quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado is recognized. mr. bennet: thank you mr. president. i'd like to congratulate you for sitting in that chair. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. bennet: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: and i'd like to congratulate the presiding officer. mr. president, i'd like to speak about the fischer amendment that we're slated to vote on at some point around here, and while i respect my neighbor from nebraska where she is coming from with this effort, the proposal unfortunately misses the mark by a mile. the amendment would set up new and unprecedented process for protecting -- for protective land designations. it says the secretary of the interior or agriculture has to publish in the federal register two findings before any congressional protections on

public lands would go into effect. first, the secretary has to find that new protected land would not adversely effect our efforts to administer existing protected land and then second, the department has to have sufficient resources whatever that is, to implement plans for existing protected land. while perhaps innocuous sounding these would be huge changes in how we do business around here. coming from a state that's over a third federal land, i prefer that drastic reform proposals like this at least have the benefit of a committee hearing before we vote on them on the floor. that way we can hear expert testimony as to whether this is a good idea or learn about ways we might be able to improve the measure, but as far as i know, this language hasn't had a hearing in this congress or any other congress, for that matter. proponents of this amendment are going to argue that it simply

ensures that our land agencies can afford to keep up with the maintenance of new protected lands. and listen on the first and have been on this floor year after year talking about the fiscal condition of this country but first i believe we need more fiscal discipline around here, but this is not the way we should get it. i am also a huge believer that we shouldn't be overburdening these agencies, and we shouldn't be overregulating through them either but unfortunately this amendment takes a hatchet where the absolute most that's needed, if anything, is a surgical fix. in fact, under this amendment the proponents of protected lands could reduce funding for our land agencies through the appropriation process and then turn around and say the secretary got a -- has got to veto new proposals because sufficient resources aren't available. as one of my friends from

colorado said in the paper this morning -- quote -- "this amendment would be a one-two punch. first, starve conservation agencies of needed funding and then block any new protections as a result." mr. president, this amendment is drafted in a way that it leaves huge discretion to a future secretary to approve or veto protections that congress has seen fit to create. if the amendment passed, nothing would stop a future secretary from finding that every single conservation bill that this congress has passed should not take effect. all because he or she failed to publish the vague set of findings laid out in this proposal. historically we don't let a member of the executive branch any discretion as to whether they implement the laws that congress passes and that the president has signed, yet this measure would do just that. i think keeping that historical precedent where the legislative branch makes the laws and the executive branch implements them is important.

we've heard a lot about that on this floor recently, particularly in a case like this where we're talking about our national heritage. coloradans and all americans love their public lands and want to see more done to protect them and instead this amendment creates new layers of red tape. it makes enacting protective designations even more difficult than it has been. once again mr. president i want to say on this floor i appreciate the senator from nebraska's efforts here and i would be happy to work with her to address some of her concerns, but i would argue that the investments we do make in our public lands are worthwhile ones and i would invite anybody in this chamber to come to colorado and see what i'm talking about. protecting lands and wide-open spaces are a huge driver of economic growth all across our country. they help sustain a $600 billion outdoor recreation economy. a lot of those businesses, for obvious reasons are headquartered in colorado. on top of the economic benefits,

wilderness areas national monuments, national parks are a fundamental part of the fabric of our country and of our country's history. it's important to preserve these lands for our kids and our grandkids, just as our grandparents preserved them for us and it's worth investing some money to do that so the next generation, the one after that can experience the greatness that all americans feel when they first visit the grand canyon or rocky mountain national park or chimney rock national monument or the everglades or wherever we find the next beautiful or historically significant area that congress or the president decides to protect. this discussion is actually a timely one because just this past december, we passed a large package of conservation measures into law on a bipartisan basis. that package included a bill

that we worked on in colorado called the hermosa creek watershed protection act. let me say at the outset that our office may have introduced that bill in congress, but it was really the people i represent in southwest colorado who wrote that bill. this legislation grew from the grassroots up from day one republicans, democrats independents working together to cement a long-term plan for their communities. not only was it bipartisan at the local level but also in congress. my friend scott tipton championed the bill on the house side. the hermosa creek watershed deserved to be protected. that's why the community came together to keep it just as it was. that was the plan of the community, and that's what our bill finally accomplished at the end of the last congress. however, if we were to pass the amendment in front of us today all the hard work that went into passing the hermosa bill could be undone by the interior secretary. every single meeting had in

southwest colorado, every single conversation that led to the improvement of this legislation all of that, all of that could be gone in an instant. not because the congress undoes the law but because some administrator using their fiat is able to under the law. and it's not unlikely, mr. president -- i can't say this for sure, but it's unlikely that that person is going to have any idea what's in the hermosa creek bill or any of the other bills that we worked on and passed, and that's simply not how we do business with that and there is a good reason for that. i am compelled therefore to urge other senators in this body to please oppose the fischer amendment so we can avoid such a scenario. rejecting the amendment will preserve our conservation legacy, a legacy that goes straight back to president teddy roosevelt or a republican who signed the antiquities act into law in 1906 and includes the former establishment of the

national park system almost 100 years ago. mr. president, this is an extraordinarily beautiful country that we all have the privilege to represent. we ought to encourage conservation efforts not make them harder to achieve. we ought to build on the legacy of generations of americans and generations in this body of republicans and democrats working together to preserve our natural heritage. i will therefore op the fischer amendment when it comes up for a vote and i urge my colleagues to do the same. mr. president, i yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina is recognized. mr. graham: i ask unanimous consent to terminate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: thank you. mr. president, i'd like to share some thoughts about the debate we're having on the keystone

pipeline, climate change, and how the two intersect. the concept that climate change is real, i completely understand and accept. to the point of how much man is contributing, i don't know, but it does make sense that manmade emissions are contributing and the global warming effect, the greenhouse gases effect seems sound. the problem is that how you fix this globally is going to require more than just the united states to be involved. this deal with china where they have to do nothing for 20 years is probably not exactly where i'd want to be. the bottom line is that the solutions coming from our democratic friends about how the deal with greenhouse gas

emissions turn our economy upside down, do more harm to the economy, our liberal friends give us a false choice. you have to reorganize the economy in a draconian fashion to help the environment. some people on my side believe that the whole climate change experience is scientifically unsound. i'm not a scientist but i've heard enough regarding those who make it their life's work to be convinced that manmade emissions are causing a problem of contributing to the overall warming of the planet. about the keystone pipeline, my democratic friends are making an argument that is just absolutely false. the product that canada will produce from the oil sands is going to be used by us, the world community through the

gulfport or by china. to those who believe denying the building of the pipeline protects from fossil fuels don't understand what canada is about to do. canada is going to sell the product to somebody. the question for us, will we benefit from building a pipeline that will create american jobs and help us put oil into that pipeline within the united states in a joint venture with canada or we will say no to the canadians and they will go build a pipeline and send it to china. the product is going to be burned. it's going to be used. the only question for this congress is do we want the pipeline to go west and export the product to china or do we want to build the pipeline so we'll have more product from a

friend rather than enemies. dirty oil is oil that comes from people who hate your guts. the sulfur content of oil sands product is higher than mideast sweet crude but no different than the oil we find off the coast of california. the actual carbon content is no different than the oil we find off the coast of california. to lock this country and the world into buying more mideast product seems to me to be a very bad idea at a very dangerous time. so when i hear members of the democratic party take the floor and say don't build this pipeline because it will help the environment you obviously don't realize what canada is about to do. canada is going to sell the oil to another customer, build a new

pipeline and the only question for you is how do you justify that. how do you justify destroying the ability to create thousands of jobs in the country at a time when we need them? how do you justify not building a pipeline that could be used to help us with product from north dakota and other places within our own country? you can justify it but you can't say that it's based on climate change because the product that you're talking about is going into the environment. it is going to be used. it's either going to be used coming through america to our benefit, or it's going to be built -- the pipeline will be built west and it will go to china. to our friends in canada, i imagine your patience is about to run out with us, and i don't blame you one bit if you got tired of dealing with an american government that seems

completely out of sync with area. in terms of the lawsuits, it's a procedural issue. in nebraska the pipeline is one of thousands of pipelines we already have in america. to the president last night instead of one pipeline, why don't we have a comprehensive infrastructure strategy? i'm all for that. but you're threatening to veto the building of this pipeline. why? because you have been taken over your judgment has by the environmental community who is hellbent on no fossil fuels anywhere anyway, any how. that's not the world in which we live in. i embrace the fact that a lower carbon economy will be beneficial over time. my view is find more fuels from friendly people including our own backyard, canada, the united states including fossil fuels we have to buy from countries that

do not like us very much. that is a reality. we're not going to be able to replace fuels any time soon. we can invent technology to make it cleaner. we can find alternatives. but at the end of the day it comes down to this, if you're using climate change as a reason not to build this pipeline, you're kidding yourself or you're misleading the public. because the product is going to be used. it's going -- they're going to build a pipeline in canada. the question is do they build a pipeline that we get no benefit from or do they build a pipeline in collaboration with us that helps us with our job problems and our energy needs? i don't understand how you can justify voting against the

keystone pipeline based on a tenure about climate change, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue in this regard. the product is going to be used by somebody, and they're going to build a pipeline somewhere. for you to deny us the ability to build this pipeline that would make us more energy independent from overseas fossil fuels is shortsighted and does not advance the cause of climate change. to the people who believe in climate change, it is gimmicks like this and tricks like this that hurt your cause. you're undercutting a real, genuine debate. you make climate change a religion rather than a problem. it is a problem but you're taking a draconian approach to the problem to the point that you're denying our country the

ability to build a pipeline that we would benefit from economically and energy security-wise, and the alternative you're leaving this country is that the same product will go somewhere else. and the next pipeline won't benefit america. so it's stunts like this that undercut your overall efforts. i wish you would change your mind about the pipeline and work with republicans who are willing to work with you to deal with emissions in a realistic way and stop selling what i think is a fraud when it comes to this debate. thank you mr. president. i would yield. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president i understand that the senate is in a quorum call, and i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you mr. president. i'm here to say a few words about my amendment 29, which we will be voting on shortly after 3:00 i'm told. that is the simple amendment that says it is the sense of the senate that climate change is real and not a hoax. it is perhaps a telling coincidence that we're having this conversation on the floor of the senate now on the fifth

anniversary of the citizens united decision. because before citizens united came along, there was actually a pretty robust conversation between democrats and republicans about carbon pollution and climate change and what needed to be done about it. for instance, senator john mccain ran for president on a robust platform of addressing the carbon pollution that causes climate change. senator collins worked with the current energy ranking member senator cantwell on a very robust climate bill that would have put a cap on carbon pollution and paid a dividend back to the american people. senator mark kirk voted for waxman-markey when that bill was up on the floor of the house the famous cap-and-trade bill. senator flake wrote an article in his home state paper

expressing the value and merit of a carbon fee when it's offset by reductions in other taxes as a way to help workers and address the pollution problem. over and over again, there were these joint actions all the way back to when i first came to the e.p.w. committee and senator john warner was its then-ranking member and he wrote warner-lieberman when our colleague then, senator lieberman. then came citizens united, then came the massive influx of polluter money into our political system, much of it dark money. and at about the spring of 2010 and citizens united was decided in january of 2010, that was the end of the conversation. and so here we are today. we are just now reaching an agreement on several votes by

which i believe our republican colleagues will for the first time since citizens united -- some of them at least -- acknowledge that climate change is real. indeed we just heard my friend senator graham come to the floor and speak right there saying that climate change is real, that humans had a significant role in krauseing it cause it and it is what something we needed to pay attention to. so this is new today after five years of more or less silence, i've spoken on this floor, as everybody knows a great deal on this subject and nobody has ever come from the other side of the aisle to respond to me, except for the now-chairman of the environment and public works committee to maintain his view that climate change is actually a hoax, that is perpetrated by the scientific community in order to get grafntses andgrantsand funding. so it's been a long drought. it has been a long, long drought, and frankly it has been

a drought that does not reflect the best traditions of this body. this body has taken on big issues in the past. it took on civil rights. it tried to hold this country together over the issue of slavery. this body has been significant in the history of the united states at important junctions and here we are at this important junction where our energy policy needs to chairntion andchangeand half of the body basically was mute. today that seems to have changed. that to me is very significant. so i look forward to a vote on my amendment. as i said, it's very simple. climate change is real and in the a hoax. i hope that that is something we can agree on as a body. if we do, then it becomes a predicate for beginning to advance an important conversation. i am not going to agree request all my republican colleagues about their views on how to respond to this problem and i don't expect my republican colleagues to agree with all of my views on how we should

respond to this problem but the dark days of denying that there actually is a problem may very well have seen their first little break of dawn right now. and if that's so, that is exciting news. because, as many republicans have noted republicans like secretary schultz republicans like secretary paulson republicans like ronald reagan's economic advisor the economist arthur laffer, there are smart conservative ways to address this problem. and i continue to think that the idea that senator flake signed off on all those years ago is still the right one to do. raise a fee by putting a price on carbon that reflects the economic fact that it creates harm for so many other folks the so-called externalities

what the economist would say. the costs that burning carbon causes to fishermen home orientation to people that live by the sea -- those costs build them into the price of the product. that's economics 101. and then take every single dollar you raise and lower working people's taxes. i am completely comfortable with that notion. and that is one that has been over and over again brought up in the context of republican and conservative discussions. including a very good recent paper jointly authored by a writer from the american enterprise substitute. so i had the pleasure -- i see the deputy minority leader on the floor here -- i had the pleasure of traveling with him and with our ranking member on the judiciary committee and other colleagues to cuba. and when we spent time with the cuban officials cuban religious leaders, cuban just regular folks on the street, over and over again we heard the same

phrases coming at us, that it was a time of hope and it was a time of promise. well if it can be a time of hope and a time of promise in cuba, let's hope it can be a time of hope and a time of promise in this body on climate change and it starts with admitting that you have a problem, just like in so many other areas of human life. so i hope that, frankly every member of the senate will vote for my amendment. and we appreciate the opportunity to work with the new majority on ways that we can address this telling problem. i'll close by saying this. i am never going away on this subject. it is too important to my home state of rhode island. there is no senator in this body who, if they had an issue as important to their home state as this issue is to rhode island, i would not expect and respect to fight all the way through to the bitter end for the interests of

their state. my fishermen are not finding the fish where they've been for generations. people who've owned homes on the shore are losing them into the sea in big storms. these are real consequences. and we, i promise you one way or the other are going to do something about it and i hope this is the dawn of that new day. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, let me thank my colleague from rhode island. he and i did travel to havana, cuba earlier this week. interestingly enough, sat down with the scientists and the people responsible for the oceans and other natural benefits in cuba to discuss global warming and the conversation started in the same place. even these scientists, there's no question they can see the impact and they started their predictions about the rise of

the ocean levels. and the senator from rhode island knows this far better than i do. but they anticipate that the ocean levels will rise over a foot in just 10 or 20 years and then twice that over a period of 50 years or more. and will have a profound impact on the island, the arc pell archipelago of cuba, and the united states. senator whitehouse of rhode island more than any other senator has really brought this issue home, not just to his home but to the atlantic coast states. and has reported on the impacts they face. now, i live smack dab in the middle of the country in illinois and i can tell you that we appreciate that there are changes taking place on this planet that are not in our best interests nor will they leave our children and grandchildren a better place to live. the obvious question we face is, what will we do in this generation? and this bill s. 1 which was chosen by the republican majority has given us a venue to

finally raise some important environmental issues which have been ignored for too long. i know that the object of this bill was to build a pipeline trans-canada a canadian company, wants to build a pipeline through the united states. they may or may not sell any oil from it in the united states. we had a vote on that yesterday. the republicans overwhelmingly said they would not require them to sell their oil in the united states. they may or may not use american steel to build their pipeline. we had that amendment yesterday. the republicans voted overwhelmingly that there's no requirement to use american steel to build this pipeline. and yet it's characterized as a -- quote -- "american jobs bill." it's hard to understand that characterization. but if nothing else whatever happens to this bill and it may not have a great fate ahead of it if it's not changed significantly the president's already promised to veto, but what the senator from rhode island just said is significant. after years of denial from the other side of the aisle about

the issues of global warming we may have reached a point -- may have just reached a pointed -- where we're -- reached a point where we're finally finally on a bipartisan basis going to acknowledge the obvious the scientific facts which have been given to us over and over and over again. that is a step in the right direction. i want to thank my colleague from rhode island. let me take two minutes to say a word about my pending amendment which may come up for a vote shortly. it's amendment number 69. what i've said on the floor is there's a dirty little secret about the keystone pipeline. you don't take canadian tar sands and turn them into gasoline and diesel fuel without filtering and refining out some pretty horrible things. what's filtered out is called petcoke. and petcoke is going to be produced in the refining process if this pipeline is ultimately built. over 15,000 tons a day of petcoke this by-product of this refining process.

and if you look at it and you think to yourself, what impact will have that? it can have a very negative impact. my city of chicago, i'm proud to represent, as well as other communities, petcoke piles have become a challenge to the public health of the people in the community. i am asking in my amendment that we establish a standard of safety when it comes to petcoke that we establish a standard of transportation and storage of petcoke to protect american families and children from the hazards of breathing petcoke dust. it's a simple public health amendment. i hope my colleagues will support it. i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: would the senator yield for a question? mr. durbin: i would be happy to yield. mr. whitehouse: may i inquire of the senator we will shortly be voting on a number of measures. one is a side-by-side to the schatz amendment which includes a quotation from the environmental impact statement and the quotation is as follows. "approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project

including the proposed project is unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the united states based on expected oil prices oil sand supply costs, transport costs and supply demand scenarios." does the senator recall when the e.i.s. was written and what the oil prices were that were expected at the time that this document was prepared? mr. durbin: until very recently, of course, the price of a barrel of oil was high enough to justify tar sands their extraction, the cost of transportation and the additional cost of refining them into a final product. since that time, the cost of oil is almost half today than what it was when that report written. i don't remember the exact date. perhaps you have it handy. mr. whitehouse: i would say the break point for that study was at $75 per barrel. and it was at that point that

the environmental impact became very real from this harmful tar sands fuel. not only are we not just under $75 per barrel, we've hit as low as below $50 per barrel. so i just want to make sure that as long as we're voting on this language very shortly it's clear in the record of the senate that the environmental impact statement was hinged on on -- quote -- "expected oil prices," that the expected oil prices were north of $75 per barrel that they are now well below that, around $50 per barrel. and, indeed, i would add that the canadian energy research institute has said that the tar sands can't be profitably extracted at prices less than $85 per barrel. so that puts some context into what we'll be voting on that i thought should be in the record. mr. durbin: i thank the senator from rhode island. it's significant. the first bill from the senate republican majority is to build a pipeline for a canadian company.

moving tar sands across the united states to be refined in texas and then sold overseas. that is the highest priority of the republican majority and there are those who based on what you just said, senator who question whether or not this is economically viable with the price of a barrel of oil today. i'm not an economist in energy but it strikes me there's been a significant change in the premise of this whole project. mr. whitehouse:mr. whitehouse: in my remarks earlier, i referred to this pipeline as possibly an economic zombie at the current oil prices. i have not seen a single report that this pipeline can be built and operate profitably at oil prices where they are right now. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president request that proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that it be in order for senator hoeven or his designee to offer his amendment number 87 as modified and further that the time until 3:15 this afternoon be equally divided in the usual form. following the use or yielding

back of the time, the senate then proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed: lee number 33, durbin69; toomey, 41; whitehouse 29; hoeven, 87, as modified and.schatz, 58. and furthered that all amendments on this list be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption and no second-degrees be in order to the amendments. i ask consent that there be two minutes of debate equally divided between each vote and that all votes after the first in the series be 10-minute votes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. ms. cantwell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president as my colleague from alaska just said, we're making progress. we've got another group of amendments that we'ring about to

be voting on shortly. -- going to be voting on shortly. i would encourage members on our side who would like to take a few minutes to go over their amendments before the vote, we have a few minutes between now and 3:15 to do so, and that during this vote we will be -- this series of votes coming up, we'll be working to get the next set of amendments with our colleagues and to continue to move forward on this. and so again i'll have a little bit more to say but i see a couple of our colleagues here so i think i'm going to give them the chance to talk about their amendments. ms. cantwell: i guess i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: are i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: it's my understanding we have time now equally divided between now and 3:15 and the votes will start? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. durbin: saying no one else on the floor, i would like to say a word about an amendment voted on, the second in the

queue, and it's the amendment i've offered relative to petcoke. petcoke is the product that is derived from the refining of canadian tar sands. and petcoke, if you happen to live in some communities in america, can be a real problem. this is the city of chicago illinois. you can see some of the bungalows and houses here. and right across the railroad tracks you can see mounds of petcoke coming in from the british petroleum refinery. they generate somewhere in the range of 6,000 tons a day of this petcoke and pile it up right here. it is transported to different places ultimately, but as it sits here, it obviously is a hazard to the people living nearby. it blows in the wind creating issues public health issues and real concern. families with children with asthma respiratory disease. i have an amendment and the amendment is very basic. the amendment talks number one about making sure that there are standards and rules for the

storage and enclosure of petcoke petcoke. most of the cities, whether it's long beach california, or detroit, michigan, or chicago illinois are trying to find -- establish standards to enclose this petcoke so it doesn't blow freely in the atmosphere. senator hoeven of north dakota spoke earlier and said it's not carcinogenic. those findings relate to the -- not the breathing in of the dust but the ingestion of petcoke itself. we have not established it's a benign substance and we're trying to take care of families that might be exposed to it. i'm not surprised to see there's been a letter issued by the national association of manufacturers opposing my amendment. they start by saying that petcoke is a valuable, essential commercial product that is used in a wide array of applications. i'm not stopping that at all. anyone who wants to take this petcoke and use it to make -- produce energy and power

generation cement cones steel glass and paint, as long as it complies with basic environmental standards be my guest. but to store it in a fashion so it can blow all over and cause public health hazards that's unacceptable. it should be in a modern society. and, secondly, if those who store it end up we find over the long haul create a long-term hazard to the environment, they should be held legally responsible. that's the extent of my amendment. not surprised the national association of manufacturers would oppose it. but i would ask each and every member to consider the possibility that they live across the tracks from this kind of petcoke conglomeration. i've seen it. it's horrible. and we're fighting it in the city of chicago. this is owned the company that owns this petcoke the koch brothers. so it shouldn't be any surprise the national association of manufacturers took the position that they did. i hope that all of us, who may be subject to this kind of dumping of petcoke near a city in our state will think twice.

let's at least have some standards for storage and enclosure to protect the people in our states. and let's make certain that if there's an ultimate environmental damage here the parties that make the profit off the petcoke are ultimately responsible. that's the extent of my amendment. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

snroo quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i wanted to take a few minutes to talk about the lee amendment number 33, which is going to be voted on shortly. i know my colleagues are still going to have two minutes divided before the vote so people can add comments to this if they wish. but, mr. president this amendment makes it very difficult for citizens to retain counsel particularly related to the endangered species act. and to me, i don't know why we would be hand capping -- handicapping legal cases just because they deal with the environment. i guess if you're not interested in protecting the environment and you want to make it harder for people to retain lawyers but when i think about property rights and i think about clean water and i think about clean air and all of these issues, i think that is something we ought

to go the extra mile and make sure that they get representation and counsel not handicap them and make it harder just because we don't want companies to adhere to environmental laws. i think this is important because my colleagues should remember that the e.s.a. was signed into law in 1973 by then-president richard nixon and was intentionally drafted to manage and to engage citizens in the protection of endangered species. so now in general litigants in the country must bear their own costs and the prevailing party is not ordinarily entitled to collect his or her expenses or in a defending suit from the loser, but both the courts and congress have provided an exemption for that rule. and so they have allowed in certain circumstances for judges to shift the cost to litigants in the interest of fairness and to further the public interest. so that's what's at stake here this morning. and i think the endangered species act is a prime example of why the courts decided that

they wanted to have this kind of leeway and protection. congress knew when it enacted the endangered species act that it would be difficult and the nation would want to rely and make sure that ordinary citizens basically have the opportunity to help ensure compliance with the law. so congress recognized that when its citizens did so, he or she did not do so necessarily for themselves alone but as a private attorney, to further the goals and congress set this for the nation in statute. so this is what we're going to be addressing. in contrast to the lee amendment, it would make the prevailing citizen for request reimbursement under the endangered species act subject to ferro those restrictions of equal access to justice. this is because the cap on fees would include an equal access to justice act often falls well below the market-based rate for attorneys. basically what the lee amendment

does is just say you won't be able to recap on the attorneys' fees at the cost of doing business and their hope is that then citizens won't have representation before the courts on things like clean air, clean water, and other environmental issues. i say to my colleagues, you know, i have said this to the now-ranking member on the e.p.w. committee, i don't know why we're not taking up the superfund bill. like to me, getting the superfund reauthorized -- these are polluters that have polluted our country and they're not even paying the thasm it tax that it would cost to clean up the pollution. instead, we're considering an amendment that would roll back environmental law on the issue and make sure that citizens don't have the right to help enforce environmental laws. so i would ask my colleagues to defeat the lee amendment when we get to it. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i'd like to call my amendment as modified. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment of.

the clerk: the sphoer from north dakota, mr. hoeven, proposes an amendment numbered 87 as modified, to amendment number 2. mr. hoeven: i'd ask a this you dispense with the reading please. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order the senate will proceed to a vote in relation to amendment number 33 offered by the senator from utah mr. lee. ms. cantwell: i ask -- mrs. boxer: parliamentary inquiry. i would like to speak on the hoeven amendment and take the minute that our side has. we're on the lee amendment? all right. ms. cantwell: i ask for -- ms. murkowski: i ask for the yeas and nays, mr. president. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: