the last five years we've seen 12 times we kick the can down the road and have not done much of anything. we borrow money from the general fund and china and other places around the world. i don't think it's a very smart policy. we do stuff that has nothing to do with transportation. one of you, i think it was you dr. hall may have mentioned the user fees. governor snyder is still your governor. i know he tried to to double the gas tax. i think it passed the senate. now they are going to go to referendum to see if they can pass it back that way. i chaired until 10 days ago the senate subcommittee in transportation infrastructure. the environment and public works has a great interest in math and a name for the subcommittee here is my question. senator our ranking member here former chairman has been working on something called the road user charge. it's another way of saying we

lost track. in delaware to go through my stay at 95 you pay a toll. we use easy path that people can move through rather expeditiously. if he goes out it is user free. but it's a toll. so we have a combination of tolls. we have road user charge is. we have i think dr. hall you were talking about congestion and charging i think makes a lot of sense. two questions. one, given the advice, we will run out of money. yet again we've run out of money. what advice would you have for us? my senses it is to be a combination of things. as i rates in the gas tax or diesel tax for 21 years, and 8% gas tax 24-cent diesel tax is about 15 cents. we all know what is going on in the price of gas across the country. so your recommendations for each of those about a month or so.

what should we do? >> you want to start a quick >> i'm happy to start. i do think as part of a comprehensive business tax reform proposal there some opportunities to do something. i don't think they are permanent fixes, but they are multiple year fixes in the transportation fund. they would not be as good if you were to address overall revenues for the fund firm dedicated user fee sources. but i do think there's some creative ways. the president sort of endorsed back, so i look at that as a possibility. there has been also in the press, just comment that don't add up where they say looks just we preach create and use that money from a scoring standpoint. that doesn't work, but there is a way to do it. they got some of that and the proposal made in the house in the last congress.

there have been also and i won't discuss it and use my colleaguecolleague s time here, but some of the other proposals about how him he might change the way it's administered, at what level. you are completely right in the problem that we could make a contribution that could be very helpful by a sometime come but we need to step it up dramatically from where we are. the needs that are a matter pretty staggering. >> thank you. dr. hall please. >> i am not equipped to deal with these day-to-day problems, a specially from all these miles away. where do you live quick >> california. >> i used to live there. >> really quick >> our road was very close to the golf course right by my house. >> ray. >> we had a sign on the front of

the house that said tom carper. [laughter] >> but you know taking a somewhat longer perspective on infrastructure, especially rose rose should make a profit if the owners are in some cases but the federal government they have to make a profit because they set out a lot of land that is worth a lot and if they're not making a profit they are not making good use of the land. so that shows how different infrastructure policy as from today from where it should be because we know we are pouring a lot of money into it. on the gas tax there is a case that we should have a gas tax as part of the carbon got a lot of carping. otherwise as pointed out earlier the gas tax is extremely efficient and now an effective way to deal with recovering fees. we need to recover fees from the transponder easy path or

whatever it's called. >> we do a lot of that in delaware. >> that's great. >> we also have a gas tax. >> sure. >> we should have a gas tax because the carbon content. that doesn't mean we should raise it all the time. >> we haven't raised in 21 years. >> thank you. some intelligent policymaking should be very focused on getting the right level of real-time pricing as the users and infrastructure. air travel is the same thing. it is scandalous since most people slide or at least middle income, it is scandalous that we subsidize airports with infrastructure funds. so we need to get that straight now, too. there shouldn't be any federal subsidy to air travel. >> okay, thank you. dr. wolfers. >> three things first. >> are you from australia quite >> i am, in the. i am a citizen.

first rated gas tax. >> would you say that again. >> brays the gas tax. i think you could take almost an economist in the united states in may with exactly the same thing. i can think of two reasons. one of them all we are effectively subsidizing the dirtiest forms of =tranfour rather than the enormous environmental consequences. professor hall is right. there's bigger things we could do. second, i actually like to run to work. when i went to work i join a gym just to shower. on the days i drive to work i can use tax-exempt money to pay for parking spot. so we are actually subsidizing one form of transportation rather than another and i would argue probably not the right forum. the site and is how to get more bang for your buck in the transportation fund. one is to think about spending

more when staff is cheapest. so we have a lot of construction workers out of work right now. we have low interest rates. now is a great time to spend at the boom keeps going five years time will hopefully be a terrible time to spend and we get more bang for our buck with countercyclical spending. the third, you said you began by saying you pass an economist for what the economic growth paled from the transportation policy would be. i think that is actually the wrong question. the real payoff is moms and dads to get home to see their kids 15 minutes earlier every day. that is not economic growth, but it's an improvement in living standards that we should take seriously. >> i agree. texas a&m does a study every year, how much time is it in traffic. about two full days. that is a point well taken. thank you. you're very generous of your time. >> governor carper is better later on infrastructure. thank you all and we are

adjourned at this time. >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]

>> governors around the country have been delivering their state of the state address this threat the month of january, including new mexico governor trade or reuse your address to talk about teachers pay in funds for highway and job training. she is joined by two victims of last year's school shooting in

roswell. this 50 minute address comes courtesy of new mexico public broadcasting. [applause] >> thank you so much. lieutenant governor, senate president pro tem our new house speaker democratic and republican leaders esteemed members of the new mexico the new mexico legislature honorable members of the judiciary. former new mexico governors, tribal governors former senator pete domenici the states nurse trumbo. amnesty first son carlo. [applause] and to all of my fellow new mexicans, it is an honor to join you for the annual state of the state address and open this legislative session. this session we must lead with

her edge. we must commit ourselves to the task of charting a better and stronger future for our children. in everything we do this session. we must focus on how it impacts the children of new mexico, how it improves their safety and well-being today and how we ensure they have a future without limit and they chase their dreams of tomorrow. quite simply, there is no greater calling for those of us in this chamber. that means continuing to improve our schools so that every child receives a quality education. it means creating a diverse economy and new jobs and also it says industry. and its coming together to tackle the devastating impact of child abuse and neglect.

[applause] my friends, i am grateful and blessed to have been reelected as your governor. i am humbled by the strong support we received statewide from gallup hobbes, albuquerque and las vegas. and yes republicans in particular had a strong showing on election night with canada in support -- [inaudible] defeating incumbents and the status quo. consequently there is a new republican majority in the state house. [applause] graduations to these new members into your leaders, speaker don

tripp. [cheers and applause] but as i said in my and not ural address, voters didn't choose one party over another in november. i firmly believe they chose progress over politics, to move forward and to keep performing. and that is my commitment to work together with republicans and democrats to make new mexico an even better place to live for them and their children and their grandchildren. let's build upon the foundation we have laid over the last three years because we have accomplished a great deal together. [applause] you know the largest budget deficit in state history and put our finances back in order

passed among sweeping tax reform in a generation here took ourselves out from under an unworkable federal education law, allowing us more local control and we now have more and better information about how our schools are performing than ever before. we've reformed medicare to make it more patient centered and expanded medicaid, providing health coverage to 185,000 more new mexicans. [applause] we should be proud of these bipartisan achievements. and as we look ahead knows this. i will not mark time. and i ask that you make that very same commitment.

i ask that in every decision we will choose courage overcome for, changeovers stagnation reform over the status quo. the courageous route paved with policies that will outlast each event and fundamentally improve new mexico. [cheers and applause] our greatest challenge is making new mexico more competitive economically and less reliant on federal spending. it is about charting our course and creating an economy as diverse as the great state. so that our children and grandchildren can find good paying jobs right here in new mexico when they finish school. we have worked towards this goal in a bipartisan way. we've had the business tax rate by 22%.

stopped unfairly attack you are exporting these actions, as will as the size of our closing fund to attract companies invested in job training to help small businesses. focus our tourism dollars behind smart advertising and our record raking new mexico true campaign. on our watch, exports to mexico are at an all-time high. we have been ranked number one in the nation. [applause] [speaking in spanish] our border port is thriving. new mexico is poised to become a key trade route between the united states and mexico central america and south america. our tax rate on manufacturing

improved from third worst in the region to the best in the west. [cheers and applause] even more promising over the past year we created 14,000 jobs in our her grow at a rate of 2.4%, lifting ice and the state-by-state rankings all the way to the 15th fastest private sector in the country. [applause] and over the last year we have the new mexico companies expand their work force and we also welcome new companies here from around the world. a few of these small businesses have joined us today. local combinations like pasco and farmington, a family run manufacturer that recently committed to adding 150 new

employees over the next few years. kyl rose and jenny baxter, thank you for being here. thank you. [applause] and vitality works, a new mexico company that started in 1982. they added 50 new employees this year and continue to grow and do business throughout the world. mitch cobain and jackie kiefer, you do great work. thank you for being here as well. [applause] at california company that moved its headquarters just last year. just like southwest and flagship food group, two other california companies that are bringing jobs here. with dh said publicly it was our

newly competitive business environment. what you while help to create that led them to make such a dramatic move. they also noted that they could have chosen to do business anywhere in the country and they chose fast. [applause] dan and larry -- [applause] dan and larry got that right and we thank you for moving your company to connect to go. you will never regret it. [applause] whether it is the user the dozens of other companies that have committed to growing our relocating in new mexico in the last year they that we don't

have to rely on washington to dictate the future. but there's obviously much more to be done. important work to begin in earnest this legislative session. first, i believe small businesses drive our economy and they need a level playing field to compete with the corporation. i come from a family of small business owners. i have seen it. we should partner with these risktakers and provide additional funding for a successful job training programs, where the state pays a portion of the founders of new employees hired in new mexico while they are being trained. we should invest more in main street districts particularly in the rural areas. we have seen literally hundreds of new small businesses start or grow in the past few years.

and i am proposing targeted tax relief for small business owners to reduce the personal income tax burden on small business owners in the early stages while they hire new employees and getting off the ground. but our small business business is taking great risks and they deserve our support. [applause] so why we help small businesses thrive here in new mexico we must compete to bring new jobs to her estate from elsewhere. recently, the executive major national company told me quote, we have never even considered new mexico when deciding where to expand. we've looked right past your state. someone told us we wouldn't believe what is happening there

and that we should take a second look. so we did and we couldn't believe what we found. my friends the word is getting now, but there are several things that we can do to turn up the volume. that is why i am proposing a $50 million closing fund for economic development projects right here in new mexico. [cheers and applause] we attract companies to move headquarters to new mexico. they're a common sense measures we can enact this year that won't cost state government a single dime but would save new mexican money and make new mexico a more attractive place to do business.

for example, i firmly believe that every person should be allowed to choose for themselves whether they want to join a union or contribute to one. [cheers and applause] this isn't a complicated concept. it really isn't. and most people agree, if a worker wants to join a union, then they will. but it is fundamentally wrong to require memberships or take money from the paychecks of our workers in order to get a job. for these workers, this is gas money, rent or car payment.

studies have shown that state workers are allowed to make this choice were then found out higher employment levels and companies locate there more often because of this policy. it is time we protect the paychecks that new mexico workers. it's common sense and it long overdue. [applause] we need to make new mexico a high-tech job leader as well. after all, we have all the necessary pieces. national labs bases, high-tech companies and quality universities. but the good ideas being worked on at our labs and universities right here in mexico need to be brought to the marketplace here as well. our kids to dream of becoming a

scientist can be educated at our universities and then take what they learn to create new mexico. we can make that happen for this technology research collaborative. and we need stronger incentives for the creation of technology jobs and more private investments by angel investors in high-tech startup company is all over the state. helping small businesses grow track and companies and jobs from elsewhere and make a new mexico high-tech jobs later. that is how you create a more diverse economy and a stronger private sector. [applause] of course, we also need to build a stronger foundation for economic growth. in particular, better infrastructure and a talented

fours. last year jobs that we came together to support 89 million in new water infrastructure in new mexico. now however we must turn our attention to our aging highway and restructure to roads that are unsafe failing and impeding economic growth. we have seen what happens when we work together to address major highway problems. just a few weeks ago what did we do? we opened the interchange on identified in albuquerque and state money leverage federal and local dollars was a true partnership. we can complete large projects of similar magnitude in every corner of the state. i propose that we allocate

$180 million of infrastructure money over the next three years for major highway construction projects across new mexico. [applause] even more critical to building a strong foundation for an economy is our workforce. are they well educated? can they read? did they graduate? are they capable of holding the jobs of tomorrow? because if they are all of these things are employable. there is no question they would create a brighter future for themselves and their families. no question they can seize the american dream. no question they can fulfill the

desired me to class to see their kids have it better than we did. i firmly believe that education is a road that will lead out of poverty from each new mexico child. for each struggling family and for our state as a whole. [applause] why do i believe that? because education is that plants the seeds of wonder, of curiosity, of excitement in a child. it points to opportunities and goals, inspires dreams about careers and about better days. it gives them hope that today's circumstances do not have to be tomorrow's circumstances.

if we agree education is that powerful, capable of lifting a child's spirit, a family future and the state's economy, then a quality education is what we must ensure every mexico child receive. [applause] >> when we see failing schools, we must turn them around. have the courage to intervene. don't take the comfortable route and simply hopeless school improved someday. they can gadsden come a poor district were english tends to get a second language where district leaders and teachers

could have made excuses for decades of poor performance. but they didn't. courage is saying no more excuses. every child can learn. [applause] ..

today, loma heights elementary has a b with more kids on grade level in reading and math. judith is here, alongside teachers stephanie cabrera and jeremy sanchez. all i can say is congratulations to you. [applause] that is progress. and that is what it will take. school by school, we can turn education around. but to improve these schools, we must empower struggling teachers and principals. give them proven tools and strategies. last year, we started the principals pursuing excellence program. we paired principals whose students were doing well, with those whose students who were engage in an active mentoring relationship.

one year later, over 50% of the participating schools increased at least one letter grade. pojoaque's superintendent, adan delgado, says it's making a difference in his district, and two of his principals are here to attest to that. staci mascarenas, from pojoaque valley intermediate school, and vera trujillo from pojoaque valley middle school, both of whom had the courage to take part, and whose schools have seen great growth in their kids and in their school grades. congratulations to you. [applause] thank you for your willingness to help one another, and to help our kids. this year, we should fund and implement a similar mentorship program but for teachers. pair exemplary teachers with

struggling ones, and in doing so, we can make big gains classroom by classroom, and school by school. and if education is the most powerful tool in the life of a child, we should honor and reward our best teachers and intervene quickly to help those who need it. but we must choose courage over comfort. the status quo is comfortable each teacher paid the same, every evaluation identical, and the misguided belief that all teachers should be simply labeled as meeting competency. we know better. those are comfortable notions. but they do not center on the one question we should be asking above all others when it comes to education, are our kids learning?

that is the question. if that is the central question then there is no doubt we would embrace reform. yes, we are evaluating our teachers in a more meaningful way than ever before, and i understand that change can be difficult and it can be challenging. but we continue to listen to ways in which we can improve and make the process better. i will meet anyone halfway, so long as our children learning is the only goal in front of us. we also continue to look for ways to better support our teachers, because we know how important their work is. for example teachers tell me two things most often, that starting teachers aren't paid enough, and that they shouldn't

have to spend money from their own pockets on school supplies in their classrooms. i couldn't agree more, and that's why i'm proposing that we raise starting teacher salaries by an additional $2,000 per year, to help us recruit and retain more good teachers. [applause] and to help teachers who are having to pay for classroom materials out-of-pocket, we should provide every new mexico teacher with a pre-loaded $100 debit card for the purchase of classroom supplies. so they don't take it out of their own pocket. [applause] i also recognize how difficult it can be in a state as large and rural as ours to recruit certain types of teachers,

bilingual, special ed, math and science. so let's offer two-year stipends to these types of teachers if they're willing to teach in schools or districts where recruitment or retention has been a challenge. and i firmly believe that we should allow adjunct teachers into our high schools to teach certain difficult subjects, such as scientists from los alamos or sandia teaching one or two chemistry classes, or well-trained researchers teaching geometry or calculus. again, if our goal is to provide our kids with the best instruction possible, these are opportunities we cannot pass up. [applause] let me say this, however. if education is the key to a brighter future for our

children, then we must have the courage to demand that our kids are in their seats and learning. truancy is a cancer in our schools. today's habitually truant kids are indeed tomorrow's dropouts. it is our collective problem. and we know who the at-risk kids are, teachers say they can spot them a mile away, detached, behavior issues, lack of interest in school and their peers. so i propose that districts with high truancy problems come to the state with local plans to stop it. which middle schools could really benefit from having social workers on campus, to interact with at-risk kids? and in the high schools that are fed by these middle schools, let's hire dropout prevention

coaches whose sole purpose is to see these kids receive a diploma. of course despite our best efforts, some young people will not get the message until we have the courage to be tougher. to that end, we should pass legislation that would not allow habitually truant students to obtain or keep their driver's license. [applause] but ask yourself this, how did many troubled students end up that way, uninterested in school dropping out, perhaps engaging in criminal activity achieving far lower than their potential? as a prosecutor for 25 years, as

someone who has listened to the stories of teachers who try to reach these kids, chances are, it's because they can't read very well. they fell behind early, couldn't read a children's book, passed along. words got bigger, chapters got longer, and subjects got harder, passed along. asked to read out loud in class? no way. too embarrassed. homework? can't read it and stopped trying, tired of failing. i'm struggling becomes i'll never understand this, which becomes i'm not smart, so i'm done trying. when children cannot read, and yet they are passed along

anyway, we do them no favors. we discourage them. we frustrate them. we hurt their chances for success in life. we hamper their ability to get a good job. my friends, that does not build self-esteem in a child. we have condoned this for far too long, taken the easy way out, and made the comfortable decision. courage. it takes courage to do the right thing. now is the time this is the moment, when we stop being complicit in this practice. we must stop passing our children from one grade to the next when they cannot read. on my watch, we've more than doubled pre-k funding, and i'm proposing more this year.

we've made k-3 plus permanent allowing 18,000 struggling readers to take advantage of summer tutoring. know it to start early, i know that. i know it start early, and our efforts to stop social promotion are jampacked with interventions, starting in kindergarten to get children help so that retaining them is not necessary. but let's acknowledge the devastating negative ripple effects of socially promoting our youngest children. it impacts their ability to learn and succeed, it makes it harder for teachers in later grades to bring them up to speed, and it makes it harder for businesses to find the qualified workforce they need.

let's choose progress, not politics, on this issue. [applause] it's true, we're making gains. our hispanic and low-income students are among the leaders in the nation when it comes to advanced placement success, and our lowest-performing students are making progress we haven't seen before. we are seeing glimpses of what happens when we choose reform but we have a lot of work left to do. let's put our students first, and ultimately, we can create thriving families and a stronger new mexico workforce. isn't that what we want?

and isn't that what they demand? there are other questions that businesses ask when deciding where to locate and whether to expand, questions beyond whether the state's finances are in order, whether the state's tax policies are fair and whether our education system is preparing an adequate workforce. things like will we get a fair shake? is the playing field level? i'm proud of what we have done to increase confidence in state government. after all, four years ago that confidence was shaken to its core. corrupt contractors aren't allowed to do business with the state any longer, judges can now take away the pensions of corrupt officials, and we have recovered over $29 million in taxpayer money that was

squandered in the richardson-era pay-to-play scandals. [applause] but there's more to do. for example those convicted of public corruption should be immediately removed from office, not be allowed to stay on the job and collect a paycheck. and as we have done with appointees in my administration, legislators should not be able to serve in government one day then lobby that very same government the next. [applause] and while we are at it, let's adopt a few other commonsense reforms. if a worker gets injured on the job while drunk or high, he or she should not be allowed to receive workers compensation benefits.

