipartisan jobs and infrastructure bill to his desk as soon as possible. so we'll take the next step in the process at 5:30 today. then we'll have an open floor debate on jobs, the middle class, infrastructure, and energy. and at the end of this process we'll send a bipartisan jobs bill to the president. we'll fulfill our pledge to stop protecting him from good ideas. it may force the president to finally make a difficult choice between jobs and the middle class versus the demands of powerful special interests. but president obama now has every reason to sign the bipartisan jobs and infrastructure bill that we will pass. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: mr. president later today members of the senate family will have an

opportunity to -- two opportunities to express our solidarity with the people of france in their hour of grief in a short while the senate will consider a resolution condemning the series of terrorist attacks that have shaken france, starting with the attack on the offices of the satirical newspaper sahara lee hebdo and leading with an tac on a grocery market in pairs. our condolences to the families and victims of the people of france. it also expresses our deep commitment to the universal right of freedom of expression, a freedom for which the writers and artists of sahara lee hebdo gave their lives. later this afternoon senators and their staffs will have an opportunity to sign a condolence

book. the book will be outside the senate foreign relations committee room on the first floor of the capitol. in memory of the victims we'll welcome the french ambassador to the united states, ambassador gerrard areaux. if the terrorists who committed the attack meant to frighten freedom-loving people in frons and around the world they have failed utterly. yesterday 4 million people marched in demonstrations in cities across the nation of france. 1.5 million people marched in paris alone. authorities said it was the largest gathering in paris since the end of world war ii and the largest demonstration in the history of the nation of frangs. -- of france. they marched to declare their solidarity with the victims of the sahara lee hebdo massacre and the supermarket massacres and to democrat demonstrate their

unity. the marchers included many religious faiths and nonbelievers. the president of france led the marchings joined by the israeli prime minister binyamin netanyahu, the palestinian authority president mahmoud abbas and america's ambassador to france and our assistant secretary of state. marchers were also held -- marches were also held in other cities around the world. tens of thousands of people showed their solidarity with the victims of the terrorist afaction in france. in chicago hundreds of people turned out in the cold yesterday to rally at daily plaza. one of the organizers of the chicago rally was a young woman named eve zuckerman who has lived in chicago for about four years. she said the spasm of violence that has shaken france is not simply an attack on france.

in her words "what it real lay means is that anyone who is for freedom and for tolerance is also under attack." in our own country in the days after 9/11, our grief was made bearable by the countless acts of courage and kindness and solidarity we witnessed mongt the corn carnage. so it is in france today. one story concerns a young man who worked at the kosher supermarket in paris that was attacked on friday. the young man risked his life to hide seven jewish customers in the freezer in the supermarket's basement. he then risked his life again to slip out of the basement and tell the police there were people hidden out-stairs. this young man described the layout of the supermarket and the location of the hostages, crucial details that enabled the police to save so many lives and end the standoff. this young man has been hailed

as a here reby citizens of france and by israeli president netanyahu. one more thing: he is a muslim immigrant born in mali. martin luther king jr. told us, we're bound together in a single garment of destiny. the millions of people in france and around the world who marched yesterday and freedom-loving people throughout the world understand this. together in our unity and resolve, we will overcome this latest assault on our shared values. mr. president, over the weekend as i mentioned as millions of people were marching on the streets of france and around the world to demonstrate the world's unity in the aftermath of the horrible terrorist attack in france the president announced that he would hold a summit at the white house next month to discuss what can be done mort to stop the threat of violent

extremism. this is a time when we should all be focusing on what we can do to stop the threat of terrorism in our country as well as the rest. world. so it is truly surprising to say the least that the house of representatives will vote on a bill this week that threatens to shut down the department of homeland security. that's our government agency responsible for protecting americans for terrorism. what in the world would lead the house of representatives to threaten to shut down this agency. weed we shouldn't even be debate -- we shouldn't even be debating the department of homeland security in this moment of history. every other government agency, every single one of them, has already been funded through the end of this fiscal year, september 30. that's normal when we fund the government. but the republicans in the house and senate insisted -- insisted weeks ago that the department of homeland security only be funded through the end of february.

now, why did they demand that this critical agency that is responsible for keeping us safe across america not be funded in the normal manner? why did they put america at risk with this type of funding? well because they wanted an opportunity early in the year, early in the legislative session to take a stand against president obama's immigration policies and they feel so strongly about this, they're willing to put the department of homeland security's budget at risk. so this week the house republicans are preparing to pass legislation that would defund president obama's immigration policies, including the deferred action for childhood arrivals program known as daca. what is this program? it puts on hold the deportations of immigrant students and children who grew up in this country and allows these young people to live and work legally

in america on a temporary basis. that's what daca is. these young people are well-phoning to me and to most. they are a known as dreamers. see, mr. president, it was 13 years ago that i introduced the dream act. 13 years i have been trying to pass a bill into law which says that the sins of the parents should not be visited on the children. these young people who are affected by daca and the dream act, many of them were brought to the united states as infants and toddlers. they had no voice in this family decision to come here. they didn't know, couldn't know that one of their parents was undocumented. they grew up in america. they went to school in america. they participated in america. they went to the neighborhood churps and modification and temples. they were the ones who were standing in their classroom

every single day of their lives stopping for a solid moment to pledge allegiance to the american flag, the only flag they have ever known. but the fact is they were brought her as babies and children and they were undocumented. they grew up in america they identified this country as home, they envisioned this dream of living here, and yet they didn't have a legal status. the dream act said we would give these young people a chance. if they had a clean criminal record, if they would finish high school, if they would go on to college or even enlist in our military we would allow them to move to legal status, give these dreamers a chance. time and again we called this legislation. sadly, it never passed the house and the senate at the same time. then president obama decided two years ago that he would use his executive authority to protect these young people from being deported. we estimate that there are about

two million of them across the united states, and he said to them if you'll come forward pay your fee go through a background check if you're prepared to do that and register with the government, we'll spare you from deportation. that's what the daca program is. 600,000 did. 600,000 came up with the money. i recall in the city of chicago when we had the signup, the very first signup for this daca law this daca decision, executive order, i should call it, it was amazing. we didn't know if 200 people would show up or 4 hundred or even a thousand. well mr. president the night before at midnight, the night before we started signing them up the first day they could sign up for daca, the families started gathering standing outside navy pier in downtown chicago. they stood there all night. waiting for a chance to sign up for this program. many of them were parents accompanying their children.

the parents themselves weren't going to get any direct benefit from this, but they wanted their kids to be spared the fear of deportation. they wanted to give their kids a chance. in the end thousands came through the door, so many we couldn't even handle the value with our volunteer attorneys and many others who were helping. but it was a clear indication that these families wanted their children to have a chance, a chance to earn their way into legal status in america. that's the daca program. [disruption] the presiding officer: until the sergeant at arms has restored order in the galleries.

the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: mr. president, young people have described what are known as dreamers. they were brought to the united states as children. they grew up in this country and they have overcome great obstacles to continue to live here. they are the future doctors engineers, teachers and sailors who will make america -- soldiers who will make america stronger. in the last two years as i mentioned, more than 600,000 dreamers have received daca, this executive order by president obama which allows them to stay as long as her registered and pay their fee and not be deported. and what has happened to these young people? now that they have their chance, they have gone to school. i met ten of them who are now at loyola school of medicine. they are extraordinary students. they are the best of the best. they didn't have a chance because they didn't have that document that gave them an opportunity to enroll.

well they're going to school now, and they are pledged to continue to serve this country as doctors given that chance, in some of the poorest communities in my state and nation. in the past speeches i have given on this floor over 50 of them, i have highlighted the contributions that many daca recipients already make to our country. they are working as engineers now, small business owners and public schoolteachers. the center for american progress and partnership for new american economy has found that giving legal status to dreamers will add $329 billion to our economy and create 1.4 million new jobs by 2030. how can this be possible? 600,000 have that kind of impact? these are not ordinary young people or ordinary young graduates. these are extraordinary young people who want to be part of this nation of immigrants. but the republicans in the house of representatives want to end daca. they want to put an end to this

program. they argue it was unconstitutional for the president to say he would suspend deportation for these young people. they want these young people to be deported, removed from this country, sent back to countries where many of them can never recall living, going to countries where they literally can't speak the language. that's the house republican position. they feel so strongly about deporting these young people, they are willing to hold the homeland security funding bill hostage to force the democrats to agree. well let me be clear. democrats will not be swayed by this kind of blackmail. we will insist the department of homeland security be funded and that the president have the authority that every president has had to establish his own immigration policies within the limits of executive authority. it is the height of unfairness. first, congressional republicans obstructed immigration reform legislation.

now they want to obstruct the very agency responsible for homeland security. it was more than a year and a half ago the date was june 27 2013. on the floor of this united states senate, we passed comprehensive immigration reform with a strong bipartisan vote of 68-32. this bill, which i join seven other colleagues, democrats and republicans, working on, strengthen our border to a level even greater than today crack down on illegal immigration protected american workers and in a fair and humane manner address the challenges facing 11 million undocumented workers currently living in our country. but for the last year and a half the house of representatives led by speaker boehner has refused to allow a vote on the senate's immigration reform bill. not once would they allow this bill to come to the floor of the house for a vote. speaker boehner brought the bill

to the floor it would have passed, with a strong bipartisan vote. he knew it and he was determined not to ever let that happen. it was only after the speaker had demonstrated clearly to the president, to the senate and to the american people that he would not even participate in the debate about immigration reform that president obama issued his second order. i have been involved in a lot of efforts to pass bipartisan immigration reform legislation. it is so frustrating for us to have finally passed a bill in the senate, democrats and republicans, supported by the afl-cio representing organized labor, supported by the u.s. chamber of commerce representing business supported by virtually every major faith in this country and then to see it ignored and stopped in the house of representatives. so president obama after the election announced that having

given the republicans in the house a chance to legislate he would use his powers to try to fix our broken immigration system to put on temporary hold the deportations of individuals who are the parents of u.s. citizens or legal permanent residents who have lived in our country for years and who pose no threat to america's safety. this is clearly not amnesty because at the end of the day what the president has given is only a temporary reprieve to these people to stay and work in america so long as they register and pay their fee so long as they submit themselves regularly to criminal background checks and so long as they pay their fair share of taxes. this deferred action status doesn't give them permanent status or citizenship. it is not amnesty by any definition. the president's executive action will make america safer bringing millions of immigrants out of the shadows to register with the government and to go through background checks. it will also help our economy

and american workers. you see these undocumented workers working off the books are many times paid much less than minimum wage, if they're paid at all and they are competing with american workers. once they are brought out of the shadows under the president's recent executive order they need to be paid the ongoing wages, the minimum wage of america. by bringing these workers into the legal work force we'll eliminate the unfair competition of the underground economy and all of these workers will be paying their taxes which will increase tax revenues by billions of dollars each year. the president's executive actions is also smart and realistic when it comes to enforcing our immigration laws. it is not humanly possible to deport all of the undocumented immigrants in this country so every administration has had to set priorities on those who will be deported and those who will not. the government shouldn't waste its limited resources to deport immigrants who have lived and worked here for years who have

children who are citizens or lawful permanent residents and who don't pose any threat to america's future. instead, the administration has made it a top priority to deport those who have committed serious primes -- crimes and are a threat to safety. executive action on deportation is clearly lawful. every single president democrat and republican, every one of them since president dwight david eisenhower, has used his executive authority to improve our immigration system. this argument that it's somehow unconstitutional just doesn't bear basic scrutiny. the supreme court has repeatedly affirmed that the federal government has broad authority to decide who to deport. president obama is acting well within his legal authority when he establishes policies about who will be deported by this administration. the american people have elected us to solve problems. because the house republican leadership has failed to reform our immigration system, the

president had no choice but to use his authority under the law to improve our economy and security keep families together and at least do a small part toward solving america's broken immigration system problems. however you feel about the president's immigration policies it's hypocritical, it's counterproductive it's just wrong to take out your frustration by putting at risk critical homeland security funding. i hope the house republicans will somehow or another overcome this fit of pique that has led them to this moment and realize their first obligation is to this great nation. mr. president, i'd like to make one statement and ask consent it be placed at a separate part in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president i was unable to attend the inauguration of the new governor of illinois today. bruce reiner was elected on november 24 to serve as the governor of the state of illinois. his wife diana was by his side when he took the oath of office. i had a chance to attend some of

the receptions last night and called him over the weekend and said my duties in the senate made it impossible to accept his invitation to say a few words at his inaugural. but despite the fact that we come from different political parties, despite the fact that we have many differences when it comes to the issues before us, i certainly wish our new governor-elect now governor the very best in his efforts to lead the land of lincoln the great state of illinois. he faces an extraordinary number of challenges -- broken public pension systems struggles in coming up with the revenue that we need to keep our schools moving forward and the safety net to protect the most vulnerable people living in our state. i have given him my personal pledge and i will renew it on the floor of the senate today to stand by him and his administration to solve these problems and to lead illinois forward. mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. collins: mr. president. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed on s. 1

which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to the consideration of s. 1 a bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. the presiding officer: under the previous order the time until 5:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled in the usual form. the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to proceed for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you mr. president. i further request that the time not be charged to either side on the debate on the keystone pipeline if that is necessary. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. i'm sorry. i was discussing. would you please repeat your request. ms. collins: i asked unanimous

consent to proceed up to 15 minutes as if in morning business and since it is not on the debate for the keystone pipeline that it not be charged to either side in that debate. mr. durbin: i have no objection. ms. collins: thank you mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president it has been my privilege to serve on the senate aging committee since my very first days in the senate and i'm honored to have been elected to chair this committee for the 114th congress. i want to welcome the presiding officer, senator cotton of arkansas to the committee. he will be a new member on our committee, and i believe that he will enjoy his service as much as i have. mr. president, my service on

the aging committee is particularly appropriate since maine is the oldest state in the nation by median age. many people would guess that florida would have that distinction, but, in fact, it's the great state of maine. throughout its history the aging committee has spurred congress to action on issues that are important to older americans through its hearings, its investigations, and its reports. this is the first time that a maine senator has chaired the committee since the 1990's when my predecessor mentor, and friend senator bill cohen served as chairman. mr. president, i want to share with my colleagues today my priorities for the committee as we begin this new congress.

