vote: vote:quorum call: quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: request that proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: madam president for the information of all senators, we are -- we're working now to set up votes on several pending amendments to the bill and these votes would be after lunch today. right now we're looking at 60-vote thresholds on the fischer amendment along with a boxer side-by-side. the sanders amendment and the lee amendment. i do understand that the boxer amendment is now filed at the desk and i would also ask

unanimous consent that the fischer amendment number 18 be modified with the changes that are at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you madam president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. murkowski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: request that proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: madam president i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and the minority leaders. so i would ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: and madam president we do have a number of members that have -- have asked to come to the floor to speak over the course of these next couple hours and many will be speaking to their specific amendments on this keystone x.l. pipeline. again, we encourage folks to use this time while we have a little bit of time before we move to the votes this afternoon.

so i see that my colleague from north carolina is here to speak on these issues and would welcome his remarks at this time. mr. tillis: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: thank you. long before i was actually sworn into the u.s. senate, i traveled across the state of north carolina and i promised the citizens of north carolina that i would work towards commonsense solutions to provide opportunities for economic growth and opportunity. today i hope to send forth amendment 102 with the support of my good friend, senator burr, from north carolina. upon the approval of the keystonekeystone pipeline to take a look at things we can do to do our part in north carolina to contribute to the ultimate goal of energy independence in this legislation. the amendment the atlantic outer continental shelf revenue share act of 2015, will expand domestic offshore production,

natural gas exploration and production which in turn, will create jobs and set our nation on that track to energy independence. families across the are too familiar with the impact energy prices play on our day-to-day lives. making decisions that are very difficult for them in these difficult economic situations. when utility bills and gas prices increase hardworking americans face hardship and struggle to make ends meet. we need to make that easier and lift the burden on those hardworking taxpayers. we also can't underestimate the great impact energy plays in america's foreign policy decisions. we are in many ways dependent on oil from the middle eastern states that do not share our democratic values. the predicament is not -- excuse me. the predicament has not certainly placed america in a position of strength. america has more energy potential than any other nation. it's time that we start realizing its full potential.

now, what the amendment does, it's fairly straightforward. it instructs the secretary of interior to finalize a five-year offshore oil and gas leasing program for 2017 and 2022. that includes annual lease sales in both the mid-atlantic outer continental shelf and the south atlantic outer continental shelf region. it grants the states in both of these regions a 37.5% share of all revenues collected from the outer continental shelf leading activities. each state in the region gets a minimum of 10% share of that allocation. it directs 12.5% of the revenues collected from the atlantic outer continental shelf activities to the land and water conservation fund. the 37.5% for the states and the 12.5% for other regions mirrors the revenue splits given to the gulf coast states -- texas

louisiana, mississippi and alabama under current law. north carolina's received approximately $2 -- -- $209 million in funding over the past decades protecting places such as the cape lookout national seashore, the great dismal swamp national wildlife rescue and the pitanaskala national forest. the department of interior is currently developing a five-year leasing program for 2017-2022. the language of the amendment merely instructs the department to include the mid-atlantic and the south atlantic regions as part of that plan. current law requires the department of interior to give deference to the preferences of states when developing a leasing plan for areas within 50 miles of their shore. keep in mind, ladies and gentlemen, the drilling that we're talking about in north

carolina off our coast is greater than 30 miles off the court, far beyond the sight horizon of our beautiful beaches in north carolina. now, i wanted to close by saying, why are we moving this amendment now? well first it's a fulfillment of a promise i made to the citizens of north carolina. it also doesy norm owg progress for -- enormous progress grating jobs and helping our economy get on back in the state and region. it's estimated that 55,000 jobs can be created by 2035. more than $4 billion annually in economic contributions to the state of north carolina. almost $4 billion in government revenues for the state of north carolina. $4 billion. as someone who served as speaker of the house in north carolina, i cannot tell you what an enormous impact that will have in terms of reducing the burden on taxpayers and businesses in north carolina, creating more opportunities for economic expansion and job growth. and up to $577 million annually in revenue-share payments, according to a report published

by the southeast energy alliance in 2009. these numbers increase opportunities in north carolina unlike anything i saw in my eight years in the state legislature. it's an opportunity for north carolina to do its part to make the nation energy independent and to help me fulfill my promise to the citizens of north carolina, which is to create jobs and provide great opportunities for this generation and future generations. thank you madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, i come to the floor today to discuss an amendment that i've filed to the pending legislation legislation. it's an amendment to modify the jones act. the jones act is anarchaic 1920's era law that hinders free trade, stifles the economy and hurts consumers. largely for the benefit of labor unions. specifically this amendment would effectively repeal a law that prevents u.s. shippers from

purchasing or otherwise affordablely procuring the services of -- affordably procuring the services of vessels that are built outside the united states for use in american waters. from time to time here in congress, we find that legislation still remains on the books many decades after it has served its original stated purpose. if ever had one i think one of the best examples of this is a law called the jones act. as many of you know, the jones act is simply a continuation of laws passed through u.s. history addressing port-to-port coastal shipping. those laws have been used to protect u.s. domestic shipping dating back to the very first session of congress. the jones act may have had some rationale back in the 1920's when it was enacted but today it serves only to raise shipping costs, making u.s. farmers and businesses less competitive in

the global marketplace and increasing costs for american consumers. according to the 2002 u.s. international trade commission economic study -- by the way the u.s. international trade commission is not a group of special interests. they're an international trade commission, which is appointed to study issues affecting international trade obviously as the name implies. their study reached the conclusion that repealing the jones act would lower shipping costs by about 22%. the commission found that repealing the jones act would have an annual positive welfare effect of $666 million on the u.s. economy. since these decade-old studies are the most recent studies of -- statistics vail, statistics available

imagine the impact impact the repeal would have today? like lay cleeser toly closely to $1 billion. the requirement the u.s. shippers must purchase vessels in the united states comes at a tremendous cost that is passed on to u.s. consumers. for example just recently, the u.s. container line matson placed a $489 million for two 3 container snips u.s.a. shipyard many the high price of $209 million per vessel reflects that the ships la be carrying goods within the u.s. therefore, governed by the protectionist jones act. the fact is that matson's order at $209 million% ship is more than five times more expensive

than if those same memberships were procured outside the united states. ships of that size built outside the united states would cost closer to $40 million each. for comparison far larger ships cost millions less at an average of $185 million each. u.s. maritime administration has found that the cost to operate u.s.-flagged vessels at $22,000 a day is about 2.7 times higher than foreign-flagged vessels just $6,000 a day. there's no doubt that these inflation -- inflated costs are eventually passed 0en to shipping consumers. in the -- to shipping customers. in the energy sector, for example, the price for moving crude oil from the gulf coast to the northeastern united states on jones tankers is $5 to $6

more per barrel while moving it to eastern canada is about $2. that can mean an additional $1 million pertaininger shipping costs for oil producers. this increased cost is why according to the congressional research service more than twice as much gulf coast crude oil was shipped by water to canada as was shipped to northeastern refineries in the last year all in an effort to avoid paying jones act vessel shipping rates. the implications of this fact touches just about every american who buys gasoline. it's american consumers who pay exorbitantly higher prices because of a law that protects the shipbuilding industry and domestically manufactured ships that transport crude and other refined products. but it is not just the energy sector that deals with the distorted effects of the jones afnlgt cattlemen in hawaii that want to bring their cattle to the u.s. mainland market, for example, have actually resorted

to flying the cattle on 747 jumbo jets to work around the restrictions of the jones act. their only alternative is to ship the cattle to canada because all livestock carriers in the world are foreign-owned. i'm concerned about the impact of think barrier to free traivmentd i believe the united states trade barriers invite other countries to put up or retain their own barriers, and that at the end of the day the u.s. consumer and the economy at large pays the price. throughout my career, i've always been a strong supporter of fry trade opening markets to the free flow of goods and services benefits america and benefits our trading partners. trade liberalization creates jubescreatesjobs and provides consumers with access to lower-cost goods and services, and yet as clear as the benefits of free trade are, actually taking action to remove trade barriers and open markets can be almost impossible here in congress.

special interests that have long and richly benefited from protectionism flex their muscles and issue doomsday warnings about a the consequences much moving forward on free trade. gunnelling from the hysterical reaction from some of the special troughs my special filing of this amendment the debate over the jones act will be no different. the domestic shipbuilding requirement of the jones act is outdated and should be abolished. u.s. consumers are free to buy a foreign-built car. u.s. trucking companies are free to buy foreign-built trucks. u.s. railroads are free to buy a foreign-built locomotive. u.s. airlines are free to buy a foreign-built airplane. why can't united states maritime commercial interests more affordably ship goods on foreign-made vessels. why do u.s. consumers particularly those in hawaii, alaska and puerto rico, need to pay for ships that are five

times more expensive? if there was a law that long ago outlived its usefulness, if it ever had any it's the jones act. on the jones act it's time to change course today. i have a letter i would like included in the record from the american farm bureau federation which states, "the farm bureau believes that there should be no restrictions as to the quantities of vessels on which a commodity is shipped between u.s. ports. repealing the jones act would allow more competition for the movement of goods between u.s. ports, thus driving down transportation costs." i continue reading from the letter to all members of the senate from the farm bureau. "repeal of the jones act accomplishes the same purpose: a reduction in energy costs increased competition to lower costs of u.s. goods and more opportunities to transport

agricultural commodities at competitive prices. due to this importance, farm bureau policy developed by our grass-roots members consisting of working farmers and ranchers explicitly supports the repeal of the jones act. the farm bureau urges you to vote in support of senator mccain's amendment repealing sections of the merchant marine act of 1920." then there's an article which states that "mccain under fire. a growing number of politicians are taking aim at a prominent u.s. senator's crusade against the jones act." oh, oh, my god. i am deeply concerned. it's -- and all the special interests on this issue are weighing in. and, by the way one of them -- this would have effects on the u.s. shipbuilding and repair base. we all know that the u.s. shipbuilding industry, because

of the jones act is moribund. in fact, if i -- i ask the article it from "the daily signal" which say "the shipbuilding industry is struck on ground. u.s. shipbuilding exports are tiny compared to exports of semis and trailers. shipbuilding is subject to the protectionist jones act which hinders competition while the semi- industry is not." according to the u.s. department of homeland security, the coast wise larks like the jones act are highly protectionist provisions that are intended to create a coast-wise monopoly in order to protect and develop american merchant, et cetera. but it may thrill have the opposite effect. consider u.s. production of vessels designed to transport goods via water compared to u.s. production of semitrailer trucks and trailers designed to transport goods via land.

in 2013, u.s. manufacturers exported $4.1 billion in semitrailer trucks and trailers, but they exported just $0.1 billion in commercial ships. americans in most states would benefit from the freedom to ship goods on the best-built, most affordable vessels wherever they are made. the alaska governor is actually required to -- quote -- "use best efforts and all appropriate means to persuade the united states congress to repeal those provisions of the jones act formerly codified as 46u.s.c.861," et cetera. the jones act drives up the price of gas hinders u.s. infrastructure improvements, inp flicts high costs on people in i had and puerto rico, and makes it -- in hawaii and puerto rico, maingsdz it difficult to transport goods between u.s. ports." so the facts are clear, madam president.

what which have is an old-time -- in fact, 1920's law that may have been -- i emphasize the word "may" -- have had some utility in the past. and, madam president, i am aware that all of the special interests have been mobilized and how this can be damaging to, frankly, certain special interests. it would not be damaging to the average citizen who would pay less for the goods that are transported much more cheaply as a result of the jones act repeal. so i say to those critics of this amendment as has been my habit over the years i won't quit on this issue. there will be other opportunities to put the united states senate and congress on record. and sooner or later the farm bureau will be heard. sooner or later the people of hawaii and puerto rico who are paying exorbitant prices that

they shouldn't have to pay will be heard. soon or later this protectionist -- anachronism protectionist act and average american consumers will benefit from it. and unfortunately the special interests will novment madam president, i yield the floor. madam president i ask unanimous consent that the heritage foundation piece called "the daily signal" entitled "senator mccain's jones act amendment good for america." and another article "if you like higher prices, enrich cronies and weak national security, then you'll love the jones act." it's one of my favorite pieces. i ask unanimous consent they be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: madam president i thank the senator from being a being a and i yield the floor.

-- from alaska, and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the

senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you madam president. i would ask unanimous consent to dispense with the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you madam president. i would also ask unanimous consent that a fellow in my office paulina ritger, be granted privileges to the floor for the duration of the 114th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you madam president. i would like to talk about an amendment i filed with my colleague, senator susan collins of maine to support the low income home energy program the liheap program. as the senator considers whether or not to pass -- essentially rubber stamp the construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline which, being clear would largely benefit major oil companies and could have a harmful consequence on our environment, i want to take the opportunity to highlight a federal program that helps our country's most vulnerable citizens particularly seniors meet their home energy needs.

the bipartisan amendment led by myself and senator collins along with several of our colleagues expresses the sense of the senate that the low-income home energy assistance program better known as liheap, should be funded at no less than $4.7 billion annually to ensure that more low-income housing children, senior citizens, people with disabilities and veterans are able to access this critical assistance. i must commend senator collins. she and i have taken the lead on this effort over many, many sessions of the united states congress and her efforts are extraordinarily critical to the continued support for this program. and no surprise that once again we are both together urging our colleagues to support this program. liheap is the main federal program that helps low-income families seniors and individuals with disabilities and the growing number of

veterans across the country pay their energy bills providing vital assistance both during the cold winter months in the northeast and the northern plains and across the northern part of the country and also in the summer months in areas of the southeast and southwest where air conditioning is actually critical to the health and welfare for seniors. every year we read about disturbing news, particularly the seniors because they don't have access to cooling and has a medical condition sometimes fatal and they simply can't afford the cost of air conditioning. so this is not a program that is regionally specific. this is a program that has a national impact all across the nation and as such has to be supported. it's an indispensable lifeline that ensures recipients do not have to choose between paying their energy bills and affording other necessities like food and

medicine. also the funding goes to, in my case up in new england, in many cases small businesses like oil heating companies. they are the ones at that actually get the payments. and it goes in other parts of the country to pay utility bills which affect small business and individual ratepayers across the board spectrum. so the benefits of this legislation is not just for the specific recipients but also for the overall economy of our states and for small businesses. and that has to be noted. but what we also recognize is that there are many more households eligible that receive the benefits simply because the funding levels are insufficient to call all of the recipients. despite bipartisan efforts i've led many years with senator collins being right there funding restrictions in 2011 and 2012 along with sequester cuts have meant that liheap funding

has declined more than 30% since fy 2010 from $5.1 billion down to $3.4 billion. and this raises another bigger issue. we have seen our deficit decline significantly, from virtually 9% of gross domestic product now to about 2.8%. in fact, that is a little bit below the 40-year average of deficits in the united states. and it hasn't been because of just magic. it's because we've been cutting programs. and this is an example of one of those programs where we have cut very significantly. and it's a program that aids so many people in our communities. again, i'll emphasize particularly seniors people with disabilities and this deficit reduction is hard won and one of the costs has been supporting these people. the money has shrunk so obviously the number of people

serviced has shrunk. the liheap funds, number of households declined by 17% from about 8.1 million households to 6.7 million households. and they have seen this impact directly. those receiving assistance are also seeing their average liheap grant reduced by about $100 down to about $400. this is estimated to cover less than average of the home heating costs for homes this winter meaning many will have fewer resources available for other needs. i must point out we're seeing a temporary reprieve from very high energy prices, particularly oil prices in the northeast because of the geopolitical developments in the price of oil. but, one it's not the solution. it's still the bills that these people face, even in this economic climate as well are significant

and significant and challenging to people of very limited means. for many people, this is an issue of safety. it's an issue of their health. it's an issue of just being able to get by and make ends meet. so the need is clear. i urge my colleagues to join me in support of liheap and in support of this amendment. in this context being proactive in terms of let's recognize something on a bipartisan bays that -- bipartisan basis that works, i do believe i should comment at this moment on the underlying proposal, the keystone x.l. pipeline. we understand that this trans-canada pipeline would move crude oil from the canadian tar sands and one of the dirtiest sources of fuel on the planet. there are many ways to extract hydrocarbons, this is one of the most environmentally challenging

ways to refineries on our gulf coast. and constructing this pipeline runs, i think counter to what we should be doing on a much broader basis. and that is to address climate change and protect the environment. i was struck yesterday. the senate armed services committee and the president is a distinguished member of that committee and a very valuable member of that committee we listened to general brent scowcroft and general brzezinski. general scowcroft was george herbert walker bush's national advisor. dr. brzezinski was president carter's national advisor intergallon in striking the -- integral in striking the

national accords. when you have these very authoritative and on a bipartisan basis essentially saying climate change is a big national security issue that, i think, is the context we have to view so many things, and in particular this issue of the keystone pipeline. and the second issue is there's an obvious need in this country to create jobs. in fact, no pun intended, that is job one for us. there are jobs associated with the pipeline, and these jobs, if they are of short duration, they're still pretty good jobs. but the point has to be made that we probably have to do much more particularly for our construction workers than one single pipeline. i've been told that the long-term employment of the pipeline once it is built, is a very small number for our

personnel. but we have to do much more. that's why i think we have to be very serious about an infrastructure program that goes way beyond keystone. roads, bridges sewers, all these things that we have let decline. and if you look at the spending levels, once again a victim of our deficit reduction a victim of the cuts we've made, we're at a level now where we're not doing what our fathers and our grandfathers did and grandmothers and mothers did which is basically invest, relatively speaking, a lot of money in building a productive america with infrastructure for us. we've sort of been missing in action for the last several things about doing those things we used to do routinely: building new highways, building new sewer systems improving our pollution systems all those things. we have to do that and i think swreels to do it -- we also have

to do it in the context of this climate change issue. looking at alternative energy, not just replicating what we did 20 or 30 years ago because literally it is a different planet. according to the blue green alliance, coalition of labor unions and environmental groups, repairing america's crumbling infrastructure could create 2.7 million jobs across the economy and increase g.d.p. by $377 billion while reducing carbon pollution and other greenhouse gas emissions. so it's not 42,000 jobs. it's millions of jobs. and it's not one project. it is a commitment to improving advancing, rehabilitating our infrastructure in every part of the country. and at the same time dealing with this issue of climate change which is so central. so i would like to see us as we move past this debate, move

vigorously into a debate about a major infrastructure program. now, there's another issue too and that is this debate about where is the oil going. well, you know, given the global market for petroleum products, it could go to parts of the united states but it could easily go overseas and a lot of that is the fact for the price and the demand. and we've seen a lot of oil going into asia particularly. i think that trend will continue for several reasons. one is that they are have done less relatively speaking, than many other parts of the world in terms of lowering their oil supply moving to alternative fuels, having other alternatives. so the potential, i think, is that a significant if not all of this product even though it reaches the gulf coast will not be used in the united states.

and that's another a factor i think that we have to consider. bypassing the administration's traditional approved process with respect to keystone i think is not the way to proceed. we have to get our energy policies right. i think we have to be recognized with climate change, we have to be sensitive to a whole host of issues. and we also have to recognize that energy policy is not just producing and getting a product into the marketplace. it's also making sure particularly very vulnerable americans can afford these products whatever the rice may be. and that's where liheap comes in. and i'm very, very pleased once again and finally that this is a continuation after bipartisan effort that senator collins and many others have pursued for the benefit of men and women and families all across this country. and when we're doing that, i think we're doing the best possible work we can for our

constituents and our nation. and with that, madam president i would note the absence of a quorum and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. mikulski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: madam president i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: madam president i want to take this opportunity to bring to my senate colleagues' attention a most momentous date that will occur next week. next week on january 27, it will be the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the auschwitz

concentration camp. 70 years since the liberation of the auschwitz concentration camp. it was a triumph for our allies, but a melancholy day as the world began to see the films and the photographs come out of this hell hole. i stand here today to remember and remind us all that more than any other word, auschwitz is synonymous with evil. as someone who is very proud of her polish american heritage, i visited auschwitz and i wanted to see it when i had the chance to learn more about my own heritage and i wanted to see what happened there so that i would remember, and i rise today so that the world remembers what happened there and then the her

heroic effort of the allied forces joined together to be able to save europe and save western civilization. i've introduced a resolution honoring those that survive even today and those that were lost that would remind us that we need to work always for tolerance, peace and justice and always to end genocide. the horrors of auschwitz are incomprehensible and indescribable. the numbers are grim and even ghoul issue. over -- ghoulish. over one million people, men women and children, lost their lives at auschwitz. 90% were jews, hundreds of thousands were children and the largest of any of the death camps. auschwitz was created as an internment camp. it was first created as an internment camp for polish

dissidents for hundreds of thousands of poles who were not jewish but were murdered alongside the jews of auschwitz. in occupied poland, a nazi governor named hans frank proclaimed that poles will be foreverren sliefd by the third reich, but auschwitz went far beyond the poles because the german authorities brought in people from throughout europe. who were the people that came? they were teachers, they were politicians, they were professors, they were artists. they were even catholic priests. they were executed -- they were executed or barely survived. these are the authors of heroism that arise from the horrors. many poles risks their lives to save jews. i am reminded of the story of loraine sendler. she smuggled 200 jewish children

out of the ghetto into a safe house. the gestapo arrested her first in 1943. they tortured her and then condemned to death. yan karsky working for the polish government to went on to become a leader of solidarity and a newfounder of the democratic government. worked for the polish government. in working he visited the warsaw ghetto and he did much to liberate people. but, you know, this is not a story of numbers or statistics or naming other heroes. it was a story i'm going to tell about myself. in the late 1970's as a brand-new congresswoman i traveled to poland. i wanted to see my heritage and i visited the small really small village that my family came from where my great grandmother left poland as a 16-year-old girl to come to the united states to meet up with her brother to begin a new life.

little money in her pocket but big dreams in her heart. and the story of america is the story of our family. landing in baltimore when women didn't even have the right to vote. she came in 1886, and exactly 100 years to the year i became a united states senator. so i wanted to go back to see where we came from, to really know our story even better, but i also wanted to see the dark side of the history of poland and i went to auschwitz. touring the concentration camp was an experience for me that was searing and even today i carry it not only in my mind's eye but i carry it in my heart. i could not believe the experience. and, madam president you know me. you know i'm a fairly strong, resilient person. i think we have even shared stories that i was a child abuse worker. i have seen tough things, but i

wasn't prepared for what i saw that day. as i walked through the gate of auschwitz to see the sign that welcomed -- the despicable sign to welcome here. then we toured. you don't tour. it's not a tourist site. it's a memorial. it's sacred ground. it's not a tourist site. but as we walked through and we saw the chambers where people had died, i even went to a particular cell of a father colby, a catholic priest who in the death camp gave his life to protect a jewish member there. when they were ready to shoot him, father colby stepped forward to offer his life instead. father colby in my faith tradition has been can onized a saint for his heroic effort to show that he was willing to martyr himself for another human

being and in the belief that god was there in what he wanted to do. but as i walked through there and i saw hard things and tough things and wrenching things, repulsive things, repugnant things then i got to the part that really broke my heart. i got to the part about the children. pictures of children, little children not that any child's age is there and then i saw the bins. the bins of the children's shoes. bins piled up with little shoes. size 2 size 3 size 4 laced up shoes because they were the shoes that they had in the 1930's and in the 1940's. and then i saw their suitcases, and then i saw over in another corner the eyeglasses that were taken from them and broken into pieces. and then i saw the pictures of

the mothers. i will tell you madam president, i became unglued. i had to step away. and even today when i tell you this story my voice chokes up because it shook my very soul. so as we move into this commemoration because it certainly -- it's both a celebration and a commemoration a celebration of the liberation but a commemoration of what went on. i knew when i left auschwitz i knew and i understood why first of all we should never have genocide in the world again. the second thing and also so crucial to my views is that there always needed to be a home for the jewish people, why we always need an israel, why it has to be there survivable for the ages and for all who seek a home there and seek refuge there.

so this is why i work so hard on these issues in terms of the support for israel, the end of genocide and also the gratitude for all the people who fought. for the people who fought in the underground. for people who fought in the resistance. for people to tried to participate in the famous uprisings. to thank god also for the other fighters. you know, the ones who in the camp gave whatever they could to keep other camp members going. and then for the allied troops led by the united states of america. that when we stood together, we stood and stared evil down, and when we opened up the doors of auschwitz for freedom and the ability to come out barely alive, that it was indeed a historic moment. we don't want that history ever to have to repeat itself where there has to be a liberation of a death camp. so i want to also take this opportunity to salute the allies

and all the american people who made us victorious in world war ii. so let's say god bless the united states of america and let's work together for a safe and secure middle east. madam president, i yield the floor.

ms. mikulski: madam president i 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 utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. lee: mr. president i stand today to encourage my colleagues to support my amendment amendment number 71. this amendment would solve a problem that has severely hamstrung oil and gas development on federal lands a problem that's particularly severe in the western united states and that involves excessive delays in the issuing of permits by the united states bureau of land management. federal law requires the b.l.m. to approve or deny these permits within 30 days. they've got 30 days. they can go one way or the other. but according to a report issued last year by the inspector general within the u.s. department of interior, b.l.m. took an average of 228 days to approve each drilling permit in 2012. 228 days. that's 7 1/2 months. that's a lot longer than the 30

days contemplated under federal law. in mowab and in salt lake city, utah the average processing delay is around 220 days. in price utah, the average processing delay is just under 250 days. it doesn't have to take this long. in fact, to explain why let's look at how states handle it. state governments by comparison comparison process these same permits in 80 days or less. approval of these permits is further complicated by endless environmental reviews reviews that sometimes can take years upon years. the result of all this red tape is a serious backlog of about 3,500 permits. my amendment would address this problem in a few ways. first, it would require b.l.m. to issue a permit within 60 days of receiving an application. if the permit is denied the

b.l.m. would be required to specify the reasons for its decision to deny the permit and to allow the applicant thereafter to address any issues issues. the amendment would also address delays stemming from reviews under the endangered species act and under the national environmental policy act. reviews under these statutes are required to be completed within 180 days. to provide companies with certainty and to hold b.l.m. accountable if either of these deadlines is not met the application would be deemed approved. significantly, there are currently 113 million acres of federal lands open and accessible for oil and gas development. much of this federal land contains abundant domestic energy resources. in utah alone, we have hundreds of acres available for drilling

acres that are currently being held up by bureaucratic delays. my amendment would ensure that utah and other states in the west that are dominated by federal land can access the energy the vast wealth that lies within their borders and provide the united states with a reliable source of domestic energy production. look our security our energy security and our national security more broadly depends ultimately on our ability to produce energy. i understand that fuel prices right now are down relative to what they have been. we can't get too secure in this. we can't assume that it's always going to be this case. and certainly when the federal government insists on opening this much land, roughly one-third of the land in the united states as a whole roughly two-thirds of the land in my state of utah if we're

going to own this much land within the federal government we really should be using the resources within it. we need to make sure that we're using that land to shore up our energy independence. the less energy independent we come in this country the more dependent we become on other countries that are producing energy, that are using their natural resources countries like saudi arabia and venezuela and other countries where there are a lot of people growing wealthy off of our petro dollars and where many of those same people are using our own petro dollars to fund acts of terrorism against us. countries that are often hostile to our interests. we need to do this because it makes sense economically and we need to do this because it makes sense from a national security standpoint as well. but in order for any of this to work mr. president, we have to have procedures in place to make sure that those people who choose to go out and want to develop land, want to develop

federal land that's already been identified as suitable for oil and gas production within federal lands that they have some modicum of due process that they have some ability to predict what the procedural outcome is going to be, what set of procedures they'll have to follow and what kind of time line they will be facing as they approach this often lengthy process. we do need to be careful. we do need to be sensitive and we need to make sure that we are developing our natural resources in a way that respects the environment and doesn't endanger the -- our health or that of our federal lands. but this can be done in a way that doesn't have to result in open-ended and completely unforeseeable delays. for this reason, i strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment amendment number 71, with the understanding that as they do so

so, they will be shoring up america's energy independence and with it, america's national security. thank you mr. president. i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. a senator: i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: i also ask that i be allowed to speak to the senate as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: thank you very much for recognizing me and for

taking the opportunity to address something that i hope can readily easily be solved. if common sense prevails -- we know it doesn't happen often enough here in the united states congress one the department of veterans' affairs certainly in my view can solve this problem and if common sense doesn't prevail there then surely the united states senate, the u.s. house of representatives and the president could agree upon a legislative fix that is really nothing more than common sense. i'm talking about a veterans' issue, one that is certainly prevalent in a rural state like mine. my guess a very problem that's created in a state like yours as well mr. president. i was very pleased. i came to the senate floor and talked about the importance of passing and approving the choice act. we remember the scandal of last year in which it became clear that the department of veterans' affairs had significant problems across the country. the v.a. hospital in phoenix was a poster child for bad behavior that resulted in potentially

death of veterans. one of the things that we did to try to help the department of veterans' affairs better take care of america's veterans was to pass the choice act. we did that in august of last year. it was signed into law. it's now being implemented by the department of veterans' affairs. there are many issues that are associated with the implementation of this bill but let me raise one. the crux of that legislation is this -- that if you are a veteran and you live more than 40 miles from a v.a. facility or if you can't get the department of veterans' affairs to provide the services within 30 days, the time frame that you need those services then the department of veterans' affairs is required by law to provide those services if you choose at a place of your choice presumably your hometown. this is about service to our cens in their hometowns -- to our veterans in their hometowns across kansas and around states across the country and the

theory being is that the department of veterans' affairs is incapable of providing those services perhaps for a number of reasons including lack of the necessary professionals. therefore, let's take advantage of the professionals that we have at home in our hometowns. let the veterans see his or her hometown physician. let the veteran be admitted to his or her hometown hospital. pretty commonsense kind of reaction to the inability of the department of veterans' affairs to meet the needs of veterans across our country provide another option. the choice of the veteran that veteran wants to have care at home give them that option. now, as a senator from a state like kansas, this makes sense to me even in the circumstance in which the department of veterans' affairs can provide the service. for 14 years i represented a congressional district in kansas the western 3/4 of our state. the congressional district is larger than the state of illinois. has no v.a. hospital.

so we pushed for a number of years and were successful in opening outpatient clinics so that veterans could get that care closer to home than the v.a. hospital and those outpatient clinics provide or at least intended to provide routine care. so here's the problem today. the law says if you live more than 40 miles from a v.a. stilt then the v.a. must provide the services at home if you choose. well the department of veterans' affairs is defining facility as any facility, including the hospital or the outpatient clinic. that doesn't seem too troublesome to me until you take it the next step, which is even if the v.a. hospital or the outpatient clinic doesn't provide the service that the veteran needs they still consider it a facility within 40 miles. so in my hometown where i grew up, we have had an ongoing dialogue with one of our honored veterans. he needs a colonoscopy.

well my hometown is nearly 300 miles, 250 miles to the v.a. hospital in wichita. there is an outpatient clinic, a cboc in hayes 25 miles a way but guess what? the outpatient clinic in hayes doesn't provide the service of colonoscopies. so one would think the veteran in my hometown could go to the local physician or the local hospital have the colonoscopy be performed and the department of veterans' affairs provide and pay for the service. but no, because there is an outpatient clinic within 40 miles even though it doesn't provide the colonoscopy our veteran is directed to drive to wichita. incidentally, we have calculated the mileage expense of the veteran doing this. it doesn't make sense economically either. but regardless of that, it certainly doesn't make sense for that veteran. i've said this many times over the years as we have tried to bring services closer to home to veterans. if you are a 92-year-old world war ii veteran and you live in

atwood kansas, up on the nebraska border, how do you get to the v.a. hospital in wichita or in denver? our initial attempt was let's put an outpatient clinic closer. well, the problem with that, we now have an outpatient clinic in burlington colorado, and an outpatient clinic in hayes kansas but that's still two and a half hours from atwood, kansas. so if you're a 92-year-old world war ii veteran in atwood, kansas how do you get to hayes or burlington, colorado? the answer is you probably don't. our veterans are not being served. we attempted to address this issue. we in fact -- let me say it differently. we addressed this issue in the choice act and said if you're 40 miles from a facility, then the v.a. provides the services at home, and the v.a. is interpreting that facility, the word facility, just to mean any facility there regardless of what service it provides. and in many instances i take liberal, kansas. there's a