blems of the day to really get us to these advance solutions. mr. president, you and i know that we come from a state that while we are an energy-producing state, we are also a state that has some of the highest energy costs in the country. right now in the village of fort yukon, they're paying $7.25 for a gallon of fuel. up in kobak in the northwest part of the state they're paying $10 for a gallon of fuel. the rest of the country is enjoying a price break because of the drop in fuel, but in alaska when there's no neighborhood filling station that's connected to a road that's connected to someplace that brings you somewhere, you have to bring your fuel in by barge or by plane. the contract for that fuel in

july. july's prices are not what they are now. folks are locked in. they talk about being frozen in someplace, well, their prices are also frozen in. well we know and understand the challenges when it comes to energy. we know and understand the challenges that come when it comes to keeping your house warm or your lights on. so we have every interest to make sure we are pushing out, we are being innovative, we are being as efficient as we possibly can when it comes to energy use and consumption. i want to urge us, to push us, to be really aggressive in pushing us towards those technologies that will allow us in a small population state that has no real energy grid, so to speak, to figure out how we can how we can be more self-sufficient, get us off diesel get us off $10-a-gallon oil in kobuck alaska.

we've got to figure this out. we're going to be doing it. we're talking about the challenges that we face. but i think as we begin this good robust debate on things like climate, i think we need to be careful about what we are doing in response to the issue of a changing climate. if the answer is to increase your energy cost, if it is to put a carbon tax on, if it is to make make it more expensive if it is to cripple your economy then we don't have the ability to move out on these technologies. because you know what? they're expensive. so we need to be a strong economy. we need to figure out how we can address climate through adaptation mitigation, new technologies that are going to take us there to cleaner fuel sources, to renewable energy sources we have in great abundance in alaska and

elsewhere. but it takes money. it takes a strong economy. so i'm not willing to do anything that is going to put the brakes on our economic strength and viability. so it's a good part of the discussion. it's very, very germane to where we are right now. mr. president, i have unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and the minority leaders. so i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: and then, mr. president, i mentioned in my comments we currently have six amendments that are pending to the bill. our side would like to set up votes on these amendments with a 60-vote threshold required for any amendment that is not germane. we're working on a side-by-side right now on the schatz amendment spelz -- as well as a potential modification to the fischer amendment.

but i don't think there is any reason we wouldn't be voting on most if not all of the pending amendments shortly after lunch today. once we've gotten through those amendments senator cantwell and i will queue up the next batch two to three amendments from each side so that we can continue to make progress on this bill. mr. president, at this time i would turn to my colleague senator hoeven, the sponsor of senate bill 1 cho has -- who has been waiting. ms. cantwell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: if senator hoeven could be followed by the senator from vermont to talk about an amendment that he's filed for ten minutes, that would suffice? the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. cantwell: thank you. mr. hoeven: mr. president point of inquiry, i have ten minutes before my time would expire or is there a time

allotment? the presiding officer: the chair is not aware of a limit on the senator's time. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president i don't know how much time the senator from north dakota is seeking this morning. maybe that would help the senator from vermont in understanding what our schedule is. mr. hoeven: mr. president that's fine. i'll use ten minutes and i can present more later. that will work. ms. murkowski: mr. president i understand the senator from vermont is just going to speak to an amendment that he has filed. he is not seeking to call that amendment up. is that correct? mr. leahy: that is correct. i'll probably need about 5 or 6 minutes. ms. murkowski: no objection mr. president. mr. hoeven: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: if the senator from vermont is only going to be 5 minutes i would defer -- i don't know if i'll go longer than 10 but i might. i would certainly defer if he wants to go first.

mr. leahy: i thank the senator for his usual courtesy and i appreciate it. as the most senior member of this body i served in both majority and minority numerous times with three democratic presidents four republican presidents a democratic and republican house majorities. throughout that time i learned we can always be productive. the keystone pipeline legislation we're considering today, though, is not one of thosing -- those productive times. i had hoped we'd begin the 114th congress by showing the american people the congress is putting the needs of hardworking american families over those of powerful special interests from job creation to charting the sustainable energy future of this country. we ought to be considering legislation to support the highway trust fund. that would create tens of thousands of jobs across the country. we should be considering tax legislation.

we should make investment -- mr. president, i'm going to have to yield the floor. i apologize. i'd ask consent my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: mr. president thank you. i'd like to respond regarding the legislation that's currently on the floor in several regards. i'd like to discuss some of the environmental arguments that have been brought up. i'd like to also reference the issue of export and also even touch on some of the president's comments last night relative to this project and comments that others have made in regard to the keystone x.l. pipeline approval bill being senate bill number 1 being the first bill that we've brought up. one of the things that you'll hear is that this is a pipeline, it's private investment, it's $8

billion. but we should be doing something else. the reality is this is an $8 billion shovel-ready project good to go, vital energy structure for this country so it's important in its own right. compared to the highway bill, which is all funded by federal tax dollars where this is a private investment that's going to generate revenues in addition to providing vital infrastructure and creating jobs, that is not a fair comparison. the point in bringing this bill up first is not only this was important to energy infrastructure but also because we wanted to try to get the senate back to regular order an open amendment process. we've just gone for the last session and even before where we couldn't get amendments offered whether you're republican or democrat, you could not come down to this body, the most deliberative body in government, and offer up amendments, have the debate and get a vote.

so understand bringing up this legislation is important in its own right particularly as we consider how we best build the energy future of the united states and have this important energy debate. look what's going on at the pump right now. you pull up to the pump and gas is down more than $1. i think the average national price of gasoline is $2.05 when it was up to $3 and in some cases $4 in some markets. that's a huge savings. that's hundreds of billions of dollars in consumers' pockets. that didn't just happen. that happened because we're building the right energy future for this country. we are working to create energy security for the united states by producing more oil and gas in this country along with other types of energy and working with canada to produce more oil and gas. so what? so we descroant to get it from -- so we don't have to get it from opec, so opec doesn't get to dictate terms to american consumers and american

businesses. why don't they get to dictate terms? because we're producing more energy. as we produce more energy, as we get more energy from canada, our closest friend and ally in the world, we become energy secure. that's more energy, more jobs, that's economic growths and that's economic security and that's what the american people want. when we talk about why is this bill up first? it is up first because we want to build an energy plan for this country that works for this country. we want our nation to be energy secure, and this is how we do it. this kind of infrastructure is a vital part of building that energy plan where we produce more energy than we consume. so together with canada, we truly have north american energy security. that means lower prices. that means a stronger economy. and that means we don't have to depend on opec for our energy. and so now look what's happening. look what's happening. opec is pushing back, aren't they? we're now in a, in a market fight, a fight for market share.

