security or transforming medicare into a voucher program or making horrendous cuts to medicaid. what, in fact, the american people want is the federal government to start standing up for working families rather than million airaires and billionaires. and in poll after poll, what the american people have said is they want us to invest in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and create millions of decent paying jobs. that's what the american people want. not tax breaks for billionaires but the creation of millions of jobs through rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. the american people, despite what senator coburn and others may believe, want us to raise the minimum wage. poll after poll suggests that the american people want us to raise the minimum wage to at

least $10.10 an hour. the american people do not want us to cut social security. in fact, more and more americans want us to expand social security to make sure that when elderly people reach retirement age, they can live and retire with dignity. mr. president, i think there has perhaps never been a time in the modern history of this country where the political lines have been drawn as clearly as they are right now. if you listen to the koch brothers, if you read the republican ryan budget in the house, their positions are quite clear. tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires and significant cuts in the programs that are life and death for the middle class and working families of this country.

that is not what the american people want and it is time we began to listen to the american people. it's time that we took on those people, those billionaires who are spending huge amounts of money elected candidates that represent their interests, and it's time we listened to the working families of this country who are struggling to survive. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. roberts: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate the remarks of my friend from vermont, who i know is in a hurry to leave the premises, as most senators have already done. perhaps he could just relax and go out and have a coke. bad pun.

mr. president, this is a speech, these are some remarks that i really should not have to mak make -- really shouldn't have to make. but to -- but late here this afternoon, i rise to discuss more amazing actions from our nation's tax collector. this is unfortunately an agency that is fast becoming the gang that cannot shoot straight. the folks who brought us the partisan suppression of free speech, so piled on to that with proposed rules to shut down political action by groups with which they disagree or don't favor, and by the same theme shares confidential taxpayer information with their allies outside of government. obviously i'm talking about the internal revenue service. now, here's a great deal.

break the law you are required to enforce, get a cash bonus and free time off. now, what on earth is this all about? well, last week the treasury department's inspector general for tax administration issued a report, which i have here, on the internal revenue service bonuses that were awarded to personnel wholy have violated the tax laws -- personnel who have violated the tax laws or who have been subject to serious infractions of employee policy. this is a lot like asking somebody, if you hired somebody to go to work for you and then they stole money from you and acted in ways that are very inappropriate, would you give them a bonus? i don't think most business people would say that. and according to the inspector general, close to $3 million was awarded to staff with violations

on their records with about half the amount of that going to people who have violated the tax code. other personnel at the i.r.s. received cash bonuses, mr. president, or other awards despite being cited, listen to this, for drug use, making violent threats, fraudulently claiming unemployment benefits -- obviously probably food stamps as well -- and misusing government credit car cards. still they got bonuses up to 3 million bucks. in fact, the report indicates that close to 70% of i.r.s. personnel received some sort of performance award. 70% of the i.r.s. that's rather arcable when you think about the -- that's rather remarkable when you think about the problems the average taxpayer has in getting help from that particular agency. this is flatly outrageous, if not appalling or atrocious, and cannot be tolerated. it also makes me wonder what you

have to do to be disqualified from an award. more disturbing, these awards, even for people breaking the l law, are perfectly acceptable under current i.r.s. and government-wide guidelines. let me repeat that. these awards, even for people breaking the law, are perfectly acceptable under current i.r.s. and government-wide guidelines. indeed, the i.g. report makes it clear that under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement with the main union for i.r.s. employees, these awards are appropriate and cannot be taken away because of such violations. the distribution of these awards at a time when the i.r.s. is under scrutiny for its actions concerning the political activity of conservative groups, when its performance of basic taxpayer service functions have drastically worsened, and when

it is calling for additional funding, call into the agency's commitment to the fair enforcement of our tax laws. the i.g. report recognized these awards, while not technically prohibited, appear to be in conflict with the i.r.s.'s charge of ensuring integrity of the system of the tax administration. well, no kidding. thank goodness for the i.g. thank goodness for the inspector general. now, that is what we call an understatement. maybe the understatement of the year. this is another fox and henhouse story. not only is the fox in the henhouse but he is now being rewarded for eating the chickens. these performance awards are just plain wrong, mr. president, and should not go to anyone who breaks the law, particularly the laws which the agency enforces. these bonus awards weaken public

confidence in the nation's tax enforcement agency and are a sign that the agency has, indeed, run off the rails. the inspector general reports recommended that the i.r.s. create a new policy to take disciplinary actions into account when awarding bonuses. certainly a great recommendation. it seems to me we need to do more than set up a new policy or guideline. we need something more concrete and more immediate. this is why today i am joining with my friend, senators enzi, rubio, toomey, thune, johanns, isakson, and leader mcconnell to introduce the "no bonuses for delinquent i.r.s. employees ac act," a bill that should never have to be introduced. and i thank my colleagues for joining me and more especially senator enzi, who has done an awful lot of work on this and helped expose this from the

first. our bill's pretty simple. it will prohibit the i.r.s. from providing any conference award to any i.r.s. employee who owes an outstanding federal tax debt for failing to pay their taxes. nobody likes to have their taxes audited. nobody likes to get that phone call. nobody likes to see the tax man at the door. and then if the tax man says, "i'm sorry, you owe "x" for, say, perhaps a violation of "y" and you find out that this individual got a performance bonus because he or she fails to meet the tax obligations that they face, that's rather uncredible. give -- rather incredible. given what ben i.r.s. actions and the growing discontent with the agency i hear from kansans every day, continuing to award personnel bonuses to employees who have outstanding tax liabilities or have violated the

tax laws is beyond comprehension, outrageous and should be stopped. this is not a partisan issue. it's just plain common sense. the i.r.s. should not be i in te business of awarding bonuses to its agents for not abiding by the tax laws they are directed to uphold, simple as that. so i call upon all my colleagues to support the no bonuses for delinquent i.r.s. employees act and will ask for its immediate consideration. i doubt that that will be the case given the business or the nonbusiness before the senate. in closing, i would like to point out this is a 26-page report by the inspector general. thank the inspector general for the work that he has done. and right there, it says right on the first, "the awards program complied with federal regularations but some employees with tax and conduct issues received awards."

they complied with federal regulations but some employees with tax and conduct issues received awards. that's an oxymoron. then if you skip to the back, there is some recommendations. and the recommendation is for corrective action. and this is what it says. give me a little time here. "the i.r.s. human capital officer" -- that is daniel reardon. daniel reardon is the human capital officer. "will conduct," according to this i.g. investigation, "a feasibility study." they don't take action right away, they just want to discuss the feasibility of a study by june 30 of this year, just a couple of months away. "for the implementation of a policy requiring management to consider" -- doesn't say just to do it, it says -- "to consider

conduct issues resulting in disciplinary actions, especially the nonpayment of taxes owed to the federal government prior to awarding all types of performance and discretionary awards." so daniel reardon has received marching orders from the attorney general to conduct a feasibility study by june 30 saying that they would consider a conduct code resulting in disciplinary actions, especially the nonpayment of taxes owed to the federal government prior to awarding all types of performance and discretionary awards. we really don't need this legislation. we have introduced it to force action. the inspector general says let's have action. on 26 pages he says let's have action. so to daniel reardon, i have the following advice. before we get 60 people on this to finally make it a bill that

passes, he is the human capital officer, why don't you just go ahead and do it? don't conduct a feasibility study. we have all of the evidence right here. and if you would just do this, it would remove yet another problem, another unfortunate asterisk when we think of of te i.r.s. i want to thank my colleagues for cosponsoring this legislation and again ask for its immediate consideration. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. and i rise today to point out that -- to my colleagues that more than 300 days have passed after we in the senate passed bipartisan legislation that would secure our border, hold employers accountable for hiring illegal workers, grow our

economy and provide a chance for people currently here illegally to get right with the law and earn legal status. but the house has failed to anything to fix our broken immigration system he were more than 300 days after we in the senate passed bipartisan legislation. to be clear, the problem is not that there's a difference of opinion between a house bill and a senate bill on immigration that cannot be reconciled. the problem is that house republicans have complete abdicated their responsibility to address important issues, such as our fix -- such as fixing our broken immigration system. again, the problem isn't that the house has passed laws that the senate disagrees with. the problem is that the house won't put any immigration bills up for a vote no matter what is in those bills. now, why is that? it isn't because our immigration system isn't broken. there's no member of congress who will stand up and say, our

immigration system is great, leave it alone, what's all the fuss about? no one's happy with the present system. finding a member of congress anywhere who will say we don't need to reform our broken immigration system is impossible. the reason the house has done nothing on immigration is because house republicans have handed the gavel of leadership on immigration to far right extremists like congressman steve king. congressman king isn't a mainstream republican on this issue. you can't even call him a conservative on this issue. he's an extreme outlier on the issue of immigration reform. any time any republican has raised the possibility of action on immigration reform in the house steve king is in there in his own words manning the watch towers 24/7 to make sure nothing can be passed to fix our broken immigration system. when republicans such as eric

cantor -- hardly a flaming liberal -- talked early in 2013 about introducing a bill called the kids act which would allow minors brought here through no fault of their tone earn legal status if they served in the military or obtain a college degree, king said -- quote -- "for every child who is a valedictorian there's another hundred out there who way 130 pounds and they've got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert"-- unquote. the rhetoric of steve king is beyond the pale. i am certain that the majority of republicans in the house have their stomachs churn when they see stephen king stew spiew that kind of rhetoric. but rather than stand up to him, they give him the keys to the kingdom of immigration reform. just look at what happened after king protested. there was no kids act introduced. look for the text of the kids

act on line. interest doesn't exist. there's no bill. not only was the kids act never introduced, but house republicans actually voted nearly unanimously to resume deporting more than children who have had committed no crimes. now, another republican, jeff denham, a republican from california, who is also an air force reservist, recently proposed to let young people who came here illegally earn status by enlisting in the military. they loved america so they would enlist in the military and risk their lives for this country. here's what king said. paraphrasing him, i know many of us do not want to vote on immigration but we can at least tweak -- here's what denham said. he said i know many of us do not want to vote on immigration, but can we at least tweak the defense authorization bill to allow young people who were brought here really as minors

through no fault of their own to serve in the military when they love this country and this is the only country they know? to be clear, this measure is far short of comprehensive legislation that's needed to fix our broken system. this slight tweak is not even a drop of water in the grand canyon. and even for this small microscopic measure known as the enenlist act steve king responded saying don't do it and the republicans didn't. here's what king said. as soon as they raised their hand and say i'm unlawfully present in the u.s., we're not going to take your oath into the military but we're going to take your deposition and have a bus for you to tijuana. and what happened when king said this? he won. and the enlist act was stricken from the defense authorization bill. so -- and not only are republicans catering to the views of king and others on the

far, far extreme right on immigration by refusing to vote on any immigration reform, they actively promote anti-immigrant viewpoints by having passed a bill called the enforce act. you see, steve king and his little group of far right members of congress on immigration want to sue the federal government to require them to deport more than children, parents of u.s. citizens, and agriculture workers rather than use all of its resources to focus on immigrants who are criminals, terrorists, and recent border crossers. but members of congress, as most everyone knows, do not have standing to sue the federal government because under our constitution congressmen are not allowed to sue every time they disagree with a decision of the executive branch. instead of thinking it was probably a good idea to focus on our immigration enforcement resources on criminals, terrorists and border crossers,

once again, steve king said jump and the republican mainstream in the house said how high? and republicans overwhelmingly voted to give king and others the ability to sue the federal government every single time a decision on immigration enforcement is made which they disagree with. now, are -- our republican colleagues in the house who don't have the views of steve king, we know that. they can offer other excuses for failing to do anything on immigration. for instance, they try to blame the president. they say the president is to blame because he won't enforce the law. now, the record shows that he does enforce the law. in fact, many of the more liberal people, many of the immigration groups are angry with him the hymn because they think he's enforcing the law too much. but let's say you believe that he's not enforcing the law so we've said to them good, pass a bill now and say it doesn't take effect, all the enforcement and

any of the rest of it until 2017. we will have a new president. if republicans can't agree to pass a bill that goes into effect after the president's term, then we know that mistrust of the president's nothing but a straw man. they say that they really want to pass immigration legislation in their heart, but they're only one member and it's not up to them. they can even have their leadership blame other republicans for not holding a vote, but bill parcells, who used to coach for the new york giants and new york jets was famous for saying you are what your record shows you are. and what does the record show? the record on republican immigration reform is clear. steve king, a far right, way out of the mainstream outlier, doesn't just spew hatred, he calls the shots.

they listen -- to him. the republican party, the party of abraham lincoln and theodore roosevelt and ronald reagan and george bush all of whom had much different views on immigration than steve king is following steve king on immigration. and let me say, mr. president, they are following steve king over the cliff. because not only are they hurting america, but because they are so afraid to buck this extremist -- and he is extreme on immigration -- they're going to make it certain that they will lose the 2016 presidential election, that they will make sure that the house, that the senate remains democratic in 2016 and that the house turns democratic. it's amazing. the republican record on immigration reform is clear. steve king has three wins, the rest of the republican party and

the rest of america is winless. good for him, terrible for us. since house republicans won't stand up to steve king, king is in the driver's seat of immigration reform and as long as he sits there, things will continue to be stuck in a rut. america is growing weary of republicans talking a good game on immigration while high-tech businesses can't get the labor they need to grow and create american jobs. we're growing weary of all the talk while crops go unpicked because farmers can't labor. we're going weary while republicans talk and immigrants continue to come into our country illegally. steve king is calling the shots of the entire house republicans on immigration. that is a shame. that is a disgrace, and that is a singular lack of courage that we see in our dear colleagues

across the way on the republican side of the aisle. and king is not satisfied. he's warning that his colleagues have to man the watch towers 24/7 to make sure nothing happens to fix our broken immigration system. where are the people in the republican party in the house of representatives with the courage to stand up to steve king and the far right? they know he's wrong. we know they know he's wrong. where are the people in the republican party to stand up to steve king and say enough is enough, we will not let our party or our country be hijacked by extremists whose gleen phobia makes them prefer maintaining a broken immigration system over a tough and fair and long-term practical solution. if republicans continue to kowtow to steve king and the hard right on immigration, they'll consign themselves to being the minority party for

more than a decade. or they can show some courage and say that the steve kings in the world can say whatever they want, but they have no place in a modern republican party. and they can move their party into the light by passing a bill that secures borders, holds employers accountable, grows our economy, reduces our debt and heals broken families. the choice is theirs. speaker boehner has occasionally said he wants to pass reform. where are the rank-and-file republicans who know steve king is wrong, to encourage speaker boehner? where are they? i hope that for our sakes these majority of republicans in the house republican caucus make the right choice. but i will tell them this -- for the country, no matter what choice they make, the ultimate outcome is undeniable.

immigration reform will pass this year with bipartisan support and a bipartisan imprint or it will pass in future years with only democratic support and democratic imprint because democrats will control the congress and the white house. the right thing will ultimately be done, but hopefully winston churchill will not be right in saying that will only be done after everything else is tried. republicans in the house, stand up to steve king. you know he's wrong. you know you cringe when he says what he says. don't let him dictate policy. mr. president, i yield the floor. and notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reed: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, i would ask to dispense with the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: wowcts. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, the republican-led filibuster of the minimum-wage bill which would raise the federal minimum wage from $7.75 per hour to $10.10 per hour means that our estimated -- excuse me, 27.8 million americans, including 9 is,000 rhodis -- including 91,0e islanders will not get a raise. it also means that our economy will miss out on g.d.p. boost of $22 billion by the year 2016, which would have supported over 84,000 additional full-time jocks. -- jobs. thos28 million americans who wod have received a raise would have spent it at local businesses. typically, middle-age workers are those that when they receive

an increase in their paycheck go out and buy things that are necessary. they are the ones who really provide the kind of local stimulus thraws we nee that we w the economy. the federal minimum wage has not been increased sinc for a whiev. today the typical minimum wage earner earns about $15,000 a year. that is almost $9,000 below the poverty level for a fannie mae family of four. this means we have hardworking americans putting in full-time work every week for the entire year yet still living in poverty. this is not fair to these families that are just looking for a fair shot. people work hard for a living who shouldn't have to live in poverty. and that was not the case in the 1950's and the 1960's and when

the minimum wage was such that it would lift you out of poverty. and i think that's what we have to do today. when congress last passed legislation to raise the minimum wage in 2007, it was a bipartisan undertaking and 44 republican senators joined democrats to send president bush a bill that raised the minimum wage to its current level today. that bipartisan effort should be em ulated today in this senate. in fact, one could argue that the needs are more pressing, that american workers have fallen further behind, that the same logic that compelled president bush to sign this bill and a bipartisan congress to send it to him, that logic is even more compelling today. our constituents sent us here to work together to grow the economy and create jobs. it's disappointing when this bill can provide millions of hardworking americans a raise, a raise they deserve through their own efforts, has been

filibustered. i hope that my colleagues on the other side will find way to work with us on this issue and come together to strengthen our economic recovery. i was particularly gratified working with my colleagues on unemployment insurance that we go pass a sensible and fiscallyes responsible legislation. unfortunately now it is in the house is is not moving there. but we have to do more of that; focus on what will actually help americans individually and collectively move and grow our commitment of we've worked together on unemployment insurance and other issues, on immigration reform. we can work together on this issue, and we must. again, i am just at this point very disappointed that that same bipartisan effort has not been translated into action by the house of representatives when it comes to unemployment insurance.

speaker boehner could call up our bill, which is fully paid for, which will effect at this point about 2.6 million americans and their - families d under the rules of the house could quickly is a vote. i am convinced, as is senator heller from nevada, my chief cosponsor, is that that bill would pass in the house today on a bipartisan basis. we've had republican representatives who've written to the speaker and said, bring it up for a vote. that would help. it would help not only 2.6 million americans and that grows each day, but it would also help our economy. so, again, in a similar vein, we need bipartisan action on raising the minimum wage here in the senate, emulating the bipartisan action we took with respect to unemployment insurance, and then we need that same bipartisanship in the house

of representatives to move these measures to the president for his signature. railingraising the minimum waged restoring jobless benefits -- they are the right things to do for the american people and for the american economy. and i hope these policies, which traditionally have enjoyed strong bipartisan support, will eventually prevail in both the senate and the house and be signed in to law by th the president of the united states. once again, i think it is important to emphasize that the last time we raised the minimum wage it was a bipartisan effort, signed by a republican president. so this is not an issue of -- or should not be aaro issue of poll ideology. this should be aaron of what helps the american worker make his or her way through a very difficult economy. and view it in that logic, it is clear too me that we could pass

this legislation before you not filibuster it, and that the filibuster should pass quickly the unemployment insurance compensation bill. mr. president, with that, i would yield the floor, and i would also note the absence of a erm quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: today i filed an updated bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline project. that bill is at the desk. what this legislation does is it approves the project congressionally, which is authorized under the constitution of the united states. section 8 of article 1 of our constitution expressly gives congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations. and that's the determination we're looking for here from the

president on this pipeline project. the decision is simply is the project in the national interest or is it not? now, the president and his administration have been considering this project and this decision, is it in the national interest or not, for more than five years. we're now in the sixth year. it was our expectation that the process would be completed on or about the first week in may. the final environmental impact statement came out at the end of january, and as the prior environmental impact statements had determined, this environmental impact statement said that there is no significant environmental impact caused by the project. this is a study done over years by this administration's

department of state. for the fourth time, the report came out no significant environmental impact is created by this project. so as i say, it was the expectation of this senate and really americans across the country that sometime in may, the president would make a decision because all along he said he was following the process and once the process was completed, he would make a decision. but a little over a week ago, on the afternoon of good friday, at a time, i believe, that was selected in order to minimize the news coverage, the president president -- or the administration made an announcement that they would now delay this project indefinitely, indefinitely. not a statement that, well, we're just going to follow the process which is what had been said before. even though the president in a meeting with myself and our

caucus came out and said he would have a decision made before the end of 2013. that's what he told us. it didn't happen. because then he changed it, well, we're going to follow the process. now it's not even going to follow the process. just going to delay the decision indefinitely. and the rationale for that is that there is litigation, there is litigation in nebraska as to whether or not the public service commission in the state of nebraska has the right to determine the route of the pipeline through nebraska or whether, in fact, the legislature does. now, sometime ago in 2000 -- right at the beginning of 2012, we had passed legislation in this body which i sponsored which required the president to make a decision on the project within 90 days. we passed that bill and in fact then he made a decision to

decline the project based on the route in nebraska. so nebraska went through the work of rerouteing the pipeline in the state, and that new route was approved by the legislature and it was approved by the governor. but opponents of the project decided to sue on the basis that the p.s.c. should make the decision as to the route in alaska. so be it. that can be adjudicated in nebraska, as can any other issues that somebody may choose to file a lawsuit over, but that really has nothing to do with the decision that the president needs to make. the decision that the president needs to make is a very simple decision -- is this pipeline project in the interests of the united states or is it not? is it in the interests -- and this is after his state department has said there is no

significant environmental impact created by the project. not once, not twice, but four times. so it's a simple decision. it's a decision, should we have more energy that we produce in our country and that's produced in canada, our closest friend and ally, or should we keep getting energy from the middle east? it's a decision about should we have more jobs? the state department says 42,000 jobs are created in constructing the pipeline. it's a decision about economic activity. this creates economic activity. hundreds of millions in tax revenue to help reduce the deficit and debt without spending one penny in federal money. that's the decision before the president, but he refuses to make them. so it's long past time, long past time, we are now in year six, where this body -- for this

body to step forward and make the decision. and as i said just a minute ago, we have the authority to make the decision. section 8 of article 1 of the constitution of the united states gives congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations. so we need to make the decision. the time is long past when we can continue to wait, and how can we continue to wait when the president says it will be an indefinite time period before he will even consider making a decision. so the bill that we've put forward is a very simple, straightforward bill. as a matter of fact, i'm going to take a couple minutes and i'm going to read it because it's three pages, three pages. it's an updated bill to a bill that i provided on a bipartisan basis earlier. we had 27 cosponsors of the earlier legislation. we now have 56 republicans and

democrats on this bill, 56, and we're working very hard to get 60 so that there is no procedural way to stop this legislation. but i just want to take a minute and read it because it's self-explanatory. this is simple, it's straightforward, it's common sense. a bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline, be it enacted by the senate and the house of representatives of the united states of america in congress assembled, section 1, keystone x.l. approval. in general, trans-canada keystone pipeline l.p. may construct, connect, operate and maintain the pipeline and cros cross-border facilities described in the application filed on may 4, 2012, by transcanada corporation to the department of state, including any subsequent revision to the pipeline route within the state of nebraska required or authorized by the state of nebraska.

so we have expressly put language in there to address the litigation. the litigation that the president is now concerned about, we expressly address in the bill. b, environmental impact statement. the final supplemental environmental impact statement issued by the secretary of state in january 2014 regarding the pipeline referred to in subsection a in the environmental analysis, consultation and review described in that document, including append sees, shall be considered to fully satisfy, one, all requirements of the national environmental policy act of 1969; two, any other provision of law that requires federal agency consultation or review, including the consultation or review required under section 7-5 of the endangered species act of 1973 with respect to the pipeline and facilities referred to in subsection a. c, permits. any federal permit or authorization issued before the

date of enactment of this act for the pipeline and cross-border facilities referred to in subsection a shall remain in effect. section d, federal judicial review. any legal challenge to the federal agency action regarding the pipeline and cross-border facilities described in subsection a and the related facilities in the united states that are approved by this act and any permit, right-of-way or anything else connected pursuant to federal law shall only be subject to review on direct appeal to the united states court after peels for the district of column -- of appeals for the district of columbia circuit. e, private property savings clause. nothing in this act alters any federal, state or local process or condition in effect on the date of enactment of this act that is necessary to secure access from an owner of private property to construct the pipeline and cross-border facilities described in subsection a. that's it. it's that simple.

it's that simple. so our president has been deliberating on this now for six years and that's the decision. are we going to produce energy in this country, are we going to work with canada to get this energy, are we going to create jobs, are we going to create economic activity, or are we going to continue to rely on oil from the middle east? and it's not like there's no precedent to do it. look at this chart. the red line here is the keystone pipeline. i don't know how many people realize it but we've already built the keystone pipeline. not the keystone x.l. pipeline, which we're seeking approval for, but the keystone pipeline. so the project under consideration is a sister project to one that's already been built. brings oil from canada into the

united states. that's the keystone project. been permitted and built. it's in operation now. the keystone x.l. pipeline sister project brings oil from canada into the united states then north dakota and montana put light sweet bakken crude oil in it as well and that oil goes to our refineries. does it seem like a complicated decision, a difficult decision? does it seem like something that requires six years of study? but the point is, this body can approve it. and that's what this is all about. you've got 56 senators -- 56 senators -- republicans and democrats that are saying give us a vote. give us a vote. let this senate do its job. let's approve this project. and it's -- it's a very

straightforward decision. is this decision going to be made for special interest grou groups? is this decision going to be blocked? are we not going to get a vote because special interest groups are opposed to something that the american people want? in the most recent poll, 70% of americans want it built. 70%. what does it take? what does it take? you know, one of the arguments i've heard, too, is, well, it's a pipeline. it has to be studied for six years because that's such a complicated and difficult thing. there's the pipelines we have in this country. we have millions of miles of pipeline. but it's so difficult to figure out whether we should build one more? that produces energy and jobs for our country? a lot of these pipelines are old but we have millions of miles of

pipeline all over this country. and we can't decide whether or not we should build one more that's state-of-the-art? and what are we saying to our friends and neighbors in canada? they very much want this project. they felt they have dealt with our country in good faith. what are we saying to canada? well, some people say, well, you know, if the pipeline isn't built, gee, then that energy won't be produced from the oil sand area in canada. really? is that right? well, then what's this pipeline moving? oil from the oil sands in canada. what's moving on our railroads all over this country? and if we don't build this pipeline, that oil's either going to china and then we end up continuing to get our oil from the middle east, or it's going to move by rail. if it moves by rail, that's

1,400 tanker cars a day on our railroads. 14 unit trains of a hundred cars a day on our railroads. does that seem like a better way to move it than a state-of-the-art pipeline? that's the decision. i think i could put the decision in front of anybody in this country and i don't think it would take them six years to decide. and i don't think it should take our president not only six years to decide but now he's said an indefinite -- an indefinite delay. and so it's time to vote on this important issue. i want to thank the senators who have stepped up and supported this legislation. certainly senator landrieu, who will be down here to talk about it in a minute, my fellow senator in north dakota, senator

heitkamp, and many others, many others on both sides of the aisle, republicans and democra democrats. it's really not a partisan issue. it's not. it's an issue of whether or not we're going to make this decision for the people of this country and build an energy future for this country, energy security for this country. energy security for this country, where we produce more energy in north america between the united states and canada than we consume. so we don't have to rely on energy from the middle east or from venezuela or other countries that may not share our beliefs, our views and our interests. that's the decision. or is this going to be a decision for special interest groups? now, if the president refuses to make that decision, we in this body have a responsibility to do it and we've put forward a bill to approve it. and, again, i thank my colleagues for their hard work

on this bill and i ask others to join us. let's make this decision and let's make it for the american people. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. blumenthal: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, madam president. madam president, i want to tell a story of a 57-year-old man from boyars town, pennsylvania. his name is dean astadt. he's a self-employed, self-efficient logger. he's the kind of guy like a lot of americans out there who sort of grew up to believe that he could do everything for himself, that he didn't need a lot of help from people around him in order to make a living, in order to provide for his family, in order to keep himself healthy. now, he's been uninsured since

2009 and he had some particular thoughts about the affordable care act. he knew he didn't want anything to do with obamacare. now, in 2011, dean had a pacemaker and a defib later implanted to -- defibrillator implanted to help his heart pump more efficient. and not long after he got these two implants, this 6 6-foot, 285-pound guy was back out in the woods. but last summer his health worsened again and it was taking him about 10 minutes just to catch his breath after he fell a treatment. and by the fall, he was winded after just traveling the 50 feet between his house and his truck. dean said, "you knew i was getting really sick. i figured the doctors were going to have to operate. so i tried to work as long as i could to save money for the surgery but it got to the point where i couldn't work." and so he called his friend bob, who's a 55-year-old retired firefighter and nurse, and talked about the fact that he was having trouble. and bob said, why don't you check out the affordable care

act. but every time he made that suggestion, dean refused. dean said, we argued about it for months. i didn't trust obamacare. one of the big reasons is it just sounded too good to be true. well, january came and dean's health just continued to get worse. his doctor made it clear that he urgently needed valve replacement surgery and he was facing a choice. he either had to find a way to get health care or he was going to die. that was his choice. find a way to pay for health care or perish. luckily his friend bob finally convinced dean to come over and at least take a look at the affordable care plans that were available to dean. so he came over to his house and in less than an hour, the two of them had finished the application. and a day later, dean had signed up for the highmark blue cross silver p.p.o. plan and he paid his first monthly premium of $26.11. dean said, all of a sudden i'm getting notification from

highmark. i got myocardial. it was actually all legitimate. i could have done backflips if i were in better shape. his plan kicked in on march 1, just in time to get the surgery that he couldn't have afforded otherwise, that he couldn't have put off any longer. and on march 31, after his surgery, he said, "i probably would have ended up falling over dead without that surgery. not only did it save my life, it's going to give me a better quality of life." and now he says this, he says, "for me, the affordable care act isn't about politics." dean says, "i'm trying help other people who are like me -- stubborn and bullheaded, who refused to even look. from my own experience, the a.c.a. is everything it's supposed to be and, in fact, better than it's made out to be." dean's story is one of 8 million stories that can be told all across the country. 8 million people have enrolled in private health care plans under the affordable care act. why? because there's a simple premise embedded at the foundation of

the affordable care act and that is that you shouldn't get sick -- in dean's case, you shouldn't face death simply because you don't have the money to afford surgery. dean was working. dean was a logger. salt of the earth kind of guy who was playing by the rules, obeying the law, had a job. but he just didn't have the money to afford that expensive surgery. he gets to live, he gets access to health care because of the affordable care act. not because of a government handout but because of our collective decision to just give dean a discount on private health care. one of 8 million people all across the country. now, that's just the number of people that have been insured on these private exchanges. 3 million young people under the age of 26 have been able to stay on their parents' plan because the affordable care act allows for that to occur. new numbers this week suggest

that more than 4.8 million people have enrolled in medicaid and chip plans between october of 2013 and march of 2014. another approximately 1 million individuals gained coverage through an early expansion of medicaid that happened in states before january 1, 2014. put that all together. eight million people on exchanges, three million young people covered through their parents' plan, 5.8 million people on medicare -- medicaid, excuse me. about 16 million, 17 million people in this country who have health care who didn't have it before. in my state the numbers are even more remarkable. we had a goal of signing up about 100,000 people and we went out there and did everything we could to get the word out about the affordable care act. and we didn't sign up 100,000 people. we signed up 200,000 people took

act, 2,008,301 people in connecticut. on the last day alone on march 31, 5,900 people signed up in connecticut. connecticut is a small state. 's we only have a handful of a million people who life in our entire state and we increased those who have insurance by 200,000 in a state of only a few million. and that probably is why, that fact in states like connecticut 200,000 people now have insurance, 15 million plus across the country have insurance, that the polling is starting to fundamentally change. "the washington post" poll from a few weeks ago showed that for the first time a majority of americans support the affordable care act, a new poll in battleground congressional districts shows that 52% of respondents want to implement and fix the affordable care act, which is about 10% more than those people who want to repeal and replace the bill.

that 52% number is -- has increased beyond what the poll showed last december, that 42% number of those who want to repeal and replace is much less than the number from last december. people are starting to figure out that all of the republicans' spin and rhetoric about the affordable care act is just that, spin and rhetoric, and the reality is, is that 15 million people have access to health care and the stories like dean's can be multiplied all over the country in every corner of this great nation. here's the even better news -- is that we are not only enrolling more people, but we're saving money. we're enrolling more people and we're saving money. medicare spending growth is down. medicare per capita spending is growing at historically low rates. in april for the fifth straight year c.b.o. reduced its projections over the next ten

years, this time by another $106 billion. this is what we always said was the problem with the american health care system. we always said we don't insure enough people, we still leave 30 million people without access to health care and we spend twice as much money as our other competitor first-world nations. less people insured, much greater cost, we all came down to the floor of the senate and the house and said the affordable care act will tackle both problems and now a few months into the full implementation of the law that's exactly what's happening. it's actually costing less than we thought. the projections are the affordable care act is going to reduce the deficit by $1.7 trillion over the next two decades. let me say that again, the affordable care act will reduce the deficit by $1.7 trillion meaning if you repeal the affordable care act as so so many still want to do as the house has tried to voted-vote on 50 different times you would increase the deficit by $1.7 trillion and the overall cost of the program is 15% res lest than what the initial

projections were. and insurers are starting to weigh in as well. the second biggest u.s. health insurer, well point, increased its profit forecast after the a.c.a. enroll numbers. their chief executive officer says the risk pool and the product selection seems to be coming in the manner we hoped it would. united health care which had a small footprint in these exchanges has changed its bias to increase the participation in exchanges in 2015 because it's says it saw a positive response from consumers who enrolled in the plans that they did offer in limited states in greater than expected numbers. 15 million people including eight million people on private insurance plans enrolled saving money for taxpayers, for insurance companies.

that's the real story of the affordable care act. and, madam president, let me just finish by shaig a couple more stories from connecticut with you. i'm going to share them through the eyes of the enrollers and the enrollers and the assisters are the heroes of these last several months. there was an embarrassing rollout of the affordable care act in the fall of last year, a web site that should have been working on day one that wasn't. but the fact is, is that thousands of people all across this country working in community health centers and emergency rooms at nonprofits decided to make this thing work in red states and blue states and went out and enrolled in record numbers shattering expectations people on fortunately health care. so i had a few of these assisters together in connecticut, they started telling me stories and i'll finish with two of them. michael who is an assister in

danieltonson, connecticut, told this sthor story p. i recall a husband and wife who came do into our health center and didn't have insurance because they indicated their employer's plan was too expensive. as i asked questions the husband mostly complained about obamacare kept saying our government is making it so no one can afford insurance and heard that the premiums were too high. after completing the application they were totally surprised by the minimal cost of the premiums as well as the deductible rates. i also helped them understand how certain plans were structured and what services the deductible applied to. they chose a plan that was right for them. they went home from our meeting feeling more confident about their choice, more educated about health insurance and less resentful about the affordable care act. sean who is an assister from norwich tells this story. i met one middle aged man,

hadn't had insurance over five years because all the plans were so high and unaffordable he was over the income for -- and he was over the income for the state medicaid insurance program. he had a few prescriptions and had to pay out of pocket around $150 to $200 a month. we successfully completed an application and selected a plan with tax credits. the plan's monthly premium was only a fraction of what he would have paid for his prescriptions and medical care and the co-pay was only about $10. this man was ecstatic and said we have to go home to figure out a way to spend all of the money he would save every month with his new plan. there are stories like his and like dean's all over the country, eight million of them just when it comes to the people that have signed up for private health care. but for the rest of us that had health care, the news is good as well.

$1.7 trillion off of the deficit, a program that's costing 15% less than we had expected, an over all medicare inflation rate for taxpayers that's coming down. and for many of us, the ability to sleep a little bit better at night because we know that the most affluent, most powerful country in the world has committed itself to the idea that somebody like dean, a logger, going out and working the land, doesn't have to die simply because he doesn't have the money to pay for surgery. in so many ways, madam president, the affordable care act is working. i yield back. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: madam president, there is an ominous tide rising

in this country. it's not water, it's not oil, it's not any other kind of substance, it's dollars, it's cash, a tide of dark money flowing in and threatens to come nature our political system. yesterday we had a very interesting hearing in the rules committee on the subject of disclosure and the rise of outside money in campaigns. we've really developed a kind of parallel universe of campaign financing where the candidates, you and i and other members of this body, work hard to raise money from supporters so we can fund our campaigns. but -- and, by the way, all of that money that's raised has to be under certain limits, there are limitations, there are disclosure requirements. if you get a contribution it has to be disclosed and who paid it and what do they do for a living and what's their address.

all of that is public. on the other side is this parallel universe as i mentioned where a multimillionaire can come into your state or my state or anybody's state and put in an enormous amount of money, essentially unregulated, and often totally anonymous. i think this is a danger to our country. i started the hearing off yesterday by saying i fear for my country. i fear for our democracy. and just -- the important -- there are several basic points i want to make. one is, this isn't an evolutionary change. this isn't okay, we're spending a few more dollars this year than last year, a little more of the same and no big deal. this is what's happening. this is nonparty outside spending starting back in the early 1990's and you see what happened in 2012. we don't have the numbers, and of course 2012 was a presidential year. what you see is, it started to

go up, presidential year in 2004, then down. up in 2008, presidential year, down but not so much. and then way up in 2012, and this gives the context of what's happening. this isn't evolutionary change, madam president. this is revolutionary change. this is a fundamental change. i asked one of our witnesses yesterday at the hearing, is this a really significant, is this a great change that's going on? he said senator, it's an explosion. it's an explosion. and here's what it looks like. this is nonparty spending cycle to date. and the date was the day before yesterday. so, in other words, it's the outside party spending, the so-called independent expenditures, comparing apples to apples as of april 29 of each year. so here again, 2004, presidential year.

and it drops way down in 2006, midterms. again jumps up in 2008. down in 2010. big jump for 2012 but look where we are as of this debate in 2014. look at the comparison between this and the last midterm year, it's almost 10 times as much. this is a threat that is growing and it's going to overwhelm us. some of my colleagues have said we are bound for a scandal and indeed that's what's driven campaign finance reform in our history,. the first reform was in 1907, it resulted from the presidential campaigns in the late 1890's and the turn of the century where mark hannah, at political operative called up the major corporations of america and said you will give us this. and that's how the money was raised for those campaigns. we then passed the first campaign finance law under the leadership of teddy roosevelt in

1907 because he saw a scandal coming. so this is nonparty outside spending. this is both disclosed and undisclosed. but look at this. this is spending by nondisclosure groups psychle to date -- cycle to date. look where we are. this is the money that nobody knows where it comes from. we start back in here, 2012, this is a presidential year to debate and here we are in 2014, it's an explosion. and nobody knows where that money is coming from. it's secret money. and what we have are the development of organizations and institutions that i call -- they're engaged what i call identity laundering. now, i'm not going to attempt to explain this chart but this is a chart that it just traces

in 2012 one set of funds. it's about $400 million from three large organizations that go through all of these different entities and the whole purpose is to keep the names of the donors secret. so the public doesn't know who's trying to influence their vote. and this isn't insignificant money. $50 million this line represents to something called the american future fund. they create these entities and there's also the wonderful nomenclature on here, even entities whose title is -- let's see, it's undesignated or disregarded entities. and the whole purpose of this is to hide the identity of the people who are supporting it. i don't think that's consistent with the first amendment, it's not consistent with our political traditions, it's not consistent with the whole idea of conveying information.

if somebody wants to come and buy ads in pennsylvania or north dakota or new york or california, that's fine. they have a right to do that, at least under the current supreme court rulings. but they also ought to tell us who they are. that's part of the information that the voters should have in assessing the validity of the message that's being delivered to them. in maine you can't go to a town meeting withoumeeting with a bar head. if you're going to make a speech or take a position, you tell who you are, and people can assess the validity of your views based upon, in part, who they know you are, what your interest is, what your stake in this is, and we're denying the people of america the opportunity to know that. now, it's important to realize in this whole area of campaign finance -- which is unbelievably complicated -- that the supreme court has significantly narrowed our ability in congress -- or in

the states -- to regulate campaign finance. they've essentially said that money is speech and that it can't be limited -- at least in the aggregate; that's the mccutcheon decision. and under the citizens united decision, the corporations are also people and variety to free speech and can spndz as much money as they want. now, when you go back and read those key opinions -- citizens united and mccutcheon, which was just decided about a month ago, the supreme court said we're going to strike down these thraimtions because they're limitations on free speech, but the basic reason we feel comfortable doing so is because the public still has disclosure, and they will know -- they will know who's talking, and that's our bulwark against abuse and corrosion of our system. well, the problem with that reasoning is, the bulwark

doesn't exist, and we've created all -- i say "we've created" -- clever campaign operatives have created this system that's designed to disguise who the contributors are. this is a problem of our system, madam president. and the problem right now is that one party may think that they are they're -- that they're advantaged by the current system but two years from now that advantage could disappear. and, indeed, data that we received just before our hearing indicates that two years ago 88% of the outside money was conservative. indeed, this year so far, in 2012, it's closer to l balance. it's 06 60/40, liberal over conservative. i would suggest that once it gets to be 50/50, both sides are

going to say, maybe we should do something about it. the supreme court has invited us, has invited us, to do something about disclosure. i think it's the tool that weigh know that we have -- that we know that we have. there is discussion about a constitutional amendment. that's fine. i am a supporter. that's a long-term solution. that could take four, five, circumstancsix,seven years. in the meantime, disclosure is something we could do next week. and it's something we should do. we owe it to the american people to allow them to know who it is that's trying to influence their vote. now, occasionally, there is an argument that people who make these kind of contributions will be subjected to some kind of intimidation, crank phone calls, threats, and those kinds of things. well, justice scalia, the

supreme court who i used to know in law school, recently said this: "requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed." people need to -- if people are willing to spend millions of dollars attacking someone else's characteristic and integrity and career, they ought to at least be willing to stand up and say, here am i; i'm making these statements, and not hide behind something created by an army of accountants and lawyers to disguise their identity. i think this is something and based upon the hearing that we had yesterday and the woo, that we did in -- and the work that we did in preparing for it, this is something wreelly need to attend to. when i first got into this subject last year, i thought it was bad. well, what i've learned over the last several months is, it's a lot worse than i thawvmen thoug.

it's happening fast. it's a tidalwave, and it's going to engulf or system. why do we care? combos it's corrosive. because it undermines the public confidence in us as their political leaders. the people have a perception in the 1970's or 1980's that money is corrupting around here. even if it isn't. but, boy, when you start to have unidentified outside, dark money that nobody knows where it's coming from, what could be more calculated to undermine public confidence in their leadership than a system like that? it's corrosive, it undermines the trust of our people, it's wrong, and i think it's something that we should attend to. it is something that we can do. we know we can do it constitutionally.

8-1 majorities in both mccutcheon and citizens united invited us to do this. and i think we should be able to fands find a bipartisan stliewtn this subject because -- solution to this subject because it will benefit this whole country and i think it will be of great benefit to the institution of democracy itself. this is not what the framers envisioned. and we have it within our power to do something about it and to improve the situation and to improve the flow of information, including the source of that information, to the people of america. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. cardin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: madam president, take this time on the floor, as the chair of the u.s. helsinki

commission, the helsinki commission is the operating arm of the united states participation in the organization for security and cooperation in europe, the osce. it's been in the press recently because of the circumstances in ukraine, whams geeing talk -- which is what i'm going to talk about. the united states along with all the countries of europe and canada form the commission on security and cooperation in europe in 1975. it was founded on the principle that in order to have a stable country, you need to zea deal nt just with the direct security needeneeds, the military needs e a curntion not just with its economic and vairmtal jearntiondz but you also need to deal with its human rights and good gofnance. all three are related. commitments were made by all of the signatories to the osce about respecting the jurisdictions of the member

states and dealing with the rights of your neighbors, dealing with the rights of your own citizens. the soviet union was a member of the osce, and now all of the countries of the former soviet union are members, including russia, and the countries of central asia. i am increasingly alarmed at the deterioration of the situation in eastern ukraine, particularly in the dancin the dansk region 9 buildings have been seized. late last week seven members of the german-led osce vienna document inspection team charged with observing unusual military activities along with five of the ukrainian escorts were kidnapped by pro-russian militants. one observer has been freed. the rest continue to be held hostage. russia an, an osce member, has t

lifted a finger to secure their release. ness no doubthere is no doubt id that if puti putin could have hm released. this must continue to be condemned. and everything possible must be done to secure their release. in addition to the osce observers, 40 people -- journalists, activists, police officers, politicians -- are reportedly being held captive in makeshift jails in sloviansk. meanwhile, the violence continues. peaceful protesters marching in favor of ukraine's unity were attacked by thugs wielding whips resulting in 15 seriously injured. the same day, the mayor of

ukraine's second-largest city kharkiv, was shot, underwent emergency surgery and remain in serious condition. he is now in israel for further medical treatment. furthermore, i am deeply dismayed at utter flagrant violations of human rights by pro-russian militants in eastern ukraine and in russia's annexed crimea. these include attacks and threats against minority groups, particularly jews as well as crimean tartars and ethnic ukrainians in crimea. supporters of ukraine have been targeted as well as a local politician and university student whose tortured bodies were found dumped in a river. the joint statement on ukraine signed in geneva by the e.u., the united states and russia and

ukraine calls on all sides to lay down their arms and begin the process of dialogue and deescalation. that was just signinged two weeks ago. that agreement provided a basis for decase laismghts -- deescalation. yet over the last few weeks we have not seen the russians follow through on urging separationists to stantsz stand down. so what have we seen? kiev on the one hand is taking concrete steps, making good-faith efforts to live up to the agreement, including vacating buildings and offering dialogue. russia has done nothing. instead of working to deescalate the conflict, it is doing the opposite, fueling escalation. russia continues to violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine and flagrantly flaunts its commitments under the geneva agreement. the geneva agreement also calls upon the parties to retrain from any violence, intimidation and

provocation of action and condemns expressions of reagan administrationism -- racism. clearly both the spirit and letter of this agreement have been breached by russia. in recent days we have seen troubling manifestations against ethnic and religious communities. the distribution of flyers in dansk calling for jews is a chilling reminder of a dark period in european history. while the perpetrators of this onus action one thing is clear -- russia is using anti-semitism as an ingredient in its antiukrainian campaign. perhaps even worse among the russian special forces and agitatagitators are members of e neo-nazi and other anti-semitic groups.

jewish members are not the only ones to be worried. in sloviansk, people have been beaten and robbed. ukrainian speaks including journalists have been reportedly experiencing ink timidation in the largely russian-speaking dansk area. at the same time, in crimea, crimean tartars continue to be threatened for speaking their own language in their homeland. moreover, the longtime leader of the crimean tartar community and a prisoner have been banned from returning to crimea. it's important to underscore that crimea is the incest stral home of the crimean tators, who was brutally econstricted by stalin and only allowed to

return to their home in early 1990's. additionally, the separationist crimea authorities have gone after the ukrainian community announcing that ukrainian literate literature and historyo longer be offered in the schools. these attacks and threats underscore the importance of the osce special monetary mission and other institutions in ukrainian in assessing the situation on the ground and helping to deescalate tensions. they need to be permitted to operate unhindered and most certainly not held hostage. in urine ukraine and to be allowed access into crimea which russia continues to block. the actions against the minorities are the direct result of russia's illegal aggression against ukraine, first in crimea, then in eastern ukraine. there is no doubt as to who

pulls the strings. the kremlin has been relentlessly flaunting their geneva promises and have done nothing to rein in the militants they control. mr. putin needs to get the operatives out of ukraine. we must never recognize russia's forceful, illegal annexation of the ukrainian territory, which violates every single one of the 10 core osce hell kingcy -- heli principles. we must build on the measures already undertaken against the russians and ukrainian individuals who violated international agreements in the ukrainian and crimean constitutions. violations of another nation's territorial integrity and sovereignty must not be tolerated. russia's flagrant land grab of crimea has set a horrible precedent for those countries

harboring illegal territorial ambitions around the globe. i welcome the president's stepping up of economic sanctions on seven russian officials, including members of president putin's inner circle and 17 companies linked to mr. putin. i also welcome the state and commerce department's tightening the policy of denying export, licensing applications or any high technology items that could contribute to russia's military capabilities. i am confident that russia will feel the impact of these sanctions. these along with the further targeted sanctions announced by the e.u. earlier this week will only continue to have growing impact. nevertheless, if the situation in eastern ukraine continues to deteriorate or even should the status quo persist, the united states needs to ratchet up these sanctions, and soon including several sectorial sanctions against russia's industries like banking, mining, energy and defense. of equal importance, we need to

remain steadfast in helping ukraine become a stronger democratic state and foster its political and economic stability. the millions of men, women and children who have demonstrated for months for human rights and human dignity spoke loudly and clearly expressing the wishes of a vast majority of ukranian citizens. the interim government has been working hard under exceedingly difficult circumstances to move ukraine further on the path of economic and political reforms. we and our international partners need to keep making this progress our focal point. ukraine needs a lot of help after the devastateing wrecking of their economy and the incredible corruption and dysfunctional voinovich regime. ukraine has so many repressing regimes. they have to stabilize their economy and prepare for the coming elections.

others include judicial reform, reform of the police and military, seeking justice and rehabilitation for the victims of the violence, including those suffering now at the hands of the pro-russian militants, helping internationally displaced people who are fleeing crimea and working to recover the billions in assets stolen by the previous regime. i am pleased that ukraine's civil society, including western educated young people, is firmly committed to the rule of law and democracy and is playing a critical role in helping the ukranian government work towards these ends. n.g.o.'s and think tanks are worked with the larmt to pass a law on the independence of public broadcasting, a bill on public procurement, want to have judges appointed, all critical in fighting the scourge of corruption. the united states is providing concrete assistance through a u.s. crisis support package for ukraine which includes support for the integrity of the may elections and constitutional

reforms, substantial economic assistance, energy, security, technical expertise helped to recover proceeds of corruption stolen by the former regime and other anticorruption assistance and fostering greater people-to-people contacts, and we need to be willing to provide more resources to the ukranians as they actively work to fulfill their aspirations. ultimately, these choices will lead to a more secure democratic and peaceful world, and that is something that reflects both american interests and american values. madam president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. landrieu: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana.

ms. landrieu: thank you, madam president. i ask to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you, madam president. i'm just going to speak very briefly this afternoon about a very timely and important subject. my colleague and partner, senator hoeven, came down earlier and i was unable to come at the time that he did and speak about a bill that you have actually given this extraordinary leadership. i want to thank you and senator hoeven for his leadership as well to try to help bring to the floor of the senate a vote to help construct the keystone pipeline. it's something that a group of us have been working on now for quite some time, and i want to thank you again, madam chair, and i want to also put into the record now the other democratic leaders that have been so supportive and helpful to us in this effort. senator pryor from arkansas, senator mccaskill from missouri, senator tester from montana who agreed to cosponsor,

senator warner from virginia, senator hagan, senator begich, senator manchin, senator donnelly and senator walsh. and i really want to thank them and other colleagues who have decided they may not want to cosponsor the bill that will be introduced later tonight but they may very well vote for it, and i really appreciate it. i know this has been a very contentious issue for many because people have very strong feelings about this particular pipeline called the keystone x.l. pipeline. some of us who support it have a little trouble understanding why such a big deal, but i do appreciate that there is strong feelings on the other side of this. but for those of us from states like louisiana and texas and oklahoma and north dakota particularly that's affected by this pipeline, it's clear that the technology that is really -- we should be proud of and is

extraordinary and is exploding and in some ways unprecedented and unexpected is creating a real opportunity for america and for north america, and that opportunity is for us to produce more oil and gas, continue to maintain coal supplies that are clean and appropriate for the environment or advanced coal technologies, i should say, and provide the kind of energy also with alternative energies that are emerging, wind and solar, maintaining our nuclear and strategic advantage with our electric -- as part of our electric grid. it gives us a real opportunity to go from a major country that was scrambling to find -- or to -- scrambling to plan where our energy was going to come from and really concerned about it, paying very high prices,

sometimes at the pump and through our electric grid to now a country that gets to actually look and say oh, my gosh, look at the resources that we have right here in america and the resources that we have potentially with our partners and our allies, one of the strongest allies that we have in the world, canada, and an emerging -- an ally but emerging in its relationship with us, mexico. the north american continent, we think there is so much potential for canada, the u.s., and mexi mexico -- i do and others share this with me -- the potential to become completely not only energy independent but an energy powerhouse for the world, a world in which the north american continent at least really wants to promote freedom, democracy, human rights. senator cardin was just on