i have three major priorities for the committee's work. first, retirement security. second investments and biomedical research, targeting diseases that disproportionately affect older americans like alzheimer's and diabetes. and third protecting seniors against financial exploitation and scams. i'm increasingly concerned mr. president, that our seniors will not have adequate savings and other financial resources during their retirement years. the committee will therefore focus on retirement security and in particular, on the need to encourage more savings and better financial planning. according to the nonpartisan center for retirement research

at boston college there currently is an estimated $6.6 trillion gap between the savings that americans have today and what they should have in order to maintain their standard of living during retirement. nationally one in four americans has no source of income beyond social security. in the state of maine mr. president, the number is one in three. social security provides an absolutely vital safety net. however, with an average benefit of just $16,000 a year, it certainly is not enough to finance a comfortable retirement for many americans. according to a survey published in 2012, more than half of all

americans are worried that they will not be able to maintain their standard of living in retirement. that's up sharply from 34% two decades ago. and the boston college analysis demonstrates that their concern is warranted. there are many reasons for the decline in retirement security facing american seniors including the demise of many defined benefit pension plans in the private sector. the severity of the recent financial crises which wiped out much of the worth the net worth of many seniors at least temporarily rising health care costs, the need for long-term care and most of all, mr. president, the simple fact that americans are living far

longer than we used to. many americans reaching retirement age also have more debt than retirees of previous generations. i remember when my parents paid off the mortgage on their home and had a mortgage-burning party. well today mr. president people that are the age that my parents were when they paid off their house are taking on new debt and new mortgages. we found in the aging committee there are seniors who are still paying off their student loans or the student loans of their children. these are all issues that i look forward to the committee exploring in depth in this new congress. another priority will be highlighting the importance of biomedical research on diseases

like alzheimer's and diabetes that take such a devastating toll on older americans and their families. investments in biomedical research not only improve the health and longevity of americans but also provide benefits to our economy and to the federal budget. for example, nearly one out of three medicare dollars is spent treating people living with diabetes. according to multiple economic analyses there is roughly a two-to-one return on environment in federal support for biomedical research. this investment at the national institutes of health and at -- and at research centers across the country spur job creation

and are also critical to america's competitiveness in the global research environment. mr. president, as senate cochair of the congressional task force on alzheimer's, i am particularly committed to helping to spur breakthroughs in the alzheimer's disease which has had such a devastating impact on 5.2 million americans and their families. in addition to the suffering it causes alzheimer's costs the united states anistonnishing $214 billion a year. that includes $150 billion in costs to the medicare and medicaid programs. these costs will only skyrocket as the baby boom generation

ages. fortunately there is promising research that holds hope for alzheimer's patients and their families. the research community is poised to make important advances through clinical trials and investigate gating new therapy putic targets. but adequate funding is critical to advance this research, to achieve these breakthroughs. at a time when the united states is spending more than $200 billion a year for alzheimer's patients, we are spending less than .3% of that amount, about $600 million a year, on research. surely we can do more for alzheimer's, given its pre human and economic price --

tremendous human and economic price. the national plan to address alzheimer's has as its primary goal the prevention and effective treatment of alzheimer's by the year 2025. to meet that goal, the chairman of the chairman alzheimer's advisory council says that we need to devote $2 billion a year to alzheimer's research. well think about that, mr. president. that is only 1%, in fact, it's less than 1% of what we as a society are spending to care for people with alzheimer's. that investment will lead to better treatments and ultimately a means of prevention or even a cure for this awful and

expensive disease. mr. president, the aging committee will also continue its focus on scams that target our seniors, such as the gentleman makian lottery phone scam that we -- jamaican lottery phone scam we exposed in the last congress. this nefarious scheme which is estimated to have cost americans as much as $300 million a year, particularly targeted seniors in the northeast. some seniors in my state lost tens of thousands of dollars to this scam, which involved a con artist calling a victim to tell him or her that they had won the jamaican lottery but needed to pay fees to process the winnings. well mr. president i don't need to tell you that these

seniors had won nothing of the sort but this was a very sophisticated scheme. in addition to educating seniors to help them avoid becoming victims of such scams the hearing resulted in the jamaican government passing new laws targeting the scammers and promoted and prompted federal law enforcement to extra diet and charge -- extradite and charge several of these con artists. the aging committee will continue its fraud hotline to protect seniors from these kinds of scams and financial exploitation and the phone number for that fraud lotline which is toll-free is 1-855- 303-9470. 1-855-303-9470.

mr. president, in addition to these three major priorities it is my hope that our committee in the second year will also take a close look really scrutinize federal programs that are designed to help our seniors, such as those authorized by the older americans act. we want to make sure that these programs are as effective and efficient as possible, and that their benefits reach those seniors as intended. so we will be performing that oversight function and sharing our findings with the committee of jurisdiction, the health, education, labor and pensions committee, on which i am also

privileged to serve. mr. president, the senate's special committee on aging has a long history and tradition of bipartisanship and my work on this committee during the past congress was particularly rewarding because of the strong partnership that i forged with the committee chairman, the senior senator from florida bill nelson. i look forward to continuing that bipartisan tradition with my good friend and close colleague, senator claire mccaskill of missouri, who will be serving as the committee's ranking member in the 114th congress. finally, mr. president i would encourage the presiding officer and all of the other members of the committee to not only be

active participants in the committee but also to share with us your thoughts on issues that we should pursue. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. president, seeing no one seeking recognition i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schatz: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that we vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schatz: madam president i ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to jimmy o spueodey for the remainder of the 114th congress. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. schatz: thank you. i rise today no opposition to senate bill 1, which will circumvent the administration's review process for projects crossing the international borders and approve construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline, a pipeline with some of the most dirtiest and polluted oil in the world. the last two congresses they have held 44 votes in the house and senate intended to approve keystone. on tuesday the very first bill that the new republican majority introduced traditionally reserved for a party's highest legislative priority was keystone. think about this. here we stand in what people still call the world's greatest deliberative body and the first bill that we are taking up is not infrastructure generally not national energy policy, and not even national laws as they

relate to our pipeline infrastructure. no, we are legislating about a specific pipeline which will move oil from canada through the united states to be primarily exported from our southern border. now, i understand that there are people of good will and good faith, including the presiding officer, who are both sides of this issue but it is hard to imagine why this should be the first piece of legislation that we take up in this congress. we have yet to seriously consider or to clarify our policy with respect to the islamic state. income inequality is gutting the middle class. our national infrastructure needs a jolt of investments. our immigration policy is a failure. -- and a mess. and so i just don't understand why this would be senate bill 1. supporters of this bill have stood up three main arguments in favor of keystone and expanding

drilling of tar sands oil reserves in canada. one, they say it will increase energy security. two, they say it will lower oil and gas prices. and, third they say it's a jobs bill. let's examine these claims because, however tenuous they were, they have been undermined further by the facts over the last couple of years. first, the united states has never, during the modern age of global energy trade been more energy-secure. we import far less oil from unstable regimes and unfriendly countries than we have in decades, and we are continuing to build massive amounts of ever-cheaper homegrown clean energy like wind and solar even as we use our energy more efficiently. the u.s. will add nearly 10 gigawatts of wind and solar -- capacity in the next year not including hydro-, the u.s. has

over 8,500 megawatts of renewable energy capacity and continues to build on that year o.e.f. year. prices for solar have dropped 80% since 2008 and prices for wind power, which are already competitive with phossive fuels have dropped 30% since 2008. and these trends are creating jobs right here at hoavment for example, the wind industry has over 500 manufacturing facilities across 44 states that are responsible for making wind turbines with over 66% domestic content. second the recent collapse of crude oil and gasoline prices demonstrate two things: now in my home state of hawaii energy prices remain far too high but on the mainland oil and gas prices are currently very low. the idea that keystone would make a significant difference was never based in reality but now it's just obvious. we have low prices and the

project hasn't even started. gasoline is now $2.21 a gallon. crude oil prices have slipped below $50 barrel. the last time the that gasoline prices were this low was in the aftermath of the financial crisis. and as a practical matter, it's not clear to me -- and it's certainly not clear to most energy experts -- how moving oil from canada through the united states and exporting refined crude from the gulf of mexico would significantly reduce energy prices for us in the united states. finally, this is called a jobs bill by some. madam president, this is many things. it's anti-clean air. it's anti-clean water. it's anti-public health. it's a regulatory earmark but it's not a jobs bill. it's not deserving of being the number-one priority of the 114th congress. now, we've heard estimates ranging as high as 42,000

indirect or induced jobs during the construction phase. we know -- and everyone seems to agree -- that keystone will employ approximately 35 full-time employees when construction is finished. that's not 3 5,00 employees. that's not 35,000 employees. that's 35 full-time employees when construction is completed. if we want to do a real jobs bill worthy of the united states senate, we should do a real jobs bill a infrastructure bank, a highway bill, shaheen-portman -- all would create orders of jobs more important than this. the american economy created 350,000 jobs in 2014 alone the strongest year for job growth since 1999. if we pass a highway bill, we get millions of jobs. if we pass an infrastructure bank, we will get hundreds of thousands of jobs. if we pass the bipartisan shaheen-portman energy efficiency bill, we'll also get

hundreds of thousands of jobs. look even one new job is a good thing. but if we want to do a jobs bill let's do a jobs bill much there's plenty of room for us to work together on frarks on energy efficiency, and -- on infrastructure on energy efficiency, and create hundreds of thowrks even millions of jobs. but this is a energy bill and it moves us in the wrong direction. there are colleagues who i agree with who are arguing against this legislation primarily saying that they want to allow the administration's process to play out and that we shouldn't supersede the state department review. i agree. and it's fair to shea that this is unprecedented even a little strange, for the congress to legislate the specifics of a particular infrastructure project. but tointbut i want to be clear. this is not a process argument for meevment i oppose keystone because it is a bad idea, whether it is done through the regular order or in an expedited fashion and whether it is done through the administrative process or the legislative

process. i oppose any action, whether through legislation litigation, or administrative action, that will enable the extraction of canadian tar sands oil. my reasons are very simple: climate change and math. climate change because it is the greatest and most urgent challenge to the health of our families to the economy and to our way of life. and i want to preserve the american way of life, not endanger it. and math because we've crunched the numbers and we know that we simply cannot afford to burn the oil from tar sands and put its pollution into the air. it's simple. we have a budget, just as every family in this country must stick to its budget and live within its means. we have to do the same as a plan whet it comes to carbon pollution. a new study published last week in the scientific journal "nature" make it clear. the authors ask the question, if we want to stay within our

carbon budget and limit warming to 2 degrees celsius, which is the limit 167 countries agree we must meet to are avoid catastrophic effects of climate change, how much more coal, gas and oil can we burn? the study finds that in order to meet this goal, the majority of the world's known reserves of fossil fuels must stay in the ground between now and 2050, including a third of the world's current oil reserves and 80% of the current coal reserves. it also finds -- and this is critical -- that -- quote -- "any increase in unconventional oil production which includes canadian tar sands is 'incommensurate with averages to limit global warming to 2 degrees celsius'." and as we learn more about climate change against a clean energy ref liewlings we find that take control of our future is good for business. our economy will do better and

will grow faster and be more resilient if we embrace the technologies and solutions at our fingerprints and end our reliance on fossil fuels. we have a chance to embrace the future here and our future is not tar sands oil. our future is wind and solar and geothermal and energy efficiency. our future is not in adding carbon pollution. our future is in innovating our way out of this problem. throughout our history america always leads when we are needed the most, and that is what we have to do, not in the direction of more carbon pollution but towards a clean energy economy. a report by new climate economy a group chaired by former mexican president calderon, and including bank of america chad holiday, among others, offers quantitative evidence that action on climate change is a requirement for future global

economic growth. in other words those who warn about the e.p.a. regulations or prices on carbon killing jobs have it exactly backwards. the truth is that in order to avoid major disruptions to our economy, we've got to reduce carbon pollution and work with other countries like canada to ensure that they do otosame. -- they do the same. i'm looking forward to the open amendment process on this bill that the majority leader has promised. it will be an opportunity for the american public to see where members of the senate stand on the facts of climate change. madam president anyone who looks at facts and does the math ought to oppose this bill and oppose construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline. for me, and for many americans a vote against this bill is a vote to preserve and protect the air that we breathe and the water that we drink. it's a vote to ensure that we continue to reduce carbon pollution and fight climate change. it's a vote to leave our

children a healthy world. i urge my colleagues to oppose cloture on the motion to proceed, and i yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: madam president i would ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: madam president the attacks on the people of france demonstrate in the most chilling terms the threat posed to western nations by those who are imbued with islamic terrorism. while there are many factors that play into the spread of this jihadist ideology in the west, it's time for an honest and plain admission that our open immigration policies are ineffective and have failed to meet the minimum standards that are set by existing law in the

united states. this is something i've been dealing with for quite a number of years a decade, really. we have laws that would improve dramatically our ability to identify and block terrorists from entering and staying into their country but they're not funded and they're not carried out. and it's unacceptable, as i'll point out. dozens of terrorists and terror plotters have been admitted to the united states on visas or relied on broader networks to simply enter into our country taking advantage of lax immigration policies. for instance, the 9/11 attackers all came here on visas. a visa is a document that allows you to come for alimented period of time and then return to your home country. this visa system is essential in a modern world but needs to be managed and carried out in an

effective way. the boston bombers came as asylees, people seeking asylum while their mosque was linked to foreign nationals tied to isis and foreign terrorists. the individual behind the attempted christmas bombing in oregon was a refugee. we have a class of individuals we accept each year who claim to be refugees from foreign countries. this one from somalia. the recently foiled plot to bomb against a courthouse and school in connecticut was attempted by a moroccan national who had a revoked student visa. many individuals have visas to be students in the united states. we're not managing that well at all. this one had a revoked status visa student visa. it was revoked because of information that came to the

officials, but no one made an effort or successfully attempted in any real way to find the individual so they might be deported. operatives that were apprehended in kentucky were on visas from iraq. so these are only some of the examples that are out there. they use -- these individuals use lax visa policies, flawed asylum policies, flawed refugees policies and flawed border protection policies. in addition we're not organized in a way that works effectively and in addition the president of the united states has directed his i.c.e. officers, his citizenship and immigration service officers and his border patrol officers, who the key individuals in this system, to conduct their business in a way

that guarantees failure. that's just the fact. the 9/11 commission, we all remember that great commission after the terrible attack on 9/11 zeroed in on our lax immigration policies, and among other things, the commission demanded implementation of a biometric enter exit visa system. -- entry-exit visa system. that means a biometric system where you're identified through fingerprint or some other system. i've been through this for years, back when president bush was president and we worked with homeland security, governor ridge was the secretary of homeland security. i think at the end he was finally convinced and i worked on him really hard, but he volunteered his last day in office we had a fingerprint

biometric system. it should already have been done by the time president bush left office, but it wasn't. and it hasn't been done yet. we need a system that works. by the way, police officers have in their cars all over america computer type screens that they can stop someone on the road, they can ask them to put their hand not to screen, it reads their fingerprints, checks the national crime information system to find out whether the person is wanted for murder in new york. might have caught him in texas. it says are there warrants out for these individuals. and this is the way the system works in our country and we need to use it with regard to people who come here on visas. and it's an outrage that it hasn't been done, completed fully and operational years ago. it's an outrage. it's -- outrage. it's in the law of the united

states. congress has funded money for this project and it has not yet been done, and it will cost us in the future as the 9/11 commission has so warned. so they demanded this system, and it's designed to track those entering and departing the united states on visas. by the way almost half of the people at least 40%-plus now of individuals unlawfully in america came as a result of a visa. in other words they didn't come across the border unlawfully they came lawfully perhaps using false documents, but they got a visa and they came to the united states maybe lawfully, and they just did not return to their home country when the visa expired. and you have to know, colleagues that no one is checking. we have no idea whether they left the country or stayed in the country.