[applause] and partisan elections should have no place in the selection of our judges. these are basic reforms, and by enacting them, we can show the outside world that government in new mexico just makes sense. [applause] of course it is also critical that our communities are safe. for our kids to have a bright future, they must be safe and they must be secure. in past years, we've strengthened sex offender registration, and closed the loophole allowing out-of-state sex offenders to come here undetected. the expansion of katie's law has

led to an incredible 88% increase in dna matches connecting people who are committing a broader range of felonies to previously unsolved crimes. 135 burglaries, 21 sex offenses, 10 homicides. those are lives being saved, and more justice for victims. [applause] in addition, alcohol-related fatalities on our roadways in 2013 were at an all-time low, and that's encouraging. after all, as our endwi campaign emphasizes, it is the responsibility of each of us, in

our own way and in a variety of ways to stop drunk driving in our state. but still, we see too many tragedies, too many lives lost at the hands of drunk drivers. this session, we need to crack down on repeat offenders, the ones who truly don't get it. and we need to increase penalties for those who recklessly toss the keys to someone whose license has been suspended due to a dwi conviction. there are other measures we can adopt to keep new mexicans safe. certain child abuse offenders and those who kill under the influence of alcohol should be required to serve 85% of their prison sentence, no matter what. [applause] and let's do what the people we

represent have demanded. it is time to repeal the dangerous law that gives driver's licenses to illegal immigrants who come here from around the world. [applause] i've dedicated my life to fighting for kids and fighting to hold those who hurt them accountable. i've seen the devastating effects of child abuse first-hand. and, over the next four years we must redouble our efforts to stop child abuse in new mexico. we can start with commonsense initiatives. create seven new child advocacy centers, where the police officers and cyfd caseworkers who investigate the same abuse incidents work in the same

building alongside safe house interviewers, and other social service groups. preventing child abuse is a team effort, as is investigating it. we should also hire more family support workers, who focus specifically on helping those families who have had several referrals to cyfd for abuse or neglect issues routine checks on the family and regular guidance and counseling. we will also have the technology in place to finally allow police officers access to the cyfd history of a family when they are dispatched to a child abuse incident. that will be in their hands. and to better recruit and retain caseworkers in state government, i propose establishing a new loan repayment program, where

the state pays a portion of our caseworkers' student loans in exchange for their service. [applause] the job of a caseworker is incredibly difficult. it's why we have such high turnover. we have already raised the average caseworker's pay at cyfd by 10%, and this initiative is the next step. we should also close the many loopholes and correct the deficiencies in our current child abuse laws. for example, when cyfd caseworkers are called to a home, they should be able to prescribe counseling or therapy services and mandate that the parents or other caretakers take part.

[applause] additionally, every single person in our state should be required to protect our children and report child abuse if they know or suspect it to be occurring. [applause] that's always been the law of the land but sadly, a recent court of appeals decision ignored decades of precedent. let's see that matter straight. let's protect every single child in new mexico. [applause] in addition to making sure children are safe, we must ensure they are well cared for and provide a safety net if a child isn't getting the basics, like a good breakfast every morning. that's why i support expanding

the breakfast after the bell program beyond just elementary school, to middle and high school students as well. we will also continue to expand the summer food program, because our little ones deserve to look forward to their summer break, not dread it out of fear that they'll be hungry. our greatest calling is to improve life for our children. because they will take our place one day. and i want them to be better than we were, better educated, better jobs safer homes, and stronger communities. the spirit of a child is an amazing thing. sadly, i interacted with children under the worst of circumstances throughout my career as a prosecutor. it was hard. my goal was to get justice for

them, and then ask god to give them the resilience and the ability to overcome the scars the pain, and the hurt. looking back over a lifetime of service, many of them did just that. those kids would tell me later, i was determined not to let the adversity of my youth stand in the way of being the person i know i was created to be. that's why it is so important to me that, that as leaders, we never make decisions that stifle a child's hope, dampen a child's spirt, or put a ceiling on their potential.

we grow our economy to empower them, so that when we tell them they can grow up to be anything they want they can be confident in that promise. we turn around struggling schools to empower them. we evaluate and help our teachers to empower them. we ensure they can read to empower them. allow me to introduce two young people from roswell, who are overcoming their own adversity. i've gotten to know them well over the past year, ever since they became the victims of a horrible act of gun violence at their middle school. the last time we were gathered

in this chamber together, in fact they were both in the hospital receiving treatment for their injuries. you've thankfully seen their beautiful smiles on the news a few times since. this is kendal sanders and nathaniel tavarez. we are so grateful to have them here. let's give them a warm welcome. [cheers and applause]

kendal needed two surgeries including one to replace a punctured artery. nathaniel is blind in his left eye. both still have lead pellets in their bodies. theirs was an unthinkable experience, and the road to recovery will be long. kendal has said she wonders if she will ever be loved because of the scars she has. kendal, yes, you are and will be loved. [applause]

but it goes beyond that. you will also be successful. and nathaniel, you too. i remember when we were already school. we were taking a picture, group picture. kids returned it in the picture. i almost tripped and fell. and with such quiet confidence and with your injury, you quietly said, don't worry i'll catch you. [applause] we are pulling for both of you, and it is my hope that our actions in this legislative session will say firmly that we are pulling for every new mexico child to be as successful as

their hearts desire, to go as far as they want to go, to be whomever in life they want to be, no matter how they grow up no matter their background, and no matter the adversity they face. and to do good, and to be better, than we were. ladies and gentlemen, now is the time to choose progress over politics. now is the time to be courageous and bold, not comfortable and apathetic. now is the time to commit to change, and to reform that will better the lives of our children because they deserve our very best, and we should resolve to give it to them. [applause]

our best days are ahead of us, new mexico. god bless you all, and god bless our great state. and let's move forward for our children. thank you, and god bless you new mexico. [applause] tonight on "the communicators," commissioner ajit pai on net neutrality reclassifying broadband as a utility and other key issues facing the federal communications commission in

2015. >> i, for one, believe the bipartisan consensus that has been in place for almost two decades has surfaced pretty well. the clinton fcc in 1998 decided the internet would be an information service not a more heavily regulated telecommunications service but it was chairman of both political parties chairman canard, chairman martin chairman powell and chairman genachowski recognize that light touch regulation was the best way to have employment. i stand with both parties at the sec and on capitol hill who recognize that light touch regulation is the best way to go. but as you know the debate has taken a turn starting with the president's announcement in december. we now stand poised to consider what is called title ii or commentary regulation, and in my view that kind of heavy-handed regulation develops -- develop a decade ago would be a tremendous mistake for the american consumer. >> tonight at eight eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2.

>> live now to the congressional budget office in washington, d.c. the cbo director douglas elmendorf with updated 10 year projections. >> relative to the size of economy which has already historically high. those projections are based on the assumption that current laws governing taxes and spending will generally remain the same and they were built upon our economic forecast. according to the forecast the economy will expand at a solid pace in 2015 and for the next few years. so the points the gap between the nation's output and its potential are a maximum sustainable output will be essentially eliminated by the end of 2017. as a result of the unappointed rate will fall a little further and more people will be encouraged to enter or stay in the labor force. beyond 2017 we project inflation adjusted real gdp will grow at a rate that is notably less than

the average growth during the 1980s and 1990s. let me address the budget outlook first, and then turn to the economic outlook. we estimate the deficit for fiscal year 2015 will about the $468 billion, slightly less than the deficit for 2014. at 2.6% of gdp this year's deficit is projected to be the smallest relative to the nation's output since 2007 but close to the 2.7% that deficits have averaged over the past 50 years. although the deficits and a baseline projections remained roughly stable as a percentage of gdp through 2018 a rise after that. the deficit in 2025 is projected to be $1.1 trillion or four-point you% of gdp and cumulative deficit of 2016-2025 period are projected to total $7.6 trillion.

we expect federal debt held by the public will about to 74% of gdp at the end of this fiscal year, more than twice what it was at the end of 2007 and higher than any year since 1950. by 2025 in our baseline projection federal debt rises to nearly 79% of gdp. when cbo last issued a long-term budget projections in the summer we projected that under current law that would exceed 100% of gdp 25 years from now and will continue on an upward trajectory there after. that trend could not be sustained. such a large and growing federal debt would have serious negative consequences, including increasing federal spending for interest payments, restraining economic growth in the long term giving policy makers less flexibility to respond to unexpected economic events, and eventually heightening the risk of a fiscal crisis.

why will deficits and debt increase relative to gdp under current law? in our projections, outlays rise from a little more than 20% of gdp this year which is about what federal spending has averaged over the past 50 years, to little more than 22% in 2025. four key factors underlie the increase. the retirement of the baby boom generation, expansion of federal substitutes for health insurance, increasing health care costs per beneficiary, and rising interest rates on federal debt. consequently under current law spending would grow faster than the economy or social security, for the major health care program including medicare medicaid and subsidies offered through insurance exchanges, and for net interest costs. in short contrast a mandatory spending other than that for so so skewed in health care as well as both defense and nondefense

discretionary spending would shrink relative to the size of the economy. by 2019, outlays in those three latter categories taken together would fall below the percentage of gdp they were between 1998-2001, when such spending was the lowest since at least 1940, the earliest year for which comparable data has been reported. revenues are projected to rise by 2016. reducing tax liabilities and by the ongoing economic expansion. in our projections based on current law revenues equal about 18.5% of gdp in 2016, and remained between 18-18.5% throughout the coming decade. revenues at that level would represent a greater share of the economy than their 50 year average of about 17.5% of gdp. but would still be less than outlays by growing amounts over

the course of the decade. revenues from individual income taxes are expected to rise relative to gdp. mostly because people's income will move into higher tax brackets as income gains outpace inflation to which those brackets are indexed. but this increase are expected to be offset by reductions relative to gdp in revenues from the corporate income tax and other sources. turning from the budget to the economy we anticipate economic activity will expand at a solid pace in 2015 and the next few years, reducing the amount of underused resources, or slack, in the economy. in our estimation increases in consumer spending, business investment and residential investment will drive the economic expansion this year and over the next few years. the growth in those categories of spending will derive mainly from increases in hourly compensation, from rising wealth

comes to the recent decline in crude oil prices and from a step up in the breakup household formation. as measured by the change from the fourth quarter of the previous year, real gdp will grow by about 3% in 2015-16 and by 2.5% in 2017 we expect. the difference between actual gdp and our estimate of potential gdp which is a measure of slack for the whole economy was about 2% of potential gdp at the end of 2014. during the next few years we expect actual gdp will rise more rapidly than its potential gradually eliminating that slack. for the labor market in particular we anticipate that slack will dissipate by the end of 2017. by our projections increased hiring will reduce the unemployment rate from 5.7% in fourth quarter of last year that 5.3% in the fourth quarter of 2017, which is close to the expected natural rate among

implement, that is the rate of rising from all sources except fluctuation in the overall demand for goods and services. that increase hiring will also encourage more people to enter or stay in the labor force boosting the labor force participation rate which is the percentage of people who are working or actively looking for work. our projections beyond the next few years are not based on estimates of cyclical developments in the economy. the agency does not attempt to predict economic fluctuation that far into the future. instead of those projections are based on estimates of underlying factors that affect the economy's productive capacity. for 2020-2025 we project real gdp will grow by an average of 2.2% per year rate that matches the agency's estimate of the potential growth of the economy in those years. potential output is expected to grow much more slowly than it did during the 1980s and 1990s, primarily because the labor force anticipated to

expand more slowly than it did then. growth and the potential labor force will be held down by the ongoing retirement of the baby boomers by a relatively stable labor force participation rate among working age women after sharp increases in the 1960s to the mid 1990s. and federal tax and spending policies set in current law. the elimination of flattening the con will eventually remove the downward pressure on the rate of inflation and on interest rates. that existed in the past several years. by our estimate the rate of inflation as measured by the price index for personal consumption expenditures will move gradually to the federal reserves goal of 2% hitting that mark at the end of 2017 and beyond. interest rates on treasury securities which have been exceptionally low since the recession will rise considerably in the next few years we expect, but remain lower than your on average in previous decades. between 2020-2025, the projected

interest rate on three-month treasury bills and 10 year treasury notes are 3.4% and 4.6% respectively. thank you and were happy to take your questions. please start identifying yourself and the publication you work for. >> that's easy. [inaudible] >> so are based on economic projection and a baseline budget projections are consistent with each other in that the budget projection of what we think will happen to the federal budget, given the economic outcome we predict and economic outcomes we predict are those of the expect what happened given the baseline budget projection. to the baseline projections are always dynamic i think in the sense in which we mean that word come in the budget and economic effects are calculated projected

together. >> if i may i guess i'm using the term -- [inaudible] >> well, congress of joy focus our cost estimate, not on the baseline projection. for cost estimates there has been a very long-standing custom that cost estimates by cbo or the rabid estimates by the staff of the joint committee on taxation have not included the ethics of proposals on overall macroeconomic conditions and the feedback from those macroeconomic changes to the federal budget. however, we and gct have produced estimates of the economic success of large proposals, periodically over time. i report those to the congress. for example, on nearly every we do an analysis of the president's budget that starts with an estimate of the effects of the specific spending and revenue provisions without

allowing the macroeconomic condition to change but then we go back and do an economic analysis for the president's budget including the feedback been to the budget itself. and we've done that essentially every year for a dozen years. we also do that sort of dynamic analysis will give different paths for federal debt and the long-term budget outlook. we did it for the comprehensive immigration legislation in the senate a few years ago and our colleagues at gct have done for a number of pieces of tax legislation, including for example, chairman camp's tax proposal last year. so we and gct are accustomed to doing analysis of the economic effects of major pieces of legislation. what is different in the rule of the house has adopted is that the budgetary feedback of those economic changes would be included in the official cost

estimate rather than in prevented as supplementary information which is the way it has been done in the past. and we are prepared to do what the house rule asks us to do. >> two things. one, interest costs. there's often concern that those will skyrocket. could you give us a rundown of where you guys -- [inaudible] also about wage growth. how much of that is slowing them is basically for people like of a better term -- [inaudible] still be worried about losing their job and not being able to get a new job? >> so the first question on interest payments, and as you know interest rates on treasury

debt have been extraordinarily low the past several years. as a consequence of that, even though federal debt is historically high relative to the size of the economy, interest payments by the government have been quite low. so interest payments, this year 2015 we project will be $227 billion. that's just 1.3% of the gdp well below what interest payments were say 25 years ago. but over the coming decade we expect interest rates will move up considerably. and as treasury needs to finance the deficits and rolls over the existing debt, in the interest rate that it pays on average on the outstanding debt will rise. with debt as high as it is and with the rise in interest rates interest payments on rise considerably. so now we'll dollar fix to the interest payment issue we think will be $227 billion, we think will be $827 billion in 2025.

that would be 3% of gdp rather than the 1.3% that it will be this year. as for wage growth compensation growth since the recession has been a good deal lower than it was before the recession. and although some measures of compensation growth pick up a little bit last year they still remain well below what we saw before the recession. and we think that is a direct consequence of the slack in the labor market. when employers are trying to attract workers him is that a lot of people looking for jobs then employers don't have to offer as high pay as they would if the labor market were tightened. so we think that as labor market has tightened and we think will continue to tighten over the next few years, we think it will put more pressure on employers to raise compensation.

and we think the compensation growth will pick up. now, the share of national income going to labor has fallen quite a bit over the last few decades. and we think it will rebound but not to the level that it was 15 20, 25, 30 years ago. [inaudible] >> we think there been permanent structural changes but knowing how important those will be in the future is of course very hard. so certain technological changes, globalization are the forces that people look to a lot, but there are probably others that have been at work as well. and how important those will be in the future is very hard for us to know. the labor share of income tends to fall during the initial recovery from recessions.

site think we have a good basis for expecting it will come back some from where it is now but how far back it will come it's hard to know when we'll be done is project it comes back partway toward its average of the previous few decades. >> cq roll call. two-part question, dynamic scoring. number one do you have a view on whether the house rule on dynamic scoring is a good idea? and number two will there be a greater level of uncertainty to a dynamic score compared to the conventional score of the house rule? >> we don't have a position of whether the house rule is a good idea or not. we think it's natural for the numbers of the congress to be interested in the macroeconomic consequences of major pieces of legislation and that's why cbo has for many years build models

to estimate those macroeconomic consequences, and we have in the past few years devoted a great deal to improving those models, to getting feedback from outside experts and revisiting the key assumptions, and then to writing a collection of papers that spell out how we do analysis of the macroeconomic effects. i think there is a set of eight papers that go through the key aspects of the modeling component which was about a dozen years old with the other seven of which i think would've been in the past three or four years. we always understood the importance of the kind of analysis to the congress and we're doing our best to provide the best estimates that we can. but actually up to the congress to decide how it wants to be used that information, and if it wants that information to come into supplementary form not in the official cost estimates as it has in the past, and we're

happy to do that. and if the congress wants that extra set of estimates to be included in the official cost estimate as the house rule that requires for certain legislation, and we're happy to do that. it's up to the congress to decide the form in which it wants to receive our analysis. as for uncertainty, the macroeconomic effects of legislation are often quite uncertain. it is also true that the non-macroeconomic effects of legislation can be quite uncertain. and i think it's always important for readers of our work to understand that there's a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the numbers and we get point estimates because the budget process basically requires point estimates. things have to add that the allocations are given to committees. certain amounts of money are appropriate. so we try to work in the world that we understand about our readers understand, there's always a great deal of uncertainty. in some cases the macroeconomic

effects of legislation will be more uncertain than the effects we estimate holding the macroeconomic conditions fixed but i think that won't always be the case but it really depends on the legislation of analyzing but as a general matter, legislation make small changes in programs over the tax code, speaking from jct. small changes of the sort that have been done before. and those have a reasonable basis for making fairly accurate projections. but for major changes in policy toward companies of the reform of the tax code or other immigration policy of our health insurance system then it is was a great deal of uncertainty that accompanies the estimates we provide for that as well, and i think that's a general feature that people need to understand and that we need to continue to convey as good as we can. a number of our macroeconomic

analyses we have provided ranges of the macroeconomic effects in addition to a central lesson to try to convey very clearly the uncertainty that those half. robert. >> can you talk a little bit about changes in cbo's estimate of major health care programs since cbo has updated? >> yes. so let me talk -- for the coverage provisions of the affordable care act and to be clear what we mean by that the affordable care act change a lot of teachers compassed in programs and the taxco. we generally talk about them and a few large buckets. one being the provision expand health insurance coverage like the expansion of medicaid and the subsidies to insurance exchanges and waited provision. other provisions mostly

involving large changes to the medicare program and significant changes to the tax code. provisions i will focus on now are the ones involving expansion of health insurance. for those provisions, we have made a significant downward revision to the estimated cost over the next decade, delegation about $100 billion, 7% less than what we expected last year. and relative to our projections in march 2010 when the affordable care act was enacted the cost of those insurance coverage provisions between 2015-2019, which was the last five years which we made estimates in 2010 for those five years 2015-2019 we have revised down the cost of insurance coverage provisions of the about 20%. multiple times a year over the past five years.