and so what do we do? do we continue to build our energy resources here in this country? or do we say oh, okay, we're not going to build the infrastructure we need. we're not going to continue to produce more oil and gas in this country, we're not going to work with canada. we're going to have canada send out oil to china because you know, they want it. then we'll go right back to where we were before, where our energy shrinks back down and we don't work with canada, and opec is right back in business. that's got to be music to opec's ears. they probably love it when they hear the president is going to block our efforts to build vital energy infrastructure at private -- private investment, mind you not taxpayer dollars -- that will create hundreds of billions of revenue for all these states as they collect property taxes and payment in lieu of taxes. opec's going great. when we shrink our industry back down canada sends its energy to

china, who is back in business? who's back in the driver's seat? opec. and the other petro-fent states, countries -- petro depend states, countries like russia. ivan -- iran, that is a petro-dependent state. do we want to repeat history or take control of our own destiny? that is why this is an important issue. and it is an important issue because it is about getting this body back to regular order so we break the gridlock. we're offering amendments. we're saying republicans democrats, come on down and offer your amendments. we voted on three yesterday. we've got six pending right now. we're looking for more. this is about breaking the gridlock and getting the important work of the country done. so it's the difference between the president giving a speech wherein he outlines all his initiatives.

okay everybody does it my way and then spends the second half of the speech talking about if we do it his way that somehow that's a compromise. that is not the case. versus a project here where he's talked about vetoing but let's take a look at whether this is a bipartisan project where people have come together on. number one it's been reviewed by the administration for more than six years. more than six years. how long do we have to hold up private enterprise before we let them build a vital energy infrastructure we need which will not only move canadian crude to our refineries but will move light sweet balkan crude from my state and montana to refineries as well. if we can't move it on this pipeline it's 1,400 railcars a day. how do we move our ag products and other goods when we have that kind of congestion on our railroads? okay. the whole point is the president talks about coming together on issues that have broad

bipartisan support. well let's think about it. we have broad bipartisan support in the house. this bill has already passed the house. we went through cloture here in this body with 63 votes. last time i checked 63 votes out of 100 is a pretty strong majority. we have bipartisan majority support in the congress. secondly, in the polling over the six years that this project has been under review and under study, the public has overwhelmingly supported it. they said yeah, we want to be energy independent in this country. we don't want to get our oil from opec. we'd rather get it from canada and produce it here at home and we need the infrastructure to move it around. in the polls 65% of the people consistently said build it. oh by the way all six states on the route -- montana south dakota kansas, texas they all approved it. it wasn't like they had to rush because they had six years to do it but they have all approved

it. so what? the u.s. federal government is the only entity that can make a good decision around here? all these states, their lay tours, their -- their legislatures their governors don't know what they're doing either? the only one who can make a decision about whether this works or not is the administration. what are we saying about our friends in canada? they are our largest trading partner in the world. what if the situation were reversed and canada wanted to work with us on something of this importance to them and we said no, you know, go work with china. i think that -- i think -- you know when you think about all those things, it brings it into -- it brings home the reality. people can have their opinions on all kinds of issues, but those are the facts as it relates to this project. so now i want to take a few minutes and reference a couple specific things, both on the

environmental aspects that have been brought up and also on whether this oil would be exported or used here at home. and again this is an open amendment process so people can come down and offer amendments on climate change or all those other things. everybody is entitled to their opinion and to advocate for whatever they want to advocate for, but at the end of the day we're going to keep bringing them back to the facts on this project, and those facts were laid out in not one but five reports done by the obama administration. three draft environmental impact statements and two final environmental impact statements done by the administration's department of state. and so when we come down and people want to use different discussions and talk about their views object climate change -- on climate change and they can do that. and they can talk down and talk

about their view on whether oil should or shouldn't be exported and all those kinds of things, and they can offer amendments on them and that's the process but at the end of the day we're going to work to bring them back to the facts and the facts are this is the finding in the obama administration's environmental impact statement. three draft statements, two final statements done over five years. republican leadership pipeline will have no significant environmental impact. according to the u.s. state department environmental impact statements. now, there is one thing i want to add to that. i've talked about the fact that we don't build a pipeline. if we're going to get the oil it's going to have 1,400 rail cars coming in here on a daily basis, and the environmental impact statements point out you get more greenhouse gas without the pipeline than with it, because without the pipeline you're either going to move that by rail car or it goes to china and when it goes to china it goes in tanker ships and they produce more greenhouse gas and it's refined in chinese

refineries and they have higher emissions than our refineries, and we still have to bring our oil in from the middle east so you have more groan house gas emissions from those tankers. so the environmental impact statement itself points out that you have more emissions without the pipeline than if you actually build it. but i also want to take a minute to talk about the effort going on in alberta for carbon cop tour and sequestration -- carbon capture and sequestration. in other words one of the things i have already talked about in terms of building the right kind of energy plan for this country is that if you instead of holding up the investment you empower the investment if you empower private investment, you not only produce more energy here at home and with our status in the world, we not only produce more energy we also get our infrastructure we need to move it. i'm talking about private investment. just getting the government out

of the way and legislate the private sector do what they do. if you empower that investment, you not only get the infrastructure you need to move energy around, you not only get the new technologies that develop that energy more cost-effectively more efficiently, you get better environmental stewardship. new technologies produce better environmental stewardship. we're seeing that over and over again. take directional drilling in my state of north dakota. we now drill down two miles off one what we call ecopad. we can put as many as 16 wells on one ecopad. we drill down two miles and we go up three miles and more in all different directions underground. whereas before you would have seen wells all over the terrain now you see one spot where there is a well for miles and it's producing from miles around. think how much you have reduced that environmental footprint right? same thing with carbon capturing sequestration. people talk about clean coal technology. they talk about carbon capturing sequestration with other fossil fuels like oil and gas.