we do not have an operable exit visa system. and this is so bizarre because it's not expensive it can be implemented rapidly it will work and give us valuable information that we must have if we are serious about this project. and we must be serious about the project. the individuals in france -- i mentioned the ones in the united states, but they left the country, went to yemen apparently were trained in some sort of terrorist camp and came back and executed their violent acts in france. so we have to do a better job of this and we can do it. so president obama's administration has refused to implement the exist -- entry-exit system as required by raw. law.

we've talked about this and debated it publicly for years. so just last year the cochairs of the 9/11 commission in an evaluation of how well the recommendations they made back in -- after 9/11 had been carried out a ten-year review of how their report had been received and how much of it had been accomplished, had -- wrote this -- made this written statement. quote -- "without exit tracking "-- exit tracking is when you leave the country, of course. "without exit tracking, our government does not know when a foreign visitor admitted to the united states on a temporary basis has overstayed his or her admission."

here's the language, we put it on a chart because it's important that we understand this. "without exit tracking our government does not know when a foreign visitor admitted to the united states on a temporary basis has overstayed his or her admission. had this system been in place before 9/11, we would have had a better chance of detecting the plotters before they struck. there is no excuse for the fact that 13 years after 9/11 we do not have this capability in place." amen. that's exactly correct. that's signed -- that's from reflections on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 commission report, thomas kean and lee hamilton this past 2014 that they wrote that. in fact, the original report said this.

"the department of homeland security properly supported by the congress, should complete, as quickly as possible, a biometric entry-exit screening system." that was the report in 2004. it was a very important report. they went to great lengths to help this nation figure out what is the responsible thing to do to protect ourselves better from those attackers on 9/11, all of whom were visa overstayers. they didn't come across the border unlawfully. they came across on a lawful visa, some of them i think had false documentation to get that visa but they came on a visa and the for the most part they were coming lawfully. and they refused and did not go home as they were required to go home. they overstayed their visa and

nobody knew they had overstayed, nobody made an inquiry about it. the -- now the 10th anniversary report card, the status of the 9/11 commission recommendations, went on by kean and hamilton, said this. "full deployment of the biometric exit component" -- exit component -- "of the u.s.-visit should be a high priority. such a capability would have assisted law enforcement and intelligence officials in august and september of 2011 in conducting a search for two of the 9/11 hijackers that were in the united states on expired visas." this would have helped. and, indeed, of course, those of us who have some experience in law enforcement know that when

you catch one of the guys or two of the guys, the whole crowd may get disrupted and you can penetrate the organization and break it up and stop crime from occurring. well it's just to me mind-boggling as these commission leaders have told us, that we haven't completed it. now, i'm told that there are forces that don't like the exit visa system, they think it might slow things down a little bit. first, this is not correct really. when you come into the country you're clocked in and you're biometrically fingerprinted and you come into the country and what do you have to do when you leave? you would go to the airport, you would be in a certain line. you would go through show your

ticket, show your passport put your hand on a biometric screeners and you're read and you're approved to leave. it's not going to take any massive amounts of time. it's just been an excuse. one excuse after the other have slowed this down and it's not acceptable and we've got to do better. in fact, the administration has suspended enforcement of the visa system almost entirely. you've got to understand this colleagues. if you don't have even an exit visa system where you know who left the country how do you know who overstayed and stayed into the country? and let's say somebody overstayed their visa and they were caught for speeding and the

police officer identifies that i will ask colleagues, what happens? under the policy of this president of the united states directed to the lowest officers in america nothing happens. if the individual does not commit a serious felony, they will not be processed for deportation. even though they've come to the country under a promise to leave on a certain day and flatly refused to do so. and this is not acceptable. if you don't have a system that has integrity then everybody gets the message pretty soon, don't they? if you just get a visa, you come to america you never have to leave. if you just don't get a felony charge against you you're never going to be deported. this is the policy of this government at this very moment.

it's hard for anybody to believe but that is the true fact. we have approximately 5 million visa overstays in the united states but as a national i.c.e. council president, immigration and customs enforcement officers president chris crane has explained -- quote -- "i.c.e. agents" -- this is a recent statement by the president of their union -- quote -- "i.c.e. agents are now prohibited from arresting illegal aliens solely on charges of illegal entry or visa overstays." what a dramatic statement that is. and not only visa overstays they're prohibited from arresting people and removing people who came across the border illegally. that's what he means by illegal entry or visa overstays.

this, of course, removes a cornerstone of integrity in any lawful system. i mean, if you can't -- if you can't be able to look people in the eye and say we give you a visa, you've got a six-month visa but at six months you have to return to your home country and mean it and say eventually you will be apprehended and deported if you don't then the system has no integrity. and that's where we are today. unsurprisingly, abc news reported that the obama administration had lost track of 6,000 foreign students who had overstayed their visas and were of -- quote -- "heightened concern." in other words these 6,000 had some special concern in their background that made us worry about them, whether it was drugs or terrorism or whatever. 6,000. and, of course they've lost

sight of them. they're not attempting to find them. so the head of the united states citizenship and immigration service one of the three major departments of homeland security dealing with immigration mr. ken polenkis, was explicit in his warning to us. i mean, this is remarkable what mr. crane has said and now what mr. polenkis has said. quote -- "there is no doubt that there are already many individuals in the united states on visas expired or active, who are being targeted for radicalization or who already subscribe to radicalized views. many millions come legally to the united states through our wide-open immigration policy every year, whether as temporary

visitors lifetime immigrants, refugees asylum seekers foreign students or recipients of our visa waiver program which allows people to come and go freely yet our government cannot effectively track these foreign visitors and immigrants." this is the man whose offices do this job. they're the ones that approve the visas and manage this system. he went on to warn that executive amnesty the president's so-called executive amnesty would make the situation radically worse saying -- quote -- "i write today to warn the general public that this situation is about to get exponentially worse and more dangerous. express your concerns to your senators and congressmen before it's too late."

so it's a national security imperative to stop this executive amnesty. it sends exactly the wrong message. what it says is that if you can get into america through the border by a boat, by a plane on a visa any way you get into this country and pass the border, you're not going to be asked to leave unless you commit some felony some serious felony felony for that matter. many felonies don't qualify. and we've got over a hundred thousand people who've committed serious felonies whoa who've been released into america. we don't know where they are and they're not going to be deported. so we've got to restore immigration enforcement establish better controls and screening on immigration from high-risk regions of the world.

we really should give more attention to that. it's perfectly legitimate. the visa system, the immigration system of the united states should serve who? it should serve the interests of the american people. we don't have a -- somebody doesn't have a constitutional right to come to america. the decision is whether america feels like this is in its interest and the we've always accepted a large number of people. in fact, we have the largest immigration numbers of any nation in the world. we admit a million a year lawfully. and when they come from high-risk areas of the world terrorist states, we should, indeed give more scrutiny to those applicants. census data shows that legal immigration to the united states from the middle east is one of

the largest and fastest-growing categories of new admits. for the national security of the united states it's imperative that congress block executive amnesty and restore essential enforcement, basic bread-and-butter law enforcement enforcement. anyone who claims to be concerned about our national security should be resolutely focused on this task. there's so much that can be done with relatively little difficulty if we have leadership and will to get it done. it would be unthinkable for the president to veto any bill in order to continue this illegal and dangerous amnesty scheme during a time of growing threats abroad. so again let me say madam president that this entry-exit visa system is an

unappreciated important part of american immigration law. it's critical to the national security of the united states as the 9/11 commission has so stated on more than one occasion. we can do this. why is it not being done? what forces, what special interests are interceding between the people of the united states the national interest, and their special interest that block this kind of system? we can make it work. it's not that hard. we need a biometric system and that system should be founded on the fingerprint. it took us a number of years but i think the government has finally concluded it must be the fingerprint. for a lot of reasons one of which is if somebody got a visa to the united states and they committed a murder an armed robbery, a terrorist act a

major fraud and a warrant was issued for their arrest, if you don't clock it in at the airport, who knows when they're leaving? so this would pick it up and would pick up any warrants that might be outstanding for those individuals anywhere in the united states. that's put in the ncic, national crime information center. that's the way the system should work. it's long, long overdue. in the course of the discussions we'll have in the weeks and months to come about the necessity of fixing a broken immigration system the entry-exit visa system has got to be fixed. it is long overdue. we can make it happen. it's not that expensive relatively inexpensive actually and it will make us much safer in the process. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk

will call the roll. quorum call: etion session madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: skilled that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: arntiondz madam president, i would ask that the time -- and madam president, i would ask that the time allotted to each side of the utilized and counted against both sides equally during quorum calls also. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the

clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: madam president i ask that the all of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: thank you. madam president, here we are

the beginning of a new year with a new congress, and i think we all feel the responsibility to do what the american people voted for on november, 2014 election. and that is to come together in this body and in this congress and work together to find sensible solutions to very real problems facing americans impacting their lives. it's no secret the last six years have been pretty tough for a lot of people. out of work for doing part-time work kids graduating from high school, graduating from college, graduating from community schools two-year schools, going back, getting new training, still unable to find meaningful jobs. finding jobs that are part time doing three or four of foes -- two or three of those together, parents trying to -- two workers trying to save money pay the mortgage, save money to send the kids to school,

postgraduate. it has not been easy. and so when we come to a point where we have legislation here in a new session of congress with commitments on a bipartisan basis to stand together to work together to try to find solutions, to get people back to work and get our economy moving again we come to the very first thing that's up for discussion debate, and hopefully passage in this new congress and that is the keystone pipeline. now, this is something that has been going on for six years. the president has been obstinate in his obstruction in letting this go forward and making a decision but yet hereby we are finally with an opportunity to not only pass legislation in the house of representatives which has been passed repeatedly, and just again last week with a very significant bipartisan support here we have the opportunity now in the senate to take this legislation up, to move it

forward tonight with this vote to start the process to allow amendments to allow debate, move forward and hopefully with a bipartisan basis of over 60 and then support on final passage, sending it to the president for hopefully signing. this project it's the largest ready to build infrastructure project in the united states. it supports tens of thousands of jobs the estimate has been well over 42,000. it invests billions of dollars in the american economy it increases revenue to states and local governments all without spending one dime of taxpayer money. this is a private sector initiative that can be of great benefit to our country can provide meaningful jobs, and has many many benefits for us in the future. it's supported by democrats by

republicans, by many -- a number of labor unions, for instance the indiana state building construction trades council, which represents 75,000 working hoosiers in my state, reached out to me recently and asked me to support construction of the keystone pipeline, calling it -- and i quote -- "an important job creation and energy security issue." and they're right on the mark. they knew i had been a longtime supporter of this effort, but they wanted to put in writing -- i'm not sure -- and they weren't weighing this on the basis of republican or democrat, liberal or conservative can they were saying this is good for us, i hope both our senators can support it, we hope that it passes this is something that puts our people to work. other labor unions, including the north american building trades union and laborers international union of north america, support this project.

