border. this clean full-year funding bill would provide immigration and customs enforcement $689 million more than last year's funding to address the additional needs associated with that surge. specifically it includes $3.4 billion for immigration detention and funds 34,000 adult detention beds. the shaheen minnesota mikulski bill would support the e-verify which checks businesses to make sure they are hiring legal employees. homeland security secretary jeh johnson said that to deny his department full-year funding would actually hurt our border security. we cannot continue to fall to short-term continuing resolutions and force the department to cut corners and scramble to fund its highest priorities. as we've learned over these years, mr. president stopgap

and crisis budgeting is an egregious waste of money. let me say that again. an egregious waste of money. by shutting down the department of or keeping it on a continuing resolution we'll waste millions we'll waste tens of millions of dollars taxpayer dollars. tens of millions of dollars. including the cost of renegotiating contractors lost employee and contractor productive and lost training. for example, it would delay a $600 million contract to build a cutter of the coast guard needs from being awarded. there is more than a financial impact. the dramatic consequences of failing to provide full-year funding for the department will be fult throughout our country. while most would continue essential functions the bulk of its management and administrative support activities would cease and front r line personnel would not receive the support that they need. it would be like trying to fight a war without planners, without

logistics and without supplies. it would be like us, like us here in the senate working without our staffs. we might be able to get our work done but we wouldn't be as effective. those who are required to come to work if a shutdown does occur would not be paid at d.h.s. until congress restores funding. think of that. essentially a large part of federal homeland security efforts would be operating under an i.o.u. a stopgap budget or shutdown would further degrade the morale of the department of homeland security. the department continues to rank dead last, dead last, among all other large federal agencies when it comes to workforce morale. while secretary johnson and the deputy secretary are taking important steps to make the agency a better place to work, and we are helping them, the department still lacks a strong sense of cohesion and a sense of team. congress too has a responsibility in this effort,

in providing this large and complex agency with the funding it needs would be a terrific next step. if our colleagues -- and i expect the department of homeland security and other federal agencies to show outcomes improved outcomes, we cannot continue to play games with their budgets and expect them to feel, not feel the negative consequences. no business owner or manager could be expected to be effective and efficient under these conditions. the leadership of the department of homeland security is no exception. a clean homeland security funding bill for the rest of the fiscal year is the fiscally responsible step to take. if we deny them that funding we're not punishing the president. but in a sense we're punishing a number of employees and punishing the taxpayers and denying them the security they need today. don't take my word for this.

our good friend, tom ridge first secretary of homeland security and former governor with whom i served said -- these are his words tom ridge -- i would be very, very dispointed if i were secretary and the democrats did this to me. it's pretty difficult to plan long term when you don't know exactly how much you're going to have available and what strings might be attached to it. give them the funding that they need. i would just say to our republican colleagues, give them the funding that they need. for these reasons i urge our colleagues in the senate to join me in doing the right thing and supporting passage of a clean full-year appropriations bill for the department of homeland security and rejecting the amendments approved by the house. it would be irresponsible for us to continue kicking the can down the road when it comes to national security and we certainly cannot afford to let this vital agency's funding run

out. i ask my colleagues to think about what we're trying to accomplish by failing to provide the department of homeland security with the funds that they need to operate. american voters sent congress a clear message on election day. here's what they said: they want us to work together. they want us to get things done. and they especially want us to enhance our economic recovery. given recent events around the world, they also want us to do what we can to keep them and their families safe. we need to show americans through our actions here in washington that we have heard them. and with that, i yield the floor. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, let me first thank senator carper for his comments on the need for us to pass a homeland security appropriations bill. i think our constituents will be surprised to learn that we have not passed an appropriations

bill that funds for this fiscal year the department of homeland security. a critically important agency to keep us safe. we know the challenges around the world. we know the challenges to our homeland and we haven't passed a full year homeland security bill. instead we've had legislation that's come over from the house that is more interested in picking political fights on immigration policy when we should be together on immigration policy, holding up the funding for the homeland security. so i want to thank senator carper, who is the ranking democrat on that committee for bringing to the attention that the best thing for us to do is to take up the shaheen-mikulski bill, which is a clean reauthorization of the appropriations for this year so we can get through this year, and then we can debate immigration on an immigration bill and debate next year's budget on a budget bill and not have the politics of the house

interfere with the funding of the homeland security. but, mr. president i take this time to bring to my colleagues' attention that january 27 represented the 70th anniversary of the liberation of auschwitz and ber cinow. they are located in poland liberated by allied forces on january 27, 1945. 1.3 million jews, poles and other minorities were deported to auschwitz and berkinow between 1940 and 1945. about 1.3 million -- of that 1.3 million, 1.1 million died in these camps. mr. president, i had a chance in 2004 to visit auschwitz and

birkenau and it was emotionally draining. it was a sight that is hard to imagine, to see the cruelty barbaric activities of humans against other humans. from looking at the rooms in which medical experiments were done on human beings who ultimately died, to seeing the gas chambers, i tell you it did affect my perspective on humanity and life. in the united states we're blessed. i can practice my religion and don't have to fear losing my head. i can disagree with my government and know i'm not going to be locked up for doing it. we should never take those liberties for granted. but i think it gives us a special responsibility to make sure when we say never again that it becomes a reality it becomes real. we have a responsibility to remember the victims of the holocaust, the jewish religion

we have a separate day set aside to recognize. we need to learn from the survivors. i will always remember the times i had a chance to talk to leo britholtz. he was a constituent of mine who escaped the trains taking him to auschwitz. he was an inspiration to all of us to learn more about the circumstances surrounding the holocaust. unfortunately, he passed away last year. he advocated for the repatriation for victims particularly from the french railway sncf and we were ultimately successful in getting those funds. it underscores the importance of holocaust education. when we say never again let's always remember what happened over 70 years ago under nazi rule. let's have holocaust education so young people understand the consequences of cruelty and the consequences of not getting engaged. let's also help the survivors.

and i very much want to acknowledge in the united states we have many survivors from the holocaust. over half of them live under the federal poverty line and they are so fearful of being institutionalized. you can understand that. senator mikulski -- i want to thank senator mikulski and the appropriators for putting money in the omnibus appropriations bill last year to help so that we can provide assistance so they can get the services that they're entitled to under our law. sometimes they can't work their way through it. there's money. i was proud to help in those efforts. i want to thank vice president biden for his leadership and the obama administration. and i want to thank those on the health education, labor and pensions committee and the older america's act reauthorization that was acted on this week. they include services for holocaust survivors so they can get easier access to government services.

and lastly, let me thank senator mikulski and senator kirk and i join both of them in a senate resolution to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the liberation of auschwitz and birkenau. the senate foreign relations committee that i serve on unanimously approved that resolution for consideration on the senate floor and i thank senator corker and menendez for their help. as i think most of the members of this body know, i've been an active participant in the helsinki commission. i'm the democratic leader working with senator wicker. the helsinki commission is known for our participation in the organization for security and cooperation in europe, but i think it's best known because we put a spotlight on human rights issues. we try to live up to that motto "never again." we try to say that we will not let violations of basic human rights go unchallenged. so on the 70th anniversary of the liberation of auschwitz and

birkenau which are the iconic symbols today of the holocaust let us rededicate ourselves to make sure never again becomes a reality. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president i rise first to thank my colleague from maryland for his eloquent words on the holocaust and the survivors of the holocaust and the compelling voices that come out of those death camps. in addition, my colleague has always been a champion for human rights whether it's on the helsinki commission, whether it's his advocacy to let soviet jews get out of the soviet union, always to find a way that

where people are repressed facing attacks or persecutions, he's always been on their side. and also his way of actually meeting with the holocaust survivors in their own community to bring a lot of attention to meet on what we can do, to actually put money in the federal checkbook. so after all that effort at survival in making it to the united states, the survivors of the holocaust who were children would be now in their 80's and 90's. imagine. and they should not live in poverty. they should not fear institutional life. they should not fear institutionalization and they shouldn't fear destitution. so i thank you for your advocacy and look forward to working with you on this. and also never again.

mr. president, i come to the floor today too as the ranking member of the appropriations committee. and i come here to ask my colleagues to pass, bring to the floor and pass a clean homeland security appropriations for fiscal 2015. and this isn't just senator barbara mikulski calling for this. the former heads of homeland security under president bush and also under president obama the very first head of that agency governor tom ridge along with mr. cher could -- koff and -- mr. cherkoff and janet napolitano have written and said please as former heads of homeland security we write to

you today to ask you to request that you consider decoupling funding for fiscal year 2015 from a legislative response to president obama's actions on immigration. they feel that tethering a bill -- i'm quoting their letter letter -- to fund it to the president's executive actions on immigration could lead to a shutdown of homeland security. we don't want to shut down. they conclude their letter -- and i won't go through the whole letter -- that it's imperative that we ensure the department of homeland security is ready willing, and able to protect the american people. to that end says ridge chekoff and napolitano, we urge you not to risk the funding for the operations that protect every american to pass a clean bill in the d.h.s. funding.

mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that that letter be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: mr. president the department of homeland security was established in -- right after the terrible attack on the united states of america on september 11 toughen. -- 2001. the department of homeland security is a big agency but protecting the homeland is a big agency. and the d.h.s. employees are on the job every day. the coast guard safeguarding our waterways secret service not only both protecting the president, the first family, the vice president also doing other important tasks. the border control and i.c.e., the immigration customs securing borders against smugglers and illegal immigrants.

cyber warriors, protecting us against biothreat and nuclear threat and also working with first responders fema, everything to protect us in the event of an attack on the homeland to have readiness and response and shelters and so on to helping us now in hurricanes and blizzards like we're facing in the northeast. it all helps state and local responders to have the resources that they need to be able to respond at the local level. the fire grant program is so beloved in our communities where through competitive exercise they can go for grants to buy respiratory equipment the new fire trucks and so on that they need. you know, in my community they just do -- come up with this equipment, you know on fish

fries and pancake breakfasts. you need a government on your side. unfortunately, the department of homeland security funding runs out on february 27. now, let me give you the background. when we came back in september facing the fact that we had to have a continuing resolution to get us through the fiscal year -- the opening of the fiscal year and the election cycle, the congress passed legislation where we -- and then on december 11 when we did the omnibus, we passed an omnibus bill for every single agency with the exception of homeland security. so every single agency from the department of defense to the

department of health and human services education the weather service all of these important programs, n.i.h., were funded through the fiscal year. but we put homeland security on a c.r. because there was an intense and actually very prickly concern over the president's executive action on immigration. so rather than hold up the whole funding of the united states of america over a temper tantrum politics over obama's executive action on immigration we went to a c.r., a continuing resolution on homeland security. the homeland security was to take us to february 27, where wiser heads and now complete control by the republican party would be able to move this for full funding. so where are we?

well during that time in december as the chair of the committee on appropriations with my vice chairman, senator richard shelby, senator dan coats the subcommittee on homeland security, senator dan coats and senator mary landrieu we came up with a fiscal framework. so did the house. they came up with it. so the very money that we've put in the c.r. and the clean bill that senator shaheen now the chair -- now the ranking member and i have, had a has the funding for homeland security that homeland security says it needs, and we've arrived at on a bipartisan basis. if, in fact, we are allowed to bring up a clean bill, we've agreed on the money. there is no dispute over the money.

we have looked very carefully at it we've worked on a bipartisan basis we've worked on a bicameral basis we're ready to go. what will slow us down is if we get into an intense debate on immigration and riders to try to stop the activities of president obama. i would strongly recommend to my colleagues, do not play politics with the security of the united states of america. we were all horror stricken at what happened in paris. we're just repulsed what is going on with isil. we're very concerned about lone wolf attacks. we worry about -- and the chair of the authorizing committee on homeland security in the house has said, oh, they're coming

here they're coming here, they're on their way we got to be ready. well, one of the ways we've got to be ready is to make sure that these -- the resources at homeland security are funded, and that they're not worried about a shutdown, showdown, slamdown politics over a fight on immigration. should we have a discussion on immigration? you betcha. should we even have an outright robust debate on it? i'm all for it. but leave homeland security alone. pass the money bill. if you disagree with the money argue over that. but if you want to fight over immigration policy, that's another debate for another day in another way. the nation faces growing threats. americans are endangered at home and abroad. terrorists are threatening us

with bombs and guns and lone wolves in ottawa, cyber criminals with backing from nation states and organized crime, in terms of secret service we have the need to reform secret service we have fence jumpers at the white house, drones landing on the white house lawn, in the face of these threats the republican majority's response is to hold the funding of homeland security up to pick a fight with the president over immigration. uncertainty undermines security. uncertainty undermines security. let's give the agency certainty of funding. we're four months into the fiscal year. another continuing funding resolution would be their fifth continuing resolution. that's no way to run an agency so big so complicated.

senator coats and senator landrieu and our house colleagues worked so well. they provide the necessary -- to come up with the bill. they provide resources for d.h.s. with the total funding of $49 billion an increase of over $400 million above the fiscal year 2014. we could pass that today. we could pass it on monday, we could pass it on tuesday. all my democratic colleagues and i wrote a letter to senator mcconnell asking him to schedule an immediate vote on a clean vote on homeland security. well let's see where we go on that. what we have here, the clean bill offered by senator shaheen, now the chair -- excuse me, now the ranking member on the homeland subcommittee on appropriations, and i, have a compromise funding bill that gives certainty to the people who work on the front lines to secure the

nation. whether it's securing the border whether it's building capacity to meet agriculture and biological threats whether it's replacing aging nuclear detection equipment also helping our coast guard build their national security cutter so the coast guard can protect us against drug runners pirates, terrorists. more than any other specific increase enacting a clean homeland security bill shows what congress and the nation value. we do value security and we value the men and women who work every day to provide us with that security. uncertainty jeopardizes security. we value them and i urge my colleagues to put the money where our mouths are to enact a clean homeland security bill and not to get into this whole debate on immigration.

