Heidi Heitkamp

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I rise today again to respond to some of the concerns that have been expressed on this floor regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline, to urge my colleagues to move this important, shovel-ready project forward. I had a chance earlier this afternoon--I guess it was this morning--to listen to a fair amount of the debate as I presided. A lot of what we are hearing over and over again is the same messages, in some ways confused messages, because I do not know if we are talking about stopping the oil sands in Canada or if we are talking about approving a pipeline; I do not know if we are talking about doing the State's work in siting a pipeline within their State, or if we are talking about making a determination as directed by legislation from this body to the President to make a determination on whether approval, which is to take that pipeline across the border of this country, is in the national interest. I think we have confused a lot of the dialog here. I just want to take a moment to start from Ground Zero. That is that we have a requirement that when a pipeline--a legislative requirement--that when a pipeline is going to come across a border, the State Department has an obligation to determine whether that is going to be permitted. The determination is whether it is in the national interest. I do not think anyone anticipated that a pipeline would take 6 years--6 years of dialogue, 6 years of study, millions and millions of dollars and actually billions of dollars of stranded investment--waiting for approval of this pipeline. So anyone who says, let's wait for the process to work is not facing the reality that the process is broken. This process has not worked. This process has not brought this project to some kind of finality, yes or no. Yes or no. People say: Well, we need to wait for the Nebraska Supreme Court. Nothing is going to go through Nebraska until the people of Nebraska, through their representatives, actually approve a route. That is an issue, in my opinion, that belongs to the people of Nebraska and to their elected representatives and to their people. When they say: Look, the EIS may have said that, but it is not reality. When the EIS, commissioned by the State Department, says there will not be a carbon impact as a result of this pipeline, but we are not going to even talk about that because we do not agree with that fact. We do not agree with that fact in the EIS, that this is not about stopping the oil sands in Canada, the oil sand development. This is about a pipeline and whether it is in the national interest to bring that pipeline south. Now I want to tell you why I think it is in the national interest. I think it is in the national interest because when I talk about energy independence for our country, when I talk about energy independence for our country and looking at how we can deploy our resources for the good of the world, I am talking about North American energy independence, whether it is collaborating with our great friends to the north, Canada, or whether it is, in fact, building relationships and building infrastructure with our neighbors to the south, Mexico, that has a-- Mexico is holding a huge amount of oil and gas reserves. I also find it kind of curious, because there has been a lot of discussion about gasoline prices and how--you know, see, we do not need Keystone XL development or production because look at what is happening with gas prices, and they are going down. This is classic supply-and- demand economics. You know why gasoline prices are going down? Because we are producing more oil in North America, because we are adding to the supply. The supply obviously is meeting world demand, meeting the conditions. We have a discussion in OPEC, I will acknowledge that. But fundamentally it is economics at work. When you have a greater supply and you have reduced demand, the price goes down. That is why we are seeing lower gasoline prices. So when so many people say we will not benefit from the Keystone XL Pipeline, and they talk about deployment of that pipeline, and they talk about what it means to have this system be deployed, I will tell you that we can thank what is happening in Canada in energy production for gasoline prices that now are, for the first time in a long time, below $3 in many parts of our country--below $3--because we are producing more domestic and North American crude oil. So I think we need to be honest about what we are talking about here. I frequently say the pipeline has taken a role in American politics that is way disproportional to what it is. It is a pipeline. There are over 2 million miles of pipeline in America today. This is going to be just another one of those. It is going to be state of the art. Can I predict a perfect world? Can I predict that there will never be any kind of consequence? No, I cannot, anymore than I can predict what is going to happen tomorrow with any kind of natural resource or any kind of transportation infrastructure. But I can tell you that I have seen the extra precautions. I want to report on some of those things that TransCanada has done, the pipeline company that would build Keystone XL, to respond to the concerns. They have agreed to 57 special safety conditions that go above and beyond what is required in Federal regulation, including the installation of automatic shutoff valves not only every 20 miles but in specific spots that cross waterways. There are over 2.3 million miles of pipe in the ground, and around 160,000 of those miles are being used for crude oil transport. Think about that. Think about the need for this infrastructure. There was a lot of discussion today about how this oil will fly out of the country magically. I will tell you the reason why, contrary to what you have been told today, that this pipeline is destined to go south into the United States--you have been hearing that the pipeline did not go east and west because Canada did not want it. That pipeline went to the south because that is where heavy crudes are refined. A lot of the heavy crudes that are refined in Texas and in the South--the Gulf States--is crude that is imported from Venezuela. It is imported from Venezuela. Who would you rather buy your crude oil from, from Venezuela, or would you rather buy it from our friends to the north in Canada? We have so politicized, for lack of a better word, something that should be a clear economic position. We have made this an important cause on both sides. I will call out both sides. This is a pipeline. It is a pipeline that will transport an important commodity that will be used in our refineries in our country to produce gasoline and diesel fuel that drives the engine of our economy, certainly our transportation economy. We are buying it from our friends to the North, Canada. Canadian officials have years of responsible investment, responsible development of their infrastructure. They are people we should want to do business with. Instead of simply making the decision based on, yes, environmental considerations, that, yes, we cannot ignore that the EIS says there are not any environmental impediments to this pipeline. People say: Well, what about if it changes in Nebraska? Do you honestly believe if there is a change in Nebraska, there is going to be a change that will put more of the Nebraska environment in harm's way? Do you honestly believe that is the outcome of the Nebraska Supreme Court decision? No. So when we look at this, we need to begin to focus on what this is. It is a pipeline. It is a critical piece of energy infrastructure. It is something that has languished too long because of a failed process. Six years. Six years. There are young people here, the pages. What if I told you that you could not get your driver's license for 6 years? What if I told a business: We are not going to permit you for 6 years? What if we told anyone down the road who needed some kind of license or approval from the Federal Government, 6 years? That is what it is going to take--6 years. There is no one who thinks that is appropriate. So if this process today, which was started by my great friend, Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, spurs a further discussion that resolves this issue one way or the other--one way or the other--we have accomplished a great deal today. We have accomplished a great deal by having this important discussion, on which obviously there are heartfelt opinions on both sides. In fact, my colleague from California has described it as a vote of conscience. I will tell you from my perspective it is a vote for common sense. It is a vote for common sense in moving this piece of infrastructure forward and making sure we are doing everything that we can to provide affordable energy that drives this economy. That is the new dynamic, the new energy renaissance. I believe we will approve this pipeline. I am hoping it is today. But we will approve this pipeline. At the end of the day, all we have done has resulted in incredible frustration and incredible delay that has cost money for not only the pipeline but for the taxpayers of this country. It is time to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my very good friend Mary Landrieu for everything she has done for our country, for her State, for her tenacity, and for her willingness to shepherd this through at a very critical time. We talked yesterday on the floor about how important it is to send the right messages to the American public. A lot of people will say, well, they pick this agenda or this agenda. They just want us to start working together. And they want us to turn on the television and watch C-SPAN and say, there they are in the sandbox again, fighting about things that don't matter to the American public. You know, picking fights with each other, bad-mouthing each other, as opposed to working together. It is a little tough right now, because I think that if we are going to set the tone today, yesterday, today and in the days that follow during this lameduck, the tone that will establish the relationships and the courtesies we are going to have going forward in the next Congress, we need to make sure we are communicating when the tone goes a little wrong. To me, I have fought this issue. I have been in favor of the Keystone Pipeline ever since I looked, and I somewhat famously likened it to caring about a reality TV show that has nothing to do with people's lives, and wondering why we care so much about Keystone, because it doesn't have a whole lot to do with carbon. It doesn't. Keystone Pipeline is about transportation of oil. That oil is going to get transported, it is going to get produced, and it is going to move. It is going to move on rail or it is going to move on pipe someplace. When you look at all the studies that have been done, the environmental studies, you turn it around 100 different ways, you come to the same conclusion, that the Keystone Pipeline makes an incredible amount of sense. It is a job-ready project, shovel-ready project, with good trade union jobs. That is something you don't see every day in America. New things coming--it will help us transport 100,000 barrels of oil. That is less than 10 percent of what we produce every day but it will take, as my senior Senator said, a lot of unit trains off the rails so we can move grain, and it will be state of the art in terms of the quality of the pipeline. I have seen the pipeline. I have seen the oil sands. I have been there. We are headed for North American energy independence if we don't get in our own way. Keystone has taken a role larger than life, and it has been this hot button issue that doesn't belong in this debate. It should have been approved, in my opinion, years ago, absolutely years ago. It has taken us longer to analyze Keystone than what it has taken us to beat Hitler--by far, almost 50 percent more time spent analyzing the Keystone Pipeline. The people of the United States are tired of this issue. They are tired of our gridlock, and they are tired of the partisan bickering back and forth. So I would ask as a way to move forward on a lot of very difficult energy issues that we are going to have here, whether it is what I believe, we need to begin to lower the barriers and eliminate the barriers for exportation of crude oil. It has been something I have talked about a lot. I believe we need to export and to facilitate the exportation of natural gas. I believe we need to do everything we can to continue to develop our renewables. I believe we should have a renewable fuel standard that encourages--encourages--the development of renewable fuels. I believe a lot of things on energy, and we frequently hear in this body we are all of the above and people start talking and you know they are not. They are not all of the above. They are polarizing this issue. At the heart of it, as I said yesterday, one of the reasons why the United States of America has not experienced an economic downturn or the slowdown that you see globally is because of this energy renaissance. This is what the American public has sent us to do, to set public policy, but more importantly, to get out of the way of private invention and entrepreneurship. So I would respectfully, very respectfully, ask that when our colleagues from the other side come to the floor, think about how we can use language that brings us together, that doesn't tell the American public, there they go again. You know, here we are again in the sandbox trying to figure out who gets credit. You know what, when this place works, we will all get credit. And more importantly, when this place works, the American public will have their faith in their government restored. So let's be very careful with language. Let's recognize everyone for the commitment they have made, and for the leadership they provided. And I have said many times in my home State, Senator Hoeven has led this effort. He talks about it. He has been a champion for the Keystone Pipeline. I hope I have been a champion. But I certainly have not done the time that he has done on this issue. Senator Hoeven deserves an incredible amount of credit; but equally, Mary Landrieu deserves an incredible amount of credit for moving this issue right at this point of time and moving this issue forward. We who are working on this side to gather the number of votes that we know we are going to need to pass this--that is not easy work. Trust me, that is not easy work, but we are making tremendous progress. We are making tremendous progress. Now what happens next week? We hope we pass it. And we will cross the bridge of a Presidential veto when we come to it and if we come to it. But let's not presuppose what people are going to do and let's not stand here at a time when the American public wants to see us all come together, let's not stand here and worry about who gets credit. Let's not stand here and call out people for what you consider past wrongs. Let's move forward on behalf of the American people. I wanted to personally say thank you, Senator Landrieu, for your leadership, for your tenacity. And if I could add one point, and I will say this because I was with you every step of the way on flood insurance. Flood insurance would not have happened without Mary Landrieu. We had great support on the other side, great bipartisan effort, but she sounded the alarm before anyone knew we were going to have this problem and had already built that groundwork. You know, I am sure there are a lot of things her opponents and her detractors can say about the positions she has taken over the years. Be honest about it. She has been a leader on Keystone. She has been a leader on oil and gas. She has been a leader on flood insurance. She has been a tenacious voice for all of those issues. And she has in her heart the best interests not just of the people in this country, but particularly the great people of the great State of Louisiana. So, thank you, Mary, for everything you do. I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I stand with my great colleague and a great champion of this energy renaissance--probably the greatest champion of the energy renaissance here in the Senate, the Senator from Louisiana. I wish to speak first about the election. I think all of us have had some time now to reflect, and I think the clearest message this entire body, as well as the entire U.S. Congress, received is: Stop fighting. Get your work done. I don't think it could have been any clearer. We have an opportunity today to demonstrate we got that message, not in a partisan way, but in a bipartisan way--in a nonpartisan way--to say: We heard you loud and clear. It is time to do the job we were sent here to do, and that is to move legislation which moves this country forward. Senator Landrieu has expounded on the great opportunity of this energy renaissance, not just for this country but for the entire world. So let's start with what is happening in North Dakota. We have had an explosion of oil and gas production. In fact, we have rapidly moved to second place in this country in oil production. We produce oil from oil shale. What does that mean? It means nothing if we can't move the oil. It means nothing if we can't get this product to the refineries and this product to market. We can produce all the oil we want, but part of what we need to address as we look at an energy infrastructure is how we move energy products. Today in America, and actually in Canada, how we are moving this product is by rail, which has created tremendous stress on our agricultural infrastructure. It has created tremendous stress on manufacturers who need to use those rails to haul their finished products. It has created tremendous stress for the railroads. Are they glad for the business? You bet. And has that created and opened up new markets for the oil production in my State? You bet. But the bottom line is, the best way we know how to move oil and move this product is in a pipe, and that is essential to building all this energy infrastructure. Why is it important? Let's start first with the fact that we now are moving toward North American energy self-sufficiency. A lot of people talk about America, and that is a great goal. But if we include our friends to the north--the people I grew up with, the people I know--I have been to the oil sands, I have been all over Alberta, I have been all over Saskatchewan. This is a very friendly country which has the longest contiguous border with which there has never been a conflict. We celebrate this in North Dakota with Peace Garden, which is a lovely park on both sides of the border where one can easily cross. We celebrate that. These are our friends. And if we are going to continue to build out this energy renaissance in North America, we had better be prepared to move this product. We all know some of the opposition to this has very little to do with the pipeline. It has to do with a concern about the increased availability of fossil fuels. This is still an economy that runs on fossil fuels. We have done tremendous work with fuel efficiency. We have done tremendous work with energy efficiency. But we are going to continue to use gasoline in our cars, we are going to continue to use diesel in our heavy equipment, and we are going to continue to use this product. Who do we want to buy this product from? If we ask any American person: Would you rather buy this product from Venezuela or would you rather buy this product from our friends to the north, Canada, I am pretty sure what their answer will be. So let's talk a little bit about why the United States, at a time when we are seeing a global slowdown in economic progress for many of the other countries throughout the world--why is the United States seeming to go farther? Why are we producing and generating more wealth in our country than other places? I would tell you, it is because of this energy renaissance. We are doing something no one else is doing-- we are producing our own oil and gas, we are developing the techniques to get this oil and gas out of the ground, and we are taking that as a raw material which is providing a renaissance, not just in the oil area but also in natural gas as a feedstock for many of our manufacturing processes. So we have a real opportunity here. But all of that goes away if we don't move the product, if we don't figure out a way to make sure our product gets to market. I will talk a little bit also about what this development in our country means to the world, when we are confronting great challenges in dealing with Russia, in looking at what is happening in the Middle East. We are confronting all of these challenges throughout the world. We know we can not only deploy our humanitarian efforts, our efforts by supporting through air strikes some of the work that is being done on the ground, but perhaps the single most important thing we can do is help provide oil and gas to Europe and to those countries dependent on people or on countries that are not our friends. We look at what our opportunities are today, and we know those opportunities are in the energy renaissance. So how do we move this product? How do we send a signal that we are ready to take advantage, both globally and domestically, of this product, of this renaissance in North America? We approve the Keystone Pipeline. A lot of people talk about what the Keystone Pipeline means to my State. It doesn't exactly go into my State, but the Governor of Montana made sure when he was providing the permits that there wasn't what I call an on ramp. There is a place where we can in fact access the Keystone Pipeline. We anticipate about 100,000 barrels a day of North Dakota crude will be able to be placed into the Keystone Pipeline and sent down to refineries in Louisiana. That may sound like a lot, but it is less than 10 percent of our current production. For me, the Keystone is so much more than this particular pipeline. It is a national discussion about our failing energy transportation infrastructure. That is what this is. And if we do not move this project forward, if we say no, what is the next thing? What is the next project that is essential? A 22-mile pipeline in Massachusetts that would provide huge stability for the northeast in terms of their heat production. Twenty-two miles could be a huge benefit to our friends in Maine in terms of stabilizing their home heating costs this winter, but yet we fight the pipeline. Keystone is a huge advantage we have in this country because we are an oil and gas producer, and could potentially be an oil exporter, providing that source of soft power across the world. What do we do? We turn our back on the infrastructure that moves this product. So we have got to do everything we can to get this approved. I wish to turn briefly to the politics. A lot of people come here and talk politics. I believe this is the place to talk policy, and that is what I try to do. But for a moment, I wish to talk about the respect we should have for voters. I wish to talk about elections, and elections have consequences. One of the things we can do to begin to restore the public faith in our democracy and in the institution of the U.S. Congress is to do something bold to begin with: Actually move legislation that people have been waiting for for a long time, and actually respond to concerns. Maybe we get the votes, maybe we don't. But let's take a vote. Take a vote and get it done. Show the American public we are willing to come to this body, debate the great issues of the time, and bring things to a vote so they actually see us doing something; they actually get results. They pay our salary. We came here to vote. We came here to work. We came here to do something for the American public. We don't all agree; there is no doubt about that. But the thing we should all agree on is it is essential in terms of providing certainty to the American public, confidence that the American public has in this body--that they see us on this floor, not 2 years or 2 months from now, not 3 months from now, not 4 months from now, but today--the first day we are back in session after an election, a hard-fought election with pretty dire consequences for our side of the aisle, but a hard election. It is essential we send a message that we got the message and we take a vote. I am so proud of my colleague from Louisiana for coming back when, arguably, she should be back in her State doing a little campaigning. But she is back here fighting for what she believes in and what she has always believed in, which is an energy infrastructure which makes a difference for North America, makes a difference for not just States such as mine but consumers of energy. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her tremendous leadership on this and her willingness to basically come here and say: I don't care who gets the credit. I don't care if my name is on it or not. Let's get the Keystone Pipeline approved. Now I want to make one final point and then I will close. If you have driven the route of the Keystone Pipeline, what you will see stockpiled every so many miles is thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars of pipe waiting--6 years waiting--infrastructure that needs to go today. So when people say we can wait to take this vote, you are wrong. The sooner the better. The sooner we take this vote and get it approved, the sooner we are going to see those resources deployed and we will not yet miss another construction season in the North Country. Mr. President, I yield the floor and express great gratitude for the opportunity to speak.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. As the chairman knows, there have been concerns expressed in Indian Country that the IRS may take the occasion of passage of H.R. 3043 or S. 1507 to retrench, narrow or possibly withdraw the administrative guidance provided in Rev. Proc. 2014-35 after enactment of the bill. As the sponsor of this legislation, I would like to say that would be contrary to the intent of Congress.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I wish to honor John Hoganson who retired at the end of July after 33 years of dedicated service to the State of North Dakota with the North Dakota Geologic Survey. John traces his love for discovery and earth science back to his childhood in eastern North Dakota. As a child, John could be found with his father's claw hammer breaking open rocks in an attempt to discover the mysteries that lay inside. As a young adult, his passion and curiosity helped him graduate from North Dakota State University and eventually to earn a doctorate in geology with an emphasis in paleontology from the University of North Dakota. He began his career in public service as a geologist with the Geologic Survey. The position later transitioned when he was tasked with formulating a fossil resource management plan for the State. John would later go on to serve as our State's first paleontologist, a position he held for 25 years. John was instrumental in securing passage of two landmark pieces of legislation in the North Dakota State legislature that helped to protect our State's fossil resources and created a state fossil collection. Under John's leadership, North Dakota's fossil collection has grown from a small collection of bones to one that now numbers in the hundreds of thousands. One of the top finds includes a 67-million- year-old Edmontosaurus, a duck-billed dinosaur, with intact fossilized skin, who has been affectionately named Dakota. Dakota is one of only a handful of dinosaurs in existence to have preserved skin. Dakota has been regarded by experts as one of the more important discoveries in recent times because he may be the best-preserved Edmontosaurus found to date. He also created a public dig program which has brought in volunteers from across the country and around the world to assist with digs. In addition to his work for the State, John has also been a valuable teacher and mentor, spending countless hours engaging students of all ages and the general public around the State in hands-on educational experiences. Without John's passion and commitment, many North Dakotans would have never been aware of our State's rich paleontological history. He has been pivotal in the creation of curriculum for the North Dakota Studies project, and the 24 fossil exhibits in museums and visitors centers across the State. In evidence to his lifelong commitment to discovery, John will be continuing his work with fossils by completing some research projects and writing papers for scientific journals. I want to thank John for his years of dedication and service as an advocate for paleontology and as a teacher to the people of North Dakota. I wish him the best in his new endeavors and a happy and full retirement.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask to speak as if in morning business.

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, it is truly a great honor to stand with my colleague from Kansas as we are on the cusp of actually passing legislation that has consequences for a lot of our American citizens and especially our Native American citizens. I will tell you as someone who represents Indian Country in my State, this is the number one priority for our tribes. It is interesting because a lot of people would look at this and say: Why this issue? I think it goes to the heart of Native American sovereignty. What has been happening, as it relates to 1099s and the potential of taxing services provided by tribal governments, basically begs the question: Do we really understand or do we really appreciate that these are sovereign governments--the same way the States are sovereign and the same way the counties and cities would be sovereign? I think in many ways it has very real economic consequences, but a great value in this legislation is in the symbolic consequences of having this body recognize the importance of recognizing these treaty rights, recognizing the value of treaties and trust responsibilities. As a former attorney general and as a lawyer, I view treaty rights and trust responsibilities like a contract between the United States and our Native American tribes. As a U.S. citizen, I view these treaties as sacred obligations. We have not done a good enough job living up to our commitments to tribal nations. As a consequence tribal governments have been forced to supplement services that the Federal Government promised to provide. Yet for years the IRS has audited Indian tribes for providing health care, education or housing assistance for those in need. Here are just some of the stories I have heard from Native Americans in North Dakota and across the country. I have heard about the IRS wanting the tribes to issue 1099s--basically saying you have something of taxable value--to tribal elders who received blankets as honoraria for performing traditional ceremonies. I heard about the IRS questioning a tribal government's provision providing backpacks and school supplies to elementary school children as a taxable benefit to the families of the children. I have heard about the IRS imposing a tax on the value of a handicap ramp--a value of $2,000--erected by the tribal government to help a tribal elder access her home. The stories go on. The status quo isn't fair and it isn't right. This practice certainly does not fully respect that tribes are governments. That is why I joined with Senator Moran to introduce the bipartisan Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act last year. The bill would fully recognize that Indian tribes, as sovereign nations, are responsible for making certain government programs and services best fit the needs of their citizens. Just as State and local governments are determined to decide what is in the best interest of their citizens, such as scholarships, elder or child care or housing assistance, we have to recognize that tribal governments have the right to make those decisions without tax consequences. With this bill, we are supporting tribal self-determination and taking a step towards living up to our trust and treaty obligations. Indian tribes and their members should not be subject to heightened IRS scrutiny. I think Senator Moran outlined that issue so well because some people may see that what we are doing here is carving out an exception, creating an extra benefit for tribal members that is not enjoyed by the entire citizenry of this country. Nothing could be further than the truth. In fact, we are leveling the playing field. The Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act will bring parity in the tax treatment of Indian governments. It will recognize the unique relationship with tribal governments that they have with their citizens and allow them the opportunity to craft programs which best fit their community need. I want to take a moment and suggest to all of you that if you spent time in Indian Country and if you have looked at the benefits that tribal governments provide and you think about the resources of the IRS and where you might go to actually collect dollars that would enhance revenue, the last place you should look in this country is in Indian Country. I would like to address a few other really important reasons why this bill is so critical. The IRS recently issued helpful guidance, and we are very appreciative of that work. With that being said, we also must make sure that parity provided by that guidance is in statutory language. That way, we weighed in. There is certainty that no one can do a look-back and no one can change it without that change coming to this body and coming to the House of Representatives and being enacted into law. In addition, the Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act includes two items that are critical to the advancement of a better relationship between tribal governments and the Federal Government. First as a training requirement, we must make sure that IRS field agents are well versed in Federal Indian law and unique treaty and trust relationships that the Federal Government has with their tribes. Second, as the training is taking place, our bill also suspends all audits of examination of tribal governments for one year to allow this education to take place. It isn't rare for Congress to pass legislation that supports guidance issued by the Federal agencies to give more weight to the issues and make sure that there is no potential misinterpretation. That is what we are doing this week with the help of a lot of our colleagues who believe in this legislation as well. We want to supplement the IRS guidance to expand rather than restrict the safe harbor provisions. When I joined the Senate, I promised to be a partner--to honor and respect the sovereign rights of Native Americans just as I always have. This bill is a step in the right direction. I fully anticipate that as we move forward this week, we will, in fact, enact this legislation. I fully anticipate that we will send the right message to tribal governments that we see you the way you are. You are a sovereign government entitled to make the decisions that you need to make to the benefit of your citizens without undue and irrational interference from the IRS. I think the bipartisan nature of this bill is a tribute to my friend from Kansas who understands completely what we are attempting to do. It is one of those rare moments that I have had since I have been in the Senate, where you see a good bill being debated--a good bill being discussed--and then having an opportunity to actually do the right thing. I thank my friend from Kansas for the opportunity to join with him as a cosponsor of this legislation. It is critically important that this message get sent and that we have an opportunity in the future to continue to work with tribal governments to act in the best interests of tribal citizens and provide the services that are essential for a growing population of Native American citizens but also of a population that lives in a great deal of poverty. I thank my friend from Kansas. I look forward to seeing this bill signed into law--which I think will happen. I think that the stars are aligning. It will be a great day and a very important step in securing a better relationship of all governments with the Native American people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 504, S. 1214.

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 483, S. 2539.

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 505, H.R. 4194.

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be considered; the Carper amendment which is at the desk be agreed to; the committee-reported amendment, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 552, S. 2511.

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 522, S. 2117.

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Warren substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 506, and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Ms. HEITKAMP. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Energy Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2440 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Udall of New Mexico amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration en bloc of the following resolutions, which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 547, S. Res. 548, S. Res. 549, and S. Res. 550.