now, i mentioned that the president for six years has come up with ever more feeble excuses in terms of why he believes this should not go forward. the last -- the last excuse was, well, we're in a process here and the process has to go forward. well, that process was waiting apparently on the nebraska supreme court state approval of the pipeline route through nebraska. and that was the excuse, well, we got to veto it. well, mr. president, i'm sure you now have the word that the nebraska supreme court has upheld state approval of keystone pipeline. in fact, the president's own state department in response to numerous calls for environmental studies, all of which was used

as an excuse for not going forward, the president's own state department has repeatedly approved this saying it will not have a negative environmental implement. so what could possibly be the reason why the president remains intransigent on this particular issue? you have to come down -- because every other box has been checked. you have to come down to the inevitable conclusion that it's call political that an extreme environmental wing of the president's own party is simply putting untold pressure on him apparent not to go forward with anything having to do with fossil fuels or providing energy security for america from our own resources after all much of this comes a significant portion of this comes from montana and north dakota, last i checked they were in the united states, and from our friendly neighbor to the north canada. now, we can keep -- if this doesn't go through we will keep

importing nearly a million barrels a day of oil from the middle east. and we know what complications exist there in terms of securing that oil and how much volatility occurs there based on what's happening today in the middle east. so getting this product not only from our states, northern states, north dakota and montana, and getting this product from our friend to the north, canada, simply makes a great deal of sense in terms of our energy security and energy supplies and lessening our alliance on the volatility that comes from getting oil from other sources. to conclude let me just make it clear here what we're trying to do. this will help the united states diversify its energy supply, it will offset our dependence on midwest oil support tens of thousands of american jobs during construction, invest

billions of dollars in the america economy it will increase revenue to state and local governments and it will not harm our environment as numerous studies have indicated, all without spending a time of taxpayer money. so after six years of delay procrastination, and ever more feeble excuses it's time for the president to make a decision. soon he will have an opportunity to use that pen he so famously talked about not to sign a veto or declare a veto but to sign a bill improving -- approving the keystone pipeline into law. i strongly support construction of this pipeline and urge my colleagues to do the same and with that i yield the floor and notice the absence of a quorum. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: will the senator withhold his suggestion? mr. coats: i certainly will. i didn't recognize my colleague and will be happy to do so. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the

senator from virginia. mr. kaine: madam president, i am happy i was here for my colleague's comments on this important matter, the keystone pipeline and like the senator from indiana i'm also happy that we are finally able to have this debate. the comments that he made are very sincere and passionately believed. i accept that. i would only challenge one aspect of the comments, the suggestion that opposition to keystone is either feeble or only for political reasons. i am a pro-energy senator the first bill that i introduced in the 114th congress was a bill that i am cosponsoring with senator barrasso of wyoming to expedite american exports of liquid natural gas. but i am a strong opponent of keystone on environmental and economic grounds and i'd like to spend a few minutes and describe why. to begin with, it can probably be summed up in a question, why embrace dirty energy when america is in the midst of a clean energy revolution. that is the primary reason that

i oppose keystone. the united states, madam president, thank goodness is on a clean energy roll. not only are we on a clean energy roll, we are on an energy reduction proehl roll that is helping you know, helping our trade deficit and hurt something of our most significant global adversaries notably russia and iran. we had embraced over the last few years a set of conservation and efficiency investments probably most notably the increased cafe standards that have -- standards that have saved energy and helped the auto industry significantly rebound. our natural gas revolution which i'm a strong supporter of has enabled american industry and consumers to get lower price energy and enabled us to switch from dirtier fuels in the production of electric power and other aspects of our power usage. wind and solar developments and other noncarbon energy

developments has rocketed ahead nearly a third of the energy added to the american electricity grid since 2005 has been in the wind and solar area. and we're one of the few nations in the world that in the period from 2005 to 2012 actually saw a reduction in our carbon emissions. we are on a clean energy roll, we are innovating for the world and we're selling technologies to the rest of the world and this is good for our economy and also good for the environment. we're also asserting american energy leadership not just in the advances in clean energy but also in the significant in advances in american energy production. i think we should feel good about the fact that we are a country that has gone from being one of the greatest net importers of energy in the world to now a country that is going to be one of the greatest energy producers in the world and in many energy areas we are now a net exporter. so emissions are going down, production and exports are going

up and madam president the other thing that's great for americans is prices are going down. the barrel of oil right now is in the $50 a a barrel range which is putting $1,000 a year back into the pockets of an american family, it's helping american businesses and imposing as i mentioned earlier some significant harm upon two of our most persistent global adversaries, iran and russia, who rely on energy exports to drive their economy. madam president, this energy revolution higher production, greater economic efficiency, greater cleanliness it's all been happening without the keystone pipeline. it's all been happening without the united states embracing tar sands oil. we're going the right direction now, and i oppose the keystone pipeline because accelerating

the use of tar sands oil turns us around and instead we're going in the right direction to more production, more national security and greater emissions control, the keystone pipeline accelerates tar sands oil and takes us the wrong direction. simply put tar sands oil and the exploitation of that resource is a bad bet for the environment and i believe a bad bet for the economy. last month a magazine that i really like that normally has a whole lot of articles about the outdoors "out side"ing" magazine ran an article about the tar sands area in alberta entitled" the high cost of oil." for anyone interested in this debate pro, con or undecided go online, the high cost of oil, and read what the mining of tar sands oil does to this part of canada and to this planet.

tar sands oil is not like conventional gas or petroleum. tar sands oil both the mining and refining and production of it produces about 15% to 20% more are greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy than conventional petroleum. natural gas produces dramatically less co2 than conventional petroleum but tar sands oil produces dramatically more. so if you care about the emissions of co2 and i think we should all care about the emissions of co2 because i accept the science that says co2 emissions cause significant climate effects. if you care about co2 emissions, then tar sands oil is absolutely the worst thing that can be done. now, over the year or two two years now that i've been in the senate i've had folks come to me and talk to me about keystone and they never say a word about greenhouse gas or co2 emissions. not a word. senator coats didn't say a word in his comments about co2 or

greenhouse gas emissions. i've asked individuals when they've come and talked to me about keystone what do you think about co2 emissions what do you think about the fact that tar sands oil is significantly more carbon dense than normal petroleum and the response i have found myself getting a lot is i know, i'm not -- i don't know i'm not a scientist. i heard that from a c.e.o. who employs tons of scientists, i'm not a scientist. i don't know. i know science is clear that we need to do incremental every single day to bring down our co2 emissions, i believe we need to do that in smart ways and yet from an emissions standpoint tar sands oil goes exactly the wrong direction. it's not just co2. attartar sands also involving the mining of it and scraping up

vast achages of an arborial forest to get to the oil. so far about the size of the state of rhode island has been ruined. in the area of alberta where the mining and refining has taken place, there's been a dramatic increase in respiratory illness and other illnesses associated either with airborne emissions or the contamination of the area's water supply. the article, probably one of the most powerful things about it is not the lengthy analysis not the words it's the pictures. the pictures in that article are staggering. and when you see what has to be done to these arborial forests to mine tar sands oil you come back to the question, why would we embrace a dirtier technology when america's on a clean energy revolution that's driving down prices driving up production and also driving downey missions? -- down y down emissions.

tar sands oil takes us in the wrong direction. it's about the acceleration of the development of a resource that frankly just doesn't need to be developed. madam president, i'll conclude and say this, that some say in -- as i've made this, aiewment well, look -- argument well, look, it's going to be mined and refined anyway. if the pipeline doesn't go through the united states it will go westward or eastward through canada or another direction. i'm not sure that's completely correct. the article in "outside" discusses the fact that canadians who know this better than anybody because they live in the neighborhood, are fighting against pipelines being built in canada. there's also the matter of -- with oil now at a significantly lower price than it's been, even the economics of this tar sands oil, which is pretty expensive because of what you have to do to refine it, may not make sense. but even if we set those arguments aside and somebody says to me, hey why shouldn't the u.s. just give the big green light to tar sands oil because

somebody's going to get it? the reason i think we shouldn't is i think the u.s. is showing the world right now what it means to be an energy leader. increased production, lower emissions, lower prices through innovation through american innovation we are showing the world what it means to be an energy leader. and -- and we are a leader because we've embraced i think a simple ethic. i'm not an engineer. but as i look at what's happened in the innovation over the last decade the ethic we've embraced is let's do it cleaner tomorrow than today. pretty simple. let's do it cleaner tomorrow than today. not dramatically cleaner. it doesn't have to turn day and night from tomorrow to today. but let's just get a little bit cleaner tomorrow than today. that's what we've been doing as a nation. and it's been increasing supply, it's been driving down demand, it's been driving down prices, it's been helping us control emissions. that's what we should keep doing. so i am a pro-energy senator but i am a deep skeptic about the

use of tar sands oil. and for that reason, i'm glad we're going to have the debate. i think we should finally be at it. but i'm going to oppose the keystone pipeline because tar sands oil going backwards, not forwards. we're showing the world what it means to go forward and that's the direction we should continue to go. and with that, madam president i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i ask that the quorum call bees dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. cantwell: mr. president we are going to be voting shortly on the motion to proceed to senate bill 1 the keystone pipeline and i'm here to urge my colleagues to vote "no" on the mo to motion to proceed. we've had a couple chances to come to the floor and talk about the important issue of energy development in the united states and how we move our country

forward on job creation and energy development and the president got to hear his remarks and certainly respect people's point of view that this issue is an issue that we've had a lot of time to discuss. the issue is whether the american public and people in affected states have had a lot of time discuss this issue and whether they've had a transparent process to talk about this issue. i'd like to submit for the record today an article that was in "usa today" that is the headline "permit problems plague keystone x.l. pipeline south dakota leg." so this is an article that just appeared in the paper about how south dakota is bringing up objections to the pipeline line and they want a due process with their public utility commission to make sure that this project meets the criterias of environmental and safety concerns and security concerns that that state wants to see met. the reason why this is still an issue in south dakota is because

part of the pipeline will go through south dakota and there will be many changes since the original proposal was put forth and people in south dakotas want to know exactly -- south dakota want to know exactly what these changes are and exactly how they'll go through the process. in fact, one native american tribe representative who was objecting said, "the company isn't just asking to recertify a stalled project." "they're going a step beyond that that is not allowed by law law." so there are people that want them to go through the normal process because citing of a pipeline of this nature is a great deal of concern to local residents to, to property right owners. i find it interesting that in the debate on this issue that we on this side of the aisle are the ones advocating standing up for property rights owners to make sthiewr there is national taking -- to make sure there is

not a taking of their property because that's exactly what's transpired here when the company, with the help of the state of nebraska, did not continue to proceed through their public service commission, their public utility commission, and instead tried to pass a law saying that all of that environmental review and security issues and oversight could be done by the governor. now, my colleagues who are governors know that, you know, when you are a goafn a governor, you don't have the most transparent process. it is not like all of that is there for review. and certainly those citizens don't have the ability to object and make sure that they are getting the right compensation for their property and making sure that issues of safety and security are addressed. so that is why those sued the -- on behalf of individual citizens the fact that they didn't say the legislature and the governor had the right to

act. that was unconstitutional. that in the separation of powers divided by the governor and their public service commission that it's the jube job of these u.t.c.'s to protect the interests of the public in the siting of these facilities the and the fact that this was not moved up through the legislature to the governor to decide all of that was clearly something that was not constitutional. i find it very interesting that four of the seven supreme court justices said, in fact, yes that law passed by the legislature wasn't constitutional. so my question is, what's the hurry? knew this issue based on standing and the other justices not deciding, has the process to move forward congress feels some sort of urgency to be a siting commission and site a pipeline that has one failed to go through the public process in the state of nebraska, two has a public process now being questioned in the state of south

dakota raising concern and urgency that those issues of the public be addressed and three goes over what the president of the united states has said he wants to follow as a due process and make sure all the issues are brought to the table. now, i remind my colleagues, if everybody here had their way they would have passed many years ago legislation that would have bound the president of the united states to certify the keystone pipeline that was then being proposed. congress thought they should stick their hands in the middle of this siting and land use issue and put into legislative language on a past bill by the congress saying the president if it was in the national security interest, must decide and site the keystone pipeline. well thank god those at the state department and white house decided that that wasn't such a smart idea because that current pipeline went through a major aquifer that served eight states and proposed a great deal of concern to landowners, farmers residents, and various

individuals about that particular proposal. so if this body would have had it's way before those who support this pipeline, they would have pressured the president to approve what is now a defunct horkt idea horrible idea of what was proposed by trans-canada. are you sure that all the issues have been addressed at the local level because clearly there are people in nebraska and south dakota that don't think so. and last i checked our job is not to site pipelines. our job +s to move is to move our country forward on an energy strategy that will diversify our resources and make the united states a leader in energy. so i know my colleagues feel like we'll get a chance to address a lot of issues if we do move forward in a debate, and i'm sure there will be many on many sides. i question whether we shouldn't be spending our time focusing on a bipartisan energy bill with lots of support on a whole myriad of other issues that we need to work on, like we did in

2007 to make sure that we are helping in the transformation of energy policy and moving forward that will produce a lot more jobs. this particular proposal, as many of my colleagues have pointed out while there are some immediate construction jobs the long-term jobs are very few compared to many of the other things that we have been doing. i'd also like to point out that since keystone has undertaken more development in the united states that part of that development in the united states has also come into question lately that the security welds that have been done in the southern part of that pipeline have come into question, even to the point where i think the state department has said to the department we're going to have a third-party validater approve whether you're getting the standards that we'd like to see in the pipeline in the united states. but there are many issues they're that safety and

security as my colleagues can point out who have brought these issues up before -- my colleague from michigan, who suffered one of the most devastating oil spills in her area; that was a tar sand oil spill. and my colleague from michigan, senator stabenow, has actually flown over that oil spill and sited that it took -- cited that it took four years and $1.2 billion to clean it up understand that the tar sands sunk to the bottom of the river and the river had to be dredged. so this is something that my colleagues may not quite understand that this tar sand, even according to the commandant of the coast guard we don't really have a solution for its cleanupcleanup. that is why i want to make sure -- that is in water -- that tar sands pays into the trust fund as any other oil source would so

we can make sure we are getting the help and response that any of these oil spills could affect in the future. but needless to say michigan and the kalamazoo spill taught our nation how dangerous this oil spill process could be. so again why with are we prematurely trying to cut off the debate at the local government level saying that we know better than these transportation commissions and their transparent siting process for the american public, why do we know better that this is why a pipeline should go and thousand should work? so i hope my colleagues will stop and think about how this trans-canada proposal -- i know some of my colleagues like to talk about being a good neighbor and i like to say you know we in the pacific northwest consider british columbia a very big friend and neighbor. there's many times that people talk about two provinces and

five states working together, as an organization on economic issues. so that structure has been in place for many, many years in the pacific northwest. but the people of british columbia have not been a big supporter of tar sands oil expansion, something like 60% of the public of british columbia oppose having a tar sands pipeline cross their providence. so it makes sense to me, of course they know they're not going to be successful in getting this oil from alberta across british columbia out to the pacific because the people of british columbia don't want it. so of course why not come to the united states? why don't you ask them if they want a pipeline going through the middle of their country? so british premier clark laid out five principles that ought to have been met mured in order to site a palestine of tar sand. so -- to site a pipeline of tar

