Brian Schatz

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, 3 weeks ago, the Senate held an important vote on an amendment to the budget resolution, and 56 of our colleagues, including 11 Republicans, joined me in affirming the need for legislation to ensure that all legally married spouses, including gay couples, have access to Social Security and VA benefits that their families have earned. This amendment passed with bipartisan support because it is fundamentally about fairness. Imagine a veteran who served his country for decades fighting for equality and freedom around the world and he gets married in a State that allows gay marriage. If he is permanently disabled from his service, his spouse is eligible for veterans' spousal benefits. They have earned these benefits. But if they move or if they drive over the border from Florida into Georgia, for example, they lose those benefits. The same scenario applies to our seniors and their right to Social Security spousal benefits. Why does this happen? Simply because the Federal right to these benefits happens to be defined in law with respect to the State of residence rather than the State of celebration of the marriage. In other words, eligibility for these Federal benefits is based on where you live, not where you were married. So we have one Federal right and two unequal outcomes based on the person's residence. This is the definition of unequal treatment under the law. No one is denying that Americans earned their Social Security and veterans' benefits regardless of whether they are gay or straight. And since the Supreme Court's decision in the Windsor case struck down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act, no one can deny that the Federal Government is required to recognize all legal marriages. For almost all Federal agencies, this went into effect right away. Gay married couples can now file joint taxes. In legal proceedings before the Federal Government same-sex spouses are given the same legal rights as all other spouses. Under the Family and Medical Leave Act, an employee can now take leave to care for a same-sex spouse. These are just a few of the ways that the Federal Government brought its policies into line with the law. The Social Security Administration and the VA, however, are tripped up by an old wording in their authorizing statutes. Working together, we can fix this. We can pass legislation to ensure that all legally married couples receive equal treatment under the law regardless of where they live. The amendment that the Senate voted to include in the budget affirms the need for this legislation. Allowing unequal treatment under the law goes against American values, and it goes against our Constitution. Equality under Federal laws should not end when you cross State lines. We are not debating whether gay marriage should be legal in all 50 States. That question is currently in front of the Supreme Court. We are debating whether a Federal right should be afforded to all Americans regardless of where they live. For those who are concerned with preserving States' rights, I understand that perspective, but we should all support fixing the statutes governing Social Security and veterans' benefits. Fixing these statutes does not impact State law whatsoever. In contrast, by not fixing these statutes, the Federal Government is ignoring the laws of States that allow gay marriage. It actually does harm to States' rights to allow this situation to continue. This is not an ideological proposal, and I should point out that the Senator from Washington, Patty Murray, and the Senator from New Hampshire, Jeanne Shaheen--this was originally their idea. First, Senator Murray provided this as a piece of legislation on the Social Security side, and Jeanne Shaheen, likewise, presented this on the VA side. We worked together during the so-called vote-arama to merge these proposals into one because the same principle applies for both Federal benefits, which is that equal protection under the law should not depend on which of the 50 States an American citizen resides in. This is about treating veterans, disabled Americans, and our seniors equally, no matter where they live or what their sexual orientation may be. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the Senator from Vermont. Motion to Instruct Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending motion and call up my motion to instruct, which is at the desk.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCHATZ. All legally married, same-sex couples deserve equal treatment under the law, regardless of where they live. But right now, eligibility for spousal benefits provided under the Social Security Act and by the Department of Veterans Affairs is determined by a place-of-residence standard. That means that legally married same-sex couples who move to a State that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage could be denied Social Security and veterans survivor benefits. Plain and simple, this is wrong, and this doesn't reflect our American values. This amendment will fix this and provide equal protection under the law and the Social Security and veterans benefits that gay Americans have earned. I would be happy to entertain a voice vote in support of this amendment if the majority is amenable.

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 1063 be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes.

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

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, today the House released its budget proposal. It is a proposal divorced from reality that seeks to balance the budget on the backs of those in the country who can least afford it. It takes from the middle class and gives to the ultrawealthy. Without a doubt, my colleagues and I will have much more to say about the Republican budget in the coming weeks and months, but today I want to discuss a section of the budget that seeks to deny the very real and very current threat of climate change to our public health and military readiness. The Department of Defense is responsible for protecting the security of the United States, and that requires taking into consideration every threat and every threat multiplier that affects the global security environment and our national interests, including climate change. That is why the military spends considerable time assessing the effects climate change could have on its facilities, capabilities, and missions, and how those effects could undermine its ability to protect our national security. It is unfortunate that today in their budget proposal House Republicans said that this planning is wasteful spending. I am as against wasteful spending as anyone, but preparing for threats to our national security planning and operations is the opposite of wasteful. It is prudent. Today, I want to talk about how a climate change prohibition would tie the hands of our national defense strategy. Climate change affects our national security in two major ways. First, the DOD has warned that climate change is likely to impact the military's facilities and capabilities. In particular, America's military bases may be particularly vulnerable to climate change. According to a 2008 National Intelligence Council finding, ``more than 30 U.S. military installations were already facing elevated levels of risk from rising sea levels.'' In my home State of Hawaii, for example, Navy and Marine Corps installations such as Pearl Harbor and Marine Corps base Kaneohe Bay are literally on the water's edge. According to the Department of Defense, the combination of decreasing sea ice, rising sea levels, and thawing permafrost along the coast of Alaska has increased coastal erosion at several Air Force radar early warning and communication installations. This coastal erosion has already damaged roads, seawalls, and runways at our bases. Second, climate change exacerbates the drivers of global instability, including drought, food shortages, water scarcity, and pandemic disease. ADM Sam Locklear III, commander of the USPACOM, said that the biggest long-term security threat in the region is climate change because ``it is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment.'' I would like to make a point here. The Department of Defense is in no position to get caught up in our partisan or ideological battles. The Department of Defense has to deal with what is. The Department of Defense has to prepare for and contend with reality. And we should have debates on the Senate floor. We should talk about whether the President's clean powerplant is the right approach. We should talk about how we should approach international agreements coming into the Paris Accords. Let's have that debate about whether a carbon fee is the most prudent approach. But what we should not do is make it impossible for the Department of Defense to do its planning and preparation. That is what the House budget does. In its 2014 QDR, the Department of Defense warned that the effects of climate change ``are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions--conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence.'' The stresses could break the backs of weak governments and institutions in countries around the world where the United States has enduring interests. In particular, the National Intelligence Council stated in its ``Global Trends 2030'' report that climate change will pose stiff challenges to governance in places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why I find it ironic that many of my Republican colleagues who are so committed to slowing the pace of our withdrawal from Afghanistan on the premise that doing so will preserve our security gains and keep Afghanistan stable are now tying the hands of the national security community so that they are unable to study the security effects of climate change on Afghanistan and the region. Again, I don't think we should tell them how to study it, what conclusions to draw, what preparations to make, except to say that we should stay out of their way as they do their security planning, as they do their security preparation. I am not suggesting that they take my view on climate change; I am suggesting that they be allowed to deal with what is and that they not be sucked into a partisan ideological battle over climate change. They don't have the luxury of getting sucked into a partisan ideological battle when it comes to climate change. They have to deal with what is because they are responsible for our national defense. Fortunately, while some in Congress play politics, our military leaders are clear-eyed about the current and present threats posed by climate change, and they are making the necessary investments in knowledge of impacts to their readiness and to regional and global conflicts. We need to back them up and make sure that climate deniers do not tie one hand behind their back while they work to understand the threats to defend our country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I rise today to speak on two topics. The first topic is to urge my colleagues to bring up the vote on Loretta Lynch right away. The delay on her nomination to be Attorney General has gone on long enough, and there are no longer any legitimate excuses. She is by all accounts an excellent candidate. She is highly qualified, and she has bipartisan support in the Committee on the Judiciary. No one has questioned her stellar credentials. Her nomination has been held up for too long. In fact, Republicans have held up her nomination longer than the five most recent Attorney General nominees combined. But now her nomination has been tied to a piece of legislation that Republicans themselves have poisoned. Why are they putting poison pills in their own legislation? They took a perfectly good bipartisan bill and ensured it would go nowhere. Then they took a perfectly qualified Attorney General nominee and tied her vote to their poisoned legislation. The majority party is getting in its own way when it comes to the major responsibilities of governing. It is time for the Republicans to act like the majority and govern. This is the difference between being in the majority and being in the minority. Putting poison pills in legislative vehicles may be an odious practice, but it is normally reserved for the minority party--the party that is not in charge. Generally speaking, you do not poison your own piece of legislation. The American people have given the keys to the car to the Republican Party, and now they need to drive the car. This is the difference between being in the minority and the majority. Governing includes giving advice and consent on nominations. This is a particularly important nomination. The Attorney General is the top law enforcement official in the country. He or she is responsible for enforcing our Nation's laws, protecting national security, and upholding our constitutional rights. This last role is vital at a time when the DOJ is investigating violations of constitutional rights by local law enforcement agencies. Just last week, DOJ released a scathing report on the deep and pervasive racism in the Ferguson, MO, police force. In that report, the Department described shocking practices: systematic targeting of African Americans and an abuse of power to collect enormous amounts in fees. In a city with a population of 21,000 people, 16,000 people have outstanding arrest warrants--16,000 people. That is three-quarters of Ferguson's population. Those arrest warrants are overwhelmingly issued to Ferguson's African-American population--92 percent, to be exact. Emails and other documents DOJ collected prove the Ferguson police force acted with racial animus. If confirmed, Ms. Lynch would continue DOJ's task of investigating unconstitutional policing across the country. She faces weighty issues--the over-militarization of our police, our policing practices, and reforming our sentencing guidelines, just to name a few. As the first African-American woman to serve as Attorney General, this would be a historic nomination and a crucial one. At a time when the public's trust in law enforcement is badly eroded, we need to confirm Ms. Lynch as our Attorney General and let her get to work on fighting for our civil rights.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, with 1 day before the funding expires for the Department of Homeland Security, I rise to urge the adoption of a clean funding bill. It seems we are on a path to ensure that, at least in the Senate, we are going to adopt a bill that funds the critical safety and national security functions of the Department of Homeland Security without extraneous immigration riders. I encourage my colleagues in both Chambers to embrace what Members on both sides of the aisle have acknowledged is the best way to resolve this issue--avoid a shutdown, enact the clean bipartisan Homeland Security bill, and address the immigration policies through regular order on the floor. By now, we have all heard from a host of people spelling out the many negative impacts of a shutdown--our colleagues, Secretary Johnson, previous Secretaries, and many of our Nation's mayors. We would be unnecessarily disrupting funding which all of our States' emergency managers rely on and which allows for programs that function to keep us safe and keep people and goods moving securely and efficiently throughout our country. My home State of Hawaii is 2,500 miles from the closest landmass. It hosts the Nation's fourth largest airport for international arrivals and is currently responding to and recovering from presidentially declared disasters related to lava threats and tropical storms. For these and many other reasons, I am concerned that Congress would consider risking timely funding for the agencies that keep our airports safe, our coasts and waters secure, and provide for critical planning and response support to our States' first responders. Additionally, I don't think anyone should attempt to trivialize a shutdown based on the argument that many Department of Homeland Security employees will have to report to work regardless. What an insult. For the thousands of Hawaii residents employed by the Department of Homeland Security, this is significant. These are middle- class jobs helping to support middle-class families. These employees will still have to make rent, pay a mortgage, buy gas, food, childcare and the like, and the Coast Guard's men and women will have to report for duty--not for pay. We owe them better than that. We shouldn't subject these families to uncertainty about their next paycheck. Our path forward is actually totally simple: pass the original funding bill that was negotiated in good faith by both parties and both Chambers last December. Because of where we are right now, it is important to remember that the underlying Department of Homeland Security funding bill was the result of a bipartisan negotiation and compromise between both Chambers and both parties. That means we have to resist the temptation in either Chamber to make political decisions that have no chances of success in the Senate or would be vetoed by the President. For example, reinserting partisan immigration riders into this bill is a nonstarter. The Senate has not wavered on this point, and that dynamic is not going to change. Let's just do our jobs. Let's fund the Department of Homeland Security, and then we can debate comprehensive immigration policy any time the leadership desires to bring it to the floor. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, the Keystone legislation is likely to move to the President's desk this week after the House takes it up, and he will veto it. The votes are not there to override a veto, either in the Senate or the House. Legislation has a natural lifecycle, and this piece of legislation is reaching the end of its lifecycle. This debate is almost over. So where are we when it comes to American energy policy? The debate that occurred on Keystone was no doubt an important one, but it was exactly upside down. Congress and the media treated the Keystone bill as if it would settle American energy policy once and for all, when in fact it was and is a tiny sliver of debate. American energy policy is not defined by one project or one piece of infrastructure, however contentious it may be. In order to have a real energy conversation, we have to agree on the facts, and this body cannot be the only place where there is a lack of consensus on the basic facts. That is why Senator Whitehouse's amendment, my amendment, Senator Hoeven's amendment, and those of many others were so important. Last month's climate votes were illuminating and encouraging. First, Senator Whitehouse's language, which simply stated that climate change was not a hoax, received a nearly unanimous vote. Believe it or not, that is progress. My amendment, which stated that climate change is real, caused by humans, and has real and significant impacts, received a bare majority of the votes, with five Republicans supporting it. Senator Hoeven's amendment had similar language, as well as some pro- Keystone language, and it attracted a dozen or so Republican votes. What is the significance of all of this? It is very simple. Without acknowledging the problem, we cannot even begin to work on it. The wall of denial has begun to crack. So now we have a majority--and depending on how it is phrased, even a potential supermajority--in the Senate saying that climate change is real. Now, most every serious person in public life either admits the basic facts of climate change or is on their way to getting there, and that is a good thing. Now the question is: What should we do? Given our regional differences, ideological differences, and the partisan divide, what comes next? Later this year or next, we will see efforts to repeal a number of important environmental rules, especially the administration's clean power plan, which will regulate carbon pollution from existing and new powerplants, but that too is highly unlikely to result in anything other than a Presidential veto. So are there any areas for potential common ground? I think we saw real glimmers of hope and possibility during the Keystone debate. Several of my Republican colleagues made the argument during the debate on Keystone that while climate change is a real problem, we must be aware of how energy costs influence economic activity. I could not agree more. We don't hear this often from folks on my side of the debate, but price matters. No climate policy is a real solution unless it strengthens both the national and global economies. As we pursue clean energy, we must understand its impacts on consumers--especially individuals and families in lower income communities--as well as businesses. We miss an opportunity to find common ground if we move too quickly past the questions of cost and the social and economic context in which this transition is going to occur. We can contend with these challenges in Congress through a legislative solution. We can create incentives, create market-based mechanisms, look at regional differences, and fund R&D to help develop new and less-expensive solutions. EPA certainly has the authority and the obligation under the law to regulate carbon and other greenhouse gases. I support the President's Clean Power Plan because carbon pollution is real and it ought to be regulated under the Clean Air Act. If we want to be more comprehensive and if we want to be more nuanced and more flexible and more responsive to communities, we need a bill. Structured properly, a bill has the advantage of creating economically efficient solutions that can reduce carbon pollution from a much wider range of sources. That is why a well-designed fee on carbon is critical for our economy and our environment. I understand the politics are nearly impossible right now, but if we think about our ability as legislators to remunerate communities struggling during a transition, to ameliorate certain economic challenges, we may agree that legislating provides us the tools to achieve greater pollution reductions at a much lower social and economic cost. So once the Clean Power Plan is established, once it is litigated, and once it is full-on reality, I believe there may be room for compromise. One more point on the issue of price. We have to do our calculations on an all-in basis. That includes tax expenditures, environmental damage, health impacts, and other so-called externalities. There is plenty of good research which indicates that clean energy technology is already competitive with fossil fuel technology when all costs are added in. Additionally, the cost of solar, wind, and energy efficiency is dropping precipitously and in many places is competing successfully in the free market, even before we consider the costs of pollution. We will have a couple of battles that are unavoidable--on the Clean Power Plan and likely another run at Keystone--but there are a couple of areas that in my view don't have to be a battle. They are energy efficiency and energy research. We ought to start with the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency legislation. I have little doubt that Democrats would support this as a stand-alone bill. Energy efficiency is just common sense, and the energy experts remind us of an idea our mothers and fathers taught us growing up: waste not, want not. In other words, the straightest line toward saving money for people, businesses, and institutions is to help them adopt the latest energy efficiency practices and technologies. Even this has unfortunately become a partisan issue in the last several Congresses with people worried that light bulb efficiency standards were part of some Orwellian plot. But that is not what these Department of Energy standards do, and it is not what Shaheen-Portman does. At its core, energy efficiency is simply this: Use less but get the same result. Using less means paying less. Getting the same result means not having to sacrifice our way of life. The idea is not to ask people to do without, the idea is to just get more for our money. It is an old-school, conservative idea. Of course the Shaheen-Portman bill doesn't cost the taxpayers a dime, and projections are that it will create nearly 200,000 jobs. I also think there is a lot of room for good bipartisan work in advanced technology research in the energy space--the kind the Department of Energy did for the State of Hawaii in developing a grid system that can accommodate unprecedented levels of intermittent renewable energy, the kind that made major advances in hydraulic fracturing, the kind that has helped the price of solar panels drop 80 percent since 2008, the kind that is making breakthroughs in battery storage, which has fallen in price by 40 percent since 2010, and the kind that is working on carbon capture and sequestration. America must lead on energy, and that requires us to do the kind of basic research that private companies can eventually use. A relatively small increase in research funding--both on the fossil and renewable side--has been shown to make an enormous impact on our economy. Investments in renewable and fossil fuel electricity generation, distribution, and transmission systems, grid stability and security, and fuel systems will enable America to lead in energy for decades to come. These are the kinds of investments we would see in a comprehensive energy bill. I was so encouraged last week that the chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Senator from Alaska, has indicated her desire to pursue comprehensive legislation this Congress. The Senator from Alaska is a very skilled bipartisan legislator, and I am looking forward to working with her on these issues. I am especially encouraged by her openness to climate provisions as part of that bill, something she mentioned as recently as last week. Just as she has listened to the concerns I and others have raised about climate change during the Keystone debate, so should we listen to her call for reliable, affordable, clean, and diverse energy supplies. Several energy proposals contained within the President's fiscal year budget could become a part of a bipartisan bill, including ideas to more fully promote carbon capture and sequestration technologies and protect coal workers and their communities as we transition. The concerns of communities that have coal-based economies are real and legitimate and I believe any true climate solution must prioritize solutions for every American. The President recognized that and proposed $55 million next year to help affected communities diversify their economies, offer job training, and ensure a good transition. This will require compromise. It will require those of us on the left to concede that fossil fuels aren't going to disappear instantaneously, and it will require those on the right to recognize that investing in clean energy technologies doesn't necessarily mean picking winners and losers. We have wind energy in nearly all States--in fact, more in Republican than in Democratic States--and we have tea party members everywhere who love the freedom and liberty that distributed generation--rooftop solar--offers. We also have clean energy progressives, including myself, who understand that we have to deal with the energy system we have, not the one we wish we had. The areas I have mentioned are not the only opportunities for bipartisan compromise, but we do need to start a dialogue, either on the floor, in committees or in informal discussions, about what we can actually do. As we consider a policy solution, let's ask the following questions: Can it be enacted into law? Will it advance American energy security? Will it strengthen the economy and provide economic growth? Will it reduce pollution? There are a few areas where we are going to fight--there is no avoiding it--and that is OK. But there is, for the first time since I arrived, a glimmer of hope that we may be able to find common ground on some of these issues and begin a serious discussion about tackling American energy policy and climate change. I yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to pass a clean Homeland Security funding bill for fiscal year 2015. This is an issue of national security, and we cannot allow politics to divert attention from our responsibility as Senators. The majority in the House sent the Senate a bill with five poison pills that they know will prevent the passage of this legislation. Yesterday and again today, my Senate colleagues and I sent a clear message that these politically divisive immigration provisions have no place in this bill. I urge my colleagues to dispense with any further delays and allow for an up-or-down vote on the bill as originally drafted. The Department of Homeland Security funding bill--created in the wake of 9/11, as Senator Durbin reminded us earlier--is not the place to litigate immigration policy; rather, those issues are appropriately addressed in a comprehensive immigration bill, and I hope the House will draft and vote on that type of legislation soon. The recent executions of the Japanese and Jordanian hostages by the terrorist group ISIL and the attacks in Paris, Ottawa, and Australia serve as reminders of the very real threat we face. Each day we delay in providing adequate, reliable resources to the Department of Homeland Security, we undermine the Department's efforts to defend the home front. That is why I am calling on my colleagues to take up and pass a clean bill. My colleagues on the Appropriations Committee Senator Shaheen and Vice Chairwoman Mikulski have introduced a clean DHS funding bill that reflects the bipartisan agreement reached between the House and Senate appropriators. This bill funds a wide range of programs that keep Americans safe and secure. For example, the clean version of this bill funds a host of counterterrorism, intelligence, and security functions; investments in cyber security defense technologies and personnel, investments to detect and protect against biological threats, research and development of nuclear detection technologies, TSA and Coast Guard operations to keep our skies and our waters safe. The clean version also funds $6 billion in disaster funds to help States, localities, businesses, and individuals rebuild after a natural disaster, staffing nearly 24,000 Customs and Border Protection officers who ensure legitimate travel of individuals who seek to enter the country, and staffing 20,000 Border Patrol agents who protect the 6,000 miles of our land border and 2,000 miles of coastal waters. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Johnson has been clear that while the Department operates under the current CR, it cannot fund key homeland security initiatives. A short-term CR would prevent the Department from awarding new disaster preparedness grants that support our local emergency responders. It would delay the hiring of more investigators for cases related to human trafficking and smuggling. It would also prevent the Secret Service from training for the next Presidential election, and the list goes on. We cannot expect DHS to do long-term strategic planning with short- term funding measures. The Department needs reliable funding to operate efficiently and effectively. The House majority is unfortunately playing politics with our homeland security because the President has taken an action that every President since the 1950s has taken: He has provided commonsense direction to our immigration enforcement efforts. The President's Executive actions on immigration are fundamentally aimed at keeping families together, making our communities safer, and using our resources efficiently. It is hard to understand how someone could oppose that. The President's actions will ensure that our immigration enforcement efforts are used to secure the border, prevent threats to national security, and protect public safety. These should be our top priorities, and I support those efforts, but if Members of the House take issue with them, they should draft and adopt immigration reform, just as the Senate did on a bipartisan basis 18 months ago. Our path forward is simple: Pass a clean funding bill. If my colleagues want to fix our broken immigration system, then let's take up a bill, but let's not use this critical funding bill to play partisan politics. The dedicated men and women of the Department of Homeland Security deserve better. The American people deserve better. Let's put aside politics and let's pass a clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, yesterday I offered an amendment to the Keystone XL bill which is really straightforward and will not affect the underlying legislation. I do think it has the potential to get strong bipartisan support. That is because my amendment states a simple set of facts--that climate change is real and humans are contributing to it. This is an opportunity for people on either side of the Keystone debate to agree on something; that is, the facts. It will inform, I think, what happens next in energy policy. As intense as this debate over this pipeline is, the real question in front of us, after we dispose of this legislation and it goes to the President's desk for a certain veto, is that then we have to contend with our national energy policy. We need to agree on the set of facts that everyone outside of this Congress agrees on. These claims require evidence, and my amendment provides those pieces of evidence. It cites the final supplemental environmental impact statement prepared for the Keystone Pipeline by the State Department, which says that ``human activities . . . have added to the greenhouse gas accumulation and exacerbated the greenhouse . . . effect, resulting in greater amounts of heat being trapped in the atmosphere.'' Now, this is not controversial. It also states: ``These climate change shifts can . . . affect other processes and spark changes that cascade through natural systems to affect ecosystems, societies, and human health.'' Only in the halls of Congress is this a controversial piece of legislation. This impact statement, in turn, cites the work of thousands of scientists who have contributed to reports by the IPCC, the National Research Council, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. These independent factfinding bodies have conducted decades of research on questions related to climate change. They have been subject to intense scrutiny both internally and externally. Their work has held up to repeated concerns about impartiality and accuracy. This scrutiny helps. It has forced these organizations to improve their methodology and be increasingly deliberate as they develop their findings and present the facts and only the facts. Human-caused climate change is accepted by Fortune 500 companies, school teachers, religious groups, and the U.S. Department of Defense. It is accepted by nurses and doctors, professional sports leagues, the majority of other countries, more than 97 percent of scientists, and many of my colleagues in the House and Senate. For most people, climate change existing is not a controversial issue. Certainly, the Keystone Pipeline is a controversial issue. Once we together set the premise of climate change facts, there is plenty to argue about. What approach ought we take with respect to solving this problem? Is a carbon tax the right approach? Is the President's clean powerplant the right approach? Ought we to wait for or accelerate our actions with respect to international coalitions and agreements? Those are legitimate debates to have. But we have to agree on the facts. That is why a vote on my amendment is so important. The Senate has before it a bill to approve a pipeline and an environmental impact statement touted by Keystone supporters as a comprehensive, accurate document that impartially assesses the environmental impacts of the pipeline. Within that impact statement is a comprehensive review and an acknowledgment of the reality of the facts of climate change. Many of my colleagues who support Keystone might be the same ones who question the reality of climate change, but I want to try to create a political space where one can be for Keystone XL and still want action on the climate. Now, I think Keystone XL is the wrong direction to move in. I think it is absolutely doubling down on fossil fuel energy and the tar sands oil. So I will be voting against Keystone. But I understand there are people of good faith and plenty of knowledge who are going to be supporting the pipeline. What we need to do after this legislation is disposed of--and it will be relatively quickly--is agree on a set of facts and move forward with intelligent, bipartisan climate policy. Last week, we learned that 2014 was the hottest year on record according to two separate studies by our Nation's brightest scientists at NASA and NOAA. That means that the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since the year 2000. A warmer planet means big changes in weather patterns, rising sea levels, and increases in extreme weather events. Sea level has been rising more than twice as fast since 1990 as it did over the previous century, nearly doubling the likelihood of storm surges such as the one we experienced during Hurricane Sandy. Over the years, the issue of climate change has, unfortunately, become a partisan issue. It did not used to be that way. It does not need to be that way going forward. We may not agree on the solutions, on the path forward or even on some of the details, but I do believe it is time for us to begin to agree on a basic set of facts. The purpose of my amendment is to take a step back, to take a deep breath on a very contentious issue, and to give the Senate an opportunity to come together and state with no value judgment that we accept the work of thousands of the world's brightest and most dedicated scientists, including those working at U.S. agencies and for U.S. companies; that we accept the reality our farmers, our fisherman, and our families see with the every passing season. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It is an opportunity to restate a set of facts with which a majority of Americans already agree. It makes no presumptions about where we go from here. I am hopeful that we will have a big bipartisan vote this afternoon on this amendment. I think there is an opportunity for common ground. Obviously, Keystone XL is dividing not just this Congress but the Democratic conference, so I understand that. But agreeing on the set of facts related to climate change is a good predicate for all of us moving forward. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ. Thank you, Mr. President. This has been a surprisingly productive day on the issue of climate debate. I know there has been a lot of consternation and discussion, but that is a good thing. We have one final amendment to consider today, and it simply takes a portion of the language from the EIS for the Keystone XL and adopts it. That language says, in summary, that climate change is real and that climate change is caused by humans.

Mr. SCHATZ. That language simply states that climate change is real, that climate change is caused by humans and principally by carbon pollution. So the simple vote in front of us is: Do you agree with the factual evidence? Will you concede to the facts? We have an opportunity to set a new chapter in this climate debate. Today has been good progress. So I urge my colleagues for a big bipartisan vote on this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. I thank the Senator from Washington.

Mr. SCHATZ. This amendment affirms something very simple; that is, climate change is real and human activities significantly contribute to climate change. It also states that a warmer planet causes large-scale changes, including higher sea levels, changes in precipitation, and altered weather patterns, such as increases in more extreme weather events. This amendment cites for its evidence the findings of national and international scientific institutions, including the IPCC, the National Research Council, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. All of these organizations are cited and quoted in the State Department's final supplemental environmental impact statement on Keystone XL Pipeline. This is the same environmental review document that plays a prominent role in the text of the underlying bill, S. 1, and the substitute amendment. The purpose of this amendment is simply to acknowledge and restate a set of observable facts. It is not intended to place a value judgment on those facts or to suggest a specific course of action in response to those facts. It is just a set of facts derived from decades of careful study of our land, air, and water. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate set aside the pending amendment in order to call up amendment No. 58.

Mr. SCHATZ

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

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to S. 1, which will circumvent the administration's official review process for projects crossing international borders and approve construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, a pipeline dedicated to increasing production of some of the dirtiest, most polluting, and most dangerous crude oil in the world. Supporters of this pipeline in Congress have been relentless. Over the last 2 Congresses they have held 44 votes in the House and Senate intended to approve Keystone. On Tuesday, the very first bill the new Republican majority introduced, traditionally reserved for a party's highest legislative priority, was Keystone. Think about this. Here we stand in what people still call the world's greatest deliberative body, and the first bill we are taking up is not infrastructure generally, not national energy policy, not even national laws as they relate to our pipeline infrastructure. No, we are legislating about a specific pipeline which will move oil from Canada through the United States to be primarily exported from our southern border. I understand there are people of good will and good faith, including the Presiding Officer, who are on both sides of this issue. But it is hard to imagine why this should be the first piece of legislation we take up in this Congress. We have yet to seriously consider or to clarify our policy with respect to the Islamic State. Income inequality is gutting the middle class. Our national infrastructure needs a jolt of investment. Our immigration policy is a failure and a mess. I do not understand why this would be S. 1. Supporters of this bill have stood up three main arguments in favor of Keystone and expanding drilling of tar sands oil reserves in Canada. One, they say it will increase energy security; two, they think it will lower oil and gas prices; third, they say it is a jobs bill. Let's examine these claims, because however tenuous they were, they have been undermined further by facts over the last couple of years. First, the United States has never during the modern age of global energy trade been more energy secure. We import far less oil from unstable regimes and unfriendly countries than we have in decades. We are continuing to build massive amounts of ever cheaper homegrown clean energy such as wind and solar, even as we use our energy more efficiently. The United States will add nearly 10 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity in the next year. Not including hydro, the United States has over 85,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity and continues to build on that number year over year. The prices for solar have dropped 80 percent since 2008 and prices for wind power, which are already competitive with fossil fuels, have dropped 30 percent since 2008. These trends are creating jobs right here at home. For example, the wind industry has over 500 manufacturing facilities across 44 States that are responsible for making wind turbines with over 66 percent domestic content. Second, the recent collapse of crude oil and gasoline prices demonstrates two things. In my home State of Hawaii, energy prices remain far too high. But on the mainland, oil and gas prices are currently very low. The idea that Keystone would make a significant difference was never based in reality, but now it is just obvious. We have low prices and the project has not even started. Gasoline is now $2.21 a gallon. Crude oil prices have slipped below $50 a barrel. The last time gasoline prices were this low was in the aftermath of the financial crisis. As a practical matter, it is not clear to me, and it is certainly not clear to most energy experts, how moving oil from Canada through the United States and exporting refined crude from the Gulf of Mexico would significantly reduce energy prices for us in the United States. Finally, this is called a jobs bill by some. This is many things. It is anti-clean air; it is anti-clean water; it is anti-public health. It is a regulatory earmark. But it is not a jobs bill. It is not deserving of being the No. 1 priority of the 114th Congress. We have heard estimates ranging as high as 42,000 indirect or induced jobs during the construction phase. We know, and everyone seems to agree, that Keystone will employ approximately 35 full-time employees when construction is finished. That is not 3,500 employees. That is not 35,000 employees. That is the 35 full-time employees when construction is completed. If we want to do a real jobs bill worthy of the Senate, we should do a real jobs bill. An infrastructure bank, a highway bill, Shaheen- Portman--all would create orders of magnitude more jobs than this. The American economy added 353,000 jobs in November alone, which made 2014 the strongest year for job growth since 1999. If we pass a highway bill, we get millions of jobs. If we pass an infrastructure bank, we will get hundreds of thousands of jobs. If we pass the bipartisan Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill, we will also get hundreds of thousands of jobs. Look, even one new job is a good thing. But if we want to do a jobs bill, let's do a jobs bill. There is plenty of room for us to work together on infrastructure, on energy efficiency, and create hundreds of thousands and even millions of jobs. But this is an energy bill. It moves us in the wrong direction. There are colleagues, with whom I agree, who are arguing against this legislation primarily saying they want to allow the administration's process to play out and that we should not supersede the State Department review. I agree. It is fair to say this is unprecedented, even a little strange, for the Congress to legislate the specifics of a particular infrastructure project. But I want to be clear. This is not a process argument for me. I oppose Keystone because it is a bad idea. Whether it is done through the regular order or in an expedited fashion, whether it is done through the administrative process or the legislative process, I oppose any action, whether through legislation, litigation, or administrative action, that will enable the extraction of Canadian tar sands oil. My reasons are very simple--climate change and math. Climate change, because it is the greatest and most urgent challenge to the health of our families, to the economy, and to our way of life. I want to preserve the American way of life, not endanger it. Math, because we have crunched the numbers and we know we simply cannot afford to burn the oil from tar sands and put its pollution into the air. It is simple. We have a budget. Just as every family in this country must stick to its budget and live within its means, we have to do the same as a planet when it comes to carbon pollution. A new study published last week in the scientific journal Nature makes this clear. The authors asked the question: If we want to stay within our carbon budget and limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius, which is the limit 167 countries agree we must meet to avoid catastrophic effects of climate change, how much more coal, gas, and oil can we burn? The study finds that in order to meet this goal, the majority of the world's known reserves of fossil fuel must stay in the ground between now and 2050. This includes one-third of the world's current oil reserves and 80 percent of current coal reserves. It also finds, and this is critical, that: Any increase in unconventional oil production-- Which includes Canadian tar sands. --is incommensurate with efforts to limit average global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. As we learn more about climate change amidst a clean energy revolution, we find that moving toward clean energy, taking control of our future, is good for business. Our economy will do better. It will grow faster and it will be more resilient if we embrace the technologies and solutions at our fingertips and end our reliance on fossil fuel. We have a chance to embrace the future here. Our future is not tar sands oil. Our future is wind and solar and geothermal and energy efficiency. Our future is not in adding carbon pollution. Our future is in innovating our way out of this problem. Throughout our history, America always leads when we are needed the most. That is what we have to do, not in the direction of more carbon pollution but toward a clean energy economy. A report by New Climate Economy, a group chaired by former Mexican President Felipe Calderon, and including Bank of America chairman Chad Holliday, among others, marshals quantitative evidence to show that action on climate change is a requirement for future global economic growth. In other words, those who warn about the EPA regulation or prices on carbon killing jobs have it exactly backward. The truth is that in order to avoid major disruptions to our economy, we have to reduce carbon pollution and work with other countries such as Canada to ensure that they do the same. I am looking forward to the open amendment process on this bill that the majority leader has promised. It will be an opportunity for the American public to see where Members of the Senate stand on the facts of climate change. Anyone who looks at the facts and does the math ought to oppose this bill and oppose construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. For me and for many Americans, a vote against this bill is a vote to preserve and protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. It is a vote to ensure that we continue to reduce carbon pollution and fight climate change. It is a vote to leave our children a healthy world. I urge my colleagues to oppose cloture on the motion to proceed. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to Jimmy O'Dea, a fellow in my office, for the remainder of the 114th Congress.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SCHATZ. I suggest the absence of a quorum.