mr. president, i look forward as we wrap up the funding on -- excuse me, the debate on the keystone pipeline. we then do take up homeland security and we take up a clean bill. mr. president, i yield the floor and -- and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold? ms. mikulski: my time was delayed. i hope i vice president slowed you down this morning. i didn't realize you were here. mr. boozman: no, everything is fine. we appreciate you as always. ms. mikulski: thank you. mr. boozman jerks i'd like to take a few moments to offer a champion of veterans, a true meant and mentor of myself, retired lieutenant steve gray who is set to retire from public service at the end of this month after nearly 16 years of helping

his fellow veterans in arkansas. since i came to washington 13 years ago steve has served on my staff advocating for the needs of veterans across the natural state. mr. boozman: he's been a man whose interest in veterans is second to none. it has resulted in better service across arkansas. it's reflected in the lives that he's helped make better by solving individuals' problems with the v.a. and if steve were able to track down military medals that a veteran earned but never received those medals weren't just dropped in the mail. steve would crisscross the state personally delivering them dressed in his air force blues and present them with the stories of the veterans' time in service. a veteran himself steve served honorably in the air force as a tactical air controller with assignments as director of

operations and commander in virginia vietnam california utah, florida colorado kansas and iceland. he also served as a national -- as national director for international guard recruiting, retention and advertising at the pentagon. his final assignment before retiring with the rank of lieutenant colonel was in germany where he served as an advisor to the commander and chief of the air forces in europe. along with the work he does in an official capacity, steve is an active number in a number of veterans service organizations including the american legion and the wounded warrior program. he served as vice president of the arkansas council of military officers association of america, i'm excited for steve as embay on the next chapter of his life but we are losing a fantastic advocate for arkansas veterans. however, i know my staff will continue to provide the best possible service to arkansas' veterans as we have the blueprint on how to do it right

thanks to steve. he has literally set the gold standard and how to deliver for veterans and now also that in retirement steve does not mean to just fade away. fade out of sight. steve is not the slow going type of personality and certainly he will take some time to travel with his wife sharon and enjoy the retired life but along with relaxation steve has grand plans to travel the country seeing veterans' retirement homes and intends to stay active with the arkansas veterans coalition. this is his passion and i'm certain steve will continue to work with the veterans community for years to come. thank you steve for your service to our nation in uniform, your dedication to your fellow veterans and most of all, thank you for your friendship. i yield the floor. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the chair recognizes the senior senator from south dakota. mr. thune: thank you mr. president. mr. president, last week

president obama came over to congress to deliver his annual state of the union address. his speech focused heavily on something that republicans have been talking about for the last six years helping the middle class. occasionally the president even sounded like he had stolen a line from republicans which i can assure you republicans were happy to provide. mr. president, however seriously, republicans were glad to hear the president pivoting back to the middle class. providing relief to the middle class is "the" republican priority in the new congress and we're eager to work with the president to get things done for american families. unfortunately the president's speech didn't show the same willingness to work together. in fact, wolf blitzer from cnn said -- and i quote -- "i don't remember a state of the union address where i heard a president issue so many veto threats to the opposite party in the united states congress." that's from wolf blitzer of cnn.

while it was good to hear the president focusing on the middle class, his actual proposals for helping them left much to be desired. because unfortunately, they were more of the same top-down, big-government policies that have failed to help americans over the past six years. for example the president proposed a new tax on middle-class families' college savings accounts. the last thing families need when they want to save for their children to go to college. fortunately the president because he received so much pressure, has been forced to withdraw this particular proposal but his speech contained a lot of other proposals that would not provide the help that american families need. if there's anything that the past six years have shown it's that big government is not the solution to our economic challenges. in fact, it's the cause of many of our economic problems. take a look at obamacare. a gallup poll released last week

found that health care costs are one of american families' top two financial concerns. and it's no wonder. obamacare was supposed to solve our nation's health care problems. it was supposed to drive down premiums and make health care more affordable. instead it's generally done the opposite. since obamacare became law in 2010, health care premiums have risen. millions of americans have lost their health insurance plans. others have lost access to doctors or to convenient hospitals. still others are stuck in insurance plans paying more for less coverage. then, of course, there are all the problems the law has created for workers and businesses. and the pain that millions of americans will be feeling this tax season when they discover that they owe the government money from their obamacare subsidies or that they must pay a tax penalty for failing to have government-approved health insurance. the american action forum recently ran the numbers and

estimated that,000 people -- 6,000 people in south dakota will have to pay the obamacare tax penalty for not having government-approved health insurance. now, according to a calculator on the "wall street journal's" web site the average individual in south dakota will pay a $394 penalty this year while the average family of four in south dakota will pay a $650 penalty. now, that's a lot of money. that's a lot of money for a south dakota family and it's only going to go up because the tax penalty will rise in 2016. now, mr. president, as you can see in this chart, south dakotans could be spending that tax money on a number of essential items if they didn't have to pay the penalty. in fact, for $394 in south dakota, you could buy 201 gallons of gas at current south dakota prices buy six weeks of groceries or make 1.1 car

payments on that the amount of money. that's for an individual and the amount that they could be hit with in terms of the tax penalty. if you switch it out mr. president, to a family and look how this impacts a typical south dakota family. and the distinguished chair right now knows exactly what i'm talking about. a $650 tax penalty if you didn't have to pay that, could be used for 332 gallons of gas in south dakota at south dakota second-degree prices, three weeks of groceries or almost two car payments. now, if you think about 332 gallons of gas in south dakota, mr. president, that would cover a lot of trips to school or to football practice or to dance practice. these are real-world impacts on real people. and as obamacare has demonstrated mr. president big government is not the answer.

and while it's great that the president wants to focus on helping the middle class who've suffered for years under his policies, he can't help them if he insists on pushing more of the same failed top-down big-government policies. the last few years have involved government laying a lot of burdens on american workers and the american economy to fund big-government programs and the president's pet projects. take the obamacare tax on lifesaving medical devices like pacemakers and insulin pumps. this tax was put in place to help pay for the president's health care law but it's ended up negatively affecting jobs in this industry. even democrats who voted for the president's health care law are pushing to get rid of this tax. or take the obama interior department's recent decision to push for closing off large swaths of alaska to energy development that would create jobs and benefit alaska's economy as well as strengthen america's energy independence.

take the new crippling energy rules the e.p.a. has proposed, like the newt tax on coal-fired -- new tax on coal-fired power plants that could lose jobs and devastate communities. the e.p.a. proposal to lower the ozone standard would be the most expensive e.p.a. regulation in history. mr. president, i intend to reintroduce my bill, the bipartisan case acted to make sure that we -- case act to make sure that we tackle places with the worst smog in the country before -- before -- forcing cleaner areas to meet what is an impossible standard. if we want to fix the economy we've got to stop weighing it down with taxes and regulations. we have to reject yesterday's stale policies with their focus on taxing, spending and regulating. instead of pushing big-government solutions, we need to rebuild our economy from the bottom up. mr. president, republicans are focused on a future that embraces and fights for the potential of the people not government. and that means passing legislation to free up

businesses to create jobs. it means reforming our tax code to put more money in the pockets of american families and to make it easier for american businesses to compete around the globe. it means eliminating the kind of heavy washington spending that is weakening the economy and piling up debt on the backs of the next generation of americans. and it means getting rid of regulations and red tape that are stifling energy development and the jobs that go along with it and preventing american businesses from growing and hiring new workers. it means opening new markets abroad for american manufacturing and american farm products. mr. president, the past six years have not been kind to american families. a recent reuters story opened by saying -- and i quote -- "barack obama enters the final two years of his presidency with a blemish on his legacy that looks impossible to erase -- the decline of the middle class he has promised to rescue."

household income has fallen by more than $2,000 on the president's watch according to sencure research. meanwhile, prices have gone up. millions of americans are unemployed while millions more are stuck with part-time jobs because they can't find full-time work. and millions of other americans grew so discouraged with not finding work over the past six years that they gave up looking and dropped out of the labor force entirely. wage growth has remained stagnant during the obama presidency. and as a cnn put it after the president's state of the union union -- and i quote -- "obama says wages are growing; they're not." that from cnn. it is no surprise, mr. president, that middle-class families aren't feeling an economic recovery or that americans list lack of money and low wages as one of their top financial concerns. "the new york times" headline from sunday noted -- this was

what the headline read -- "middle class shrinks further as more fall out instead of climbing up." mr. president, it doesn't have to stay this way. republicans don't believe in a permanent middle class decline. if we stop government from weighing down our economy with taxes and regulations and start freeing up businesses to create new jobs and opportunities for american workers our economy will rebound and the middle class will feel the effects. republicans are already working on legislation to help the middle class and we'll be sending our first job-creating bill legislation to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline and the 42,000 jobs it will support during construction, to the president very shortly. we hope the president will sign it. american families have had to spend six years in this economy. this he shouldn't have to wait any longer for relief. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. roberts: mr. president? the presiding officer: the chair recognizes the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: i thank you mr. president. i would like to thank the -- my distinguished colleague from south dakota, senator thune, for his very comprehensive review of where we are with the economy and the need for the keystone pipeline to pass. as always, senator thune has in a very articulate manner made the case for our country to become more energy independent and also touched on national security and the stagnant situation we face with our economy. thank you sir for your remarks. mr. president, in this new congress we also have an opportunity and a responsibility to address an issue of utmost importance to every american -- the current dysfunction at the internal revenue service. now, i do not use the word "dysfunction" lightly but i reach that conclusion when i see an agency systematically suppress the political activity

and the free speech rights of american citizens. i also reach that judgment, mr. president, when i see the agency unable to effectively police its personnel as seen in the tax delinquency levels of the agency staff when bonuses have been awarded to these same employees. these are critical issues that we must address particularly as we in congress face our obligation to reform our tax system. the i.r.s. targeting of conservative and other groups that came to light way back in may of 2013 is neither a trivial issue or one we can ignore. no more backburner. this is a frontburner issue. we have hit many roadblocks in this investigation and it is certainly premature for us to reach any conclusions or to macon crete recommendations on how to address the -- make make concrete recommendations on how to address the i.r.s. targeting.

but that being said, we have a pretty clear sense of what happened. and in my view, this egregious conduct and the condescending response by the top i.r.s. officials should come to a screeching halt. for over two years the i.r.s. targeted conservative and many other groups applying for tax-exempt status with inappropriately intrusive information requests. the i.r.s. also delayed processing these applications and according to recent reports has continued to delay processing applications. it hasn't stopped. amazing. simply amazing. when the targeting came to light light, senior members of the agency tried to cover up the i.r.s. actions by providing incomplete and misleading information to congress about what was being done. very recently, we learned the agency has found tens of thousands of pages of information relating to the targeting. the review of these documents

has not yet begun. the good news is that the inspector general for the i.r.s. has these records now. the bad news is that there are technical difficulties processing those records. the senate finance committee has yet to receive this information as the investigation continues. no doubt -- no doubt -- the review will lead to further interviews of officials in the i.r.s. and other government agencies. so the actions of the i.r.s. and its leadership have profound implications for reform of our overly complex and antiquated federal tax system. let me quote from the internal revenue service mission statement. "the i.r.s. strives to provide america's taxpayers top-quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities." they are meant to do all this -- this is the underline, this is

the one that the i.r.s. should remember every day -- "with integrity and fairness to all." "with integrity and fairness to all." now, in the targeting scandal, i believe that the i.r.s. is no longer the neutral tax collector its mission states it to be and that the i.r.s. is inappropriately open to a partisan political agenda. i think it comes from the white house and its allies. if not to working as a direct tool or means for suppression of the right of free speech. now, the other issue with the i.r.s. also showing its dysfunction relates to the tax compliance of i.r.s. employees. and, in fact, the compliance level of federal employees all across our government. as of september 13, federal employees were delinquent on $3.4 billion in taxes. yep, that's right.

1,500 treasury employees were delinquent owing close to $10 million. now, while in the grand scheme of federal finances this is a very small amount -- i understand that -- it's tremendously galling and sends a terrible message to taxpayers to know that many of these employees were awarded bonuses bonuses -- they were awarded bonuses -- even though they owed back taxes. let me be perfectly clear any employee who deliberately ignores the process and procedures for fulfilling their tax obligations like every other american, must be held accountable. this is a basic principle upon i think we can all agree. when these public employees serve at the i.r.s., their lack of willingness to pay their tax obligations calls into question the integrity of the agency. it's really unconscionable that there are tax delinquents

working as tax collectors. it is very clear the i.r.s. is not conducting itself again with integrity and fairness. far from it. the crux of the issue is that neither the congress nor the taxpayer tax-paying public can have any confidence that the agency acts in an evenhanded manner or with the best interest of the taxpayer at heart. this is a very troubling time when the i.r.s.'s role in the economy and in people's lives has been greatly expanded by obamacare. from the very first the idea of using the i.r.s. to implement and enforce obamacare is an anathema to common sense. it's bad enough now when taxpayers are audited. nobody likes to hear that knock on the door or receive that telephone call or e-mail. targtd -- targeted for political beliefs and blocked from exercising their free speech rights but to expand the role of

this agency into everyone's health care decisions is just plain wrong. that's a box canyon we should not ride into. tax reform presents us with the opportunity, however to look at these issues much more closely. and when we have completed these investigations and have issued reports, i will review the results very carefully to see what legislative fixes to the i.r.s. and tax code may be necessary. make no mistake i'm not going to let this slip from the radar. and we should not let this slip from the radar with regard to the senate finance committee. too many blips on the screen, large blips. i hear from kansans every day who are fed up with the i.r.s. i think most in this body do the same. there's a lot of discontent with the tax system and its enforcement and regular calls for scrapping the whole collection apparatus. i agree. we need to take a very hard look at the agency and tax reform.

of course, of course we have an immediate obligation to take up tax reform and the finance committee will take up tax reform. but the question remains if we are successful in reforming the tax code, really climbing that mountain, how can we turn a reform code over to the i.r.s. that is so rife with scandal? the other action that we must take immediately is to block the i.r.s. mr. president from taking any further steps to retake constitutional free speech rights. this is why yesterday i joined with my colleague from arizona senator flake to again again introduce legislation to prevent the i.r.s. from moving forward with a regulation project on the political activities of social welfare griewrntion the 50 -- groups the 501-c-4 regulations. it is completely inappropriate for the agency to move forward

with this project until we understand what went on and what structural and procedural changes are needed at the internal revenue service to prevent targeting of political opponents from ever happening again. senator flake and i proposed a very straightforward very commonsense approach to this challenge. we simply halt further action on a proposed regulations until the congressional investigations into the i.r.s. actions are complete. this bill that we will introduce, we have introduced further freezes further i.r.s. actions for two years and would make it clear that the i.r.s. can only enforce the regulations that were in place before all the targeting began. and i also want to make it clear that we can no longer tolerate rewarding government workers who cannot be bothered to comply with our tax laws. so today i'm offering legislation to block any federal employee who is delinquent on their federal taxes -- here's the key -- and making no effort

to pay their tax liability. making no effort to pay their tax liability. we will block them from receiving a bonus or award from the federal government. shouldn't be receiving a bonus if you're a federal employee who is making no effort to pay back taxes. the purpose of my bill is, i think, self-evident. if you are a federal worker, you should be making a good-faith effort to pay your taxes like everybody else or at least work with the i.r.s. to pay down your debt holding federal employees accountable for their tax debts may even foster public confidence again in our tax system. amazingly, there are federal employees in almost every agency including the internal revenue service who are significantly delinquent in taxes and who are not working to pay their debts. that's wrong. that's not fair. it's not government practice. that's an understatement. our bill -- my bill will put a

stop to this. it's no wonder given the i.r.s.'s behavior and the behavior of these federal tax delinquents that kansans and virtually every american doubt that the government can administer the tax laws in good faith. the lack of faith in the internal revenue service is an important reason why congress must rewrite the tax code, simplifying how to pay taxes and reducing the government's intrusion into economic and other affairs in the public. we don't need the i.r.s. regulating constitutionally guaranteed free speech and muzzling lawful political activity. we also don't need to reward federal employees who do not even make the most minimal effort to pay their tax debts. and then give them bonuses. the hypocrisy of i.r.s. agents getting bonuses when they aren't paying their taxes has to stop. finally, there are other issues at the internal revenue service not the least of which mr. president, are recent statements by the commissioner,

the i.r.s. commissioner, warning, really threatening the tax-paying public during tax filing season no less that the agency is drastically cutting taxpayer service functions. i'm talking about call answering, tax return help, other programs that assist the average american to fulfill their tax obligation. the commissioner blames the budget sequester. i understand that. every federal agency is now upset about this sequester. i'm upset about the sequester with regard to our national security and the spending caps for these cuts and the commissioner is upset about that down at the i.r.s. do you know that's beyond amazing when we learn the agency has made many poor decisions like entering into a contract with the i.t. company just fired by massachusetts vermont and the department of health and human services for its failure on implementing the

healthcare.gov web site, the historic rollout that was a total disaster. i expect we'll get into this in detail next week when the commissioner comes before the finance committee. i'm going to be asking him questions about the same topics that i've brought up in these remarks. in the meantime, just a suggestion to the i.r.s. from the commissioner, take a hard look at the mission statement. concentrate on serving the taxpayers. stop threatening the american public with the loss of service and try to do the best you can in a most difficult budget environment. mr. president, we have an obligation to have the i.r.s. serve with integrity and fairness to the american public. that's not happening now. let's work together to make sure it does happen. i yield back.

and, mr. president after careful inspection, it appears to me that we do not have a quorum present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. is mr. udall: thank you mr. president. i ask to vitiate the quorum. the presiding officer: so ordered. mr. udall: and i would ask consent to speak in morning business. i know the managers are about to show up shortly and when they show up, i'll -- i will obviously yield the floor to them.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. udall: mr. president today we're voting on this in the 11:00 series on a renewable electricity standard, a bill to promote 25% of our electricity to come from renewable sources by 2025. from what we have heard these past few weeks, we are either down here debating an energy bill or a jobs bill and this is what my republican friends and colleagues have been saying. the keystone pipeline is neither one of these. the keystone pipeline is not an energy bill. the bill lacks a comprehensive energy policy. it lacks even trying to set one. this is not a do-it-all do-it-right bill. it isn't even a drill baby, drill bill. this is a drill canada bill. and if we're going to debate energy policy, we need to debate and adopt a renewable electricity standard. the keystone pipeline is an investment in doing things the old way importing foreign oil

instead of doubling down on foreign oil. and we should be talking about how we can move america forward by investing in homegrown energy of the future. the renewable electricity standard is such a bill and i would just point out that states already recognize this fact significantly. colorado has a 30% target by 2020. nevada has a 25% target by 2025. oregon has a 25% target by 2025. and a number of other states have a renewable electricity target. 29 states, in fact, and are developing a national market. and there are many states that are meeting these goals and moving aggressively forward. in 2013, the state of iowa produced 27% of its electricity alone from wind power. and i see the chairman of the energy and natural resources committee on the floor. i promised to yield.

i only have a couple of more minutes but i know this is -- shall i finish? okay. thank you madam chair really appreciate it. this -- this amendment the renewable electricity standard, is a start to a comprehensive energy policy for the united states. and then we are told the keystone pipeline is a jobs bill bill. jobs, we are told, keystone will create. and, of course, we are all for that. but how many jobs? we're talking about 2,000 3,000 construction jobs. but the permanent jobs are in the range of 50. how about a renewable electricity standard that promotes long-lasting manufacturing and installation jobs, american jobs, permanent jobs jobs that can't be outsourced. the renewable electricity standard could create an additional 274,000 to 29 7,000

jobs in the united states in areas of construction, operations and engineering. over 50% of these jobs would be created in the manufacturing sector. these are hundreds of thousands of 21st century american jobs in my state and across the country. we owe it to all americans to consider this and other amendments that would improve the bill. right now we are losing out to other countries in both solar and wind. china has the largest market share with a national renewable electricity standard, we would move forward aggressively to get our market share in those two areas. it's clear to me a national renewable electricity standard would combat global warming while creating hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country. it will help maximize our energy potential while strengthening our economy and our energy security. let's vote on that. let's move forward to meet the real energy needs of american

families. and i yield the floor. thank you madam chair for being so gracious and for your courtesies. the presiding officer: the senate will receive a message from the house. the majority secretary: mr. president, a message from the house of representatives. the house reading clorn mr. president, i have been directed by the house of representatives to inform the senate that the house has passed h.r. 351 a bill to provide for expedited approval of exportation of natural gas and for other purposes in which the concurrence of the senate is requested. the presiding officer: the message will be received. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska is recognized.

morning business is closed and under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 1 which the clerk will now report. the clerk: calendar number 1 s. 1, a bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. the presiding officer: under the previous order there will now be 15 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form. ms. murkowski: thank you mr. president. as we just heard the house has sent over legislation that they have moved through that body that would allow for export of l.n.g. as we speak in the energy committee downstairs the committee is considering a bipartisan measure five republicans, five democrats coming together with an l.n.g. export proposal that they have not only worked with the administration but the administration is actually

carrying out without -- without the -- the law being in place. but we are getting to a place i think with our -- certainly with our l.n.g. and our natural gas opportunities where there are good substantive developments being made in our laws and in how we can provide for not only certainty through the regulatory process efficiency, expediency but assurance to the public, to families to businesses, to manufacturers that pricing issues will be addressed and the opportunity for jobs in this country is put first and foremost. so i think there's good news going on today. and there's further good news as we begin the glide path towards passage of the keystone x.l. pipeline. we have had a host of measures

come before us in the some 35 amendments that we have consideredconsidered as a body over the course of these several weeks. i think it's been good debate. i think it's been good process and we're now getting to -- to the final closeout. some very important issues have been raised in this debate and i want to thank senator vitter for bringing the very important issue of revenue sharing to the senate's attention. he's introduced an amendment that has been before us for consideration but before this amendment he has been very very steadfast in ensuring that there is a continued commitment to america's energy security and increasing offshore energy production. the american energy revolution has provided us high-paying jobs for millions of workers. it's led to lower gas prices.

it's provided a real stimulus to the pocketbooks of just about every american. it's fundamentally changing our role on the international stage which is so important. and the amendment that senator vitter has filed to the underlying bill which would increase access to our offshore energy resources and provide revenue sharing for coastal producing states is a very important one and again i thank him for that. one of my top priorities as chairman of the energy and natural resources committee is to help ensure the exploration and the development of alaska's outer continental shelf our o.c.s. which holds an estimated 26 billion barrels of offshore oil, 132 trillion cubic feet of offshore natural gas. this is -- this is clearly an amazing, an outstanding resource base. it's going to take awhile to

develop, more than a decade to develop, but it will provide substantial government revenues for generations to come. but with the benefits that come with this resource development there are also impacts. there will be impacts both to the state of alaska and to coastal communities. it will require major investment in new infrastructure whether it be ports or pipelines or roads. that just comes with that resource production. but i look forward to working with senator vitter to address the revenue sharing not only for my state but for the gulf states and other states that host energy development off of their coastline in legislation that the committee will consider this year. i appreciate my colleague from louisiana's continued support for providing a fair share of the revenue from offshore oil and gas activity to the states that are most affected. his state most clearly has experienced the benefits of

offshore activity. i've seen for myself, as i've gone down to visit. but he's also working hard to ensure that others enjoy those benefits as well. again, we're having a great debate over energy policy. we're seeing many good amendments with ideas that could be included in future bills and i certainly look forward to working on revenue sharing with my colleagues from louisiana senator vitter, senator cassidy and with other members of the senate as we go forward in this congress. i will now yield to my colleague from louisiana for any comments he may choose to make. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you mr. president. i want to champion the chair for her kind words and her continuing commitment to work on important revenue sharing measures. in her new role as chair of the energy committee that's going to happen this year. so that's exciting. as the senator mentioned i filed an amendment to this bill with regard to revenue sharing worked very closely with my new

senate colleague bill cassidy, and others. this is important now more than ever particularly in light unfortunately, of the obama administration's recently announced five-year o.c.s. plan. that plan is grossly inadequate. it really chops up, goes down even lower than we have been with regard to the development of our outer continental shelf. revenue sharing is one key way to reverse that trend and produce more american energy in a safe and environmentally sensitive way and have all of us benefit including, by the way, the federal treasury. so my revenue sharing amendment and other revenue sharing ideas certainly including those senator murkowski is working on would do just that. we have three fundamental goals in mind. first of all we need to expand production activity on our u.s.

outer continental shelf. secondly, we need to treat host states right. they have benefits like the economic benefits we enjoy in louisiana, but there are also costs and burdens. there are absolutely impacts to coastal communities and that requires that some portion of that revenue from that production stay in the host states and that's what revenue sharing is all about. we need that in alaska, we need that in the gulf, we need that when we start production on the east coast. and finally, we need that revenue sharing because that is the most powerful incentive and tool out there to significantly boost production, to get more states into the act to get more production on line, working toward american energy independence and an economic renaissance. revenue sharing properly

formulated will do all of that. and i really do appreciate senator murkowski's focus on this issue and commitment to proceeding with this issue in the senate energy committee in legislation this year. with that having been said mr. chairman i will withdraw my vitter amendment number 80 on this bill and certainly will actively partner with senator murkowski and senator cassidy and others to advance revenue sharing this year. the presiding officer: is there objection to the senator's request? without objection the amendment is withdrawn. the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i thank my colleague from louisiana. i do think that this is an area where those of us from coastal states sitting down together to truly map out a proposal that is fair and equitable really

taking advantage of the benefits of accessing our offshore resources while recognizing that those states that -- that bear the responsibility of these production and development activities should share in some of the benefit there as well. so i'm looking forward to working with him as well as members of the energy committee. mr. president, at this time i would ask unanimous consent that the votes on the barrasso amendment, number 245 and the cardin amendment number 124 occur after the disposition of the udall amendment number 77, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect and there be two minutes equally divided with before the vote on the daines amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.

ms. murkowski: mr. president just for members' information we will be prepared very shortly to commence votes. i think the good news for members is the list of amendments that we had scheduled prior to the lunchtime has actually been winnowed down somewhat. some members such as we've just seen from the senator from louisiana have chosen to withdraw we may be in a position to take some by voice so we will be having votes commencing here very quickly but the good news is that there will be less than there were when we started out this morning. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you very much. i assume there is a moment, a little bit of time to make a couple of comments as we are waiting. is that correct? and commend the chairwoman of

the energy committee for she and the ranking member i think have done an excellent job of moving us through and i think we appreciate when we hear the words an amendment has been withdrawn. so in terms of being able to move the process forward. i did want to mention a couple of things. one, just to remind everyone that when we talk about this canadian oil company bringing a pipeline through the united states down to the gulf, putting it on a ship and sending it to china that they're not paying into the oil spill liability trust fund. out to say the oil should stay here in americans should take all the risk was voted down, the amendment that would require american steel was voted down, and any commitment to make sure these are all american jobs has also been voted down. i did also, because the distinguished chair of the committee mentioned a bill that came over from the house want to take a moment to say as we look

at energy policy in the energy committee today, we are, in fact considering what i consider to be one of the most fundamental questions for us moving forward with this new energy source and abundance called natural gas and it is incredibly important that we get this right as opposed to the pipeline going through the middle of our country this is something that can greatly increase our ability to have manufacturing jobs across the country, to lower -- continue to lower and keep down the prices of heating and other energy costs for our citizens, if it's done right the bill in committee i believe dramatically does it the wrong way the bill that came from the house is very much in my judgment a china-first policy and not an american-first policy. and i say that because right now china is willing to pay more than three times more for natural gas than we are. i understand that the oil and

gas industry wants to rush it on ships over to china but to add insult to injury for us, they're willing to pay last year $16, and then turn around and subsidized their industry that's competing with us and only give it to them for i believe it was $1.78. so then our folks who are forced to pay $16 because we don't have a prudent export policy, they just throw open the doors to send it to china our folks then pay $16 the folks competing with us for our jobs are paying $1.78. so i realize, mr. president, we have a lot more discussion on that at a later point but i do want to say there will be a great debate on what i believe is one of the most important issues in front of us in terms of continuing to having a manufacturing renaissance and the ability to create good

middle-class jobs in this country, and i'm hopeful that in tend we -- in the end we will have an american first policy an china-first policy. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president i think we are just about ready to begin our votes. again, very productive day processing amendments yesterday, and have some good provisions included in the bill. we were able to adopt by voice the senator from maine's provision to coordinate energy assistance for schools that was good for us. so, again, i think we have been able to reach agreement on several of the measures that will allow the process to go

quickly this morning and i'm certainly prepared to yield back any time here so that we can commence the voting, although i want to recognize my ranking member and partner in this weeks-long effort if she wants to have any comments before we go to the votes. ms. cantwell: i know we pushed the votes back so i'm happy to move it back and reclaim some of that time. there are a few things that have been worked out with members and we appreciate with that and i yield back our time. the presiding officer: under the previous order there are two minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to amendment 246 offered by the senator from montana, mr. daines. who yields time?

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: i rise to oppose the daines amendment. while i respect my colleague from montana's respect perspective this does nothing to support the land and water conservation fund. if you want to support lwcf support the bipartisan burr amendment which we'll consider in a few minutes. instead of solving a problem the daines measure drats creates delay for delay's sake, says lccf should be a priority but undermines it by suggesting there's something wrong with the program. for once we have a program where with nothing wrong with it. it's one of the most conservation programs for 50 years funding projects in every state and literally every single county in the united states. these are projects that range from creating new parks for inner city kids to provide new access to sportsmen and protecting our historic battlefields. we don't need to overhaul lwcf.

we need to reauthorize it and let the track record of success continue. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the daines amendment before us now but vote yes on the bipartisan burr amendment to follow. i yield back the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i believe that senator daines is still in the energy committee so i will attempt to speak on his behalf in support of his amendment. reauthorizing the lwcf is something i have said we plan to take up in the energy committee, we're going to make it a priority but i agree this sense of the senate in order to ensure that this program can be an effective tool for management structural improvements to the program are going to be needed. for example i know lwcf has been used to acquire inholdings in national park his and wildlife fumes. we should do more of these kinds of targeted land acquisitions.

another structural change some are interested in is setting aside some of the lcwf funding to address the maintenance backlog facing our land management agencies. we have a combined maintenance backlogs as much as $22 billion according to c.r.s. reports. i will support the daines amendment. mr. president, i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. under the previous order the question occurs on the previous order, the daines amendment number 246. ms. murkowski: i ask the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

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 47, the nays are 51. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment the amendment is not dpread to. -- agreed to. ms. murkowski: move to reconsider. ms. cantwell: lay it on the table. 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 92 as modified, offed by the senator from -- offered by the senator from north carolina, mr. burr. mr. burr: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: madam president the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order.

the senate will be in order. mr. burr: madam president i rise and i'll be brief. but i'd like my colleagues' attention because we've dpot an opportunity today -- we've got an opportunity today to take a program that functions well, that this body designed, funded from royalties off of exploration of energy that's never been fully funded at what the statute said we would do. and every so often it comes up for reauthorization. that's sort of stupid. and what this does -- what this legislation does, it -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. burr: so, madam president sumly what this amendment does is it makes permanent the land and water conservation fund. and to my friends and colleagues if you want to change the makeup of the fund,

what is it does, how it works that still exists. but let's not have the debate as to whether this is going to continue. let's continue it permanently and let's make sure that what they do in their work where they lefnlglefnlgleverage federal dollars to put adjoining land together that stops encroachment on some vincennesive areas -- sensitive areas. this is a smart investment. and it is un-vestment we make off of the production of energy in this country. i urge my colleagues to support amendment 92. ms. murkowski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: madam president, i would suggest that legislative proposals such as reauthorizing the lwcf should be considered under regular order beginning with hearings in the energy and natural resources

committee. obviously this is an issue that many of us are interested in. we've just had a measure before this that spoke to some of the proposed policy changes that might be considered. so whether we are seeking to reauthorize permanently or considering different set-asides of funds that come in for different programs, i would like to think that we could do it through regular order but i certainly understand where the senator from north carolina is coming from and would look forward to working with him. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

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 59, the nays are 39. under the previous order requiring 0e r0e votes for the adoption of this amendment the amendment is not freddie to. -- is not agreed. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. under the previous order, there are now two minutes of debate

equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 77 offered by the senator from new mexico, mr. udall. mr. udall: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: madam president this amendment creates a national market in renewable energy. this bill has -- a bill similar to this has passed the senate three times and also passed the house once. these are the jobs the future, renewable energy jobs. more than half of the new generation of energy in the world is in renewables. and this bill, it's estimated by the people who have studied it and created it, would create about 300,000 new jobs. so i ask my colleagues to support it. it's a good complement to the bill that we're on, and it would create a lot more jobs. i yield back. ms. murkowski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska.

ms. murkowski: mr. president this amendment is an issue that the congress has considered many times over the past 15 years but we've declined to impose a renewable electricity standard. we've called it several different things. we used to it call it a renewable electricity standard, now it's back to the r.e.s. but, madam president this latest proposal that 25% of the electricity supplied by a re-stale provider be generated by certain renewable resources by 2025 is no different than the e.p.a.'s move to impose a 30% reduction in greenhouse gases from existing powerpoints existing power plants. i would encourage members to oppose this amendment. further, madam president, i would note to colleagues that we are very close to finishing up these amendments.

if we move quickly if we stay on the floor and stick to 10-minute votes, we can quick them all out before lunch. i think that that would be good. but it is going to require the cooperation of all members. with that, i would ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not on this vote the yeas are 45. the nays are 53. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment the amendment is not agreed to. without objection. under the previous order, there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment 245 offered by the senator from wyoming, mr. barrasso. ms. murkowski: madam president? madam president, may we have order in the chamber? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: madam president, this is an amendment that senator barrasso has been working with senator cardin.

this simply states -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: thank you madam president. this amendment provides that the federal government must consult with the relevant indian nations before modifying or breaking any trust or treaty obligation. this is already required by executive order. the federal government has been fulfilling its government to government responsibilities on this keystone pipeline project for over six years. i think it is important for colleagues to recognize that this amendment does not create any new law. it's merely an additional guarantee that the federal government lives up to its existing obligations to consult -- to consult -- which i think that we should all be able to agree on. and, madam president, this is an issue, again that senator barrasso has been working with the senator from maryland on and

has indicated that he would accept a voice vote on this amendment. so i would ask consent at this time that the barrasso amendment 245 be modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. murkowski: i would ask that the 60 vote affirmative threshold be vitiated and i urge its adoption by voice vote. the presiding officer: without objection. if there is no further debate, all those in favor say aye. opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment as modified is agreed to. ms. murkowski: move to reconsider. a senator: lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i ask that the cardin amendment -- i ask that -- mr. cardin: would the chair --

madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: am i correct that my amendment amendment 124 is before -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: madam president, i would ask consent that i could take the two minutes in debate on the next amendment and save a little bit of time at the end by withdrawing the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: as we consider both the barrasso and cardin amendments i just wanted to remind my colleagues of a unique history the united states has with indian nations. this history includes over 300 treaties that were negotiated with individual tribes and nations which remain in effect today. for over two centuries our nation disregarded the concerns of tribal nations with respect to expansion and development that affected their communities. this often included abrogating treaty rights and disregarding trust obligations this country has with indian nations and individual nations. but this is no longer how we

work with indian nations in our country. we now have laws and executive orders requiring deliberative and meaningful is consultation on any actions taken by the federal government that affect tribal interests. we have signed on to the united nations declaration of the rights of indigenous people which states the rights of indig. nution people cannot -- indigenous people cannot be abrogated without free and informed consent. nothing is intended to abrogate the rights of an individual indian nation or individual indian. i want to thank senator barrasso on working with us on the amendment we just approved that makes it very clear that the consultation rights must be adhered to. i also want to thank senator heinrich, senator tester and senator cantwell for their incredible help to bring this issue so we could get a compromise. madam president, let me just say lastly the work that senator barrasso and i have done with other members, with the amendments that have been filed to try to find common ground is

what i would hope we would do more in the senate, find common ground. so i'm pleased that we were able to pass the barrasso amendment. and with that, motion to proceed, i would ask consent to withdraw my amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. the amendment is withdrawn. the presiding officer: under the previous order the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on senate bill 1 is agreed to, and the motion to reconsider is also agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate,

do hereby move to bring to a close debate on s. 1, a bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on s. 1, a bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline shall be brought to a close? upon reconsideration. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 62, the nays are 35. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative upon reconsideration, the motion is agreed to. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president i ask consent to speak for up to

15 minutes and following me that the senator from north carolina be recognized for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: mr. president i'm advised by the highly confident floor staff that senators nelson and collins will be worked in to be able to speak shortly after -- shortly after we have because i know they both are hoping to do that. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the following amendment sullivan 67 murkowski 98, flake 103 merkley 174 tillis 102 peters 55. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered mr. alexander: mr. president the senator from north carolina, senator burr, and i are here to speak about an important and exciting development that's about to occur in our committee of health, education labor and pensions. what we're talking about and will describe in our remarks today is a report entitled "innovation for healthier americans" which will launch a

bipartisan effort to look at how congress can help to get cutting-edge treatments, drugs and devices to america's patients more quickly while still preserving this nation's gold standard for safety and quality. this report and the actions that we hope to take will affect virtually every american. and i'm especially glad today to be here with the senator from north carolina. while there are a number of senators in this body on both sides of the aisle who've worked hard on these issues, which in our government are -- are usually dealt with by the food and drug administration and by the national institutes of health no one has been more effective no one has worked harder and no one has had more foresight and vision on these issues than richard burr, the senator from north carolina. the report today is substantially his work product and he'll be deeply involved in the next year as we work with senator murray our democratic friends and with president obama to try to bring this to a result. in 2013, dr. francis collins

director of the national institutes of health wrote the following -- quote -- "drugs exist for only about 250 of the more than 4,400 conditions with defined molecular causes and it takes far too long," dr. collins said "and far too much money to get a new drug into our medicine cabinets. this is an old problem that cries out for new and creative solutions." since dr. collins said that, the number of conditions with defined molecular causes has increased now to about 5,390. yet the number of new drugs approved has not kept pace with these discoveries. the president of the united states has recognized this. in his state of the union message a few days ago president obama said this. "21st century businesses will rely on american science technology research and development. i want the country that

eliminated polio and mapped the human genome to lead a new era of medicine one that delivers the right treatment at the right time in some patients with cystic fibrosis, this approach has reversed a disease once thought unstoppable. tonight," the president said, "i'm launching a new precision medicine initiative to bring us closer to curing diseases like cancer and diabetes and to give all of us access to the penalized information we need to keep ourselves and our families healthier." the senator from washington, senator murray, and i at breakfast yesterday with secretary burwell talked with her about the president's statement and about secretary burwell's own desire to help implement that. so today senator burr and i release the report, "innovation for healthier americans." and next senator murray, who's ranking member of the senate committee on health, education labor and pensions, and i will start examining the issues in this report and to other issues

raised in comments through a bipartisan help committee staff working group. i emphasize that. we're going to be working together, democrats and republicans, we're going to be working with secretary burwell. we're going to be working with the president of the united states, and we're going to be on a parallel track with the house of representatives where chairman upton and his team have been working for several months on what they call 21st century cures. in our committee in the senate will begin hearings in march. and we're releasing the report today in order to ask for comments. surely we missed something in the report, and someone who is listening or reading it may have an idea for solution. we'd like to know about at that. we've opened up an e-mail account just to hear from those outside washington d.c. that's innovation@ innovation@help..senate.gov. improving medical device and

drug development is not a new topic for we cull call it the help committee. legislation was passed in 1997, passed again in 2012 to try to get the same goal of speedy drugs and devices. our goal will be to get bipartisan legislation to the president this year. it is encouraging to have the house, the senate, and the president working on such an important common goal that affects virtually every american during the same congress. that dpraitly greatly increases our likelihood of viewrg securing a result. we want to modernize how drugs and medical devices are discovered an approved. we will examine the work of the national institutes of health which funds and enables much of the research that leads to medical breakthroughs and the food and drug administration which regulates all the medical products we come in contact w with. as i mentioned this work will

touch the life of virtually every single american from a very ill patient who's run out of treatment options and counting on the most cutting-edge drug to an active child with asthma who's hoping to run faster and farther with the aid of a new drug. today disoafs discoveries are being made at a pace that our development processes are not equipped to match. patients wait. f.d.a. commissioner margaret hamburg has acknowledged that "we are left relying on 20th century approaches for the review approval and oversight of the treatment and cures of the 21st century." there's no time to waste in solving this problem mr. president. the mapping of the human genome opened a whole new world of individualized medicine in which a person's genetic makeup can

drive the doctor's plan for disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment. in the words of the former commissioner of the f.d.a., director of the national cancer institute, "we stand on the cusp of a revolution in health care. advances in molecular medicine will allow us to deliver powerful new treatments that can cure or even prevent diseases like alzheimer's and cancer. tomorrow's high-tech cures can also slash health care costs and eliminate ineffective treatments. what will it take to realize the poe teption ofpotential of the new medicine?" today's report is the first step of our initiative and seeks to answer the questions what today is driving innovation what barriers are standing in the way, and what can we improve? the report has five main things. one, it costs too much to bring medical costs to patients. two, the science and technology -- as science and technology advance, the discovery process

takes too long. three, the food and drug administration responsibility has grown to include many responsibilities that are unrelated to regulating medical products. four science oud the outside the f.d.a. is moving at a faster pace than every. and, five, an effective f.d.a. is essential to maintain the united states' leadership in biomedical innovation. i ask consent to include in the record the remainder of my remarks and a copy of the executive summary that senator burr and i are releasing today. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: and mr. president, i now would yield the floor and look forward to the remarks of the senator from north carolina, who as i have said -- no senator has done more on either side of the aisle in this area of helping us think about creative new ways to move treatments medical devices and

drugs through our safety process into the medicine cabinets and into the hands of patients who desperately need them. thank you mr. president. mr. burr: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: many mr. president mr. president i'm pleased to rise today to talk about an issue that, as senator alexander said, is near and dear to my heart. that is, ensuring that america's patients have access to the most cutting-edge medical products in as timely a manner as possible. i look forward to the partnership that children chairman alexander and i have in one of the most crucial studies and processes that we will go through in this session of congress. many of my colleagues know that holding the national institutes of health and the food and drug administration accountable for their work on behalf of america's patients is not a new era of focus for either one of

us. after i was first elected to serve in the house of representatives, i was tasked with modernizing the food and drug administration, a federal agency that controls 25 cents of every dollar of our economy. this work culminated in the food and drug modernization act of 1997 a total revamp of that agency. we modernized the agency in a way that supported regulating in the least burdensome manner while ensuring that innovative products would reach patients in as timely a manner as possible. as many of my colleagues remain, these reforms were adopted at a critical point in the fight against h.i.v. and aids epidemic. but while we made great strides in certain areas fdama's stools a's

-- tools haven't been fully developed. today the timely and predictable review of medical products is key to promoting and protecting the public health just as it was 18 years ago. but the agency's mission and responsibilities have expanded dramatically over that same period of time. the size and the scope of the f.d.a. as an organization has never been more complex than it is today. by its own admission f.d.a. has struggled to regulate the most cutting-edge medical products at the same time that our understanding of medicine and the ability to target treatments to individualized patients has never been greater. the growth of the agency and its responsibilities presents serious management challenges. our report, as the chairman said entitled " innovation for mettlehealthier americans" takes a

hard look at the current status quo, imposes targeted questions that can help inform how we do things better. weengdwe need to identify how we can improve our policies to promote more effective medical device development and to cut down on the total time it takes for the lifesaving products to actually reach america's patients. we've seen how regulatory burdens and uncertainty result in innovation going overseas while america's patients wait for the f.d.a. to catch up. the day-to-day action and in many cases inaction at the agency has a profound effect on our nation's patients patients and our health care. it also directly impacts our economy. f.d.a.-related products count for 25 cents of every dollar spent by an american consumer. the importance of holding the agency accountable for its actions and inactions all the

way from the frontline reviewers 20 to the commissioner has never been more important than right now. here is what the current landscape tells us: it costs too much to bring medical devices through the pipeline to patients. there's no disrupting that cost to bring medical products through the development pipeline that hasn't grown over time. two, as science and technology advance, the discovery and development process takes longer for medical products to make their way to patients. we need to look at the total real time it takes for medical products to reach a patient not just the time of f.d.a. for review. in 2004, f.d.a.'s critical path report warned that today's revolution in boy biomedical science has raised new hopes for cure of severe illnesses. there is a growing concern that many of the new basic science discoveries made in recent years may not quickly yield more

effective, more affordable, and safe medical products for patients. this is because the current medical product development path is becoming increasingly challenging, inefficient and costly. more than a decade later these challenges continue to confront us. we must find a way to embrace our advances and to cut down on the total time it takes medical products to reach an american patient. our report asks for feedback, as the chairman said, on how we do that. three, f.d.a.'s responsibilities have grown to include many activities un-reementedactivities unrelated to the core function of regulating medical devices to advance public health. today there are more than 12,000 employees at the federal drug administration. this growth has exacerbated the medical challenges at the agency and the question is how do we ensure that f.d.a. is equipped to fulfill its mission? four the disparity and in

scientific knowledge are slowing and in some case stifling innovation in america's health care. to ensure that medical device innovation continues to benefit america's patients, our report asks how we could better leverage the regulatory science initiatives to ensure that the novel medical products are reaching america's patients in that timely fashion. five we know that a working f.d.a. is essential to continued biomedical innovation in the united states and maintaining america's global leadership in medical innovation. therefore, we ask for feedback on how congress and f.d.a. can work to align public policy and regulation to support biomedical research as vibrant and healthy components of the u.s. economy. we have a unique opportunity this congress, to take a hard

look at what is and is not working and advance solutions that will ultimately ensure that the n.i.h. and the f.d.a. serve america's patients better. we have an opportunity to focus on these issues without a crisis demanding action, such as the unfortunate meningitis outbreak in 2012. the drug and medical device user fee negotiations have not yet begun. i should add that these negotiations should not begin until everyone has the data to inform how well the agency is currently meeting what was agreed to in the last round of negotiations. it makes no sense to me why anyone would rush to engage in a negotiation before they have the data to know what they're really getting for what they're currently paying for. it's my hope that looking at these issues, without the pressure of an an eminent expiring

user fee will help show where we are where we need to go. while we do not have these precious with us today we do bring an urgency to this work because of what's at stake. these issues impact every single one of our constituents and every single american. but they impact not only our patients but our economy and our global competitiveness. our goal is simple: to align public policies to support accelerated medical innovation and patient access to medicines and medical technologies because when we advance innovation we let america's -- we help america's patients be able to access the most cutting-edge, lifesaving medical devices and products in as timely a fashion as possible. we foster and facilitate the

next generation of cutting-edge products which in turn help to ensure america's continued standing as the world leader of unknowvation. -- innovation. this is good for our inventors and it is good for our patients, and it's good for north carolina. dr. paul howard of the manhattan institute center for medical progress was right when he pointed out that innovation is not optional. it's a national imperative. innovation is trillion to central to addressing our nation's health care costs. it is also central to improving the treatments, outcomes, and ultimately the quality of life for the american people. former f.d.a. commissioner andy von eschenbach was kind enough to pen the foreward of this report. in that foreward he writes this, "government policies can either

inhibit or accelerate the next revolution in science and technology. the time has come to examine whenever our nation has the right public policies in place to realize the full promise of discovery, development and delivery of 21st century medicine." unquote. toward that end i really do look forward to working with my good friend chairman alexander with the ranking member senator murray and with all the members of the help committee as we begin this important process of ensuring that the national institutes of health and the food and drug administration work as well as they can for patients today and more importantly, into the future. mr. chairman i thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this. it won't be an easy road but it's one we're committed to tackle. i urge those who might have input for the purposes of this

study and this initiative to please visit the web site, innovationathelp.com. is that? i think it was. i'm glad to see we put in place. and to my colleagues, both sides of the aisle, health care doesn't distinguish between parties. health care requires us to come together and to put policies in place that drive innovation and drive quality outcomes. if we can do that, we might set a new pathway for how we cure disease, for how we bring down health care costs for how americans look forward to a generation that grows up with less genetically transmitted diseases. with that, i yield the floor. 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 maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, i believe there is a previous order -- there is not a previous order. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the senator from florida senator nelson and i be permitted to

proceed for not to exceed 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you. mr. president, today senator nelson and i rise to reintroduce the retirement security act. this is legislation that we first introduced last year that would encourage more small employers to offer retirement plans that would provide incentives for employees to save more for retirement and would ensure that low- and middle-income taxpayers are able to claim tax benefits for retirement savings that are already authorized in law. our bill is the product of the work that senator nelson and i did together on the special committee on aging.

in the fall of 2013, the committee conducted a hearing on retirement security where we heard from witnesses that far too many american seniors have real reason to fear that they will outlive their savings. according to the nonpartisan center for retirement research at boston college, there is an estimated $6.6 trillion gap between the savings that american households need to maintain their standard of living in retirement and what they actually have. and the group that is -- that was surveyed, mr. president were those americans between ages 32 and 64. nationally one in four retired

americans has no source of income beyond social security. in the state of maine the number is one in three. four in ten rely on this vital program for 90% of their retirement income. yet, social security provides an average benefit of just $1,294 per month less than $16,000 a year. it's hard to imagine stretching those dollars far enough to pay the bills. certainly a comfortable retirement would be out of the question for most americans. a recent gallup poll shows that there is an increase in concern among the american people about their standard of living and

retirement. this has gone up over time. in 2010, 34% were concerned. i'm sorry 34% were concerned two decades ago. now 60% of americans are worried about their standard of living in retirement. sadly, mr. president, they are right to be concerned. projections published in 2014 by the employee benefit research institute show that nearly half of early boomers -- those between ages 56 and 62 -- when the study was conducted are at risk of not having enough money to pay for basic costs in retirement including health care costs not covered by insurance. there are many reasons for the decline in retirement security

facing american seniors including the demise of many defined benefit pension plans in the private sector, the severity of the financial crisis we recently endured rising health care costs the greater and expanding need for long-term care, which is so expensive. but most of all, it is the fact that americans are living far longer than they did in the past. many of us are also reaching retirement age with far more debt than retirees of previous generations. another contributing factor that we found is that employees of small businesses are much less likely to participate in employer-based retirement plans. according to a july 2013 g.a.o.

study, more than half of the 42 million americans who work for businesses with fewer than 100 employees lack access to a work base plan to save for retirement. costs and complexity are among the reasons that plans are not more widely offered by smaller employers. they very much would like to but oftentimes the costs and the complexity make the plans out of reach. making it easier, therefore for smaller businesses to provide access to retirement plans for their workers would make a significant difference in the financial security for many retireees. that is why the bill that we're introducing today focuses on reducing the costs and complexity of retirement plans

especially for small businesses and on encouraging individuals to save more for retirement. mr. president, my full statement will go into detail about the provisions of that bill, and i would ask that the full statement be submitted for the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president i do want to emphasize just a few points in closing and that is there's nothing in our bill that would force a small business to offer a 401(k) plan. that may be impractical for some small employers but what we're trying to do is to provide the incentives for them to do so, to

reduce the cost, to make it possible for them to join together with other employers to after retirement plans. and we are trying to also provide incentives for employees to save more for their retirements. mr. president, during my time on the special committee on aging i have heard countless stories of retirees whose savings did not go as far as they had anticipated. adequate savings reduce poverty among our seniors in what should be their golden years. as the help committee noted in a july 2012 report, elder poverty also increases medicare and medicaid costs and strains our social safety net.

giving those not yet at retirement age more opportunities to save and to save more would help ease this additional burden on entitlement programs that are already projected to be unsustainable. in light of the positive impacts that this bill would have in strengthening retirement security for millions of americans, i urge our colleagues to join senator nelson and me in supporting the retirement security act of 2015. thank you mr. president. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president this bill is born out of the work that senator collins and i did last year on the education -- on the aging committee. and after we had had a hearing

on the condition of the american senior citizen, it was certainly clear that something had to be done to give them better access to retirement plans. and a lot of the situation that senator collins has just described is so true that fewer than half of workers have access to any retirement plan at work, and those numbers are even constricted when you start talking about employees that work for smaller business. and only a quarter of small business with less than 100 employees offers any type of retirement plan for their employees. and the lack of a retirement plan at work means then when you get to be a senior citizen you're ending up relying on social security.

and we're talking about a benefit of maybe $1,300 a month $15,000 a year. well that's simply not enough to pay for housing and medical care and other expenses. and in my state of florida one third of the senior citizens rely on social security income to get by in retirement. well we've got to fix this problem. there are too many people that work too hard throughout their lives and get to be in those golden years and then they're faced with a real crisis. so what the legislation that the two of us have worked on for well over a year it will offer

retirement plans by encouraging small businesses to set up those retirement plans. one example would be small businesses will be able to pool together their resources and take advantage of the economies of scale. there's no reason that a very good retirement plan can't be as a result of cobbling together the resources of many small businesses and still have a retirement plan that makes sense for the individual retirement business because they're getting the economies of scale. the bill is going to encourage the employees to save more on things like providing automatic

enrollment in retirement plans. it's going to encourage increasing the employer match. those things are all common sense. and so i join senator collins in urging our colleagues to come together and let's try to to this for the american senior citizens. mr. president, i yield the floor and 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 massachusetts. ms. warren: i come to the floor -- i'm sorry are we in a quorum call? i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: i come to the floor today to announce the introduction of the medical innovation act a commonsense proposal that could dramatically increase our nation's investment in lifesaving medical research. during much of the 20th century, america made significant investments in this area through the national institutes of health, and it's been a remarkable success. we've transformed medicine across america and around the world. n.i.h. support helps train each

new generation of scientists and develop each new generation of medicine. -inch-supported discoveries often get picked up buy small nimble biotechnology companies which in turn get picked up by large pharmaceutical companies which in turn sometimes result in wildly successful blockbuster drugs. each of these blockbuster drugs brings in more than a billion dollars a year for the drug companies, and each one transforms lives. nearly everyone in congress supports increased funding for n.i.h. but for ten years the n.i.h. budget hasn't even kept up with the pace of inflation. why? because nobody wants to step up and find a way to pay for it. it's time to break the stalemate. the medical innovation act would increase n.i.h. funding without raising taxes and without stealing support from other critical programs.

instead, support would come from blockbuster drug companies, only those that relied on government-supported research to generate billions in sales, and only those that break the law and enter into major settlement agreements with the government. in such cases, the government settlements would go forward as they normally do but the offending a company would also be required to reinvest a relatively small portion of the profits it has general it as a result of taxpayer-supported research and put that money right back into the n.i.h. we celebrate the accomplishments of our pharmaceutical industry, especially the industry's billion-dollar blockbuster drugs. these drugs have literally transformed the treatment of high cholesterol had been, asthma rheumatoid arthritis

colon cancer and leukemia. they help americans live longer healthier lives. but we also know that blockbuster drugs don't just appear overnight as if by magic. rarely do they result from a single giant company's individual genius. i agree with republican senators alexander and burr, who say in a report released just this morning in many cases the research leading to the discovery and development of these drugs has been advanced, funded or enabled in some way by n.i.h. drug companies make great contributions, but so do taxpayers. the big drug companies are making billions as a result of these investments but over the last ten years a few of our wealthiest drug companies have been caught making money a second way by skirting the law. these companies are not getting swept up in minor paperwork

mistakes. they are not victims of overly eager regulators. they've been caught defrauding medicaid defrauding medicaid, withholding critical safety information about their drugs marketing their drugs for uses that aren't approved, and getting doctors kickbacks for writing prescriptions for their drugs. between seven and 2012, the world's largest pharmaceutical companies paid over $13 billion in fines and settlements. despite those numbers it's clear that for the biggest drug companies, this is simply a cost of doing business. in fact, several of the biggest drug companies have been caught breaking the law have paid a fine and then have broken the law again. and why not? even the biggest pharmaceutical settlement ever, a $3 billion department for withholding life-threatening safety data and engaging in illegal marketing

practices, accounted for less than 10% of what the company made selling those drugs. in fact, the day the settlement was announced that company's stock price actually went up. it doesn't have to be this way. the medical innovation act would serve double duty requiring more accountability from the biggest drug companies while giving medical research the support it deserves. this isn't a tax. it is simply a condition of settling to avoid a trial in a major case of wrongdoing. if a company never breaks the law, it will never pay. if an accused company goes to trial instead of settling out of court, it will never pay. it's more like a swear jar. whenever a huge drug company that is generating enormous profits as a result of federal research investments breaks the law, it has to put some money in the jar to help fund the next generation of medical research.

since we announced this proposal we have seen an outpouring of support from hospitals doctors patient groups, and research universities, all of them want to break the stalemate on n.i.h. funding and get back to the business of saving lives. we've also heard some grumbling from the army of lobbyists that works for some of the biggest drug companies companies that would prefer not to pay a bigger penalty when they break the law. and if they have better ideas for ending this congressional stalemate and getting more money into n.i.h., i am eager to hear them. but these lobbyists have also claimed that there is -- quote -- "no logical basis for asking these companies to pay up when they break the law." well i disagree. if a company that is making literally billions of dollars as a result of taxpayers' n.i.h. investments turns around and

engages in allegedly illegal conduct and wants to settle to make the case go away, that seems like a pretty logical basis for asking them to invest a little in the next generation of medical breakthroughs. lobbyists have also written that the medical innovation act might create -- quote -- "unnecessary litigation." well it's illegal to defraud medicare it's illegal to pay kickbacks to doctors it's illegal to hide safetied today from the f.d.a. or manufacture drugs in dirty contaminated facilities. our biggest and most successful drug companies make billions of dollars by inventing treatments andism proving the public's -- and improving the public's health and when they do, we applaud them for it. but if they want to avoid unnecessary litigation, they should follow the law. if they don't want to put a dollar in the swear jar then stop swearing. i don't kid myself. i know how difficult it is to

get things done in washington and i understand that a handful of powerful actors with money and power like things just the way they are and they will fight any effort to change. but even if a few of the biggest drug companies don't like it, i'm hopeful that we can build support for this idea because the medical innovation act is a major move toward substantially increasing federal support for medical research in a way that doesn't raise taxes doesn't cut other critical programs. if this policy had been in place over the past five years n.i.h. would have had nearly $6 billion more every year to fund thousands of new grants to scientists and universities and research centers around the country. that's almost a 20% increase in

n.i.h. funding. it's been ten years of stagnant federal investments followed by sequester cuts, ten years of rejecting potentially life-changing research proposals at n.i.h. ten years of telling young researchers that their innovative ideas have almost no chance of getting off the ground. we are running out of time. today we are choking off support for projects that could lead to the next major breakthrough against cancer, heart disease ebola, diabetes, or other deadly conditions. we're starving projects that could transform the lives of our children on the autism spectrum we're suffocating breakthrough ideas that could give new hope to those with a.l.s. that is not who we are. we are not a nation that abandons the sick, and we are not a nation that says i got

mine the rest of you are on your own. we are a nation of people who work together, we are a nation of people who invest in each other, we've done it for generations and for generations we have led the world in medical innovation. it's time to renew that commitment. our commitment to our children, our commitment to our parents our commitment to ourselves by making it a little easier for the biggest drug companies to help develop the next generation of cures and making it a little harder for them to profit from breaking the law and defrauding taxpayers. it's time to pass the medical innovation act. thank you, mr. president. i yield. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that at 4:30 p.m. on monday february 2, the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 6 h.r. 203 that the time until 5:30 p.m. be

equally divided in the usual form and that following the use or yielding back of that time, that the bill be read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the bill without any intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president there is a disturbing report in "the washington post" today about a major telephone company verizon verizon, putting super cookies on the phones that its customers are being used which will allow those customers to be tracked and if that information is turned over to other third parties to be utilized for

purposes of advertising even though the customer has indicated that they do not want that particular cookie placed on the their device. our staff on the commerce committee will be investigating this and we certainly want to make sure that in this time of ubiquity of eyes prying all around in this electronic age that we are living that we preserve the rights of privacy for all individuals. this is a matter of particular importance to the commerce committee. it is of extreme importance to this senator and i will keep the senate informed. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: 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 connecticut. a senator: ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you mr. president. i know we're about to bring some of the final votes on keystone to the floor but i wanted to take a few minutes to speak on the topic that we will be focused on next week and that is the impending crisis at the department of homeland security should we not continue to fund their operations. this matters greatly to a state like connecticut, a state with an expansive coastline with natural disasters as part of our recent history and with a close connection to some of the potential epicenters for terrorist activity and attacks new york city being at the top of the list. it was just three years ago mr. president, that terrorists staged a horrific attack on downtown paris. before they were finally stopped by law enforcement dozens of innocent people have been killed or injured and the world was

given another reminder of the threats that exist all around us. across europe, countries stepped up their alert increasing their law enforcement presence, raiding suspected terrorist cells and requesting the assistance of the united states to help track down those people that carried out those attacks. astoundingly though, here at home it seems like there are a lot of republicans in congress who would rather talk about deporting children who were brought to this country without documentation rather than talking about funding the very agency that every day seeks to keep our homeland safe from threats. even as our allies in europe look for ways to improve their security, the house of representatives in particular has told us that the only way that we can fund the department of homeland security keeping this country safe, is to start deporting young boys and girls who are here trying to make it in the united states. mr. president, the united states is no stranger to the types of

attacks that happened in france. an ohio man was arrested just three weeks ago when it was diswoferred that hediscoveredthat he was plotting to blow up the united states capitol. i'm certain we haven't foredpotten about the boston marathon bombing or oklahoma city before that. the threats continue to evolve, so why should we play politics with the agency most responsible for responding and getting this country ready for those threats? it is the height of irresponsibility to suggest that -- to suggest as some of my colleagues have, that pushing the deduct, department of homeland security the department responsible for preventing a terrorist attack, shutting that agency down some say would be no big deal. the secretary of homeland security says, "as long as we are on a continuing resolution, we cannot engage in new starts, new spending, new initiatives new dprantses to state and local governments to fund homeland

security missions. we can't put into place the independent panel that recommended chaiption to the secret service. we can't do a lot of things for border security, our counterterrorism efforts are limited. so in 28 days the department of homeland security, the agency charged with border security, aviation security, cybersecurity, presidential security and counterterrorism efforts, is going to run out of funding. instead of working with the senate which overwhelmingly passed a bill to fix our border, republicans are willing to hold up this funding bill so that they can deport dreamers against the president's executive order. this isn't just irresponsible; it's dangerous. in citizens united it matters dprait -- in my state it matters dpraitly. we have seen over the past cephal years as the northeast has been battered by hurricanes, super-storms and blizzards the indispensable nature of agencies

funded in the department of homeland security budget. failing to pass this bill would delay updpraids to critical and necessary emergency communications systems for first responders in my state that are responding to emergencies and disasters and whether we like it minority, they are happening with greater frequency. now, fortunately thanks to the leadership of senator mikulski and senator shaheen, there is a path forward. yesterday they introduced a cleaning full-year funding bill that's been endorsed by every democratic senator. this is the same bipartisan, bicameral bill negotiated by the house and the senate last year. thisthis agreement includes critical assistance increases in funding for our border security, air and maritime and biological detection at our borders. all of these things keep us safe at a time when we know that terrorism is a more real threat

than every not just to the united states bus but to our partner countries. last night the senate passed unanimously a resolution i was proud to have written declaring that we stand in solidarity with the people of france, that we mourn the loss of innocent victims, and we condemn the atrocity of these attacks. i would submit that just as important as are words that we all came together to support is our deeds. will our respond to engage in a partisan fight over immigration or do we come together as republicans and democrats to fund the law enforcement personnel who are charged with keeping our citizens safe? i strongly urge my republican colleagues next week, when we return to this body, to quickly bring a clean bipartisan department of homeland security appropriations bill to the floor. mr. president, i yield the floor and -- the presiding officer: the sno rt from ohio.

mr. brown: i ask consent to speak in morning business for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you mr. president. i rise to discuss the children's health insurance program. this congress 20 years ago passed chip. it was an invention of senator kennedy and senator hatch both senators who cared a lot about what we do to help low-income children. i was at cincinnati children's hospital -- excuse meervetion i -- ex-could excuse me, i was at mercy hospital talking about families who have benefited from the children's health insurance program. the parents of these children and the great majority -- in the great majority of cases have full-time jobs, often two jobs. they typically make significantly less than what we would call a living wage. they rarely have any kind of health insurance although

they're now enter the exchanges or perhaps medicaid, more like lib thelikely the exchanges. but their children are not getting health insurance except through chip. it's been around for 20 years and there are about 10 million children in the united states that benefit from the children's health insurance program. the children's health insurance program is law. it's been reauthorized up through 2019. but, mr. president the funding for it expires this september. i've spoken with members of the senate finance committee including my colleague here, senator nelson from florida who has been a big supporter of the children's health insurance program. senators casey and stabenow have been very involved, senator gillibrand and senator hatch was one of the founders of this with senator kennedy. it is so important we move as quickly as possible because states need to budget these dollars so that this federal

pass-thru, so the dollars go directly for children's health insurance. there are few things we can do more important here than that. in closing, i would add it is not just the right thing to do to fund the children's health insurance program, it is also a smart thing to do because it means that parents will take their children -- a child with an earache to the family doctor because they have insurance insurance, instead of waiting a week until the pain is unbearable, taking the child to the emergency room, costing us all as taxpayers more money and perhaps causing that child some hearing loss. so in addition to helping these families with health insurance saving money it also makes a big difns difference in school that children are less likely to miss school and children will be better able to learn if in fact they have better health insurance. we know that's the case for our own chin. we all here have government health insurance as members of the senate.

and it is important we do what we ought to do for the children's health insurance program. it will matter for so many families in north dakota, the presiding officer's state and in my state of ohio. mr. president, i note -- i yield the floor. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. thune aremr. thune: are we in a quorum call? officer we are not. mr. thune: last year we saw an all-time record on the number of recalled vehicles. the congress held five safety hearings examining genetically modified switches and takata switches and whether nhtsa is up to the task of providing effective oversight of the auto industry. mr. president, what is absolutely clear from our hearings and other media kofnlg is that we need to ensure that

the potential vehicle safety defects are identified as i recallly as possible so that we can protect consumers and hopefully prevent deaths and injuries. that's why earlier today senator nelson and i introduced the motor vehicle safety whistle-blower act. i am blessed to note that senators heller, mccaskill ayotte and blumenthal have cosponsored this legislation. senators moran and blumenthal being added as original cosponsors of this legislation is important because of their respective responsibilities as the chairmen and ranking member of our subcommittee on consumer protection which has played a large role over the years on various automobile safety efforts. this afternoon i am pleased that senator nelson has joined moo me on the floor to discuss this important piece of legislation and our ongoing work on vehicle safety issues. as the chairman and ranking member one thing that has remained constant on our committee is a spirit of bipartisanship. with regard to senate bill 304

the motor vehicle safety whistle-blower act this legislation will incentivize auto employees who uncover serious allegations of vehicle defects or violations of motor vehicle safety laws that could thread death or serious bodily injury to voluntarily provide that information to the department of transportation. if such information leads to the department of transportation or department of justice enforcement action that totals more than $1 million in penalties, the whistle-blower would be eligible to share in a portion of a total penalties collected. this bill will also protect whistle-blowers' identities and allow d.o.t. to share information with the department of transportation and other federal agencies where appropriate. other agencies have similar programs including programs that incentivize individuals to report information to the securities and exchange commission and to the internal revenue service. nhtsa plays a key role in ensuring the safety of vehicles that consumers drive. record fines have been leveed

against toyota, general motors, honda, and other manufacturers. in 2014, nhtsa issued more than $126 million in civil penalties exceeding the total amount collected by the agency in all of its 43-year history. ensuring the safety of american motorists is a priority, but the public's trust has been shaken due to the record number of recalls this past year. almost 64 million vehicles were recalled in 2014, which is about three times the number of vehicles recalled in 2013. and the concerns many have about problems in the industry and at nhtsa. at after my repeated calls on the president to fill what had been a lengthy vacancy of the administrator position at nhtsa without a confirmed nhtsa for 389 days, i am glad to say that the commerce committee did its job to ensure that dr. mark rosekind was confirmed as

administrator before the end of last year. however, there is much more work that needs to be done. the defects associated with genetically modified ignition switch recall and the takata air bag recalls were apparent failures with serious safety consequences that resulted in death and serious injury. as we learned from the genetically modifiedg.m.incident it can cost lives. in recent years congress has enacted and nhtsa has implemented an early reporting regime. i believe we can do more to ensure that nhtsa is informed of potential defects as early as possible. some of the major auto manufacturers and other -- and automakers and manufacturers have also instituted or sought to improve internal safety reporting systems that encourage employees to report safety problems. i applaud these efforts but reports of employees whose concerns may have been ignored silenced or possibly even

covered up persist. if there are potential whistle-blowers with important information to help nhtsa identify more defects that are not being addressed we want them to come forward so that these problems be with identified much earlier in the process. i think we would all agree that it's better to address a problem before injuries or deaths occur if at all possible rather than relying primarily on fines imposed after the fact. this is a commonsense bipartisan bill that will help to prevent injuries and deaths for american drivers. nhtsa and other stakeholders have provided input on this legislation. i look forward to working with these groups and with my colleagues and particularly with senator nelson, as we move forward with the committee to process and pass this legislation. i would like to now yield to the senator from florida senator nelson for his remarks. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president in light of the late hour just

before our votes, i will submit for the record a statement of which -- which correlates with the chairman of of our committee, and i want to thank him for so much of his cooperation over last year and all the investigations and the hearings that we did as well as now. what i would say new is that i want to provide an update on the status of the committee's investigation into the defective takata air bags. when we had the hearing last november that i had the privilege of chairing, we received testimony from several witnesses including a senior executive from the takata corporation, which manufactures the air bag involved in the rupture and the explosive

incidents that basically are lacerating people with pieces of metal as the air bag that's supposed to save their lives in fact is endangering their lives and in some cases killing them, and this has happened to two of my constituents in florida. and while the hearing produced some basic information about the problem well, obviously many questions remain. and so following up on those critical questions senator rockefeller, then the chairman of the committee and i and other senators sent a letter to takata requesting information and documents related to takata takata's air bag defects defects and in their initial response provided to the committee in early december takata included a list of all incidents of which it is

aware that allegedly involve a death or injury caused by a rupturing takata air bag. the response re-that the scope of injuries involved in the takata air bags appears to be greater than we previously thought. in its initial response takata identified five deaths and 64 injuries. although some of these incidents may be ultimately tied to other causes this potential injury figure is far bigger than what had been reported in the press. unfortunately, one death and 17 of these injuries occurred in my state of florida, more than any other state. and among the alleged injuries in my state many were serious

including lacerations and fractures to the face, burns to the neck, face and torso and traumatic brain injury and hearing loss. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent for one additional minute to conclude my statement. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: so sadly, i have even more bad news to report today. through public information, we have learned that an exploding tacotta air bag appears to be responsible for yet another death. less than two weeks ago a texas man who was driving his 11-year-old cousin was involved in a low-impact crash and when the airbag deployed instead of protecting him the airbag ruptured and sent a metal piece of shrapnel into the man's neck. and when the police arrived, he was already dead.

we are awaiting more information from tacotta. we're determined to get to the bottom of this. and so i look forward to working with the chairman on this issue. we plan to continue the investigation until all of our questions have been answered and we're going to do everything possible to get to the bottom of things so that consumers are made whole. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i would ask unanimous consent there be two minutes equally divided prior to each vote and that all after the first in the series be 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. the question occurs on the booker amendment number 155. who yields time? mr. booker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: thank you mr. president. my amendment number 155 ensures

that federal agencies disclose to the public landowners and communities any new significant circumstances learned about the impact of the keystone x.l. pipeline. the national environmental protection agency, or nepa, is one of the most emulated statutes in the world. it's used as a model around the gloald. andglobe. and nepa is often referred to as a modern day environmental magna carta. these are very commonsense ideas. the nepa regulations really do require agencies to actually supplemented already issued environmental impact statements when significant new circumstances or information is found to exist relating to significant environmental impacts of a project. the pending keystone bill, however, would deem that the final environmental impact statement issued last january will fully satisfy nepa.

in other words if new circumstances come up that are germane and important they do not get a chance to alter that statement. my amendment would change that and would preserve the obligation of agencies -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. booker: i would respectfully ask for 20 more seconds. my amendment would change that and preserve the obligations of agencies to supplement their environmental impact statements. so, for example, if the route of the pipeline was to change it could mean drinking water supplies and other critical resources will have a higher risk of contamination from a spill. people should know that. when american companies are building projects, they comply with this important nepa safeguard. foreign companies should have to be given -- excuse me, should not be given a short cut. if american companies do it, foreign companies should do the same. this amendment is supported by the national resource defense fund the sierra club and a number of other organizations and i ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

thank you mr. president. mrs. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mrs. murkowski: mr. president we are here today because this keystone pipeline border crossing permit has been pending for years. there's no short cuts that are at play here. senator booker's amendment drafted as a savings clause would withhold the approval that the bill seeks to confer if there are any new circumstances new information relevant to environmental concerns. that's the whole point here. the keystone administrative record is already thousands of pages long. we've had six years of dos and redos. if this amendment is adopted it begs the question as to whether or not there will ever be a decision. i think the obvious strategy of pipeline opponents is to drag out the approval process until everybody just gives up on it, that everyone walks away. that is -- that's certainly not the intent of those of us who

support this bipartisan bill. we don't want to see an endless round of further considerations. i think the majority here in the senate believes that it is time to move forward. the majority of people in this country who've looked at this issue believe it's time to move forward. let's not have continued delays. i would urge a rejection of this amendment. 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:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there anyone wishing to change their vote? if not the ayes are 41, the nays are 56. the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president i call for the regular order with

respect to the boxer amendment number 130. it's my understanding that -- the presiding officer: the amendment is now pending. ms. murkowski: it is my understanding that senator boxer is willing to forego a roll call vote but she would like to speak to her amendment and i would turn to senator boxer. mrs. boxer: thank you. colleagues, if i could have your attention. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: if i could ask for the attention of my friends. the presiding officer: order please. mrs. boxer: thank you. mr. president, the reason i so wanted to have this one minute even though i'm not asking for a roll call vote is because i want to make it clear what we are doing in this underlying bill. this is the only time in the history of the senate that we have given such a big hug and kiss to a private company -- any

private company american or foreign. my amendment simply says that if trans-canada breaks the rules related to any permit that they have -- for example there's an oil spill they don't follow the oil spill plan or they don't handle hazardous waste in the right way a whole list. they use the wrong steel. they're dangerous they're dangerous to their workers. it doesn't matter what they do, under the underlying bill, s. 1 they can never lose their permit permit. we don't do that for any other company let alone a foreign special interest company that is going to take this oil and siphon it right out of america. 35 permanent jobs, a trail of misery follows the tar sands. so i'm not going to ask for a vote because i get the writing on the wall. i would hope we would have a voice vote. and i'd urge my folks to yell a "yes" if they can.

ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i think it's clear that the good senator from california and i disagree on whether or not the keystone x.l. pipeline should proceed. it is apparent that we disagree on the reach of the section on permits that's currently in the bill and also more specifically in the substitute amendment that we are discussing. i'm willing to agree that the permits that have already been issued should not be affected. that was the intent of the provision within the substitute. i am going to be voicing my opposition through a loud "nay" and would encourage my colleagues the same. with that, i ask for the yeas and nays. i withdraw that. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. all in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed no. the noes appear to have it.

the amendment is not agreed to. there are now two minutes of debate before the vote on the markey amendment number 141. mr. markey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you mr. president. my amendment is very simple. it would require that before the keystone x.l. pipeline is deemed approved that we should determine whether carbon pollution, including the carbon pollution from the tar sands oil production, will contribute to an increase in more extreme weather events. we should know if carbon pollution is going to put another climate change card in a deck that is already stacked for more extreme rainfall and snowfall and for more dangerously hot summer days. since 2010, there have been 49

weather and climate disasters in our country that caused at least $1 billion in damages across the united states. we should not be making energy policy decisions that increase the risk of costly extreme weather events. i urge an aye vote. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i would suggest that this amendment is designed to yet further delay this pipeline. it requires that a study be done by all federal agencies with even a smidgen of review authority to determine whether increased greenhouse gas emissions are likely to contribute to an increase in more extreme weather events. it doesn't specify that the increased greenhouse gases that are understudy are only related to the pipeline project. so, for instance, the president's deal to allow an increase in chinese greenhouse gas emissions until 2013 -- 2030 if it caused the impacts listed in this amendment it would stop the pipeline.

this is not what we want to do. i'm going to be urging my colleagues to vote no. ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: if there are no other senators wishing to vote, the ayes are 36 the nays are 62, and 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 equally divided on the vote in relation to the markey amendment number 178. mr. markey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you mr. president. mr. president, right now the canadian pipeline company is receiving a get out of canada free slip. they do not have to pay taxes into the oil spill liability fund. the presiding officer: could we have order in the chamber please. the senator from massachusetts.

mr. markey: thank you mr. president. a and you may remember, last week the republicans objected because they said that senator wyden's amendment had a blue-slip problem from the house because the tax has to originate from the house. and you might remember last thursday night the senators on the republican side objected to my amendment late at night again on procedural dprownds. well the good news is we've been able to find a way of having a straight upand down vote on the substance of whether or not the canadians have to pay into the oil spill liability fund. and so this is going to be the vote that determines whether or not they are going to be able to build pipeline right through our country where we're running all the environmental risks, and if a spill occurs, they have not contributed to the oil spill liability fund. so this is the pure vote. it is not procedural. it's "yes" or "no." do they contribute or not do that fund? i urge an aye vote.

ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator prosecute alaska. ms. murkowski: i am going to be opposing this amendment. i do believe it is unnecessary. we've already debated and dispensed with this just last week. we voted for the sense of the senate amendment which called for a loophole within the oil spill liability trust fund to be closed. we set us on a path to work with the house on that. that amendment is now part of this bivment bill. i thank the senator from massachusetts for his support in make being sure we did adopt that. i think most of us believe that this loophole should be closed, and i'm confident that we will close it well before the keystone x.l. pipeline goes into operation. we got to remember, my friends that before any oil flows through this pipeline that can be put into the oil spill liability trust fund, it has has to be built first. that's what this amendment -- that's what this bill before us does. i want to make sure that we address this with the house. we will do so.

i would urge a "no" vote on this amendment. the presiding officer: question is on the amendment. 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 wishing to vote or change their vote? hearing none, the ayes are 44. the nays are 54. the amendment markey amendment number 178 is not agreed to. without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president given the results on other votes -- the presiding officer: could we have order in the chamber? ms. cantwell: given the vote on the boxer and booker amendment and giving everybody

here, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the cantwell amendment 131. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: thank you mr. president. i'd like to announce this is the last vote of the week. the final vote on the keystone pipeline will be the last vote of the week. the next vote will be at 5:30 on monday. the presiding officer: there will now be two minutes of debate prior to the vote on passage of s. 1. as amended. is there objection? without objection, all time is yielded back. the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time.

the clerk: calendar number 1 s. 1 a bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the passage of s. 1 as amended. a senator: the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who wish to vote or change their vote? hearing none, the ayes are 62. the nays are 36. senate bill 1 as amended is passed. mr. cornyn: move to lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president i am very pleased that we are at this point. three solid weeks of debate. you, mr. president introduced this bill on the 8th of january, and we are now here on

january 29 after weeks of good, solid debate, and we have now officially passed our bipartisan bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. and as important as that is, as important as that is for jobs in this country for energy security for good trade relationships with our neighbor in canada, for all the right reasons it was important that we pass this legislation in front of us today. but we also did another thing in this chamber these past few weeks, and that was really getting to the point of returning to what we call regular order around here. the senate has been given the title of the world's most deliberative body, and i think it's fair to say that in recent

years we haven't really worn that title very well. we have not been able to engage in the deliberation, in the debate that i think members of the senate expect and that members of the public at large expect. and so what we have seen these past few weeks -- that return to regular order where a member is free to call up an amendment have it debated have it fall or succeed based on a process that has been long established here in these chambers, that's a good thing to see. and, boy did we have our share of ideas. by last count, i think there were close to 250 amendments that members had offered up from both sides of the aisle. that's a lot of ideas. that's a lot of pent-up demand,

if you will, on energy-related legislation. and all in all we voted on just over 40 -- i believe the final count is 41 amendments that we had separate amendments on. we've made a lot of the statement that we have surpassed with just this one bill in this one month all of the recorded votes that we had throughout 2014. in fact, we surpassed it by nearly three times more than all we had in 2014. and senator cantwell and i have been here in the well during this last vote and have received thanks from members who said thank you for getting us to this point, and we appreciate that. good job good job. but i think we all recognize that there were some, at some

points very clear tension around here and that is just part of the process. but fortunately cooler heads prevailed. we were able to come back together. we were able to get the process moving forward and keep this bipartisan coalition intact. i do want to just point out to the members that with the help of the ranking member on the energy committee, with the exception of one night we did it all during daylight hours which is something -- not to get real personal around here. we've kind of gotten in a habit in recent years until not even taking up votes until just about the dinner time hour. i don't know about the rest of you, but when i call the family in for dinner, you kind of

expect this is dinner time. i'm pleased that we were able to work with everyone's schedule, move through amendments in a fashion that was reasonable and was structured. yesterday wasn't exactly convenient in the numbers that we processed but we did it. so i appreciate the great level of cooperation that we have. it's not easy to start out a new congress in a new majority as the manager of the first bill that is brought to the floor but i had a lot of help. phenomenal help. and i would like to take a brief moment to thank those that have provided counsel and assistance to us. so this is kind of like the academy awards for the first bill coming through. i would like to recognize my staff on the energy committee that have done a fabulous job with every part of this process. my staff director karen billups. pat mccormick my legal

counsel. kelly, donelon heys. kate williams, chris kirney. mike todayo. brian hughes. on the energy committee and on my personal staff as well. the interns on the energy and natural resources committee samine parovy and rich treadwell did a great yob -- job assisting my staff making sure we had the modifications in front of them. i also want to thank the members of the natural resource team in the senate office of the legislative counsel. these folks are the unsung heroes. these are the ones who helped prepare the more than 240 amendments that were offered to this bill. so you never see these folks but they're sitting churning out amendments as quickly as we can move ideas to them.

gary endicott, christina jacket dina edwards and heather lowell. and it is absolutely not possible to do what we did in moving this measure through or any measure without recognizing the work that our floor staff does for us. and i would like to thank laura dove the entire cloakroom staff, the parliamentarians and the clerks, really works -- they really worked hard. and also to recognize on the democrat side of the aisle gary -- everybody has just done a phenomenal job and i so, so appreciate that. but i truly must state that the opportunity to start with this first bill, to be working with

my ranking member, maria cantwell on this effort, knowing that she was just getting her staff in line as we moved to this bill, the staff director on the ranking side, i don't even think had officially been brought on, and it was full on. and they have done extraordinary work working with us. i do want to recognize angela becker-ditman, sam fowler and the rest of her team. and i want to recognize barbara boxer and her staff as well. there was so much that needed to be coordinated. to my ranking member i want to thank you for your patience, for your partnership for the really very good faith efforts that you have made as we have worked to get this bill to a conclusion. and just a continued gesture of

want to work together with you know that i'm going to be with you this weekend rooting for the seahawks at the super bowl here. so yet one more area of cooperation. but a grand thanks to my ranking member and my partner on this bill. with that, madam president i thank you and i yield the floor to senator cantwell. ms. cantwell: thank you madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i too want to talk for a few minutes about what an incredible process it's been because as the senator from alaska stated that this was all a very unique experience, coming to a new congress and being the very first bill up and everybody moving to that discussion. so i want to thank the senator from alaska for her -- i know we both -- or let's say both

sides of the aisle tested people on amendments, and the amendment process but i would say it was the trust that we could negotiate that got us through a couple of rough spots and the fact that i could count on the senator from alaska for negotiating and trusting what we she had to say about how we could move forward and getting these votes and getting things done. i i thank her for that and certainly can't wait to work with her on broader energy policy legislation because while i think that people probably still look at us as representing states of washington and alaska what people may not realize is how intertwined alaska and washington's economies really are. so if there's anybody who can find commonality on energy policy even given the differences of our states and the differences of our side of the aisle i think the senator from alaska and i will have a chance to do that and i think

this process we just went through bodes well for us trying to say to both both sides of our aisles there are things we can discuss and that process can work. so i thank her for that and i look forward to the many things in fact we just had a hearing this morning so i said with two women heading up this leadership on -- in the energy committee and two women staff directors multitasking is front and center in the u.s. senate, and i would just say i don't think, you know a lot of people would see either of us out in the halls making declarations, i think we just hustled our way to the floor to try to get things done and i hope that's what we can do as we move forward through this process. i, too want to thank -- certainly karen phillips on the majority side staff hadn't had a chance to work with her yet in this capacity and certainly

appreciated her and want on my side ank la becker ditman who did come the very first day sometime in mid january i think, so to come back to the energy committee and have the first bill and have it right in front of us and not be totally staffed up, certainly appreciate her leadership and her dedication to energy policy and sam fowler and david brooks and jerry leopold on my staff for their hard work on this and i, too have a list of staff that i just want to read quickly, will dempster, clayton allen renee black david gellers dan amendmentson, nick sutter and alicia johnson and carl sype. there are a couple of other people from my staff nicole touche and travis lumpkin but i

want to thank the floor staff. first time i've managed a bill on the floor so gill and trish engel and rima from senator durbin's office and emma, thank you so much for helping us through a process that as my colleague said for the most part didn't take us way late into the night and got a lot of things accomplished when we could during the day. needless to say i'm not as excited about the passage of this legislation as my colleague on the other side of the aisle but, you know, we did find out some things during this process. we did find out that the majority of the senate doesn't think the climate change is a hoax, couldn't quite agree whether it's significantly caused by man or just caused by man some some in some areas but that was a step. a huge enthusiasm for energy efficiencies saw that people were willing to accept voice vote or vote 95 on things that were energy efficiency so i think that bodes well for the senator from alaska and i

thinking about more energy efficiency policy and obviously i remain concerned about the holes in the legislation everything from the things we can't get to pass, the trust fund and the fact that we still need to figure out oil spill cleanup processes on something like tar sands. i appreciate the senator from alaska mentioning some of the these -- some of the areas for continued work because we will definitely take her up on that process. and certainly want to try to take some of the issues that our colleagues like senator peters brought up and work on them moving forward. but i do hope that this process as it relates to the legislation, i hope our colleagues coming from the state of alaska where -- coming from the state of washington where we have so many coal trains and oil trains coming through our area i wish a

pipeline would be a remedy for us but it's not even according to the railroads and other statistics. a pipeline is not dough to make a dent in the number of oil trains coming to the peck. the fact that the -- pacific northwest. the fact that we don't have a solution for cleaning up tar sands is something we want to push forward on and i hope we can get our colleagues around the fact that the number of crude oil incidents has been growing since 2009. it used to be we were having a decline and now according to the associated press we are seeing an increase at least 73 different accidents in 2014 and 83% increase over 2009. what we're seeing, we're seeing new sores developed and new ways of transporting them and huge acceleration and i hope congress will fake take a deep breath and get these issues as relates to safety and security outlined and

into law. and i hope that we will take a chance to do that. and i still hope that the president of the united states will -- i hope that he vetoes the legislation because frankly, i want him to be able to negotiate. i want him to be able to negotiate with this company the terms and agreements by which this pipeline is going to be built. i want him to protect the american economy i want him to protect the american farmers and i want him to protect the american environment. so -- but i do again say to my colleague from alaska that if she and i can get thousand threw these few weeks on a bill that a lot of our colleagues are predetermined on but have so many different amendment discussions, yes maybe it bodes well for a bigger bipartisan energy bill. so i'll certainly look forward to working with her on that. and i thank her for her leadership during a time period

where she had many, many things on her plate and this was just -- this was just one of them and i hope that we can get some of the issues that we care about on our side of the aisle that i think really do lead to job growth, the energy tax credits a focus on energy efficiency and a focus of diversification also on the energy agenda. with that i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: maps i want to -- madam president, i want to thank the senator from washington for her comments and i think it is clear that we have a great deal of work in front of us but i think we also have a better idea of where some of that common ground may be as a result of the discussions this past month. so i'm looking forward to advancing an energy initiative through the committee and hopefully through the full process that will speak to the attributes of a --

affordability, abundance a clean energy supply, diverse and secure. we have a lot of work to do. in the comments that i made, i thanked a lot of people, but i think it is important to recognize that the senator from washington and i would not have been able to do the job that we did, managing this bill on the floor, working with other members, with other staff on the floor and our respective staffs if there had not been a clear and conscious decision that management of what was going to happen on the senate floor, i was going to be a little bit different that there would be an opportunity for debate and some have described whee-wheeling debate. what is free-wheeling debate? i think we've defined it here with the keystone x.l. pipeline. i don't know whether that's going to be the course for everything going forward but this was a pledge that the

majority leader, senator mcconnell made when he became the majority leader and i think we have seen that play out in a process that has been respectful we're at the end of the discussion, we can still agree to disagree on the bill itself but the process that has gotten us through final passage has been one that, again, was respectful and did allow for full and civil discourse. i think that's what the senate should be all about and i'm proud to have been part of it. with that i know that my good friend from north dakota the sponsor, prime sponsor of this bill is waiting to speak and i congratulate him for a phenomenal job. he and his staff i should have mentioned his staff. ryan and the others that have been working behind you have done a great job. but senator hoeven has been articulate persistent, and

really has done a phenomenal job moving this through the process. and so congratulations to you. and with that i yield to my friend from north dakota. mr. hoeven: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i'd like to thank the senator from alaska and the senator from washington as bill managers, i think they've done an can exceptional job. i know that's not just my opinion but it's an opinion shared on both sides of the aisle. and it's not just that they were able to do the work on this bill but actually to facilitate the debate that really enabled us to move through an open amendment process and a return to regular order. and not easy to do. because, obviously, you know, we had people that had ideas on a whole variety of issues and clearly, we have strong support for the legislation but there are those who oppose the

legislation as well. so to find a way to keep that amendment process going and end up with more than 40 amendments and, of course get to a final vote and pass the legislation is a real testament to both of the bill managers and so i really want to thank them for it and i want to thank all the members of this body who supported the legislation. bipartisan vote, you know, getting more than 60 votes is no small achievement for any piece of legislation. and this bill has already passed the house and we're already conferring now with the house on whether we'll need to go to conference or hopefully get their concurrence but obviously our objective is to put it on the president's desk as soon as possible. and, you know, this is an important step in building

the kind of energy plan our country needs. we can't get to energy independence or energy security without building the infrastructure we need to move that energy from where it's produced to where it's consumed. and we have to remember that, yes, this is about working with our closest friend and ally, canada and some of the oil in the pipeline will be moved from the, from oil production in canada. but it's also about moving our domestic oil here in this country from states like mine and from the state of montana and moving that oil as safely and as efficiently and as effectively as possible and moving it in a way that actually produces less emissions than if you're trying to move all that oil on trains, which is what's being done now. moved on trains, you're talking 1,400 railcars a day instead of moving it through a pipeline. it's not only a safety issue it's not only a cost issue it's not only an efficiency issue. it is about actually producing

less emissions and making sure we don't create congestion on our railroads to move all the other goods that we want to move. so this is about building the kind of infrastructure plan for energy and other things that we want for this country. and so, i hope that the president now will join with us. clearly we're going to move this to his desk, and i hope that he'll work with us. that's what the american people want. if you look at this legislation if you look at this keystone x.l. pipeline project, it is about energy. it's about jobs. it's about helping grow our economy. it's about working to achieve national security in terms of energy security. it's about building the right kind of energy plan for the future of our country. here's where we're at. this process was started over six years ago. and not only has this body, both

the house and the senate now advanced this bill in a bipartisan way with strong bipartisan majorities in both chambers but every state on the route, all six states on the route have approved this project as well. you've got the congress that's approved it on a bipartisan basis. you have all six states that are included on the route they've approved it through their processes. you've got the supreme court in the state of nebraska, which has adjudicated, legislated in that state. that's been resolved. our closest friend and ally, canada, wants us to work with them on energy security for north american energy security. but most important of all the american people want this done. in poll after poll, the american people overwhelmingly support this project. over the last three years that support has ranged from 65% to

70%. even in a most recent poll that came out this month three to one, 65% to 22% the people want the president to sign this bill. again, i hope the president will join with us and work with us and support this legislation as we work with our leader on the energy committee and with our ranking member. and we don't agree on everything obviously, but there are things we can work on together. and we're working to build the right kind of energy plan for this country to get energy security. and there will be more work to do, but i hope the president will join with us now in a bipartisan way and sign this legislation. again, my thanks to the bill managers, to the members of this body who supported the legislation. i appreciate it very much. and with that, i know that the good senator from texas has a few words. but i'll first yield the floor back to the senator from alaska.

mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: majority whip. mr. cornyn: madam president let me say to the senator from alaska and the senator from north dakota, congratulations and how much i admire and appreciate their tenacity. the 114th congress has a lot to prove. mainly what we had to prove is we weren't like the 113th congress that was just completely dysfunctional particularly the senate. i have to say to our good friend the presiding officer it wasn't the house. it was the senate that was dysfunctional. the house passed a lot of legislation that came to die here in the senate because the then-majority leader made the decision that he wasn't going to move it. and so it's a new day in the senate and while i'm sure the bill managers would tell you it wasn't easy, we actually have an accomplishment thanks to the leadership of the senator from alaska and the senator from north dakota, but thanks to an

awful lot of people. and that's progress. and i hope that the first efforts we've made here by being able to pass legislation hopefully the house will concur and send it to the president, we will have done our job. what the president decides to do is about him doing his job. we can't fail to do our job just because he refuses to do his job. and in fact when he's announced for seven different pieces of legislation he's going to veto them the easiest thing for us to do would be to curl up in the fetal position and say we give up we're not even going to try. we haven't done that. again, i think this is a great accomplishment. so i'd say to my friends, the senator from alaska, the senator from north dakota and others who have gotten us here today well done. madam president, i'd like to turn to another topic. that seems like it's a metaphor

for life here in the senate. we've finished one important piece of legislation and we turn the page to the next topic. and i'd like to talk about the budget. next monday the president is expected to release his 2016 budget. and of course budgets are a time when you talk about and deal with your priorities. and this budget will reflect the president's priorities, i'm sure. i hope one of those priorities is to put the country on a more sustainable path. but one of the things i'm really glad about is for the first time the president -- in a long time the president is actually going to propose his budget on time. so the president has missed so many previous deadlines that over the years people hardly notice anymore but that's good. the president releasing his budget on time. so while i'm happy to see that he will have meet his statutory

deadline what i'm really interested in seeing is what he has in the budget to see if he's willing to meet the challenges of our day by drafting a serious budget including realistic priorities. and of course that also means making tough decisions. but that's what, where budgets are so helpful. and you know, i'm an optimistic person but if the president's state of the union rhetoric is any indication of what we'll see next week, i'm concerned that the budget will be loaded with more taxes more spending and more debt. and that certainly isn't a sustainable path forward for the country. but last year the president's budget the 2015 budget, would have raised taxes by more than $1 trillion and increased our national debt by trillions more.

and his budget would have never balanced. i can't think of anything worse during a time of slow economic growth than layering on $1 trillion of additional taxes on the people we're depending upon to create jobs and make the development -- investment to get the economy growing again and get america back to work. and here's another sort of sleight of hand that the president has been using lately. he's been talking a little bit about deficits. now, deficits, as we all know, is the difference between the money that comes in and the money that's paid out on an annual basis. the debt is a different topic. that's the long-term debt. actually it's the accumulated deficits which represent the biggest challenge. the presidents like to say the deficit has come down, which is true. but primarily the reason for that at that is because of a huge tax increase he embraced a

couple of years ago along with the sequester or discretionary spending caps that were in the budget control act of 2011. the combination of higher taxes that the president sought and got and the spending restraint that essentially was championed on this side of the aisle and has resulted in lower annual deficits. but the fact of the matter is we're still spending money we don't have, as the distinguished member chairman of the budget committee likes to say we're still overspending. we're still spending money we don't have. as long as we have any deficit. but deficits won't hold up for long as a reliable red herring. factors contributing to lower deficits will soon change. spending on obamacare and other broken entitlements will ramp up from here. and on the president's current trajectory it's only a matter of time before those annual deficits start building again

and adding even more to our national debt. what the president is hoping is that they will be basically distracted by his happy talk about lower annual deficits and we won't pay attention to the looming elephant in the room which is our national debt, which has grown more than $7 trillion in the six years that he has been in office. more than $1 trillion a year. so the national debt is $18 trillion and counting. and it's set to explode over the long term. now i realize that most of us can't possibly conceive of what $18 trillion is, but if you consider the fact that we've got 320 million people in america and we've got an $18.1 trillion national debt, that each one of

us, from the eldest american, most senior american, to the baby that was just born, each of us owe $56,500 in debt. last week -- or earlier this week the congressional budget office released its annual budget and economic outlook that provided an updated economic forecast for the current fiscal year and for ten subsequent years. and according to the congressional budget office, under current law the national debt is expected to grow yet more than $9 trillion in the next ten years. so the president's added $7 trillion during the six years he's been in office. and if we don't do something quickly, we're on a trajectory to add $9 trillion more over the next ten years. the congressional budget office's report also shows that in five years the federal

government will spend more than $500 billion in interest on the debt alone and 827 billion in ten years. so here's really the ticking time bomb if you think about it. because of slow economic growth globally, a lot of the federal reserve banks, they have done the best they can to keep interest rates low. in america they're next to zero. look on your statement for your savings account to see how meager. that is because of the federal reserve's policy and that is true of central banks throughout the world. inevitably over time that's an unsustainable -- those interest rates are unsustainable. so they're going to start ticking back up. when they go from roughly zero

to 4% or 5%, the amount of money we will have to pay on the current $18.1 trillion in debt and on the additional debt that will be added over the next ten years unless we get ahold of this problem is going to crowd out our ability to do everything from protect the most vulnerable in our society through our safety net programs to jeopardize our national defense which is something we can't outsource to somebody else. this is something that the federal government only can do. we had an office over in texas a few years ago that talked about the yellow pages test, and it always sort of resonated with me. she used to say government should not be doing things that you can find in the yellow pages because that means the private sector is doing it. but the one thing you won't find in the yellow pages is national security. and so our ability to protect our way of life and our future

is going to be jeopardized by this debt. that's why admiral mullen, former chairman of the joint chief of staffs a few years ago shocked all of us when he was asked what is the single largest threat to our national security? and he said the debt. that got a lot of us going to the books figure out -- figuring out what he's talking about. what he was referring to is what i'm talking about here. in 2025 we will be spending $827 billion in interest on our debt alone. we won't be paying down the principal. we'll just be paying the interest on the debt, by 2025, $827 billion. that would be the third largest line item in the federal budget just behind medicare and social security. the director of the congressional budget office, doug elmendorf has been testifying this week on findings

from this report, and on tuesday before the house budget committee mr. elmendorf -- dr. elmendorf, i should say stated -- quote -- "such large and growing federal debt would have serious negative consequences" -- close quote. and he's exactly right. when we have to have basically take up available credit to finance our national debt, that's less credit available to the private sector to make investments that will actually create jobs, and it keeps -- it acts like a wet blanket on economic growth. but nothing -- but nothing but fiscal uncertainty and crisis will come from our debt continuing to spiral out of control. so madam president the bottom line is this -- under president obama the federal government has spent the last several years raising taxes. it's increased regulations and it's driving our national debt

to unprecedented levels. and we have a growth rate that reflects that. now, i know the president was celebrated, he was almost like spiking the football at the state of the union saying we have a 5% spurt in the gross domestic product last quarter. that's great but all the projections show because of the factors i've mentioned growth is going to continue to bounce along the bottom at roughly 2% to 2.22%. that's not enough growth to get the economy moving to create the jobs to create the prosperity and lift that our economy needs to get americans back to work. so in my opinion the president's policies over the last year have actually made it more difficult for businesses to hire workers and for families to plan for the future. i would argue that his policies have introduced enormous

uncertainty into our health care system into our tax system and our financial system. what our country needs now is the same thing we've needed all along but we haven't had over the last six years. we need genuine presidential leadership the type of leadership that is required to restore americans' confidence in the future, to better ensure opportunities for the next generations and beyond. we don't need presidential leadership that leads us into more debt and less opportunity and a more dismal future. so it's my hope the president's budget will be exactly what it should be, and exactly what the american people deserve and that is a responsible blueprint for robust economic growth. there's not a lot of problems that face our country that couldn't be addressed in large part by robust economic growth. our economy would grow, revenues to the federal treasury would grow thus reducing our deficits and giving us a better

opportunity to address our debt and more americans would be working again. instead of the lowest percentage of people in the work force for the last 30 years. that's what we thumb the labor participation rate. so i hope the president's budget will get behind so of these pro-growth policies like pro-growth tax reform, something something we're eager to work with the president on and support serious efforts to save social security and medicare. the dirty little secret here in washington is if we don't do anything to save medicare and social security, they're going to fall off the fiscal cliff. so doing nothing is not an option but we need a bipartisan commitment to save social security and medicare. so i hope the president's budget will be a balanced one and finally offer long-term plan for controlling our national debt. if it's not, madam president well we're not going to depend on the president alone we're

going to do our job here in the senate and the house in passing a responsible budget that if the president does not propose one we will show the american people what one looks like. because we cannot let the president continue to lead us down this path of unsustainable debt and a darker future for the american people. madam president, i yield the floor. regain the floor and i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. sanders: reserving the right to object. i'm going to need more than 10 minutes. that was the expectation john. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: madam president, i am delighted to have heard the speech from my good friend, senator cornyn, and i think as

the ranking member of the budget committee, we are going to have some very serious discussions about some of the assertions that senator cornyn and many other republicans made and let me begin by saying i am delighted that some of my republican friends have expressed great concern about our deficit and our national debt. i would ask them where they were several years ago when we went to war in iraq and forgot to pay for that war. now, i happen to think that the war in iraq is not a war we should have ever gotten into, but be that as it may i find it interesting that some of the leading deficit hawks went to war, a war which will end up costing us some $3 trillion to $6 trillion but for the first time in modern history of our

country, they went to war and yet they chose not to pay for it. and then on top of that in the midst of the war during that period they gave substantial tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country and then in addition to that, they passed a medicare part d prescription drug program much more expensive than it should be, written by the insurance companies, also not paid for. and now these same republicans who came to the floor having voted to spend trillions of dollars on a war we should not have gotten into, having voted to give huge tax breaks to billionaires, having voted for a medicare part d prescription drug program not paid for lo and behold they have discovered that we have a deficit problem and a national debt problem. this country would have --

would be in a lot better shape if they had expressed those concerns seven or eight years ago. madam president, in my view, there is a war going on in this country, and i'm not talking about the wars in afghanistan or iraq or the instability in the middle east. i am talking about the war being waged in america today against the american middle class against the american standard of living and against are the american dream -- and against the american dream. today in the united states of america we have nor income and wealth inequality than any other major country on earth. today in america we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on

earth. today in america we are the only major nation not to guarantee health care to all of our people as a right of citizenship. the united states of america once led the world, 40 years ago, in terms of the percentage of our people who graduated college. in short we were the best-educated people in the world. today we are in 12th place and millions of our young people are graduating college deeply in debt while others are looking at the cost of college and saying i'm not going to go to college i'm not going to go get a higher education, i can't afford it, i don't want to leave school in debt. and our competing nations whether it's germany whether it's scandinavia whether it's many of the european countries what they are saying is their kids are going to go to college regardless of the income of their family.

in terms of our infrastructure, we once were the envy of the world. today according to the world economic forum we are in 12th place. today in america real unemployment is not the official unemployment of 5.8%, it is over 11% if you count those people who have given up looking for work and are working part time. youth unemployment, an issue we do not talk about is 18%. we got over five million young people in this country who either dropped out of high school or graduated high school and you know what they're doing madam president? they're doing nothing. they're hanging out on street corners in vermont and louisiana and all over this country. there are no jobs for them. in terms of african-american youth unemployment, that number, if you can believe it, is close to 30%. what the war against the middle class and working families is

about is that millions of our people are working longer hours for lower wages. in inflation adjusted for dollars, the median male worker today is earning some $700 less than that worker made 40 years ago. the median woman worker, that woman right in the middle of the economy, made $1,300 less last year than she earned in 2007. since 1999, median middle-class family has seen its income go down by about $4,000. madam president, the great recession, which was caused by the greed recklesses in and illegal behavior on wall street cost our country millions of good-paying jobs, it cost millions of americans their homes and their life savings.

it destroyed marriages and left people so destitute that they took their own lives because the fact is, when you are in economic despair and economic recession, suicide rates go up. and while the worst is clearly behind us, millions are still struggling to claw their way back to where they were before the greed and financial abuses of wall street ripped the middle class apart. madam president, the good news is that in the last six years our economy has made significant progress. we have created millions of jobs and that is a good thing. our unemployment rate is down, and we have seen a whole lot of people return to work.

but when we talk about the economy, we also have to understand that the recovery that we are seeing is extremely uneven. some people, the people on top, have done remarkably, unbelievably well. a tiny slice of the population has gobbled up all of the economic gains since 2009. let me repeat that. because it is almost impossible to believe but it is true. all of the new income gains after 2009, not 50% not 80% not 90% -- 100% of all of the income gains after 2009 have landed in the pockets of the top 1%.

today, the top .1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90%. today, madam president the walton family, six people, own more wealth than the bottom 41%. here is the walton family, six people worth $144 billion. here is the bottom 41.5% of our population 131 million people they are earning -- or are worth about $123 billion. and i ask the american people, is this what our country is supposed to be about, one family owning more wealth than the bottom 41% the bottom 131 million americans. madam president, our economy and our distribution of wealth