sand. so there is a lot of opposition and concern there. when a public u.t.c. -- utility commission -- when they evaluate a product, they have to look at environmental impacts -- the water supply, wildlife, vegetation plants -- they have to look at the economic and social impacts they need to look at alternative routes, impacts to future development near the pipeline, and the views of cities and counties. and again i will note, i think that all of these are a part of having a transparent process instead of a political process on siting. so i'm not for moving forward on what i consider special interest legislation of congress siting for a special interest trans-canada company a project that even people in canada have raised suspicion about. i hope that we will allow the president to still do due process on such an important

issue of environmental concern and that we won't start setting a standard that, if you want to just short-circuit the imminent domain and protection rights of individuals, we'll just bypass all that have at the local level and somehow go to congress and they'll ghat done four. i -- they'll get that done for you. i think it's a very bad message. i hope my colleagues will turn down this legislation and i hope that we can move on to other energy issues that will help our country diversify and move forward in the future. so with that, mr. president i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: mr. president i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: so ordered. mr. hoeven: mr. president i rise to again talk about the keystone x.l. pipeline approval bill and we'll be voting on the motion to proceed -- excuse me. cloture on the motion to proceed here in just about 15 minutes or so. i believe we have a bipartisan majority. we have 60 sponsors of the legislation. i believe we'll have some others join us in voting to proceed on the bill. that's important not just because this is bipartisan legislation, important energy legislation for our country but as i have said before, this is an opportunity for all the members of this body republican and democrat, to come forward with their amendments in an open amendment process and really

have an energy debate. let's talk about the energy future of this country and let's bring forward amendments to this legislation that can be good amendments and help us build the right kind of energy plan for our country. and what i would point out about this keystone x.l. pipeline approval bill is that as we work to build an energy plan for this country, as we work to produce more energy so we're truly energy secure, energy -- a lot of people call it energy independence but the way i define it is energy security for our country is we produce more energy than we consume so we control our destiny right? we produce more energy than we consume. then we control our destiny when it comes to energy. but to do that, we not only have to produce that energy, we have got to have the infrastructure to move it safely, cost-effectively efficiently from where it's produced to where it's consumed.

and so we have this incredible opportunity with canada to have north american energy security. we're working with our closest friend and ally in the world we together produce more energy than we consume and we have the infrastructure in place to move it from where it's produced to where it's consumed in our country. now we control our own destiny when it comes to opec or when it comes to russia or when it comes to china when it comes to geopolitical events that affect the price of energy, we're in a strong situation. look what's going on in western europe right now. look what's going on in ukraine. they're in a tremendously difficult situation because they're dependent on russia for their energy, for their natural gas at a time when vladimir putin is undertaking very aggressive action in europe. he's invading ukraine. he's taken crimea. he continues his aggressive

efforts. and here at the same time that european union is trying to support ukraine ukraine is fighting with russia, you've got a situation where they are depending on russia for their energy. does america really want to be in that kind of situation in the future where when we have real problems in the middle east, when we have real problems with fundamentalists islamic jihad that is conducting terror on our people and other freedom-loving people around the world do we want to be in a situation where we continue to depend on the middle east for our oil? well the answer to that is no. the american people resoundingly answer that question no. also the american people well know that the reason gas prices at the pump today are lower is not because opec just decided to give us a christmas present. they know the reason that energy

prices are low in this country that when they pull up to the pump they're saving money. it's because we're producing so much more energy in this country and we're getting more energy from canada. so unless opec cuts back their production more supply, more supply drives prices down. so it's not just about low prices now but it's about making sure that we're able to control our energy destiny in the future. we've got to take a long-term view here. it's working. it's working. of the 18 million barrels of oil a day that this country consumes we now produce 11 million barrels in this country. we're up to 11 million barrels that we produce in this country of the total we consume so we're still importing about seven million barrels a day. but canada now is up to about three million of those seven million barrels so we're down to only importing about four

million barrels a day. but if we keep working at this, if we keep working at this, we can continue to produce more in this country canada's production is continuing to grow and if we build the infrastructure we can make sure that we control that energy. north american energy security. so that means not only now do our consumers and small businesses our whole nation benefit from lower energy prices lower gas prices at the pump but we have that ability to make sure that we control our destiny and that we benefit in the future. let's not repeat the mistakes of the past where we return to this dependency on opec down the road because we haven't built the infrastructure we haven't worked with canada and we haven't grown our domestic industry here in north american so that we truly are energy secure. and if we don't build the necessary infrastructure, if we block the necessary infrastructure we can't build that energy plan for the future. i've heard my counterparts, some

of the critics say well, it's not up to us to issue a building permit for infrastructure. really. really. so you mean it's the president's job and congress' job to block critical infrastructure that will get us energy security? our job is to block it. our job is to prevent the very infrastructure we need to build energy security for this country, to block the private investment the $8 billion that private companies want to spend to build this structure to create jobs, to produce more energy in north america to help take this country to energy security. the president's job and this body's job is to block the ability of our country and canada to build this necessary infrastructure? well i don't think so. so if you want to put it in terms of oh, well, we're not supposed to issue a building

permit really. so our job is to prevent the building of critical infrastructure even when it doesn't cost one single penny not one penny of government money. almost $8 billion in private investment that will generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue state local and federal. every state on the route has approved it, this idea that somehow we're jumping the gun after six years. let's see. it's been in process for six years. every state on the route has approved it. we're not spending any federal money. we're saying our job as a congress as president is to block that kind of investment, block that kind of job creation, block that kind of energy investment, block our ability to get to energy security for this country. and then this argument oh, well it's trans-canada, it's one

company so it's only one company so it really doesn't matter. really? well, if you were a company a canadian company or u.s. company and you were about to build infrastructure so that we could continue to produce more energy in this country, would you do it? if in spite of the process that the federal government has to approve this project where all requirements have been met not once but over and over again and congress and the president continue to block your ability to build that infrastructure, are you going to jump up and spend billions of dollars to do it? i doubt it. and isn't that really what this is all about? that's what it's really about. it's for the folks for the extreme environmental groups that don't want the investment of fossil fuels they're going to block it. this is sending a message and making sure that they shutter down here, and that's got to be music to opec's ears. i have got to believe that opec is going boy that's great. they're not going to build the

infrastructure in their country to produce the energy. that's going to keep opec in business. and there is another country that i think will be really pleased and really excited if this project gets blocked. that's china. china -- china is so anxious to get this oil they're trying to buy that production in canada. because make no mistake if the energy doesn't come to the united states, it's going somewhere else. it's going somewhere else, and it's most likely going to china. so when we get back in that situation down the road, when oil prices move back up, energy demand goes back up and we have prevented our industry from growing and canada's sending all the oil to china and we have to go back hat in hand to opec and to venezuela and all these other countries -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. hoeven: i would ask u.c. for five minutes.

the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. cantwell: i object. is the vote scheduled for four minutes from now? the presiding officer: yes the vote is scheduled for 5:30. ms. cantwell: i'm happy if the gentleman consumes the time before the vote, but i think we should keep to the vote schedule. the presiding officer: would the senator agree to that? mr. hoeven: what time is the vote scheduled? the presiding officer: at 5:30. that would leave you two minutes. politburo hoeven: mr. president i note the presence of the chairman of the energy committee, and i would defer to her for some time if she wants it before the vote, and so that would be my question, whether we could have maybe a couple of minutes for that purpose. i can certainly wrap up in two minutes. ms. murkowski: mr. president i would defer to my colleague sponsor of this legislation senator hoeven from north dakota to conclude his remarks within the remaining time so that we can begin the vote at 5:30 and appreciate his leadership on this. mr. hoeven: mr. president, i'd like to thank again the

chairman -- the presiding officer: the senator has one minute remaining. mr. hoeven: thank you. i will wrap up on this note. let's not get back into the same predicament that we've gotten ourselves into before. let's build this vital energy infrastructure so we can develop energy security for our country together with canada. and the other point i want to make is on the environmental point. no significant environmental impact. that is the finding of the obama administration's environmental impact statement done by the state department. that's their own report, no significant environmental impact. i look forward to having more discussion on the environmental aspects as well, and i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. thank you mr. president.

the presiding officer: all time having expired the clerk will report the motion to invoke 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 the debate on the pending motion to proceed to s. 1 a bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline, 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 motion to proceed to s. 1 a bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: anyone wish to vote or change their

vote? on this vote, the yeas are 63, the nays are 32. three-fifths of the senators duly chosens a sworn having voted to the affirmative the motion is agreed to. mr. toomey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. toomey: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. and that that time count postcloture. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: and mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be a allowed to speak for 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: thank you mr. president. first, i want to congratulate -- the presiding officer: would the senate be in order. the gentleman is recognized.

mr. toomey: thank you mr. president. first, i want to congratulate my colleagues senator hoeven and senator man children the cosponsors of this -- manchin the cosponsors of this legislation. i also want to commend the energy committee chair senator murkowski. this is important legislation. it's long over-dhiew we yoaf due long overdue that we take this up. mr. president, the senate is national in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. could the senators please take their conversations out of the chamber. the senate will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. toomey: thank you mr. president. a couple of things about the keystone pipeline and then i want to talk about an amendment that i'm going to be offering. first, i think one of the encourage things about approving

this pipeline is the benefits for the environment. the fact is we'll be moving oil on a pipeline which is a cleaner, safer way to do it than think available alternative. that's good news. it's good news that it's going to create jobs across our country. the state department has estimated 42,000 jobs in the development of this pipeline. that's terrific news for everyone who's going to get a benefitchance to benefit from that work. clearly, it is going to reduce or independence on non-north american oil with can only be a good thing from an economic point of view. and of course the fact is, this legislation has bipartisan support. it has for a long time. it got 31 democrat votes in the house, 14 democratic votes in the senate as well as every republican senator the last time it was brought up, mr. president. it's strongly supported by the labor community because they recognize the benefits of the jobs that it'll create, and i urge my colleagues to support

this really important legislation. i also would take a moment to thank leader mcconnell for doing wheact what he exactly what he said he would do, which is to reopen this body, reopen it, have debate put legislation on the floor, open it up for amendment and let's have a discussion, let's change policy in this country in ways that'll be constructive. we are beginning that process now, as we said we would and i think that's terrific, and i intend to take advantage of the opportunity. i have several amendments that i'm going to file, and i intend to bring up, with respect to this legislation. one is going to be an amendment that will encourage a transition of our federal government's vehicle fleet from the current practice of burning gasoline mostly and i want to encourage the adoption of natural gas as an alternative fuel because natural gas is cleaner it's domestic it's actually cheaper without any government subsidy

or tax help. natural gas is a cheaper source of fuel. we have a staggering quantity. the united states is the world's number-one producer of natural gas. we've got 2.2 quod drill quadrillion feet of natural gas. it's enough to last the next 85 years based on any plausible projection of our use. a staggering amount. i have another amendment mr. president. that will be an amendment that also has bipartisan support. i want to thank senator feinstein, senators flake and senators manchin for supporter the effort to repeal the corn ethanol mandate in our fuel. we have -- this has been very bad policy we've had for far too long. that is the mandate that we grow corn and use it to burn in our gas tanks. it is a practice that is bad for the environment it raise the

cost of filling up our tanks. it raises the cost of food because so much of our corn production goes into this. and it is nolt good it is not good for our engines. i look forward to having the debate that will enable us to repeal the corn ethanol mandate. but the amendment i really pantst the want topantwant to talk about mr. president, it is another bipartisan amendment -- i want to thank senator casey for being the bipartisan cosponsor of this amendment. this is an amendment that will preserve a really important environmentally beneficial source of alternative energy that we have especially in pennsylvania and west virginia and that we need to preserve and it is under threat by two new rules that have been proposedly the e.p.a. let me give you a little bit of background. the fact is in pennsylvania and west virginia, we've been mining coal for over a century. well over a century. and for many of the decades especially in the early years of our coal development we took

the high energy density coal and we sold it -- our coal miners sold it to the steel industry or it was used in the manufacturing process of making steel and the low-energy coal was left in piles, huge piles actually mountains. and it's often referred to as waste coal. my first photo -- this is a photograph of one of these waste coal piles. it is in nanny glow in cambridge cambridge, west pennsylvania. the pennsylvania department of environmental protection estimates that there are 2 billion tons of waste coal like this covering 180,000 acres in pennsylvania alone. so think about that. it is a massive scale because of over a century of legacy of coal

mining. and some of these piles are literally in people's backyards. here you can see the people who live literally within a stong's -- if you have a reasonably good arm -- within a stone's throw you can reach this pile. that's also nanny glow in cambria county. there are people who like i say, live within a couple hundred of feet. what's the problem with these mountains? the problem with these mountains of coal is, i guarantee you mr. president, it rains on them. and when it rains, this is what happens. the runoff is horrendous. it looks like this. it looks like this in every one of these mountains of waste coal everywhere that one exists every time it rains. in 2003 in an op-ed entitled "the benefits of waste coal," democratic governor -- former democratic governor of

pennsylvania ed rendell's environmental protection secretary wrote "for years these piles sat abandoned generating iron manganese and aluminous pollution that das charged into pennsylvania's waterways." that's exactly what happened. the pennsylvania department of environmental protection report states "coal refuse piles" -- different name for the same thing -- "that are not removed burned for fuel, generally create severely acid mine damage with p had. in the 2.5 range. a ph that high, by the way is somewhere between the intensity of stomach acid and hydrochloric acid. that kind of acidic chemical running into our waters is enormously damaging. slide number four is another

depiction of exactly what happens when rain water runs through these piles and finds its way into the streams and rivers and ponds and lakes of pennsylvania. it pollutes hundreds of miles of rivers and streams. in 2007, former democratic governor of pennsylvania ed rendell said, and i quote these piles are domestic energy sources that have significant value when put into production in c.f.b. co-generation plants. when left -- coal generation plants. when left on the ground, waste coal presents a grave environmental threat. runoff from these piles lead to the abandoned mine drainage, which is the second worse pollution problem in the commonwealth killing off all wildlife in two through stream miles in pennsylvania. that's not all. photo number five shows something else that happens with these piles. they catch fire. they spontaneously combust. it could be that it's lightning