well the only way you're going to get to that is by stimulating the private investment and encouraging not only the research and development that creates those technologies but actually getting them to supply those technologies, and that's exactly what's happening right now in the oil sands up in the alberta area of canada, in the province of alberta. since 1990, the greenhouse gas footprint of oil produced in the oil sands has gone down 28% okay because of better drilling techniques because of co-generation, because of other processes that have been put in place, the greenhouse gas emissions on a per-barrel basis for the oil-producing oil sands has gone down by almost a third 28%. and right now major companies are continuing sphat amendment is amendment -- not only to produce more oil in the oil sands but find a way to produce the

greenhouse gas and do something called carbon capture and sequestration, carbon capture and storage. and i will just touch on two of those for a minute and then relinquish the floor to the good senator from vermont because there is more that i will pick up on this environmental aspect as we debate this legislation as well as this whole issue of making sure that we get our country to energy security. but let me just touch for a minute on two projects. exxon is one of the companies that produces oil up in the oil sands region, and they are investing on the order of $10 billion in that oil investment and production, and their curl project, which is a huge part of it, will use co-generation for steam and low-energy extraction processes to oil and heat integration between the extraction and the treatment facilities to minimize energy consumption.

as a result, oil produced from curl will have about the same life cycle greenhouse gas emissions as many other crude oils refined in the united states as a result of technologies which significantly enhance environmental performance. other environmental innovations for curl include on-site water storage to eliminate river withdrawals and low -- in low-flow periods and progressive land reclamation which will return the land to the boreal forest. the point is they are developing these new technologies so that the environmental footprint is the same as conventional drilling. that's what they're working to develop. how else are we going to develop this technology to reduce the carbon footprint if we continue to block these investments? and that's what we've heard from opponents of the project is oh, well gee we don't want to have oil from canada if it has a higher greenhouse gas emissions

or a higher environmental footprint, yet we've pointed out that oil produced in california, oil that we have produced in venezuela right now has the same level of carbon emissions and you have got huge projects going on up here to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop that, that not only will reduce the environmental greenhouse gas emissions up here but technology we can use in the united states and around the globe. that's how you get better environmental stewardship by developing those technologies that help us do it. and who better to accomplish it? who better than the ingenuity of american companies and americans, american entrepreneurs? that's how you make it happen. and so the reality is -- and another one is the quest project that shell is undertaking. they're working right now with the provincial government in

alberta on carbon capture and storage, and so the province of alberta actually has a program where they work with these companies on carbon capture and storage. so this is a tremendous opportunity to develop those technologies that we hear talked about on this floor so often if we're willing to work with these companies and allow them to make the investments to do it. but my question to opponents or critics of the project is how in the world are we going to develop these new technologies to improve environmental stewardship if we block the very projects that are trying to do it? and so i see mr. president that my friend from -- the senator from vermont is here, and so i want to provide him with this time to introduce his amendment as well as the senator from louisiana so i'll stop at this point. we'll continue this debate, but i want to end on this very important subject by saying

again, the environmental impact shows that we will have higher greenhouse gases without this project versus with it. again, i understand people can come down and talk about their opinions but that's what the reports determine five reports done over six years and furthermore what i'm pointing out, that doesn't even take into account the kinds of carbon capture and other projects that are being done in a huge way up here to really develop the technologies that are not only going to help us in terms of reducing emissions and the environmental impacts of energy production in the oil sands but will help us in the united states and technology that can be adopted in other countries around the globe. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president i thank my friend from north dakota for his usual courtesy he

showed earlier. unfortunately, i got a nose bleed and had to stop my speech. i think i'm not used to the elevation and the altitude of the united states senate. but -- and after over 40 years i should be. i was saying earlier that i hope we begin the 114th congress by showing we're putting the needs of hardworking american families first. i wish we were considering legislation to support the highway trust fund. that supports tens of thousands of jobs around the country in every one of our states, which we had -- we were considering tax legislation and bring about investments in our small local businesses and encourage energy- efficient construction and investment. i wish we were finding ways to support the educational pursuits of our children. i'd like to maintain our status as a premier leader on the world

stage. fortunately, we're considering legislation that i feel puts canadian tar sands, which are intended for export, not for use in the united states, as our priority. the pipeline will support 35 permanent jobs. just 35. not hundreds, not thousands. 35. i'd like to be considering legislation to create thousands of jobs. and some of us that support the legislation claim the pipeline is truly shovel ready. they claim the project has been thoroughly studied and analyzed. the administration sat for six years with no decision on the permit. but even before the nebraska supreme court recently released its decision on the location of the pipeline, the republican leadership said this should be our priority even ahead of that decision. any decision which did not clarify lingering questions about the process.

in fact, a majority of the justices said that the decision to circumvent the public process and block nebraskans' ability to raise concerns about the pipeline was unconstitutional. four of the seven justices says unconstitutional under state law. under their procedure you need a supermajority five of the seven. what bothers me is not only were the majority opinion being ignored in nebraska, but the legislation proved last week -- approved last week by the house in consideration here would remove consideration of all appeals. you have to go take them out of local federal courts. they have to put them before the d.c. circuit. so, in other words if you're in a state where this pipeline goes through your state, you have a question you've got to make an appeal to the d.c. circuit.

and what that's saying in this senate. congress believes washington knows best. frankly, the people at my state and i suspect the states of all of us would prefer to trust the courts in their states. we ought to say that we care more about public process than about what washington might think and also about the wishes of foreign special interests. now, the majority leader's promise -- promised an open debate on this and open amendments and i appreciate that. i certainly have concerns about circumventing what would be normal court procedure and i -- i want to be able to address that. but more than that, i hope this debate would be an open and honest conversation. not about pipeline that will support special interests but

the direction in which our country is moving on sustainable energy on job creation and on issues as fundamental to all americans, republicans or democrats, all americans as fundamental as who's going to have access to our courts. will it be just special interests or the american people? i'm afraid this says the special interests. i prefer the american people. and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i have an amendment on this important bill at the desk, amendment number 80, and i'm going to present that amendment now. because the minority side is blocking the introduction and calling up of additional amendments until we dispose of those presently called up i won't do that right now but hopefully i'll be doing that in the very near future. and i look forward to a full

debate and a vote on this amendment probably in the next tranche of amendments on the bill. but my amendment is about energy energy. it's about a very crucial part of domestic energy policy and something that i believe will absolutely be a huge positive incentive and factor to allow us to produce even more american energy to become even more energy independent and to provide an even greater boost to our economy and that is through revenue sharing sharing the revenue produced by domestic energy production with the producing states which is only fair for two reasons. because, one those producing states do bear costs and burdens and impacts including environmental impacts; and two providing that incentive is "the" most important way we can boost even further important domestic energy production.

