A senator mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from colorado is recognized. Mr. Bennet thank you mr. President. Id like to congratulate you for sitting in that chair. The presiding officer the senate is in a quorum call. Mr. Bennet i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Bennet and id like to congratulate the presiding officer. Mr. President , id like to speak about the fischer amendment that were slated to vote on at some point around here, and while i respect my neighbor from nebraska where she is coming from with this effort, the proposal unfortunately misses the mark by a mile. The amendment would set up new and unprecedented process for protecting for protective land designations. It says the secretary of the interior or agriculture has to publish in the federal register two findings before any congressional protections on public lands would go into effect. First, the secretary has to find that new protected land would not adversely effect our efforts to administer existing protected land and then second, the department has to have sufficient resources whatever that is, to implement plans for existing protected land. While perhaps innocuous sounding these would be huge changes in how we do business around here. Coming from a state thats over a third federal land, i prefer that drastic reform proposals like this at least have the benefit of a Committee Hearing before we vote on them on the floor. That way we can hear expert testimony as to whether this is a good idea or learn about ways we might be able to improve the measure, but as far as i know, this language hasnt had a hearing in this congress or any other congress, for that matter. Proponents of this amendment are going to argue that it simply ensures that our land agencies can afford to keep up with the maintenance of new protected lands. And listen on the first and have been on this floor year after year talking about the fiscal condition of this country but first i believe we need more fiscal discipline around here, but this is not the way we should get it. I am also a huge believer that we shouldnt be overburdening these agencies, and we shouldnt be overregulating through them either but unfortunately this amendment takes a hatchet where the absolute most thats needed, if anything, is a surgical fix. In fact, under this amendment the proponents of protected lands could reduce funding for our land agencies through the appropriation process and then turn around and say the secretary got a has got to veto new proposals because sufficient resources arent available. As one of my friends from colorado said in the paper this morning quote this amendment would be a onetwo punch. First, starve conservation agencies of needed funding and then block any new protections as a result. Mr. President , this amendment is drafted in a way that it leaves huge discretion to a future secretary to approve or veto protections that congress has seen fit to create. If the amendment passed, nothing would stop a future secretary from finding that every single conservation bill that this congress has passed should not take effect. All because he or she failed to publish the vague set of findings laid out in this proposal. Historically we dont let a member of the executive branch any discretion as to whether they implement the laws that Congress Passes and that the president has signed, yet this measure would do just that. I think keeping that historical precedent where the legislative branch makes the laws and the executive branch implements them is important. Weve heard a lot about that on this floor recently, particularly in a case like this where were talking about our national heritage. Coloradans and all americans love their public lands and want to see more done to protect them and instead this amendment creates new layers of red tape. It makes enacting protective designations even more difficult than it has been. Once again mr. President i want to say on this floor i appreciate the senator from nebraskas efforts here and i would be happy to work with her to address some of her concerns, but i would argue that the investments we do make in our public lands are worthwhile ones and i would invite anybody in this chamber to come to colorado and see what im talking about. Protecting lands and wideopen spaces are a huge driver of Economic Growth all across our country. They help sustain a 600 billion Outdoor Recreation economy. A lot of those businesses, for obvious reasons are headquartered in colorado. On top of the economic benefits, wilderness Areas National monuments, National Parks are a fundamental part of the fabric of our country and of our countrys history. Its important to preserve these lands for our kids and our grandkids, just as our grandparents preserved them for us and its worth investing some money to do that so the next generation, the one after that can experience the greatness that all americans feel when they first visit the grand canyon or Rocky MountainNational Park or Chimney Rock National monument or the everglades or wherever we find the next beautiful or historically significant area that congress or the president decides to protect. This discussion is actually a timely one because just this past december, we passed a large package of conservation measures into law on a bipartisan basis. That package included a bill that we worked on in colorado called the Hermosa Creek watershed protection act. Let me say at the outset that our office may have introduced that bill in congress, but it was really the people i represent in southwest colorado who wrote that bill. This legislation grew from the grassroots up from day one republicans, democrats independents working together to cement a longterm plan for their communities. Not only was it bipartisan at the local level but also in congress. My friend scott tipton championed the bill on the house side. The Hermosa Creek watershed deserved to be protected. Thats why the Community Came together to keep it just as it was. That was the plan of the community, and thats what our bill finally accomplished at the end of the last congress. However, if we were to pass the amendment in front of us today all the hard work that went into passing the hermosa bill could be undone by the interior secretary. Every single meeting had in southwest colorado, every single conversation that led to the improvement of this legislation all of that, all of that could be gone in an instant. Not because the congress undoes the law but because some administrator using their fiat is able to under the law. And its not unlikely, mr. President i cant say this for sure, but its unlikely that that person is going to have any idea whats in the Hermosa Creek bill or any of the other bills that we worked on and passed, and thats simply not how we do business with that and there is a good reason for that. I am compelled therefore to urge other senators in this body to please oppose the fischer amendment so we can avoid such a scenario. Rejecting the amendment will preserve our conservation legacy, a legacy that goes straight back to president Teddy Roosevelt or a republican who signed the Antiquities Act into law in 1906 and includes the former establishment of the National Park system almost 100 years ago. Mr. President , this is an extraordinarily beautiful country that we all have the privilege to represent. We ought to encourage conservation efforts not make them harder to achieve. We ought to build on the legacy of generations of americans and generations in this body of republicans and democrats working together to preserve our natural heritage. I will therefore op the fischer amendment when it comes up for a vote and i urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President , i yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call a senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from South Carolina is recognized. Mr. Graham i ask unanimous consent to terminate the quorum call. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Graham thank you. Mr. President , id like to share some thoughts about the debate were having on the Keystone Pipeline, Climate Change, and how the two intersect. The concept that Climate Change is real, i completely understand and accept. To the point of how much man is contributing, i dont know, but it does make sense that manmade emissions are contributing and the Global Warming effect, the Greenhouse Gases effect seems sound. The problem is that how you fix this globally is going to require more than just the United States to be involved. This deal with china where they have to do nothing for 20 years is probably not exactly where id want to be. The bottom line is that the Solutions Coming from our democratic friends about how the deal with Greenhouse Gas emissions turn our economy upside down, do more harm to the economy, our liberal friends give us a false choice. You have to reorganize the economy in a draconian fashion to help the environment. Some people on my side believe that the whole Climate Change experience is scientifically unsound. Im not a scientist but ive heard enough regarding those who make it their lifes work to be convinced that manmade emissions are causing a problem of contributing to the overall warming of the planet. About the Keystone Pipeline, my democratic friends are making an argument that is just absolutely false. The product that canada will produce from the oil sands is going to be used by us, the World Community through the gulfport or by china. To those who believe denying the building of the pipeline protects from fossil fuels dont understand what canada is about to do. Canada is going to sell the product to somebody. The question for us, will we benefit from building a pipeline that will create american jobs and help us put oil into that pipeline within the United States in a joint venture with canada or we will say no to the canadians and they will go build a pipeline and send it to china. The product is going to be burned. Its going to be used. The only question for this congress is do we want the pipeline to go west and export the product to china or do we want to build the pipeline so well have more product from a friend rather than enemies. Dirty oil is oil that comes from people who hate your guts. The sulfur content of oil sands product is higher than mideast sweet crude but no different than the oil we find off the coast of california. The actual carbon content is no different than the oil we find off the coast of california. To lock this country and the world into buying more mideast product seems to me to be a very bad idea at a very dangerous time. So when i hear members of the Democratic Party take the floor and say dont build this pipeline because it will help the environment you obviously dont realize what canada is about to do. Canada is going to sell the oil to another customer, build a new pipeline and the only question for you is how do you justify that. How do you justify destroying the ability to create thousands of jobs in the country at a time when we need them . How do you justify not building a pipeline that could be used to help us with product from north dakota and other places within our own country . You can justify it but you cant say that its based on Climate Change because the product that youre talking about is going into the environment. It is going to be used. Its either going to be used coming through america to our benefit, or its going to be built the pipeline will be built west and it will go to china. To our friends in canada, i imagine your patience is about to run out with us, and i dont blame you one bit if you got tired of dealing with an American Government that seems completely out of sync with area. In terms of the lawsuits, its a procedural issue. In nebraska the pipeline is one of thousands of pipelines we already have in america. To the president last night instead of one pipeline, why dont we have a comprehensive infrastructure strategy . Im all for that. But youre threatening to veto the building of this pipeline. Why . Because you have been taken over your judgment has by the Environmental Community who is hellbent on no fossil fuels anywhere anyway, any how. Thats not the world in which we live in. I embrace the fact that a lower Carbon Economy will be beneficial over time. My view is find more fuels from friendly people including our own backyard, canada, the United States including fossil fuels we have to buy from countries that do not like us very much. That is a reality. Were not going to be able to replace fuels any time soon. We can invent technology to make it cleaner. We can find alternatives. But at the end of the day it comes down to this, if youre using Climate Change as a reason not to build this pipeline, youre kidding yourself or youre misleading the public. Because the product is going to be used. Its going theyre going to build a pipeline in canada. The question is do they build a pipeline that we get no benefit from or do they build a pipeline in collaboration with us that helps us with our job problems and our energy needs . I dont understand how you can justify voting against the Keystone Pipeline based on a tenure about Climate Change, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue in this regard. The product is going to be used by somebody, and theyre going to build a pipeline somewhere. For you to deny us the ability to build this pipeline that would make us more Energy Independent from overseas fossil fuels is shortsighted and does not advance the cause of Climate Change. To the people who believe in Climate Change, it is gimmicks like this and tricks like this that hurt your cause. Youre undercutting a real, genuine debate. You make Climate Change a religion rather than a problem. It is a problem but youre taking a draconian approach to the problem to the point that youre denying our country the ability to build a pipeline that we would benefit from economically and energy securitywise, and the alternative youre leaving this country is that the same product will go somewhere else. And the next pipeline wont benefit america. So its stunts like this that undercut your overall efforts. I wish you would change your mind about the pipeline and work with republicans who are willing to work with you to deal with emissions in a realistic way and stop selling what i think is a fraud when it comes to this debate. Thank you mr. President. I would yield. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call quorum call mr. Whitehouse mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from rhode island. Mr. Whitehouse mr. President i understand that the senate is in a quorum call, and i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Whitehouse thank you mr. President. Im here to say a few words about my amendment 29, which we will be voting on shortly after 3 00 im told. That is the simple amendment that says it is the sense of the senate that Climate Change is real and not a hoax. It is perhaps a telling coincidence that were having this conversation on the floor of the senate now on the fifth anniversary of the Citizens United decision. Because before Citizens United came along, there was actually a pretty robust conversation between democrats and republicans about Carbon Pollution and Climate Change and what needed to be done about it. For instance, senator john mccain ran for president on a robust platform of addressing the Carbon Pollution that causes Climate Change. Senator collins worked with the Current EnergyRanking Member senator cantwell on a very robust climate bill that would have put a cap on Carbon Pollution and paid a dividend back to the american people. Senator mark kirk voted for waxmanmarkey when that bill was up on the floor of the house the famous capandtrade bill. Senator flake wrote an article in his home state paper expressing the value and merit of a carbon fee when its offset by reductions in other taxes as a way to help workers and address the pollution problem. Over and over again, there were these joint actions all the way back to when i first came to the e. P. W. Committee and senator john warner was its thenRanking Member and he wrote warnerlieberman when our colleague then, senator lieberman. Then came Citizens United, then came the massive influx of polluter money into our political system, much of it dark money. And at about the spring of 2010 and Citizens United was decided in january of 2010, that was the end of the conversation. And so here we are today. We are just now reaching an agreeme