through the process of being amended and bet passed this the house and the senate and get to his desk? the president should reconsider each and every one of these veto threats. the senate is moving forward. the white house is putting up roadblocks. that's not what the american people were asking for in november. the american people want us to work together, to get things done to make their lives better. it's about them. it's not about the people that sit in this body. it's about the american people, their quality of life, people living paycheck to paycheck, day to day what their lives are about. the republican congress and this senate continues to listen to the american people. the president of the united states continues to ignore them. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: mr. president thank you. we've had -- mr. moran: mr. moran: as this new session of congress begins on the importance of tax reform. our country is at a point in time in which we certainly are no longer competitively global, the economy now is one that works against us because of our tax code. and i think there is general consensus in the senate that reforming the tax code is one that is of significant importance something that must be done. i'm often asked when i'm back in kansas but here in washington, d.c. do you expect there to be broad-based tax reform and it's one that we keep guessing about the likelihood of that happening. and i think it's typical of elected officials politicians to always talk about the need

for comprehensive tax reform, we talk about lowering rates making the tax system more fair lest bureaucratic, less paperwork and i certainly join in those sentiments and believe that the current circumstance we have in regard to our tax code is such that it limits the freedom of americans american business men and women individuals and their families, we make way too many decisions based upon the cons those -- consequences of those decisions, how they're affected by the tax code. so i'm all on board on tropical storm but i want to talk about what i believe is the best solution toward tax reform, and it's not tinkering with the current system. it's an overhaul of the current tax code. i have joined my colleague from georgia, senator perdue, in once again introducing the fair tax plan, and i started back a long time ago in congress knowing that we needed to make significant changes in our tax

code with the belief that most americans ought to be able to file a tax return without the need of professional help, that we ought to be able to make decisions that are in the best interest of ourselves our families our businesses without always going to the tax code to see what the consequences of those decisions were. and i looked at a variety of proposals that were being considered at the time, continue to be considered today and ultimately reached the conclusion that the fair tax is the best option for significant reform. and i want to talk just a moment this morning about why i think that's the case. as i said, senator perdue and i introduced senate bill 25, the fair tax act of 2015. i've been a cosponsor of that legislation, it was originally introduced in the senate by the former senator from georgia senator saxby chambliss and i am pleased to now take the -- succeed him in his efforts to

see that this topic not only is discussed in congress but ultimately that the fair tax becomes law. it is a significant step in the direction of individual freedom. i would highlight for my colleagues that -- and i've said this on the senate police officer before, the greatest responsibility we have as american citizens is to pass on to the next generation of americans the freedoms and liberties guaranteed by our constitution and the opportunity for every american to live the american dream. and to fair tax in my view brings both of those goals front and center. greater freedom protection of individual liberties is certainly a component of the fair tax and the opportunity for every american to pursue the american dream is a result that comes from the fair tax. it is that fair tax direction and in individual freedom that caught my attention. it's the concept that our founding fathers knew so well.

the fair tax repeals all federal -- -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. moran: i ask i ask unanimous consent for additional time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you very much. the fair tax repeals all federal corporate and individual taxes payroll taxes and state and gift taxes and replaces them with a revenue neutral personal consumption tax. the fair tax allows americans to keep the entirety of their income putting individuals in charge of their own finances, not the government or more specifically not the internal revenue service. all americans should be able to trust the i.r.s. which exercised great authority over the lives of americans in this country but we know from past experiences that expectation is no longer founded. and so getting rid of the internal revenue service is a significant benefit that comes

from the passage of the fair tax. i recognize that consumption taxes can be regressive, meaning they are harmful to those at lower income levels, and so the fair tax takes into account by providing a rebate, a prerebate for those who fall below certain poverty income levels so that the basics, the things that we by necessity need to buy in our individual daily lives are not covered by a tax. and therefore creating greater progressivity to what otherwise would be a more regressive tax and something that is still important in this country to make certain that we don't overtax those at the lowest income levels in the united states. certainly our current tax code has significant complexities with all the paperwork. by some estimates u.s. companies are currently holding over $20 trillion overseas with the passage of the fair tax foreign investment continues --

would thong no longer continue to sit on the sideline when it could be brought back to america to drive economic growth and create jobs. for international businesses looking to relocate to the united states, the fair tax would be a welcome sign. but the fair tax also benefits the consumer. it also benefits the everyday citizen as i said, because of the prerebate. so mr. president with my time being short i look forward to having the dialogue on the senate floor and in the committees over the next few months and i would ask that my colleagues seriously take a look at senate bill 25 and join the senator from georgia senator perdue and i and others in promotion of a program that reduces the complexity of the tax code and rids us of the internal revenue service protects the progressivity of our tax circumstance we find today, and most importantly allows us to continue to pure

sue the american dream and promotes our individual freedoms and i will. the fair tax is worthy of people's consideration. it ought to be more than a talking point. it deserves a debate, discussion a vote and consideration by the united states senate. mr. president, i yield back the remainder of my time and would notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you mr. president. i'm very pleased to be here today to speak to my colleagues about funding for the department of homeland security and to be followed by one of my most valued colleagues, senator menendez whose leadership on this issue has been extraordinarily important.

i'm also pleased to work with him on a letter that he sent yesterday to the president concerning iran sanctions where his statesmanship like path to a reasonable solution on this very complex and crucial issue will be enormously important to the future. the department of homeland security is one of the most significant departments in the united states government. it has a mandate that is as complex and crucial as any in keeping persons and -- american citizens and communities safe and secure in a dangerous complex, and threatening world. in my family growing up, we had a saying, don't cut off your

nose to spite your face. and, unfortunately that path is exactly what some of my colleagues are choosing to follow in threatening to stop funding for the department of homeland security. we're reminded of the importance of this department not only as terrorism raises its ugly head repeatedly abroad, but also as perhaps more benign threats exist at home. the most recent of them the snowstorm that hit the northeast just within the past couple days. because the department of homeland security is not only engaged in the fight against terrorism, not only in keeping america safe from threats abroad but a wide variety of other tasks that have to do with

attention's security. -- the nation's security. that's the key word in its title, "security." americans feel more deeply than ever before that their security is threatened, economic security by stagnating incomes foreign security as the world becomes more volatile, and unpredictable, and more threatening and domestic security as threats abroad metastasize within our own borders. many people equate the concept of security at home or homeland security with protection against extreme violent sects from abroad violent extremism spawned from abroad and, in fact stopping those threats

finding the wrongdoers and stopping them is one of the major tasks that the department of homeland security has. but it has a myriad of additional responsibility that include aiding the victims of natural disasters and extreme weather, citizenship and immigration routinely handling matters that involve legitimate applications for visas or entry into the united states and it fights the scourge of human trafficking. i'm privileged to head the caucus on human trafficking with my colleague rob portman. so i know that it performs a variety, a diverse collection of responsibility that are crucial to security. in fact, the department of

homeland security's responsibilities are comprehensive. so much so that it is simply unacceptable to play politics with its crucial mission. it's irresponsible to hold its funding hostage in a dangerous game of fiscal chicken. and threaten daily activities that are vital to america's present and future security. and that's why we're here because some of my friends across the aisle believe that stopping the president from exercising discretion certain immigration issues affecting specific individuals in this country is worth hamstringing

and undercutting the entire department of homeland security and forcing an enormous amount of its vital work to grind to a halt. that's the game of chicken that we have here. the president is expected to relent if the department of homeland security is stopped from functioning but it's a game that has no place in this chamber or in this government. we can agree or disagree with the president and i disagree with the department of homeland security on certain of its policies. for example on detaining children which it has done routinely on a grandiose scale. i have included in the measure that passed the senate for immigration reform an amendment that would stop it from

detaining children, a practice that i consider shameful and unacceptable. and i have a long list of other changes that i'd like to see made in d.h.s. policies. but the way to effectuate those changes, in my view, is not to withhold funding to stop d.h.s.? d.h. -- d.h.s. in its tracks of providing security for the american people. it is to amend the laws, to persuade our colleagues to undertake the legislative process, and to appeal ultimately to the court of public opinion which can render a verdict far more powerful than the tactics involved here. chipping away at the president's authority by not only

undercutting but stopping one of his departments is reprehensible reprehensible. and so i urge my colleagues to cease this tactic. the president needs discretion. in fact, i know as a prosecutor as a former attorney general and as a one-time united states attorney for connecticut that discretion is essential, that there is no way that any authority can prosecute every crime. and so prosecutors need to select cases based on the severity of the offense and most important the danger to the public, because ultimately protecting the public is what security requires. and that's true as well of the department of homeland security. the president has exercised his discretion in a way that i find

laudable. the exigencies of the present immigration situation require the exercise of discretion. the president has done it in a way that is responsible and up holds his -- and upholds his duties as commander in chief. but even if i disagreed with the president on that exercise of discretion with respect to immigration, i would never use this tactic of withholding funding for an entire department department affecting all of its activities and implicating and undercutting security in so dangerous a way. so my hope is that we will debate immigration policy that we will approve an immigration

reform bill that it will be on a bipartisan basis just as it was during the last session. that there will be a lot of good-faith disagreement on the floor of this chamber about those policies and about the president's action. but that we will keep the lights on at the department of homeland security that we will shine the light on threats to our security that need to be exposed and pursued that we will further the security of this nation and protect the public by making sure that the d.h.s. funding as a clean bill is approved right away and that we move forward to make sure that d.h.s. continues its vital service to the american people. mr. president, i yield the floor

and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. reed: mr. president i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, as we approach the end of, i think of the votes on the legislation on the keystone pipeline -- i understand we're having a series of votes later tonight -- i know that what is likely to be next up is the question of the department of homeland security funding and i hope that we can come collectively together to fund the department of homeland security, the department that keeps us safe in an unsafe

world, the department that we created after september 11th to bring disparate government agencies all charged with keeping our cities, our ports our airports, our railways, highways bridges and neighborhoods safe from the threat of global terrorism. and i particularly understand that as a member of this body who represents according to the f.b.i., the most dangerous two miles in america the chemical coastway airport seaport along the hudson waterfront. this is a department that funds emergency management in our communities. it protects the president. it's engaged in all domestic counterterrorism efforts. but what are we doing instead? we're being asked as one of the new republican majority's first acts of this congress to shut down the department of homeland security.

why? because some of our friends on the other side are willing to take a gamble and put politics ahead of national security, a thinly veiled political stunt in response to the lawful actions of the president of the united states to do something to fix our broken immigration system. their message is pretty simple -- repeal the president's lawful executive actions on immigration or shut down the department of homeland security. now, make no mistake, that is the textbook definition of pure politics not caring what its impact might be, not caring who it might hurt, not caring about the families who it will tear apart and the fact that it will put our nation's security at risk. now, i have been in this chamber and in the other for over 20 years and i don't think i have ever seen such a cavalier

political recklessness played with our national security. why? to prevent the president from taking lawful action to help dreamers and immigrant families to come out of the shadows after they pass a criminal background check register with the government and get right with the law in exchange for being allowed to temporarily stay in the country and obtain a work permit. the bottom line is clear. republicans are doing all of this just to prevent a clean department homeland security funding bill from being sent to the president a critical funding bill that the president has rightfully promised to veto should it clear their antiimmigration amendments, a veto which congress will not override. it's a fool's political errand that is neither good policy nor particularly humane. our friends on the other side

have accepted these antiimmigrant poison pill amendments knowing full well they will sink the department of homeland security funding bill because they've allowed extremists like steve king to dictate the party's strategy on immigration. mr. president, let's not continuously go down that dark path of partisanship instead of funding national security programs to keep our families and our communities safe. in my view, it is shamefully and woefully irresponsible for republicans to hold up funding for operations that protect every american against terrorism in the wake of what happened in france and against cyber attacks at a time when north korea has just carried out a dramatic attack against a major american corporation. this is not a time to hold up funding to help the department of homeland security investigate cyber crime that would cripple

america's electronic infrastructure or whether the world is a tinderbox of jihadists and would-be homegrown terrorists willing to die for a perceived perversion of islam. if republican colleagues want to seriously consider this ill-conceived approach they will be forcing a shutdown of the department of homeland security a shutdown of our national security infrastructure to pursue their agenda of mass deportations that will tear families apart an agenda that embraces a system that doesn't distinguish between deporting a working mother with united states citizen children and a convicted felon. instead, i urge my friends on the other side to join us and pass a balanced and comprehensive bill. let's talk, let's sit down again and find common ground, as we did in the last congress where this senate came together on a

bipartisan basis with over 67 votes to send a bill to the house of representatives that dealt with our broken immigration system, provided for our national security, promoted our national economy and at the same time made sure that our legacy and history as a nation of immigrants was preserved. that is the answer, not holding up national security funding at a critical time, not turning our backs on the hardworking men and women at the department of homeland security in law enforcement, protecting our borders, our airports and our coastlines. not trying to score political points by conflating national security and immigration reform that will only make it harder to address security issues at home and almost impossible to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform. now, let's look at what my republican colleagues are so opposed to. they're opposed to new d.h.s.

directives that include a rigorous application process that will ironically help eliminate national security threats. they seem to be opposed to the fact that applicants will have to come forward and register with the government. they will have to pass criminal background checks before they can receive a temporary reprieve from deportation and a work permit. no violent criminals gang members or terrorists will be able to take advantage of the program. they seem to be opposed to allowing immigrants who are not a public safety or national security threat to come forward and request deferred action. meaning that there will be fewer people living in the shadows beyond the reach of law enforcement. these directives identify moms and dads who have a u.s. citizen or legal permanent resident son or daughter and take them out of

the deportation queue. they also take dreamers out of the deportation queue. the house amendments to the department of homeland security funding bill would effectively end the new deferred action for parental accountability program and the expanded daca program for dreamers. they would also defund every other aspect of the president's november 20 executive actions that would promote border security public safety, military service legal immigration, citizenship immigration integration entrepreneurship civil immigration enforcement priorities including the prioritization of individuals with convicted felonies and gang activity and terrorist ties for deportation. let me repeat that. it includes a prioritization. i would think that the senate would want to support a prioritization of individuals

who are here illegally and are convicted felons and part of gang activities or terrorist ties for deportation. and any future civil actions. the only part our republican colleagues found acceptable -- which is interesting. it's either my mind, you say none of it can happen by executive action, but it seems that the only thing that did happen by executive action that our colleagues found acceptable pertains to pay increases for immigration custom enforcement officers which i think they certainly deserve. these amendments will break apart more families and destroy communities by ensuring that we continue to deport the parents of u.s. citizen and lawful permanent resident children. one of the most mean-spirited amendments would prohibit the use of federal funds or resources to consider or adjudicate any new renewed or

previously denied application for deferred action for children let's call this amendment what it is. it's an amendment to deport dreamers and targets all those young people who came forward and signed up in good faith. let me give you an example of who these amendments attack. now, who are dreamers? remind my colleagues. dreamers are young people who came to this country through no choice of their own. the only flag that they have ever pledged allegiance to is that of the united states of america. the only national anthem they know is the star-spangled banner. their country is this country. now, i was fortunate to speak with people like the morales family two weeks ago in new jersey. a family of six including 13-year-old united states-born

rebecca morales whose lives have drastically improved thanks to the program republicans are hoping to dismantle. if the republicans are successful rebecca would be left alone in the united states without her parents or sisters an american citizen left alone perhaps in foster care because republicans don't care about prioritizing the deportation of convicted criminals over her mom, dad and sisters. the story of the morales family is a clear example of thousands of deep-rooted families who have waited too long in the shadows for immigration reform. three years ago after attending a deferred action for children workshop my office organized in new jersey, all three of rebecca's older sisters ingrid, evelyn and leslie, were given an opportunity to begin a new chapter of their lives after qualifying for the president's

2012 deferred action for childhood arrivals program. joining thousands of others who have been granted relief. today, look what these -- this family is doing. ingrid cares for new jerseyans' health at her job at the ocean medical center. evelyn moved to illinois to attend the west coast bible college and seminary. and leslie was able to enroll in the brookdale community college to pursue her dream of becoming a nurse. ingrid evelyn and leslie represent the hundreds of thousands of young individuals who because of the deferred action for childhood arrival can actively contribute to our economy without fear of losing everything they have worked to gain. romeo morales and mrs. magnacano morales did not qualify for deferrals under daca and continue to live with the constant fear of having their

family abruptly separated. but thanks to the deferred action for parents program recently announced by president obama, both parents will likely qualify to come out of the shadows, register with the government pass a background check and join their daughters in their pursuit of the american dream. unless, of course, the republicans get their way. we cannot let that happen. and i will do everything to ensure that we will not let that happen. these are the real faces of our broken immigration system. there are many families like the morales family who have been and remain an economic resource we can't afford to waste. hardworking families who simply want to be full participants in american life, full contributors to the american economy and they want to remain united as a family, and we should want them to remain united. i have listened to so many speeches here about questing of

family values. well the core of a family value is a family being able to stay together integrated and helping each other and driving each other to success and supporting each other. ripping families apart is not a family value. we must see through the smoke and mirrors and do what's right for america. let's stop playing political games. let's defeat these poison pill amendments and pass a clean department of homeland security funding bill. let's not play politics with national security. and let's remember the people behind the policies. let's remember the morales family and the fate of rebecca if we allow these amendments to pass. with that, mr. president i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president request that the proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. 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. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i am -- i'm ready to go this morning. got comfortable shoes on, ready for a good long day process a bunch of amendments, really see the senate doing its work.

and i know that we have important business before the senate i know that the judiciary committee is holding the hearing to listen to the comments from loretta lynch who has been nominated to be attorney general obviously very important issues that that committee is discussing today and interspersed with all of that we're going to be having a relatively long series of votes this afternoon which makes it a little bit choppy and a little bit chaotic but we've got business to do here in the united states senate, and i'm pleased that we are at this point where i think we can honestly say we're looking at a final stretch to this bipartisan 60-sponsor bill, to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline after more than 2,320 days of delay.

at this point we are past that last call for amendments on the bill. we've spent a lot of time over the past couple of days negotiating which of the roughly 200 first-degree amendments that have been filed would come up for votes. we've got a pretty good list. again, we have 18 of them that will be before us beginning this afternoon. and there will be more that we will be dealing with at a later point. but i do think that this is -- this is significant. i was reading the newspaper this morning, and, you know, there's no shortage of critics out there folks that would say that the senate is broken and just can't possibly be fixed. there was an article from an opinion writer that stated that -- with the midst of the

keystone debate, mcconnell has had to retreat on his promise to allow free-wheeling amendments. the article then goes on to state that yesterday not much of anything happened on the senate police officer where the pipeline debate had stalled. well, in fairness, mr. president, maybe the debate in terms of processing amendments on the floor had stalled out yesterday but that did not mean that there were not significant and serious negotiations going on between the majority and the minority about how we would proceed. sometimes when you tune in and the senate is in a quorum call, you think that nothing's happening. you think that the business of the senate is not being conducted. i need to assure not only colleagues but those who watch this process on c-span that, in

fact there is good business being done, was good business being done, and i think that is what has resulted in our opportunity this afternoon to take up some 18 different amendments. and there are amendments that are all across the board here. ten of the 18 pending amendments are from colleagues on the other side of the aisle so we're certainly being very, very generous i think in terms of what is out there. we're trying to ensure that members who want a vote can have them. but, again keep in mind with a couple hundred amendments that come forward you're going to have a lot of duplication you're going to have issues that really people might want to make a statement about but might not necessarily want to ask for a vote on. but those that we have in front

of us today, everything from issues relating to solar energy to l.n.g. exports, to further discussion about climate change wilderness, wind tax credits, land and water conservation fund, really all over the map. so when it's suggested that somehow or other senator mcconnell as the majority leader is moving back from his commitment to allow for an open amendment process so-called free-wheeling amendments, pretty tough to suggest that that is not in fact happening and that, in fact, it is a very open and considerable process. i made mention that last week

we -- we broke the records. we blew the top off in terms of process -- the number of amendments that we were actually able to process on the senate floor. we moved through 24 amendments on this bill within -- since the time we started it. 24 amendments is pretty considerable considering that in all of 2014 there were just 15 amendments considered the entire year. on thursday alone we processed 15. if we do 18, as is on the roster today that's pretty significant. that's pretty significant. and i feel good about the point that we are at. and it's not just because we're -- we're kind of churning through amendments. it's because of what the ranking member and i have been able to

do as the floor managers on this bill kind of working back and forth, and yes sometimes it's tedious, and sometimes it's frustrating and yes sometimes members wish that they had more time to talk or -- or there were just more hours in our day to process this. but at some point in time i think we have to recognize that when you spend three weeks on a bill that's pretty considerable. and when you're able to move 50 amendments close to 50 amendments is where we may be at the end of this legislation and processing it, that's pretty considerable. and so what i appreciate is that we are -- we are here this morning getting ready to kick off a long afternoon of votes and back and forth with members and disruption of their schedules and committee meetings and the inconvenience that that causes, but, again this is

part of what happens around here. it's not a very tightly scheduled environment because we just have so much that's going on. but being able to move forward on this important legislation i think is good, i think we are again, setting the stage for the balance of this congress under the leadership of the senator from kentucky, the majority leader a commitment to really have that wholesome debate to really have the opportunity for a process that is not only good for republicans, it's good for democrats, it's good for the senate. i want to mention just real quickly an amendment that i will have up later this afternoon. this is amendment number 166 and i spoke very briefly to it

yesterday when i called it up, but it would require wilderness study areas to be released if congress has not officially designated them as wilderness within one calendar year. right now what happens is that when a wilderness study area is designated it can sit out there on the books almost indefinitely. there have been areas that have been sitting out there without congressional action for a couple of decades. i don't think that this was -- this was the point of the process. but i would suggest that the amendment that i have advanced is a critical one to our western states, certainly to my state of alaska. again, the news on sunday of the president moving towards a

wilderness designation of all of anwr with the exception of a very small slice but all of anwr all the 19 million acres the administration to the 1002 area the 1.57 million acres that has been specifically designated by congress for further review and study. right now there are 528 wilderness study areas throughout alaska and the other 11 western states, and again these designations have been made by an administration, the next step up is that congress needs to act. but congress hasn't acted so you've had some of these that are actually pending since the 1980's. so again as i suggested yesterday, if you've had something pending for 20, 30 years, i think that's plenty of time to say that congress has had to review those areas. and even though we not have

turned these into wilderness -- in other words even though congress has not acted to designate these areas as wilderness, what happens to themam ? they are treated and managed as if they are wilderness. so effectively you have de facto wilderness. the law requires that it's only congress that determines whether or not there's additional wilderness. but what has happened is just kind of a lag, a lull, if you will so they don't even need the congressional designation if, in fact, it's already being managed as wilderness. so you look at -- you look at the intent behind this, it's clear that it was never intended to be this way. we were never supposed to have millions of acres of de facto agency-decided wilderness around

the western united states. we routinely pass public lands legislation into law. i'd like to know that we could do it a little more often but we do. we pass public lands legislation into law and when warranted it can and as recently as last month, actually has included new wilderness. so we're not saying that in other areas these wilderness study areas don't get officially designated. there is that process, and we demonstrated that just during the lame duck here. but in the instances where congress has decided not to act on wilderness study areas agencies need to start looking at what that broader option of options are for managing the land whether -- whatever that multiple use might be, but they

need to be looking at this critically with the local people in the area, with the other stakeholders that are involved in the planning process. but clearly they're not doing that on their own. so what my amendment would do is essentially provide a one-year time frame for wilderness designations to be made. i think again that's more than enough time for congress to consider, debate and approve legislation for any area with wide support for a wilderness designation. so we will see that amendment this afternoon. mr. president, i know that the senator from washington was on her way coming from a committee meeting this morning and had intended to talk. i see that senator udall is also here with us but i'm -- i'm pleased to yield time to him if he wishes to speak at this time before senator cantwell comes to the floor.

suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. peters: thank you mr. president. i rise today to discuss my amendment that was made pending yesterday by my friend and the ranking member of the energy and natural resources committee, the senator from washington, ms. cantwell. the amendment that i've offered amendment number 55, is a simple, commonsense amendment and it requires the environmental protection agency to complete a study on the potential environmental and health impact of by-products from tar sands oil that would be transported across our country by the keystone x.l. pipeline.

one of thighs these by-products of tar sands oil is petcoke. it is residual from this tar sands oil and large amounts of it is produced in the refining process. in fact, it is estimated basically for every barrel of oil that we get from tar sands one-third of the material is this dark substance called petcoke. if we are transporting an awful lot of oil through the keystone pipeline, is it naturally followed that we're going to get massive amounts of this petcoke. i've had previous with this petcoke in my in detroit where we had refining refined petcoke building up near a river. it was piled high and a city-block long. it was stored near the river in an uncontained fashion.

it was blowing into people's homes, it was blowing into businesses, it was also draining into the great lakes watershed. it caused all sorts of problems. i had complaints from constituents that talked about this substance going into their homes. i had businesses talking about for example restaurants in the area that their wait staff were getting respiratory problems as a result of breathing this in. and, in fact, we had a video to explain how problematic it can be i had a video taken by a canadian resident across the river, detroit river that showed the petcoke piles and with some wind blowing a massive a massive black dust cloud was blowing off of these petcoke piles. in the distance, you could see the ambassador bridge, which is the bridge that connects canada to the united states and the dust was so thick and so black it obscured the bridge as it was blowing through the neighborhoods, into the river and then into canada. it is a completely unacceptable situation which is why i believe

it is important as we move forward with this legislation that we have a couple studies. one, we need to understand what are those environmental and health risks associated with the petcoke. it's clear that this is particulate matter and if it's not contained it gets into people's lungs and creates a dust layer throughout a community. and it's very important as well in the study not only to understand the environmental and health impacts, but what are the best practices to handle this material. with the massive amount of tar sands oil that will come through the keystone, we will also get massive amounts of petcoke a substance that has been problematic not just in detroit but it's been problematic in the city of chicago and other places across the country. so i believe that it is very important that we get this kinds of information as -- as this project moves forward and it is certainly my hope that we can assure that what happened in detroit, what's happening in chicago and other places across this country doesn't happen that we understand what this substance is and we understand

what those best practices are to handle and to transport this material safely. so i would urge my colleagues to support amendment number 55.

a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. murkowski: mr. president request that proceedings your honor the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you mr. president. i'm glad that the junior senator from alaska is in the chair because i'm going to be discussing things that are of great concern to alaskans but really those who care about the rule of law here and how it

applies throughout all the 50 states fairly and evenly. as i mentioned just a little bit ago, i have introduced an amendment that would deal with how wilderness study areas are treated and my proposal is one that would put a time limitation on it. and i mentioned that the amendment was precipitated by the president's announcement this weekend about additional areas of wilderness to be designated in alaska. and i have cited two too the 1980's lands bill, anilca. i think it is good for us to have a little bit of a refresher on what anilca is. anilca designated nearly 60

million acres of wilderness in the state of alaska nearly 60 million acres in one fell swoop. pretty substantial. it was more than any other president had ever designated in any other time prior to that. but what we have seen since then with designation of wilderness has been -- there's been in fight going back and forth. ofthere have been areas that have been requested for wilderness study areas. but this administration has really taken it a major step forward. on sunday the president recommended that an additional 12.3 million acres within the arctic national wildlife refuge be designated as wilderness. so an additional 12.3 million acres on top of the 60 million

acres that we already have as wilderness in the -- in alaska after anilca. so what the president is doing here is, effectively creating creating again de facto wilderness in these 12.3 million acres that will immediately be managed as wilderness. and as i've mentioned right now there's no deadline for that. even if congress fails to act which i'm going to make darn certain that we do not act on this wilderness proposal that the president has advanced. but one way or another the president gets his way because it's being managed as wilderness. but let me just show colleagues what it means for us right now. the small map of alaska is up there in the corner. it's kind of unfair because it

immediates to be a much bigger -- because it needs to be a much bigger map to be in context. but effectively what the president is proem proposing proposing is that in addition to the 7.16 acres of wilderness that currently exist in the anwr area -- and the anwr area is a big refuge, a big designation. but about a little over 7 million acres have already been designated as wilderness. that was done back in 1980. what he's proposing now is effectively taking the whole balance of the refuge area and making wilderness out of that as well. so 12.3 million acres. and, keep in mind that this also

includes the 1002 area up on the north part -- this area right here -- which was specifically designated by congress for further study of its oil and gas potential. so back in 1980 when the wilderness designation was made for the one area, 7 million acres of it, it was determined that refuge status would be afforded the balance of the area and then the 1002 would be reserved reserved deliberately for study of its oil and gas potential. and that 1980 act was pretty clear in terms of the bargain that had taken place. and i'm going to read for the record the provision in the law that we refer to as the "no more" clause. it states, "this act provides

sufficient protection for the national interests in the scenic natural cultural, and environmental values on the public lands in alaska and, at the same time, provides adequate opportunity for satisfaction of the economic and social needs of the state of alaska and its people. accordingly, the designation and disposition of the public lands in alaska pursuant to this act are found to represent a proper balance between the reservation of national conservation system units and those public lands necessary and appropriate for more intensive use and disposition and thus -- and thus congress believes that the need for future legislation designating new conservation system units new national conservation areas or new national recreation areas has been obviateed thereby." the act further goes on to state that no further studies of federal lands in the state of

alaska for the single purpose of considering the establishment of a conservation system unit, national recreation area, national conservation area, or for related or similar purposes shall be conducted unless authorized by the congress. so, the president is basically choosing to ignore the law as set out in anilca the aagreement that alaska has -- the agreement that alaska has contributed mightily with its share of wilderness. i will remind my colleagues, more than one half of the wellness in the -- of the wilderness in the entire united states of america is in our state, the state of alaska. and, thus, we wrote the law back in 1980. it says no more out of eafnlg they-- nomore out of alaska. they found that balance.

well this president is tipping that balance. the coastal plain holds an estimated -- an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil. i mentioned yesterday that we can get -- we can tap into these resources. we could see one million barrels a day coming down our trans-alaska pipeline for nearly 30 years. think about what that would mean mr. president. one million barrels a day filling up that trans-alaska pipeline that is now less than half full. an additional million barrels a day coming into this country. right now americans are enjoying the lower prices of oil but the president said, don't get used to these low prices because you know they may go up. well they don't have to go up, if we can be providing more for the benefit if we can increase

production in this country, we can theoretically decrease that cost. but we've got to be allowed to access that. and, you know, you think about -- you think about the source of good-paying jobs. energy security, billions of dollars in new federal revenues. the energy security part of it is keenly important but think about the national security. the national security. when we're producing more in this country and relying less on others, we are less vulnerable. we have greater ability to deal with other nations. sanctions work better when we don't need to rely on that same oil that some of these nations would like to free up for other countries. so from a national security perspective, this is huge. and this is where -- this is where the intersect here with the keystone pipeline is so

interesting, that at the same time that this administration is fighting so hard to keep us from building this connect over the border between canada and the united states, to build the keystone x.l. pipeline, so that we can get that crude from our friend and neighbor to the north and utilize it to our benefit the president is saying, nope, don't want to do that. i guess he would much rather receive it from venezuela or whomever. he says he wants brazil to be our big trading partner when this comes to oil. hello? canada they share a border. they're our friend. they're our closest friend, our strongest trading partner. we're going to shut them off. by the way in that same week let's just go ahead and take off the table permanently the greatest reservoir that we have

here in the united states next to prudhoe bay. let's just take that off the table too. what does that say? what does that say to other countries, that we don't care about our own energy security? i care about our energy security. i care about our national security. so it's just -- again it stuns me to think that what we're -- what the president is proposing here is a measure that would take off limits permanently our ability as a nation to access the 1002 area, to safely develop this enormous potential. keep in mind, we're not talking about accessing the full 1.5 million acres in the 1002. the legislation that has been before this senate back in 1995 and back in -- excuse me.

1995 yes and 2005, asked to open up 2,000 acres. 2,000 acres out of 19.5 million acres in the whole refuge. so again mr. president you know that alaska cans can do this safely. we have met the highest environmental standards in the world. we do it every day. our pipeline, our amazing 800-mile pipeline has a decades' long record of responsible production. it's carried nearly 17 billion barrels of oil safely across our state over two mountain ranges, multiple rivers, in areas where we're known to have a few earthquakes. it's an engineering marvel. it has served our state and our country so well. but instead of recognizing this

unparalleled opportunity that we have we're now facing a mounting lockdown of our resource potential. and the worst part it is, and you know this, plbs, it's not just anwr we're talking about. our offshore. our offshore now is also going to be restricted. it was just yesterday just yesterday that the president announced that he was indefinitely withdrawing 9.8 million acres in the beaufort and the chukchi seas from leasing. you now have anwr going to be locked up. you've got beaufort and the chukchi and areas here. i don't have a map of the areas that have been taken off limits. but it's 9.8 million acres.

there's some real question that i have in my mind, after reading the interior's press release, i don't have any real comfort mr. president, that the two sales that are being proposed, one in the beaufort, one in the which you the -- one in the chukchi will stay on schedule. the secretary is quoted as saying it will continue in exploration in gas in the arctic not very firm, as i can see. when you look at it altogether between the anwr wilderness designation and arctic withdrawal alaska has lost more than 22 million acres of land and water where energy could be produced for the good of this country and it's happened in less than a week. it's happened over a span of three days. 22 million acres.

so what's 22 million acres? well got some smart guys that are looking at this. it's an area of about 563 times larger than where we are here in the district of columbia. it's about 28 rhode islands. and i know rhode island is a small state by comparison, but 28 of them, that adds up. it's about four and a half times the size of the state of massachusetts. this is just what was taken off limits indefinitely by this administration since sunday. now, my reaction to all of this has been pretty strong, and i think it's pretty obvious to anybody that would take a moment to think about it. but i'm really amazed that our president can look at alaska and think this is what we need most right now. we're facing a pretty significant budget shortfall and i know that our governor has spoken not only to the

president, but to the secretary about alaska's situation. and then this is what he gets as a, we'll work with you. i don't think so. this is not an indication of a federal government that wants to work with the state to develop its resources. the governor asked the secretary of interior for an address because he said he needed to send an invoice for the lack of any economy that alaska would be able to generate with these actions. the one thing -- the one thing more than anything else that could help our state is to be able to access our federal lands and our waters so that we can fill up that trans-alaska pipeline so we can help alaska and the rest of the country but that is one thing this president is intent on denying whether it

is in anwr, whether it is in our offshore or whether it is in our national petroleum reserve where this president basically unilaterally took off about half of that in terms of availability of access. now i noted that when the president made his announcement on sunday, there was a video that went out. it showed beautiful pictures of the refuge area. again, this is a big area. this whole refuge is about the size of the state of south carolina. it's big and there are some amazing spaces. i am the first one to admit it, amazing spaces, just as there are all over alaska. but i watched that video as he was flying in his airplane to go to india and i thought to myself the president hasn't been to alaska, even though he says that that's not on one of his -- he says he's only got

three states he has left to see and alaska is not included. i actually asked my staff to find out. by my count the president has been to alaska three times during his administration and he told me before he was president he had never been to alaska. so three times during his administration. all three times was basically to get fuel. and granted to give him credit, on one of those times he did meet with the troops at elmendorf, but he never went off the base. the other two times was in the middle of the night for as long as it took to get fuel. my mind, that's not visiting alaska. that's not trying to understand who we are. we've got some beautiful wide-open skies but when you're flying at 35,000, 40,000 feet looking down, that's not how you get a view of alaska. so outside of this short meet and greet outside of bargaining chip to gain support from

national constituencies, he's basically viewing alaska as a refueling stop, which is no shortage of irony here in the fact that, well, he's happy to refuel air force one in alaska; he doesn't seem to want the fuel produced in alaska. so again, you can see mr. president, i can get pretty frustrated and upset about this. and part of it is because so much of this came, this comes without consultation with us, without listening to the vast majority of alaskans as if we're nothing but a territory and the promises made to us at statehood mean nothing. mr. president, i was born in the territory. it was not that long ago that

alaskans knew what it meant to be kicked around by folks on the outside. we didn't really have a voice. we thought statehood was going to change that. we thought that statehood compact promises maine that alaska would be able to deliver to its citizens based on the am mading resource wealth we have. we thought that was going to count for something. apparently not enough. i was a little bit surprised to read that the white house counselor mr. podesta thinks that i have overreacted to these announcements, and to other i've been told may be coming, more to come. and he suggested that my reaction is not warranted. you know, i just -- i would ask any, any one of the 100 senators here the 99, think about how you would respond if your

federal government woke up its the citizens of your state to a message that we're going to take 19 million 12 million acres away from you and your potential to develop yourself. and then on tuesday we're going to take away 9.8 million acres. don't worry we're the federal government we're here to help. alaskans want to help themselves. we don't -- we want, we want to be able to exercise that independence that free spirit that so many of us in alaska identify with. we want to help our neighbors help our families. but this kind of help, mr. president, we don't need. don't lock us up. don't shut us out. now, i -- it was suggested in

mr. podesta's comments that somehow or other -- and i saw it in other press reports somehow or other the interior department felt compelled to move forward with the timing of these announcements because we were ratcheting up on anwr. they suggested that i had introduced a bill. i haven't introduced a bill. i do intend to introduce a bill. but to somehow suggest that -- and this was precipitated because the delegation is charging on anwr. i want to move forward on anwr, but it was somewhat interesting to read that. it did kind of make me wonder maybe the white house just isn't aware of how alaskans feel about this. and so in the few minutes that i want to take this morning, i want to read just a few of the quotes from our state leaders that have come out since these

decisions, particularly as they relate to anwr. we've got a new governor. he is an independent as i mentioned. he's already had the opportunity to meet with the president and talk about alaska's issues. he's met with the secretary. he had conversations. and governor walker says that he is angry very angry that this is happening. our state senate president kevin myers said that the impact of this decision if allowed to stand will harm the future of our great state and will deal a devastating blow to our economy. i spoke with our house speaker a gentleman by the name of mike chinault from the keynai peninsula, an area where they have oil and gas. they know about oil and gas. and the speaker said the president just doesn't get it. or he does get it and doesn't care about the will and voice of alaskans. that's beyond offensive. and in response to the

president's anwr announcement, speaker chinault had pretty choice words. he said alaska is not a territory anymore and it is high time our federal overlords stop trying to treat us like one. the arctic regional corporation these are shareholders, people who live on the north slope they issued a press release stating that we are staunchly opposed to this relentless and coort naid -- coordinated effort to designate the coastal plain as wilderness. this administration ignored the input provided by the most effective people within anwr. colleagues remember that when this president is suggesting that this area needs to be named or designated as wilderness, the 1002 area, people live there. people live there. children are being educated

there in school today. people work there. they fly in and out. they have a little grocery store store. they tried to make an honest living there. they subsist absolutely, but people live there. and the quote from the corporation where these shareholders live said, "this administration has deliberately ignored the input provided by the most affected people within anwr." i think mr. president the reason they've ignored it is they forget people actually live there. how could people live in a wilderness? democrat pick state represent ben nagyak of barrow who is a

nubiak. he is born and raised in barrow. he's got a great video out there. he wrote this, "president barack obama and his lieutenants at the interior department will permanently harm all our people and alaskans with his decision making. it is terrifying to see the extent by which our pleas for time and a fair airing of our views fall on deaf ears 5,000 miles away." that is a -- that is a state representative, born and raised in barrow, a nubiak, who is saying 5,000 miles from us, you guys are making decisions without listening to us, without listening to the people. our north slope mayor didn't mince words either. she said, "these types of paternalistic executive fee ats seem to be more appropriate for andrew jackson's administration than barack obama's."

pretty tough words. i'm starting to think my words were pretty mild based on what i read from the mayor of the north slope the democratic state representative from barrow. so the mayor mayor brower, has invited president obama and secretary jewell to visit the north slope and she's asked them to meet with the people who actually live there before proposing these types of sweeping land designations. and if the president and if the secretary actually accept that invitation, mayor brower concluded, she said, "they might learn that the inubiak people, who have lived on and cared for these lands for millennia have no interest in living like relics in a giant open-air museum. rather, they hope to have the same rights and privileges enjoyed by people across the

rest of the country." that seems like a pretty fair request to me. even "the new york times" interviewed a few alaskans who didn't hide their feelings. one woman who said that she had voted for the president twice said "he's just alienated an entire state." and she was one who described herself as being on the fence about anwr before the proposal but then she added "without talking with any of us, just doing it by fiat, that's not how you lead." i think she summed it up pretty well. what the president has done, the way he's done it it's unfair, it's uncalled for it's unwarranted. so for it to be suggested by the counselor from the white house that my response is somehow overreacting or unwarranted, i think they should start listening to all of the people

of alaska. you and i are sent here to represent them. and i think we're expressing pretty clearly where alaskans are coming from on this. this is wrong. it should not be tolerated and we will not just sit back while this administration locks up our state and the potential of our people. so we have a lot more that we will be discussing about this. again, i mentioned on monday that there was kind of a trifecta with what we see coming out of this administration. i'd been told by the secretary that we would see in the anwr designation and that we would then see the five-year lease sale that would take areas that had been in deferred status and -- and completely withdraw them for an indefinite period of

time and that there would be a third announcement coming relating to the national petroleum reserve the area where folks who said don't go to anwr go to npra, go to the national petroleum reserve. so the first company that tried to do so is trying to make it happen. and what this administration is doing with the mitigation costs that they're laying in front of them, i don't know, the company will determine whether it's going to be economic. but my fear is that that will be the third kick to alaska. so it's been a bad week a bad week for alaska. but you know what? we are not people that are deterred by bad news by bad weather. we have a way to roll with it. i was looking at the front page of the ""fairbanks daily

news-miner"" yesterday and they just had a little recap of what's going on with the weather. it's like 52 below in fort yukon and 51 below in fort greeley where we base our ground-based missile defense system. we're pretty proud of what we do. we can still provide for the defense and protection of this country and do it in some pretty cold weather. fairbanks, where i went to high school where your wife is from where you got married, i think it -- the weather this morning was about 37, 40 below zero. but, you know, kids are going to school, we're doing what we do up north. it's not easy but it's an amazing place. and the people there are pretty resilient. so we've been kicked this week but that doesn't mean we are down. it means we're just getting started. so with that, mr. president

i'll have more to say about the process in front of us this afternoon where we are with keystone but again i'm pleased that we've got a good series of votes to keep us busy this afternoon and i appreciate the -- the indulgence of colleagues as we go through a process that can be very disruptive as they're trying to meet with constituents and pursue committee business. but i think we recognize that we want to be on a path towards completion of this bill and thank them for their cooperation. and with that, i would yield the floor. and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

nor senator mr. president, i have 15 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mrs. fischer: i. mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: i have 15 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate they have the aapproval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: thank you mr. president. mr. president, last week my colleague, senator lankford, and i introduced the unfunded maintains information in transparency act a bill to enhance transparency about the true costs of burdensome federal regulations affecting our states and localities. 20 years ago the unfunded maintains reform act was signed into law to reduce the burden of federal maintains on state and local governments as well as the private sector.

the statute was intended to fix a simple problem while promoting informed decisions by this congress. but since its enactment in 1995 many remain concerned that the law has fallen short. in nebraska and all across america, our constituents continue to face a growing mountain of red tape that stifles economic growth and holds back progress on a number of fronts. in 2011 alone the government accountability office identified 14 different loopholes that would allow government agencies to avoid conducting the umra announcement. in other words red tape has survived and process expert. -- and prospered. federal mandates are both complex and vague, which is why i have introduced a new bill to

fix these shortcomings and increase accountability. this bill known as the unfunded mandates information in transparency act would address the umra's loopholes by requiring stricter requirements, enhangsing stakeholder input and strengthening enforcement mechanisms. furthermore, this bill has the power to get the job done. it would allow judges to place a stay on regulation or invalidate a rule if a federal agency fails to complete the required analysis. it would also close a glaring loophole used by agencies to skirt the requirements. last but not least my bill would expand the scope of reporting requirements to include regulations imposed by independent regulatory agencies such as the e.p.a. i know that many nebraskans are

deeply concerned about the effects of new e.p.a. requirements such as the proposed water rule. a rule i have forcefully fought since it was first proposed. nebraskans already go to great lengths to protect and preserve water resources within our state, but now the e.p.a. is going overboard with this new proposal. one that represents a massive federal power grab and clear disconnect with main street america. i share the belief of many nebraskans that the federal government should be held responsible for the rules that it puts into place. by clearly notifying taxpayers of the costs of each mandate which the bill i introduce would require, we can better hold the federal government accountable for the economic impact of its

costly regulations. i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this simple commonsense legislation to help bring later accountability and transparency to washington. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. hoeven: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: mr. president i'd like to again address the legislation that we're working on right now. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. hoeven: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: thank you mr. president. mr. president, again i return to the floor today to discuss the legislation under consideration. i want to begin by, as i did yesterday, again thanking both the senator from alaska on our

side of the aisle and the senator from washington on the other side of the aisle, who are the bill managers, the legislation managers in this case of the keystone x.l. pipeline approval legislation that i put forward with senator manchin. i would like to begin by thanking both of the managers for their diligence and for their bipartisanship and for working together to advance this legislation, but also to make sure that all the members of this body are getting a chance to bring their amendments forward, debate those amendments and have a vote. and this afternoon now we're scheduled for about 18 votes. and that's great. i mean, some of those amendments i support some i oppose. but we're going to do what this body is supposed to do, what the american people elected us to do and that's to have this discussion and then vote and work to advance energy policy for this country that can truly not only help create more

energy but jobs and economic growth and really address the national security implications of making our country energy secure. and by that i mean producing more energy than we consume and working with our closest friend and ally canada to do that so we don't have to depend on oil from opec and parts of the world where there's great instability and where our interests are not aligned with the interest of some of those countries. and also it enables us to actually weaken some of our opponents that are petro dependent, countries like iran, which is now trying to build a nuclear weapon. countries like russia right now which is invading its neighbor, ukraine, one of our allies and where we're trying to stop the adventures of president putin by truly becoming energy secure, by providing more supply of energy

we not only benefit every american at the pump, americans are saving billions of dollars when they pull up to the pump. that's not only good for american consumers but it's good for our small businesses. and energy is a foundational industry that strengthens every other industry sector. it makes us more competitive in the global economy across the board. as i say weaken some of our opponents. that's really the debate we're engaged in. and yesterday i started to respond to some of the critics who oppose this legislation on the basis that they're saying, well, this is a project for canada and not for the united states, and that's not true at all. this pipeline would move not only crude from canada to our refineries but it would also move crude from production in the united states. in my state of north dakota, which produces 1.2 million barrels of oil a day second

only to texas. montana. so it also moves domestic crude to our refineries as well. and furthermore it really is about making our nation energy secure working with canada to become energy secure so we don't have to depend on opec. that is very, very much a national security issue for this country, for this nation, and for all americans. the second thing i want to address is some of the environmental issues. i started to do that but deferred at that time because any time we can get people down here offering their amendments and making them pending that's what we want to do. and at that point we started getting people to come down, and the bill managers through their hard work, were able to get agreement and we now have 18 amendments pending on a precloture basis. so real progress getting everyone involved and hopefully building more bipartisan consensus and getting as i say on the energy debate the

american people want, but getting to a result where we can actually produce legislation that will help our nation. so i started to get into the second point that i wanted to discuss, which was some of the environmental aspects of the oil sands development and how technology how technology that is being deployed up there hundreds of millions of dollars invested private investment in new technologies that are not only producing more energy but doing it with a smaller environmental footprint and helping to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of oil that's produced in the oil sands. so there are two projects that i wanted to talk about to give an example of how that if we continue to work to empower this kind of investment in new technologies we get not only more energy, more cost effectively and more dependably but that we also get it with better environmental stewardship. so the first project that i want to talk about is a project that

is undertaken in the oil sands up in alberta canada, so going back to this earlier chart, you can see it in this area, in the hardisty area. this second chart is a picture of the project. it is one that's undertaken by the shell oil company and it's called their quest project. and i want to just read here a little bit about the project. shell canada will this year complete the world's first oil sands carbon capture and storage project. so this is c.c.s., carbon capture and storage something we've been working to develop in this country and apply to fossil fuels not only things like oil and gas but also coal. so this is the new carbon capture technology. shell canada this year will complete the world's first oil sands carbon capture and storage project. the project called quest will begin permanently storing co2

carbon dioxide by the end of the year and will permanently store more than one million tons per year. let me read that again. the project called quest will begin permanently storing co2 by the end of the year and will permanently store more than one million tons per year. quest reduces are the emissions from shell's upgrader by 35%. that's the equivalent of taking 175,000 cars off the road each year. 175,000 cars off the road each year. shell will transport the co250 miles north via the pipeline and permanently store it more than a mile under ground under impermeable rock formations. my point is here's an example of where a private company is working with the province of alberta on this project to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in carbon capture and storage technology but not only will it apply to the oil sands up here but think about it, this

is not only technology being developed by deployed on commercial scale in production that we can now take advantage of and use in this country to produce more energy from multiple sources and again smaller footprint lower greenhouse gas. isn't that the solution to better environmental stewardship, where we get more energy that we produce here with our closest friends and allies with better stewardship through investment by private companies in these new technologies and in this case working with the province of alberta alberta is also investing in this technology. but this is the innovation of our country of our companies. this is the kind of ingenuity and innovation that helps us build the kind of future that we want in this case a secure energy future deploying these new technologies. the other point i'd make as you look at this chart is under the ol' system of oil sand production remember it's excavation so they would be digging up this area and then extracting the oil from the oil sands. but under this new system of development which is called in

situ they're actually drilling wells. then they put steam down hole to bring the oil up. then they capture the co2 and they're storing it underground. again, smaller environmental footprint and lower greenhouse gas emissions. since 1990, the greenhouse gas emissions on a per barrel basis for oil sand production in the canadian oil sands has gone down on a per barrel basis by 28%. they've reduced it by almost a third. these new technologies will reduce it further going forward. again, i say this is about finding good solutions to create jobs and economic activity and energy security and take us into the future. so that's why i wanted to discuss that project for just a minute. a second project that i'll reference up there is exxon's curl project spelled kearl. and let me just read a little

bit -- well, by way of preface exxon currently produces over 100,000 barrels a day of oil in the canadian oil sands. they're going to increase that this year to 345,000 barrels a day and their objective is to get to half a million barrels a day of oil produced in the canadian oil sands. they're investing $10 but -- $10 billion in this project. that's their investment in this project and this new better drilling techniques. in exxon's case, let me tell you a little bit about their project. they're doing it differently than shell and quest so they're employing different technologies but investing $10 billion to reduce the environmental footprint, reduce greenhouse gas emissions but produce a lot of energy for canada and for our country. so it's $10 billion that exxon's investing.

exxon's kearl project will use cogeneration for steam a to recover oil and heat interrogation between the extraction and treatment facilities to minimize energy consumption. as a result, oil produced from kearl will have about the same life cycle greenhouse gas emissions as many other crude oils refined in the united states. as a result of technologies which significantly enhance environmental performance. so again smaller environmental footprint, lower greenhouse gas emissions. this is how we work to address the challenges that we face whether it's producing energy or anything else. we deploy these new technologies that enable us to do it better. other environmental innovations for kearl include on site water storage to eliminate river withdrawals and progressive land reclamation which will return the land to the forest. i want to emphasize that point

for a minute. what you see around this site which again is actually the shell site, this is the boreal forest. i've been up and i've seen the oil sands production. so i was also taken out to areas where they reclaimed land that had been formerly used to produce oil sands. when you've gone through land that's reclaimed you can't tell the difference between the land that's been reclaimed and the land that hadn't been ever used in terms of oil production. i mean, i was there and i looked at both -- i couldn't tell the difference. of course that's the objective. you want to return it to the state that it was in before it was tapped. again, with this newer production much smaller area than you would even ultimately have to return to its original state. so i just wanted to touch on those two projects for a minute as well as point out that the alberta government actually requires that all land used in the development of oil sands has

to be returned -- has to be returned to the same or equivalent condition when it's no longer in use. and then the final point i'm going to touch on here for just a minute or two is another issue that's been brought up is pipeline safety. and there have been some references to recent pipeline spills one in poplar montana actually not too far, of course, from where i am in western north dakota where i live. but the spill is from what's called the poplar pipeline, which is owned by i believe the bridger company but it's a pipeline that goes underneath the yellowstone river and it was built in the 1950's. so you're talking about a pipeline that's over 50 years old. and so isn't that just the point

that whether it's roads or bridges or buildings or pipelines or transmission lines or anything else, we've got to upgrade them. we've got to make the investment in new facilities rather than just continuing to rely on old facilities. so that's what i want to emphasize about the keystone x.l. pipeline project. not only is it investment, $8 billion -- private investment $8 billion, not a penny of government investment. but $8 billion in private investment in not only new steel and new technologies, but the department of transportation's pipeline and hazardous material safety administration, so phmsa the division of the department of transportation that oversees pipeline safety has required 57 special conditions for this

pipeline. 57 special conditions to make sure that it's as safe as possible. and i'm going to just touch on some of those to give you a sense of what they are. but the whole point is here we are trying to create a business climate, a business environment where companies can put billions of dollars into these new technologies and this new infrastructure so that we can have energy as safely as possible, with the best stewardship possible, so we aren't relying on more than 50-year-old pipelines or other infrastructure. we're trying to get that upgrade. and again we're not doing it at taxpayer expense. we're getting tax revenues. we'll get hundreds of millions in tax revenues that come back in from private-sector projects where we're trying to empower that investment. and at the same time the phmsa department of transportation phmsa pipeline hazardous materials safety administration has all these requirements that they have put that they're making part of the approval

process. 57 different special safety conditions for the keystone x.l. pipeline. things like puncture resistance. so, for example trans-canada is required by phmsa in the environmental impact statement to make sure the steel used in the pipeline can withstand impact from a 55 ton excavator. corrosion resistance coating making sure it's got a coating on it that is resistant to corrosion. cathotic. it is applied -- protection applied to a pipe where it connects to other, could be things like a bridge. it could be, you know, any kind of anyplace where the pipe's connected to make sure other connections don't rust through into the pipe.

maintenance. trans-canada must submit certification that demonstrates compliance with all 57 conditions before they commence operation of the pipe. airplanes will patrol the right of way at least 26 times a year. they will send cleaning and inspection tools through the pipeline once a year to collect and analyze basic sediment and water. compare all this to a pipeline that was built 50 years ago and laid on the floor of a river versus a pipeline now that if they have to cross a river they use directional drilling so they go down 25 feet below the river and put the pipe 25 feet down in the rock below the river versus older pipelines that were just laid in there. again, this is the new technology the new safeguards. horizontal drilling, directional drilling the pipe will be buried approximately 25 feet below riverbeds. any riverbeds 25 feet below using directional drilling.

automatic shutoff valves. so they will have automatic shutoff valves replaced every 20 miles along the pipeline route. extra miles will be placed wherever it is required to protect water crossing and areas of higher consequences. they can be closed remotely on either side of the line isolating a damaged area within minutes of detection. again it is about making sure if there is an issue of any kind you can minimize and mitigate any kind of spill. 100% weld inspections a requirement that all wells 100% of welds are inspected rather than some on a test basis. satellite monitoring and leak detection. keystone pipeline will have more than 13,500 sensors feeding constant and detailed information about flow rates to the control center 24 hours a day, seven days a week. of course that's so that if any kind of leak is detected, that it's immediately shut down so you minimize the amount of

product that would leak. those are the kinds of safety features and there's 57 of them required by the administration's pipeline and hazardous material safety administration. when we talk about pipeline safety and somebody says there's a pipe that broke and so we should never have another pipe we need to talk about that and address that in a sensible way. we do need to have new pipelines and upgrade them and take other steps to make sure the system is safe but you don't do that by blocking investment in the new technologies and the new pipeline that will help us move product more safely, more cost effectively and more dependably. those are the three issues that i wanted to address.

again, i covered some of those some of it yesterday but wanted to make sure that any time we get somebody come down to offer amendments that we defer to those individuals and i am pleased now we have 18 amendments pending on a whole gamut of issues ranging to this bill. in our efforts to advance a better energy future for our country. again, i look forward to the debate this afternoon voting on these amendments and continuing to advance this legislation on behalf of the american people. and with that, mr. president i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs.mrs. murray: mr. president, i

ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: no objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i wanted to just take a few minutes today to talk about the latest attempt from republicans in the house of representatives and a few republicans here in the senate as well to hold hostage the basic operation of our government once again over politics. and, mr. president, while i have several issues with the department of homeland security funding bill that the house has sent to us, i'd like to first discuss this strategy that we are seeing from republicans as the former chair of the budget committee and someone who has worked across the aisle to break through gridlock here in congress. mr. president, two years ago our country was moving constantly from one manufactured crisis to the next. we had debt limit scares that were rattling our businesses and the markets. we were headed towards an absurd and unnecessary government

shutdown and people across the country were really losing faith that their elected officials could get anything done when it came to the budget and to our economy. but by working together, congressman paul ryan and i were able to reach a budget deal that prevented another government shutdown and really showed the american people that congress could work together to get things done. mr. president, because of that deal we were able to then pass bipartisan spending bills for the last two fiscal years including 11 of the 12 appropriation bills from last year. and although we have a lot of work left to do, it is clear that stability in the federal budget makes a difference for our economy. we have got to work together to build on that growth to continue that certainty and to make sure our economy is working for all families not just the wealthiest few. across the country now today businesses have added more than

11 million new jobs over 58 straight months of job growth. the unemployment rate is now under 6% and trending downward. and we have reduced the federal budget deficit by over two-thirds since 2009. so mr. president when i look at the homeland security funding bill that the house of representatives has now sent us, i see a few things. i see a bill the way it's drafted and sent to us that will tear apart families who are working hard to make it in america. i see a bill that will put our security at risk. and i see a bill that seriously threatens all of the work we have done recently republicans and democrats to keep our government functioning. because, mr. president the bill the house sent over is simply unacceptable. it will not pass the senate. republicans know that. so let's be clear about what this bill really is. it is a calculated political gamble from our republican

colleagues. this looming shutdown -- showdown over funding the critical department of homeland security is no accident. in fact, it's a risk that they have actually been planning since last year all because of political pressure from the extreme anti-immigration right wing of their party. so mr. president if republicans are really willing to risk funding for the department of homeland security for political reasons, i believe the american people deserve to know exactly what that does mean because funding the department of homeland security doesn't just keep the lights on at the d.h.s. headquarters. that funding protects our country from terrorist attacks at a time when the world is as dangerous and volatile as ever. it protects our country and american businesses from cyber attacks, a threat that is all too real, as we have now seen in recent months. it supports basic security measures at our airports, at our

seaports and along the border. it even supports our federal emergency management resources that are on call for every community in america. in my home state of washington, this funding supports the coast guard which protects shippers and sailors throughout puget sound and customs and border protection which helps facilitate billions in international trade moving through my state the most trade-dependent state in the country. mr. president, not funding these programs is a risk we cannot afford to take. it is reckless and irresponsible and more than anything else simply counterproductive for republicans to put all of this on the line just to score some political points with the tea party and the far right. and unfortunately that appears exactly to be what they're doing. once again speaker boehner and the house republicans have decided they are willing to break up millions of families and deport millions of dreamers who are victims themselves of a

broken system. they have decided they are willing to stop the president's policy of focusing our law enforcement on national security threats, gang members and violent criminals and once again they have decided that they are willing to make bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform that much more difficult to achieve. so mr. president, this is much more than just an annual funding bill. this legislation that has been sent to us loud and clear from house republicans and speaker boehner that they're willing to continue pushing us from crisis to crisis, they're willing to play politics with our national security and they're willing to turn their backs on millions and millions of children and families. well mr. president for years now, we've seen that strategy doesn't work. it doesn't work. it holds us back. but i have to say i was encouraged when majority leader mcconnell said that at the end of the day the senate will fund the department of homeland security. mr. president, it is clear the house bill will not pass the

senate so i really believe it's time for the majority leader to show as he has promised, that he will let the senate and congress work efficiently. it's time for the majority leader to bring a clean d.h.s. appropriation bill to the floor. let's get it done, passed and move on with the work that's so important to us. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you mr. president. i rise today to urge my republican colleagues to pass a clean bill, a clean bill to fund the department of homeland security for the remainder of the fiscal year. let me start over because i forget my mike, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to urge my republican colleagues to pass a clean bill to fund the department of homeland security for the remainder of the fiscal year. we're now only a month away from a shutdown of the principal federal agency charged with keeping americans safe from terrorism and prepared for natural disasters. the president has said he will veto any funding bill that

repeals or rolls back his executive action on immigration so anything but a clean bill to fund d.h.s. means one thing and one thing alone -- republicans are unilaterally shutting down the agency. mr. president, no matter what your grievance is, we shouldn't be playing politics with national security. it's alarming that even as we can now count the days 30, until a republican security shutdown so many on the hard right are ready to just dismiss the consequences. compared to their obsession with president obama's immigration action and their desire to apiece the -- appease the tea party with radical and impractical ideas that would not fix our system, to republicans shutting down d.h.s. is -- quote -- not the end of the world unquote. so i'd like to use my time today to spell out what a d.h.s. shutdown would mean for our

country in the hopes that my republican colleagues will be jolted back to reality and to common sense. and since this isn't the first time republicans have put us through a shutdown, we actually have a pretty good idea as to what a d.h.s. shutdown would look like. here are just some of the functions that would cease if republicans fail to put a clean bill on the floor. the bulk of d.h.s. management and headquarter administrative support activities would cease including much of the homeland security infrastructure that was built following the 9/11 terrorist attacks to improve command, control and coordination of disparate frontline activities. securing the cities. a critical post-9/11 funding program that helps pay for nuclear detection capabilities in new york, los angeles and washington could not be awarded in fiscal year 2015. the d.h.s. nuclear detection

office which since 9/11 coordinates on a daily or weekly basis with local law enforcement, would stop operating. fema's disaster preparedness unit would cease coordinating regular training activities with local law enforcement for weapons of mass destruction events. fema employees in washington and across the country that provide critical preparedness resources to local first responders would be sent home. 25% of fema's headquarters and regional staff would be furloughed. fema personnel working on grant programs such as funds for intelligence analysts or firefighter needs would be furloughed. and even those personnel deemed essential would be denied paychecks until a funding bill is passed. this means we're not paying the coast guard we're not paying the t.s.a., we're not paying the border patrol, the secret service or fema aid workers. so make no mistake a d.h.s.

shutdown would hamstring our ability to combat threats to the homeland and keep our citizens safe. the irony, of course, is that one of the programs that shut down would pause completely is everify which stops unscrupulous employers from hiring undocumented workers and cutting everyone's wages. so in order to make a point on immigration, our republican colleagues are actually going to stop the program which prevents employers from hiring undocumented workers. essentially to make a point about needing more immigration republicans are willing to shut down immigration enforcement. in short mr. president i'm perplexed as to why republicans are playing this game of chicken with d.h.s. funding because the only possible outcome that could come from withholding a clean d.h.s. bill is a shutdown of

several critical post-9/11 programs within the d.h.s. and the furlough of thousands of workers paramount to our nation's security and disaster preparedness. at a time when we need all hands on deck to keep america safe, republican efforts to politicize our security would tie d.h.s.'s hands behind their back. so mr. president i urge my republican colleagues in the house and senate to drop this fool's errand and put a clean d.h.s. funding bill on the floor as soon as possible. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. a nor: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i ask that the quorum be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. before i begin my remarks mr. president, i would likelike to ask unanimous consent that airiel marshall and kelly sparrow be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the session. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. i'm sheer this afternoon to discuss the two concerns that i have about the bill currently before the senate, the ladies and gentlemen that would grant immediate approval of the presidential permit necessary to construct and operate the keystone x.l. pipeline. first and foremost, i believe that a thorough regulatory review process is critical for

any major infrastructure project, particularly one that will cross our country's border. regulatory review enables the identification of economic impacts from a major project and more important environmental impacts that infrastructure projects like the keystone pipeline may bring. and we shouldn't trade transparency for expediency when it comes to the construction of an international project that has such scope. i can't support a bill that sacrifices these important protections. that's why i voted in the past against legislation to allow the keystone x.l. pipeline to circumvent the normal review process and why i intend to again vote guess this bill. i also have a number of concerns about the impact of the keystone pipeline on our environment. in the past two weeks we've had a spirited debate on this

floor, and a number of my colleagues have come to the floor to talk about the pipeline oil spills that we've seen in this country. just a few days ago an oil pipeline burst leaking 50,000 gallons of crude oil into the yellowstone river in montana and yet that spill pales in comparison to the 2010 kalamazoo river oil spill where over one million gallons of oil sands poured into talmadge creek in michigan. the cleanup has alr -- already cost over a billion dollars and taken over four years to complete. in fact, to date, there has really been no authoritative study on how the spills of oil sands crude may differ from those of conventional oil crude and this means that we have no idea about the spill's long-term effects on the health of wildlife in that river.

the other issue that has been raised on the floor is the fact that right now because of the way we depepperdine crude oil the trans-canada, who is the supporting -- who is supporting and planning to build the keystone pipeline is not required to pay into the federal oil spill liability trust fund which would ensure taxpayers against any spills. so we have this out-of-state, out-of-country company foreign company that's coming in to build this pipeline and yet they're not required to pay in as any american company would be into the oil spill liability trust fund. that to me doesn't make sense. so circumventing the regulatory process for keystone prevents us from understanding the health hazards that we would face should another spill occur. i'm also concerned that the

construction of the keystone pipeline will increase carbon emissions and undermine some of the most critical climate policies that we have in place. the pipeline poses threats to our environment that have already been identified. tar sands greenhouse gas emissions are 81% greater than those of conventional oil and that's because the production of oil sands crude is more energy intensive more greenhouse gas intensive than conventional crude production. additional processes are required to extract the oil remove the sand and dilute the oil so that it can flow in a pipeline. in addition, if the pipeline is improved much of the oil wetlands in alberta canada, which act as a carbon sink would be destroyed and that would release 11 million to 47 million metric tons of co2's into the atmosphere. one of the reasons that i'm

concerned about circumventing the regulatory process is because i believe this could set a precedent for a rushed approval of infrastructure projects that are currently under consideration in new hampshire. in new hampshire, we have two projects that really merit careful consideration thorough review that could be affected by a press sent that says we should ignore the regulatory process. in new hampshire the northern pass transmission proposal, which proposes to deliver hydropower from quebec into the new england energy markets goes through northern new hampshire would bring power to southern new england but new hampshire wouldn't benefit and any suggestion that we would circumvent the process is a real concern to people in new hampshire who would be affected by that project. the other project is the potential reversal of the

portland-montreal pipeline which would send -- if the determination were made to do this it would send oil sands through many new hampshire communities, and that oil would then be shipped to foreign countries. so if we set the precedent of trading transparency for expediency with keystone, without requiring the completion of a comprehensive approval process, local communities in new hampshire may not have a meaningful voice in the process that deals with northern pass or reversing the portland-montreal pipeline. i think that's unacceptable. these three projects -- keystone northern pass and portland-montreal -- have one important thing in common. they should undergo a comprehensive environmental and safety approval process that's required by existing law and that should be done independent of politics. circumventing the presidential permitting process for

crossborder pipelines and electric transmission facilities avoids the dupe that's needed to determine whether these projects are in the best interests of the country. in new hampshire northern pass and the portland-montreal pipeline have raised serious concerns for people who live in areas that would be affected by these projects. that's why i worked with the entire new hampshire congressional delegation in a bipartisan way to ensure that both projects undergo a transparent, thorough and comprehensive review process that allows the input of local communities who will be affected by these projects. like people in new hampshire and across the country i share the concerns about our nation's energy future. throughout my career, i fought for smart policies that will reduce energy costs in new hampshire and across the country, that will help create jobs and that will protect our air and water from pollution but i don't believe that

mandating a project that bypass es the approval process is a smart policy. we need to be thoughtful about our energy future, and i think it would set a dangerous precedent for other projects that could have serious consequences in new hampshire and in other states around the country. so mr. president i appreciate the debate that we've had here on the senate floor about the keystone pipeline, but i will be opposing this bill. thank you very much. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. nelson: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. nelson: mr. president i want to speak to the senate about the ukraine and also about syria. these are two parts of the world that are of particular critical importance to the united states foreign policy today because what they portend for the future. the fact that our relationship is so rocky with the president of russia, president putin who right -- just a few days after the olympics suddenly shows his true colors when he invades crimea, a part of ukraine, despite all of the agreements when the soviet union broke up in the late 1980's, early 1990's the agreements

that in exchange for moving all of the nuclear weapons out of ukraine back into russia that russia would forever recognize and respect the sovereignty of ukraine. well that went out the window right after the olympics. and mr. putin showed his true colors. he could couch it in all kinds of terms that there's a russian naval base that was there, but the fact is the whole world knows what he did. and no one really could do anything about it but then he started to move on the other parts of the eastern part of the country of ukraine and that,

of course, is going on as we speak. the so-called rebels, which really aren't rebels, they're a front for the russian military, propped up with actual troops of russian military, sometimes disguised as being free and independent players simply because they don't have on their russian uniforms. but, in fact, they've taken them off put on uniforms that are not the russian uniforms and say that they're part of the rebel force. it's a ruse, and everybody knows it's a ruse. i went last august to ukraine spoke with almost all of the top-level members of the

government and asked what they need. to my surprise, at the time they did not say they needed lethal equipment. they needed up to date, up-to-the-minute intelligence and they needed training. and i have urged the government of the united states to provide that and we are providing a number of things. this senator thinks that it is clearly in the interests of the united states that we provide more assistance to the government of ukraine so that their military can have the equipment, including lethal assistance to hold off putin's aggression in eastern unanimous consent. -- eastern ukraine. now, this is a particularly critical time. i was there last summer, but

what has happened in the meantime is over the course of the past year, oil has gone from $100 a barrel, it is now down to $46. i remember asking someone last summer when i was there and in the baltic states, what did oil need to get to and below in order for mr. putin to start really feeling the pinch. and they said anything under $85 a barrel. it's now around $46 a barrel. although russia has significant reserves as of a few months ago, about $450 billion of cash in reserves, that's lower now

and those reserves will hold them for a while because the price that they are getting for their oil of which they don't have high production costs in russia because the price is so much lower half of what they were getting their revenue is significantly down, and therefore all of the money that was being supplied by the russian government for so many things -- a plethora of different social programs -- guess who is feeling the pinch. the people of russia. and so the aggressiveness of mr. putin internationally is an attempt to try to take his people's eye off of their own financial depravity and, in

fact i get it on the international scene where the president of russia is quite adept at pounding his chest and banging his fist. now, the ukrainians are once again fightling right now as we speak for their territory. the ukrainian government took back the today nest -- dnesk airport in eastern ukraine and then the rebels came back and i say with a wry smile rebels. i mean, this is the russian army. they came back and they took it again. and last week those russian-backed rebels broke a shaky cease-fire agreement and they renewed the fighting with ukranian government military. and this senator feels we've got

to do more to try to help these people that are trying to protect their independence. if you'll recall, last year we passed the ukraine freedom support act which provides further sanctions and lethal aid like antitank and anti-armor weapons, counterare a tillty radars secure communications equipment and tactical surveillance drones. all of that was needed. but the fighting that is following appears to be a steady buildup of russian support for the rebels. general hodges, the u.s. commander -- army commander in europe said last week since december, russia had doubled its support for the rebels and

general breedlove our supreme -- nato's supreme commander, said that russian electronic warfare and defense systems have been detected in the conflict areas. so let's don't fool ourselves. the russian army is in there and we have to do more to help them. now, syria. this senator feels like that where we are having success right now in iraq against isis with the malt imstrikes from the air -- multiple strikes from the air with training up the iraqi army as the boots on the ground including some american boots on the ground that are advisors -- advisors and trainers at the end of the day we're going to have to do this

in syria if we're going to be successful. it's a lot more complicated in syria because of the assad government. the poor free syrian army that we are now starting to train it's an almost impossible traffic. we train them, they go in, they try to attack isis, isis attacks them, but so does the assad regime. that's not a recipe for success. we're working with the vetted oppositions fighters to go after isis in syria. we have to supply support we have to supply lethal support in addition to the training and equipment in order for them to be successful, and for them to be successful, it's almost in

the interest of the united states. congress has approved the training and equipping of vetted elements of the syrian opposition and the department of defense recently announced it will deploy 400 personnel in that effort. we're going to do to do a lot more. -- have to do a lot more. the american people are tired of war, and yet we have a new kind of enemy and we're going to have to take it right to them where they are. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president today i'm introducing legislation to help victims of child pornography, one of society's most heinous crimes. eni'm joined wipe 34 senators on both sides of the aisle i hope that this legislation will soon become law.

sexually exploiting a child distorts her life and leaves scars that lasts long after the abuse ends and the abuser prosecuted. nor this reason the violence against women act includes a provision requiring a defendant must pay restitution to recover all of the victim's losses. those losses can include future lost income as well as medical care mental health counseling and therapy. child pornography isn't really a record of a child's sexual abuse. it is itself an instance of abuse. the images piles harm upon harm. it becomes even more difficult for a victim to put together a life that was shattered before it had barely begun. as the supreme court has recognized every viewing of child pornography is a reputation district of the victim's abuse. the current restitution statute

was enacted in 1994 before the internet became prime real estate for trafficking of child pornography. it puts victims in ran impossible bind. in a case decided last spring the supreme court said that the current restitution statute requires a victim to prove how much of her losses were specifically caused by a single defendant's possession of her images. with a burden like that it's no wonder that under this statute victims receive no restitution at all in more than 3 quarters of child porn grandfathers cases. the irony is the more individuals who partnership in harming a victim, the less any of them is financially responsible and the less limely help the victim will receive. perpetrators are easily lost in a crowd. the bill i introduce today will amend the restitution statute so it works for child pornography

victims. it is named for amy and vic arey, brave women who are victims of two of the most widely viewed pornography series in the world. women's case went above the supreme court last year and my staff worked with the legal people in developing this bill. i wanted mention james march whose legal practice in new york focuses exclusively on helping victims. are professor paul cassell at the university of youth who argued the case before the supreme court. this bill changes the current restitution statute in three important ways so that it works for child pornography victims. first, it gives judges options for determining a victim's losses and calculating restitution. second it gives judges the ability to impose restitution on defendants in different kinds of

cases to ensure that victims actually receive meaningful restitution. third, it shifts the burden of chasing defendants all over the country from victims to defendants who can share the restitution costs with other defendants. both amy and vicky personally support this bill. i'm also pleased that many national victims -- victim advocacy groups support this bill including the national center for missing and exploited children the national organization for victim assistance the national crime victim law. the national institute for victims of crime and the task force to end sexual and domestic violence against women. last october i received a letter endorsing this bill signed by the attorneys general of 43 states, 22 republicans and 21 democrats. i want to share with my colleagues the story of a young man, a utah resident who uses

the name andy. he was exclusivelily abusedded by a trusted adult and family friend between the ages of 7 and 12. dr. david corwin who examined him said based on 30 years of experience with child sexual abuse victims that the images and videos of andy's abuys were the most disturbing he had ever seen. according to the f.b.i. the images and videos created from andy's abuse are one of the most widely distributed boy series in the country. the f.b.i. says that as of last month, andy is named victim in 726 cases. he has been granted restitution in 24 of the 101 cases in which he requested it and has collected anything at all in only two cases. andy wrote to support the bill that i am introducing today. he addressed his letter to

members of the united states congress which means that he is writing to each member of this body. andy says that this legislation will prevent him from having to spend decades trying to recover minuscule amounts of restitution from hundreds, if not thousands of defendants all over the country. i want my colleagues to hear his words. quote -- "my images may never be taken off the internet and may automobiles circulating around the country. at least with this congressional change i can start to heal, learn thousand handle my circumstances -- how to handle my circumstances and we rebuild my life." unquote. there are many more an dis vicktys and amies than we know and they need our help. we have the responsibility to pass or change legislation to address issues or problems that americans face. all of the courts could do was confirm that the current restitution statute is no longer

suits to help child pornography victims. it is up to us to enact a statute that will. amy, vick kirks and andy are counting on us. we must not let them down. i ask that my further remarks be placed in an appropriate place in the record. mr. president, i want to say a few words about some of the amendments we'll be voting on later this afternoon three of them in particular. the amendments that i'm referring to are themarkry amendment number 125 carper amendment 120 and the heitkamp amendment, which is number 133. all three of these amendments address sensitive tax issues that fall squarely into the jurisdiction of the senate finance committee and all of them address issues that are likely to be litigated as the finance committee continues its efforts towards comprehensive tax reform. the finance committee is going to be very active in this congress mr. president. we had our first bipartisan markup this morning. we've already had two hearings

with more scheduled for next week. and perhaps more importantly, at least in the context of these three votes we'll be having today, we've taken concrete steps in a process that we believe will end in the introduction of bipartisan tax reform legislation. we've appointed five tax reform working groups to address the various areas of reform. our hope is that over the next few months these working groups will study the issues and provide ideas that we can use as we develop a comprehensive tax reform proposal. ranking member wyden is on board with this effort. we're working together every step of the way. if we start singling out individual tax issues here on the floor even issues that members may feel passionately about, we're going to undermine this bipartisan process. virtually everyone in both parties agrees that we need to fix our broken, inefficient tax

code. sure, there are disagreements on what the substance of tax reform should look lirks but there is a growing consensus on the need for reform, which to me is encouraging. if we're going to be successful in tax reform, we need to make sure these issues are addressed in a tax writingin the tax writing committees. all of the issues issues my colleagues are trying to address are going to be litigated one way or another in the finance committee's efforts this year. that being the case, raising these issues as floor amendments on an unrelated bill is, in my view very counterproductive. finally, i just want to note that all of these amendments would be subject to a constitutional point of order as they all deal with revenues and would need to be passed first by the house of representatives. i'm not going to raise that point of order at this time. i just want to make note of it for the record. given all these concerns, i would hope that my colleagues, senators merkley carper, and

heitkamp would withdraw these amendments so these issues can be addressed in the proper forum. i plan to vote against all three of them if they do not and urge all of my colleagues to do the same. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you mr. president. i congratulate you sitting in that chair and i'd also like to say, through the president congratulations to chairman hatch for the unanimous vote that he got in today's markup of the finance committee. it was a great bipartisan start to our work, as he said, and i hope that we're going to continue to have these discussions in that manner. mr. president, i'd like to speak today about the burr-bennet amendment number 92 which we're slated to vote on later today and i'll be brief because it is pretty straightforward. the amendment simply reauthorizing the land and water conservation fund and ensures

that a dedicated portion of lwcf funds go to provide new access for our nation's sportsmen and women and as many in this body know land and water conservation fund is one of the country's best and most important conservation programs. it's authorized to provide $900 million annually for efforts to preserve and increase access to our public lands and waterways. these resources historically have been used for projects that range from building city parks to purchasing small parcels of isolated land from willing sellers all the way to preserving the nation's historic battlefields. this past summer in colorado we completed a huge lwcf project that retired several old mining claims on the san juan national forest near the town of offer. the town invited me and my family to join them in a celebration of the accomplishment and we took them up on that offer without a

moment's hesitation. ofer sits at 9600 feet above sea level. it's the kind of place that has a sign on its main road clearly painted by the kids that live in the town, indicating that their population totals 163 people. including, according to the sign 55 kids, 30 dogs, and 15 cats. when we pulled in in the morning of the celebration it seemed to me that the entire town was there and over the course of that day which included a hike and a picnic and a formal program, it was amazing to hear from the community about the importance of this lwcf project and how long -- and how many years so many people in the town had devoted themselves to getting it done. many of our mountain communities get huge portions of their revenue and business through recreation and tourism and it's for some of these reasons that the town felt lwcf literally helped cement its economic

future. i was an lwcf supporters before that visit but that day really drove home the value of the program to me. that's only one of countless stories from colorado. i know it can be replicated thousands of times across the country in all 50 states. the and those stories and accomplishments alone make make this amendment worth supporting. but let's also remember when we're talking about lwcf, we're not talking about taxpayer dollars. when congress crafted the measure back in 1965, they had a very innovative solution for how to pay for their concept. instead of using taxpayer dollars from the treasury, they decided to dedicate a portion of the revenue that the government collects from offshore oil drilling to fund lwcf. this argument was very simple and elegant. as we deplete our natural resources, offshore reserves of oil and gas in this case, we ought to support the

conservation of another natural resource: our lands and waterways. as i mentioned congress passed the law in 1965. now it is time to reauthorize it. and i want to thank senator burr who has shown great leadership in crafting the amendment, for just that. this amendment is thoroughly bipartisan and enjoys cosponsors like senators ayotte, senator alexander, and senator tillis, just to name a few. i'm told, mr. president that there are 246 amendments that have been filed on this bill. not one amendment has the number of cosponsors that this amendment does. this amendment has more cosponsors than any of the remaining, i guess it's 245 amendments. so before i close and urge my colleagues to vote "yes," i want to paraphrase something i said on this floor last week about another amendment. conservation policies like lwcf are important to the american

people. protecting our land and water is mom and apple pie stuff in colorado and i know our state is not the only one. conserved lands and wide-open spaces are a huge economic driver across our country and it's part of who we are in the west. and we're not only talking about back-country parcels like the one i visited in ofer. we're talking about building new parks in inner cities and providing new access to hunters and anglers. lwcf does all of these things and more. so my colleagues, if you're for city kids getting a new playground or for making sure we protect gold metal trout streams, then you need to be for amendment number 92 from senator burr. i urge all senators to support the measure when it comes to the vote later theefnlg i think we can make a very meaningful statement about where the senate

is headed if we can supply the votes in tows pass this amendment -- votes necessary to pass this amendment of i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president i request proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president i would request that kayla dolan a staff member on senator tillis' staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of this congress. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i would ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president it's my understanding that in about a minute we're going to be voting on the first of a series of amendments. the first amendment is the

amendment that i have filed that i've talked about before, but i just want to remind my colleagues what this amendment does. first, it would require notification to governors and county officials of risk to their drinking water supplies that may be caused by the keystone pipeline. second the local officials would have the right to bring that information back to the federal government so that action could be taken in order to protect their drinking water supplies. and, third it provides a right of action against -- for property owners for damages caused to their wells and drinking water as a direct result of the keystone pipeline construction. so mr. president, that is pretty straightforward amendment. it provides states' rights in knowing what's happening in regards to their drinking water and provides property owner rights in order to be able to be held -- for the damages that could be caused as a result of the keystone. i would urge my colleaguesort the amendment.

the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition? ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president i would urge colleagues to oppose the cardin amendment. in review, it appears that it's designed to halt the construction of this pipeline before it even begins. the amendment tells the president to provide this analysis of the potential risks to the public health and environment from a leak or rupture and provide that to every municipal and every county along the route, as well as the governors. so then the governor can petition the president to effectively locate the pipeline somewhere else, at which point again, construction could never commence. the governors of montana, south dakota and nebraska have already approved the pipeline route through their states, so this effort -- this amendment is

an effort, i think to just build that opposition over contamination fears and in turn pressure the governors to halt the pipeline's construction. i think it is important to understand that the risks to the waterways along the pipeline path were examined by the state department's final esis. they were fiewndz found not to be significant. i will vote "no" on this amendment and strongly enurge my colleagues to -- encourage my closing to join me in doing so. the presiding officer: under the previous order the question occurs on amendment number 75. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not on this vote, the yeas are 37, the nays are 61. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment. ms. murkowski: move to reconsider. a senator: move to table. the presiding officer: requiring 60 votes on the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not

agreed to. ms. murkowski: move to reconsider. a senator: move to lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote in relation to amendment number 70, offered by the senator from michigan, mr. peters. who yields time? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: mr. president as michiganders senator stabenow and i know firsthand how important the great lakes are. the lakes are a vital natural resource and an engine of growth, not just for the state of michigan but the whole region and the country. unfortunately, michiganders also know firsthand the environmental dangers and risks that come with pipeline leaks. we have the worst inland pipeline leak in our nation's history in kalamazoo -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from michigan.

mr. peters: thank you mr. president. we had the worst inland pipeline leak in our nation's history near kalamazoo michigan. cleanup has taken over four years and has cost $1.2 billion. there is a 60-year-old pipeline under the straits of mackinaw where the lake michigan and lake huron come together, and i cannot even fathom what would happen if there was an accident that contaminated the great lakes. the results would be cat -- catastrophic not only for the great lakes but the entire country. that's why we need to act now. i urge my colleagues to support the peters-stabenow amendment. ms. murkowski: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president i would ask the senate be in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. ms. murkowski: mr. president the substance of this idea could actually be a good one. i'm not entirely certain about that. this is the first i have heard that fmsa does not have the

resources to do its job. the presiding officer: the senate is not in order. the senators will take their conversations out of the well. the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: thank you mr. president. i think it would be fair to have fmsa come tell us if they don't have adequate resources. but what i strongly oppose with this amendment is its attempt to tie the construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline to unrelated pipelines in a different state. there is no limit for the fmsa study and certification included here so we could be looking in addition to the already 2,300-some-odd days that this delay has been in place that it could cause further delays. if my colleagues from michigan are interested in a fmsa study i recommend that they introduce their effort as a stand-alone bill so it can be considered by the committee of jurisdiction. if it is needed, we can move it through the regular order and certainly consider it in the future. i would ask that my colleagues oppose this amendment and i

would remind colleagues that we are on ten-minute votes. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the peters amendment number 70. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any other senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 40, the nays are 58, under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: move to reconsider. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 23 offered by the senator from vermont, mr. sanders. explained: mr. president could we have order please. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. sanders: the scientific

community tells us very clearly if we're going to reverse climate change and the great dangers it poses for the country and the planet we must move aggressively to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. this amendment would provide a 15% rebate to homeowners so that we could install 10 until new solar rooftops across the country within ten years. this would result in enough new electrical generation to retire nearly 20% of our dirty coal-fired plants and create a significant number of new jobs. so if you're interested in reversing the dangers of climate change and creating jobs, i would urge you to support this amendment. thank you. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: the sponsor of this bill snows that i too, am a supporter of solar i think we all here are but i think it's important to recognize what this

measure would do. when we're talking about the benefits to this country and how much this will cost, it's important to understand this. when this was first introduced in the 110th congress the goal of 10 million solar roof legislation, certainly ambitious but we've seen decreased cost and growth that have made this federal assistance unnecessary. we've seen the residential solar market grow, the cost, the cost of a system has dropped about 60% in the last four years but despite these trends we're not close to reaching that one million mark let alone the 10 million installations so the real question is, is how much is this going to cost to achieve? the proposed rebate per system is the lesser of 15% of the initial capital cost. this puts the federal government on the look for up to $100 billion to pay for these installations. we can debate the merits of jobs and job creation but by urge my

colleagues to oppose the sanders amendment. the presiding officer: time has expired. the question occurs on the sanders amendment number 23. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the amendment is not agreed to. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 15 offered by the senator from texas, mr. cruz.

mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president this amendment would expedite the exports of liquid natural gas and it would provide to countries that are members of the w.t.o. the same expedited process that is currently available to free trade agreement countries. there are right now at the department of energy some 28 applications pending to export liquid natural gas and this should be an amendment that would bring together republicans and democrats. a recent study showed that allowing us to export our -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. cruz: a recent study showed allowing us to export l.n.g. could create as many as 450,000 new jobs by 2035, could produce g.d.p. growth of up to an additional $73.6 billion and could produce up to 76,000 more manufacturing jobs. it would also aid our allies like ukraine like the baltics like europe and it would weaken

countries like russia that use natural gas for economic blackmail. i would urge all senators to support this amendment. a senator: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you mr. president. the amendment offered by the senator from texas is drafted -- a senator: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the senate is not in order. the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: the amendment by the senator from texas is drafted so broadly that it allows just about every nation which is a member of the world trade organization to automatically receive natural gas exported from the united states of america. the process is just eliminated, automatic. what will that do? one, it will increase prices to american consumers. the energy information agency has already determined that

the -- that the l.n.g. export facilities already approved are going to lead to a 50% increase in the price of natural gas here in america. it would jeopardize american manufacturing. we've seen 700,000 new jobs created in the last five years in america largely because of low-priced natural gas. it's going to increase carbon pollution because it's going to slow the pace of change from coal over to natural gas in the generation of electricity. it's going to undermine our trade negotiations because it's all going to be given away here on the senate floor. and finally it's going to harm our national security because we just converted over one-third of our trucks and buses it backs out all the oil. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. markey: that we import from the persian gulf by using natural gas in american vehicles. we're going to ship jobs with natural gas overseas. i urge a "no" vote on the cruz amendment. the presiding officer: time has expired. the question occurs on cruz amendment 15. a senator: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there

a sufficient second? there appears to be, there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 456789 under the previous order requiring 60 vote for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: move to career. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president?

the presiding officer: under the previous order, there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 125 offered by the senator from oregon mr. merkley. can't can't mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i dishawbt the merkley amendment be -- i ask unanimous consent that the merkley amendment be withdrawn number 125. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the amendment is withdrawn. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 73 offered by the senator from kansas, mr. moran. the senator from kansas. the senate will come to order. the senator from kansas. mr. moran: mr. president the u.s. fish and wildlife service has determined that the lesser prairie chicken should be listed in a number of states, including kansas as a threatened species. the lesser prairie chicken has had significant history in our state and a significant population of birds.

but as a result of a drought the habitat for the lesser prairie chicken and other wildlife has been did i minute ieshed and the number of birds has decreased. but the consequences of listing the lesser prairie chick than results from a drought is so dramatic, so damaging to the kansas economy to farmers and ranchers and the use of their own land, to the oil and gas industry and the exploration of oil and gas and the utility industry in regard to the production and transmission of electricity, that this amendment is necessary to set aside that listing as a threatened species and to allow interest holders in kansas to come together to find a commonsense solution based upon sound science to protect the habitat of this bird. this is not just a kansas issue. in fact, this species is only the precursor to problems others will have. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico.

mr. udall: mr. president i rise today to oppose the moran amendment which would delist the lesser prairie chicken as a threatened species. i appreciate some of the concerns about this listing by farmers and ranchers and industry. i'm concerned about any unintended consequences this listing may have on rural new mexicans and i strongly support -- and i would assume that the senator from kansas supports -- the bipartisan five-state effort for a thorough review. the fish and wildlife service took numerous steps in this process to respond to all stakeholders and to enable habitat conservation and economic growth. new mexico has been and continues to be a leader and cooperative conservation in praises where the prairie chicken is found. ranchers and oil and gas industry deserve their praise for their efforts. so it's working and the sky has not fallen but we should not take this top-down political

approach. listing and delisting of the species by congress goes against the intent of the law which requires the government make these decisions based on science, not politics. i urge my colleagues to vote "no." the presiding officer: the question is on the moran amendment number 73. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 54, the nays are 44. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment 148 offered by the senator from rhode island, mr. whitehouse. mr. whitehouse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president the measure before us, the keystone pipeline, the underlying measure -- a senator: the senate is not order. the presiding officer: order in the chamber. the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president

the underlying measure benefits specific investors specific corporations pushes regulatory approval of a specific project and in that sense it has all the earmarks of the biggest earmark ever and we have learned from other history with earmarks that when you have a project that benefits specific investors and specific corporations and specific entities, there is a valuable premium on having the public know about the campaign contributions relative to that project. this bill requires disclosure over $10,000 of campaign contributions from entities that will make more than a million dollars off this project. it is the type of transparency that many of my republican colleagues have been for before they were against it, and i urge an aye vote. the presiding officer: the

senator's time has expired. the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president this amendment is virtually identical to the text of what we saw last week that was tabled by a vote of 52-43. this amendment is not relevant to this debate. it's as unnecessary now as it was the first time that we voted on. to the extent that it is legal for a person or a company to make a campaign contribution federal and state election laws require public disclosure of those campaign contributions. any other more general political activity that a company or a person may choose to engage in is governed by existing laws and regulations as well. for that reason, i'm going to be opposing this amendment for a second time and would encourage my colleagues to do as well. the presiding officer: under the previous order the question occurs on amendment 148. the yeas and nays have been requested. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 44, the nays are 52. under the previous order requiring 0 votes for the adoption -- 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote in relation to amendment number 132 offered by the senator from montana mr. daines. the senator from montana. mr. daines: mr. president, my amendment simply expresses the sense of congress that all future national monument designations should be subject to consultation with local governance and the approval of the governor and the legislature of the states in which designation would occur. this amendment ensures that the people affected most by these designations have a seat at the

table and their voices are heard. the current administration as well as past administrations both republican and democrat have made efforts to stretch the intent of the antiquities act threatening montanans' ability to manage their resources. it's a trend we've seen -- the presiding officer: can we have order. the senator deserves to be heard. mr. daines: anything that affects land management should be driven in the state and not in washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president speaking in only significance to this amendment there's a reason why they call it national monuments and that is because it's a national process and a national decision. yes, presidents of the united states consult with governors and consult with state legislatures but they're not required to make a bill or authority of the governor before they make a national monument. nearly half our national parks including the grand canyon, olympic national park were

designated under this antiquities act. 16 presidents, eight republicans, eight democrats have designated over 130 national monuments since teddy roosevelt signed this act in 1906. so i think it's worked well for the united states of america. please turn down this amendment. the presiding officer: the question occurs on amendment 132, the daines amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not on this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 47. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment the