John Hoeven

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank my esteemed colleague, who is not only a Senator but a former Governor as well. Agriculture Reform Mr. President, I rise to speak on the farm bill. I think we have a real opportunity to pass a farm bill that will not only reduce the deficit but provide strong support for our farmers and ranchers. Right now at this point, there is something like 250 amendments that have been filed on the farm bill. Some are good, others are probably not so good, and certainly many amendments have been filed by both parties. Some of them are germane, meaning they actually relate to the farm bill, and many of them are not. That means if we are going to get a farm bill, we have to find a way to work through these amendments and come to agreement on the amendments as far as the ones that will be voted on, and that is going to take some compromise on the part of both parties. I mean that. We have to come together in a bipartisan way and come up with an agreement so we can have a reasonable number of amendments brought forward and we can vote on those amendments and pass a farm bill. We should be able to do it. We absolutely should be able to get that done because this bill accomplishes some very important things for our country. As I said, this bill saves money. It saves $23.6 billion that will help with the deficit and the debt. It also provides a very strong farm program for our farmers and ranchers, and that is important not only for our farmers and ranchers but for every American. It is important for every single American. Good farm policy not only benefits farmers and ranchers, it benefits all Americans. First, we have the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world, bar none. We have the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in history. Every American benefits from that. Second, it is a jobs bill. We are talking about millions of jobs, both on a direct basis and on an indirect basis. If we talk about small businesses, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of small businesses across this country in every State. For farmers and ranchers and all of the businesses that go with farming and ranching, it is hundreds of thousands of businesses. So it really is a jobs bill at a time when we need to get our economy going and we need to get people back to work. It is also about national security. Think how important it is that we be able to rely on our own farmers and ranchers across this country for our food supply. We are not beholden to other countries or relying on other countries, particularly countries that may have very different interests than we have for our food supply. It really is an issue of national security as well. So for all of these reasons and more, we need to move forward on this farm bill. We are talking about legislation that affects every single American. In addition, this is a cost-effective bill. It provides strong support to our farmers and ranchers, but, as I said, it also provides real savings to help with our deficit and debt. Agriculture is doing its part to help reduce the deficit. I would like to go through the numbers for just a minute to demonstrate that. On an annual basis, the farm bill is about $100 billion out of a $3.7 trillion budget. So it is $100 billion out of a $3.7 trillion budget, but the portion that goes to farm programs and really goes to agriculture to maintain this network of farms and ranches across the country is only about $20 billion--actually less than $20 billion out of an annual budget of $3.7 trillion. Now, 80 percent of the farm bill, per se, is nutrition payments. So let's go through these numbers. How does the farm bill score? How do we get what is really spent and where it is spent and the savings that we generate with this new legislation? The farm bill is scored, of course, over 10 years by the CBO. The total cost is $960 billion. Out of that 80 percent-plus is nutrition, primarily SNAP, which is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and the School Lunch Program. So approximately $800 billion of that score is nutrition. Less than $200 billion of the score relates to the farm program portion of the farm bill. But, as we know, the farm bill is actually a 5-year legislation, not a 10-year legislation. So the actual cost is half that; it is $480 billion in total. Approximately $400 billion of that goes to the nutrition programs I talked about. Less than $100 billion over 5 years or less than $20 billion a year is actually the farm program portion of the bill. Back to the savings. There is $23.6 billion saved out of the portion that is less than--or mostly out of the portion that is about $200 billion. In fact, out of what are truly farm programs--the commodity title and crop insurance--we are talking about $15 billion in reductions and another $6 billion in reductions out of the conservation programs. Again, those two programs alone are $21 billion of the $23 billion, and only about $4 billion in total comes out of the nutrition programs. Again, on a 5-year basis, cut that in half. We are reducing by 10 percent the funding that goes to support the farm program. That is a significant reduction. Let's go back to my point about all of these amendments we have. We have on the order of 250 amendments, and we have to get through them and have some agreement, again on a bipartisan basis, as to the amendments that will be brought forward and voted on as part of this package. We have the core bill that came out of the Agriculture Committee. It came out of the Agriculture Committee with a strong bipartisan vote--16 to 5--and that is for the underlying legislation. We have these 250 amendments. We have to somehow get together, come to the floor, and have a reasonable vote on these amendments--some will pass and some will not--and move this legislation forward. As I said, while many of the amendments relate to the farm program portion of the farm bill, they either seek to further reduce the cost of the bill or seek to improve the bill. Regarding the cost of the bill, as I have just explained, the farm program portion of the bill is less than $20 billion a year, and we have already saved 10 percent. We are already reducing 10 percent. So no amount of amending for additional savings is going to make a large difference on the $3.7 trillion budget. Further, as I said, since we already reduced the 10 percent, agriculture is doing its part to help with the deficit. For example, think if we went through the rest of the budget and were able to secure a 10-percent reduction out of all of the other portions of the budget, right? Again, my point being, of course, we have to find savings, but we are doing it in agriculture, and we are doing it in a big way. It truly is a cost-effective measure. There are also amendments that seek to improve the bill. Here I go back to the old saying that perfect is the enemy of good. I get that there are a lot of amendments and everybody wants their amendment passed, but no amount of amending this bill is going to make it perfect. What this bill does is it already builds on the strengths of the existing farm program and makes the program stronger. The heart of this bill is enhanced crop insurance. That is what producers across this country told us over and over again that they want. It is what they need to continue to do the very best possible job to produce the food supply we rely on throughout this country and many other countries throughout the world. Enhanced crop insurance is the risk tool they want. It is a market-based approach, and it is cost- effective. In fact, we enhanced crop insurance with what we call the supplemental coverage option. Essentially what we do in this farm bill is we say we are going to build on the core and strength of the existing farm program because that is what the farmers and ranchers of this country have told us they want. As it is now, the farmer goes out and buys his crop insurance and insures up to the level he thinks is appropriate. He tries to make the best decision he can, all conditions considered, and buys the crop insurance on a cost-effective basis. But the higher level he insures, the more costly it becomes to insure. So we add a new element to this bill, and it is called the supplemental coverage option. Essentially what it does is once the farmers purchase their crop insurance at whatever level they feel is cost-effective, then they can buy a secondary policy on top of that to insure at a higher level on a cost- effective basis. It is not farm-level coverage, it is countywide coverage that makes it more cost-effective. If the farmer has a disaster, it truly makes sure the farmer can continue in business. So they are able to buy crop insurance in a way that affords them better coverage. In addition, the legislation provides help with shallow or repetitive losses that farmers sometimes face due to weather. That coverage is called ARC, or the Agriculture Risk Coverage Program. These are voluntary programs. These are an effort to make sure farmers and ranchers can insure like other types of businesses and continue even when weather conditions make it very hard for them to farm or ranch, not only in a given year but if they face weather difficulties over a period of time. I know some of the Senators from the Southern States think that in this bill for their farmers, particularly for peanuts and rice and to some extent cotton--although there is a STAX program for cotton--there needs to be more price protection. In fact, we are working with them to do just that. We have offered amendments that I think we are making real progress on that will help them with some of the price protection they want for the southern crops, particularly peanuts and rice. As I said, they do have a product that I think they feel works for cotton, but this would provide additional price protection for cotton as well. Again, I believe we are reaching out and doing what we need to do with southern producers. I hope we can get their support on this bill as part of getting an amendment package that we can agree to and move forward on the bill. The other point that I think is very important to keep in mind relative to southern growers is that they will have additional opportunity in the House for some of the improvements they may feel they need in the bill even though, as I say, I think the underlying bill itself is very strong, and we have, I believe, come to some agreement or gotten very close to some amendments that will afford them the further price protection they feel is needed in the legislation. So that is where we are. I want to return to where I started. We have to come together in a bipartisan way. Both sides of the aisle have to come to reasonable agreement on these amendments so we can move forward and vote on this bill. I absolutely believe we can do it, but I want to be very clear that it is incumbent on all of us to make it happen. This bill is not just about our farmers and ranchers. This is a bill that affects every single American, and it is time we come together on an amendment package and find a way to move forward and get this bill done for the good of farm country and for the good of the American people. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the farm bill which is now before the Senate. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I worked, together with my fellow committee members, on a bipartisan basis to put forward what we believe is a sound farm bill for this country. We passed the bill out of committee on a strong bipartisan vote, 16 to 5. So it comes to the Senate floor for deliberation. The bill is entitled ``The Agriculture, Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012.'' I would like to begin with just a simple question. Why is the farm bill so important? Why is the farm bill so important? I think the first chart I have sums it up. This is the most important point I will make today. I am going to begin and I am going to conclude my comments with it as well. U.S. farmers and ranchers provide the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world. Our farmers and ranchers today provide the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world. Not only do they provide the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world, but in the history of the world. That is vitally important to every single American. So when we pass a farm policy that supports our network of farmers and ranchers throughout this great country, we are doing something that makes a fundamental difference every day for every American and for millions of people beyond our borders. There are other aspects to the farm bill that are very important as well. For example, we have a tremendous number of jobs in farming and ranching across this country--every State in this country, throughout our heartland and beyond. There are not just direct jobs in farming and ranching but there are indirect jobs, from food processing to retail, to transportation, to marketing--you name it. We could say it is an incredible jobs bill, which it is. There is no question about it. When we provide a good, sound, solid farm program for our farmers and ranchers, we are also very much passing a jobs bill as well. We can also talk about it in terms of a favorable balance of trade. The United States has a deficit in its trade balance, but agriculture has a positive balance of trade. We export millions in food products all over the world to feed hungry people, and it generates a positive return for this country in a big way. We can talk about it in terms of national security. Think about how important good farm policy is for national security. We produce not only the food we need, but far more than the food we need for our citizens, we provide food for many citizens in other countries as well. Think about the national security implications if we had to depend on other countries for our food supply--maybe even countries that don't necessarily share our interests or values, which is currently the case with energy. We certainly don't want to be in that situation when it comes to feeding our people. So it is truly an issue of national security. We want to be in the position to make sure we have farmers and ranchers who will supply not only the food we need in this country but food that people consume in many countries throughout the world. For all those reasons this is an incredibly important bill. It is not just incredibly important to farmers and ranchers, it is incredibly important for every single one of us--for all those reasons and more. The second point I want to make is this farm bill is cost-effective. It is not only cost-effective, but we provide real savings to help to reduce the deficit and the debt. It provides strong support to our farmers and ranchers, but it does it the right way. It does it in a way where we provide savings that will go to reduce the deficit and debt. Our farmers and ranchers are stepping up and not only doing an amazing job for this country in terms of what they do in food supply and job creation, but they are helping meet the challenge of our deficit and debt as well. The second chart is an example of what I am talking about in terms of the farm program being cost-effective. I will use this and several other charts to go into the actual numbers to show that the farm program--particularly this bill we have crafted--is not only cost- effective, but it provides real savings as well. At the same time, it provides enhanced support for our farmers and ranchers throughout the country. Looking at the chart, if you think of the total Federal budget as this cornfield, the portion that goes to the farm bill would be similar to this ear of corn out of the cornfield. If you think of the total cornfield as the Federal budget, the farm bill would be about one ear of corn. The portion of the farm bill that goes to farmers and ranchers to support what they do would be one kernel of corn out of the entire cornfield. To put those numbers into perspective--and these are analyzed numbers--you are talking about Federal spending of about $3.7 trillion, in that range. You are talking about a farm bill that, on an annualized basis, is about $100 billion. So it is $100 billion out of $3.7 trillion. Then if you talk about the portion that actually goes to support farmers and ranchers and support that network, you are talking about less than $20 billion out of $3.7 trillion. That is why I use this frame of reference. If we go to the next chart, we will go into some of the numbers and how that funding is broken out in the farm bill itself. This pie chart shows the CBO scoring. Of course with any legislation you need the CBO scoring that shows the actual cost. We try to do that in a consistent way across all of the legislation we pass. CBO uses a 10-year scoring period. On that basis, this entire pie, the farm program score, over a 10-year period is $960 billion. Of that, almost $800 billion is nutrition programs. Almost 80 percent goes to nutrition. I mean by that, primarily SNAP, nutritional assistance payments, or food stamps. So nutrition programs comprise 80 percent of the total cost in the farm bill. Only about 20 percent actually goes for farming and ranching, for farm programs, and for conservation. So in the scoring, that is only about $200 billion. We know the bill is not a 10-year bill, it is a 5- year bill. So the actual cost is $480 billion, or half of the score. That means approximately $400 billion goes for nutrition programs, food stamps, and so forth; and less than $100 billion goes for farm programs and conservation programs. So we are talking about an annual cost of this farm program--a program that supports farmers and ranchers who feed this country and much of the world--of about $20 billion--actually less. Let's go to the next chart on how the program actually provides savings, how farmers and ranchers are providing real savings for deficit reduction in this country. This bill saves more than $23 billion--$23.6 billion is the savings generated by this farm bill; $15 billion comes from the farm programs themselves; $6 billion comes from conservation programs; only about $4 billion comes out of nutrition programs. So 80 percent of the cost in the bill is nutrition programs, which is $400 billion over 5 years. Only $4 billion comes out of the nutrition programs; close to $20 billion comes out of the agriculture portion of the bill. Going back to my prior chart, if you go back to the crop insurance provisions and commodity, which comprise the farm support network, that is about $150 billion in the CBO scoring. Remember, I said $15 billion comes out of that $150 billion. My point is that 10-percent reduction. So farmers and ranchers are stepping up in the farm bill and saying, OK, we are going to help meet the deficit and the debt challenge. They are, in essence, taking 10 percent less. Think about that, if throughout all aspects of the Federal budget everybody stepped up the way farmers and ranchers are in this legislation and said, OK, here is a 10-percent reduction we are going to take to help get the deficit under control and the debt under control. My point is, very clearly, in this legislation we have real savings, and that savings is being provided by our farmers and ranchers. At the same time--this is my third point, and it is very important-- this farm bill provides the kinds of support our farmers and ranchers need by providing the risk management tools our farmers need. This farm bill provides strong support for our farmers and ranchers, and it does it the right way. It does it right, with sound risk management tools. What are those risk management tools? I have them here on the chart. It enhances crop insurance. Second, a new Agriculture Risk Coverage--or ARC--Program. It includes also reauthorization of the no-net-cost sugar program. It improves and extends the livestock disaster assistance program. These are the kinds of risk management tools our farmers and ranchers have asked for. They are cost-effective and a market-based approach. They provide the sound, solid safety net our farmers and producers need to continue to produce the food supply for this country. I will go into more detail on the next chart on crop insurance. As I travel around the State, and as myself and others who are members of the Ag Committee travel the country, one thing our farmers and ranchers say to us over and over again is that they want enhancements to crop insurance. We worked on the safety net for our farmers, and as we worked on the tools for them, they said the heart of the farm bill needs to be enhanced crop insurance. That is exactly what we have done with this legislation. That is the heart of the bill. Enhanced crop insurance involves a number of things. First, farmers can buy individual crop insurance, and do buy it, at whatever level they deem appropriate. They look at their farm operation and decide how much crop insurance they are going to buy to cover that farm operation. But as they insure at higher levels, the cost to buy that insurance gets more and more expensive. One of the things we tried to do in terms of enhancing crop insurance is figure out how we can help insure at a higher level at an affordable price. That is one of the new innovations. It is called the supplemental coverage option, or SCO. It enables farmers to insure or cover their farming operation at a higher level, but still at an affordable price. The way it works is, the farmer buys his normal, individual, crop insurance that he would normally purchase. But then, in addition, on a countywide basis, he can buy supplemental coverage, with the supplemental coverage option, on top of his existing insurance. If he typically insures up to, say, 60, 65, or maybe a 70-percent level, he can buy additional insurance on top of his regular policy at a reasonable premium. His regular policy is an individual, farm-based policy, and this is a county-based policy that provides additional coverage at a reduced rate--again, management tools on a market-based approach to cover their farming operation. The second innovation on the next chart is a program called Agriculture Risk Coverage, or ARC. Very often, farmers--obviously, one of the challenges they face is due to weather. When they face weather challenges, oftentimes we can get in a wet cycle or a dry cycle. So the problem they have with weather may not be limited to one year. You may have a number of years where they face real weather challenges. In addition, what may happen is that it may trigger losses in their farming operation that are not severe enough to trigger their regular crop insurance, but still cause them losses. You can have repetitive or shallow losses. Over time, those can make an incredible difference in terms of farmers being able to continue in farming and continue their operation. We add shallow loss coverage, or the agriculture risk coverage, to help them protect against these repetitive losses, which they often face due to weather conditions. That is the agriculture risk coverage. It covers between 11 and 21 percent of historical revenue. How do you calculate that percentage? That is a 5-year average--the last 5-year average--based on price and yield, the revenue they generate on their farming operation. You take out the high year and the low year, and you average the other three. The way it works is, when you have a year where the farmer's crop insurance may not trigger, they still have help when they have a loss, but a loss that may not trigger on their crop insurance. In other cases, it works with their crop insurance to make sure they are adequately covered so they can continue their farming operation. Again, an enhanced risk management tool, cost- effective, focused on a market-based approach to make sure our farmers and ranchers have the coverage they need to continue their operation. One other point I want to make in wrapping up is that this bill also continues strong support for agricultural research. Agricultural research is making a tremendous difference for our farmers in terms of what they are doing to increase productivity. Obviously, we all know technology has done amazing things to help productivity. But at the same time, agricultural research has made an incredible difference in not only food production--productivity when it comes to food production--but energy production as well. So that is it. That is how this legislation works. It provides strong support to our farmers and ranchers. It provides that support on a cost-effective basis. The bill emphasizes a market-based approach, focused on crop insurance, which is exactly what producers have told us they want. At the same time, this legislation provides real savings-- $23.6 billion--to help reduce the Federal deficit and the debt. It is bipartisan, and it received strong committee support. I know some of our southern friends are still looking for more help with price protection, and we are working with them. It is likely the House Agriculture Committee will seek to do more in that area as well. But this is legislation that we need to move forward. This is legislation that supports our farmers and our ranchers the right way as they continue to provide--and I am going to go back to my very first chart--support our farmers and ranchers as they provide the highest quality and the lowest cost food supply for every single American. As I said, this is where I started my comments, and this is where I will conclude. When we are talking about a farm bill, we are talking about something that is important to every single American--every single American. We do it the right way here, and I ask all of my fellow Senators on both sides of the aisle--we worked together in a great bipartisan way in the committee--to work together in a great bipartisan way on the Senate floor and pass this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed the attached statement in the Congressional Record.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, today, people across our country observe Peace Officers Memorial Day. As we remember all of the fallen officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice while upholding justice and protecting our communities, I wish to echo the sentiments of Americans across the country in honoring the lives and exemplary service of all of the men and women who lost their lives this past year, including two North Dakota peace officers, Bismarck police Sgt. Steven Kenner and Burleigh County sheriff's department Deputy Sheriff Bryan Sleeper. Sgt. Steven Kenner served with the Bismarck police department for more than 32 years when he was killed in the line of duty on July 8, 2011. Sergeant Kenner was a distinguished and well-respected member of the Bismarck police department. He also served as a decorated member of the North Dakota National Guard military police and founded the business C.A.R., Collision Analysis Reconstruction. Colleagues, friends and family knew Sergeant Kenner to be a loving, hardworking and dedicated man who served his State with great pride. He was devoted to mentoring and training his fellow officers, and his extensive knowledge and professionalism garnered the respect and admiration of his colleagues, who often referred to Sergeant Kenner as a gentle giant because his stature belied his kind nature and selfless service to others. During Sergeant Kenner's distinguished career, he earned several awards, including the North Dakota Peace Officers Association Lifesaving Award. Sergeant Kenner was also actively involved in his community, serving in a variety of capacities, including as a member of the Missouri Valley Fraternal Order of Police, the National Trustee for North Dakota and the Midwest Association of Traffic Accident Investigators. He is survived by his wife, Debbie, and children James, Stephen, Kailey, and Tayler. Last year, North Dakota also mourned Deputy Sheriff Bryan Sleeper who died in the line of duty on September 28, 2011. A lifelong North Dakotan, Deputy Sleeper graduated from the University of Mary in 1997, and worked at the North Dakota state penitentiary and the Bismarck rural fire department before beginning his distinguished career with the Burleigh County sheriff's department in 2007. Deputy Sleeper was an active member of his community, and his involvement--like his job--aimed to improve the well-being of his fellow citizens. He earned his EMT certification and taught CPR and first aid at St. Alexius Medical Center and the Burleigh County sheriff's department. He was also a volunteer firefighter, member of the West Dakota SWAT team and the vice president of the Fraternal Order of Police Missouri Valley Lodge #3 for Bismarck. At the sheriff's department, he organized enforcement events including a blood drive and Christmas shopping event for children. Recognitions include the North Dakota Peace Officers Association Lifesaving Award. Deputy Sleeper was a hardworking, ambitious and energetic man whose kind heart and engaging personality quickly endeared him to the people he met. An athlete and outdoors enthusiast, Deputy Sleeper was a natural leader and committed family man and friend. He is survived by his wife Lana, children Branden, Jeremy and Heather; and grandson Hunter. This past week, North Dakotans added the names of Steven Kenner and Bryan Sleeper to the North Dakota Peace Officer Memorial located on the east side of the North Dakota State capitol. This memorial now bears the names of 61 brave men. These North Dakota peace officers, like the other officers from across our country who have been killed in the line of duty, have earned our unyielding gratitude for their service and heroism. These brave men and women keep our communities safe and secure, and it is fitting and right that we should pay tribute to these heroes who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Mikey and I extend our deepest sympathy to the families of all our fallen officers, especially the families of Sergeant Kenner and Deputy Sleeper. Our thoughts and prayers go out to them, and we pray that they will take comfort in knowing that their loved ones served their State and fellow citizens with great honor and pride.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Inauguration Day in Taiwan on May 20, 2012. On January 14, Mr. Ma Ying-jeou was elected to his second term as President of the Republic of China. I offer congratulations to Mr. Ma not only for winning the election but for what his election symbolizes: the continued growth and maturation of democracy in the Republic of China. Taiwan is the first place in the ethnic Chinese world where democracy has taken root, and its democratic transformation has laid the foundation for reduced tensions across the Taiwan Strait and strengthened its ties with the United States as well. Taiwan's democracy brightens the future of East Asia. Taipei poses no threat to Beijing, and its democratic government has fostered the development of strong cross-strait economic and cultural ties. I hope that, instead of building up its military forces in fear of a democratic Taiwan, Beijing will learn from Taiwan's example and reform its own political system. Democratization on both sides of the Taiwan Strait will lead to further expansion of the economic and cultural ties that have begun to flourish in recent years as well as improve security for the entire region. The United States understands that our interests are well served by a free and democratic Taiwan. We want to see Taiwan grow and thrive as an important economic and trade partner, and we recognize that the safety and security of Taiwan is very important to the security of the entire Asia-Pacific region. The partnership between the United States and Taiwan, especially under the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act, has deterred aggressive action in the Taiwan Strait and opened the door for Taiwan to reach its full potential as a strong democracy and an important economic hub. I look forward to strengthening the links between Taiwan and the United States in the future, particularly through the removal of remaining trade barriers and a renewed commitment to addressing the security challenges facing Taiwan. I hope that the United States and the Republic of China, as two fellow democracies, will continue to support each other and commit themselves to even closer ties in the future. And in that spirit, on the occasion of Taiwan's Inauguration Day, I congratulate the people of Taiwan and join them in celebrating the power and potential of democracy.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, with that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce bipartisan energy legislation, the Domestic Fuels Act. This legislation is designed to help hard-working Americans with the high fuel prices, the high gas prices they are paying at the pump. This legislation will truly help us do ``all of the above'' when it comes to producing and providing lower cost energy for American consumers, American businesses, and to fuel our economy, help create jobs, and also to create greater national energy security. It is part of what I believe we need to do to truly have an energy security plan for our country. I wish to take a few minutes to talk about the Domestic Fuels Act. We are going to start with a quick review of gas prices. As we all very well know, gas prices are high, and they continue to go higher. AAA indicated this week the national average for a gallon of gasoline is $3.91 a gallon. Gasoline prices, over the last 3 years of the current administration, have more than doubled from about roughly $1.87 to the national average today of more than $3.90. I believe there are nine States right now where, on average, gas is more than $4 a gallon. In Chicago, for example, I believe it is about $4.68. Over here, a few blocks from the Capitol, I checked not too long ago and it was $4.39 a gallon. This puts enormous pressure and strain on American consumers, hard- working Americans, every day, when they are being forced to fill their car at the gas pump and spend close to $4 per gallon. Some predictions are that later this summer, it may go to $5 a gallon. Clearly, we have to find a way to help with gasoline prices across this country. What it comes down to is supply and demand. More supply creates downward pressure on gasoline prices; more demand, of course, pushes prices higher. So we have to find ways to increase the supply and increase the supply in a dependable way. That means not only increasing supply now but having policies in place that increase supply now and in the future. We need to send signals to the market that we are serious about growing our supply of energy--all types of energy--certainly gas and oil but all types of energy in this country, as well as working with our neighbors we can count on, such as Canada, for more supplies to help reduce the price of gasoline and, frankly, reduce the cost of all types of energy to help get the economy going, to have more national security and more jobs to put the 13 million people who are unemployed back to work. Energy is a key aspect of creating the type of economic environment that will help us do that. This chart shows our current level of crude oil production. The first bar shows that between ourselves and Canada, we produce just under 10 million barrels of crude and crude equivalent right now. In North America--Canada and the United States--we produce under 10 million barrels of crude today. That comes not only from conventional oil but oil shale, tight oil, oil sands, Arctic, and offshore--all these different sources. Under the current policies, we can see by looking at this next bar that over the next 15 years the supply of oil and gas coming from Canada and the United States will shrink. Under the current policies and the current approach, without the kind of energy policy we need in this country, we actually will have less oil and gas from Canada and the United States over the next 15 years. The key is this: We have to implement the kind of energy policy that will help us produce more energy, oil and gas, and from all sources, traditional and renewable. That is what we are talking about with this Domestic Fuels Act. The third bar on this chart shows that just from oil and gas, with the right kinds of policies over the next 15 years--this is a 15-year timeframe--we can produce more oil and gas in Canada and the United States than we consume. So before we bring in other types of energy-- biofuels and any other types, any renewable energy we want to include, just from oil and gas, with the right kinds of policies in Canada and the United States, over the next 15 years we can produce more energy than we consume. Think what that means in terms of helping bring down the price of gasoline and in terms of creating jobs in our country; think of what that means in terms of national security, not needing to depend on crude oil from the Middle East. That is just with the right policies to develop more oil and gas. Of course, we can develop all the other types of energy resources as well. Let's not take 15 years to get this done. Let's have a plan for national energy security that gets it done in the next 5 to 7 years. There is no question we can do it. We can absolutely do it. How do we do it? Very simple and very common sense. When we talk about producing ``all of the above,'' let's actually do that. Let's not say ``all of the above'' and then block energy production. Let's have the kinds of energy policies in place, traditional sources and renewable sources, on a bipartisan basis. Let's put the types of policies in place that will truly help us get to energy security, and let's do it over the next 5 to 7 years. Let's increase oil production in the United States and Canada. Let's have the policies that help us produce more oil onshore and off. Let's increase natural gas production and usage. Again, let's join with Canada and do this with North American energy. We have incredible potential with Canada. We are the closest friends and allies in the world. Let's increase the renewable fuels we produce right here at home. We can do that with a market-based approach. Let's increase our use of renewable fuels with market-based approaches that work. Let's use technology to drive energy production--produce more energy--with better environmental stewardship. We can do all these things. When we talk about an energy security plan or the path to energy security in our country, these are very commonsense steps. I have bills, as do other Members of this body, on a bipartisan basis, to do all these things--increase oil production, increase the use of natural gas, increase renewables with market-based approaches, and use technology to drive energy and do it with better environmental stewardship. One of the things I submitted legislation to do is approve the Keystone Pipeline. It is an issue that has been very much in the national discussion. It has gotten a lot of attention. It is a straightforward concept. It simply says let's develop the infrastructure in our country, so that as we produce more oil in Canada--Canada has the third largest oil reserves in the world. No. 1 is Saudi Arabia, No. 2 is Venezuela, and No. 3 is Canada. Let's work with Canada to tap and use more of that oil. If we don't, it will go to China. But we can do it. We simply have to develop the infrastructure and work with Canada. What has the opposition to that oil development been? A number of arguments have come up. The main one behind it is, some people say we don't want to produce oil in the oil sands; we don't want to do that. The concern, in their opinion, is greenhouse gas. It has about a 6- percent higher greenhouse gas emission than conventional drilling production. The important point is--going back to the last chart, which I mentioned in the national energy security plan is let's use technology to produce more energy with better stewardship. What I mean is, when we talk about the oil sands, rather than using the current excavation method, 80 percent of the new development is going to in situ, which is essentially drilling. So it is basically the same footprint and same greenhouse gas emissions as conventional drilling for oil and gas. So let's use that new technology to produce more energy, more oil in the Canadian oil sands, and do it with better environmental stewardship. We will then be getting oil from a dependable ally, rather than getting 30 percent of our crude from the Middle East and Venezuela. It is just common sense. We win with more energy at a lower cost. We win with job creation, and we win with better environmental stewardship. We need to just get the right policies, the right law, and the right approach to how we regulate these things in place. That is what the Domestic Fuels Act is all about. It is an example of exactly how we do that. The Domestic Fuels Act essentially says, all right, when we pull up to the gas station, we should be able to get whatever fuel provides the best energy for what we need at the best possible price. It is about consumer choice, and it is about lowering the cost at the pump. Right now, when you pull in, very often the petroleum retail marketer has multiple tanks in order to dispense various types of fuel. It might be traditional gasoline from petroleum, it might be some blend of petroleum and ethanol, he might have biodiesel, and increasingly service stations, gas stations, are looking to market natural gas. But think about it. If they have to have a different set of tanks, different set of piping, and different dispensers for each type of fuel, then they have to make a choice, don't they. They can maybe offer gasoline from petroleum, they can maybe offer some ethanol blend, they can maybe offer biodiesel, or maybe they try natural gas; right? But if they have to have tanks and pumps and piping for each one, think of the cost--hundreds of thousands of dollars. So how do you get consumer choice? How do you get consumer choice in there? Also, how do you get the lowest price? If petroleum-based gasoline versus ethanol-based is cheaper, well, then, maybe they want to offer straight petroleum, not have a blend. But if they can mix it with ethanol, offer even up to E85, and that is cheaper, they may want to offer that. If they want to offer biodiesel rather than traditional diesel or if they want to offer natural gas--because increasingly we have trucks and buses particularly in our urban areas using natural gas--how do they do it? That is the point. What this act provides is that the EPA has to streamline the process so a service station or gas station can use their existing tanks and equipment so they can decide to offer any one of those products. Now we have more consumer choice and we have a way to drive down prices at the pump--drive down the cost of gasoline, drive down the cost of biofuels, drive down the cost of natural gas, or whatever it is--consumer choice, lower prices, and that extends back through the production chain as well. If I produce ethanol, if I produce biodiesel, if I produce gasoline or natural gas, I know I am going to be able to market those products to consumers. This is about looking to the future instead of looking to the past. This isn't about government spending any more money. This is about the government empowering industry, empowering entrepreneurship, empowering the energy sector, and empowering our consumers with choice and lower costs at the pump. It is just common sense. It is just common sense. We give the marketer a way to market whatever product makes the most sense and whatever best serves the consumers at the best price. We give them liability protection so they know they can go forward and offer these different products without worrying about being sued and losing their livelihood so they are willing to do it. We provide a clear and simple pathway so they know what they have to accomplish in order to best serve their consumers and build their business. This is about the right kind of legal framework. This is about the right kind of legislation that is clear, understandable, and empowering. This is how we get government working for people rather than people working for government. This is how we build the right kind of energy future based on all of the above. This isn't just about saying, hey, let's do all of the above when it comes to energy development. This is about doing it. This is about making a difference for the American consumer, and we can do it. This legislation is bipartisan legislation. I am very pleased Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri is cosponsoring it with me, along with Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Mike Crapo of Idaho, and I believe we will have many others joining us on both sides of the aisle. Also, we are working with Representative John Shimkus in the House who will be introducing companion legislation as well. The other point I want to make in concluding is that we have broad- based support from companies and people who work in the traditional energy sector as well as the renewable energy sector, who make the equipment that dispense gasoline and other types of fuel products and the people who sell gasoline and all types of fuel. They are all onboard. Let me give an example. From the renewable fuels energy sector, we have the Renewable Fuels Association endorsing this legislation, and also Growth Energy. From traditional oil and gas, the American Petroleum Institute has endorsed this legislation, as has Tesoro Corporation and ExxonMobil, and there are many others. From the service stations--the marketers that actually dispense the product--endorsing this legislation is the National Association of Convenience Stores, the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, and the National Association of Truck Stop Operators. From the people who make the equipment, the manufacturers that make the equipment, we have received endorsements as well from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and also the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute. Look, everybody is onboard. Now we need to get to work and get it in place. This is about building the right kind of energy future for our country. We have to get going. Gasoline prices are $4 at the pump, and they are going higher. We can do something about it, and that is exactly what we need to do. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort on behalf of the American people.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce bipartisan energy legislation, the Domestic Fuels Act. This legislation is designed to help hard-working Americans with the high fuel prices, the high gas prices they are paying at the pump. This legislation will truly help us do ``all of the above'' when it comes to producing and providing lower cost energy for American consumers, American businesses, and to fuel our economy, help create jobs, and also to create greater national energy security. It is part of what I believe we need to do to truly have an energy security plan for our country. I wish to take a few minutes to talk about the Domestic Fuels Act. We are going to start with a quick review of gas prices. As we all very well know, gas prices are high, and they continue to go higher. AAA indicated this week the national average for a gallon of gasoline is $3.91 a gallon. Gasoline prices, over the last 3 years of the current administration, have more than doubled from about roughly $1.87 to the national average today of more than $3.90. I believe there are nine States right now where, on average, gas is more than $4 a gallon. In Chicago, for example, I believe it is about $4.68. Over here, a few blocks from the Capitol, I checked not too long ago and it was $4.39 a gallon. This puts enormous pressure and strain on American consumers, hard- working Americans, every day, when they are being forced to fill their car at the gas pump and spend close to $4 per gallon. Some predictions are that later this summer, it may go to $5 a gallon. Clearly, we have to find a way to help with gasoline prices across this country. What it comes down to is supply and demand. More supply creates downward pressure on gasoline prices; more demand, of course, pushes prices higher. So we have to find ways to increase the supply and increase the supply in a dependable way. That means not only increasing supply now but having policies in place that increase supply now and in the future. We need to send signals to the market that we are serious about growing our supply of energy--all types of energy--certainly gas and oil but all types of energy in this country, as well as working with our neighbors we can count on, such as Canada, for more supplies to help reduce the price of gasoline and, frankly, reduce the cost of all types of energy to help get the economy going, to have more national security and more jobs to put the 13 million people who are unemployed back to work. Energy is a key aspect of creating the type of economic environment that will help us do that. This chart shows our current level of crude oil production. The first bar shows that between ourselves and Canada, we produce just under 10 million barrels of crude and crude equivalent right now. In North America--Canada and the United States--we produce under 10 million barrels of crude today. That comes not only from conventional oil but oil shale, tight oil, oil sands, Arctic, and offshore--all these different sources. Under the current policies, we can see by looking at this next bar that over the next 15 years the supply of oil and gas coming from Canada and the United States will shrink. Under the current policies and the current approach, without the kind of energy policy we need in this country, we actually will have less oil and gas from Canada and the United States over the next 15 years. The key is this: We have to implement the kind of energy policy that will help us produce more energy, oil and gas, and from all sources, traditional and renewable. That is what we are talking about with this Domestic Fuels Act. The third bar on this chart shows that just from oil and gas, with the right kinds of policies over the next 15 years--this is a 15-year timeframe--we can produce more oil and gas in Canada and the United States than we consume. So before we bring in other types of energy-- biofuels and any other types, any renewable energy we want to include, just from oil and gas, with the right kinds of policies in Canada and the United States, over the next 15 years we can produce more energy than we consume. Think what that means in terms of helping bring down the price of gasoline and in terms of creating jobs in our country; think of what that means in terms of national security, not needing to depend on crude oil from the Middle East. That is just with the right policies to develop more oil and gas. Of course, we can develop all the other types of energy resources as well. Let's not take 15 years to get this done. Let's have a plan for national energy security that gets it done in the next 5 to 7 years. There is no question we can do it. We can absolutely do it. How do we do it? Very simple and very common sense. When we talk about producing ``all of the above,'' let's actually do that. Let's not say ``all of the above'' and then block energy production. Let's have the kinds of energy policies in place, traditional sources and renewable sources, on a bipartisan basis. Let's put the types of policies in place that will truly help us get to energy security, and let's do it over the next 5 to 7 years. Let's increase oil production in the United States and Canada. Let's have the policies that help us produce more oil onshore and off. Let's increase natural gas production and usage. Again, let's join with Canada and do this with North American energy. We have incredible potential with Canada. We are the closest friends and allies in the world. Let's increase the renewable fuels we produce right here at home. We can do that with a market-based approach. Let's increase our use of renewable fuels with market-based approaches that work. Let's use technology to drive energy production--produce more energy--with better environmental stewardship. We can do all these things. When we talk about an energy security plan or the path to energy security in our country, these are very commonsense steps. I have bills, as do other Members of this body, on a bipartisan basis, to do all these things--increase oil production, increase the use of natural gas, increase renewables with market-based approaches, and use technology to drive energy and do it with better environmental stewardship. One of the things I submitted legislation to do is approve the Keystone Pipeline. It is an issue that has been very much in the national discussion. It has gotten a lot of attention. It is a straightforward concept. It simply says let's develop the infrastructure in our country, so that as we produce more oil in Canada--Canada has the third largest oil reserves in the world. No. 1 is Saudi Arabia, No. 2 is Venezuela, and No. 3 is Canada. Let's work with Canada to tap and use more of that oil. If we don't, it will go to China. But we can do it. We simply have to develop the infrastructure and work with Canada. What has the opposition to that oil development been? A number of arguments have come up. The main one behind it is, some people say we don't want to produce oil in the oil sands; we don't want to do that. The concern, in their opinion, is greenhouse gas. It has about a 6- percent higher greenhouse gas emission than conventional drilling production. The important point is--going back to the last chart, which I mentioned in the national energy security plan is let's use technology to produce more energy with better stewardship. What I mean is, when we talk about the oil sands, rather than using the current excavation method, 80 percent of the new development is going to in situ, which is essentially drilling. So it is basically the same footprint and same greenhouse gas emissions as conventional drilling for oil and gas. So let's use that new technology to produce more energy, more oil in the Canadian oil sands, and do it with better environmental stewardship. We will then be getting oil from a dependable ally, rather than getting 30 percent of our crude from the Middle East and Venezuela. It is just common sense. We win with more energy at a lower cost. We win with job creation, and we win with better environmental stewardship. We need to just get the right policies, the right law, and the right approach to how we regulate these things in place. That is what the Domestic Fuels Act is all about. It is an example of exactly how we do that. The Domestic Fuels Act essentially says, all right, when we pull up to the gas station, we should be able to get whatever fuel provides the best energy for what we need at the best possible price. It is about consumer choice, and it is about lowering the cost at the pump. Right now, when you pull in, very often the petroleum retail marketer has multiple tanks in order to dispense various types of fuel. It might be traditional gasoline from petroleum, it might be some blend of petroleum and ethanol, he might have biodiesel, and increasingly service stations, gas stations, are looking to market natural gas. But think about it. If they have to have a different set of tanks, different set of piping, and different dispensers for each type of fuel, then they have to make a choice, don't they. They can maybe offer gasoline from petroleum, they can maybe offer some ethanol blend, they can maybe offer biodiesel, or maybe they try natural gas; right? But if they have to have tanks and pumps and piping for each one, think of the cost--hundreds of thousands of dollars. So how do you get consumer choice? How do you get consumer choice in there? Also, how do you get the lowest price? If petroleum-based gasoline versus ethanol-based is cheaper, well, then, maybe they want to offer straight petroleum, not have a blend. But if they can mix it with ethanol, offer even up to E85, and that is cheaper, they may want to offer that. If they want to offer biodiesel rather than traditional diesel or if they want to offer natural gas--because increasingly we have trucks and buses particularly in our urban areas using natural gas--how do they do it? That is the point. What this act provides is that the EPA has to streamline the process so a service station or gas station can use their existing tanks and equipment so they can decide to offer any one of those products. Now we have more consumer choice and we have a way to drive down prices at the pump--drive down the cost of gasoline, drive down the cost of biofuels, drive down the cost of natural gas, or whatever it is--consumer choice, lower prices, and that extends back through the production chain as well. If I produce ethanol, if I produce biodiesel, if I produce gasoline or natural gas, I know I am going to be able to market those products to consumers. This is about looking to the future instead of looking to the past. This isn't about government spending any more money. This is about the government empowering industry, empowering entrepreneurship, empowering the energy sector, and empowering our consumers with choice and lower costs at the pump. It is just common sense. It is just common sense. We give the marketer a way to market whatever product makes the most sense and whatever best serves the consumers at the best price. We give them liability protection so they know they can go forward and offer these different products without worrying about being sued and losing their livelihood so they are willing to do it. We provide a clear and simple pathway so they know what they have to accomplish in order to best serve their consumers and build their business. This is about the right kind of legal framework. This is about the right kind of legislation that is clear, understandable, and empowering. This is how we get government working for people rather than people working for government. This is how we build the right kind of energy future based on all of the above. This isn't just about saying, hey, let's do all of the above when it comes to energy development. This is about doing it. This is about making a difference for the American consumer, and we can do it. This legislation is bipartisan legislation. I am very pleased Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri is cosponsoring it with me, along with Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Mike Crapo of Idaho, and I believe we will have many others joining us on both sides of the aisle. Also, we are working with Representative John Shimkus in the House who will be introducing companion legislation as well. The other point I want to make in concluding is that we have broad- based support from companies and people who work in the traditional energy sector as well as the renewable energy sector, who make the equipment that dispense gasoline and other types of fuel products and the people who sell gasoline and all types of fuel. They are all onboard. Let me give an example. From the renewable fuels energy sector, we have the Renewable Fuels Association endorsing this legislation, and also Growth Energy. From traditional oil and gas, the American Petroleum Institute has endorsed this legislation, as has Tesoro Corporation and ExxonMobil, and there are many others. From the service stations--the marketers that actually dispense the product--endorsing this legislation is the National Association of Convenience Stores, the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, and the National Association of Truck Stop Operators. From the people who make the equipment, the manufacturers that make the equipment, we have received endorsements as well from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and also the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute. Look, everybody is onboard. Now we need to get to work and get it in place. This is about building the right kind of energy future for our country. We have to get going. Gasoline prices are $4 at the pump, and they are going higher. We can do something about it, and that is exactly what we need to do. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort on behalf of the American people.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I do.

Mr. HOEVEN. So no amendments will be allowed? Mr. President, I think that is unfortunate. It is time, it is well past time, to take action on behalf of the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am here to offer a substitute amendment to the Menendez act, which is currently under consideration on the Senate floor. That is S. 2204. The substitute amendment I would like to offer is legislation I have authored along with Senator Lugar and also Senator Vitter. It is legislation that would approve construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and authorize that that construction proceed. That authority is provided to Congress under the commerce clause of the Constitution. With gas prices now close to $4--and going higher-- Congress needs to act. President Obama has turned down the pipeline. He continues to block the Keystone XL Pipeline, and it is time for Congress to act on behalf of the American consumer. Every single American, every hard-working American, is feeling this pain at the pump. The Keystone XL Pipeline would help us produce more energy supply for our country to help reduce the price of gasoline at the pump. It will help us create more jobs in this country. Close to 13 million Americans are now unemployed. It would help put more of those Americans back to work. Of course, it would help reduce our reliance on oil from the Middle East. The first chart I have in the Chamber shows what is happening with gasoline prices in the United States. This is over the last 3-year period. This shows the price of gasoline was about $1.87 a gallon when President Obama took office 3 years ago. Today, the national average, I believe stated by AAA, is on the order of $3.91. So the price of gasoline during the Obama administration's tenure has more than doubled. It has more than doubled. I think there is something like 8 or 9 States now where the average price of a gallon of gasoline is over $4. In places such as Chicago-- the President's hometown--I believe the average price is on the order of $4.68. If we go right down to the corner here, right near the Capitol, I filled my car the other day. It cost me more than $100 to fill the tank, and I think the price was $4.39 a gallon. So what is the solution offered in the Menendez legislation? What is the solution proposed by the Obama administration? What is the solution proposed in this bill we are considering right now on the Senate floor? What that bill would do is raise taxes on energy companies. It would raise taxes on energy companies. Let's think about this. We are going to raise taxes on these energy companies, so we are going to increase their costs. When we add taxes, that means it not only raises their costs, which will create even higher costs at the pump for American consumers, but it also tends to restrict supply. If we want less of something, and if we want it to cost more, what do we do? We tax it. So this legislation does exactly the opposite of what will help the American consumers with the price of gasoline at the pump. Instead, we need to increase supply. By providing more supply, we help create downward pressure on gasoline prices. That helps our hard- working Americans not only today but tomorrow as well. Let's talk about that. Why are gas prices high? It is supply and demand. This is economics. This is about supply and demand. If we increase supply, we put downward pressure on prices. If we increase demand, we put upward pressure on prices. Global demand for oil is growing. We know that. Global demand is growing. So we need to increase the supply; otherwise, that growing demand continues to push gasoline prices higher. As shown on this chart, here is the amount of crude oil we produce in the United States, along with our good friends in Canada today. That is shown in the first bar on this chart. We can see, it is just below 10 million barrels a day. That is where we are now. With the current policies the administration has in place, we will actually produce less supply in the future--less supply in the future. Think about that. If gasoline prices are a function of supply and demand, it is not only the supply and demand of today, it is what people anticipate the supply and demand will be in the future. If we have growing global demand--which we know we have--and we have an administration that is constricting supply, then not only do we have an issue in terms of present supply and demand, but we have people going: Look, there is going to be less supply. We know there is going to be growing demand. That puts upward pressure on prices. So the actions of the administration have a direct impact, a direct correlation with the price of gasoline at the pump. As I showed on the previous chart, under this administration, gas prices have more than doubled. So what we need to do is, we need to produce ``all of the above.'' We need to produce ``all of the above.'' Note that I said ``produce'' it. I do not mean talk about it. I do not mean block it when it comes to building needed infrastructure such as the Keystone XL Pipeline or preventing us from drilling offshore or preventing us from drilling onshore or having the redtape that prevents us from getting permits and the regulatory burden that prevents us from producing more energy. I mean actually doing it--not blocking it, doing it. This third bar on the chart shows that if we just worked to produce more oil and gas in the United States and Canada, we can produce more than we consume within 15 years. That is just oil and gas. That is not even ``all of the above.'' That does not count producing all the natural gas we have in this country and in Canada or biofuels or other sources. That is just oil and gas if we start working to produce it rather than have the administration continue to block it. Of course, that is what I am talking about with the Keystone XL Pipeline. The President has studied the Keystone Pipeline, the administration has studied it, the State Department has studied it, the EPA has studied it for 3\1/2\ years. Now the Department of Energy has come out and said--they did a study in June of last year--in their study, they said: We need the crude in the United States. We will use the crude in the United States, and it will lower gas prices on the east coast, on the gulf coast, and in the Midwest. That is Secretary Chu, the Secretary of Energy--his Department of Energy produced the report, and that is what it said. After 3\1/2\ years, the President says: That is not long enough. We need more time. The administration needs more time to make a decision. After his own State Department said they would have a decision done before the end of the year--before the end of the year--the President says: No, we need more time, maybe sometime after the election--maybe. We need more time to make the decision. So Congress said: OK. We will help out. You have expressed concern about the routing of the pipeline through Nebraska. We will pass legislation to kind of give you support and encouragement that says they can go ahead and build the pipeline, and we will give them whatever time they need to reroute Nebraska so there is no issue because that is what you have identified as the problem. We passed that legislation as part of the payroll tax cut extension. The President denied it, turned it down, blocked it, and he continues to block the Keystone XL Pipeline today. A couple weeks ago, bipartisan legislation--the very same legislation I am offering in this substitute amendment--was brought to the Senate floor. Bipartisan legislation. We had 11 Democrats who voted with us. Fifty-six votes, well over a majority--56 votes. The reason we did not get 60 votes on the legislation is because that day the President was calling Members of this body, this Senate body, to get them to vote no. So we got 56 votes instead of the 60 we needed. The very next week--after calling Members of the Senate to get them to vote down this legislation that would authorize moving forward so we could actually bring oil in from Canada, bring more oil from my home State of North Dakota to refineries to help out Americans at the pump-- the very next week, after blocking the pipeline, after calling Members of the Senate to get them to vote against it, the President goes to Cushing, OK, and takes credit for this small portion, the southern leg of the pipeline project, saying that somehow he is expediting it. Interestingly enough, that is the only portion of the pipeline that does not require his approval. But after blocking it, he goes down and takes credit for somehow expediting the portion that was going to be built anyway, while he continues to block the two-thirds that actually brings us more oil. So go back to what I said just a minute ago. We need more supply. If the policy of this country is to say all of the above, but then go about blocking our ability to produce more supply, guess what happens. Prices go up. Because what counts are the actions. So the market takes that into account and says: Look, if supply is going to be constrained, then we anticipate higher prices in the future with growing global demand. That is what we see: prices rising at the pump. Look, we can have energy security in this country. We need to increase our oil production in this country and work with our neighbor to the north, Canada, rather than have them send their oil to China, which is what will happen if we cannot build these pipelines. We need to increase our use of natural gas. We need to do ``all of the above,'' increase renewable fuels, with a market-based approach--a market-based approach--and we need to use technology to drive energy production in this country, and working with Canada, with better environmental stewardship. What I mean by that, in Canada, oil is produced in the oil sands with in situ, which is the new technique. It is similar to drilling, rather than the old methods--more energy, better environmental stewardship. Look, we can create a more secure energy future for our country, we can create jobs in America, and we can reduce the price of gasoline at the pump for hard-working Americans. But we need to take commonsense steps, and we need to take them now to produce more oil and gas, to produce more energy of all kinds in this country. We are asking for the President to work with us to do just that. Mr. President, at this point, I have a parliamentary inquiry: When the Senate resumes consideration of the pending energy tax bill, would it be in order for me to offer my amendment, a substitute amendment, which would approve the Keystone XL Pipeline to help Americans at the pump with the price of gasoline?

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I request an opportunity to speak for up to 10 minutes on the pending energy legislation.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank Senator Johanns. It is good to be with him. Also, to Senator Lamar Alexander from the great State of Tennessee, it is great to be with him as well. We share, I guess, the common experience of serving as Governors and certainly bring that perspective to our work in the Senate. As Senator Alexander just said, there is no question ObamaCare is making the health care challenge in the United States worse, is making it worse. We have to find a way to empower our people. In our roles as Governors, before serving in the Senate, that is what we tried to do. When it came to Medicaid, when it came to health care, it was how do we empower our people, whether it is health care or anything else, in a way that not only makes their lives better but that makes sure we are fulfilling our responsibility as good stewards of the State's treasury on behalf of the citizens of our respective States. Last week was the second anniversary of the Obama health care legislation--the second anniversary. The fact is, since that law was passed--and just 1 minute ago, Senator Alexander expressed some of the things he talked about when that debate was had in the Congress. But since that law was passed, over the past 2 years, Americans have become more unhappy with the legislation. The Obama health care legislation has actually become more unpopular over the last few years as time has gone by because, quite simply, Americans do not want government-run health care. Americans do not want government-run health care. That is what ObamaCare is. Americans want to be free to choose their own health care provider, their own doctors, their own hospitals. They also want to be able to be free to choose their own health care insurance. Frankly, they are going to do a lot better job than having the Federal Government do it for them. That is just a fact. Of course, that is very much at issue now with the Supreme Court deliberations, the judicial review they are undertaking now on the constitutionality of the individual mandates in the Obama health care legislation. Of course, the question is, Is that individual mandate constitutional? If it is, if they find that individual mandate is constitutional, then is there any limit to the government's ability to intrude into the lives of our citizens? This is a huge question. If so, what happened to the concept of limited government, which was so carefully developed by our Founding Fathers in our Constitution? It seems to me that concept of limited government is gone. That is an incredible problem for all of us that extends far beyond health care. As former Governors, we understand the need to limit government, whether it is the local level--and the Senator was a mayor. Senator Johanns was a mayor in Lincoln, NE, before he was the Governor of Nebraska, now a Senator from Nebraska, and he understands that one of the fundamental responsibilities of a mayor, of a Governor, of a Senator is to make sure we honor the Constitution and we limit the power of government, at the local, the State, and the Federal level, to intrude into the lives of our citizens. That is exactly what our Founding Fathers were striving to do in the Constitution, the whole concept of checks and balances. We have a legislative branch and a judicial branch and an executive branch because that creates checks and balances on the respective powers of each branch. Why? To protect our citizens, to limit the reach of government. We have a bicameral Congress, the House and the Senate, to make it harder to pass laws, not easier--to make it harder to pass laws. Again, it is to protect the people of this country. We have the 10th amendment that reserves powers to the State not expressly provided to the Federal Government; again, to limit the power of government and protect the people of this great country. Of course, that is what we have in our Bill of Rights. That is what it is all about. So we have ObamaCare; it raises taxes by $\1/2\ trillion. It raises taxes $500 billion. It cuts Medicare $\1/2\ trillion, $500 billion. Yet, at the same time, it places huge costs, a huge burden on the States. The CBO now estimates that over the next 10 years it will cost the States $118 billion. That is $118 billion in costs to the States who are trying to balance their budgets. They are already facing challenges in doing that, and we will put that kind of huge cost on them. At the same time, think of what it does to our small businesses. Again, as a Governor, I know how it was in my State. I think it was true when the Senator from Nebraska was Governor and when Senator Alexander was Governor of Tennessee. We understood that job creation was job one. We had to make sure businesses were able to work effectively, to compete, and to employ people. That is the engine that drives our economy, the small businesses. When we look at ObamaCare, we look at what it does to the States--the $118 billion over 10 years--and look at the costs it creates for small businesses and look at the confusion it creates in trying to comply with all of this. What do small businesses do? The Senator from Nebraska talked a minute ago about, OK, what does the small business do? Well, either, A, they try to comply, and that drives up their costs or, B, they cancel their insurance and default to the government-run insurance. But it not only creates a problem for them in determining whether they are going to continue health care for their employees--and our citizens have shown they want the employer to continue doing that, and it goes to whether they hire more people. Here we are with 8.3 percent unemployment, 13 million people looking for work, and we are going to make it harder for small businesses to put them to work because they don't know if they can comply with ObamaCare, let alone withstand the cost. That affects every single American. We need to change the approach. That is what we are talking about today. We are talking about an approach where we can empower people to choose their own health insurance and provider, an approach that encourages competition, which will help bring costs down, giving our consumers more choice. We are here to talk about how we work with States and small businesses to reduce costs, reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. The President of AARP, Barry Rand, estimates that $100 billion is lost annually in waste, fraud, and abuse under Medicaid. Think what our States could do on behalf of their citizens in all 50 States if we in the Congress, working with an administration that will work with us, would empower the States to go after that waste, fraud, and abuse by giving their citizens more say over their health care and by encouraging competition among insurance companies to provide more choice, access, and to go after that waste, fraud, and abuse. There are so many things we can do, but it is not through a big, monolithic, government-run insurance program that puts costs on the States and costs on its citizens. That is what we need to change. We need to change it now. Again, I thank Senator Alexander for being here and for his work to empower our people when it comes to health care. Also, I particularly thank Senator Johanns for calling us together to discuss this very important issue on behalf of the people of America.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Keystone XL Pipeline will bring more than 830,000 barrels a day of crude oil from Canada and also from States like mine, such as North Dakota and Montana. We need that crude oil rather than relying on the Middle East. This is a vote to block the project. Make no mistake, this not only requires the TransCanada start-over, it says start over after 3\1/2\ years. What does that mean, another 3\1/2\ years before they can go forward? And it adds additional impediments to the project. With gasoline prices going up every day, we need more supply, we need it from Canada, we need it from North Dakota and Montana, not from the Middle East. Please vote no on this amendment and yes on the next one, which will allow us to move forward for American workers, American consumers, for our businesses, for our economy, and for national security.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I am waiting for my associate who has some charts, but I certainly can proceed at this point. I am here to speak in regard to my amendment No. 1537, which is at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that it be reported by number.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of this amendment which would authorize the Keystone XL Pipeline project to move forward. It provides an authorization after more than 3\1/2\ years of study. It incorporates all of the safeguards that have been developed through the environmental impact statement process with both EPA and the Department of State, and it allows whatever time may be necessary for rerouting in Nebraska. So it addresses the concerns that have been raised as far as the environmental impact statement but authorizes the project to proceed. This project will bring 830,000 barrels a day of crude to our refineries, as I mentioned earlier, not only from Canada but from my home State of North Dakota, as well as from Montana. This is about not only producing more energy both at home and with our closest friend and ally, Canada, but it is also about national security. It is about reducing our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Mr. HOEVEN. I urge my colleagues' strong support for this amendment on behalf of American workers and consumers.

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

Mr. HOEVEN. This is an amendment that would provide for approval of the Keystone Pipeline project. Congress has, under the commerce clause of the Constitution, express authority to regulate commerce with foreign countries. That provides the very clear constitutional authority for Congress to approve the Keystone Pipeline project. That is something we absolutely need to do. Today there will be a very clear choice. There will be a very clear choice for the Members of the Senate. Make no mistake, I do not want to leave any doubt. This is a clear choice. My amendment provides that the Keystone Pipeline project will move forward, authorized by Congress. It is very clear that all the protections, all the environmental protections are incorporated, as has been provided over 3\1/2\ years-- 3\1/2\ years this project has been under review by the EPA, by the Department of State, by this administration. They have gone through not one but two environmental impact statement processes. They have met all the environmental requirements. Our legislation incorporates all that and in addition provides whatever time is necessary for rerouting the pipeline through the State of Nebraska. Here is a schematic of the project. The one issue in terms of the routing was through the State of Nebraska. This legislation provides whatever time is necessary for the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality to work with State, to work with EPA, and reroute the pipeline through the State of Nebraska. So my point is, we incorporate all necessary environmental safeguards into the project. But it authorizes that the project, after 3\1/2\ years, can go forward. So I would like to talk for just a minute about why that is so important. Because there is another amendment, an alternative that has been presented by Senator Wyden. That amendment-- let me be clear. That amendment will block this project. That amendment will block this project. Let there be no confusion. The Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter amendment will advance the project. The amendment that is being put forward by my esteemed colleague Senator Wyden as a Democratic alternative, that will block the project. This is a clear choice. Nobody should be confused. Gas prices. This chart is a few days old. So it is a little bit behind the curve. But since this administration took office, gas prices have gone from $1.85 a gallon--more than doubled--to $3.70 a gallon. This is a little bit old, so the national average is actually higher. The last time I checked it was $3.76 a gallon, going up. So it is probably higher than that today. That is from AAA. The projections are that gasoline prices will be $4 a gallon by Memorial Day and possibly more than $5 a gallon later this summer. That means every American is paying that at the pump. They are paying that at the pump. That is affecting our American consumers. That is affecting our businesses. That is affecting our economy. What is the administration doing about it? What is Congress doing about it? The Obama administration has said, when it comes to energy, we are going to have an all-of-the-above strategy. I agree with that. We should have an all-of-the-above strategy. But the point is, we cannot just say it. We have to do it. We cannot just say it. We have to do it. The administration, at this point, not only are they just saying it and not doing it, they are, in fact, blocking it. I am giving you as clear an example as I can think of. I do not know how it could be any clearer that they are blocking energy development in our country. This pipeline project would bring 830,000 barrels a day of crude oil to our country. That is more than 700,000 barrels a day from Canada. That is more than 100,000 barrels a day from my home State of North Dakota and our sister State Montana--830,000 barrels a day of product coming to our refineries. The administration has said no to this project. They continue to say no to the project. They have approved this portion of it. That does not bring one single drop of product to our country. So I do not know. They are kind of confused about exactly what they are doing, but they continue to block this project. So that means 830,000 barrels a day that we have to get from the Middle East. Everybody knows what is going on in the Middle East. They have incredible turmoil. They have incredible tension in the Middle East. Iran may close the Strait of Hormuz; they have threatened to do that. As a result, crude oil prices continue to go up and consumers continue to pay more at the pump. So in the face of all that, in the face of real hardship to working Americans, the administration is saying no to this project. They are saying no to my home State of North Dakota. They are saying no to Montana. They are saying, no, we are not going to allow them to build this project that gets that product to market and no to Canada, saying we are not going to allow them to bring that oil into the United States, instead they are going to have to send it to China and we are going to get oil from the Middle East and our consumers are going to continue to pay higher prices. Again, make no mistake. This choice today is a choice. It is a choice whether we vote for an amendment to move forward with this project or whether we vote for an amendment to block the project. Again, there should be no confusion about that. Why would the administration hold up this project? Why in the world, with gas prices we know going to $4, maybe $5 a gallon, why in the world would anyone oppose the project? The opponents have put forward three arguments. So let's go through them. Let's go through them and see if they hold water. Let's see if they pass muster. Let's see if they make sense. The first argument is that somehow this pipeline is going to leak. Now here is the route. Somehow we will build this pipeline that is going to leak. But we built a sister project that is working just fine. There have been no underground leaks in that project. While building it, there were minimal leaks as they put it together, and that was in the normal course of construction. But there have been no other ground leaks from this sister pipeline. It is working fine. So why would this one be a big concern about leaking? It doesn't make much sense. If you don't buy that, just look at this chart and the network of pipelines in this country that carries oil and gas. There are thousands of pipelines, millions of miles of pipeline right now operating in this country right through the very region through which the Keystone XL Pipeline would pass. But somehow this one is a problem and these thousands are not? That is a reason to say no, after 3\1/2\ years? Come on. That doesn't pass anybody's test, and it doesn't make any sense. The second argument that has been put forward is that the crude oil will come from Canada, and it will be then exported to China; we won't use it in the United States; and it won't help with gas prices. For starters, let's use some common sense on that one. I am pretty sure if we don't build the pipeline, it is for sure going to China. That is just flat-out common sense, for starters. Even beyond that, the Department of Energy for this administration did a study in June of last year. In that study, they said the oil will be used in this country, and it will--not ``may'' but ``will''--lower gas prices on the east coast, the gulf coast, and in the Midwest. I had Secretary Chu in front of me at one of our hearings, and he acknowledged that, in fact, that is what the Department of Energy of this administration provided--that the product will be used here, that we are going to need more crude, and it will lower gas prices. Of course, that just stands to reason, doesn't it? If we are importing 30 percent of our oil from the Middle East today, obviously, we are going to continue to need crude from outside our borders. Let's go to the third argument I have heard against the pipeline project, which is that Canada should not produce oil in the Canadian oil sands. The reason: Greenhouse gas emissions are 6 percent higher than conventional, and that the excavating process has a negative impact on the boreal forest. Let's deal with the real situation, the current situation. The current situation is that 80 percent of the development in the Canadian oil sands is in situ--80 percent. What does that mean? That means drilling--not excavating but drilling--like we do in the United States. So you have about the same footprint in gas emissions as conventional drilling. Those arguments don't hold muster. Here we are faced with a very clear choice. Do we go ahead and get oil from our closest friends and trading partner, Canada, or say no to them and have them send it to China? Do we reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and reduce the price of gas for hard-working American consumers? How about national security? Would you rather rely on oil from the Middle East or from Canada? Would you rather have oil produced here, in North Dakota, Montana, and in Canada, or would you rather get it from the Middle East? I know how Americans will answer that question. I am looking forward to seeing how the Senate answers that question and how the administration answers that question. Again, this is a clear choice. These amendments are clear. They are not similar. One is for the project; the other is against the project. The amendment that my esteemed colleague has put forward, the Democrat alternative, will block the project. It says after 3\1/2\ years of study, start over. After 3\1/2\ years of studying this project, start over. What does that mean? Another 3\1/2\ years before we build it or another 5 years? How long do we have to study vital infrastructure projects before we can build them? Do you think that might be one of the problems with our economy? Do you think that might be one of the problems with energy development? That is where it starts, by saying: TransCanada, start over, after 3\1/ 2\ years. Then it adds additional impediments. What are they? Well, it says, for starters, none of the crude and none of the refined product can be exported from this country--not one drop. We cannot export any of it. The reality is there are refined products that we don't even use in this country. You can't. They are some of the coking products, and so on and so forth. There isn't demand or we cannot use them. If the refineries cannot sell them, they have to recoup that revenue stream. How? When they sell gasoline and diesel in our country. That pushes gasoline prices higher when they are already going higher by the day. Does that make sense to anybody? I don't think so. Another impediment in the legislation is that not one penny of the inputs can come from outside the United States, even though 75 percent of the steel and 90 percent of all of the other materials in this multibillion-dollar project, paid for by private enterprise--75 percent of the steel and 90 percent of the other inputs come from North America. But that is not good enough. We are going to say every single penny of the inputs has to be bought in the United States. Of course, the companies cannot do that because they have already bought a lot of the steel and other materials. It is just a way to block the project. Think about that absurd level of protectionism. Are we really going to grow our economy, create a lot of good jobs with that kind of protectionism? We cannot import anything and we cannot export anything, we are going to grow and expand and diversify this American economy and put people to work, and we are going to raise income with that approach? I don't think so. Again, I go back to where I started. We have a clear choice to make, a very clear choice. We can stand with the people of America, stand with the workers, with the families, with the small business, and we can work to grow our economy and create jobs, and we can work to strengthen our national security or we can choose to say: No, we are going to continue to rely on oil from the Middle East. We are not going to increase supply, and we are not only going to turn down Canada, we are going to turn down our States such as North Dakota and Montana and say we would rather get that oil from the Middle East. Today we have a clear choice about building a better energy future for our country, more jobs, and more security. I ask my colleagues to vote for the amendment I have put forward, to move the Keystone Pipeline project authority forward so they can advance the project, and vote against the amendment offered as a Democratic alternative, which will block the project.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I will, to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I request 10 minutes to speak in regard to a resolution.

Mr. HOEVEN. I echo the sentiments of the good Senator from South Carolina. What I would like to add is I think that is exactly the right question to pose. The Senator from Connecticut says: Where do we go from here? I think that is right-on. There is no question in my mind but that the relationships Senator McCain and Senator Graham have built overseas made a difference for the United States and our foreign policy. This is a clear example of it. When we sat down with Field Marshal Tantawi, when we met with other government leaders, even when we met with the Muslim Brotherhood, because of the fact that there was a relationship there, that they knew these individuals, there was some level of trust there that enabled us to engage in very important communications that produced a message that I think was integral to the resolution of this situation, which could have been a very bad one. These relationships matter when we talk about working with other countries, particularly in that part of the world. There are so many differences between our countries and how we operate that having some relationships where people can sit down, have these discussions, and talk about how we work together and foster some future agreement and some mutual understanding is vitally important. At the meeting with the Freedom and Justice Party parliamentary members, we invited them to come visit us. I think that would be very helpful and very important, not only so these new leaders and their parliament have a better sense of the United States and how we work and the kinds of relationships we can foster in both business and government but also so the Members of this Senate, of this Congress, and our people here get a better sense of them as well. I believe that is very important as we track forward with this new, young government that is now embarking on writing a constitution and governing in a vitally important country in the Middle East. At this point, I would like to turn things back to the good Senator from Arizona, with my sincere gratitude.

Mr. HOEVEN. I wish to thank the esteemed Senator from Arizona for allowing me to join him on the floor today to talk about this very important issue that has had a favorable outcome. Even more importantly, I want to express my great appreciation and gratitude to Senator McCain and Senator Graham for organizing the opportunity for us to go over to Egypt, and to not only meet with our NGO workers at the U.S. Embassy, but to engage in conversations and meetings with military and government leaders on this very important issue. It is not just these seven Americans we are very concerned about, and their safety--which obviously is paramount. But as Senator Graham indicated, this situation clearly had ramifications for the relationship on a longer term basis between Egypt and the United States, and Egypt and Israel, particularly in regard to the peace treaty. So taking this initiative to sit down with Field Marshal Tantawi, who is the leader of the military council, but also the leaders of the Freedom and Justice Party--which is the majority party now in the Parliament. Of course, that is the Muslim Brotherhood. We sat down with the Muslim Brotherhood as well. I think those meetings were extremely important in helping to foster an understanding that broke the logjam. I too want to commend the work of our Ambassador, Ambassador Anne Patterson. She did an outstanding job. I want to thank Secretary Clinton and the people at the State Department for their diligent efforts. But I must say, having the opportunity to be part of a delegation led by Senator McCain and Senator Graham gave us the opportunity to talk to the Muslim Brotherhood, gave us the opportunity to talk to the leaders of the Freedom and Justice Party. And the next day they put out a statement, which I agree was very important in helping move things forward, because what they said in that statement involved two things, two things that I do think helped break the logjam; first, that they support nongovernment organizations. They support nongovernment organizations. They recognize that these NGOs do important work, and they want to address the laws in Egypt to make sure they have good laws that will enable the NGOs to continue. The second thing they said, which I thought was particularly important, is they also expressed their concern about NGO workers, and that those NGO workers be treated fairly. As Senator McCain said, I hail from the State of North Dakota, and he knows I am going to say this. I can see the smile sneaking up on his face already. One of the NGO workers, one of the Americans detained under the travel ban whom I had the opportunity to visit with at the Embassy is a woman named Staci Haag. She has been over there working. Needless to say, I was worried about all of our Americans. I was really worried about Staci, and making sure that she and her fellow workers--and of course, Secretary LaHood's son, Sam LaHood, but all of them, that they were able to get home safely. Again, I think it was important in terms of fostering an understanding that I hope now will continue as we work to build relations with Egypt and their new government.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the Hoeven-Blumenthal resolution, and also, in addition to requesting 10 minutes, I request that my cosponsor on the resolution, Senator Blumenthal, be allowed to engage with me in this discussion. We have submitted a resolution calling for free and fair elections in Iran. Those elections will be held tomorrow, March 2. It is the first time the Republic of Iran has had parliamentary elections since June 12, 2009. I thank Senator Blumenthal for joining me in this resolution and also Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Joe Lieberman, and Senator Kelly Ayotte. As I say, I think we have now over 60 sponsors on this resolution, working to see that it can pass the Senate here very quickly. It expresses a sense of the Senate clearly calling for open, free, and fair elections in the Republic of Iran. The problem is that the elections they will be holding tomorrow are neither free nor fair. They are certainly not consistent with international standards. As I said, these will be the first nationwide parliamentary elections since June 12, 2009. Those elections were neither free nor fair, and they provoked widespread protests throughout Iran. Those protests were brutally repressed, put down by the regime, Ayatollah Khamenei and Prime Minister Ahmadinejad, trampling human rights and taking political prisoners who remain in prison to this very day. Since the last elections, uprisings, popular movements for self- determination, have taken place throughout the Middle East--often referred to as the Arab spring--in countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and other places as well. We want to support that right to self- determination in Iran for the people in Iran as well. Right now the only people who can run for office in Iran are people who are approved to run by the regime itself. They have the Council of Guardians, and the Council of Guardians has to approve anyone who wants to run for office, so the reality is the government of the regime itself decides whether you can run for office. About over 5,000 individuals applied to run for government, and of those 5,000 about 3,000 were approved by the Iranian regime to run. More than 2,000 were denied, so they cannot even run. Well, how can you have a free or a fair and or an open election that meets independent standards when the government decides who can run and who cannot run? It doesn't work. That is not the way elections should work. America truly is a force for freedom and for democracy in the world, and that is why we are working to call the attention of the world to these elections. It is particularly important at this time that we stand with the Iranian people in calling for free and fair elections as we impose sanctions to try to prevent government from developing a nuclear weapon. We want to make very clear that while we need to impose strong, consistent sanctions that prevent the Iranian regime from obtaining a nuclear bomb, at the same time we support the Iranian people's right to self-determination. Mr. President, I thank the good Senator from Connecticut for working with me on this resolution and recognizing the right of the Iranian people. I also want to thank our colleagues, as I say, now more than 60--who have joined us on this resolution and also look forward to quick passage. With that, I wish to turn the floor over to my colleague, the good Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I, too, wish to express my appreciation to Senator Blumenthal and to all our cosponsors, and I look forward to the Senate agreeing to this important resolution. With that, I yield the floor.