injuries. nearly 300,000 have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress. 300,000 have faced traumatic brain injuries, all because of the service they gave to us. earlier this year we passed the clay hunt suicide prevention for american veterans act. good start, not yet enough. we need to make sure that when veterans -- when service members return home, they have the educational and the employment opportunities they need not only to survive but to thrive. the g.i. bill's educational benefits are critical but veterans unfortunately have a limited amount of time before their g.i. benefits expire. at crowded colleges, whether in north carolina or oklahoma or ohio, crowded colleges, general education requirements, and prerequisites often fill up quickly. many colleges and universities in state offer priority registration to veterans. all of our colleges and universities need to follow ohio's lead. that's why i worked with senator

tillis, who's presiding at this moment, on legislation to ensure all veterans and service members and their qualifying dependents can use their g.i. benefits to their full potential and be guaranteed priority registration. the senator from north carolina and i also introduced the frye scholarship enhancement act, which would expand eligibility for the v.a.'s yellow ribbon program to help students avoid out-of-pocket tuition and fees for programs that cost more than the allowance set by the post-9/11 g.i. bill. sadly for too many veterans, they're far from the goal that they should be and that is they struggle just to find a place to call home. according to the u.s. department of housing and urban developme development, some 50,000 veterans were homeless during a survey conducted on a single night in january 2014. that's 50,000 too many. it's a disgrace that after serving our country with honor, thousands of veterans are left without a roof over their head.

earlier this month, i visited the joseph house in cincinnati, where nathan peltierre and his team of dedicated staff and volunteers provide addiction treatment and transitional housing. a group of us meeting there, mostly veterans who are homeless or were homeless, listened to britain carter, who was formally homeless. he completed his treatment program at the joseph house. he now works as a case manager there, helping other struggling veterans. veterans like mr. carter have served our country with honor. we owe them support. we owe them counseling when they return home. that's why i joined my colleagues in intrusion the veterans housing stability act of 2015, which would make meaningful improvements to services for homeless veterans t. would give veterans more access to permanent housing opportunities. we know on the veterans' committee a number of things. we know that veterans' unemployment rate is generally higher than society's unemployment rate.

we know veterans' suicide rate is higher than society's suicide rate. we know that veterans' drug addiction is higher than society's drug addiction rate. we know that veterans have suffered from pstd and traumatic brain injury in numbers much higher than the general population. that's why we owe them so much. they have -- we in this body so rarely think about the cost of war. we, as i said earlier, we're willing to send more money to buy more weapons, to spend more money to armaments. we're not so generous when if comes time to take care of our veterans. mr. president, the last point i'd like to make before turning to the senator from oklahoma is something that we call honor flights. one of the great things that's come out of the post -- of the world war ii memorial is that men and women who have served in world war ii are now getting the opportunity to -- to go to -- to

stlift world war ii memorial -- visit this world war ii memorial. retired air force captain earl morris, who visited a clinic and often talked with his world war ii veteran patients. he realized that for most veterans, their dream of seeing their memorial build on the mall would never come true. so one day in 2004, he asked one of his patients if he could personally fly him to washington free of charge. the veteran, mr. lloyd, broke down in tears. he accepted earl's offer. soon earl was offering to fly other world war ii veterans to visit the memorial in soliciting help from other pilots. 11 pilots at wright-patterson air force base volunteered n. may of 20, 2005, the first honor flight took off from springfield, ohio. a decade later the honor flight network is a national nonprofit that has flown 100,000 veterans, usually 40 or 50 or 60 at a ti

time, in a charter flight, always with a caretaker because these veterans are never young. they were world war ii veterans. they have been out of the service now for 70 years at least. the veterans -- the honor flight program is in 41 states. i've had the honor of meeting a number of them. toledo, ohio, seems to be one which has particularly excelled in encouraging local people, raising local money, getting every single veteran that was able to and wanted to from northwest ohio to join these honor flights. and i'll quote one of these volunteers. jim solomon works for honor flight in day tofnlt he told me a volunteer who goes by ais who works as an arby's in maryland provides discounted meals for honor flight attendees. he said, "ace is part of honor flight dayton's families. we rely on eyes. he hasn't let us down over the last nine years. ace has saved us more than $30,000 because of the arby's

donating these meals. paying the cost of transporting 92 veterans. with an average of 800 world war ii veterans dying each day, the mission of honor flight is more important now than ever. i'm thankful to those who have helped honor flight. i'm thankful to those veterans and their families who have done so much. i remind my colleagues, as they are always eager to vote for more money for weapons, that weekend and think about the cost of war and take -- and take care of our returning service members. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. lankford: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford lankford: mr. pres, there's a lot of news that's happening this week, a lot of things going on. incredible celebration of veterans and the recognition there very, very worthy of.