there are a number of factors that underlie that set of revisions, probably the most important one is a slowing in growth of health insurance premiums. but there are others as well including for example, supreme court decision of a few years go, and many other external factors and improvements in our modeling. we also as you know, robert have revised down over the past soviets our projections from medicaid and medicare spending a good deal. there's a further downward revision in medicaid spending, and this set of projections. and there are a number of factors that have fed into that. that far apart from economic changes come from medicare that nothing significant changes in this projection relative to the last one, apart from something selected economic forecast in terms of what we consider technical revisions, provisions are not due to legislation or change in over all economic issues that are the our

interpretation of the we have not made a downward revision of that at this time. but all told since 2010 because of these technical factors, this assessment of what's going on in health care programs we have marked down our projection of federal medicaid spending, federal medicaid spending and premiums in the insurance exchanges by about 15% each for, say, 2020. so that is things that happen already of some of that is our projection of slower growth over the next few years. so we have a little further in that direction this time in our projection of health insurance subsidies, cost of the aca expansion and in medicaid. no further this time really in medicare. >> you have figures on the

decline in discretionary spending both domestic and defense as a share of gdp. do you have figures for inflation and for population change? >> we don't have a continuous series of those. i think there are some spots in the text would talk about certain components of discretionary spending relative to four or five years ago, adjusting for inflation i don't remember all those numbers offhand. to our spot references i don't think we've recorded anything which adjust for population growth. i'm happy to him and offer one moment while i am through this, bob, and see what we can tell you about that. so, for example between 2010-

2010-2014, on page 79 between 2010-2014, funding for defense declined i 15% in nominal terms or nearly 21% in constant $2010. excluding the funding for overseas contingency operations defense funding fell by roughly 6% in nominal terms, or 12% in real terms over that period. also between 2010-2014 i'm on the same page funding for non-defense discretionary declined by 4.5% in nominal terms or almost 11% in constant $2010. >> i was wondering if you talk a little bit about what prompted the downward revision of the potential output for the u.s. economy? >> yes. so we revised down our estimate of potential output by about 1%

from what we had in our august economic forecast. and the primary source of the downward revision was a reassessment of productivity growth, especially productivity growth in the nonfarm business sector. we had previously thought that the slow growth of an actual productivity, slow observed growth in productivity over the past several years was mostly due to a shortfall in growth relative to the potential level of productivity. and we anticipated that actual productivity would rebound to its potential level over the coming years. and for some time that seem like a reasonable expectation because productivity often falls short of its potential level when the economy is weak when demand for

firms products is weaker, firms don't push their workforces as hard as they do when demand is stronger. so it was reasonable, in our view, to have a projection of attentional total factor productivity growth in the non-our business sector that was above the actual growth we are observing. but as the economy has strengthened over the past few years, one would expect that actual growth to not be falling further away from our projection of potential, but it was given to projected potential growth we have. but that didn't seem to us to be the best forecast in an economy that was strengthening. so we lowered our projection of potential total productivity growth. so it's still above actual growth. we still think to be some rebound over the next few years is not as large a rebound as we had expected before. this is a very this problem that we face in trying to

understand how much of what has happened for good or the past several years is due to the business cycle and how much is due to underlying factors. it's hard and it becomes harder as the length of time during this week economic conditions last longer. so there are people whom we cite who observed that for -- that productivity growth seem to slow a few years before the recession. that was a pretty short period and then had a very deep recession and his own rebound of output. ..'

>> like i said, the final factor3u9vp"ñb#sñ revenue getting pushed up┘eñnky . the average tax rate on domestic products.nw>@zó the domestic economic profit4 erjwy >> the way to think about

our projection of corporate tax is;r] to start with an economic projection of how much profits would think we will be our on by corporations in this country a way that we cannot entirely explain because all

we have now is amounts of money in the corporate tax returns to help unravel the puzzle. for the last few years we have seen this tax rate really defined as the tax collection divided by profit there will be some recovery and that for the longer-term average because we are making an educated guess at what is happened in the last few years is partly because a particular economic circumstances. there will be some rebound. at at the same time there's a different thing going on. companies are trying to find ways to reduce the corporate tax that they pay. moving business income from the corporate sector to the non- corporate sector. out of c corporations and s corporations. we have written about that

before. there has been an ongoing downward trend. we think that we will continue. the 2nd factor we describe is set a set of efforts by companies to increase the amount of corporate income out of the company. so corporate aversions are part of the roughly half of the erosion of the corporate tax base that we talk about. reducing corporate taxes. but that is all set. other factors that we don't have a firm handle on because we don't have the detailed tax base. moreover without all of that we think that corporate profits will decline as a share of income later in the

decade because rising interest rates will increase the interest payments and because faster compensation growth pushes up the labor share of income. that factor that we have been talking about, about, the economic profits, those factors will push economic profits down which we will also push down corporate tax revenue. and i will check with my folks who are experts. right enough. okay. [inaudible question] >> yes. we do write about that in the report. the debt ceiling was suspended, as you know, through the middle of march of this year. when that suspension ends

the debt ceiling under the law as it now stands will be reset to equal the amount, where the ceiling was before it was suspended plus all the debt that has been issued. when this happens in mid-march the debt ceiling will be set equal to the outstanding debt subject to limit. treasury will immediately be unable to increase its net borrowing. then at that.we presumably will deploy

so there is an increase in tax revenue relative to the size of the economy. afterwards revenue remains about the same for the rest of the decade. decade. tax revenues move up quickly but then are about flat. there are these various cost currents. retirement of retirement of the baby boomers is exerting this tremendous upward pressure throughout the decade. more than one 3rd more people receiving medicare and social security benefits than today. that pushes of total spending by the federal government. at the same time the other

thing is rising interest rates that we will move quite a bit but the government interest cost response slowly because the government does not roll over all of its debt. the average interest rate that is paid response gradually to market rate. we report in table 13 the average interest rate on debt held by the public rises throughout the decade. decade. aging of baby boomers, rising healthcare costs per person rising interest payments, all those things pushing spending up. on the other hand, there are declines in spending for defense purposes and for all other nondefense purposes

nondefense discretionary spending like highway infrastructure r&d support, education and training support and many other things. things. and in the non- social security non- healthcare benefit programs like snap and ssi and so on. ..

just four things alone. medicare. interest payments on the debt and defense spending, those four items together represent two-thirds of federal total federal spending in 2025. so the growth of federal spending is not coming from growth across the board from federal perhaps. it is coming from growth in a handful of very large programs. but, the other parts of the budget. we show in the report are smaller relative to the size of gdp. that damps some of the effects of the growing spending on items i just highlighted. it is combination of these factors. the trend is for rising deficits for recognize very well-understood and have been predicted by analysts literally for decades.

>> james lauder with reuters. clarify here at the cbo, are you contender for the new job of chairman? >> my current status is director of cbo. my term ended on january think. but under the budget act of 1974 directors can continue to serve after the terms are expired until new directors are appointed. i like the job a lot. i'm continuing to serve. i expect to do that unless and until a new director is appointed. whether a different director is appointed and who that will being i don't know. i won't be the first person to know or the first person to tell you. i think that decision rests with budget committees and leadership of the house and senate.

i am content to speak with them and i think they will speak to the matter when they want to speak with it. yes? >> liz farmer governing magazine. by your estimate 2039 that public debt will exceed 100% of gdp you said the last time that happened just after world war ii. a time of unparalleled economic growth. will you talk about that concern? this is projection from long-term outlook. we thought under current laws that debt would exceed 100% of gdp within 25 years. we have not updated longer term projections much the debt reltestify to gdp at end of the decade is relative to the projection we used last summer in building long-term projections. we have not are learned anything

since last summer that would change our view, unless some significant changes are made in spending or tax policies or both that debt will exceed 100% of gdp within 25 years and be on an upward trajectory at that point in time. i think the only time before in our history our publicly held debt has been around 100% of gdp was around the second world war. what was different then the debt ran up very sharply during the second world war. but then started to come down relative to gdp. that was not particularly because of if i could find that picture, not particularly large surpluses were run but because, as you mentioned gdp grew rapidly and the budget was close to being in balance. but the reason for the run-up in debt then was really this

particular one-time expense, the cost of fighting the war. the run-up in debt we've seen over the past half dozen years is very heavily because of the financial crisis and recession, the weak recovery and policy responses to those events. so those are one hopes, one-time events. but, behind that is in ongoing and highly anticipated event of retirement of baby boom generation and thus movement of a large number of americans to an age where the federal government provide significant benefits. and also underlying this is rising cost of health care per person, which has been less over the past half a dozen years than it had been for decade before that. nonetheless we they that best projection is continued growth in health care costs per beneficiary. so with many more people

eligible for social security and medicare and certain events in medicaid and as time goes on and with the rise of health care costs rising we now face a structural, a long-term structural challenge that is quite different from the situation facing the end of the second world war. then the fact that debt doesn't rise very much relative to gdp over the next decade does not mean that having debt at this high level doesn't have significant costs. it does. with debt this high relative to the size of the economy, there will be significant from payments when interest rates rebound. there will be crowding out of capital investment as time goes on. there will be reduced flexibility for policy makers to respond to future financial crises or recessions or

international events and there is a heightened risk of a fiscal crisis. even if debt were stable at 70 some% of gdp there would be significant costs. moreover because of underlying forces we don't think the debt which be stable. another point we're emphasizing is that even the, the reason that debt only rise as hill bit reltestify to the size of the economy over the coming decade see spite rapid demographic changes and rising health care costs there is set into current law a very sharp reduction for everything apart from social security and the major health care programs compared to our historical experience. non-defense discretionary spending the whole collection of spending the congress appropriates money each year is about same percentage of gdp this year as it was 50 years ago and the spending has fluctuated relative to the size of the economy over time but showing no

evident trend over 50 years. but, under current law given the caps on discretionary funding, it will fall to a lower percentage of gdp than we've seen, at least 50 years and turns out those data are not available that way before 50 years ago. defense spending is a little more complicated. defend spending has trended down relative to the size of the economy over the last 50 years although not over the last 20 years. so it fell a fair bit in the '80s and end of '80s '90s and 2,000s. it really stablized this year in gdp over the last 20 years. what you think the need for that spending will be going forward depend what you think will happen in the world and what role you think the u.s. should play in international events but defense spending is on track to fall to a lower number to the size of the economy than it has been at any point we have the

data. there is this very sharp shift underway in under current law what the federal government spend its money on. because the appropriations process occurs one year at a time the caps have been set without any decision having been made exactly which programs or which services won't be provided in the future that would have been provided under historical experience with those post programs. and we highlight that issue in our report as a risk going forward. the caps that have been set but the decisions about what will be cut and what will not be cut have not yet been made. any other questions? yes, bob. >> yeah. can you just talk a little bit more about spending and rose substantially over projections

although it is lower than it might have been in the past it is tell substantially higher than it is today. i am just wondering whether or not you considered the possibility that interest rates have declined, structural and are going to be lower in the future than anybody would have predicted four or five years ago or you are predicting today, and what that would do to the debt. >> yeah so, as i mentioned we expect the interest rates will rise considerably from the current levels but we do in the think they will rise up to the levels that they were at over the past few decade. we wrote about this at some length in our long-term budget outlook last summer and we have brief discussion brief recapitulation of those discussed in the report. we done the analysis thinking what would be different relative to the 1990 and 2007 period which was a period of reasonable stability in the economy and financial markets. relative to the 1990-2007 period

we think inflation adjusted treasury interest rates will be 3/4 of a percentage point lower in the future than they have been in the past and that 3/4 of a percentage point difference is pretty substantial. we project that nominal 10-year treasury note rates will be 4.6% by the end of the decade. with cpi inflation of 2.4%. that means inflation adjusted 10-year rate of 2.2%. that compares to about 3% for real treasury 10-year rates from 1990 to 2007 period. so we made a substantial downward adjustment relative to the past experience and that adjustment is the net effect of a number of factors and we list four going different directions. the fourth factors that we list pushing down interest rates relative to the history are number one slower growth of the labor force. number two slower growth of

productivity. and both of those factors we think lower interest rates because they basically affect the marginal product of capital in the production process. we also think that the greater income inequality is pushing up savings which tend to lower interest rates. we they there will be greater risk premium on private securities which is to say treasury rates will be held down because of a greater demand for safe assets. those four factors alone would have argued for a larger downward revision in our interest rate projection than we made. from the other side four other factors we think will push up interest rates relative to the experience of the previous few decade one of those is greater federal debt of the another one capital inflows from overseas. and third is fewer people in their prime savings years. this is just in the way of saying baby boomers moving into older ages.

so fewer people in the prime savings years. fourth, a higher capital shear of income argues for higher return on capital and higher return on treasury securities that compete with capital for investors. so as best we can judge, the four factors pushing down rates relative to the historical experience will be more powerful than those pushing up rates by a good deal. that's why we made this down revision relative to the history. but nonetheless we think rates will move up a good deal from where they are now and that is consistent we think with the expectations of participants in financial markets and consistent with our own modeling of demand for fund as the economy strengthens. so and again, these are changes mostly we made last summer in the long-term budget outlook and incorporated into our august projections of the we made a further small downward nudge into interest rates in this

projection basically because of a decline in interest rates and other countries that makes u.s. assets relatively more attractive. we think that pulls our money into this country. this is no doubt one of the sources of great uncertainty in our projections and we offer in an appendix to the report rules of thumb for how the budget projections would be different if the, if our economic projections were different. we offer rules of thumb for faster or slower growth in real gdp, for higher or lower inflation and higher or lower interest rates and not surprisingly budget outcomes are quite sensitive to interest rates and that is much more true than it would been say a decade ago because debt is so much larger than it was a decade ago. so i think we have balanced the risks in this projection but the risks on both sides are considerable. yes? >> getting back to health care

for a second, you talked about but trying to get a better handle on it about subsidies for people in the exchanges and study reduced a little bit of your outlook for that. basically that is one year of experience of actual hard experience on that front. now, are you guys given the amount of what has gone on since the passage of hca [inaudible], how confident do you feel about your original score on the subsidies and to that extent got the cadillac tax which used to be a major piece of yet to be implemented? >> you're absolutely right to say that we have only observed exchange enrollment exchange subsidies, increment medicaid

enrollment from people newly elgible and cost of those people for a year and we don't have even such detailed data in all cases for what happened over that year. i think we're learning a good deal more in the years to come. on the other hand the source of the, the sources of the revisions to the projections made since 2010, i think have more, have more foundation than just looking at last year would suggest because part of what we've done here is to take on more information about private health insurance premiums over the five years since we did these sents in 2010 and it is true that insurance premiums, private insurance premiums could jump up next year. they could fall next year. . .

of course we don't know. similarly for medicaid we have seen a number of years of slower growth. so although their are particular aspects we have observed the slower growth for some time. again i think we have a much slower foundation than just from looking. although once again it

remains. >> how important that is. >> well, as you know, the excise tax is not yet taken effect. it is particularly hard. we don't even have the one year in that sense. there is anecdotal evidence people making adjustments to their plans to keep premiums on a trajectory but those are just anecdotes at this.as far as i'm aware. we expected that most -- their will be a significant adjustment to try to keep premiums below the threshold of the total revenue because of this tax only a quarter

of that we expect we will come in the form of excise tax. employers hold down premiums and therefore pay more in cash taxation because they we will be paying less in nontext health insurance. the extra cash cash compensation will yield high tax revenues. it will never show up as revenues for the excise tax. it will nonetheless occur because of what we have taken on board. so we don't know. it is true. that may make it easier. but a lot of other things

are going on. >> you popularized the term. actually, we have had five years now. you feel relatively confident. how good of a job do you think aca has done a bending the curve? >> we don't no. the reason that we have shied away from using the term bending the curve is because we think people tend to view it as a permanent. but we do know is that the curve meaning both federal health cost a national health cost has been flatter than we or most people anticipated five years ago were ten years ago. the curve has been flat. and we think it we will stay

flat for a little while. but our projections don't show it being flat and definitely. faster growth in health care cost again but we don't no. we're trying to balance the risks of putting too much weight on a phenomenon that has gone for a little while. but the further question given that these have been flat how much of that is attributable to the affordable care act, and we just don't no. there are some specific aspects. the slower growth of payment a specific aspect that we thought would lower medicare spending relative to the pre- aca world and we think as but whether other

provisions of the act have had other or more indirect effects on federal health care spending or national healthcare spending we just don't know. anything else? okay. it has been great to have you here as always. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> as the cbo director talked about his news conference helping the us deficit shrank to the lowest level of the obama administration. the associated press writes the congressional budget office as the deficit we will be 468 million slightly less than last year's $483 billion deficit.

>> live at 8:00 o'clock eastern. >> coming up in about 25 minutes the senate gavel zen to continue debate on amendment votes on the keystone xl pipeline bill. majority leader mitch mcconnell filed a motion friday 211 debate. live coverage when the senate gavel zen. and tell them look at us efforts against global terrorism.

this is from today's washington journal. >> at the table now, former now, former defense undersecretary for policy for the obama administration the center for a new american security. thank you for joining us. lots to talk about. let's start with human. seen as a big when. your perspective on what happened. >> the minority has really taken over power. i think as to what that really means the rhetoric is very strongly anti- us and anti- western. in practice it is the question of whether they're willing to work with us that

is an open question. the thing that the united states is most worried about is al qaeda and the arabian peninsula. this is one of the probably most potent affiliates one affiliates, one of the few that has active plotting against the us homeland. important for important for us to keep focused on disrupting their plans and operations. >> how is this country doing? >> a very close partner. it is quite worrisome that we don't have a clear partner. again, how the government will approach terrorism cooperation remains an open question. >> our guests will be with us for 45 minutes.

former defense undersecretary for policy. we have lines for democrats and republicans independents. we will be happy to go to the calls. we do want to show a clip from the white house chief of staff on cbs yesterday. the president was asked if the situation was a surprise to the administration and here's what he had to say. >> it is important to recognize that governance has always been difficult. we will continue to press actors on the ground so that we can work with them to keep on the offensive. we can't be responsible for every government in the region. >> i take your., but were we surprised? >> we knew that this was an ongoing challenge. that is why we have been

pressing on all the actors to take important steps. we continue to do that today >> the president said this morning that the joint terrorism efforts have been curtailed. he said that is simply not accurate. how could they not be? a government we were working with has fallen. >> important counterterrorism efforts continue, and we we will continue to press that. we will also continue to make sure we have the intelligence that we need. it will continue to work on the political situation. we will continue to do that and ultimately we will need partners in the region to help us clean no space is out.

strong transparent. >> reaction to what you heard. >> i think that again right now there is lot that needs to settle out. sell out. the us does still have unilateral capacity. obviously obviously the preferred approach is to work with our partners. right now i think that's a big? as to whether the government will be as close a partner as its predecessor was, but long-term the emphasis is got to be on trying to get to some sort of power-sharing arrangement. they are a minority. yemen historically has also been divided into the north and south. it is an open question as to

whether this government holds, holds whether they go to a power-sharing arrangement over the country splits. >> what is your take on the current fight? the shadow of this headline , the decapitated body of a japanese hostage. >> well they continue their brutal tactics showing themselves to be what they are. i think the battle has reached a bit of a stasis. the battle lines are drawn. advance the momentum. the challenges rolling them back we will take a significant amount of time. sequence the effort and

enabling them to push back while continuing to put pressure on isis and syria. this will be resolved in weeks. >> we also have headlines out of nigeria. a bold push forward. what is your take on what is happening? >> they have had a lot of momentum and freedom of action in some parts of nigeria taking advantage of the fact that nigeria is heading into a highly contested election. so it is important that this election come off with as little corruption as possible.

it will be corruption free but it is important the results be seen. right now they are just preoccupied. >> there is a passage on the state of affairs. a rift between us and nigeria. i want to get your reaction. american military trainers and specialists advising the nigerian military. depending on often bypasses altogether. this according to the officials that can be good. >> the nigerian security forces have not been a willing or capable partner.

part of that is because of the larger political situation and the lack of certainty. the us has ended up partnering with the other neighbors in the region that border because they have proven to be more willing and capable. it is critical that they step up to deal with this threat. the the hope is a successful election outcome will enable that speewun lots to talk about. want to get your questions and comments. charlestown, rhode island. >> caller: thank you. a couple of questions. i believe it starts. our bumbling of going in there and dislodging was this biggest mistake.

possible to try to take them back over? i believe they are the buffer. that is number one. i think it is evident that all the problems we have the president does not want to be part of this at all. not backing up our troops, not leaving some troops in iraq, not leaving some in afghanistan. the mistakes are just too many to list. >> guest: i would i would agree that i think the biggest mistake the united states made was going into iraq without thinking through the strategic consequences of what would come after the easy part but i think going forward the key is to ensure that

the rack the government is fully representative. we have a knew prime minister who is saying all the right things about being more inclusive, flowing resources. he has to follow through on his commitments were to hold together and for the sunnis to step up and do there part that is the political shift. i don't think it is likely or more feasible that they we will take over the country again, again, but a viable and meaningful power-sharing arrangement is the right answer. after one from twitter this morning, what constitutes a victory in the war?

>> guest: that is great question. it is one whose answer has eluded us. us. if this is going to be a generation long struggle we're dealing with the movement, and ideology. and i think it's going to take not only the sort of intelligence and military measures that we focused on but political, economic development measures to actually address some of the fundamental grievances. >> ron sacramento, california. >> i think one of the things that i think is most overlooked is that they act like the president is in a vacuum president obama

versus the terrorists which is not at all. it seems to me that a lot of the callers act as if president obama should be able to do a b, and c. if he does a b and, and see that all these problems will be resolved. the situation the situation in the middle east, the situation about global terrorism is far, far more complex. i think the president is doing the best job he can possibly do. i think that the diplomatic route that he has taken or is trying to take in regards to putting together a coalition of different countries, the impact of these terrorists although we here in america say they

are a threat to our national security they are more of a threat to the impact of those countries in the middle east. and i think that efforts in trying to build that coalition should be commended. >> guest: i wholeheartedly agree. we have got to do it in coalition with other like-minded states. it is fundamentally a fight with them more violent extremists elements and more moderate. i i think the us as a key role to play but we cannot remake governance in the middle east fundamental economic conditions and so forth. the us role is key, but it has to be a part of the coalition networks on this problem from the manages these risks.

after one, senator john mccain asked about the ministrations handling of the situation. >> on the march throughout. it is the foodies who are backed and supported. other dominant or extremely influential. they are on the move and they are winning. i did not here mr. mcdonough articulated strategy except that we we will fight against these people which is nice to no but when you look at the map the iranians are on the march. isis in iraq and syria doing quite well.

there is no strategy to defeat them. we have been bombing for months with us air power, and they are still there. isis continues to consolidate their position and attract thousands of young people. believe me, i agree with the director of british intelligence who gave a speech last week saying that these young people mainly from other countries are a direct threat to the united states of america and great britain. after one back to our guest. what does that that speak to when it comes to the broader relationship? sanctions being considered? abcatoo, i do think we have to be worried about the increased influence. traditionally been a very destabilizing influence.

so we have to be worried about this. that said the administration has that right primary focus on getting to an agreement to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. that is the number one interest. even if we get an agreement we cannot ignore the destabilizing activities. we need more of a strategy to counterbalance the rise of their influence. >> after one you cowrote this op-ed. united agenda for national security. we can walk through some of the pieces.

>> sure. >> thank you for waiting. independent collar. >> caller: 95 percent of the time the way he is running the government for my think that we need to put more emphasis on our own country and building it up. billions and trillions of dollars. we should let them do that. something that they need to do. we need to just deal with it those countries that just want to help themselves. after one let's here from our guest.

>> guest: it is really a train, advise, assist approach. in fact, it won't succeed unless they step up and take ownership of the situation. i think it is really trying to enable them to be more effective to be back. that's a reasonable approach. overall your.is right that we need to calculate the blood and treasure to the interest we have a stake. >> host: todd is calling from pittsburgh. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. the most misused word is we. obviously it is spread all over. i would think a comment from

john mccain seriously as i would take a room or in the local saloon. he saloon. he has not been right on anything in 25 years. for us to consistently interfere in the theater that has confusion running amok where their are special interests, using drones to blast these pathetic little hearts with no indoor plumbing and the floors and to win the hearts and minds of these people is just a policy that is based on absurdity. i guess what we could do would be to put something in the water so that the countries could not been pregnant the females as john kerry mentioned so fastidiously and with no logical sequence at all

after one i will let you go. >> guest: i would say, the united states to -- does have interest in the middle east. some of those terrorist threats. it it is something we can avoid being engaged in entirely. >> host: united agenda for national security. it is pretty broad-based. what are you saying? the most important elements. >> guest: richard as you said, advised presidential candidate mccain. i worked for for president obama. look, just because we have

divided government to my democratic administration and republican congress, does not mean we can't agree on anything. there their are real threats and opportunities. we need to keep our policy moving forward. but forward. but we tried to do is outlined half a dozen practical steps that this administration and this congress to take together. >> host: lets talk about a few of them the transpacific partnership. why is trade so important? >> guest: critical for the united states as a strategic step. you have asia's aerodynamics changing fundamentally. china has become the dominant trade partner. it is important that the us stay engaged and are seen as a critical partner.

no region we will drive the american economy and our prosperity more. tpp will ensure that we actually have that engagement and competitive advantage. it is a strategic signaling issue. if if we fail to do this the region will read that. >> host: you write about reversing sequestration. >> guest: again, look at what is happening in the world. we cannot afford to straitjacket ourselves the sequestration. given the very real needs we have for a strong military, we we need to lift sequestration, invest smartly and defense. i am the 1st person to say there is lot of waste and defense.

we are carrying more infrastructure that we need. we need to right size and reshape to make sure we are spending money efficiently. we need to overhaul and adopt. >> anytime online. the online. the u.s. senate is gambling and to continue debate on amendments to a bill that would approve construction of the keystone xl pipeline. it is possible we will see a vote. live coverage here on c-span2. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, thank you for your unfailing love. purify our hearts, making us fit vessels for your use.

lord you know the many challenges that confront this legislative body, so guide our senators with your wisdom. encourage them to live worthy of your name. remind them that ultimately they will be judged by their productivity, for your word declares by their fruits you will know them. today, let your presence continue to be felt on capitol hill. we pray in your holy name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag.

i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: this weekend president obama's chief of staff lamented that the senate has taken several weeks to debate an infrastructure project the keystone jobs bill. i agree it's about time to bring the keystone debate to a positive conclusion, and we'll do that soon. we've had a lot of floor discussion. we've considered democrat and republican amendments. all in all the last few weeks have been time well spent. the debate has been good for our country, but tonight is our chance to notch another win for the middle class by supporting cloture and then actually passing this bipartisan jobs bill. now, we've heard rumors that some in the democratic leadership are pressuring rank-and-file democrats even democrats who cosponsored this bill to block keystone's jobs

with a filibuster instead. this is really disappointing when you consider all that our friends on the other side have been saying about the filibuster for so many years. what's most disappointing though is the apparent reasoning for the keystone filibuster. the democratic leadership is claiming that there haven't been enough enough opportunities to consider amendments, and yet nine current senate democrats voted for the keystone project just a few weeks ago without having the opportunity to offer or debate even a single amendment. nine current senate democrats just a couple of months ago voted for the keystone project without having the opportunity to offer or debate even a single amendment. this time around, the new republican majority allowed more amendment roll call votes on just this one bill, this one bill than the previous

leadership allowed on every single bill from last year combined. all together, more roll call votes on this bill than we got on amendments on the senate floor all of last year combined. i would also note that a majority of the amendments we have taken roll call votes on were also offered by the minority by the democrats. we also offered our friends on the other side an opportunity to consider more amendments just a few days ago and they objected to it at the time. even so, it's still my hope that we'll be able to consider more amendments from both sides of the aisle. instead of filibustering this bill or blocking their own amendments which we experienced the other night i'm asking my democratic friends to work with the bill manager senator murkowski, who has done a fantastic job on this bill to get amendments lined up. let's keep up the positive momentum generated by a more open legislative process that's

actually clearly benefited both parties. a keystone filibuster cannot succeed without the support of democrats who voted for a keystone bill just a few weeks ago without any amendments, any amendments and are cosponsoring the jobs bill today. so i truly hope these democrats won't vote to block keystone jobs now just because a different party controls the senate. the american people voted decisively against this type of partisan gridlock back in november. they want us to work together to get things done. why don't we just continue to do that? the debate over this bipartisan bill has already had so many positive effects on the senate as an institution. it's shown senators the benefits of a more open process. it's given a real voice to the minority and it represents a decisive change from the broken senate of recent years. here's how the assistant democratic leader put it just a few days ago -- -- quote -- "we

are in a healthy environment on the floor of the senate where we are pursuing amendments and active debate." end quote. it's great to see this happening, he said. i couldn't agree more. that's exactly the way we ought to operate. so i would urge the senate not to fall back into the old partisan habits. let's keep working together. let's cooperate to get this important infrastructure project over the finish line and onto the president's desk. i'm calling on all of my colleagues especially the cosponsors the cosponsors of this bipartisan bill, especially those who have supported keystone without any amendments in the past, to vote for jobs and progress tonight not the kind of gridlock american voters just rejected so emphatically. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: i ask the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: in a short period of time less than an hour, the senate will vote on whether to end debate on senate bill 1. senate bill 1 is the republicans' number-one priority this year. they are new to the majority in the senate and they got to choose the first and most

important bill to call, and they chose this bill, senate bill 1. this bill will override the president's authority when it comes to making a decision on building the keystone canadian pipeline canadian pipeline. you see keystone is a canadian corporation, and the republicans in the senate have decided the highest priority when it comes to america's economy is to help this canadian corporation. there will be construction jobs, certainly, involved in the construction of this pipeline, but there will only be 35 permanent jobs that come out of this. the number-one priority for the senate republican majority, 35 permanent jobs. most mcdonald's hamburger franchises have more than that number of jobs. but having said that, let's ask about where we are on the floor of the senate at this moment. in their new role as majority party, the republicans ask us to take up this legislation and they said we want to go to the point we've made over and over

during the past several years. we should have an open amendment process. i am here to tell you that we have cooperated. i was quoted -- i'm honored flattered -- quoted by the majority leader on the floor saying i think it's healthy. i have said that for a long time. you see what's changed in the senate is not just the new majority but the new minority, and our feeling on our side is we need to be constructive, offer amendments, offer different points of view, offer different approaches, debate them on the floor accept the will of the senate, and move forward on legislation and that's what we have tried to do on this keystone x.l. bill. and we have really offered amendments on the democratic side that we think get to the heart of this debate. my republican friends and senators like to characterize this as the keystone jobs bill. well we started off by saying here's an idea. let's say that the canadian tar sands brought in through this pipeline and refined in the united states the ultimate products the oil products that come out of this refinery are

going to be there for americans first, that americans can use the gasoline and diesel fuel and jet fuel. in other words it's going to stay in america. the republicans said no. we have to be prepared -- after we go through all of this and build this canadian pipeline, we have to be prepared that ultimately none of the products will be used in the united states. then we said well, okay, if we can't use the ultimate products coming out of this pipeline to help the american economy then let's at least agree that we will build this canadian pipeline in the united states with american-made steel. let's put our steelworkers and foundries to work to really fabricate the steel to build the pipeline so we'll create good-paying american jobs supplying the materials and the republicans voted no. and then we said well, at the end of the day these refineries after they have processed canadian tar sands end up with a miserable byproduct called petcoke.

now, it has some positive applications but sadly in many instances, it's piled up stories high even in the city of chicago within our city limits and blows all over the neighborhood into the lungs of children and elderly people. so let's at least have standards for the storage and handling of this byproduct that is going to come out of this canadian pipeline and the republicans voted no. then we had a vote on whether or not we should be concerned with the environment. using canadian tar sands to make oil products puts more greenhouse gases in the air more carbon dioxide and should we be mindful of this? if you read the votes that took place, it's unclear uncertain as to where the republicans stand on this. one senator from north dakota offered what i thought was a good amendment acknowledging this very issue and at the very end voted against his own

amendment, which is rare in the united states senate annals, but it shows you how conflicted many republican members were on the basic environmental issues. now let's get to the procedure and to where we stand. last thursday night was troubling. after the constructive consideration of over a dozen different amendments on both sides of the aisle the republican majority leader said now bring out the next group of amendments and we did. democrats cooperated. we produced six amendments we wanted up next, and the republicans produced six amendments they wanted up next. and an hour later within an hour after producing the list, the senate majority leader came to the floor and said that's it, we're not going to get this done as i wanted to get it done. we're going to start tabling the democratic amendments, one after the other. so the members who offered the amendments who had worked on the amendments stood at their desk as each amendment came up and said i would like 60 seconds to just explain the amendment i wrote that we're about to vote on and each and every time the republicans objected to 60

seconds of debate. this is considered the world's greatest deliberative body, and yet the sponsors, the authors of the amendment were denied 60 seconds to even explain their amendments. it didn't leave a very good taste in the mouth of many democrats, not even those who were supporting this keystone canadian pipeline. many of them think this is unfair. if we're going to have a good-faith bipartisan environment to consider amendments let's go back and forth, republican and democrat, and let's consider the major issues before us. and there are still many unresolved issues. health and safety issues with pending amendments. i approached the majority leader as he was leaving the floor and i said even if we don't pass this cloture motion this evening, let's work together on a bipartisan basis. let's come up with these lists of amendments. let's do this in a conscientious, good-faith effort to complete this bill, and i think we can achieve it. my hat's off to senator lisa

murkowski, a republican senator who has come to the floor leading this effort on the floor for the debate, but i have a special place in my heart for the democratic side where two other senators have been outstanding in bringing us to this point on the issue. senator maria cantwell is leading our effort on the democratic side in partnership with barbara boxer of california and many others. as was suggested last week, it's time for the boys to get off the stage and let the ladies come back in and consider these amendments and bring us to the right conclusion, a thoughtful debate important issues considered and a vote in the united states senate on this legislation. madam president, i ask consent the statement i'm about to make next be placed in a separate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you madam president. last week, america lost a hero and chicago lost one of its greatest.

cubs hall of famerrer ernie banks passed away. he was known as mr. cub. his love for the game of gable was matched only by his passion for the city of chicago. he was a hall of famer in every sense of the word. he won the hearts not just of cubs fans but baseball fans across the nation with his power hitting and golden glove performances. he endeared himself with his humble approach to the game of baseball and the game of life. before ernie banks became mr. cub he was 17 years old playing on a sand lot in dallas texas. that's where cool papa bell, one of the legendary leaders in the negro leagues discovered this young man and signed him to play for the kansas city monarchs for $7 a game. he was managed by another legend buck o'neill. playing for the negro league legend had a profound impact on ernie banks.

huck buck 4 so much love for everybody that ernie decided to model his life after him. it was with the monarchs that he learned to play with energy and enthusiasm. he took to heart the message that buck o'neill would often shout at him you got to love this game to play it. ernie banks loved it, and it showed. years later o'neill reunited with ernie banks when o'neill agreed to manage the cubs in 1962. it was incidentally he was the first african-american manager in major league baseball. as one of the first african baseball players in the major leagues, ernie banks helped to break down the color barriers. the hall of fame includinger and m.v.p. made his debut in 1953 and became the first african to suit up for the chicago cubs. he was only 180 pounds, wasn't the most intimidating batter at the plate but he had powerful

wrists generating tremendous bat speed. he hit the ball hitting 512 home runs in his career, 2,583 hits 1,636 r.b.i.'s and a career batting average 6.274. from 1955 to 1960 he was the most prolific home run hitter in the game hitting more home runs than hank aaron mickey mays or mickey mantle. he was the most vandal player in the national league, the first to win the award in consecutive years. also, also, the first player to versus number retired by the cubs and on game days number 14 flies proudly at the friendly confines of wrigley field. he was inducted into cooperstown the first year he was eligible but it wasn't the numbers on the back of the baseball card that made mr. cub a beloved member of chicago and the community. he was his passion for the game and the appreciation he showed

to everyone he encountered. over the last several days i've heard from baseball fans sharing their stories of meeting mr. cub. nearly all were humbled by the opportunity to meet their hero but even more impressed to find ernie was just as appreciative of his fans as they were of him. it's an understatement to say the cubs had some tough seasons during his 19-year career. the cubs haven't won a world series since 1908 or a national league title since 19545 but every day win or lose he was lace up his cleats, step on the field, smile for the whole world to see. you couldn't help but love watching him play and for ernie banks the eternal optimist he always believed this was going to be the year for the cubs. every spring he predicted without fail that the cubs goring to win the pennant. ernie never got to play in postseason but his love of the game never wavered despite this. he became famous for his positive attitude. he often remarked, it's a great

day for baseball, let's play, too. an 11 time all-star, first-ballot hall of famer selected to the all-century team in 1999, it was never about money for ernie. he played for the pure joy of the game. after hitting his 500th home run, he summed up his feelings say the riches of the game are in the thrills not in the money. that's an inspiring message. in 2013 i contacted some friends in the white house and asked president obama to consider a medal of freedom for ernie banks. i felt that his impressive career with the cubs and his courage in breaking down the color barrier in baseball were reason enough but more than these amazing achievements, ernie's spirit set him apart. it was a special moment to be there at the white house when ernie banks received the presidential medal of freedom. he was honored to see it and experience it. after being awarded the medal we

head he held a reception for had him in his my office. i don't know if there were ever so manuel humbled politicians look looking for an auto graph. he signed it. remember johnny isakson faithful atlanta braves fan made a point and i remember harry reid, he said i used to play baseball and ernie banks said senator reid, what position did you splayplay? i was a catcher. he said get down in that catcher's position. somehow or other heirry reid got down right in my position to prove it to ernie banks. ernie couldn't have been more gracious with his time, signing autographs for everybody that showed up. the north side of chicago and wrigley field won't be the same. let's play, too will echo off the brakes and ivy for generations to come. and now it would seem they need to find a new roster spot on the field of dreams and

everybody better be ready for daytime double-headers too. ernie banks, your bags and sunny outlook on life will be missed. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 1 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 1 s. 1 a bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: madam president i came down to speak about a measure that is supported by members of both sides. i was listening to the remarks by the minority whip on this particular bill that we're dealing with, the keystone pipeline. i was going to divert from what i was going to say to respond to that and then he turned to a

commemoration of the life of ernie banks. i began school in chicago in the early 1960's when ernie banks was playing and it is to be noted for the record that my g. p.a., my grade point average average, would have been higher had i not spent so many afternoons in wrigley field watching the cubs play. during that time all the games were played during the day and as such missing a few classes to watch our beloved cubs lose more than win but our beloved player perhaps the most beloved player in baseball history, ernie banks was a true delight. i wish i had time to speak more on that particular issue but what i would like to direct my attention to is another bipartisan supported measure this one s. 1, described as not

all that important but, you know, the american people in november said get back there work together and get some things done. and one of the things to get done was their overwhelming support of the keystone pipeline. it has bipartisan support in fact, during the motion to proceed not to this, 10 democrats joined republicans in this effort and that's what we're debating here. but i'm here to talk about a second bill, maybe it doesn't deserve to be s. 2 or 3 but it's in the top five if you select legislation with bipartisan support and hopefully will result in passage getting things done and sent to the president and hopefully with a number of democrats joining republicans in these efforts the president will take a second look in terms of so-called veto threats on measures that have every reason to gain bipartisan support and have bipartisan support and will provide major impetus for putting people back

to work and providing these needed measures. it was winston churchill that said a nation trying to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle. and, unfortunately, one of indiana's most vibrant industries is stuck at the bottom of the bucket because a small provision tucked away in the 2,000-page obamacare law imposes on them an excise tax a 2.3% excise tax on every sale that they make of medical devices hindering negotiation and job creation. medical device manufacturers in my state directly employ over 20,000 hoosiers and indirectly support thousands of additional jobs. these are jobs that pay well above the average 56% higher wages than the average wage rate in indiana. these are top quality jobs

providing significant employment for a significant number of hoosiers. we have more than 300 f.d.a. registered medical device manufacturers in our state and this is true of many other states. this industry is boosting our state's economy, our nation's economy and reducing technologies that are changing and saving lives. products ranging from wheelchair van lifts to artificial knees hips and shoulders to catheters useed in heart procedures have improved or saved the lives of many hoosiers and count less others not only in my state not only in america but across the globe. since the implementation of this tax, passed in the obamacare act in 2010, imposed in 2013, this destructive tax has caused companies to freeze hiring, lay off workers and shelf plans to plans to build new facilities. a survey by the advanced medical

technology association found that the device tax forced manufacturers to let go of or avoid hiring 33,000 workers in 2013. so we say, well, keystone pipeline that's only 42,000 jobs and only last two years and medical device, that's just 30,000-some jobs. look i thought we're trying to get people back to work. i thought we were working to pass bipartisan legislation that would benefit this country and benefit those that are seeking employment. click medical of bloomington was forced to table plans for a major expansion because of the device tax. in 2013, testimony before the senate budget committee cook medical chairman steve federal stated cook has made the difficult division division without repeal of the dwell mel

device tax we will move important product lines outside of the united states. our previous plans to open five new manufacturing facilities in american towns are now on hold as we use capital intended for these projects to pay for the device tax. now, the negative impact of this tax is felt not only by large employers like cook but hurts gross sales of companies who are not making a profit but are developing innovative new ways to find benefits for the health and safety and even the life in many cases of those who need these medical devices. as a result, these companies are not profitable because they're having to pay the tax they're struggling to launch new negotiations and -- negotiations and save lives. a small warsaw manufacturer which sells implants for

children had to shelve two important projects because it had to use its resources to pay the medical device tax. after the tax was implemented an employee of that company shared his story with me. because of this tax he said, the manufacturer is now largely inhibited from working on important new products such as a device that reduces a wheelchairbound child's discomfort. how ironic that obamacare which the president said would increase the health benefits for americans and coverage, is actually a barrier to improving lives and health outcomes. last week, i joined nine of my senate colleagues, including five democrats to introduce the medical device access and innovation protective act. our legislation would eliminate i nate this tax and has strong bipartisan support. during the last sex of

congress 79 senators voted to pass a bipartisan amendment to the fiscal year 2014 senate budget resolution that called on repeal of this device tax. 79 members, 34 democrats and 45 republicans. it doesn't get much more bipartisan than that. so we are hoping that while this may not be labeled s. 2, it certainly stands in the two three or four issues that -- top three or four issues that has support and responds to the strong call of people in november to get back to washington get together, work on things where you have bipartisan support and get it up to the president and bring about these laws that's going to improve our economy and get people back to work. that's what we're all about and i hope my colleagues will see that this egregious tucked-away provision of yet

another tax and more than a dozen in the affordable care act, this harmful tax will force us to move forward repeal this, and result in the kind of improvements that the american people are asking us to address. it's a -- it is long past time for washington to stop punishing medical device innovators in indiana and across the country and i'm urging my colleagues to support this bill and with that i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: thank you madam president,. we're trying to figure out how to do a fair division of the time that remains so i'm going to ask unanimous consent that senators stabenow and peters have five minutes between them to discuss an amendment followed by senator cardin, who would have three minutes to

explain his followed by myself having two and a half minutes to discuss my amendment, and then senator heitkamp would have after that five minutes and then the remaining time senator sessions because that would be equal, that would add up to our having as such time as senator sessions or murkowski whoever at that point wants to speak. a dividing of the time. the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. murkowski: reserving the right to object, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i'm seeking clarification. is the senator from california asking these respective members have an opportunity to speak to amendments or to make these amendments pending? mrs. boxer: some will is ask for amendments pending i know i will some will not ask that, just want to be heard but there's 30 minutes left this the debate your side just finished and obviously if we didn't want to be fair somebody could grab the time on our side and just talk nor 30 minutes.

we don't think that's right. we're trying to divide it you were between our side and your side. so divide it up about 15 minutes on our side and given 15 minutes to senator sessions who wanted to be heard on the matter. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: seeking clarification, up to this point in time what we have done to get amendments pending is the ranking member and i have kind of worked back and forth in terms of what it was that we were -- would come up as far as pending. as far as members just seeking to speak to amendments, i certainly don't have a problem with what the senator from california has proposed. i'm just trying to get some other understanding. i was also my understanding that i had the time beginning at 5:15 reserved. i think there's a little confusion here.

mrs. boxer: we've already wasted four minutes. so you can object if you don't want to allow us to have an amendment pending but i'm going to start off here and are you still objecting? instead of senator sessions, i'll -- now it's about 12 minutes to you at the end. is that all right with you? ms. murkowski: i'm just trying to understand. if members just want to speak to their amendments, there's not a problem with what the senator has suggested. it's just a question of whether or not we're getting amendments pending because we've been going back and forth from side to side up to this point in time. that's the only thing. and, mr. president if i just may, i will be happy to put the mike down and let the senator from california speak to her amendment while senator cantwell and i talk about how we get more amendmentsening pending and she can get talking. mrs. boxer: if i might say this, every senator has a right to ask a u.c. and anything and if you don't like it mr.

chairman, -- madam chairman, you can say you object. idant want to make my amendment pending because it's germane and want to make sure it's heard. bits public health. -- it's about public health. so if my friend doesn't want to agree to this u.c., then i think what we'll do, i'll just hold the floor and i'll yield to colleagues for questions and they can make their points because i don't understand my friend's objection to the way we have it laid out. the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. murkowski: there couldn't to be objection. i would be like to be with the ranking member to continue a process of back and forth amendments pending. i have no objection to the senator from california speaking to her amendment at this time. mrs. boxer: well i'm going --. the presiding officer: socks heard. mrs. boxer: i'm going to take the time now. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i'll take the entire time and yield to colleagues. i'll speak for the 0 two minutes

or less and then ask for unanimous consent on my amendment. we want to have a study of the significant human health impacts of the keystone canadian x.l. tar sands pipeline. i don't believe they were adequately addressed in the supplemental environmental impact report or completely analyzed. i held a press conference with doctors from canada who spoke about the adverse impacts of people living near the pipeline we've had spills along the pipeline in michigan, in arkansas, those spills are not adequately cleaned up as we speak, and as senator cantwell informed me, there's been an additional two spills since the new congress came into session. now, from extraction to transportation to he other fining to waste storage misery follows the tar sands. so we know they're a dangerous air pollutants and carcinogens that have been documented from

tar sands refinery and all this to help a canadian private company make a whole bunch of money and we can't even keep the oil in this country are you kidding? and 35 permanent jobs? the least we can do is have a in-depth impact study before we approve this study. i'm very sad to say we still have this kind of gag a on this going on from the other side. they wouldn't even let people speak for one minute on their amendment, that's why i am a he grabbing the floor here. i couldn't even get agreement to divide up the time, so i'm taking the time. i'll be happy to yield to my friend from michigan, through the chair. the presiding officer: senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, very much. thank you to my friend and colleague from california. i want to say to you senators murkowski and cantwell who have work forward moving a process

that until thursday night was working very well going back and forth. so i would ask my friend to join with senator peters and i in saying that before we authorize the building of a new oil pipeline in america that we have to consider and strengthen our safety of pipelines. the pipelines we already have. in 2010, a pipeline that runs from canada through michigan spilled nearly a million gallons of tar sands oil into the kalamazoo river. this has been talked about before -- caution the largest inland oil spill in u.s. history. so we need to vote on senator peters' and my amendment and the cleanup itself cost $1.2 billion. just nine days ago another pipeline broke in montana and for the second time in four years, tens of thousands of gallons of oil emptied into the yellowstone river making that

water unsafe to drink. and so would my friend from california agree with me and share concern that under the straits of mackinac, in our beautiful, gorgeous great lakes we have a 61-year-old pipeline that runs through environmentally sensitive areas goes right under the water and has only been upgraded a couple of times since 1953, that before we pass this keystone pipeline that we should make sthiewr sure that our glairksour great lakes have the safety we need as well as all of the pipelines across the country? would my colleague agree with that? mrs. boxer: i couldn't agree with my friend more. her question is pert nendz and to the point of -- her question is pertinent and to the point of this debate. we're giving permission to a canadian company to come through and use america as a pass-through.

thndz and they're going to leave behind petcoke. the hardest oil to clean up. and i absolutely know that my friend senator peters, has a question as well. but i'd be -- without losing the right to the floor i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pend pending amendment so i may call up my amendment. and i will wait until the objection is heard. i am not going to plow through this. the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. murkowski: ox i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. boxer: what you're tock talking about is making sure the pipelines are sap safe, what i am talking about is pipeline safety. i am happy to yield to my freandzfriendfrom michigan. mr. peters: thank you. as i listen to this debate as to the importance of pipeline safety as we are debating a very important bill to give approval to one specific

pipeline in this country, which is a very unprecedented type of vote in the senate, my question to you is, why do we not have an opportunity, or wouldn't you agree that we should have an opportunity to offer amendments? you know, i know that i am new to the senate, but i was informed that this would be an open amendment process. my idea of an open amendment process is you can actually offer amendments. it means you can also actually debate amendments. that is an open process particularly something as important as protecting our great lakes. this incredible, immense body of fresh water one of the largest body of fresh water in the world. we have a pipeline that goes through there above the lake bed that could potentially be catastrophic if there is a break. as senator stabenow mentioned in michigan we've already had the most expensive pipeline break in history four years of cleanup of canadian tar sands oil, oim that sinks to the bottom of the river. over $1.2 billion in cleanup. so you can imagine if we had a

pipeline break in the middle of the great lakes it would be catastrophic to the country to the state of michigan, but really to the entire world. it as risk we cannot take. that is why we have authored a commonsense amendment that says we should ensure there is protection. if there are special requirements to protect the great lakes as there were special requirements for keystone it should also be available to other pipelines particularly in sensitive areas like the great lakes. that's why i would ask -- in the spirit of an open amendment process, in the spirit of this great deliberative body where people are allowed to debate the big issues affecting our country, in that spirit, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so i can call up my amendment number 70. ms. murkowski: objection. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. boxer: if i could answer the question posed to me by my friend he asked do i think there ought to be an oche amendment process?

-- an open amendment process? not only do i think there should be, we were promised such an open amendment process. what occurred here at midnight on thursday night before the senate left -- some my colleagues are running for president. they went out to my state to make their cases. instead of staying on friday, we adjourned on thursday night and it was anything but an open amendment process. i see the senator from massachusetts on the the floor. he had a critically important amendment. he asked for 60 seconds to explain his amendment and i've been here over 20 years. i have never seen a situation ever where five members in a row -- five great senators representing their great states -- were told, sit down, we're gagging you. and that's what happened. this is wrong. and so we're going to be asked to proceed you know, today and just shut down the amendment

process even further. i don't note how the senate is going to vote. however the senate votes they vote. but the bottom line is, this has been anything but an open amendment processings and my friend is absolutely right. and i know the senator from maryland wanted to ask me a question. mr. cardin: could i ask my colleague from california to yield torah quay in. mrs. boxer: yes. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you mr. president. i apreet that very much. the question i'm going to ask to senator boxer to respond to is the consequences if we invoke cloture in about 15 minutes from now, when that vote comes before the floor. there are many of my colleagues that had amendments that they wanted to offer. they filed those amendments. unless those amendments become pending, it is my understanding -- and unless those amendments meet he very nature re, germane rules, they may be relative relevant to the debate, that unless we defeat cloture we might not

have an open amendment process. know that the majority leader talked about an open amendment process, but many of my colleagues including this member who has additional amendments that i would like to have considered will not be able to get those amendments considered if i understand it, senator boxer, unless the cloture motion is defeated. so let me talk about amendment 75 that is pending that i think is critically important that i have filed. what that amendment would do would allow our governors and our county officials to be able to get information from the -- about the risk to their drinking water as a result of the potential spills would have on the acquifers. this is not a hypothetical question because the ogallala acquifer, which is the country's largest underground fresh water

resource is crossed by the proposed line of the keystone. so therefore, is a major concern to governors and local officials, what a potential spill could have in regards to their drinking water supplies to their communities. at some places the acquifers within five feet of the surface so a spill could have a dramatic impact on supply of safe drinking water. now, as has already been pointed out by my colleagues from michigan, in july of 2010 there was a pipeline rupture near marshal, michigan, that released 843,000 gallons of tar sand oil. that had a horrific impact on the environment and is still difficult to see the end in sight because of the cleanup difficulties and this thick tar

sand oil. on march 29, 2013, there was a pipeline rupture in mayflower arkansas and that caused an incredible challenge to the cleanup. so my amendment's pretty simple. my amendment would allow that information to be made available to our governors and our local officials so that they could then notify the president that they have a concern on the route and allow that to be considered before the pipeline is constructed, giving our local governments the opportunity to be heard on this very -- have the information and then to be heard on this very important issue. so my question to the senator from california, senator boxer if we're going to have an open amendment process, how can that be if the cloture motion that was filed by the majority leader were to become approved? wouldn't that deny us that full, open amendment process that we

heard was going to be used in this congress? mrs. boxer: well, i thank my friend from the question. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: we were promised an open amendment process. i want to make a point to my friend who's worked so hard on the environment and public health committee. i'm so appreciative of his work, and he's fought so hard to protect water quality. do you know if an amendment like yours does not pass, what it means is that american companies will be treated in a much harsher fashion than a canadian foreign oil company. in other words because the other side is saying no more facts, no more information no environmental impact statement even though we know there are health impacts from the tar sands and you have pointed out the hobt of having -- the possibility of having a bad impact on drinking water. we've seen what's happened in west virginia when we don't worry about that.

my friend is absolutely right and i'm honored that he asked me to comment on this particular amendment, and i hope that he will ask. i know you're pending. i hope that you're going to get a vote on this one way or the other. and i know some other colleagues may want to ask a question. ms. heitkamp: would the senator from california yield to a question? mrs. boxer: i'd be happy to. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. ms. heitkamp: thank you so much mr. president. from the start let me say senator boxer and i are not on the same sieftd principal bill. i have long bun one of -- long bun one of the staunchest supporters of the keystone x.l. pipeline. the question you have today is of aging infrastructure. the question i have of xbox, would it not -- the question i have of senator boxer would it not make sense as we're talking about this keystone pipeline,

that we find common ground, we need the resources and regulatory authority and regulatory personnel to make sure that aging infrastructure, the infrastructure under the great lakes, what happened in the yellowstone river that we have a robust and very complete fmsa organization that has the personnel to go out and follow the pipeline, test the pipeline, review the results. but even as important to me is that fmsa's role in making sure that transportation of oil on the railroad is actually adequate that we have adequate regulation. on one of my amendments not pending but filed is in fact an amendment that would address directly what i hope would be common ground for everyone here, which is making sure that we are in fact regulating interstate

pipelines. but i would like to also talk about how we have an all of the above policy that everybody talks about but we don't seem to get to that point. one of the amendments that i have at the desk that i would dearly love to call up and make sure it gets a vote is an amendment that would provide long term -- not just five years -- glide path for wind energy. i think you've seen as we've included this in the extenders this stop-and-go policy that has in fact put not only the companies' lives on hold but also their employees. and so i'm hopeful i'm hopeful -- and we don't know how the vote's going to turn out. no one knows until the vote's done. but i'm hopeful that we'll be able to come back and introduce so many of these amendments that my colleagues have advanced, some of which i agree with, some of which i don't but that's the nature of the senate and we actually get a vote because i

think as a believer that i have good ideas too that my good ideas should have a debate here in the senate. but wouldn't you agree that one common area that we all share is making sure that we have a robust regulatory environment to protect the waterways and to protect our farmers' soil from any leaks and make sure that leaks to the extent that they are preventable are prevented? mrs. boxer: i want to say to my friend -- the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: -- of course i agree with her. we don't agree on the tar sands pipeline but we respect each other and we do look for common ground, and she's found it. the importance of inspecting the infrastructure can't be overstated. i say to my friend before she leaves the floor here's a picture of a recent spill. actually it was 2013. it's still not been cleaned up in arkansas because the pipeline burst. 200,000 gallons of tar sands burst from a pipeline and it spilled all over the streets of a subdivision and residents were exposed to high levels of

benzene, a known carcinogen, and hydrogen sulfide and they suffered from dizziness gnaws yarks headaches -- nausea and headaches. rain flow causes top since to flop to the top of the soil and off gas. it has still not been cleaned up. my friend has an amendment that would say let's inspect the infrastructure to make sure things like this don't happen. of course i support it, and i hope that she will vote her conscience and hopefully vote to keep this amendment process open. and i know my friend from massachusetts has a question. i would yield to him if he does. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: i thank the senator from california, and i -- i thank the senator and i thank her for taking the time to have this very important discussion here this afternoon. last thursday night the majority

decided that they would not allow for a debate on an amendment i was propounding that would have imposed a tax upon the canadian oil as it is being transported through this proposed pipeline in the eventuality of an oil spill that the canadians would have to have contributed to. and the majority did not make it possible for me to speak for even one minute on insuring that the canadians had to pay the tax in the event that there was an oil spill with their oil in the united states of america. while americans would have to do so. but here's the question i'm going to propound to the senator from california. right now we know that there is increasing carbon pollution in the atmosphere, which stacks the decks, increasing the chances

that our country our planet would draw an extreme weather joker that would have catastrophic consequences for our country or for any other place in the world. and we know that while no one storm can be attributed to climate change, we do know that scientists agree that there is an increase in the intensity and the frequency of extreme weather events. in fact, in 2013 consensus report bulletin of the american meteorological society, this is what they said: the number of severe regional snowstorms that occurred since 1960 was more than twice the number that occurred during the preceding 60 years in the united states of america. so my question to the senator from california is, shouldn't we be debating this issue of

increased frequency of snowstorms of rainstorms, of droughts of extreme weather conditions? and isn't that something that members should be allowed one minute at least to address if not a full debate of these issues that have been triggered by the republicans deciding that they wanted to bring this bill out on the floor as their number-one priority for the year 2015? so is that not the subject that we should be discussing? and should it not be an open debate? that is the question i propound to the senator from california. mrs. boxer: well, i just have to say -- the presiding officer: the senator from california's. mrs. boxer: -- my friend's question. i was so shocked when you asked for one minute to explain your amendment that we heard multiple republicans saying no, no, a thousand times now. and as senator durbin says this is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. i grew up thinking that was

true and i never saw this before where colleague after colleague after colleague after colleague was essentially shouted down. i haven't seen it here. it's reached a new low, from a republican majority that won they absolutely won a huge election victory, there is no question about it, on the promise that it would be an open process, and then you can't even have colleagues talk for a minute. but i know the senator from new jersey had a question as well. i would yield to him because time is running out at 5:30. i yield to him for a question. mr. booker: would the senator yield for a question? mrs. boxer: yes, i would. mr. booker: i am grateful. this is a concern i have and i want to get your feedback because of your years of experience your wisdom and your depth of understanding about these issues. i think that there needs to be another amendment here for critical protection. the nepa regulations require agencies to supplement already

issued environmental impact statements when significant new circumstances come about. when that information about this new challenges to the environmental impact of a project, something really has to happen. and so this pending bill deems that the final environmental impact statement issued last january would fully satisfy nepa. this would remove the obligation of permitting agencies to supplement that e.i.s. if any significant new circumstances or information is discovered. the amendment would change that and would preserve the obligation of agencies who supplement it if we have such an amendment, it could really protect that. now i've been told a lot by people that this is the nepa sofn -- is often referred to as the modern-day environmental magna carta. in other words, it is such a

critical set of protections. if we have a circumstance in which there is a significant change in this pipeline, say they just decide to change the direction or move it a little bit and it goes through an entirely new area, not to be able to take into consideration new information new circumstances for an environment, with an environmental impact statement updated seems to me wrong. and it actually seems to be giving this company this foreign company more information, more opportunity than our current american companies. i would love for you to comment on that. mrs. boxer: well, senator booker. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i'm proud of your contribution to this debate and what you do on the environmental committee. let me quickly say because i know we're running out of time. here's the deal. you raise the gold standard, nepa the national environmental protection act. the underlying bill says

everything is satisfied. all you want to make sure of in your amendment is if there's new information that shows this could harm the public, maybe cause more cancer, cause more asthma, cause more problems, that we need a supplemental e.i.s. we need a supplemental study before we approve this pipeline, and right now they're not let you offer -- the presiding officer: all time has sprierd. mrs. boxer: i thank the chair for his patience. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls related to the cloture petition on s. be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hiewsh move to bring to a close debate on the murkowski amendment number 2 to

the keystone x.l. pipeline approval act signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on amendment number 2 offered by the senator from alaska, ms. murkowski, to senate 1 a bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule, and the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 53, the nays are 39. 3/5 of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative the motion is not agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the senate please -- the senate will be in order please.

the senate is not in order. the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i enter a vote to reconsider the cloture vote on the murkowski substitute amendment number 2. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on s. 1 a bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that the debate on s. 1 a bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule, and the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not on this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 39. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i enter a motion to reconsider the cloture vote on s. 1 the keystone x.l.

pipeline bill. the presiding officer: the motion is interred. -- the entered. mr. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski:ms. murkowski: mr. president well here we are this evening. mr. durbin: mr. president, the senate is not in order. ms. murkowski: thank you mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. ms. murkowski: thank you mr. president. we are here this evening after the conclusion of two cloture votes having failed to -- to get the sufficient 60 that is required to cut off debate and move forward. as the floor manager i will be

working with my counterpart on the energy committee senator cantwell to define a -- a list of amendments, kind of define the universe that we're talking about here so that perhaps we can work towards an agreement an agreement that will allow for additional amendments to be processed but ultimately an agreement that will allow us to get to passage of the keystone x.l. pipeline. this measure senate bill 1 a bipartisan measure, a measure that will work to create jobs for this country a measure that will not only help with our relationship with our friends and allies to the north but a measure that is widely supported by the american public. so i'm hopeful that what we will

be able to do tonight working with colleagues is to again define how we will get to final resolution of this very important bill. last week we saw this measure include several important energy efficiency bills with the adoption of the senator from ohio's measure particularly the one provision that relates to water heaters. very time sensitive. we were also able to add to s. 1 two sense of the senate provisions, one that would relate to the oil spill liability fund and another that related to the issue of climate change. so here we are well more than two weeks into debate on the keystone x.l. pipeline.

we voted on a total of 24 amendments to this bill. 24 amendments to the bill. we voted on more amendments last week than we did in all of 2014. in fact, on thursday, it was a long day for all of us, but on thursday we moved out 15 amendments. that was more than we had done in all of 2015. in 2015, this senate voted on 15 amendments. this past thursday, we voted on 15 amendments in one day on the keystone x.l. we're now up to 24 amendments and we have made some progress. and i'm not -- i am very, very aware that not everyone is fully happy with where we are right now. we hit our first little bump in the road back to regular order. but that's -- you know, we've got to roll with some things around here every now and again.

but i think the point that we're at i hope is that we will be able to get back on track and a track that will allow for again again, closure of this very important measure. i would remind the senate that we're in this -- we're in this place where we -- where we had to vote on cloture because we got to a point last week where a unanimous request to vote on the then-pending 12 amendments was blocked. but i will remind our colleagues that invoking cloture on a bill does not end all debate. we still have up to 30 hours of additional debate left. during that time amendments that are germane to the underlying bill can still be called up they can still be considered, they can still be voted on. we've got quite a few of those

left. in fact, last count on our amendments that have been filed to date, there were 143 amendments that i have on my tally here today that have been filed. i don't know if that's a current current, up-to-the-minute accounting. we had asked members to have their amendments in by 3:00 this afternoon and second-degrees filed by 5:00 p.m. so of these, there are a fair percentage that are germane so my point to colleagues is that there is still -- there is still much to be done with this bill if you're interest is voting on amendments. i want to repeat something that the majority leader commented on when we came in to session just

a little bit ago. just a reminder that we were on this bill just two months ago. just two months ago. and at that time there was a grand total of zero amendments. that we voted on. zero. so now as i mentioned we've got -- we've got three that have been incorporated into the bill already two sense of the senate one on climate one on oil spill liability trust fund, one on energy efficiency. and, again some 140 150 that have been filed. i'm glad that we're -- that we've got this process going on. i'm glad to see these amendments. but for those that would suggest that somehow or other the majority is closing down opportunity for debate or amendments all you need to do is look where we were two months

ago -- same bill, same bill, zero amendments. to bring us forward to today we've had votes on 24 amendments amendments. we've adopted three of them. and again there's about 140-some-odd that are out there. so again mr. president, i want us to get through this measure and i want to do so in a way that is respectful to the process, respectful to members and that dignifyies this institution. so we've got a lot that is out there. i recognize that. and i've heard from members on both sides that are asking me, how do i get my amendment pending? how do i -- i get it to that point that we can consider it? and that is what we will be working through tonight and into

the morning. and i thank my colleague from washington because i do think that we have been trying to work truly in good faith. mr. president, i know that my colleague from north dakota wanted to just say a couple minutes on process and then i would like to reclaim my time for just a few more moments, if i may. and with that, i'd turn to the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: hoeven: i'd like to thank both the bill manager on our side of the aisle the good senator from alaska, as well as the bill manager on the democrat side, the senator from the state of washington for working together and trying to, you know, get a list of all the amendments and do everything possible to get them scheduled for a vote. and i would just like to ask members on both sides of the aisle to work with the bill managers to try to, you know, get a list of amendments and get

them scheduled for a vote. as the senator from alaska said, we've already had 19 amendments. we know that there's more amendments that -- that the senators would like to have a vote on. we appreciate that. we understand that. but i think there's a real effort here to try to get those votes scheduled. so again my -- my message is one, thank you to the bill managersing for their hardbillmanagers for their hard work and, two to work ask members to work with the bill managers where they would like to have a vote and get them scheduled so we can get them going in a timely way so members can have as much noaa head of to, consider the respective issues and then -- as much notice ahead of time to consider the respective issues and then conclude. one of the points is we have to remember in trying to go back to

an open amendment process and regular order, you know, there's some work to figure out how to get that going and to do it in a bipartisan way. and, of course we're working through it on this legislation. and then just a final point at the end of the day about this legislation we'll be discussing more but it really is -- comes down to how the individual members of this body feel about this underlying legislation and that it really is about energy and it's about jobs, it's about economic growth and it's about national security at a time when energy security for our country is so very, very important. and so again it goes to the underlying merits. but as we work through this amendment process again, you know, let's see if we can't get these amendments scheduled and vote on them and move along as well as we can this week, get that done. because it's not just important on this legislation but we want to have that same kind of open

process on other legislation as well. it's about getting the work done for the american people. and with that mr. president, i would yield back to the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaskament ms. murkowski: that the senator from north dakota for his leadership on this issue. he has been persistent, diligent and very, very articulate as we have moved through the process. and i appreciate that a great deal. mr. president, i thought i was going to be spending the -- the vast majority of my time this weekend going through each of these many amendments that members have presented. as i mentioned, you know, we're in the hundred -- close to 150-plus category. but my attention on keystone and the issues in front of us was dramatically pulled away because of an announcement out of the

administration that i learned of late on friday evening and that was -- the first announcement today. and the fact of the matter is, is i'm just not in a very good mood right now. i'm not in a very good mood, and i think it's probably true to say that most alaskans are not in a very good mood. folks back home woke up sunday morning to the news that this president effectively declared war on our economic future in the state of arks and i know that -- in the state of alaska, and i know that those are pretty hard words. and it has been suggested by some in the administration that perhaps i'm overreacting. but, mr. president let me tell you, when -- when our economic opportunities as a state which lie in our natural resources

are denied us as a state the promises that were made when we entered the union the compact that we made, that we are not able to see those promises then there is -- there is nothing else, there is no other way to describe it than -- than that is a war on our economic future. now, we had -- we've got winter going on in alaska right now. my hometown where i went to high school, i think, it was about 30 below this weekend. up on the north slope temperatures are about 60 degrees below zero. it is pretty cold. the president in his video where he made his announcement

that he is moving to put the arctic coastal plain in de facto wilderness he described the area in the north slope as fragile, that the wildlife is fragile and i will tell you the area in the coastal plain the area in anwr is an amazing place. it is a special place. as are so many places in alaska. it is an amazing place and i am blessed to call it home. but the president decided on sun sunday to announce his decision to manage the arctic coastal plain as de facto wilderness. you i don'ti don't have my maps, but

you will see a lot of maps and anwr coming up here. the coastal plain is the part on the very northern part of the state. and it is part of the non-wilderness part of anwr. people need to understand that anwr is a huge area. it is 19.7 million acres. it is an area the size of the state of south carolina up there. and there are portions of anwr that have been designated as wilderness and they were they were deducted as wilderness back in 19 85, along with -- in 1980, along with other areas. so much wilderness, close to 60 million rearlings acres of million wilderness designated that there is a provision that says that's

enough. alaska has given enough in the sense that more than half of the wilderness area in the united states of america is in alaska. more than half -- all the other wilderness in the lower 48 states 49 states -- alaska has over half. and so the sense was, there will be no more wilderness declarations in alaska. and yet the president announces sunday that in addition to the coastal plain effectively all the balance of anwr will be brought into wilderness designation. so what does this mean to a state like alaska? again, history is going to be

important in this discussion going forward because the area in the coastal plain the 1002 area -- and it is designated that because of a section in the law -- the coastal plain was specifically set aside in 1980 for further study of its oil and gas potential. so you had a decision that was made back in 1980 where you had more than 100 million acres in alaska that were turned into federal law. but it was recognized that this area this 1.7 million acres was unique because of its resource potential. it was identified in law as such. and it said, we're going to reserve this. we're going to study it.

for its oil and gas potential. and then in the 1980's, the ronald reagan did just that. they study did it and recommended that it be opened to responsible energy development. and ever since then, mr. president, we have been seeking per inseeking mehrseeking permission to open up just 2,000 acres on the coastal plane for that very purpose for oil and gas exploration. so what we're -- we're not talking about opening up the full coastal plain. we're not talking about touching any of the area that was designated as wilderness in 1980. we're talking about 2,000 acres in a 1.7 million-acre area that has been set aside specifically for this. so when you think about what that means 2,000 acres is .1%

of the entire 1002 area. it is .01% of anwr. when you put it into context 99.9% of anwr would remain untouched if all we were seeking to do was to access the 2,000 acres. but we also know that if we were able to access this small area within the coastal plain that we can gain access to an estimated 10.3 billion barrels of oil -- 10.3 billion barrels of oil. if we produce oil at that rate of 1 million barrels a day it'll last almost 30 years. mr. president, right now we've got an oil pipeline in alaska, the trans-alaska oil pipeline, 800 miles from the north slope

down to valdez. been doing a fine job providing resource to the country in an environmentally sound and safe manner. it's an engineering miracle. it is fabulous. what it lacks right now is more oil in the pipe. we're less than half full. so the state of alaska is being aggressive in looking for how we might not only fill up that pipe to help alaska and to help the country and to bring about jobs and to bring about revenues but how we can do so in a responsible manner. we think that we've got some pretty high standards in alaska, and we need to. this is extreme environment. it's tough working there right now, let me tell you. and they don't shut down because it's cold. in fact, this is the only time of year that you can explore out

there because the environmental safeguards are such that you can't take exploration rigs out on the tundra in the summer where it might leave a mark. no we wait until it's the coldest, the darkest the ground is frozen as far as it possibly can. so this is -- this is the time of year that we are hoping to be able to do more. but what this president is doing is not only saying, nope -- no to that 2,000 acres that you're seeking to access that would be bringing you a million barrels a day potentially for 30 years and allowing for jobs and a resource. no not -- not -- not to that 2,000 acres. he's saying no forever. not only no to oil and gas development, but no to anything else. no roads no airstrip, no

nothing -- no motorized anything when it comes to a wilderness area. now, the president is saying that you know, the congress has to make this decision -- and in fairness that is true. it is only the congress that can make that decision to convert the coastal plain to permanent wilderness. but the reality is, folks he's made this decision here. and he's made it without us, because what happens under this comprehensive conversation plan -- this c.c.p. -- this area is now immediately treated as wilderness with or without our approval. so that designation may not be there, but how is it being treated? it's being treated as wilderness. now, i would assert, mr. president, that this is in

clear violation of the "no more wilderness clause," the no more clause in anilca. now, it's -- it is so -- it is so frustrating, it is so infuriating to think that we would have -- we would have acknowledged that some 30 years ago, when anilca was passed, that that recognition when so much of the state of alaska was put off limits to any form of development, to place it in wilderness status and to have the federal government agree that we'd done our part, that we'd contributed enough of our lands. now, mr. president you're from a state that has wide open

spaces. what do you do as a state if, if if you have so much of your state -- we've got 66% of the state of alaska that is federally held, and we all know that federal public lands -- there's different -- there's different aspects of access to it. b.l.m. lands means something. park service means something. refuge status means something. and wilderness status means something else toasmght else altogether. and so when we -- when we acknowledged -- and the federal government acknowledged -- that no more, no more in alaska, we kind of thought that that would be respected. we thought that that might be respected, but apparently this president is going to choose to ignore it. now, mr. president, you can tell

that this is an argument and a debate that i feel very strongly about, and i feel very strongly about it because i've been living with it my entire adult life for as long as i can remember we've been talking about how might it be possible to develop these extraordinary reserves and resources that we know are in the 1002 area. and there had been highs and there had been lows. back in 1995 when it was my father and ted stevens that were working this issue, they were able to get it successfully through the congress, only to have this vetoed by president cline continue. and then ten -- by president clinton. and then ten years ago we were one vote should i here in the senate. the house has passed anwr, i believe congressman young told me today it was on 12 separate

occasions. maybe this is just something that keeps coming back every ten years. but, mr. president this wasn't the worst part of the news that is i was dealing with this weekend. at the same time that i was given a heads-up that the administration was going to be releasing this c.c.p., this comprehensive conservation plan that will treat anwr as wilderness, i was told that we're going to see the announcement of the administration's five-year lease sale plan. and that -- that is substantial for us. as folks know, we've been trying to advance the leases that have been sold in the beaufort and

the chukchi for some period of time and it has been -- it has been a tortured process. as many people know. but what we are told is that with the lease sale that will be announced portions of the beaufort sea and the chukchi sea will be indefinitely withdrawn from the next five-year plan for the outer continental shelf which again is due to be released. and i think it's important to know we have had deferrals off of the coast in the beaufort and the chukchi but these are no longer going to be deferrals, these are going to be withdrawals which means not only will they not be included in this lease sale from 2017 to 2022 that they will stay in

place until such time, it's an indefinitely withdrawal, until such time as the next president, whoever he or she may be, should decide to change it. so it's different than a withdrawal and what it then says to us is okay, nope, we're going to lock up anwr permanently so the resources that may be available to you as much as a million barrels a day coming down through your pipeline to supply this country, nope, put that off limits and oh, the offshore that you want to try to advance, well, we're going to make it a little more difficult because we're going to take these areas and we're not going to include them in this five-year lease sale. in fact, we're going to indefinitely withdraw them. this -- this could have significant impact on our

ability to access the estimated 23 billion barrels of oil off of alaska's north slope. and, again, when we're talking about how we're going to fill up that pipeline, we've been -- we've been working towards those opportunities off shore. but there's a third gut punch to alaska that's coming, mr. president. a third. remember all these were supposed to be unveiled this week. what a week. first close off anwr permanently. second make the offshore that much more difficult. and third is in the area where all those who have said no to wilderness go over to the national petroleum reserve that's where you should be

accessing this oil. well okay. that's where folks are going. con o.c.o. phillips is trying to access some leases in the national petroleum reserve. these are leases that were a awarded in 1998, so more than a few years to be working through all of the issues here. and what we learned was that the terms and conditions of the mitigation that is going to be required by the department of interior to allow conoco to proceed with the alternative that would allow for a short -- short road to access the pad

that those mitigation costs and other requirements are going to be so much that the project will no longer be economic. so think about it. years in the process and the permitting and the cost that goes into it. years to get there. mr. president, i don't think most people know, do you realize how much oil is produced on federal lands in alaska? it's a real easy answer because it is a big fat zero. there is none. there's no oil that is produced on federal lands. and we've been trying to make it happen. and we've been going to the national petroleum reserve because we've been put off-limits with anwr, okay? it hasn't been made permanent wilderness but we haven't been able to access it because that,

too, takes permission from congress. so the whole area where our state has these resources these reserves, anwr to the east beaufort-chukchi offshore npra, what this administration is doing is saying this all-of-the-above strategy for an energy plan for america, we're starting to think in alaska that means everybody but alaska. mr. president, i just get -- i can't even articulate the anger, the frustration. and i tried to convey my

thoughts to the secretary i said i'm just not sure if this administration just doesn't care about alaska and its people at all or whether you even think of us. but i've come to the conclusion that they still view us as a territory, a place where you can come in and just do what you will because you're a territory. well we are not a territory mr. president. we are one of the 50 states. we are one of those stars on that flag. and last time i checked we had just as many rights as any other star on that flag. what is coming at my state and the arrogance with which this administration is treating us is unacceptable and it will not stand. and i'm not sure, everybody wants to know, what are you

going to do about it, what are you going to do about it? well i want to make sure people understand who we are that people understand that there are human beings who live in the 1002 area. you're going to take an area and declare it wilderness. people live there. children go to school there. and yes we actually have a polar bear watch to make sure that the kids don't leave their homes early in the morning to go to school when it's still dark and there might be a polar bear out there. okay things are different in alaska. but we still live there. we still want a quality of life for the people that is not unlike what we would have here. we don't want to have communities where we still have no sanitation facilities, where

people are hauling their human waste from the -- in a bucket in the corner of the house and dumping it in a lagoon. we don't want to be in that situation. but you know what, it just seems like we have to get permission to do anything. and that permission is routinely denied or if it's denied they delay it indefinitely so that it just adds to your cost. we pay for more our energy, we pay more to keep warm in the state of alaska than you do anywhere else. you might say of course, it's colder up there. but you know, back here it's going to be cold in new york, there's nobody in new york that's paying $10 a gallon for fuel like the people in kobuk

are paying. there's nobody in massachusetts who is going to get hit by this storm and is going to be cold who is paying $7.50 per fuel like the people in fort yukon are paying. we live there because we want to live in alaska. it is an amazing place. and we make a lot of sacrifices. but one of the sacrifices that we won't make, one of the things that we will not give up is to be treated like some second-class citizens, to be treated like a territory that has no rights, and so when we are full participants and we there are special places in alaska that should be wilderness and we signed off on that in 1980 well, then negotiate with us, talk to us about what happens next. but i made the statement and again, it's harsh words but

i've suggested that this administration is one that is willing to negotiate with iran but they're not willing to negotiate with alaskans. those days are over. those days are over. and we've got -- we have some issues to deal with in front of us right now mr. president as we -- as we move through the legislation in front of us. we've been focused on energy for a good couple weeks plus now. i'm glad of that, i'm glad that we're going to be able to work through a process where we can move through some of these amendments. but, mr. president know that the -- that the words that i have spoken tonight on the floor every are words that come from my heart as an alaskan. this is not about politics. this is not about me being able

to wield some muscle because i have the gavel in the interior appropriations committee. this is about alaska as a state and our rights as a state. this is about a compact that was made with the state of alaska, about how we would be able to use and access our lands how we would be able to care for the people who call alaska home. and so this is -- this is pure passion that drives my comments. and my comments will be echoed not only by the full alaska delegation as small as we are, but by our governor, by our legislature by our elected officials, by people who live

all around the state including the people who live in the coastal plain in anwr. this is -- this is serious mr. president. and alaskans are going to take this very, very seriously. and you'll be hearing a lot more from us. and with that i thank my colleagues for the indulgence of time and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: may i first inquire of the distinguished bill managers whether i may take a moment to seek to call up an amendment or whether they have pressing business they need to attend to on the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i was just going to give some comments about the process and where we are and respond to some of the comments that she's made. if the senator from rhode island

could wait a few minutes is that possible? mr. whitehouse: happily. ms. cantwell: thank you. ms. murkowski: point of inquiry. do i understand the senator from rhode island wishes to make his amendment pending or just speak to the amendment? mr. whitehouse: i simply wish to make my amendment pending and at an convenient time i would like to do that. there was a bit of an aura of good feeling on the floor when the distinguished chairman of the energy committee and the distinguished senator from north dakota were discussing an orderly approach for getting bills pending. since then we've heard a good deal about frustration and anger and a bad mood so i'm not sure maybe a little time to revert to that previous aura might not be in order but i'm only seeking to get my amendment pending. ms. murkowski: mr. president i

do know that the senator from washington and i were hoping to get a plan and a proposal for colleagues so that they would better understand how we might proceed tomorrow and because we haven't had that opportunity to do that as of yet i would like just the chance to consult with senator cantwell here. my concern is that if we start getting all these amendments pending right now before we've reached some kind of a path forward, it could complicate. mr. whitehouse: rather than face an objection to my unanimous consent request, i will defer it until the chairman and her ranking member have had a chance to go through that process and then i will come back at an appropriate and time and i yield the floor. ms. cantwell: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: we're here because we haven't ended debate on the keystone x.l. pipeline bill. our colleagues voted not to end debate on this important measure and i think for good reason. our colleagues on both sides of the aisle got to add amendments last to discuss they them and have a chance. last december basically an up-or-down vote was going to be given on a process so i'm glad my colleagues from michigan, who has had a major tar sands spill in their state and want to offer amendments on pipeline safety can do so. i want my colleagues to be able to offer amendments as it relates to security and safety, and particularly when it relates to safe drinking water and the issues of the pipeline. since this bill has been introduced two major pipeline spills have been discovered. so just within the time that we've been on this bill, three million gallons of spill from a

pipeline in north dakota that was discovered on january 6 the same day that we started this bill being introduced. and on friday north dakota officials discovered the contamination from the skill reached the missouri river. on january 17, 3,000 gallons of oil were spilled from a pipeline that broke in eastern montana. it temporarily shut down drinking water services for 6,000 people in glenn dive, montana. so you bet these issues are important to me and they're important to my colleagues, and i hope that we don't have to rush through the process of having a vote on these amendments. i think all my colleagues see the thursday night event where the discussion, let's get four or five pending amendments or six pending amendments and coming back one hour later to table them is not the kind of legislative process that we are used to here. and i hope that in the next

couple days my colleagues and i can work on these in a much more productive fashion and the list of amendments that members want to offer a timely way to debate them. hopefully my colleague and i could actually get some of these amendments work with our colleagues either get some of them accepted or work for a vote scheduled that will actually allow us to have a vote, have a debate juxtaposed to table. this senator is not saying any side does not have the right to that. i want them to know what the process is going to be and they have a right to discuss this. i want to enter a story about one of those pipeline spills, and it is about the feds issues warnings to the pipeline company in november about the concerns and concerns of those spills. so to me, this is an issue where we've had some debate about the pipeline and the pipeline, the

oil spill liability trust fund. i would hope we'd come back to that issue because these issues about spills and safety and security should be part of the debate. but i go back to the larger issue which is i hope that we turn down this legislation overall. to me, all of the issues that we're talking about whether it's about safe drinking water whether it's about oil spills and the requirements on these companies, whether it's about whether a foreign company can take you as property under eminent domain or whether it's about the route itself, all of these questions in my mind, are premature for us, the u.s. congress to decide. over 60% of the american people say they want this pipeline decided in a normal process and they want the state department, in this instance because it crosses a border, to be the entities that determines national interest. so i don't want to predetermine that when there are so many important issues to be negotiated.

the very company that wanted to negotiate with the state bept on this pipeline was negotiating to some of the original routing and yet at the same time the state department was telling them the original routing wouldn't work they were trying to persuade members to override the authority of the president and give that routing which we now know is flawed the okay. i don't want to be premature about this. i don't want to be premature about cutting off debate. i want to get these amendments before us and get this bill done with the input of my colleagues given that the debate was brought up to the floor. if you ask me what i want to debate, i would be debating some other legislation because i don't think this bill is going to be signed by the president of the united states. and i would be debating energy tax policy on clean energy items. i would be debating other things that i think would be more impacting to our energy strategy for their future, to our economy

and to job creation. and i think there's a lot of those out there. so i hope my colleague from alaska and i once this debate is over with will be able to sit down and talk about those issues and in a bipartisan fashion work with the committee. several years ago we had an energy bill that passed out of the energy committee on a bipartisan basis and was probably one of the most landmark pieces of legislation that unleashed a lot of investment. it unleashed investment in making sure that we had more, higher fuel efficiency cars in our country which was good for the consumer because they got a car that got them more mileage. it made investments in things like smart grid and other energy infrastructure and i hope that that's what we'll get back to. because when i look at what's happening and i know that my colleague from alaska just talked about some of these issues as it related to alaska, and i know that she means what she says when she says she's speaking from the heart and working hard for alaskans.

i visited alaska with her and my colleague then-senator from alaska mark begich, and visited many parts of alaska. and i understand alaskans want to have an economic opportunity. they want their energy to be cheaper. and i would say i'm empathetic to the issue because we have five refineries in the state of washington. we're the fifth-largest refining state in the nation. and all our oil comes from alaska. and so, i can tell you that people in the northwest are furious that even though we have those refineries -- so a lot of refining capacity, and the oil comes from alaska, we still have the highest gas prices in the nation constantly, so many times that we've asked for various investigations about why we have the highest gas prices in the nation and why this issue continues to plague us. so i know my colleague when she speaks about the arctic wildlife

refuge or ideas about more drilling that it is about getting more oil supply. but more oil supply from alaska hasn't helped washington consumers have cheaper gasoline prices. so i want to continue to diversify our economy off of fossil fuels and on to other things, and i hope that we will get a chance to work on an energy bill that does that. now if i could just address for a couple minutes the issue of the president's decision to move forward on a plan that would help preserve the arctic wildlife refuge as wilderness, and my colleague from alaska mentioned that this issue is something that has been going on for some time. she's right. the predecessors that she and i the former chair of the energy committee, scoop jackson and the former late senator ted stevens, everybody has been a

part of this. i actually was here in a pretty dramatic floor debate on this issue in 2005 in which some people wanted to open up the arctic wildlife refuge for drilling and even to the degree that they put that as a rider on the defense bill and we were able to stop that. i think that was the will of congress that they didn't want to see drilling in the arctic wildlife. but we've had this discussion since 1960 when dwight eisenhower set aside originally 9.5 million acres. and in 1980, thanks to the work of scoop jackson congress passed the refuge act which expanded it to 19 acres. i visited the refuge and i believe it is a critical habitat for wildlife and the gwich'in people that called this the sacred place where life begins, it is truly special. and i do think that we've had many discussions about this, and this action probably won't be the last of them. but i really do applaud the

president for taking the arctic refuge, which is habitat for 45 different species of land animals, 36 different species of fish 180 species of birds the greatest variety of plant and animal life of any park or refuge in the polar arctic. i really do believe it is an ecosystem and an ecosystem that is unlike anything that we have in the united states. so i'm proud that the president has taken what has been a refuge that was lacking a plan and has now put a wilderness plan in place where the elements of what it will take to preserve those various species and animals in that very special place. i know that my colleague feels very strongly about the president's announcement, and i think that a refuge plan that's based on science and public

comment. we've had a plan, but this is the first plan to really say that we're going to protect this area. it recommends 12 million acres of refuge including the coastal plain as wilderness. and it is, i think, one of the most pristine and unique public places. so i am confident that america can meet our energy needs without opening up the arctic wildlife refuge. i'm convinced that we can come up with an energy strategy that is much more compelling for the future of the united states, one in which we can lead and one in which we can help other countries, whether it's what the president did with china in getting an agreement or working with india or all the things that we are doing to try to be a leader in what is energy efficiency and ways to impact the marketplace so that consumers can look for cleaner more efficient uses of fuel.

so this is going to be a continued debate in this congress between a 19th century view of energy policy and a 21st century view of energy policy. and i would just ask my colleagues to think about these countries that the president just recently visited. he went to china. no one thinks that china's air is what we should have in the united states. india has had its own challenges. they have millions and millions and millions of people who are without energy needs. so the question is whether these sources of energy are going to be that solution, whether a dirty source of fossil fuel is going to be the solution or whether we can work together on cleaner energy solutions. and i think that we can do that. in fact, i'm excited that the united states can be a leader in these technologies and will result in more job growth, just as those previous energy bills did when we worked together for

higher fuel efficiency standards, for more energy efficiency to come up with more sources of diversified fuel and i'm very confident that we are going to in the next few years really usher in a new era of aviation. we've already proven that we can fly airplanes with a 50-50 drop in jet fuel. we now have to prove that we can manufacture those large sources and get planes flying on that. what a great accomplishment that will be in reducing carbon emissions and giving the flying public and those airlines something that is much more affordable than what we've been dealing with for the last 10 or 15 years. mr. president, i look forward to my colleague and i working tomorrow some tonight and a little bit starting early tomorrow on how we move forward with this legislation. i know that my colleague and i see a path forward and just like any two people who are

trying to manage a bill on the floor, we also know that we have all our colleagues to work with because nothing in the senate operates unless it operates through our process of working collaboratively or i should say it can work; it's just going to take a very long time. we pledge to work in the next few days to try to get an amendment process that won't be prematurely cut off after one hour of a pending bill but will come to terms and hopefully our colleagues will work with us to limit the number of those amendments and we can move forward on legislation and to move toward to subjects that we really think will help our economy grow. i thank the president. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president i know our colleague from delaware is wishing to speak but if i may just proceed to do

a closeout, and he'd be able to speak after that if that's acceptable. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 41 submitted early today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 41 congratulating the north dakota state university football team for winning the 2014 national collegiate athletic association division 1 football championship subdivision title. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. murkowski: mr. president i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the appointments at the desk appear

separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 11:00 a.m. tuesday january 27, that following the prayer and pledge the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and the senate resuñ -- senate resume consideration of s. 1. the time until 12:30 p.m. be equally divided with the democrats controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. i further ask that the senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president we continue to talk to colleagues on both sides of the aisle to set up a path towards passage of this bill that will include some amendment votes on pending amendments and others that are

waiting in the queue. we will look to set some of those votes tomorrow after lunch. so if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senator coons. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: mr. president i come to the floor this evening to speak about our ongoing debate about the keystone x.l. pipeline and the need for this debate to shift to a much larger conversation. tonight as we're continuing what has now been a week and a half of debate in our senate about this single foreign-owned pipeline, it is my hope that we will begin a larger, broader conversation about america's energy and climate needs. we have so far voted on amendments confirming that

climate change is real, on the future of natural gas and oil exports, on energy efficiency provisions and rules to ensure that we "buy american," and on funding for the land and water conservation fund and the oil spill fund. i, myself, have an amendment it's number 115 that i am hoping we will get a chance to take up and debate and pass one that recognizes that given that the senate has acknowledged the reality of climate change we must now move forward to take action to prepare to adapt to those changes changes that have already begun. i come from the state of delaware, the lowest mean elevation state in america where our governor has led a community-driven process of preparing for adapting to the coming impacts on our infrastructure, our public and private, state and local federal infrastructure in delaware. and we have to recognize that our federal government will have financial liabilityies to help state and local and tribal governments prepare for the impacts of climate change on

their infrastructure and to prepare for the impacts of climate change on our federal infrastructure. my amendment i hope will be taken up and debated and passed but the larger point i want to make is that this is just the beginning of the much larger debate we need to have about our nation's energy and climate future. energy has long been and will remain central to a strong, diverse and vibrant economy for our nation. throughout our history americans have benefited greatly from abundant sources of energy here at home. from coal to oil to natural gas, we've been blessed by natural resources that have powered our economy. but new challenges now today require new approaches. and as human generated greenhouse gas pollution wreaks havoc on our global climate, we need toly co- together to create -- to come together to create a cleaner and lower carbon energy future. mr. president, there is no single pathway to stop climate change or to deal with it but there are a number of approaches we need to look at and that i hope we will consider taking.

tonight i wanted to briefly mention four different areas where there were bipartisan bills in the last congress areas where i hope in the spirit of comity and debate here we could reconsider them and make them part of this broader energy and climate debate. first we could start by establishing and implementing a national quadrennial energy review which would ensure that every administration current and future, takes a hard look at our nation's energy landscape the challenges that we face and to build a blueprint for how we will deal with these challenges and overcome them. today we already conduct these kinds of quadrennial reviews for the pentagon, for the state department for the department of homeland security. they allow us to take a big-picture and strategic look at our policies and our challenges and to chart a predictable longer-term path forward. it's time we did the same for our country's energy challenges. this administration is already at work doing this. but congress needs to act to ensure that future administrations will continue this practice.

second we can invest in clean and renewable energy and in energy efficiency technologies so we can outinnovate the rest of the world and lay the groundwork for job creation, not just for today but through tomorrow. we can do this through sustained annual program funding and through smart and innovative financing models that lower the cost of clean energy, like expanded master limited partnerships. third, we can improve the way that our national labs collaborate with the private sector so that the innovation pipeline that takes ideas from the lab to the market is smooth and efficient and predictable so that today's discoveries are tomorrow's world-changing products. and, fourth, we can improve stem education and skills training throughout america so that every day we are training tomorrow's future energy innovators. we can do these things. we need to do these things. and i'll admit this. it at times can seem quite dauntly. but in this country, we should have no doubt that if we focus

our greatest minds on these challenges, there is no limit to what we can achieve. the bottom line to all this, mr. president, is that we don't have a choice. pretending otherwise is an exercise in denial. we need to curb emissions from transportation. we need to reduce pollution from power plants. we need to better finance clean energy solutions. we need to strengthen our infrastructure so we're more resilient in the face of coming climate changes. we need to address the real challenges of water and energy demand. we need to improve our regulations so that we do more to protect and conserve our land land. and we need to invest in research development and demonstration of new and innovative technologies. overall, we can and should institute smart and market-based regional and national policies that will lower carbon pollution and send businesses and households the signal that the future is in cleaner not in dirtier, energy technologies. we need to do all this and bring the rest of the world along as well because our national energy and climate challenges

are not just ours, they're the worlds and we need to come together around the world to get this done. the administration's clean power plan rules and the recently announced accord with china are all great initial steps in this direction. it is my hope that as we continue this debate we will come together in the senate to show that we're willing to rise to these challenges as a nation as well. mr. president, for me all of this ultimately comes down to our obligations. yes, of course, to our nation to our constituents, to our home states but particularly as parents, to our children and to future generations. every day when i get to come home from the train station after taking what is often a late evening train from washington to delaware, and i get to see my family, it is my children who leave me most concerned about the question of whether i will be leaving them a safer and healthier than the world that we received. my daughter maggie in particular is passionate about the

environment and is concerned about whether what we do here is not just helping to create jobs today although that is an important issue for us to turn to but whether we're helping to preserve our world for tomorrow. maggie helps keep me focused not just on this quarter or this month or this election or this term but on the next 50 years and on whether what we do here leaves to our children and their children a cleaner and a better and a brighter future. that's what our focus should be be -- on the future. on what we're doing not just for today but for tomorrow and all the days after that. i hope that after this debate about this one pipeline is over we will refocus our energies on the bigger picture and on the great and big challenges that we face together. that's what we get elected to do and that's what our time demands. mr. president, i'd like to speak for a few minutes about our nation's economic relationships with africa.

and one area of concern i have as we work towards further strengthening our ties. since its passage under president clinton the african growth and opportunity act known as agoa, has been a powerful tool for increasing trade and boosting economies across the african continent. and no country has taken greater advantage of the opportunities provided through ogoa than south africa. over the past four years as the chairman of the african affairs subcommittee of foreign relations, i've worked closely with african leaders and know the importance of agoa to their economies and to their growing middle classes. just last week i met with a group of african trade ministers who emphasized to me how important prompt reauthorization of agoa is to them, to their nations and to tens of thousands of men and women who work in reliance upon agoa. agoa is not a partisan issue. i've worked closely with my republican colleague and friend from georgia senator isakson on its reauthorization. but as i've also long believed

trade must be fair and with increased trade comes a responsibility by both parties to play by the same set of rules. so i'm concerned mr. president because i fear that south africa's refusal to drop its antidumping duties that prevent american poultry from having free and fair access to the south african market will have negative repercussions for our relationship and for south africa's economy. much of the time nations will use antidumping duties to prevent other countries from exporting artificially cheap goods into their economies putting their home businesses at an unfair disadvantage. but what south africa has done for years in this area lacks any merit. they're using the same justification that china has used to ban american poultry imports. they claim that our poultry is being sold below market value. not only is this false. the world trade organization recently deemed china's nearly identical ban to be illegal. american companies want the chance to sell healthy affordable and safe poultry to

south africa and at a fair market value. so during the african leader summit last august which brought the heads of state of more than 50 african nations here to washington, here to our capital i had the opportunity to meet with president zumo of south africa as well as south african senior officials. during our meeting we discussed their country's policies towards our country, the importance of renewing agoa, and also my concerns about their unfair practices with regard to our poultry industry. and i was apt mystic that -- optimistic that following our constructive conversations we could work together with them and with south africa's poultry industry to get rid of this long overdue inappropriate trade barrier. in september, we also had constructive meetings where our ambassador and their ambassador was present and leaders of both poultry sectors began constructive conversations. but soon thereafter, their willingness to engage abruptly stopped. they have apparently thought they can continue to benefit from agoa and shirk their most basic trade responsibilities.

in my home state of delaware, the poultry industry supports more than 13,000 jobs and has long been the backbone of our agriculture sector. and i've made clear to our friends and partners in south africa that although i deeply believe in their nation's promise and future my first responsibility is and always will be to my home state and my constituents. and across the country in georgia, senator size i can isakson's state is the singest largest single largest producer of poultry. and it contributes more than $470 billion to our nation's economy. so i want to be clear about this tonight, as i have been before. i support agoa's reauthorization and i hope that we can negotiate a fair path forward. but south africa cannot expect to continue to reap the benefits of increased trade without following fair trade rules. they can't expect us to open up our markets wide to duty-free and quota-free access for south

african goods if they will not fairly open theirs. if they insist on maintaining their long-standing and illegal antidumping duties on american poultry, i will do everything in my power to ensure they do not continue to benefit from agoa. the choice is theirs. senator isakson and i -- senator isakson of georgia and i communicated this concern to president zuma back in december in writing and this week we will write to the senate finance committee with the same message. we only have a short period of time where we can get a long-term extension of agoa done, and i will work hard to reauthorize and improve agoa so its benefits are even more widely felt on the continent of africa. but i won't allow it to include countries that violent violate fair trade rules which means an important ally and partner of the united states, south africa, won't be included if they're not willing to play by the rules. there are too many jobs at stake stake, too much work to do to allow a critical trading partner

like south africa to continue its unfair treatment of american industry. mr. president, i hope and pray that we can still resolve this needless impasse. but if we don't my commitment and my path forward is clear. with that, mr. president i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 11:00 a.m. tomorrow.

>> >> senator murkowski serves as the energy committee chaired joined by dan sullivan and alaskan congressman don young.

this is 40 minutes. >> usually we don't get this on the alaska the specific issue but as you have learned to from the media accounts from sunday and this morning that this administration effectively declared war on alaska's. those are some pretty tough words but what we saw on sunday with the announcement that this administration will move to a permanent wilderness status for anwr and what this administration is poris to do the balance of this week with the secretary of the interior and her deputy it is no one, two, three kick to the

gut of velazquez the economy. and we have said as a delegation will not stand it or tolerate it and do everything that we can to push back against an administration that has taken a look at alaska to decide it is a nice little snow globes and we will keep it that way. that is not what you do to any state. our governor had a conversation with the secretary this weekend and reminded her in his state of the budget address this week looking at some pretty serious deficiencies in our budget right now 3.$5 billion pull and this is how the administration will work with us?

take all of what is left in at anwr to make all off-limits now forever. period. to then further restrict our opportunities by taking areas that previously had been subject to a deferral and now withdrawing them completely. the further kick in the area that they said all along don't go to anwr. it is to special go over here to the national petroleum reserve. private operators say we're ready to go but the need of rhode. the eight mile road. where does this sound familiar?

we could get one before and we cannot get one here as it npra either. the mitigation cost the scheduled risks the uncertainty coming from this administration you have an operator wonders if they can move forward with npra. so within one week we will go ahead to block off anwr permanently employed areas offshore that would allow velazquez to fill up the trans alaska pipeline and by the way we will push sold any added cost of separation facility that will cost $28 million except you cannot access to resources because we will put them off limits to you. we will make it so hard and expensive that no operator will want to do that. is this how you treat a

state? i made a comment this weekend that got attention and i will repeat. this administration will negotiate with iran but not alaska? there will take an approach and we do think we are pretty special all. we have amazing people up there. what about respect? when will we hear that from this administration? when we say this is a frontal attack with the ability to develop resources from the good of alaskans and the good of the country country, our oil comes to you guys down here. but if that pipe is empty

what will that do? so we have a battle in front of us. so working with our governor and legislature they will raise the awareness of this issue beyond where it is today that is very emotional when it comes to anwr. the site is on and we're not backing down. >> good afternoon. thank you senator murkowski and i would agree. ironically for be the first time i heard about this

consultation with the administration this weekend. with a three-quarters reserve officer so the idea that we are ready we still haven't heard from anyone in the administration of the plan or what they attend -- intend to do. that is the key thing and talk about consultation will get the law as alaska is very familiar with over 100 provisions the secretary shall consult with a group in alaska and it is not happening. we are viewed as another stakeholder. we are not just another stakeholder but the senator for biological diversity and other groups have guaranteed them much more "in-depth" a brief from this administration from the

governor of the state and the alaskan native people has to stop it is classic president obama tactics. though a chance to pass the congress and in the meantime take dubious action through executive orders that you know, congress will do. we have seen that before with immigration and npra they took half of that, of part of alaska the national petroleum reserve of alaska said aside by congress into a path of that off the table now the anwr. no dispute as an avid congressional authorization to designated a wilderness and will not happen with congress so they will move forward with the executive order to do it anyway. let me say one thing about the timing. who knows why they did it when they did but you might

want to pay attention to as the press there was a legal case in the state of alaska to the obama administration with oral arguments in federal court last week on what we put forth as a comprehensive management plan. to explore anwr with the administration put forward there's we said we have ideas and went to work with you. here are some ideas they ignored us. we showed them the plane and in rethink the secretary of interior has to improve -- approve this plan in she said no it would allow for responsible exploration in the coastal area and we think we have a strong case has a state if we win this case that will really finish the debate because it will show for the first time we

have the ability with the response for exploration. i think many people here view another debate over anwr maybe you think it is stale and have heard it before it is critically important to our state of course, but the debate has not kept up with the technology. it is time to change the terms of the debate not only what they're doing but we have the ability to look at the coastal area to figure out what it is in it without any impact. o. o. why would the federal government want to do that? is managing these lands for the american people supposedly why wouldn't they want to know what is there?

they want to keep their head in the tundra and not know anything but we want to understand what is there in the foreword. it is critical but only to alaska but as senator murkowski said critical to the national security of our country the president gave a "state of the union" painted a picture of the world that i think most people thought was rather inaccurate or divisional in terms of national security challenges we have facing the united states. whether iran or isis. we will figure out what the american people are focused on with their broad based strategy to keep citizens safe and whatever the strategy will look like the past have the element of the united states as an energy superpower once again. but yet these decisions by the administration clearly undermine the ability in

terms of broader national security going forward. very disappointed and as senator murkowski centcom we will fight this. thank you. >> what gene this battle over the years passing the senate than the president would veto it is much ado about nothing. king george obama really believes he does not have to knowledge the laws or pacify he ignores us and the lectures of legislative body. i am sticking. disgusting for the nation and for the people this is an attack upon the states

upon previous lot and upon the nation he has never even been there. i think the last time i heard is $500 billion. then i want to save this pristine area. we have more animals than we ever have before. the idea that man and wildlife cannot be compatible is stupid. what he has done here that has to be fast white congress we don't have that much authority i just want to hug these guys. it is no money for the interior department. against the nation or the

state of alaska. with the secretary of interior what has occurred here is wrong here for everyone. no consultation or understanding. 96,000 acres of land with the social and economic well-being. this person is out of line for the state of alaska we will fight this battle i will pray and to god help us if we have another progressive president we will lead to this is the right thing to do under the constitution and the states of alaska that we passed under skipjack shin and ted stevens.

but to say i.m. king george obama. thank you. >> can you talk about your reaction with the anwr decision how much has that affected that relationship? >> i wish i could tell you that she contacted the but she didn't. i had to call her. in fairness she left a voicemail and said i have asked my chief of staff to visit with you this afternoon because we will be announcing three alaska related initiatives next week and wanted to give you a heads up. so tommy came to my office late friday afternoon and walked me through and i have to tell you my reaction to him was this a role understandably so.

but the administration intends to lay out the sale that will take traditional offshore areas to put them into withdrawal status and then the triple gut punch is the discussion of what we call the development area of the national petroleum reserve that we're trying to develop to outline the requirements for cominco to retrieve hands as well as additional requirements and the stunning arrogance that they make money so what is $40 billion of mitigation cost? at some point in time you

have producers that are not developing tests so if you have stipulations that our no longer economic they weigh all this but those were three pretty consequence to all and substantial issues to impact alaska over the next week not over the next years of this administration that we will kill while you were down and then one more time for good measure. and my response is i don't know if you don't give representative about alaska or you don't think about us at all. so i called the secretary in new mexico talking about a renewable project that

apparently is a big deal in new mexico. but she was not planning on calling me. so i am not too happy. >> can you talk about legislation on this issue going forward? >> what i have made clear to the secretary and anyone else willing to listen and we will utilize every tool that we have so in terms of what they maybe you will see them play out but it isn't something as a delegation or as a state freewill accept

what the administration is proposing and what you are seeing here today is the delegation there is no daylight with the legislature. i spoke with the president of the state house yesterday and what they will do. and there are more tools now then there were nine intend to exercise that. >> you mentioned some areas are put in to withdraw all? what areas are those? >> this point in time we have not seen the actual map from interior. all i can tell you what i was told and they will now

be placed in a withdrawal status as well as additional areas that had not previously been deferred. we will see if the administration will enroll as is indicated to me. >> with people that have their these is already it is unwise for them and what they will do with my in the standing to circle that existing leaks and that is just stupid as far as i am concerned. >> not going into detail but

are they budgetary tools? >> lettuce -- legislative and mitigation. >> before i had this job i was the attorney general for the state of alaska. the state has spent coordinating with senator murkowski for a long time and there is a case right now, it is a big case to put forward a plan to say work with us. it is such a frustration for alaskans because of the consultation requirements to the other sovereign in the room. there is oral arguments on this case last week and the the key to the case is simple that the secretary of

interior is to approve that plan and if the federal judge says but this state of alaska will be a big deal because they can start looking at moving forward to see what is there as the government should be doing as opposed to just ignoring it that is one tool the states is already using. >> what does this say about the administration m broader policy and what else will it include for the east coast of the atlantic and how could though oil prices being economically driven in alaska and other parts of the country? >> this administration has said it endorses all of the above policy. i would suggest it is all

the above policy everywhere except alaska. why bother? is what they will say but moving forward with a the npra will demonstrate to work there is a plan to go forward with cost after cost after cost to say you are in oil company you can afford it. these are private companies that will not do anything if it is not economic. i think the simple message to the alaska that to develop our resources.

talking oil and gas but congressmen young has been around for a long time i was born and raised in the national forest it is not harvesting anything right now and not because of lack of resources but the policies that cut me off. we are shutting down. is one area where historically they have been able to access our resources where the amazing mineral resources should even be allowed to submit a plan and the epa has come in to say we will cut off. so it is of frontal attack of our stay. %jut that the president

never endorsed that but to have a quadruple roue me -- we made to say for getting a. locked it up. we are to special. but we are and our people are special. just like every american wants to be able to enjoy the land that we live at the same time educating or kids to afford energy cost we want to be the goods to words of the land. we had the highest environmental standards when it comes to our oil industry come up and take a look.

people don't want to because it is miserable cold right now. but this is where we live. so show some respect u.s. a question about low oil prices. >> the oil companies will drill because it is a long-term investment. we will consume fossil fuels now and i will be a like a lower price is. not what it does to the state of alaska but we should learn from that and expect that. they will drill in anwr and offshore the industry has had a surplus because of fracking and private land that is where most of it has come from.

but what happens when you increase the price is? that is something that i don't think any of you a few wonder about the economy you need to dollars a gallon nobody doesn't understand to keep that price lower. so it is a big project. is the of conduct of this person of the white house. we should be deeply concerned. this is not america to have a person ignore the constitution or the legislative body or the people of america.

>> guest:-- society controlled by the progressive government? so this is about a ignoring the people and ignoring the will of the people. . .

>> americans, if you like the fact that maybe in your neighborhood you are seeing prices below $2 a gallon and you like that then you should want to encourage those things that will bring about more domestic production. things like gaining resource from the national petroleum reserve. from offshore alaska where the potential for us is extraordinary as a nation. and within anwar. an opportunity to fill up alaska's pipeline that is sitting at less than half full right now. if you like the low prices then you should