it could be carelessness, whatever the cause. sometimes it's unknown but they catch fire. this particular photo is from fell township in lackawanna county pennsylvania. the pile caught fire in december 2013. it burned for over a year. it is very hard to put these fires out and it burned out of control with obviously no ability to do anything about the pollutants that are being released by the combustion because it's completely uncontrolled. we think that the fire went out in january but authorities are still not certain that it may not be smoldering somewhere below the surface. this by the way this mountain is 600 feet from residential housing. what is the effect of this kind of combustion on the residents in that area? so how much of this burns? maybe people would think this is just a freak incident. not really. the pennsylvania department of

environmental protection estimates that 6.6 million tons, million tons of waste coal burns each year, unintended, uncontrolled but it's burning and in the process it emits nine million tons of carbon dioxide and many tons of other uncontrolled air pollution. so what about cleaning all this up? the costs would be absolutely staggering. again, former department of environmental protection secretary mcginty estimated that it costs between $20,000 and $40,000 to reclaim just one acre of waste coal. we have hundreds of thousands of acres of waste coal, and the pennsylvania general assembly has estimated it would cost approximately $15 billion to remediate just pens -- pennsylvania's abandoned mine

sites. so that's the bad news, mr. president. the good news is the market has figured out a solution for this. the free market has developed a way to systematically eliminate these mountains of waste coal, and what we have done for decades now is we've had power plants designed specifically for the purpose of burning this coal and doing so in a controlled fashion, in a regulated fashion and what they have been doing is they have removed 210 million tons of waste coal, producing electricity. they have remediated over 8,000 acres. they have generated 1.8000 gig a watts of electricity. that's enough to power 1.3 million homes. and in the process they -- the generation of electricity from this waste coal has resulted directly in 1,200 jobs. now, in the past, the e.p.a. has

always acknowledged the benefits of systematically eliminating these mountains of waste coal and doing so by generating electricity. in fact, i'll quote a report from the e.p.a. in 2011 that says -- quote -- "because of the unique environmental benefits that coal refuse fire and e.g.u.'s provide these units warrant special consideration. the problem that i'm here to address, mr. president, is that there are two new rules passed by the e.p.a. that would bring an end to the systematic elimination of these mountains because these rules are prohibitive. it's not possible for the waste coal power plants to comply with these rules so they would all be shut down and we would be left with these piles indefinitely marring our landscape, polluting our water and polluting our air. the two specific rules that would do this.

the cross-state air pollution rule is very likely to have the effect of imposing absolutely unattainable goals on waste coal power plants, and the utility mact rule establishes new very stringent emission controls, a whole new generation of very stringent regulations that this industry cannot meet. so if these rules go into effect mr. president what they're scheduled to go into effect later this year, then waste coal electric generation ends. these plants close. and as a result, we lose the electric power that they have been generating, we lose the 1,200 jobs they sustain we lose the low-cost electricity that's reliable and domestic. we have a more serious air pollution problem when these air combustions continue. and we have a huge problem with ongoing pollution as the nearby streams and water table will be polluted. so that's why senator casey and

i and senator hatch have joined to offer an amendment to this legislation that would -- it would exempt the waste coal power plants from just the post onerous the prohibitive aspects of these new rules. withwith respect to utility mact, we would retain all the regulatory limits on mercury chromium and nickel and all the other heavy metals but it would exempt the waste coal plants from the cross-state air pollution rules and it would allow these plants to continue remediating these waste coal sites. i want to stress it's important to point out that all of the existing regulations that are -- that have long been in effect would remain in effect. what we're talking about is these two new rules that would be guaranteed to shut down the industry. those two rules would not go into effect with respect to the waste coal electric generation. the fact is if our amendment is

adopted and becomes law then we're going to be helping our environment by continuing to systematically eliminate these blights. i want more success stories like the one in this photograph. this photo was taken in carbon county pennsylvania. the first photo shows what the -- what the ground looked like when the waste coal was piled up. the second photo shows what happens after it's been consumed and the land has been restored. this happened precisely because there is a nearby waste coal power plant that was able to take this coal, generate electricity for us to use and restore the land to a much, much safer, much more environmentally friendly and much more attractive environment. we need to keep these plants operating. it is about improving our environment. it's about keeping people working.

it's about the low-cost, reliable electricity that we have from it, and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president congratulations on your election and welcome to the united states senate. the presiding officer: thank you. mrs. boxer: and i just wanted to say that i remember when i first came and i sat in that chair. it was a moment to really learn a lot about the heart beat of the senate, the ebb and flow. so congratulations to you. i was a little shocked to hear the majority leader, senator mcconnell, remark recently that an economic uptick coincided with the election of republicans in this last election and there is no question that the republicans won many, many seats here and it is clear that democrats lost.

but to say that that's why we're having this economic uptick i think would win my friend the majority leader the most creative spinner. and i see he's here because i think he wants to stop me from speaking at this point but i would yield to my friend without losing the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i thank my friend from california. mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, january 13. that following the prayer and pledge the morning business be deemed expired the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks the senate resume the motion to proceed to s. 1 until 12:30 with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. further, that the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow the weekly conference meetings

to occur. finally, notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, all time during morning business, the recess and the adjournment of the senate count postcloture on the motion to proceed to s. 1. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: unfortunately there is an objection from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to yielding back time on the motion to proceed to the bill so i would say to my colleagues if all time is used, we'll be on the bill shortly after midnight tomorrow night. shortly after midnight tomorrow night. and then we would have to begin to offer amendments under the regular order. chairman murkowski is ready to start that process on the floor tomorrow whenever that may occur, whether it's during the day by agreement or whether it's in the middle of the night without agreement. i would encourage senators on both sides of the aisle to file their amendments and get in the

queue. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senator boxer for up to 30 minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. boxer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i thank the majority leader for allowing me this time to proceed. as i was saying, it's -- it's one thing to rewrite history a few years after it passes. it's another thing to rewrite it while you're still living through it, and to say that this economic recovery is a republican recovery is kind of funny and strange. in fact, the year 2014 was the best year for job creation since 1999 and it would have been a lot better in 2014 and the prior years if our republican friends hadn't filibustered every single job proposal that president obama put forward.

and, you know, it's sad because we would have been here at a much quicker moment. the economy added almost three million jobs in 2014, averaging almost 250,000 jobs a month. the unemployment rate has fallen to 5.6%, and most of that decline -- and here is the good news -- came from long-term unemployed workers getting back to work. g.d.p. growth has accelerated reaching an annualized rate of 5% in the third quarter of 2014. this is the best g.d.p. growth we've seen in over ten years. our economic recovery has been long it's been tough but it is happening. and thank you, president obama for your leadership. we have added 11.2 million private sector jobs since february 2010. that's the longest streak of recorded private sector job gains in american history.

the stock market, the stock market has bounced back from the crash. it's added more than 10,000 points reaching an all-time high of over 18,000 points. and our annual deficit has been reduced by almost two-thirds. our deficit has been reduced by almost two-thirds. now, i think it's important to put into context the job growth under presidents democratic and republican, because i think we need to look at private sector job growth. this is an extraordinary chart. under george herbert walker bush there were 1.5 million jobs created in his term of office. bill clinton 21.2 million. and i have seen that number up to 23 million, but that's probably when you include public sector. but private sector, 21.2 million jobs. under george w. bush, a loss of

460,000 jobs. under president obama a gain so far of seven million and he has two years to go, and we're just moving forward. this says to me that we democrats know what we're doing. and if you want to look at deficits that's another day's speech. you know, it was bill clinton that balanced the budget. it was w. bush who unbalanced it put two wars on a credit card and gave a tax cut to the rich and we had terrible deficits and it was barack obama who has now reduced this deficit by two-thirds. so i say all this leading up to my discussion of the keystone pipeline. how does that even connect? i'll tell you. when a new majority takes over in congress you know the first bill they take up symbolizes

their priorities. out of all the things that they pick all the things that they pick they pick a bill that in terms of permanent job creation will be 35 jobs. and that's proven by the state department. 35 long-term jobs. and you have to wonder why are they doing this? and i believe i know the answer. this is really a big hug and a big kiss to big oil. and canadian interests. that's what it's about. otherwise, why wouldn't we turn to the highway bill? mr. president, i think you and i know we have worked across party lines on that issue and it's millions of jobs for americans, good jobs, long lasting jobs. rebuilding our bridges rebuilding our highways, rebuilding our roads making sure we have transit systems that work. we have a terrible record in

terms of our bridge condition today. thousands and thousands tens of thousands of bridges are not in good shape. and we have seen bridges fail and we know the outcome. why are we doing something for canadian oil business interests that they will make billions off, instead of doing something for america america like building our infrastructure? this bill isn't about helping american workers or families. let's be very clear. it does nothing. again, when i say 35 permanent job, i'm not making that up. that's in the final supplemental environmental impact statement which i believe the republicans want to make final right? so they're accepting it. the republicans are accepting the fact that there's 35 permanent jobs because they in their language say we approve of

the final supplemental environmental impact statement which is where it says there will be 35 permanent jobs. now, yes there's temporary jobs for two years a couple of thousand, but the fact is we can have millions of jobs when we rebuild our infrastructure. we got 400 new jobs coming to the imperial valley in my home state because we have lithium there, and they're going to start producing it. 400 jobs, just bun little project. this is 35 jobs for americans. you've got to be kidding. this is what you got for us? after all that blood sweat and tears in the election? i just think wasting another minute on the tar sands project doesn't make any sense. a multiyear surface transportation bill is what we need. we still have unemployed people in the construction industry,

so we have 600,000 construction workers remaining out of work. what are we giving them? 2,000 temporary jobs and 35 permanent jobs. let's do a highway bill and, by the way the trust fund is running dry and in four months will be completely dry. let's step up to the plate and do our job not do the job for the canadian oil interests. i don't get it. i don't think it makes sense because i know we've worked together on transportation projects. and we're worried billions of dollars going to our states whether it's oklahoma, california nevada, name it east coast, west coast the funding is going to be delayed or stopped. and all these little short-term extensions that the house did are absolutely irresponsible. it doesn't provide stability to our local governments to our businesses. so we know what we have to do.

we have to invest in our aging infrastructure. no country can be great if we don't have an infrastructure that moves people and moves goods. and, again 50% of our nation's roads are in less than good condition, 63,000 bridges are structurally deficient. let's do something for america america. that's what we're here for not to do something good for canadian oil companies. let's focus on what's good for the people. now, let's turn to this infrastructure project the keystone pipeline. i want to say unequivocally -- and i don't have any doubts because i will source everything i say everything i say -- that from extraction to transportation to refining to storage, misery follows the tar sands. that's the oil it's the dirt iest oil. i think x.l. stands for extra

lethal. so a pipeline is a pipeline. fine. it's what you put in it. this is the filthiest most polluted kind of oil. tar sands oil contains levels of toxic pollutants and metals that are much higher than con conventional crude oil, 11 times for sulfur and nickel, six times more nitrogen. who is that saying that? is it barbara boxer? no. let me source it. the u.s. geological survey, the heavy oil and bitummin 2007, documented. tar sands equal the dirtiest oil. why are my republican friends and some of my democrat friends, i admit that, i know there's a few want to rush to bring this knit filthy oil into our country? the only benefit is to the

canadian oil interests. and the fact is we need less pollution, not more pollution. now, how do levels of dangerous air pollutants and carcinogens been documented downwind from the tar sands refineries. people in nearby communities are suffering higher rates and types of cancers. like leukemia and non-hodgkins lymphoma. is this me saying it? some right-wing blog took me to task says she's standing on the floor and making stuff up. okay let's be clear. i'm not making stuff up. i'm telling the truth. and i'm going to document it in every case. significant higher levels of volatile compounds and carcinogens were found downwind

of tar sands processing facilities. there were elevated rates of cancers linked to these toxic chemicals, including leukemia and non-hodgkins lymphoma. where does this come from? simpson, trace gases measured or alberta sands mining operations 76 c 10 volatile compounds and they list what they are. this is from two peer reviewed papers. is this what the republicans do first? i think we wanted to make people healthy. it's one thing to repeal the affordable care act which now in my state has reduced the uninsured by close to 50%. that's bad enough. now they want to bring in this oil and help the canadian oil people and it's going to bring

all these carcinogens and all this pollution to our country. now, we already know i visited with the people from port arthur texas where they have these refineries. look at this picture mr. president. a picture is worth a thousand words. i know that that is a cliche but it's a fact. i could try to explain stew what happens near a ballet ground when this stuff is refined and you might say that's nice, barbara, but you're really making this up. no. here it is. look at it. they suffer asthma, respiratory ailments skin irritations and cancer. this is what happens right near a playground. now, there are some politicians down there are say bring it on. we want it. we like it. but talk to the real people there who live there with

children. they have enough of tar sands. they're up to here with it. they don't want more of i. they want less of it, they want none of it. and let's not forget about the waste. see once they burn all this stuff they have waste left over. it's called pet coke. petroleum coke. look at this. this is what it looks like. and it's stored all over -- in the midwest a lot of it is stored in the midwest. and what happens if you look at this it's not wet. so it can blow in the wind. billowing black clouds have contaminated our children. they contain heavy metals. children playing baseball have been forced off the field to seek cover from the clouds of black dust that pelted homes and cars. i think do we have another picture of that one? okay. and this happened, this is why my friend, senator durbin, is

so concerned. because it happened to his little league players in the chicago area. when inhaled these particles can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, they can aggravate bronchitis coughing -- i'm coughing just at the thought of it. lung disease he, reduce the body aability to fight infections. where does that come from? i say it again when inhaled these particles can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases and reduce the body ability to fight infection. what's the source of that? california air resources board particulate matter brochure and gate dated may 6 2009. so i don't know how exposing americans to this kind of pollution is in the national interest. i believe instead of waiving all the environmental reports like

my republican friends do in their bill they ought to call for more studies on the health impact of the tar sands oil. so our families know what they're going to get with this pipeline. now, also there are spills to worry about. there are spills to worry about. believe only will the keystone tar sans pipeline are harmful to human health it hurts the environment in communities located if there's a spill it's the toughest kind of oil to clean up. here's the source for that. the e.p.a. nepa compliance alert, that's what they talk about. i'll tell you something. we have had spills at the tar sands. spills in michigan. spills in arkansas. if you don't believe me, ask those folks, do you know in 2010 mr. president a pipeline ruptured and spilled over a million gallons of tar sands oil into the kalamazoo river in

michigan. the local health department ordered the evacuation of 50 households and approximately 100 families were advised not to drink the water. the michigan spill was the largest inland spill in u.s. history and more than four years and a billion dollars later, it is not cleaned up. so wait a minute. you know, let's review. republicans take over, the first bill they give us is the tar sands bill. the only people it helps in my opinion backed up by fact are canadian oil interests. the only jobs it creates permanently is 35 jobs. and what it does to our health, is a disaster. because the tar sands oil is the most toxic dirtiest kind of oil and if there's a spill is the hardest to clean up. who do you think is paying the billion dollars in michigan? i can tell you probably mostly

the government. maybe trying to collect some from the private sector. if you don't believe me about michigan let's turn to mayflower, arkansas. look at this. this is a neighborhood, a beautiful neighborhood of homes. this is filthy, dirty disgusting oil and the camera is taking pictures of it. in 2013, 200,000 gallons of the tar sands burst from a pipeline because it's volatile. it burst from the pipeline. it spilled in the streets of a subdivision. it forced the evacuation and abandonment of 22 homes. residents were exposeed to high levels of benzene -- benzene is a known car sin zen -- carcinogen and hydrogen sulfide. people in this community not some made-up myth alcommunity in this community, they suffered dizziness headaches respiratory problems, all classic symptoms of exposure to

the chemicals found in the tar sands. so remember this picture and remember the picture of the filthy dirty oil and the pet coke. because a picture tells a thousand words and that's the picture my friends want to make a reality in america. their first great bill, their first great contribution to the economy, 35 jobs. please, we can do better. we can work together on a highway bill, on a transportation bill. we do so well on that. and we can add millions of jobs especially in the construction industry. and now there's the issue of climate change. now, we know we're dealing with a lot of deniers on the other side of the aisle they deny climate change is real. it doesn't matter what you tell them. july was the hottest month -- august was the hottest month september was the hottest month.

in 2014. we know what's happening. the world knows what's happening. but we have deniers here. so they deny any problem and they go rush to build the keystone pipeline. what happens here is, the keystone pipeline will undermine our efforts to address climate change. the state department's own analysis says a barrel of tar sands oil carried by the keystone tar sands pipeline will create at least 17% more carbon pollution than domestic oil. pure reviewed research estimates the increase in oil consumption caused by the keystone could result in up to 110 million metric tons of carbon pollution each year, four times the state department's estimate. so this is even more than the state department says, and the source there is ericksonnet al.

"nature climate change," that's a peer-reviewed study as well. this isy equivalent of carbon pollution adding 23 million new cars to the road. 23 million new cars to the road or building 29 coal-fired plants. so the state department is even modest in his production and even -- very modest in its projection and even that's too much. and here's more. here's the state department. that's the 17% quote. and the it could add up to an additional 27 million metric tons of carbon each year. that's more of the state department. so this is their modest conclusion and we believe the peer-reviewed studies show it's far worse than even the state department says. so again if you don't believe that climate change is a problem problem, i'm really sorry for your constituency because let

me tell you what scientists are saying. and i'm saying it's 98% of scientists. let's be clear. 98% of scientists say climate change is real. 2% say we're not so sure. so my friends side with the 2%. supposing one of my friends didn't feel well and went to the doctor and the doctor said i'm sorry to tell you this, sir but you have a cancer that is raging over your body and we need to operate today. and you say, i want a second opinion. that's good. and you go to a second opinion and the second doctor says absolutely, you better get that operation. and you say well, i want a third opinion. all right. i understand it. you go for a third opinion. absolutely, those two doctors were right. but you keep going and you get nine opinions that all say sir you're a dead man if you don't

get this operation. and then you find a 10th and he says, and, you know, just go on a vegetarian diet; you'll be fine. if you listen to that one out of ten doctors there's something wrong with you. it's just like big tobacco. they did the same thing. they said, oh, tobacco's fine, not a problem. until we realized that it was a whole campaign by the big tobacco companies to turn us away from the facts that the tobacco causes cancer. and that's the truth. and guess what we found out? in a union of concerned scientists expose they found out that the same people that led that fight of tobacco denial are leading the fight of climate denial. you know, if this was just going to hurt you i say to my republican friends rhetorically,

i don't care. i mean, i'd be really sad and sorry if one of my friends went to the doctor and didn't listen to the best advice, but you know what? that hurts him. i would be miserable, i would try to talk him out of it. but this is about my constituents and the people of this country. and i've got to say, this is wrong. this is just wrong. and this is an opportunity to bring the parties together. we could have done it around so many issues, in particular the highway bill. so commonsense tells us this isn't the right thing to do. we're looking at unleashing this dirty, fity oil. it's going to be -- filthy oil. it's going to be harmful to our families' health, it's going to worsen the impacts of climate change it's want going to create the jobs we need to create. and again i urge my colleagues vote "no" on this thing.

it's not ready for primetime. there are going to be amendments that are going to reveal the fact that if we go forward with this thing it's actually going to raise gas prices for americans because all this stuff is going to be exported. even the tar sands that is now currently in america they're going to export it. because of the world market. and we're going to have amendments that are going to show that. we -- this bill doesn't even have "made in america" amendment to it. we're going to offer that. why don't we make this deal here? why don't we put people to work here? it's -- that's not in this bill. this bill is not ready. this bill does not help us. this bill hurts us. and i know my friends came here to make this country better. i don't -- i think they think it helps. i don't question that. but if you look at all the facts -- and i've got them lined up here one after the other --

whether it's the jobs impact, the health impacts who benefits who gets hurt, it's pretty clear. it's on the record. all you have to do is look at it. don't shop around for a doctor who is going to tell you, you know this is a good deal. because they've already spoken. it's not a good deal. and we can do so much better, and i hope, because i think it's going to be a contentious debate, i hope we turn to, after this the highway bill. and my friend, jim inhofe and i who work so well together and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and across the -- the capitol on the other side, the house can finally come together and do something that will send a strong signal to the american people that the election just ended now let's gofn govern. but when you bring things before the body that some of us feel are so detrimental to the american people, you know, i'm -- i'm willing to vote at

midnight about it. it's okay with me. we'll vote at midnight and vote at 1:00 in the morning i don't care what time we vote. but why are we taking this up? this is not what we should be doing. s. 1. i've looked at some of the s. 1 bills that the democrats have put forward and they all really have mostly have to do with creating a lot of jobs or making sure there's equal pay for equal work or making sure the minimum wage is increased. we could be doing all those things together. so it is with, you know, pride that i stand here again for my state. it is with no animosity about the election. it was hard-fought and hard-won. but i think this is an enormous mistake and i will continue to stand on my feet as long as it takes to make the case as to why i think it's wrong make the case for why i think there's so much else we could do for the good of our people. and i thank you mr. president for your courtesies. and i would yield the floor.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.

we take you live now to a meeting of the house rules rules committee underway where members are considering the homeland security spending bill. the measure will come up for debate on the house floor at a later time. >> i have said and mr. mcgovern has said bipartisan homeland security bill. it is essential that we pass this bill to protect your community and mind and then let's have a discussion on immigration anytime. >> reclaiming my time. it is the presidents actions

that brought us to this point not anything that has happened in united the united states congress. cnet there seems to be a real disagreement on that. >> mr. collins. >> i do have a specific question. comment is dealing with oversight of secret service. it seems to be there as efficient rim for the secret service to improve their act and to get so or they can predict the present and the first lady. do you agree with funding of that? >> of course the arabs. >> one other thing about who started this i have about had it to hear about what we did on immigration when they did it. i remember and i've said this before i remember where members across the aisle just a few years ago you controlled the house, you control the senate. you have the presidency. you put dodd-frank in front of us. you put obamacare in front of us. do you did many things that had no republican support and now we have to have a debate on

immigration when you could have done it for two years like you did everything else without republican support? >> would the gentleman yield? >> not yet. at this time there's a problem is and eyes the united states member of the armed services i will not stand with who we are doing here. the problem with what my colleagues have said is this got thrown in when you didn't do it a few years ago when you could and now you have a president who wants to assert his politics into this and this is what the gentleman from georgia said. this is about article 11 article ii. it's about roles and responsibilities and to have this debate and to throw -- we didn't have a debate. the republican party will have a debate on immigration but it's not going to be dependent on the terms of someone in the white house saying here's what i'm going to do without you. >> i would simply say don't play politics with the national security of this country and by

tying this issue to the homeland security appropriations bill that is exactly what my friends are doing. i think that is a big mistake and i thank the chairman for yielding. >> reclaiming my time then don't play politics with the american people on what you wish to edit them when he had availability to. >> i want to thank the members here. we will now recess subject to the call of the chair at the end of the third meeting. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] ..

many of these pieces of broad bipartisan support. the legislation before us today embodies many of the most bipartisan. yet in the support of the community level. they already passed the full house of representatives and a bipartisan way as other bipartisan bills or stand-alone bills. you may hear some division of colleagues. these have all been extensively vetted and will enjoy a -- employ regulatory burdens. as much as i were here today to do otherwise this is not a dismantling or undermining of the jobs -- .-dot -- .-dot frank act.

report to repairing its ineffectiveness. >> mr. chairman, this bill does not attempt to address those problems at all but target and extreme wind that the subcommittee has identified that can be easily identified. >> i share your concern with your expression of the president saying he we will veto. it has been heard in a bipartisan a bipartisan manner, and we hope that he

would hear that. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your testimony. i want to welcome ms. waters. ms. waters, i'm glad your here. well, i assure mr. stivers will understand that. >> thank you for letting me speak on hr 37. mr. chairman, following last week's unsuccessful attempt

to slip this nation -- this through the house i am hopeful it has been made clear that such bills should be brought up only after being given an opportunity to robustly debate them which is why i am i am disappointed this legislation is being rushed to the house floor. our committee has nine members that have the opportunity to consider the impact. impact, we have not even had our 1st organizing meeting we are rushing this through the floor without the opportunity to here expert testimony or offer amendments.

i sincerely hope their will be an open world where all germane amendments are debated and a lot of old. members of submitted about a dozen amendments to this package because it contains a number of broad provisions for example, restricting the amount of information the private company must provide an employee which hurts our nation's workers but by the right to understand how much the conversation -- compensation is work the -- worth. this may be downright harmful. the most alarming and substantive change is substantial change, additional relief for a particular type of risky financial instrument from the vocal role.

the house pushed house pushed relief for collateralized loan obligations, referred to as cielo. after that vote the federal reserve did exactly what they wanted a delay which amounted to three years of relief. the republicans and big banks that what they wanted they are asking for more which we will provide another two years of relief for the biggest bank by delaying implementation until 2018. mr. chairman the purpose is simple. banks insured by government dollars can no longer engage in risky vehicles like hedge funds.

attaching it to a must past spending vehicle in the dead of night by continuously asking for more they have undermined any good faith that existed to smooth the transition. it also harms consumers and hands a big way and to wall street. the bill requires benefit analysis used in favor of special interests like wall street banks.

they limit the independence of wall street chairs and tie up already insufficient resources and put them at greater risk of litigation. for example this year the cfp b will issue rules on everything from payday lending and student loans to debt collecting. if past those consumer protections would be jeopardized this comes at a time a time when house republicans want to hold funding for our financial regulations back despite new responsibilities and more complex financial systems. with our economy still recovering from the 14 to a notification of crisis we cannot afford to destroy crucial reforms and hamstring our financial regulators under the guise of so-called job creation.

i would ask these agreements permit in order. >> that looks like a conflict of all we are doing today. we are trying to rush this bill to the floor, floor, go in and make things better for special interest, do a whole lot of things that really sounded very negative yet yet all of these provisions have been heard, lots of hearings been on the floor, and we previously passed the. can you shed some light -- gentleman will hold just a 2nd. >> failover floor.

>> i will answer the question. it question. it just did not reach two thirds. >> as you know, the threshold is a little bit different. >> we have got the votes. we know that. >> there you their you go. >> just keep doing that. >> there have been concerns raised. dealing with additional information. that was one of my bills that simply says going forward to try to streamline the process you should have a summary page that would make it easier to find information. information. that bill passed the house by a voice vote. i assume she is alluding to

one of the antiwar bills opportunities to address the issues. that was brought to the floors will and passed by a a voice vote. i can run down the list. this bill passed the house. the 2nd was 54 to 71. it passed by a voice vote. the the next came and passed by 417 to four. the next past 42220. another one the sponsors passed the house for 222.

out of community 56 to 0 and i can continue to run down. they pass almost unanimously in each case but as the chairman said before, the bills and go over to the senate. as i often say, the senate is where all good bills go to die. so we are beginning to say let's take these bills that passed overwhelmingly and let's have the senate may be taken up again. >> well, that is exactly what i would have said in preparation for the sharing. we understood that it was a bipartisan agreement not just to do these bills, but repeatedly on the floor.

if i could, i would like to back up for a 2nd. i see mr. sherman arrived who intended to be the other person on the bill. please hurry also to have you come join us direct table rather than going with you on a separate panel that will finish them before. >> my goal is to become a heavy weight on capitol hill and these would help. >> mr. chairman, with that this gentleman is recognized.

>> went through the list. i have an amendment at the desk. it is a short amendment. mr. garrett went through the list and has told you that every one of these bills had either passed the house with the community overwhelmingly. title alone past 36 to 23. he may want to take another look at that that, but it was discussed at community. never discussed at the committee, no hearing at the subcommittee, no hearing at the full community it was snuck in mind ten other provisions that had received either house approval or committee approval. there it is, snuck in. is that the that the way we are

supposed to do business next i don't know whether it is good _ the policy or bad. i would like like to have hearings markup, to consider it but it extends until 2019 an exception from the volcker rule. that is a very important part of dog frank. not only does it extend the deadline but it takes some of the deadline that has not been extended that the regulators had already extended for three but another group of collateralized loan obligations, the regulators have not extended it at all. so this is a two to five year extension of banks have

got to comply with the rule with regard to collateralized loan obligations and other similar instruments. it might be great policy policy, spectacular policy. how are we supposed to go back the house and committee never considered it. at least if you believe in this process, give us a chance to strike title viii of four. then you can come up and tell us that this is a collection of ten bills that have received committee attention and support kelly in one case not overwhelming support. otherwise don't allow us to be forced to vote on ten provisions ten provisions that have been considered by the committee or the house and one little sneaky one that is.

>> thank you very much. the gentleman from california has one of the better attendance rates of the committee, committee, and i commend him on that. he may lie the forgotten over is just not their but the committee did have hearings on clo's quirks so to your.saying that we have never had an issue, hearing, disgusted we have discussed before you came in i pointed out the topic topic, the legislation the ground that legislation that actually passed committee came to the floor and passed the house by enforcement. we have had hearings, it is has has come to the floor before.

so that's what the record is. in that of the support. the problem is not in the house for we have bipartisan support provided for 300 billion worth of financing. we do not want to cut that off. the problem often is in the other house and chamber the senate. they yield back. >> we voted of a bill to extend to 2017. now now we're being told that is the same as 2019. two years matters. the question is, is does it matter that we did not

discuss 2017 versus 2019 in depth. they never voted on whether the deadline should be 2017 or 2019 and committee. we never voted in the house. and two years on a matter of this importance certainly matters and you cannot go to the floor of the house and say, zero, we have already consider this. especially with the regulators. usa five years, three years what is the difference of the regulators have expected it. the it. the only question for legislation is those other two years. that that is the question. we have never voted. as to whether we have had friends they are wide ranging and i am someone mentioned this as a

possibility. >> thank you very much. >> that they were colleagues for being here today and the effort that they have put into getting this bill passed. no questions i yield back. >> the gentleman from new york quirks i would like one of you to give me some idea why you think this extension for two more years appropriate and what you intend to do that about the time other than cattle dog frank. >> alex ford touring the intro to have hearings. >> where. >> we have a hearing in the markup. maybe that they should be july 20. we have never had a chance to offer committee as to what the deadline should be question you have any

information from regulators that they would like to wait years to make. >> desk. it was not a one-off. we had a hearing specifically on this topic and it was not just a passing comment. it was specifically discussed. a two-year extension. so we were trying to wait for several other members. we go. there is a football game tonight. and so as we break the gavel down it is my hope other members will want to appear.

we are about having a 2nd panel related to the appropriations act for 2015. a few moments ago we had subcommittee chairman: now we are reconvened to hear about the amendment process. unrecognizable in stranglehold, barletta. i did i did not put you on the list for am delighted that you are here. you have been here for a couple of hours. i will go back and forth.

you will be the clean a balance of light. we are delighted that you are here. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i spoke five amendments of lease. designed to grant all but one. this includes deferred actions that would offer temporary protection from

the petitioned to certain parents of us citizens and the expansion of the deferred action for childhood arrival initiative to include people brought to the country as children. in the absence of other reforms, this provision will break apart more families and destroyed more communities, ensure we continue to deport the parents of us if it's an unlawful residence and many children into the foster care system every year. i will touch on just a few groups. these waivers are created by congress and meant that the six help us citizens from avoiding extreme hardship that would result if forced all caps remained abroad.

this would bring over more closely allowing. the amendment would prohibit dhs and the department of defense from taking steps that they we will love you to do so. it would prohibit dhs thousands of workers who are waiting for a green card to your work authorization themselves. it it helps raise wages to increase opportunities, and reduce exportation. it would prevent the administration from using its parole authority and national interest waiver

created by congress to capitalize on the intervention of foreign entrepreneurs and make green cards available to accomplished entrepreneurs with a a track record of creating jobs and generating substantial revenue. finally he would block a series of initiatives and help lawful, permanent residents complete the naturalization process to become us citizens. the only november 20 executive action not blocked is the one pertaining to pay increases and workforce realignment. the message that this sentence is pretty much everything the administration is that over the past six years to defer removal for the parents of us citizens to promote citizenship, immigration sensible and forced priorities, spur entrepreneurship, protect american and foreign high skilled workers was somehow an unconstitutional abuse of power. the second amendment is more

targeted but no less objectionable. the use of funds. because there have been confusion this explicitly applies to new applications thousands of june people who have come forward and received deferred action from reviewing the production that would put these people in a deportable status. third amendment states that bill funds may be used to implement immigration enforcement policy that fails to treat any person elected of an offense involving sexual violence, child violence, child abuse,

child exploitation at the highest enforcement priority this is largely unnecessary. nearly all crimes are already treated as top priorities. crimes involving sex abuse of a minor child pornography rape, violence. the only crimes that do not show a gain significant misdemeanors under dhs and are in the 2nd highest priority. so all the people we are talking about our high enforcement policies. this is not unnecessary but harmful. under the policy was explicitly made clear that careful consideration must be given because what to make sure the victims of domestic violence are not treated as a high

enforcement priority. here is the situation that can occur. in some jurisdictions all parties present are arrested the theory being sorted out and out in the living room but a later date. often times one of the victims may simply plead the teeth of -- guilty to a minor offense to get out of jail. we believe there should be scrutiny to make sure you are not saying in that case a victim of violence is being treated. it is based upon the premise that is false. incentives for employers. that is not true.

generally exempt from the employer mandate. some persons are counted, so there is no incentive to hire people with deferred action. larger employees cannot pick and choose the penalties that they pay is generally based upon the total number of employees regardless of integration status. let's not forget the alternative to allowing people to come forward is the status quo. millions of workers living in the shadows. in the final amendment filed last friday says it is the sense of congress that usc i

asked. i believe that the amendment is trying to get at is when it was initially it implemented there is a big wait times for the petitioners which is unacceptable. however, the amendment ignores the fact that us eis is much better positions to avoid delays than it was in 2012. they handle many petitions filed by people in unlawful status you never want to put at the back of the line. line. asylum applications, people marry to american citizens requests for visas, these are all people who would be hard by the amendment. i believe congress needs to have a discussion.

i am open to that discussion. i am part of a barb -- bipartisan group that tried to meet for five years. i don't think they solve our need to reform our immigration system the chairman did not want to deport 11 million people but that is what these amendments would accomplish. >> thank you very much. i said i did not want to throw them out. when i was in reference to

-- i am a party of abraham lincoln, teddy roosevelt and -- >> i did not mean to mistake >> digital woman does understand what i'm saying and i appreciate it. you're normally appear in appropriations time you call all. the department of homeland security. security. i want to recognize the worker representatives for

times sake of want to keep my comments brief. please allow me to highlight some of the purposes of the amendment. it prevents funds appropriated to be used by the president which will grant deferred action additionally declaring no funds may be used to implement substantial similar policies. it defines the obama administration prosecutorial discretion memos and my colleague we will speak to that more directly just. finally the amendments have

no statutory or constitutional basis. we will be hearing from several other members the city, but thank you for allowing me to be at the committee. >> you are a valuable part of this body and your testimony is welcomed. last time we had some words with each other, and the glad that the gentleman's comeback. >> last month at this room in this test almost at that at this hour testified. the bill in question was intended to cut funding for the immigration executive actions.

i i argued in my testimony that undercutting executive action was tantamount to calling for the blanket the partition of every undocumented immigrant. indeed, anyone out of status i tried to lay out the policy in the thousands of airplanes we would need in addition if we were to send 5 million us children and for millions of legal permanent residents family members along with them. the fruit that were brought on the fields for the vast majority of those are undocumented.

you thought it was outrageous that no one in reasonable republican contemplated anything of the kind and assure me you would never contemplate deporting the -- immigrants unless they were dangerous to the country had committed a crime. well now we are discussing legislation designed to make certain immigrants of priority. they are dreamers who came to this country as children and submitted their fingerprints for criminal background check. no crime. most of them have been three years working, right with the law. the amendments taken together would be a serious

priority equal to any criminal. no longer protected from duplication will list fight for these countries overseas of those who have fought for our currently fighting we have this incredible broken immigration system that gives a man or woman in order to kill and protect the nation and at the same time perceived in order for duplication. victims of domestic violence will be loved right in. they would have the same priority for duplication.

victims of domestic violence, 3,000 since the president has to put in more people than any other in the history of the nation protested every event. in the new york times by colleagues is that said that what the republicans have put forward is designed to conserve the most conservative side and was happy that the republican was lining up to give everything that they asked for. this is as close as we have never gotten to 100 percent. here we are.

the very idea enshrined in american law the prosecution be able to apply the law and the real threat as criminals are not a top priority. the whole nation is thrown out the window. all of the president's actions are constitutional and has overstepped his boundaries. they make one exception. the president was absolutely acting within the wall law with the address the salary of law enforcement officers and put them on the par with federal law enforcement officers. american children. constitutional authority. hard to believe that this past week bombings and shootings.

i just don't see how this is good politics politics policy, or a way of ensuring the american people thank you. you. [applause] >> thank you very much mr. gutierrez. upset as i am about the capture of the football. there you go. you heard it now.

ohio state, texas tech dallas cowboys. >> thank you. i submitted for immigrants and will go through them fairly briefly. the 1st one is a $1 million increase to supply, supply, administer, and test victims of rape and decrease within the same subheading by $1 million salaries and expenses counts many of you may have followed according to the

agency some of these may have rickets and some do not. they are sent to hospitals hospitals, but because the tension centers are in more remote areas of state's hospitals are sometimes long distances away which would provide a budget for rape kits to be at facilities at the detention centers to be used by the medical personnel. that is my first amendment. my 2nd my 2nd amendment would be essentially a race of border patrol agents. there is a race that is included but for a few years the wages were frozen. the 3rd one is only dollar increase a few weeks ago

there was an alarming stories about gun smuggling this highlights that issue and request an increase of million dollars. the biggest issue i have. it would essentially negate the only what they are trying to do with their own amendment. the opportunity for you to come.

>> i was the mayor of my hometown. 2,000 miles away from the nearest southern border tax revenues stayed the same. can you imagine the city's room at 50 percent and the tax revenue for legal perspective that many of my colleagues because i had to deal with it firsthand. limited revenue and school districts from the year

2,000. the budget is $500. just five. just five years later it was 1.5 million. yet, we were not seeing any more revenue. we were seeing a whole different side of the problem of illegal immigration that others have mercy. selling drugs on the playground it took our detectives five hours to find out who he was. and i realized that law enforcement does not no who they are dealing with. i testified as a mayor at the type and said that this is a national security

problem. we had taken down a fraudulent documentation ring with 1500 to $3,000 you can get a hold of identity. and i saw a different side of the problem. very few people recognize that. i remember in 1986 president reagan gave amnesty to 3 million people it was a cab driver in new york. he was involved in the 93 plot to blow up the world trade center. the only the only thing he ever planted in america was a ball. so my problem that began my crusade was where not going to be doing face-to-face interviews. there will be no face-to-face interviews with

any of the applicants so how immigration can affect the community i believe my stance was with the reason i was elected in the 1st place. the program did not begin all of a sudden that led to the deferred action the

immigration officers, the view of the wall rather than congress actually wrote it. this completely guts immigration and enforcement in the united states they are afraid to do their jobs. our amendment simply is not making sure that he can at long last enforce the law. thank you very much.

>> spoke about what happened last time we were here i do no that it was a difficult time. today we today we had a chance to think about what we're doing. i i myself we will have to make a determination about where i am and i fill strongly that the kid is a congress body, and the party address this issue.

take advantage of things you believe in. but what the president has done earlier unlawful and unconstitutional. but posey has taken a few minutes and thought about this over the past few weeks and i think you have seen a fair presentation on both sides.

what a party is not doing is attempting to do anything at the last minute. i believe that my party do understand that we we will have to deal with it in an effective and honest way. for the five if you showed up today, i applaud you for coming to this body and speaking your mind and i have delighted that you are here. >> i just wanted to thank the members.

do more in the years ahead. how difficult to debate is likely to be. i associate myself with the chairman's remarks overregulation goals. short-circuited. if we are

going to get to a national consensus that they must be a national national debate and legislative process. i know your positions well. i just want to tell you that each and every one of you is playing an important role. it is time to have this discussion. i suspect it we will not be the only piece of legislation recently, we see, but i do think that addressing the president unilateral action is the place to begin which is what this does. i want to say that i take considerable pleasure and the fact that in the new line days bill we are pretty close. the base bill is a preconference bill between the democratic senate and the republican house with the president playing a role and so i think that this will both clarify the differences and move us

closer to where we have got to go to. with that i yield back my time. >> i i do appreciate that only the way that you have said it but the spirit. >> the way i see this whole thing the president not taking unilateral action unilateral action would have been taken the comparison

nobody is on my side at least we don't have any evidence of it. i am at a loss to try to even understand why we are being so awful about immigration and being able to do something any more than i can understand the constant anger. there is a meanness homeland security.

just because we don't like we we will maybe have a rule to defund the homeland security department which we should have gotten the 1st place. he did did not no how in the world he would run his agency. everything of this out here for months. i was moved that the congress will congresses here about to destroy security because most of us cannot work for it. we need education.

certainly pointed out the reasons why we support 11 million people. i am a little put out about it. but we keep trying. all of you. very happy of whatever order. we would be so much better off. this topic takes too much energy. ..

>> you didn't hear a bit of anti-immigrant conversation which i heard is someone trying to find answers and trying to find solutions. the other gentlemen here is the former chairman of the homeland security appropriations subcommittee. to suggest someone who has born that burden of responsibility is here today trying to undermine national security