that is the 1% in our nation that actually secures the security of the rest of the 99% of our nation. could not be more grateful from members of my own family, for me and the proud people of oklahoma that celebrate our veterans every single day of the year and glad to be able to do that. we have a lot of information this week about obamacare hearings again. back in the news because the administration has filed a lawsuit on little sisters of the poor to compel them to violate their faith to be able to put into practice the principles of obamacare rather than their own personal faith. and so the obama administration's taking a group of nuns called little sisters of the poor, all the way to the supreme court to compel them to cave on their faith. that case actually includes four universities from my state in oklahoma as well that are grouped together with this group from little sisters of the poor, that they will all have to go before the supreme court to validate their faith publicly in front of the nation while the administration tries to tell them they can't practice their faith in america.

we also have news this week that the president's trying to push through gitmo and he's trying to change gitmo through some sort of executive action. we don't know exactly what that is. he seems to have this flippant attitude about what going to happen in guantanamo bay, saying we could move them into the united states cheaper. well, i will tell you as a person who's been down to guantanamo bay and has seen that facility, we're missing one single big element. the terrorists do not know who the grardz at -- guards are at guantanamo bay, cuba. nor do they have access to their families. and while they're infuriated about gitmo, i promise you, if those prisoners are moved into colorado or oklahoma or kansas or any number of other places, that terrorists overseas won't rage about gitmo anymore, they'll then rage about colorado or then they'll rage about illinois or wherever those prisoners are being held. they're not mad at gitmo and the treatment there. they're mad these terrorists that they have affection for are being detained by the united states of america.

and right now all the individuals that are guarding those individuals and keeping them detained will no longer be hidden anymore. because terrorists could linger around the outside of these facilities and could track the different guards that are coming in and out and suddenly the guards and their family members become exposed in the states where those individuals are exposed. he is not thinking through the real consequences of flippantly moving these individuals into the united states. it's a big issue that we face. but i have to tell you this last weekend, as i'm going through all different news and the many things that we track, i was quite surprised last friday afternoon at the way that the president addressed something that this nation has discussed for seven years, a pipeline permit. a permit called the keystone x.l. pipe line. it's not a revolutionary thing, and, quite frankly, mr. president, let me show you something. these are all the pipelines that

currently exist in the united states. right now there are 19 international crossings of pipelines already coming into the unite united states, eitherm canada into the northern part of the united states or from mexico and from the south. there are already 19 of them. this would just be a 20th pipeline. there's nothing different about that. there are 60,000 miles of crude oil pipeline in the united states right now. there are about 63,000 miles of refined product pipeline. and you want to go to natural gas, about 300,000 miles of natural gas pipeline already in the united states. yet this pipeline is treated like some radical, new invention that we've never considered a pipeline before. well, what surprised me so much wasn't that 2,600-plus days that this permit sat on the president's desk. what surprised me for his reason for actually deciding to then not do the permit. that was the surprising part. and, quite frankly, last friday afternoon, as i heard the reasons, i went back and read the transcripts and these were the three reasons the president

gave. he said, number one, the pipeline wouldn't make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy. and he encouraged us to pass a highway bill instead because it would provide more jobs. i don't remember ever discussing and saying this pipeline is going to provide as many jobs as highways. that's never been discussed on this floor. and it's apples and oranges. a highway bill is public funding. it's the taxpayers that actually fund transportation and we should do highways and transportation. this is a private project that was never intended to be as many jobs as a highway. it's a pipeline. so he said he's wan -- it's noto provide enough jobs and sews not going to permit it. the second reason he gave is the pipeline would not lower gas prices for american consumers. and he said gasoline prices are already low and so we don't need this pipeline. as if gasoline prices don't rise and fall and we shouldn't plan for the future. do you want to know why gasoline prices are low right now?

it's because over the decades, americans have done this and we have an efficient system of moving energy, which, by the way, the pipeline is "the" safest and "the" least expensive way to be able to move energy around our country. so what the president is saying is, what we have is enough. i don't want to plan for future anymore. i don't want to look for what's going to help our children. our prices are low enough. i don't care what our children pay in the future days. well, that's absurd. but, quite frankly, the third one is the one that was the most jarring to me. so i want to be able to say the statement to you. reason number three the president gave was shipping crude oil into our country from unstable countries would not increase america's energy security. let me read that to you again because i was so stunned by it. here's exactly from the president's speech off of the white house site, this is what the president said.le not permit 6 -- le not permit the ski stone -- le not permit the keystone pipeline coming from canada into the united states, offered this statement, he said. shipping dirtier crude oil into

our country would not increase america's energy security. what has increased america's energy security is our strategy over the past several years to reduce our reliance on dirty fossil fuels from unstable parts of the world." now, as i heard the president say that, i was a little taken aback because i don't remember any other president referring to canada as an unstable part of the world. that we don't want to get our energy from an unstable country and saying canada was that country. so i kept reading to and rereading it thinking, maybe he was implying something else. but the problem with that is, he either means that canada is an unstable country and we don't want to be reliant on them to get energy, or he's saying the meerns countries are not stable -- middle eastern countries are not stable and so maybe we should buy from canada instead. either way it makes no sense. but as i read it and read it and read it, but the president in his statement is saying we don't

need a pipeline because canada is unstable and we don't need oil from unstable countries. i will tell you that since the war of 1812, we've gotten along with canada pretty well. we seemed to have settled our differences about 1815 and they've been a very stable trading partner for us. and it seems nonsensical to me to hear the president say because it doesn't produce enough jobs, i'm not going to permit it. because it won't affect the price of gasoline today, i won't permit it. and because canada is unstable as a trading partner, i'm not going to permit it. the president can choose to do whatever he chooses to do, but answers like this make no sense to the american people. and they make no sense to energy country when we understand full well the actual facts on the ground. in recent days we've actually started an energy swap with mexico. many people may not even know that. you see, all oil is not the

same. heavier crude oil is preferred by many of our refineries in the united states. quite frankly, our refineries are capable of separating out more of the different minerals and such that are within heavy crude or what's often called sour crude. so our refineries prefer the heavier crude much like what canada produces, many parts of the united states, mexico produces. many refineries in mexico prefer the light sweet crude. we have more light sweet crude in america than what we can use and what our refineries prefer to have. in the past couple of months mexico and the united states have a swap that they're picking up 70,000 barrels of light sweet and swapping 70,000 barrels of heavier crude because they have a commodity we want and they have -- and we have a commodity they want. that is how we can solve the energy crude, look for something more efficient, whether it is swapping from canada or whether

it's exporting our oil from anywhere around the world, whether from mexico or any other country. this body knows full well that the united states cannot sell our oil on the world market because we have a statute in place that believes that we're running out of oil rather than we have a tremendous amount, which is what's actually factually true. and we have particular types of oil like sweet crude that many refineries around the world want, and we actually have more of it than we can use. we should sell that. we should put that on the open market. it's cleaner, it's easier to refine and it's a way to be able to stabilize jobs in the united states. i have been in front of this body time after time with a simple statement. we can sell unleaded around the world. we can sell diesel around the world. we can sell coal around the world. we can sell natural gas around the world.

but for whatever reason, we can't sell crude oil around the world. that makes absolutely no sense, and we should fix it. tens of thousands of americans have lost their job because this body has not acted on something as simple as being able to sell a product the world wants and we have on the world market. it's fixable. it's not about environmental disaster. the world is going to use oil. even the administration, and quite frankly, even the president in his own speech made this statement last week. "the truth is the united states will continue to rely on oil and gas." so will the world. until some other solution is out there which no one sees currently on horizon, we're going to continue to use oil and gas. why don't we do it the cleanest way possible? why don't we provide american jobs while we're doing it? it's a fixable thing.

it shouldn't be divisive. it's about putting americans back to work and about helping our economy. with that, mr. president, i yield back. mr. markey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, tomorrow is veterans day, and on veterans day, it's important that we thank america's veterans and their families for their service to our nation. veterans day is a time to honor all those brave men and women who put themselves in harm's way so that we may enjoy the tremendous freedoms and personal liberties that make our nation the greatest in the world, such bravery deserves our unending

gratitude. we have an obligation to honor them all year round by fighting to ensure that they have the resources, the support, and the protections which they have earned. and now we need to fight for them. when we send our men and women in uniform abroad, we can be confident that they will do their utmost to complete their missions. our mission as senators is to minimize the need to send our armed service members into harm's way. the root causes of overseas conflict are complex and diverse, from religious divisions to natural resource allocations to democratic yearnings. and increasingly in the modern era, climate change is straining the strands of stability until they snap. when i was chairman of the house

select committee on energy independence and global warming, i held a 2007 hearing where one united states general told the story of somalia. drought in somalia had caused a famine. how that famine had ultimately then led to and encouraged a conference. and so the pattern there in somalia is the same pattern which we see in other countries. drought leading to famine leading to fights between different tribes or peoples that otherwise had no reason to fight. aid came in from the united states. warlords started to fight over it, and that's how 18 u.s. service people lost their lives in what we now call blackhawk

down. in 2010, terrible droughts in russia and china and floods in pakistan decimated wheat harvest and created a global shortage. the highways of wheat increased dramatically. the middle east, home to the world's top nine wheat importers felt it severely, especially since the region's farmers struggle with their own parched fields. much of syria was gripped with the worst drought it had ever experienced. the price of bread skyrocketed across the region and demands for regime change were not far behind. as we look around the world, we can see, hear, and feel how climate change is a threat multiplier and a catalyst for conflict today. while we have to deal with the consequences of climate change that are already apparent, there is still time to prevent future catastrophes.

that's why president obama has been using the tool he has in the clean air act to reduce carbon pollution. he's used it to increase the fuel efficiency of america's cars and trucks, and now he has released the clean power plan. but republicans want to undo it with the congressional review act. starting next monday in this chamber, senate republicans can bring the resolution to the senate floor at any time to dismantle the clean power plan, and undoing it would be bad for our economy, bad for our health, and bad for our national security. 2014 was the hottest year in global history, as records go back all the way to 1880, the

warmest year. the first half of this year is now the hottest january to june in that same record. the clean power plan captures the scientific urgency and the economic opportunity necessary to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. the clean power plan provides flexibility to the states to find the solutions to reducing carbon pollution that works best for their situations. unleashing a clean energy revolution in every single state in the union. it will create jobs and save consumers billions on their electricy bills. it will avert almost 100,000 asthma attacks and prevent thousands of premature deaths. the climate and health benefits of the rule are estimated to save $34 billion to $54 billion

per year by the year 2030. using the clean air act to reduce carbon pollution is grounded in the supreme court's 2007 decision that confirmed the environmental protection agency's authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases as pollutants under the act. the supreme court has reaffirmed that authority in two subsequent cases, and we have used that authority to set carbon pollution standards for vehicles. these standards, along with increasing the fuel economy of our nation's cars and trucks, are reducing pollution, saving drivers money and sparking innovation. we will see similar benefits coming from the clean power plan. now some of my colleagues in the senate say it can't be done. some will say it will raise electricity bills. some will say it will kill jobs.

the problem for them is their claims are just not true. the clean power plan is a plan to create jobs and to grow our economy. it is a signal to the marketplace to invest in clean energy, in wind, in solar, in other renewable energy resources. that's the 21st century. too many people out here on the senate floor keep looking at the future in a rear-view mirror. they keep looking backwards instead of ahead, unleashing the technologies of the 21st century. the green generation, the young people in our country, they know we can do this. they know that renewables are the technologies of the 21st century. and if we do it, it will be a signal to the rest of the world that the united states is going to lead the effort to reduce

greenhouse gases while unleashing a job-creating, renewable energy revolution not just for our own country but for the entire planet. just two months ago, in september, congress had the honor of hearing from pope francis who shared his message of action. he told us that the american people can do it. he said "i call for a courageous and responsible effort to redirect our steps and to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity. i am convinced that we can make a difference, and i have no doubt that the united states and this congress have an important role to play. now is the time for courageous actions and strategies." he is right. the pope is right. this is the time for action from

congress. not denial. not obstructionism. now is the time for the united states, for this united states senate to be the leader in finding the global solutions to this threat of dangerous climate change. so, what the pope did was to take the message of christ and did not deliver a sermon on the mount. he delivered a sermon on the hill, a sermon on the hill to the members of the house and senate to do everything they can do to reduce dangerous greenhouse gases. and in saying that to us, he said it as someone who taught high school chemistry, and someone who knows this issue, a pope who taught chemistry. the pope did not believe that science is at odds with

religion. the pope believes that science and technology is the answer to our prayers, and he called upon us to unleash a technological revolution to reduce these dangerous greenhouse gases. now, why do we know that we can do this? it is a moral imperative. the pope basically said three things. he said, number one, that the planet is dangerously warming and that the science confirms that. he said secondly that human activity is largely contributing to that warming of the planet, and that the science confirms that. and, third, human beings are causing this problem; they have a moral responsibility, a moral

imperative to do something about it. we are the united states of america. we are the global leader in technology. we are the revolution. and so let's just see how far we have come. in a very brief period of time. in 2005, the united states installed 79 megawatts of solar in the united states. solar technology had been around for generations. einstein actually won his nobel prize for breakthroughs in solar research. einstein. but yet this is where we were in 2005. a little teeny-tiny 79 megawatts was all that we were able to install. but then we began to change policies in the united states.

we began to have states across the country, 30 states, which said we're going to have more renewable electricity in our states. we put some tax breaks on the books and looks what's happened in that very brief period of time. by 2014, nearly 7,000 megawatts of solar installed in one year, up from 79, a hundred times more solar, after not doing anything for generations. policies were put on the books. all the deniers, all those doubters, all of a sudden everything that they said about how solar wasn't practical, he solar couldn't solve the probl problem, they were confronted with this reality. this year it's going to be nearly 8,000 megawatts that are installed. next year, 12,000 megawatts of solar. we're going to have 40,000

megawatts of solar installed by the end of next year in the united states. 40,000. we were doing 79 total in 2005. that's how rapidly it's changing. that's how many new jobs are being created in america. and the same thing is happening in wind. wind is going to be producing 20,000 new megawatts in just 2015 and 2016. so here's the good news. you want to hear the big number? it's incredibly great. 300,000 jobs in the wind and solar sector by the end of next year. 300,000 people working. there will only be 65,000 coal miners. we'll have 300,000 people in america with these incredible jobs in wind and solar. that's a revolution that wasn't on the books just 10 years ago.

all the experts said, can't happen, won't work, we'll never be successful. and so this -- these revolutions are the things that we have to continue to be the leaders to ensure we put on the books and keep on the books so that we are successful. and so there's a technological imperative that we lead. there's an economic imperative that we lead because these jobs get created. and there's a moral responsibility that the united states has, because we were the leading polluter for a hundred years on the planet. china has now caught up to us. but a lot of that co2 is red, white and blue. may i have one additional minute, mr. president? the presiding officer: without objection. mr.mr. markey: i thank you.thank you. and so here's why weather we are. the president is going to -- and so here's where we are. the president is going to use

all his legal authority to reach a deal in paris. he will do it pursuant to the united nations framework convention on climate change that was signed by president george herbert walker bush and ratified by the senate in 1992. so everything he's doing in paris is completely pursuant to a treaty that was agreed to by this body. he is doing the clean power plan to reduce greenhouse gases by 30% by the year 2030 in the electric utility sect. by the clean air act of 1990, a law passed by the senate. he increased the fuel economy standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by the year 2025, still the largest reduction in greenhouse gases in the world's history, pursuant to a law passed here in 2007 by the united states senate. underlying it all is an authority given to him by the supreme court in 2007 in

massachusetts v. the e.p.a. that mandated that the e.p.a. had to act if they found that there was an endangerment of the environment. all of this is legal. all of it is authority the president is using. and all of it is working to create a new era of clean energy jobs all across our country so that we are no longer preaching temperance from a bar stool to the rest of the world. we can now say to china and to india, you too must put your reductions on the books. i thank you, mr. president, for giving me this opportunity to speak on the floor, and i yield back the balance of my time. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i've come to the floor this evening to talk about two issues that are of particular importance to me.

i think when most look at me now, they think about energy and more typically alaskan energy. i'm not going to disappoint tonight. i would like to speak to that. but i'd also like to speak this evening about the strategic petroleum reserve or the s.p.r. we've been talking about it a lot of late. it has been viewed as the -- as a source of revenue, a pay-for, if you will, with certain measures that we have seen of late, whether it be the transportation measure that we have in front of us, the budget deal that was executed a couple weeks ago, or other measures. so i wanted to take just a few minutes this evening to talk about the strategic petroleum reserve. and i'd like to start by first addressing what i will call the flagship s.p.r. it's the really important stuff, if you will, within the reserve and that's the crude oil. and i call this the flagship

because there are five product petroleum reserve sites in the northeast. we have product reserve sites for gasoline, distillate and home heating oil. but these are relatively small reserve sites. they're about 2 million barrels total. i think their effectiveness is -- is probably more controversial. but the flagship s.p.r. is -- is truly when you think about the impact, the import to our economy and to a level of stability, the flagship strategic petroleum reserve occupies giant underground caverns along the gulf coast. i've had the opportunity to go out and visit the site of one of our strategic petroleum reserves. it holds some 695 million barrels and they're ready to cover our nation's net imports

for several months if global energy markets should -- should spiral out of control. and i think the -- the comforting reality about these flagship s.p.r. is that through thick and thin, these reserves are rarely ever tapped and they have offered a measure of security and stability that i think is unique in the history of global commerce. amid higher levels of domestic production and lower levels of imports, a number of reforms are being considered for the s.p.r. by the department of energy now and there's a lot of discussion. there's a study underway by the d.o.e. and a discussion about upgrading the distribution capacity of the s.p.r. is underway and it clearly has merit.

the north american energy landscape has changed so quickly and so dramatically that the volume of oil that we can pump out of the reserve is greater and potentially much greater than the volume of oil that we can actually move to refineries. and this is something that we need to understand and study more, but it is something that we have congested waterways. when you look about -- look at reverse pipelines, so on, ways that we can figure out how we can move this oil more readily if we so need it. and so in the -- in the measure that we have just executed with the budget proposal, there is a -- there is a funding set-aside, if will you, for strategic petroleum reserve

maintenance, for life extension, hopefully for marine terminals, but effectively recognizing that we need to make sure that our s.p.r. actually functions as it is intended. so this study is underway. we will learn more hopefully in the spring. but the imperative to have a functioning, workable s.p.r. is one, again, that goes to the national security and really from an overall just stability argument. i remain opposed to suggestions by some that we should use the reserve to pay for completely unrelated programs or that we simply sell off the entire stockpile as some have suggest suggested. i wrote a report in july of this year, called it "a turbulent world." we have only drawn down the s.p.r. on a limited number of occasions. in the entire history of the

reserve itself, only approximately 166 million barrels have ever left the storage sites for any reasons. so 166 million barrels have been sold off over the course of the life of the strategic petroleum reserve. and this is for exchanges, emergencies, tests, deficit reductions. everything that we have ever done that has involved a -- a sale of the s.p.r. totals just about 166 million barrels. so that's this graph over here. over here are the new proposed sales to the strategic petroleum reserve. if you add up the barrels this congress, the 114th congress, has already committed to sell for s.p.r. modernization, the bipartisan budget act, the drive act -- the transportation

bill -- and then a bill over on the house side, the 21st century cures act, you are look at a total of 279 million barrels to be sold off. that's, again, 40 million for s.p.r. modernization, 58 million for the bipartisan budget act, 21st century cures act is 80 million, and the highways bill is 101 million. we would be selling off 279 million barrels told. but think about that. in the entire life of the strategic petroleum reserve, 166 million barrels sold off. in one congress what we're proposing is 279 million barrels. quite eye catching. these numbers matter, mr. president. the s.p.r. is designed to provide 90 days of net import protection. so it's a pretty simple math

equation that we're dealing with here. if you import more, you need more in storage. if you import less, you need less. now, currently our net imports are about 5 million barrels per day. the bare minimum, therefore, that we need in storage is 450 million barrels. so if we execute all of the sales that the 114th congress has either approved or is considering, what happens is we dip below that bare minimum that is required, the 450 million barrels, by the end of the 10-year window. i'm going to be releasing another report on the cumulative impacts of all these sales on the integrity of the reserves, so you should be seeing that in -- in a few days. now i'd like to turn quickly to a department of energy proposal to construct a new petroleum product reserve on the west coast. we call this pad 5.

it's short for petroleum administration for defense, district 5. and pad 5 is important because consumes 17% of the nation's gasoline, 13% of its diesel fuel, and 30% of its jet fuel. now, at the same time pad 5 is geographically isolated, according to the energy information administration, the approximately 30 refineries operating on the west coast are responsible for supplying nearly all of its petroleum products. so the argument for a product reserve is relatively straightforward. because pad 5 is separated from the rest of the country by the rocky mountains and from the world by the pacific ocean, a stockpile of refined fuel should be established. now, that's the argument that's out there. and i don't oppose a study of this concept, but i can see the pitfalls out there. pad 5 imports over a million

barrels of crude oil and petroleum products each day, suggesting that it really is not cut off from the world in the first place. and bear in mind the size of the district that we're talking about. any stockpile would have to be really enormous to have significant impact. and finally, would federal gasoline reserves supplement or replace commercial stocks? that's a question that needs to be asked. so perhaps the solution is not a refined product reserve at all, but instead a return to basics. and that basic is crude oil. after all, there are reasons why we chose crude oil instead of the products when we first created the reserve. and by and large, that rationale really hasn't changed. first, oil is better suited chemically and economically for long-term storage underground. we don't have seasonal specifications on oil like we do on gasoline.

and oil can be processed into an array of products while gasoline cannot. so very quickly taking this back to alaska, a gasoline reserve on the west coast of any size would really be small potatoes when compared to the incredible resource base that we have in alaska. for decades now tankers have shipped north slope crude to the line of refineries that stretch from anchor debt ceiling, washington, down to los angeles. drivers up and down the coast fuel their cars with gasoline that is refined from this alaskan oil every day. alaska north slope crude oil is chemically similar to the kind of oil stored in the s.p.r. in fact, according to the department of energy, over 30 millions barrels of alaskan oil have been stored in the strategic petroleum reserve. west coast refineries are optimized to run alaskan crude. the trans-alaska pipeline system

soanl -- is pumping 500 million barrels a day, so there's plenty of room in our already built, already op rating pipeline. but the problem is, and you've heard me say this before, the federal government controls some 60% of the land in our state, more than ten billion barrels of oil are buried under our onshore federal lands alone to say nothing of what is held in our offshore waters. but remain almost universally inaccessible to american explorers and producers. and that includes about ten billion barrels in the nonwilderness portion of anwr where we're asking for permission to develop just about 2,000 acres or .01% of the surface of the refuge. that's all we're asking to access. and beyond our anwr resources, we've got at least another 900 million barrels in our national

petroleum reserve, which is an area reserved for development. and the estimate on the 900 million barrels there is that it's likely far too low. for the record, i would add alaskans support both of these areas. more than 70% of alaskans want development understanding the significant economic benefits that it will bring and the strong record of environmental stewardship that we have in the state. we've got an opportunity here. we have an opportunity to develop our resources in order to create jobs, generate revenues and bolster our nation's security and competitiveness. and by doing this, by doing this we can actually address not just one but two threats. first, the trans-alaska oil pipeline is just one-third full. in large part because of the anti-energy decisions made by this administration and the west coast is more vulnerable to

supply disruptions as a result of falling production. so if you think about a crisis situation in the middle east, the west coast will need more oil. its refineries are ready to run alaskan crude and alaskans are ready to ship it, but there's nothing to ship because the oil is still in the ground and there's no way to transport it from the north slope to the terminals in the southern coast of the state. i am not talking about keeping our oil in pristine condition never to be used. energy -- energy is not fine china that you just keep up on a shelf. the petroleum reserve is not a petroleum preserve. our strategic stocks, barrels ready to go, should really be tapped. but alaska yan resources -- alaskan resources are already part of the daily life of californians, hawaiians.

the resource must be accessible, though, but first they need to be accessed. opening up alaska's resources now would ensure that more oil is transported there a healthy pipeline that would ensurely oil can be shipped from alaska to fuel the west coast when they need it and help ensure that energy remains affordable for the west coast. so instead, instead of constructing an entirely new product reserve as some are contemplating, perhaps what we should do is preserve the infrastructure that we've already built and leverage it to boost our energy security. why would we want to build a reserve when you can prevent a shortage in the first place by letting a state that wants to produce oil go ahead and produce the oil? that, to me, is sound strategic thinking. that would be a policy that

benefits us instead of simply costing more money that we don't have. and that's the kind of thinking that i believe our nation and our future generations should have. with that, mr. president, i know that the senator from alabama would like to speak, but i also understand that we have an opportunity to go to wrap-up here. so, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 267, and this is s. 1203. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number

267, s. 1203, a bill to amend title 38, united states code to improve the processing by the department of veterans affairs and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i would ask consent that the isakson amendment be agreed to, the committee reported substitute as amended be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the title amendment be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on commerce, science and transportation be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 2262 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 2262, abact to facilitate a progrowth environment for developing commercial space, industry, and so forth and for other purposes.

the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? if not, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the cruz substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 2280 introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 2280, a bill to promote pro bono legal services as a critical way which to empower survivors of domestic violence. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations placed on the secretary's desk in the

foreign service, p.n. 643, 800, 877, that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and no further motions be in order to any of the nominations, that the pred be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at 5:00 p.m. on monday, november 16, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: calendar number 141, there be 30 minutes of debate on the nomination and following the use or yielding back of time the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate, that following disposition of the nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nomination, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate

then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that not withstanding the passage of h.r. 2029, that the committee-reported substitute be withdrawn. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 292, s. res. 302. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 292, senate resolution 302, expressing the sense of the senate in support of israel and in con desmation of the palestinian -- condemnation of the palestinian terror attacks. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the blumenthal amendment to the resolution be agreed to, the resolution as amended be agreed to, the blumenthal amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that

when the senate completes its business today it adjourn under the provisions of h. con. res. 92 until 3:00 p.m., monday, november 16. following the prayer and pledge the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be read for date, further nolg leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for ten minutes each until 5:00 p.m. at 5:00 p.m. the senate proceed to executive session as under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senator sessions for ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i thank the presiding officer and i thank the senator from murkowski for her courtesy. mr. president, we had a very important court of appeals

ruling last night. the fifth circuit court of appeals reviewed the injunction that had been issued by judge hahn none in texas -- hannon in texas that blocked the president's determination to carry out his dapa plan, executive amnesty plan, the court found it unlawful and ordered it to be stopped, which is a rather significant event. it recalls for us the fact that when the president announced he was going to do this no matter what, before the election, great public outcry arose. then he said, for political reasons obviously, well, i'm not going to do it before the election, but i'll do it after the election. that's when i'll issue this executive amnesty and give lawful status and federal benefits and social security

cards and work authorization i.d. to millions of people, 4.23 million here in the country illegally. it's a dramatic thing, and so the country was in an uproar about it. it was a big factor in the republicans winning a huge majority in the house and a surging majority in the senate. unprecedented majority in the senate, -- not unprecedented majority but we had the largest majority in the house and senate, i think, in 70 years. so this is a big deal. what was this all about? judge hannon found that this was wrong. the president didn't have policy to take people congress has said are illegal and give them food stamps, health care, medicaid, work authorization. it went against the law. you couldn't do that. and he found that this was such an egregious action that it

needed to be stopped now through an injunction before the trial even completed. and so it was that injunction, that blocking of the president's amnesty that went up on appeal to the fifth circuit, and they upheld judge hannon's opinion. first, 26 states, over half the states participated in this litigation against the president's order, and they were found to have legal standing -- important event in the process. and then the court found this critical legal fact. they found that the states who were objecting to the president's order were likely to succeed in the final court ruling and on appeal. they found that it would likely succeed. and they noted, referring to the secretary of homeland security,

this: the fifth circuit said -- quote -- "at its core, this case is about the secretary's decision to change the immigration classification of millions of illegal aliens on a class-wide basis." close quote. it went on to say, the court did, dapa, that's the amnesty program the president was initiating, dapa would make 4.3 million otherwise removable aliens eligible for lawful presence, employment authorization and associated benefits, and we must be guided by -- to a degree by common sense as to the manner in which congress is likely to delegate a policy decision of such economic and political magnitude to an administrative agency. so, mr. president, they basically were saying that they

see no evidence that such a huge event would be delegated to the administrative bureaucrats at homeland security. congress, that fact, i believe, and the court went on to say, explicitly has laid out how you deal with this. it goes on to say, the fifth circuit rejected the -- president obama's claim that he could issue employment documents, the right to work in america to persons illegally here in any way he sees fit. that's what they argued. that's what the administration argued. the court said this, they condemn that interpretation saying -- quote -- "the interpretation of those provisions that the secretary" -- that's the secretary of homeland security -- "advances" -- through his lawyers in this court case -- "would allow him

to grant lawful presence and work authorization to any illegal alien in the united states ago, an untenable position in light of the immigration and nationality act's intricate system of immigration classifications and employment eligibility, even with special deference to the secretary. the i.n.a. flatly does not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal, state and benefits including work authorization." that is an absolute refer station of the president's -- refutation of the president's position and well it should be. because anybody who was familiar with that debate last year knew that it was bogus, and the american people knew that argument was bogus and the court has affirmed it just last night

in -- with clarity and consistency. they said, well, historically the secretaries have done some of these things. and the court said, well, they doubted that. quote -- "historical practice that is so far afield from the challenge program sheds no light on the secretary's authority to implement dapa. indeed, as the district court recognized, the president stated that' it was the failure of congress to enact such a program that prompted him to change the law. he asked for this. he asked for legislation to do this and the house of representatives said no. and he did it anyway. and the court of appeals slapped that down as being above the

powers of the president of the united states as, indeed, it is. and the court found that this dapa program is foreclosed by congress's careful plan. quote -- "the program is manifestly contrary to statute and therefore was properly enjoined." the president of the united states has a duty to the law, a duty to enforce the law, whether he likes it or not, and he has a duty to carry out the law. that's his oath. he is the chief executive. is he the person responsible for ensuring the laws of the united states are coard out -- are carried out. and he breached his duty and took steps to absolutely eviscerate law passed by congress. and being unhappy that congress refused to change it as he wished it to be changed, he just did it anyway.

and that's wrong. the court has slapped him down, as he should, and i hope the american people understand that somewhere in this system, there is a commitment to law and to propriety and to the right of congress. and congress is going to have to continue to work on this. it should boldly assert its prerogative to pass law and its prerogative not to fund executive amnesty or any other program we don't think is worthy of being funded. mr. president, i thank the chair and would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on monday, november 16, under the provisions of h. 16, under the provisions of h.

the sentence not in session tomorrow for the veterans day holiday. you can return to live coverage of the u.s. senate right here on c-span2 when lawmakers double back in. >> tonight on c-span to a live debate between david bitter and democratic state representative john bell edwards. the debate in baton rouge louisiana. here's a look at recent ads from that campaign. >> the choice for governor could not be more clear, john bell edwards who answered our countries call and served as a ranger in the 82nd airborne division or david bitter who

answered a prostitute's call minutes after he skipped a boat honoring 28 soldiers who gave their lives in defense of their freedom. david bitter chose prostitutes over patriots. now, the choice is yours. >> 15 years ago i failed my family but found forgiveness and love. i learned that our faults are what define us but rather how we get up, except accept responsibility and earn redemption. now louisiana has phonon hired hard times, budget crisis, low wages, i am a fighter. as your governor i will get up every day and fight for you for a much better, stronger, louisiana. >> a quick reminder you can see tonight's louisiana governors debate live on c-span2. a look at prime time on our other networks on c-span former first lady laura wish, and

thomas perez began hiring our heroes conference. i look he looks at ways and opportunities for hiring veterans. on c-span three a discussion on a recent report that outlines human rights concerns from one tanimoto bay detainees. these start at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the c-span networks. >> tomorrow president obama takes part in the veterans day ceremony at arlington national cemetery. to lay a wreath at the tomb of the unknown and then by the veterans affairs department. you department. you can see the events live on c-span.