that energy production is vital for our country and our economy. in fact, we're not in recession right now because of those u.s. energy jobs. if it were not for those oil and gas and related jobs in america we would still be in a technical recession right now. last night president obama talked glowingly of the state of our economy. i think he exaggerated that significantly. however, we would be in technical recession we'd be in a far different and worse place were it not for those domestic oil and gas and energy jobs and that's what this amendment would boost, would improve even further. now, again the heart of this amendment is revenue sharing establishing and expanding revenue sharing for producing states. so rather than all the royalty and revenue produced by this domestic production just going to the federal treasury, we need to their that.

a locality lot will go to the federal treasury. most will go to the federal treasury. but we need to give producing states a fair share. and, again as i've stated, that's for two reasons two very important very basic reasons. first of all those states bear a burden. they have impacts from that production. including environmental impacts. they need funds to deal with those impacts. it's manageable. it's worth doing but there are impacts. secondly maybe even more importantly providing that revenue sharing for producing states host states, is the most important way we'll get more producing states, we'll bet get more host states, we'll -- we'll get more host states, we'll have more american energy. so that's what this is all about. my amendment again it will be amendment number 80. i look forward to a vote on the senate floor soon. it is simple and straightforward.

it does several important things. first, it would expedite outer continental shelf lease sales and move forward with a positive o.c.s. lease plan. by expediting leasing and opening up more areas to production we can create jobs and further enhance and build off our manufacturing renaissance and our american energy revolution. in recognizing concerns for production in the north atlantic planning area as well as in the north allusion planning area in -- aleutian planning area in alaska, this proposal excludes lease sales in those particular regions. secondly the bill would increase revenue sharing for gulf states and it would establish revenue sharing for brand-new production in other areas, like alaska and like the east coast. again, revenue sharing is fair and it's the most powerful, positive thing we can do to get more states into the act in a positive way of producing

american energy, helping our economy helping our energy independence. so that would provide revenue sharing for the first time for the atlantic states of virginia, north carolina and south carolina and it would provide that revenue sharing for the first time for new production we would be authorizing for alaska. a clear net gain a clear gain for north carolina, virginia, south carolina, alaska. this is critical because i know my colleagues from those states are all very supportive of that offshore energy activity. and so again for alaska, for the first time, alaska would enjoy revenue sharing with the potential for significant dollars from offshore production going to alaska. now, one might ask what about the federal revenue impact, what about the fiscal impact? this amendment is fully offset

in terms of the federal treasury, so it's fully offset with revenue from two sources. number one expedited and increased lease sales in our o.c.s. that will produce more federal revenue. and, number two trimming our federal work force by attrition a policy laid out by the simpson simpson-bowles commission, bipartisan straightforward exactly what we need to do in a fiscally responsible way. now, on that piece the legislation wouldn't fire anyone anyone. it would simply reduce the federal work force through attrition. for every three federal workers that retire only one could be hired. that's exactly what simpson-bowles proposed. now, two exemptions exist to this rule that could be used by the president in a state of war or extraordinary emergency. again, exactly the simpson-bowles proposal.

this amendment is very important in the area of energy to be fair to producing states but to be a powerful incentive "the" single most powerful incentive possible to get more producing states, more american production into the act. that is vital for our energy independence. it's also vital for our economy. and this amendment number 80 would be a big positive boost over time for our economy. as i said right now we'd be in a recession still were it not for those american energy jobs. that energy renaissance has led the way in our economy. but for those jobs we'd still be in a recession. this can make a good thing better. this can provide more incentives to go further in a powerful responsible way. and it will also be a responsible way on the environment. because, let me note, in

louisiana, do you know what we do with our revenue sharing? we spend all of it on environmental concerns mostly coastal restoration. we're losing our coastline. we're losing a football field of louisiana coastal area every 38 minutes. every 38 minutes 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. that is the biggest environmental issue we have by far. that's what this money goes to in louisiana proper environmental stewardship. so with that, madam president i urge bipartisan support of this important amendment. i look forward to formally calling it up soon, after we vote on the pending amendments early this afternoon and i look forward to a vote on this on the senate floor hopefully a strong, bipartisan vote. thank you madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: thank you madam president. yesterday i offered an amendment

to the keystone x.l. bill which is really straightforward and it won't affect the outcome of the underlying legislation and i do think it has the potential to get strong bipartisan support. and that's because my amendment states a simple set of facts. that climate change is real and that humans are contributing to it. this is an opportunity for people on either side of the keystone debate to agree on something and that is the facts. it will inform i think what happens next in energy policy, because as intense as this debate over this pipeline is the real question in front of us after we dispose of this legislation and it goes to the president's desk for a certain veto then we have to contend with our national energy policy and we need to agree on the set of facts that everyone outside of this congress agrees on. these claims require evidence and my amendment provides those

pieces of evidence. it cites the final supplemental environmental impact statement prepared for the keystone pipeline by the state department, which says that human activities have added to the greenhouse gas accumulation and exas baited the green -- exacerbated the greenhouse effect resulting in greater amounts of heat trapped in the atmosphere. this is not controversial. it also states, "these climate change shifts can affect other processes and spark changes that cascade through natural systems to affect ecosystems, societies and human health." only in the halls of congress is this a controversial piece of legislation. this impact statement in turn, cites the work of thousands of scientists who have contributed to reports by the ipcc, the national research council on the u.s. global change research program. madam president these independent fact-finding bodies have conducted decades of

research on questions related to climate change. they have been subject to intense scrutiny both internally and externally, and their work has held up to repeated concerns about impartiality and accuracy. this scrutiny helps. it has forced these organizations to improve their methodology and be increasingly deliberate as they develop their findings and present the facts. and only the facts. human caused climate change is accepted by fortune 500 companies schoolteachers, religious groups and the united states department of defense. it's accepted by nurses and doctors professional sports leagues, the majority of other countries, more than 97% of scientists and many of my colleagues in the house and senate. for most people climate change existing is not a controversial issue. certainly the keystone pipeline is a controversial issue. and once we together accept the

premise of climate change facts there is plenty to argue about. what approach ought we to take with respect to solving this problem? is a carbon tax the right approach? is the president's clean power plan the right approach? ought we to wait for accelerate our actions with respect to international coalitions and agreements? those are legitimate debates to have. but we have to agree on the facts. that is why a vote on my amendment is so important. the senate has before it a bill to improve a pipeline, an environmental impact statement touted by keystone supporters as a comprehensive accurate document that impartially assesses the environmental impacts within the pipeline. and within that impact statement is a comprehensive review and acknowledgment of the reality of the facts of climate change. many of my colleagues who support keystone might be the same ones that question the reality of climate change.

but i want to try to create a political space where you can be for keystone x.l. and still want action on climate. now, i think keystone x.l. is the wrong direction to move in. i think it is absolutely doubling down on fossil fuel energy and the tar sands oil. and so i'll be voting against keystone. but i understand there are people of good faith and plenty of knowledge who are going to be supporting the pipeline. what we need to do after this legislation is disposed of -- and it will be relatively quickly -- is agree on a set of facts and move forward with intelligent, bipartisan climate policy. last week we learned that 2014 was the hottest year on record. according to two separate studies by our nation's brightest scientists at nasa and noaa. that means that the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since the year 2000. a warmer planet means big changes in weather patterns, rising sea levels and increases

in extreme weather events. sea level has been rising more than twice as fast since 1990, as it did over the previous century. nearly doubling the likelihood of storm surges like the one that we experienced during hurricane sandy. over the years the issue of climate change has unfortunately become a partisan issue. it didn't used to be that way and it doesn't need to be that way going forward. we may not agree on the solutions, on the paths forward or even on some of the details but i do believe it's time for us to begin to agree on a basic set of facts. madam president the purpose of my amendment is to take a step back, to take a deep breath on a very contentious issue and give the senate an opportunity to come together and state with no value judgments that we accept the work of thousands of the world's brightest and most dedicated scientists, including those working in u.s. agencies and for u.s. companies. that we accept the reality that

our farmers our fishermen and our families see with every passing season. i urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment. it's an opportunity to re-state a set of facts with which a majority of americans already agree, and it makes no presumptions about where we go from here. i'm hopeful that we'll have a big, bipartisan vote this afternoon on this amendment. i think there is an opportunity for common ground. obviously, keystone x.l. is dividing not just this congress but the democratic conference, and so i understand that. but agreeing on the set of facts related to climate change is a good predicate for all of us moving forward. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sanders: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: madam president i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: thank you. madam president i rise today to speak on behalf of my amendment to the proposed keystone x.l. pipeline bill, and i want to thank senators bennet, carper, leahy, menendez, warren, and whitehouse for cosponsoring this amendment. madam president my amendment is extremely simple. it is about a page and a half, and i think it is easy understood by anyone who reads it. and this is what it says:

simple straightforward. quote -- "it is the sense of congress that congress is in agreement with the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific community that, one climate change is real; two climate change is caused by human activities; three, climate change has already caused devastating problems in the united states and around the world; four, a brief window of opportunity exists before the united states and the entire planet suffer irreparable harm; ans, five, it is imperative that the united states transform its energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy as rapidly as possible." madam president that's it. that is the entire amendment. and what this amendment does is simply ask the members of the united states senate whether or

not they agree with the overwhelming majority of scientists who have told us over and over and over again that climate change is real, that climate change is caused by human activity including the emission of carbon, that carbon change -- that climate change is already causing devastating problems in the united states and around the world and that if we are going to leave our children and our grandchildren a planet that is habitable we must transform our energy system away from fossil fuel. madam president progressives and conservatives and people in between have many, many disagreements on issues, and that is called democracy and there is nothing to be ashamed about that. that is the democratic process.

we all have differences of opinion. but what is not a good thing is when we make public policy in contradiction to what the scientific community tells us. that is not a good thing. when we look at issues, medical issues like cancer or heart disease, what we do is look at the scientific communities and medical doctors for their opinions as to how we should proceed. when we look at infrastructure issues issues of roads and bridges, we look at engineers for their opinion as to how we should proceed. when we look at education and trying to understand how kids can best learn we look at educators and those people who know most about education for advice as to how we should proceed.

and, in terms of the issue of climate change, the process should not be any different. madam president the intergovernmental panel on climate change, the ipcc, is the leading scientific body that deals with the issue of climate change and let me very briefly quote to you what the ipcc said last fall. and i quote -- "warming of the climate system is unequivocal as is now evident from observations of increases in globalage of air and -- global average air and rising global average sea level." end of quote. madam president more than 97% -- more than 97% of the sign p tsk community in the united states -- scientific community in the united states and across the globe agrees with these

findings including the american chemical society the american association for the advancement of science, the american meteorological society and the american geophysical union to name just a few. in fact, at least 37 american scientific organizations 135 international scientific organizations and national academies of science and 21 medical associations all agree that climate change is real and is significantly caused by human activities. madam president, i would ask unanimous consent to submit into the record the names of 37 american scientific organizations, 135 international scientific organizations and national academies and 21 medical associations who all have gone on record as stating

that climate change is real and is significantly caused by human activity. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: madam president i know that recently a number of my colleagues have made the point that they are not scientistscientists and they can't formulate an opinion on this subject. well let me be very clear. i am not a scientist. had a lost problems lot of problems with physics when i was in college. but these are scientists. these are 37 scientific organizations and 135 international scientific organizations. these are scientists who tell us that climate change is real, it is caused by human activity, and that it is imperative that we transform our energy system away from fossil fuel. madam president let me read to you an excerpt of a letter

signed by virtually every major scientific organization in this country sent to the senate way back in 2009. quote -- "observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. these conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society including the global economy and on the environment. for the united states, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states greater threats of extreme weather

events and increased risks of water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires and a disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. the severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming years." once again, madam president, i am not a scientist but that is what the scientific community overwhelmingly in the united states and around the world is saying. it is imperative that the united states senate goes on record in saying we agree with science. madam president, climate change is one of the great threats facing our country and the entire planet. it has the capability of causing severe harm to our economy to our food supply, to access to water, and to national security. and, according to nasa and noaa,

2014 was the warmest year ever recorded. the most recent decade was the nation's warmest on record. across the globe the 10-warmest years on record have all occurred since 1997. we know that the earth's climate is warming and doing so quickly. according to noaa, october august june, and may were the hottest october august, june, and may months ever recorded. the consequence of this rapid and dramatic rise in global temperatures will have a profound impact on billions of people throughout the world. what we can expect are more severe weather disturbances, more flooding, more heat waves more droughts, more forest fires, and salt water inundation

of water supplies and agricultural land. as "the new york times" reported in august, droughts in the western and southwestern u.s. appear to be intensifying as a result of climate change. "over the past decade, droughts in some regions haverriveald the epic dry spells of the 1930's and 1950's. the country is in the midst of one of the most sustained periods of increasing drought on record." china's heat wave a year and a half ago was the first in at least 140 years. as climatewire reported in november the sao pallo region is suffering from its worst drought in 80 years. in the united states, fire suppression costs have increased from roughly $1 billion an lyle in the mid-1990's to an average of more than $3 billion in the past five years. and our oceans are not just

getting warmer. they are also becoming more acidic threatening fish, coral reefs and other sea sea life. as a study reported, carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere are driving a rate of change in ocean acidity that is already thought to be faster than at any time in the past 50 million years. the authors warn that we may be -- quote -- "entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change." end of quote. extreme storms, weather disturbances are also becoming more common and more intense with extraordinary impacts. for example when the typhoon hayan struck the philippines it killed thousands and cost that country at least $15 billion in

damages. madam president, the situation clearly is bad today in the united states and around the world, but according to the scientific community if we do not get our act together, if we do not cut carbon emissions, it will only get worse in years to come. the ipcc estimates -- and i hope people listen to this. the ipcc estimates that without any additional efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions -- in other words if we continue to go on our merry old way of dependency on fuels i quote "warming is more likely than not to exceed four degrees celsius that is 7.2 degrees farenheit by the end of the century." end quote. let me repeat that extraordinary

observation. "if we continue along our present course, warming is more likely than not to exceed 7.2 degrees farenheit by the end of the century." end of quote. similarly, just last year the white house released the national climate assessment warning that global warming could exceed ten degrees farenheit in the united states by the end of the century. just take a deep breath and imagine what it would mean to this country the huge impact on every aspect of our life, on our economy, on agriculture on health if the temperature of the united states rises as some are predicting by ten degrees farenheit at the end of the century. it is almost unthinkable.

, and that is what the scientific community is telling us. the world bank is by no means a radical institution. it is a very conservative institution. and it tells us that temperature increases by even just 7.2 degrees farenheit would bring about unprecedented heat waves severe drought and major floods in many regions but serious impacts on human systems ecosystems and associated services. the ipcc reports that sea levels -- sea levels -- are likely to rise by another 10 to 32 inches by the end of this century. as "the new york times" reported a sea level rise of less than four feet -- less than four feet -- would inundate land on which some 3.7 million americans live today. we're talking about miami. we're talking about new orleans. we're talking about new york

city. we are talking about boston all being highly vulnerable to rising sea levels. similarly, of course, this problem will impact people all over the world. according to the ipcc -- and i quote -- "many small island nations are only a few meters above present sea level. these states may face serious threat of permanent inundation from sea level rise among the most vulnerable island states of the federated states of micronesia and the cook islands. madam president, the army corps of engineers -- engineers -- have predicted that the entire village of nutauk, alaska, could be underwater by 2017 and that more than 180 additional native alaskan villages are at risk. parts of alaska, one of our

great and beautiful states, are already vanishing as a result of climate change. madam president, the evidence is overwhelming and it is no longer good enough for people to say, i'm not a scientist. i don't know. we may not be scientists, but we can read and we can listen to what the overwhelming majority of scientists are telling us. that's our job to listen to the experts who know something about this issue. as we debate the keystone pipeline what disturbs me very much is that in the face of this overwhelming evidence from the scientific community, in the face of deep concerns about climate change all over the world, what is the united states senate going to be doing in the next week or two as part of

expeep keystone? are we going to be voting to break dependence on fossil fuel? i don't think so. are we going to be voting on legislation that moves ution aggressively to energy efficiency such as wind, solar and geothermal? is that what we are going to be voting on as we listen to the scientific community? no, i don't think so. are we going to be passing a bill investing in research and development so that we can make our transportation system more energy efficient? is that what we're going to be voting on? no we're not. in fact, what we are going to be voting on is a bill that will allow for an increase in the production and transportation of some of the dirtiest oil on this

planet. that is what we are voting on. what we are voting on is a proposal which moves us in exactly the opposite direction from what the scientific community wants us to do. so madam president let me just conclude by saying this. honest people can and do have disagreements on many, many issues but it is not a good thing for the united states of america when we reject what the scientists and the experts are telling us. that is not a good thing. so i hope very much that the amendment that i have brought forth which says nothing more than listen to the scientists on this important issue, do not reject science i hope very much that we can get widespread bipartisan support for this amendment. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the

senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president excessive litigation under the endangered species act has become an obstacle to the act itself and the good that it promises to do for the american people. according to the department of justice, more than 500 endangered species act related lawsuits were filed or opened against the federal government since 2009. as a result, federal agencies have to spend their time, their energy and taxpayer-funded resources fighting lawsuits instead of protecting endangered species. one of the primary reasons for this excessive litigation is the potential for massive awards of attorneys' fees under section 11-g-4 of the endangered species act. these awards can be granted regardless of whether the party seeking the attorneys' fees

awards prevails, and there is no limit on the hourly fee that can be collected. these attorneys fees can reach upwards of $700 per hour, madam president. in one case involving a series of lawsuits related to the operation of hydroelectric power facilities in the northwestern united states, attorneys' fees were awarded in an amount totaling nearly $2 million just in one case lasting just a few years. such lofty levels of compensation would be high even in a private law firm setting even in a big city. but they're completely indefensible when you consider that they're paid for by american taxpayers often to well-funded activist organizations. excessive awards of attorneys' fees also create perverse incentives for cottage industries of lawyers to sue the federal government in order to

advance specific policies, policies that cannot be achieved for the legislative process and are therefore sought out by these very same lawyers in the courts. this is what many call a sue and settle strategy. sue the federal government, then settle with the federal government. achieve what you want to achieve, and then get paid by the court without limit. sue and settle is the dishonest distorted practice of suing the federal government not to achieve a judicial outcome in court but to resolve the suit in a settlement with terms with advanced narrow political ends, narrow political goals. the decision by the fish and wildlife service to grant the guddison stage grouse protected status under the endangered species act is the result of this sue and settle strategy.

congress must put an end to policy making by litigation, and it must do so by removing the incentives to engage in this kind of litigation. my amendment would do just that, by bringing the citizen's suit provision of the endangered species act into harmony with the similar provision of the equal access to justice act. the equal access to justice act limits awards of attorneys' fees to $125 per hour and allows those awards to be granted only to prevailing parties. any departure from this limit has to be approved by the judge based on some unique circumstances in that case. if such terms are acceptable, for nearly every other type of lawsuit against the federal government, certainly they should be acceptable as applied to the endangered species act. this simple fix would deter the frivolous lawts -- lawsuits that

so often end up in settlements with federal agencies. there is a lot of work to do to reform the implementation of the endangered species act. this amendment is one of many reforms that i'm developing with my colleagues in the senate and our counterparts in the house of representatives. i ask for your support on this amendment. again, this is something that just brings into harmony the section 11-g-4 of the enl dangered species act with requirements that are already in existence, already on the books in connection with the equal access to justice act. we need those same limitations in the endangered species act that already exists in the equal access to justice act. i ask all my colleagues to support this amendment and to help us to resolve this problem that has crept into federal law based on an inequity, an imbalance in these two statutory regimes. thank you madam president. i yield the floor.

and 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 maine. ms. collins: madam president i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: madam president i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to proceed as if in morning business for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you madam president. madam president, before i begin my comments, let me commend the presiding officer on her excellent presentation last night. the presiding officer did an extraordinary job and made all of us very proud. madam president, two weeks ago senator joe donnelly and i re-introduced bipartisan legislation that we call the 40 hours is full time act.

it would correct a serious flaw in the affordable care act that threatens the hours and the pay of part-time workers all across america. our bill would change the definition of full-time work under obamacare from 30 hours a week to the standard 40 hours a week a commonsense threshold that has always been the standard for full-time work. in fact, under the fair labor standards act, it is 40 hours a week that defines full time after which workers are eligible in many cases for overtime. madam president, information that i received from the home care and hospice alliance of maine demonstrates that this

illogical definition of full-time work could result in hundreds of home health care workers losing their jobs and a thousand seniors losing access to home care services in the state of maine alone. the impact would be just as severe outside of maine a point driven home by a letter i recently received from the national association for home care and hospice an organization that represents caregivers who provide in-home health and hospice services to chronically ill disabled and dying americans. the association just conducted a survey of its members that reveals the devastating impact that this definition will have

on home care and hospice services around the country if congress does not act to change it. let me share with my colleagues just a few of the key findings of this survey. nationally four out of five home care and hospice providers would be unable to provide health benefits -- are unable to provide health benefits to their employees because they rely on government programs like medicaid with its low reimbursement levels and because they provide services to people with limited incomes. so it's not as if, madam president, they can simply boost their rates. in many cases their rates are set by medicaid and at a very low level. in other cases, they are serving

people with limited incomes who simply cannot afford more expensive home care. another finding. three out of four providers will have to cut the hours of their caregivers. that means that those caregivers who are engaged in such compassionate and skilled work will have smaller paychecks on which to live. nine out of ten providers expect patients to lose access to home care in their communities. one in five providers of home care and hospice service will actually have to close their doors. think, madam president of the impact that closing one in five home care and hospice agencies would have on america's seniors

and our disabled citizens. in my view, taking action to scare this vulnerable population would buy itself justify restoring the threshold for full-time work to the standard 40 hours a week. but, madam president, this is not the only reason to do so. reforming the law would also help protect the caregivers who provide the services as well as their patients and ironically it would protect taxpayers as well. data from maine's medicaid programs show that home care services are extremely cost-effective compared to alternatives. if access to these services is restricted because of the application of the 30-hour rule,

those in need of these services will be forced into costlier forms of care paid for by medicaid and medicare such as hospitals and nursing homes driving up both federal and state costs. in addition, the patients now served by home health care providers would no longer be able to receive vital care in the comfort privacy and security of their own homes. so madam president whether you look at it from the perspective of the patients served or the caregivers employed or the taxpayers who pay for the medicare and medicaid programs, this hurts all three groups, and of course it's obviously a lot of overlap among those groups.

so madam president i would ask unanimous consent that an excellent letter from the national association for home care and hospice which elaborates on the problems created by this definition under obamacare be entered into the record immediately following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: madam president, of course the justification for using the standard definition of full-time work extends far beyond the field of home care services to the full breadth of our economy raising the threshold for full-time work to 40 hours a week is necessary not only to protect the paychecks of workers employed by private sector businesses such as restaurants and hotel staff but

also to protect those who work in the public sector such as substitute teachers, ed techs and school bus drivers to name just a few. the 30-hour rule will not only harm school staff who want and need more work but it will also hurt our students by causing unnecessary disruption in the classroom. it does not make sense to have to limit substitute teachers to 29 hours a week because of the definition of full-time work under obamacare. that means there will be a resolving door of substitutes in our classrooms and lower paychecks once again for those substitute teachers. i have also heard of a school district that has been forced to

cut field trips and transportation to athletic events and employees who used to work more than 30 hours total in two jobs that have been forced to give up one of their jobs, thus hurting their financial security. several maine municipalities have described to me the impact on their workers particularly volunteer and on-call firefighters emergency medical technicians and employees of the parks and recreation and public works departments. although the i.r.s. adopted regulations last year in an attempt to exclude volunteer firefighters from the calculation of the employer mandate, these regulations do not give our towns and cities the level of protection provided

by the 40 hours is full-time work act. in most maine communities the fire departments are staffed by volunteers and on-call firefighters who typically have health care coverage through their regular day jobs. in fact, in maine on-call firefighters for our smaller communities often serve as full-time firefighters receiving full health care benefits in a neighboring community. they help out the smaller towns by serving as on-call firefighters. unfortunately, under obamacare it doesn't matter that these on-call firefighters already have health care coverage. the towns that employ them for more than 30 hours a week may

still face the $2,000 penalty per on-call firefighter for doing so. this makes no sense whatsoever. for example, one town in southern maine has told me that the 30-hour rule will require it to offer health care coverage to more than a dozen volunteer and on-call firefighters who do not qualify for coverage from the town today. the cost of doing so will drive up that town's health care budget by 20% at a time when its budget is already stretched to the breaking point. another maine community has employees who work part time but year-round, performing various tasks, including plowing and salting the roads in the winter.

these employees typically work 30-34 hours a week and they do not qualify for health benefits under the town's plan. since the town can't afford to add them to its health care plan it simply will have no choice but to cut their hours back to 29 hours a week. the town doesn't want to do that that. the workers don't want to have their hours cut. as anyone who has lived in maine or any northern state can tell you, snowstorms do not keep to a schedule. mother nature seems not to have heard about the 30-hour work week under obamacare. so it will be a challenge for this town to keep its roads safe safe clear and passable in the

winter while making sure that its part-time employees don't exceed 29 hours a week. so once again what is the result? reduced hours a smaller paycheck for part-time workers and more costs for the town and more disruption in the services that it provides. mr. president, winters are long in maine and summers are short. towns have to manage their workers' schedules to match the season but the 30-hour rule will make it very difficult for them to do so. for example one town in central maine told me that the number of its employees working full time in its parks and recreation department in the summer and then they work part time in the

winter. because of the 30-hour rule, however, this town won't be able to stagger the schedules of these employees in the winter the way it used to and will have to lay them off instead. and then, adding insult to injury pay them unemployment during the layoff period. so here we have a case where the law's actually going to force the town to lay off part-time employees who want to work. this again makes no sense. part-time workers who are hired to help with snow removal are often shifted to other departments in the spring and summer months to assist full-time employees or to take their place when they're on vacation. but the 30-hour rule once again

takes away the flexibility that towns need to do this. for example one town in northern maine has told me that the part-time workers it relies upon to help cover vacation time for its firefighters in the summer months will have to be cut back to 29 hours a week because the town cannot afford to pay the $2,000 penalty it will face for each employee if they work their usual hours. raising the threshold for full-time work to 40 hours a week would restore the flexibility this town needs to manage its work force give these part-time workers more hours and the bigger paychecks that they need and have full-time firefighters get a break after a long, tough winter. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that i be

permitted to proceed for one more minute. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you mr. president. mr. president, today i have just described just some of the damage that the 30-hour rule is doing to municipal employees to providers of home health care and hospice services and to those who work in our school systems. nationwide a hundred school systems have had to scale back the hours of their workers already. employees in all industries -- for-profit and nonprofit private sector and public sector -- are similarly affected. mr. president, regardless of the varying views of senators in this chamber on the affordable care act surely surely we

ought to be able to agree to fix this problem in the law that is hurting workers' paychecks and creating chaos for employers. senator donnelly has introduced bipartisan legislation with senator joe manchin and senator lisa murkowski that would do just that. it is the 40 hours is full time act, and i urge all of my colleagues to join us in supporting it. thank you mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new york is recognized. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president i rise today to introduce three important amendments to s. 1 the keystone x.l. pipeline act. first of all, i want to make it very clear that i strongly

oppose the keystone x.l. pipeline plan. i have serious concerns about the affect this project would have on all health and safety. i have serious concerns about the environmental impact. and i am skeptical of the real permanent jobs it could create. this project has many risks and very few advantages and i will be voting against it. but if this legislation does pass the senate, we should at least try to make it a better bill. there's no excuse why we can't turn the keystone x.l. pipeline act into an opportunity to protect our clean drinking water and ensure that polluters have to pay to clean up their own messes. first, i've introduced amendment number 48 which would remove the halliburton loophole from the safe drinking water act and

finally inquire gas and storage and drilling companies to comply with our clean water laws. every other energy industry has to do it. our farmers have to do it. construction companies have to do it. yet our gas companies have been exempt for years. it should give my colleagues pause that fracking companies are allowed to ignore our clean water laws when they pump chemicals deep into the ground. in this country when we turn on the tap for a glass of water we need to know that our drinking water is safe. so let's be fair and hold the gas industry to the same environmental and public health standards as everyone else. second i've worked with senator menendez on amendment number 65 which would make oil companies financially responsible for the damages they cause when they spill on our land and leak into our waterways.

under current law when an on-shore oil spill occurs, the company that causes the spill is only liable for $350 million in damages, including cleanup and compensation. yet a major oil spill on to a river or lake, like this one -- like the one this week in montana, could easily result in damage well above that arbitrary limit. hardworking taxpayers should never be stuck paying for an oil company's mess and the local property and businesses should not have have to slog through endless litigation just to get the compensation they deserve from a negligent oil company. this legislation would finally place the burden on the companies to clean up after themselves. third, i've introduced amendment number 76, which would allow our homeowners and business owners whose property has been damaged by a natural disaster to use federal disaster assistance funds to upgrade their

property's energy efficiency. under current law disaster assistance can only be used to replace what was lost, even if that property was antiquated and not even up to current standards. so we need to have much more forward-looking policies that actually make sense. due to the effects of climate change we've seen a growing number of natural disasters in recent years from blizzards to hurricanes to raging fires to endless droughts. when we pick up the pieces after a major storm, we want to make sure that when we rebuild we rebuild in the smartest way possible and that includes not only protections against the next disaster but also proactive measures to save energy, reduce emissions and lower costs. as i said i don't support the construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline but if this new congress is intent on sending this bill to the president then

we need to make sure that the bill keeps our drinking water safe holds companies accountable for their own messes messes and encourages efficiency in our economy. thank you. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: