mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma.

mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with the senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the democrats controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. mr. inhofe: mr. president? i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president many have now heard the sad news that one of the giants of kentucky politics passed away last night. wendell ford first came to the senate in the 1970's, calling himself just a dumb country boy with dirt between his toes. but over a distinguished two-decade career, this workhorse of the senate would prove he was anything but. i had the opportunity to watch my senate colleague up close as he ascended to leadership in his party and established himself as a leader on issues of importance to my state. a proud kentuckian who rose from page in the statehouse to governor of the state ford shaped the history of the commonwealth in ways few others

had before him. he never forgot the lessons about hard work he learned while milking cows or tended to chores on the family farm. this world war ii veteran never backed down from a fight either. we imagine he approached his final battle with the same spirit. elaine and i and i'm certain i speak for the entire senate, send our condolences to his wife jean mrs. ford, as wendell often called her and the rest of the ford family at this difficult time. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

queerm quorum. quorum call: who have mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. who have mr. president, it is my understanding that this side of the aisle has until 11:00 and our good friend, the senator from wyoming senator enzi, was going to be here and use some of this time, so i'm hoping that our schedule will allow him to use him time this afternoon. mr. inhofe: yesterday mr. president, we had an interesting debate on climate change here in the senate, and

there were three separate votes. the first one of which was one that i supported that virtually all the republicans supported. because the white house amendment, number 29, said -- and i'm quoting now -- "climate change is real, it is not a hoax." this is true. climate has always changed. i think there's an effort on the other side, who are trying to promote the big obama program that would cost $479 billion and not accomplish anything in terms of set upping a new bureaucracy -- they're trying to say that we're denying that climate change exists. climate, as i said on the floor yesterday, has all always changed. you can look at the history read the scriptures, it's changed since the very beginning of time. and we know that. it's real. now, the hoax is that somehow there are people so arrogant that are going to go along with the president's program to say yes, if we spend enough money

we can -- we, the human beings, can stop climate from changing. that's not going to havment happen. and so i think people do understand that and so i'm very happy that we were able to get that out so that cannot be used in a way that was -- would not accomplish -- that would be deceptive to the public. so any anyway, climate has been changing sixths the beginning of -- since the beginning of time. the hoax that i have referred to since 2002 is that -- you know, that man is going to be in a position to change climate. that's just not going to havment now, what's interesting in these votes that took place, they could have taken place anytime over the last year. we went a whole year last year -- and i'm going to share -- i hope i'm not divulging something that someone else is going to use. but we're on pace now have more amendments on votes on this one bill -- this is the pipeline

bill -- than we had on amendments in the entire year last year. last year we had a total -- and we've been very critical of the majority the fact that we're not doing anything here. i go home this last year and the people would say well, what do you accomplish? nothing. we didn't have any votes. we didn't do anything. we had 15 votes on amendments in the entire year after the year. by the end of today we'll have that many votes on amendments just in one -- one week. so that's very significant that we had -- that we're actually getting things done. now, why did the democrats not have a vote on the keystone pipeline? because voters really don't care -- or on the -- they never did have a vote actually on some of their climate things. it's because people have lost interest in that. they have caught on. they know that despite the amount of money that's been paid -- put into this thing by tom steyer -- i've already talked about that on this floor -- that went into midterm elections the

pro--global warming votes would be seen negatively by voters. this wasn't true back in -- in the -- in the 1990's. this is become -- at that time they had -- everyone was scared that global warming wag coming, the world was going 0 come to and he. there was polling by the goal lop polls as the number-one and number-two concerns in america. nowness number 14 out of 15 environmental concerns in eric in. so that's where it is. that's why tom steyer over here has spent by his own admission some $70 million on the elections. he stated that he was going to get involved in eight elections senatorial elections. you're very familiar, i say to the chair with which ones they would be. they lost them all. but tom steyer is not out of money. they're going to continue to do what they can to try to raise -- to resurrect this global warming as an issue.

so the gallup polls are showing -- not just the polls the pew research center said 53% of americans either don't believe global warming exists or believe it's caused by natural variation. i don't think i have it here, but i do know that there was a university that put together a poll of all of the television weather people and that came utahoutto the same thing. 63% of them believe say that it doesn't exist or if it doesn't exist, it occurs because of natural causes. people care about the deficit and they're concerned about jobs. yesterday on the floor we talked about the deficit. this is not a believable figure but it is an accurate figure. the president has increased debt in america more than all presidents in the history of america from george washington to george bush. so that's what people care about. as chairman of the environment

and public works committee one of my top priorities in this congress is going to be to really conduct vigorous oversight on the e.p.a. regulations, getting into president obama's excessive regulation regime through numerous hearings. we're going to have hearings on these regulations. we actually have dates set already to have hearings so that people will understand what the cost is of these regulations. i know the occupier of the chair is from a rural state like i'm from -- i'm from oklahoma. in that state when i talk to farmers, they will tell you -- in fact, tom buchanan, the president of the oklahoma farm bureau said i can use his quote. "our farmers in oklahoma and i suggest all throughout america are more concerned about the e.p.a. regulations than they are all the other problems that is are out there or anything that you'll see in the farm bill." and he talks about the endangered species. they can't plow their fields in

certain places. there might be some kind of a bug down there. he talks about the containment of fuel on their farms. he talks about the water of the united states, the wilderness. that bill is probably the number one concern of farmers. in my western part of my state it's arid. it is one of the most arid parts of the united states. that could actually be declared a wetland if you were to pass this thing and allow the federal government to replace the states and come in and regulate water on land. so these are the things that they're concerned about. now, we should look closely at this because our friends in us a strail why -- and this is -- this was quite a breakthrough, i think. they already tried t they tried regulating their emissions and of course i think we all know that the ipcc is the intergovernmental panel on climate, and that -- that bureaucracy is supposedly the

scientific community and yet we find out now -- and i talked about this yesterday all the scientists that are not believers in this -- but a lot of them did believe it. and australia believed it. so they joined in a kyoto-type treaty in stopping their emissions. they imposed a carbon tax on the economy a few years ago and it caused horrendous damage. it caused $9 billion in lost economic activity per year and destroyed tens of thousands of jobs. it was so bad that the government recently voted to repeal the carbon tax that they imposed just a couple years ago. and their economy is now better for it. in fact, it was announced just following the repeal that australia experienced record job growth of 120,000 jobs, far more than the 10,000 to 15,000 jobs the economists had expected. we also looked closely at this bill because the scientists are having a difficult time explaining the 15-year hiatus

we've seen in temperature increases. this isn't me. this actually is the ipcc -- the ippcc agrees with this, the "economist" magazine agrees with this. reputable publications. and reviewing the science is one thing they have to do in the e.p.w. committee the committee that i chair. because it is on the disputed science -- it is on this disputed science that the e.p.a. is building its significant greenhouse gas regulation package for the summer, which altogether would be the costliest regulation in history the component rating -- regulating co2 emissions from existing sources is the cause of great concern in particular. now, as it's proposed right now -- and we heard this in the president's message on tuesday night -- the e.p.a.'s regulation will raise energy prices, destroy jobs, and impose billions of dollars in costs on the u.s. economy without

achieving any kind of effect. it's interesting -- and i have quoted her many times. the first e.p.a. director that was appointed by barack obama was lisa jackson. lisa jackson was -- became before our committee many times and i always appreciated her because she would not get a message from the white house and come and repeat it in our committee. i asked her the question -- i said if we were to pass any of these regulations or the legislation to have cap and trade in america, which is what the president has proposed on tuesday night would this have the effect of reducing co2 emissions worldwide? and her answer was live on tv in our meeting no, it wouldn't, because this -- this isn't where the problem is. the problem is in china. the problem is in india. the problem is in mexico. so what we do here in the united states isn't going to affect what they do.

in fact, the opposite is true. because if we control emissions to the point where our manufacturing base runs out of energy in america where do they 0go? they go to places like china. china sitting back hoping that we pass something here so they can benefit from our lost jobs in america. "the wall street journal" on june 3 called the proposal at that time president suggested on tuesday a huge indirect tax in wealth distribution scheme that the e.p.a. is imposing by fiat will profoundly touch every american noting -- further quoting "the wall street journal," "it is impossible to raise the price of carbon energy without also raising costs across the country." this is clearly worthy of intense congressional oversight. that's what we intend to do. the e.p.a. has gone beyond the plain reading of the clean air act in an attempt to grossly expand its authority. it is forcing states to achieve

dubious emissions reductions and targets from the limited menu of economically damaging and legally questionable options. and i don't know that i have in here or not but there's -- one of the foremost authorities in america is richard lindzen of m.i.t. richard lindzen made the statement -- and again this is some time ago he made this statement. he said, "controlling carbon" -- see, that's what they want to dovment he said, "controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. if you control carbon, you control life." went on -- and see the scientists -- the scientific community has been divided on this and we are in a position toss try to make sure that doesn't happen to america. so we're going to be very busy on that. i'd like to mention that we've seen europe go down the road of imposing these maintained, the cap-and-trade regimes that they're proposing for america.

and the green energy subsidies. and we have seen where that has gotten them. we're talking about europe now. electricity prices that are up to two and a half times higher than those in the united states. in germany in 2012, co2 emissions actually rose by 1.3% over the 2011 levels, while the united states emissions fell by 3.9%. and they were imposing these new restrictions, we were not. as a matter of fact, things got so bad in germany that they backed off of their disastrous renewable fuels program and now planning to build 10 new coal-fired power plants in germany. 10 new coal-fired power plants. it is what they're trying to do away with altogether in america as if we can run the machine called america without fossil fuels and without nuclear.

we can't do it. so a look closer to home. california has adopted similar carbon-reduction policies and its cap-and-trade scheme alone will increase electricity rates by 8% according to the california public utilities commission. now, that's today. that's in california today. now, if they -- if we pass this, i don't have a figure as to how much that's going to increase out in california. now, do we really want our entire economy following the path of the state of california? and it's -- it has one of the country's highest electric rates. the rates -- the electricity rates in california are 65% higher than our rates in the state of oklahoma. and it has one of the worst unemployment rates one of the worst insolvent fiscal positions of any state not to mention some of the worst air quality in the country. predictions of this rule's devastating impacts are evident.

industrial rates are predicted to increase by 24%. that's in the event that they are successful this in this program. mr. president, i notice the other side has not arrived. i would ask if i could go an additional seven minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: thank you. the candace corporation commission calculates that compliance with the rule as proposed would cost the state $5 billion to $15 billion the equivalent of a 10% to 30% increase in electric rates, the loss of cheaper and more reliable coal units will increase power rights by as such as 25%. i've gone on and talked about how much more of this would be state by state. there isn't time to go over that now. but let's stop and just realize the cost of this. analysis of the increased costs if we were to adopt these programs projects that the costs to comply with e.p.a.'s plan could be a total of $479 billion

or more, 43 states will have double-digit electricity increases and 14 states potentially face a peak year electricity price increase exceeding 20%. now, i say this because who's having to pay this? everybody pays it and they pay it equally. this has to be the most regressive type of increase in taxation that we could have because if you have a pilot -- a program that is in -- or a family that's in poverty, they have to spend the same amount of money for their electricity that's a must. that's not a luxury, that's something that you have to have. so they could easily spend half of their expendable income on electricity price increases while wealthy people might be 1% of their income -- it might be 1% of their income. that's why it's important and that's why we need to pay attention to it and make sure that we know -- the public is aware of this. now, nero also estimates that

atmospheric co2 concentrations would be reduced by less than one-half of 1%. now, that's if they are successful in doing this, it would be one-half of 1%, equating to reductions in global average temperatures of less than .02 of a degree. so all these things they say they might be able to accomplished they've studied it and said it's just not true. i've already talked about the fact that his own administration lisa jackson has said that even if they're successful -- sometimes they say, you know, what if you're wrong? what will if they're right about all of this? well if they are right even if they are as lisa jackson said, it's not going to reduce co2 emissions. and it's because it's not -- this isn't where the problem is. so this is going on right now. we have a committee that is clearly going to be working on this so the american people will be aware of what's happening.

the energy information administration determined that china agreement would result in a 34% increase in electric -- electricity prices. now, i bring this up because we heard in the speech on tuesday that they're negotiating with china and some great successful negotiation took place. you remember that? the chairman remembers that. this was back when our secretary of state went over and had this meeting with president chi in china and service a successful meeting. do you know what they came out with in that nothing? negotiation? china said we'll keep increasing our emissions until 2020, then we'll look at it and decide if we want to lower it. that's not much of a negotiation and it's not very comforting to us. a survey conducted by harvard scientists showed that people who are worried about climate change are only willing to pay electricity rates 5% higher.

the american people understand that this proposal is in no way about protecting the environment or improving public health. this rule is an executive and bureaucratic power grab unlike anything this country has ever seen and it's merely the tip of the sphere? ain the radical war against affordable energy and fossil fuels. at a time when domestic oil and gas prices through hydraulic fracturing continues to be one of the lone bright spots in our economy a lot of the people are trying to stop this from taking place. i kind of wind up with this, because i think it's important. i come from an oil state so i have a bias. i understand that this process called hydraulic fracturing, that was started in my state of oklahoma, in duncan, oklahoma, in 1948. did you know that by their own admission, the e.p.a. said there's never been a documented case of ground water contamination in -- since they started using hydraulic fracturing. and when the president made the statement in his state of the

union message and he said, our -- we have increased dramatically increased in the last five years our production of oil and gas that's correct but that was in spite of the president. we have enjoyed a 61% increase in production in oil and gas in america in the last five years. 61%. however, that's -- all of that is on either state or private land. on federal land, we've had a reduction of 6%. so, you know, i look at that and i believe when people say that if we have been able to do the same thing on federal land that we've done in the last five years on private land and state land, we could be totally independent, 100% independent from any other country in developing our own resources. so i'm committed to using our -- our committee the public works -- and the public works committee to not only conduct a rigorous oversight of the obama e.p.a.'s policies which are

running through -- roughshod over the economy operating outside the scope of law and directly ignoring the intent of congress but also to rein in this out-of-control agency through any and all means at our disposal. this has been a problem and i'm glad that when people used to say well, the very good relations, that's just big business that wants to reduce these regulations. it's -- that isn't true. because, as i mentioned before, the farmers of america not just in my state of oklahoma, say that the overregulation of e.p.a. is something that would be -- is the most difficult thing that they have to deal with. with that, i would yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i request that proceedings your honor the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 1, which the clerk will report. the clerk:calendar number 1 a bill

s. is a bill to approve the keystone pipeline. ms. murkowski: skilled that the privileges of the floor be granted to william treadwell effective today. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: and also privileges of the floor be granted to samin pirovi, effective today through june 2015. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you. we are back this morning to continue debate, to continue voting on amendments to this bipartisan keystone x.l. bill. i want to focus on two main subjects today. i think first is to speak to what i think is the good progress that we've made on this bill moving us towards ultimately a final vote, final passage. i think we've probably surprise add few people yesterday in adopting an amendment on climate change that few people thought

would be adopted. we've processed now a total of nine amendments. some would say well, nine is not much but just to put it into context last year, in the year 2014, the united states senate held just 15 roll call votes on amendments. that was in all of 2014, just 15 roll call votes. so that means just in a couple days here in this new congress we're already about 60% of our total from all of last year. it's still january here. we've got eight amendments that are pending at this moment, set to be voted on today. we're going to be work out the timing of that and the order. but my hope is that we're going to exceed last year's total hopefully, here today.

so i think that this is good. and i think that our productivity -- and i appreciate the cooperation of the ranking member here on the committee. what we've been able to do with this measure is important because i think it stands in pretty stark contrast to what we've seen in recent years and quite honestly, to the delays of the -- that the keystone x.l. pipeline has faced over the years. so the second -- the second part of my comments this morning i'd like to provide a little bit of perspective about how long this cross-border permit has been pending awaiting a final decision by the president. sometimes when we talk just in terms of the raw numbers it's like so what does that really mean? what does it mean to be on the 2,316th day that has passed since the company seeking to build this pipeline filed its

first permit with the state department? so it's morning more than six years. it's more than 330 weeks. the president noted in his state of the union this week that keystone x.l. was just a single oil pipeline. and he's right. it is just a single oil pipeline. we've got multiple pipelines that cross border. we have hundreds of pipelines that move -- cross throughout this country year. so it begs the question, how and why has it taken so long to get just one single pipeline action? how -- why does it take so long? so there have been a lot of examples that we've heard here on the floor. somebody has suggested that -- well, i had mentioned yesterday that president obama was still a sitting senator -- was still a sitting senator when the application papers were filed.

others have said the ipad hadn't even been out on the market before the first permit was filed. we've heard that 2,300 days is longer than it took the united states to win world war i world war ii -- win world war ii. so a lot of comparisons out there in terms of what it really means to be longer than 2,300 days. i've mentioned on the floor many times that in alaska we're seeking to try to advance our natural gas resource. in order to do so, we need a pipeline. we need a big pipeline to move from the north slope down to tidewater. and so we're working to train up welders, because we know that when that day comes and we have the opportunity to be building that line, we're going to want

alaskans to have those jobs. they may be temporary in that you don't weld a pipeline forever. do you it until the job is complete. but those are good jocks. those are good -- but those are good jobs. those are good jobs for people that come up to our state. the fairbanks pipeline training facility is the best in the country. kids are graduating there once a year ready to go to work on projects like keystone x.l. we're probably talking about seven sets -- seven sets of welders that have graduated at this point and we need to be approving projects that can help these young people or those that have been retrained as welders to get jobs. that's what they're waiting for. we can even think about this length of time, again that has

ensued since the first permit application has been pending in terms of flying to mars and bafnlgback. we can probably complete three round trips to mars and back, of course depending upon the distance of the planets. but, again just kind of putting it in context. we could describe those 2,300 days in terms of how many times we could hike the entire appalachian trail probably 10 or 12, depending on the weather. one of these days i would like to hike the appalachian. it is one of those issues when you think, how long has this been pending before this administration? so today i am going to add just one more example to show again the comparison. we're all kind of focused on what's going on with super bowl 49 coming up in about ten days now. so a pretty timely base of comparison. we're going to see the super bowl pit the reining nfl

champions, the seattle seahawks. now, in arks we don't alaska, we don't have our own professional football, so we kind of adopt the sea hawfntle i will let my colleagues know that i am standing with the seahawks. a lot of folks will be wasmght the game will be played next sun daytime for the moment let's look back to september 19 of 2008. this was the day that the cross-border permit was first submitted to the state department. let's focus specifically on the seahawks here because they provide a pretty good example of how much has changed over the past six years. back in september of 20 0rb8gs the seahawks were about to start a season in which they would go just 4-12, winning four gairnlings losing 12. they were still a good team but they were a pretty different team.

the seahawks had a different head coach. their current coach was still at the university of southern california coaching the trojans. their star runningback was about to start his second year in the nfl as a member of the buffalo bills. it would be another two years before he joined the seahawks and just over three years before the nation discovered his love of skillets during a game against the philadelphia eagles. the most famous member of the secondary -- richard sherman earl thomas, back in september of 2008, both were still in college, respectively playing for stanford and university of texas. and of course we can't forget russell wilson. a lot of alaskans are routing for him to get a second successful super- super bowl. but back in september of 2008 he had played just a hndzful of college games. he was a red shirt freshman at north carolina state.

my point here, mr. president not in talking about football -- although that's what a lot of us are talking about -- is that a lot can happen over the course of 2,300 days. and it does. whether we're talking about what goes on in politics, in world events or the world of sports. and so i would suggest to you that it should probably take -- it should probably take the federal government less time to approve an important infrastructure project. what the president himself has called just a single oil pipeline than it takes to build an nfl chafn onship championship team. so i would like to get to that point where we can be done here on the floor discussing the merits of this important project, be done in the sense that we can move forward move

forward with not only keystone x.l. but move forward as a nation when it comes to north american energy independence, when it comes to providing for jobs and greater economic benefit to this country. i am pleased with the process that we've had on the floor here over the past couple days. i look forward to the series of amendments that we will have votes on this afternoon likely after lunch and the opportunity to be in further discussion about these issues that i think have been pent up for a a period of time. with that, i will acknowledge my colleague on the energy committee and co-fan of the seattle seahawks. ms. cantwell: thank you. mr. president? mr. president, i would thank the

senator from alaska. i mean, i'm certainly tired of hearing about deflategate. i don't know if her on z and i bantering on the floor can keep the real talent of the football team and the individuals. she has proven that she is a true 12. that's important to us in the north wevment so thank you for your comments. we're here today to continue the debate on the keystone x.l. pipeline. i see my colleague is here from vermont who probably wants to give comments to his amendment. we are hopefully going to be voting on the various amendment proposals that we discussed yesterday and talking to members about their amendments that they would like too to see on this legislation. i want to draw focus though, this morning just for you a few minutes before i turn it over to senator sanders to speak to his amendment, about the fact that this process is incredibly important in the united states of america this debate, this

discussion this protection of environmental issues and property rights, of environmental laws. and i say that because i want to submit for the record two news articles that just came out today, one entitled "montana oil spill renews worries about safety of pipelines." and another story that is headlined, "cleanup under way for nearly 3 million gallon salt water spill in north dakota." the reason i'm bringing that up is as we are sitting here today discussing you know, whj we're -- whether we're going to override current environmental law and give a special carve jut -- carve-out exemption to a foreign company to basically build a pipeline through the united states of america the fundamental question in my mind is what's the hurry in giving exemptions to these various laws as a way to et go the pipeline built? these are things that the united states businesses don't get. they don't get these exemptions,

either what's been granted through this process. and they certainly don't get the u.s. senate voting for them to basically override the president's authority to make sure that there is -- or i should say to pass a bill that would prohibit the president from using his authority on what is in the national interest. so to me, the montana spill that is you know, very close to the yellowstone river is really about our current pipeline and whether we have the right safety provisions in place. so if anything, to me we should be discussing what we can do to further pipeline safety in the united states of america not let a foreign company roll back existing u.s. laws on environmental issues that they should be complying with, and the fact that this is such a beautiful part of our country and that, as the story shows

that it crosses 20 miles of -- upstream from the pop line pipeline -- the popular pipeline spill, are all issues that we should be really thinking about. i get that there has been an explosion of both tar sands and bakken oil. the question is not are we going to rush to try to help these companies override rules. the question is whether they comply with rules and whether the united states of america has enough in place to make sure the safety and security of our citizens are being protected as this new opportunity and explosion of product is occurring. i can say from my perspective and my state i worked for every city council -- i heard from every city council in the state about how they want new regulations for oil train

transport, something they are very concerned about given the explosions that have happened on oil railcars. and again if this particular issue -- i know my colleague from north dakota thinks that somehow this a alleviates the northwest from having trains through there. i assure him it doesn't. we'll still have concerns about the safety of our citizens from rail. but we shouldn't now be trying to exempt foreign company from complying with u.s. laws. we should be saying they should follow the rules and in the meantime we should be asking the ntsb, we should be asking our agencies whether there is enough safety in place given the large amount of crude that is now moving and the issues that we have seen. there's nothing more important to me than protecting farmers and landowners to make sure that they actually are dealt with fairly and to make sure that

things like clean water are protected. so i don't -- you know, just because the discussion has been going on for a long time doesn't mean that we should overrule existing environmental laws and exempt a foreign company from complying with it. i hope that this company will stop trying to have it both ways. only negotiate with people on their bad ideas about where this pipeline should go because they can try to get something through the united states senate. i would rather them follow the rules all the way through the process. with that, i will yield the floor and i see my colleague from vermont is here to discuss his amendment. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, i want to thank the senator from alaska and the senator from washington for their work on this legislation. and i rise today to say a few

words about my amendment to the proposed keystone pipeline bill, an amendment that will be coming up for a vote in a few minutes. and i want to thank senators bennet, senator carper, senator leahy, senator menendez, senator murphy senator warren and senator whitehouse for cosponsoring this amendment. mr. president, this amendment is extremely simple. it's about one page and i'll read it in a moment. but it raises a very, very profound issue as to how we do public policy not just on issues related to climate but on issues in general. and that is as we go forward tackling the very difficult problems facing our country and the world whom do we listen to? whose advice do we take as we

proceed? and i would argue that historically and appropriately what we do as a nation is we listen to the experts. that is what we do. and i think that in this debate when we deal with the keystone pipeline when we deal with the issue of climate change, it is absolutely appropriate that we listen to what the overwhelming percentage of scientists are telling us. you know, mr. president i hear some of my colleagues say you know, this is complicated and i'm not a scientist. i don't know. but let me be very, very frank. i am not a scientist and i did not do terribly well in biology and physics in college but i can read. and i can listen and understand what the scientific community is saying on this issue. now when we go forward as the senate and we deal with

complicated medical issues, when we search for solutions in terms of cancer or heart disease or diabetes to whom do we go? who do we listen to for advice as to how we should proceed and allocate public funding? we listen to the doctors and the scientists and the researchers who know a lot more than virtually all of us do in terms of cancer or heart disease. we spend a lot of money in this country on infrastructure, on roads and bridges and wastewater plants and water systems. that's complicated stuff. to whom do we look for advice? who do we have at our hearings on these issues? we look to the engineers and the scientists who tell us the best way to proceed in terms of how we build roads and bridges in a cost-effective way. we are dealing right now with the issue of cybersecurity a

huge issue a threat to the nation. to whom do we look for advice? we look to those experts in technology who can tell us the best way to prevent cybersecurity attacks against the united states. and on and on it goes, whether it's education or whatever it is. good public policy is dependent upon listening to the scientific community, listening to the people who know the best about this issue. and, mr. president, in terms of the issue of climate change, the fact of the matter is that the scientific community is virtually unanimous in telling us that climate change is real, it is caused by human activity, that it has already caused devastating problems in the united states and around the

world. the scientific community tells us that there is just a brief window of opportunity before the united states and the entire planet suffer irreparable harm. and they tell us that 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. mr. president, that's not the opinion of bernie sanders. that is the opinion of the scientific community. so to those of my colleagues who say, well, you know, it's complicated stuff i'm not a scientist, i don't know, let me tell you who does know. 37 major american scientific organizations, people who study this issue do know. and what they say is that climate change is real, it is caused by human activities, it

is already causing devastating problems in the u.s. and around the world and that we have to transform our energy system. and that is what the sanders amendment says. that's all that it says. it is a modest amendment. it is a conservative amendment. simply telling us what the scientific community has told us year after year after year. mr. president, for those of us who are not scientists, let me tell you the scientific organizations who hold that point of view. they are among others, the american an throw poe logical association, the american association for the advancement of science the american chemical society the american geophysical society the american institute of biological sciences the american meteorological society the american physical society the national academy of engineering the national academy of

sciences. 37 separate scientific organizations, including those that were mentioned. that's not all. there are 135 international scientific organizations that say the same thing. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to place into the record a list of 135 international scientific organizations, 37 american scientific organizations 21 medical associations that all agree with the basic premises that are in the sanders amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president the international intergovernmental panel on climate change is the leading international scientific body that deals with climate change. let me quote to you what they

said just last fall -- and i quote -- "warming of the climate system is unequivocal as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level." end of quote. mr. president, more than 97% of the scientific community in the united states and across the globe agrees with these findings. mr. president, i am going to conclude my remarks by simply reading my amendment to make sure that every member of the senate understands how simple and straightforward and noncontroversial this amendment is. and this is what it says --

quote -- "it is the sense of congress that congress is in agreement with the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific community that climate change is real. two, that climate change is caused by human activities. three, that climate change has already caused devastating problems in the united states and around the world. four that a brief window of opportunity exists before the united states and the entire planet suffer irreparable harm. and, five, that 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. that's it. that is the entire amendment.

and every provision in this amendment is supported by virtually the entire scientific community, the people who best understand this issue. mr. president, clearly we are a nation divided politically and clearly we are a congress divided politically. we have different views on almost every issue. but i would hope very much that the united states senate does not reject science because in doing so would not only lead to bad public policy, but it would be an embarrassment before the entire world that the united states senate is rejecting what the overwhelming majority of scientists are telling us about what they consider to be one of the great crises facing our

planet. so mr. president, i would hope very much that we would have for this amendment strong bipartisan support in the senate that says as a senate, we are going to listen to what the scientific community tells us and that we are going to develop public policy based on their knowledge and that information. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president i just had some concluding thoughts about the president's state of the union speech tuesday night.

much of it we've heard before. in fact, what the president laid out was largely what his agenda has been for the last six years. in other words we've been there and we've done that, and it hadn't worked very well. tired, big-government proposals; in fact, the president seems like he's doubled down in a lot of ways on higher taxes more risk redistribution and more regulations that are out of step with what the american people, i believe, want and they need. what they want more than anything else, i think, from a strictly economic point of view, is to get the economy growing again. let's create jobs. let the private sector actually create jobs. not government. we know government is pretty incompetent when it comes to job creation. and we all have little nagging minor detail called the national debt where we keep borrowing money and pushing that down the

road to the next generation and beyond. it is ironic in a lot of ways because the president came to the people's house to give his state of the union speech. that's the house of representatives. but his speech was anything but for the people. now, he claimed that really his focus was on middle-class economics. i think he had been listening to the senior senator from new york who after this last election gave a speech at the national press club that said that democrats had made a terrible mistake, leading off with the new president's term in 2009 with obamacare and other big government programs, and they had neglected stagnant wages and the middle class. so i think the president in a tipping of his hat to senator schumer and his comments postelection has essentially acknowledged that his first six years have failed to address the needs of the middle class and

so that's why he kept using the phrase middle-class economics during his speech. but it wasn't really about the middle class it wasn't about hardworking american taxpayers. time and time, it seemed about his most urgent priority was himself. his speech was really about him and his agenda, his pet projects his vision for bigger government. i would just point out that the president quite candidly admitted that it was his agenda, his policies that were on the ballot on november 4. now, i think that sent a shudder through every incumbent who is running for re-election who happened to have voted for his big government agenda, but the point is it was soundly rejected on november 4. and of course, you couldn't tell that from the president's tone and his cheerleading last tuesday night but my point is

we have been there we've done that it didn't work. let's try something different. we have felt the experience of this experiment in big government for the last six years, and if anything, what the voters said on november 4 is enough is enough. i can't remember who originally said it, but someone said famously that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. well you can't try the same old tired policies over and over again and actually expect a different outcome but at least to my mind, reality was what was driving the president's remarks. if it was he would have focused on the biggest concerns americans have right now. i mentioned jobs and stagnant

wages and rising costs things like health care costs. unfortunately, that obamacare really backfired on a lot of middle-class workers and it actually raised their health care costs rather than lowered them. and then the stagnant wages that i mentioned a moment ago. but if he really cared about those issues as he should and as we do, he would be working with congress to address those issues and he would have given some attention to one of the first major pieces of legislation that we have taken up in the 114th congress on a bipartisan basis. and of course i'm referring to the keystone x.l. pipeline that we're debating now. 11 democrats 11 democrats joined all of the republicans who are present to proceed to this bill, so when i say it's bipartisan i'm not just saying it. it actually is. but sometimes you can tell a lot from what a person doesn't say

and in this case, the president spoke more than 6,000 words and he didn't mention the word keystone in one of them. so instead of using this opportunity when millions of americans and around the world were listening to this president to lay out sound reasons why he continues to oppose this jobs and infrastructure project year after year, the president merely said we should look beyond a single pipeline to meet america's infrastructure needs. but, mr. president, we need to start somewhere and the president won't even start by taking the first step by approving this infrastructure project and job-creating project known as the keystone x.l. pipeline. i think there is a chinese prorve that says a trip of a thousand miles has to start with the first step, and that's true

here as well. that may be a single pipeline, but it's a single pipeline that his own state department is said to have the potential to support more than 40,000, 40,000 jobs. here's what i don't get. there are 2.5 million miles of oil and gas pipelines in america today, 2.5 million. so what is this fixation with this thousand-mile roughly pipeline that comes from canada down to southeast texas where it's refined turned into gasoline and other refined products? why has this become such a political football? well it's because the president and unfortunately some of his own party who are wed to a political base that won't allow them to do the rational, realistic, practical thing which would be to approve this pipeline. the president tried to minimize this. you've heard people say well, these are temporary jobs.

well my job here is temporary. the president's job is temporary. it's going to run out in a couple of years. every job is temporary in that sense. you know, to try to denigrate these well-paying construction jobs from welders and others, people who make $125,000, $140,000 a year in my state and to say well -- and to denigrate them and to minimize them, say well it's just a temporary job it really is not all that important. it really is a slap in the face at the people who are hungry to find work, people who are working part time who want to work full time. people who are working for minimum wage who want to improve their standard of living and their ability to provide for their family. and then there is this. we need to remember that the percentage of americans participating in the work force is at a 30-year low.

30-year low. what that means to me is that some people have just simply given up looking for work and so they have dropped out. they have retired. they have gone on to do other things but it is a symptom of a disease in our economy. it's not something we should be proud of. and if we're actually interested in getting more americans back in the work force, the president would approve this pipeline. well let me tell you one -- just one person who i met with last friday down in beaumont, texas. we call it the golden triangle. it is a place where refineries are seemingly almost everywhere, but it's a blue-collar community but one that's proud and contributes a lot to the texas economy. well, i was down in beaumont, as i said, and i -- we were there

to mark the one-year anniversary of the southern leg of the keystone x.l. pipeline coming online. this is a little confusing but this is a portion of the pipeline that is already in place and it doesn't require a transit with presidential approval to cross from canada into the united states. so believe it or not, there are already 4,800 jobs that have been created and an average of 400,000 barrels of canadian crude pumped into southeast texas already. so we're not talking about doing something that is new. we're talking about adding to what already exists by completion of this pipeline. but my point is this -- if the president wants to see what the potential economic impact and the impact on jobs and on standard of living would be for the entire keystone x.l. pipeline all he needs to do is to look to southeast texas to

beaumont texas where the impact has been nothing but positive. i met with the mayor of beaumont and the county judge and other local businesses and officials stakeholders. the mayor and the county judge pointed out that it's the taxes that they get from the economic activity caused by this pipeline that exists and which would do nothing but enhance by the keystone x.l. pipeline that helps pay the taxes that pave roads, provides health care to people who don't have access who can't afford it, health care. it provides for to pay the law enforcement. it provides all of the government functions including education. i mean, this is what adds to the tax base which allows local governments, including school districts, to provide for the education of our children. and then there is this.

there is the multiplier effect of the investment by the private investment on this pipeline, the multiplier effect because people who earn these good wages they spend the money in restaurants they buy homes they rent apartments they buy things at retail outlets. that's the multiplier effect from this pipeline. one person in particular i want to close with is a gentleman i met by the name of mr. kenneth edwards who is the vice president of the united association, the union of plumbers fitters welders and service techs. well i think mr. edwards would agree with me that we wouldn't necessarily see eye to eye on everything but then after being married 35 years, i don't know many married couples that agree on everything, so that's not all that unusual but it isn't a surprise that republicans and unions haven't been on the same page on every issue but there is an issue where we agree 100%

and that's the need for the president to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline after six long years. mr. edwards speaks on behalf of many union workers nationwide who as he put it earn their living from a series of temporary jobs that happen to add up to a lifelong career. he told me last week he wants the president to put his famous veto pen away and to take out his approval pen and to sign his approval of this project right away. but speaking of temporary jobs, as i said, the president is ending his time in office. he's got two more years left. and his state of the union speech leads me to believe he's not open to changing course and making much of a departure from the partisanship and gridlock that's marked his first term and a half. but there is still time to change his mind.

with the keystone x.l. pipeline bill that a bipartisan of majority of congress will soon send his way, we are presenting him an opportunity an opportunity to say i heard the message that the voters delivered on november 4 and i heard the american people say we're tired of the dysfunction in washington, d.c. we actually want to see congress and the white house work together to get things done on behalf of the american people. so it's not too late. i hope he will listen, not only to people like kenneth edwards and union workers across the country but to the vast majority of americans who support this important project. 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:

vote: vote:quorum call: quorum call: