John Hoeven

Mr. HOEVEN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise this morning to talk about America's energy future. The reality is we need a diversified energy future. What I mean by that is we need to develop all of our energy resources. In my home State of North Dakota, we are doing just that. We have coal, and we are developing clean coal technologies. We have oil and gas. We have hydro. We have biofuels--ethanol and biodiesel. We have solar. We have wind. We have biomass. We are working aggressively to develop all of them, both traditional sources of energy and our renewable sources of energy. Ten years ago, in 2000 when I started as Governor of North Dakota, we set a course to develop a comprehensive energy plan to develop all of our energy resources, both traditional and renewable, and to do it in tandem, by encouraging private investment that would spur the development of new technologies--new technologies to develop traditional sources of energy and renewable sources of energy, and create new and exciting synergistic partnerships that would both diversify our energy mix, help us produce more energy most cost effectively, create good-quality jobs and improve environmental stewardship. That is exactly what is happening. That is exactly what is happening in our State. That is exactly what we need to do as a nation. Let me give you some examples from our State. Oil and gas. Oil and gas development has taken off in North Dakota. We are now the fourth largest oil-producing State in the Union. We recently passed States such as Oklahoma and Louisiana, producing more oil, and we are producing it from new formations such as the Bakken Shale and the Three Forks, and we are doing it with new technologies: directional and horizontal drilling. We figured out how to use those technologies such as directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing in new ways that produce more energy but do it with good environmental stewardship. For example, in the case of hydraulic fracturing, we recycle the water. We go down 2 miles underground, we drill directionally underground for miles. So it is a small footprint. One well now produces what maybe 10 or 12 wells used to produce. The water we use to force the oil to the surface we send back down; we recycle it--we use it again--and ultimately we put it back down the hole where we drew it from in the first place when it came up with much of the oil that is produced. In the case of coal, we take lignite coal and we produce synthetic natural gas. We put it in pipelines and we send it to other parts of the country, just like the gas you pull out of the ground. At the same time, in one of our plants, we are capturing CO2, the carbon dioxide. We are capturing it, we are compressing it, we are putting it in pipelines, and we are sending it off to the oilfields for second or tertiary oil recovery. Those are some of the new developments we are undertaking in traditional sources of energy. But as we do that with things such as oil and gas and coal, we are also developing the renewables. For example, wind. Our State is now the ninth largest wind energy State of all 50. We are continuing to move up the ranks, and that includes investing billions of dollars to make it happen. Again, that is more energy for our country, from more diversified sources, creating good jobs in the process. Think how important that is. Think how important it is to create good jobs at a time when we have more than 9 percent unemployment, 15-plus million people out of work, an economy that we need to get going and growing. Energy development represents an incredible opportunity to make that happen. But when we talk about energy development, we need all of the different sources of energy. Each has strengths and each has weaknesses. That is why we need the mix. In our State we also produce biofuels: ethanol and biodiesel. Clearly the discussion today is how do we best create that environment to continue the development, the production, and the growth of ethanol in a way that is cost effective, that serves the taxpayers of the country, but continues to develop that vital industry for our country at a time when we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, when we need more domestically produced energy, when we need quality jobs, when we need a growing economy. We can do it. We can do it with the right kind of energy policy--with the right kind of energy policy--and that is what we are talking about today. Think about ethanol. It helps reduce our dependence on foreign oil. For every gallon of ethanol we use as part of the fuel mix, that is 1 less gallon of gasoline we are bringing in from the Middle East, and by increasing supply we help reduce the cost of gasoline at the pump for our consumers. In addition to that, we are creating good-paying American jobs. In 2010, the ethanol industry employed 400,000 workers in good jobs throughout the United States--400,000 jobs. It provided an important market for American farmers throughout our country. It displaced the need for 445 million barrels of foreign oil. Let me repeat that. It displaced the need for 445 million barrels of foreign oil. It reduced the price of gasoline at the pump by 80 cents a gallon for the American consumer. In addition to all of that, the ethanol industry paid $11 billion in Federal taxes in 2010. I want to emphasize that point. In 2010, the ethanol industry paid $11 billion in Federal tax. So it is an important industry to our country and we need it to continue. The point of the discussion today, though, is how best to do that. So for this discussion today, how do we create the right environment to stimulate private investment so we have that growing economy, we have more jobs, we have more energy, but we also generate more tax revenues with less government spending so we both grow our way out of this debt and deficit, we get this economy going, we create a better energy future for these young people and young people all over our great country. That is why I have sponsored legislation, along with Senator Thune and Senator Klobuchar, that will reform the ethanol tax credit. It will provide deficit reduction and set us on the right path for alternative fuel development in our country for the long run. The legislation is called the Ethanol Tax Reform and Deficit Reduction Plan. It is the right way to transition from the current VEETC, the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit, rather than the amendment today to simply do away with VEETC. This is the right transition for us to make from the VEETC to creating the right environment to stimulate investment and energy growth in biofuels for the future. The ethanol tax reform and deficit reduction plan provides $1 billion in deficit reduction right away--provides $1 billion in deficit reduction. But it also provides the right transition for ethanol by providing the right kind of energy policy. Specifically, we provide incentives for things such as blender pumps that offer consumers choice. We provide the right kind of incentives for research, development, and deployment of second- generation ethanol, specifically cellulosic ethanol, so that instead of making ethanol from food products, we make it from stover and wheat straw and other sources. By combining blender pumps, flex fuel vehicles, and commonsense regulation on the part of the EPA that encourages higher fuel blends, we create the business environment that will foster growth in the ethanol industry. What does that mean? That means, No. 1, we avoid the ongoing cost of subsidies such as the VEETC. Second, we set the ethanol industry up for long-term growth. Third, we gain jobs. We gain jobs at a time when we badly need them. We produce more energy, which reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and we gain tax revenues. We gain tax revenues to help reduce our deficit. So we not only spend less directly, helping to reduce the deficit, we grow our economy, and that growing economy builds on the $11 billion that the industry is already paying in Federal taxes, and we grow that base while we are growing our jobs. That is the right way to move forward, to move out of our deficit situation in this economy, to get our economy going and also to produce more energy. This is a market-based approach that will give customers more choice and also reduce their fuel costs. For example, you go into the station, there is a blender pump there. You have a flex fuel vehicle. You can dial up whatever blend you choose, anywhere from 0 percent biofuels all the way up to 85 percent, whatever works best for you, whatever works best for your pocketbook, whatever works best for your vehicle. We have blender pumps in my State. We have an incentive for blender pumps in my State. As a result, we have more blender pumps than any other State in the country. The reality is today, if you buy fuel in North Dakota, almost all of the fuel you buy will have ethanol in it and you do not even realize it. Why? Because at a 90-10 percent blend, every vehicle can use it, and it is the lowest price gasoline at the pump, so dealers want to sell it. Consumers buy it. They simply buy it because they pick the lowest priced fuel at the pump. It is a 90-10 blend. That is where we are going with this, a market-based approach. That is how it can work for the benefit of our economy, for the benefit of our energy future, for the benefit of reducing spending, and for the benefit of growing our tax revenues. That is the choice we have today. That is the right way to approach job creation and energy development in our country. We are reducing spending. We are improving and creating an environment for private sector investment that will help us build a probusiness climate for energy and economic growth in our country. I urge my fellow Senators to make that progrowth choice. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here with Senator Snowe and to rise in support of her legislation, the Freedom Act of 2011. I will be brief in my comments. I know she has comments to make. I also appreciate Senator Boxer's comments in regard to Republican and Democrats coming together on this legislation. I think that is exactly what needs to happen with the Snowe-Coburn amendment, the Freedom Act of 2011. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I draw on 10 years of experience as a Governor in our State in expressing how very important it is that we create the kind of legal tax and regulatory structure at the Federal level that will help us to stimulate private investment and get this economy going and growing and get people back to work. I know that is exactly what Senator Snowe hopes to achieve with this amendment, and will. That is why we need to pass it. Just this morning, jobless claims came out. New jobless claims were higher than anticipated, at 427,000. Last week, we got the employment numbers, and we gained only 54,000 jobs. Unemployment is 9.1 percent. At the same time, we face a more than $14 trillion debt, and our deficit is more than $1.5 trillion. We are spending $3.7 trillion a year and only taking in $2.2 trillion in revenue. Clearly we need to get a grip on spending, but to get out of this deficit and debt and to get people back to work, we need to get this economy growing. That doesn't mean the Federal Government spending more; it means the Federal Government spending less and creating the kind of progrowth, jobs- oriented economy and legal tax and regulatory structure that will help us grow. If you look back at the 1990s, when we had a deficit, and even before, when we had stagflation, it was a combination of a growing economy and better fiscal management that got people back to work and got us out of the deficit and to a surplus. We need to do that again. We need this kind of legislation that will help us create a regulatory environment that stimulates business investment, creates jobs, gets people back to work, and gets the economy growing, and then, with good fiscal restraint, will help us get on top of this huge deficit and our debt. It is vitally important for us now, and it is vitally important for future generations. This is an important step in the right direction. I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation with the Senator from Maine. I look forward to hearing her remarks.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of S. 953. Today I wish again to speak about gas prices in our country and the pressing need to increase domestic supply. In a nutshell, the way you reduce prices at the pump for American consumers is by increasing supply, particularly domestic supply. More supply will not only help bring down the price of gasoline at the pump for American consumers, but it will also help create good American jobs for our workers across the country. It is important to remember that government does not create jobs, but government can create the environment, the legal, tax, and regulatory environment that will stimulate private investment, and that private investment will stimulate the deployment of new technologies, new companies, and, of course, create jobs to help grow and sustain our economy. I want to start out by giving you some examples close to my home in the great State of North Dakota. In North Dakota, we launched a comprehensive energy plan about 10 years ago. At that time oil companies had either left the Williston Basin, which is the energy patch in our State, or they were leaving. You might ask: Well, why was that? First, it was because they were getting better returns elsewhere. The technology was lacking to produce oil and gas economically from new formations in our State. Companies were going to other places in the world where they could extract that oil more cost effectively. Second, the data on confirmed reserves was also lacking, and the technology to produce oil from shale was not sufficiently developed. Third, our workforce was aging. And, fourth, transportation constraints limited production. In other words, there were better places for those companies to go, better places than our State, to invest their dollars, to get a return for shareholders. To turn that around, we worked very hard to build a climate for investment and growth. I wish to tell you about some of what we worked to put in place. First, we put tax incentives in place that made it worthwhile to invest. Second, we established an oil and gas research fund. Third, we initiated studies of the Bakken formation, not only through the North Dakota Geological Survey, but also through the U.S. Geological Survey. We asked for updates to those studies now as well. We improved infrastructure, including four-laning some of our major highways. We established a pipeline authority to expand transportation capacity, to move product out of the Williston Basin to market, and we also established a center of excellence for petroleum safety and technology at Williston State College, to train workers in oil production and recovery methods. Up until that time, we had to send our workers to States such as Colorado or Wyoming or maybe Oklahoma for that education and training in oil field technologies, and sometimes they did not always come back to our State. So we established that training there at home. As a result of our advanced business environment, we drew investment capital technology and ingenuity to the Williston Basin, and those efforts unlocked the potential not only of the Bakken formation but also the Three Forms formation. This year, North Dakota will produce more than 120 million barrels of oil, the fourth most amongst all 50 States. We passed other States now such as Oklahoma and Louisiana, and our production continues to grow. What is more, the private investment that funded and deployed those new technologies to produce more oil most cost effectively and more dependably also funded the development and deployment of new technologies that helped us produce that oil and gas in more environmentally sound ways. New technologies such as directional drilling, and the way we do hydraulic fracking, enabled companies to recover as much or more oil from one well bore than they had formerly recovered from up to a dozen well bores. That means more domestic production, less environmental impact, and better results for the American people. Bear in mind that most of these measures I am talking about, most of these measures we implemented to enhance our business climate, were not about government spending. They were about creating an environment that attracted private investment. Increased economic growth not only generated revenues for our State and broadened our economic base but also actually enabled us to reduce taxes for our citizens. It also has a national impact. Increased North Dakota oil production is also helping to reduce our dependence on foreign imports, and increase the domestic supply of oil in this country. As I mentioned in my remarks last week, between 1985 and 2005, domestic oil production in this country was going down--it was shrinking--and foreign imports were growing. In 2005, we were importing 12.4 billion barrels of oil a day into this country, 60 percent of what we consumed. By 2010, however, our imports had fallen to 9.4 million barrels a day, a reduction of about 3 million barrels a day over 2005. So over the last 5 years, we have actually reduced our daily imports of oil into this country by 3 million barrels a day. Our dependence on foreign oil has been reduced from 60 percent down to about 49 percent. So what changed? Well, in part, we are using less. But the fact is, we have increased domestic production. We have increased our domestic supply. Increased supplies from onshore production in the lower 48 States such as North Dakota, also from natural gas liquids throughout the country, and from offshore drilling, have all raised domestic output by 1.5 million barrels a day in this country. That is what today's vote on S. 953 is all about. The bill before us, which was introduced by Senator McConnell--and I am pleased to be one of his cosponsors, is about more offshore domestic production, more offshore domestic production from off our coasts, and, hence, more domestic supply. Like our approach in North Dakota, onshore production, S. 953, the Offshore Production and Safety Act will encourage more domestic production with better environmental stewardship. It will open areas in the Gulf of Mexico, in Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf, and parts of coastal Virginia to new exploration and production. At the same time, it will help to expedite the approval or denial of growing permits to a reasonable period of time--in this case 60 days--thereby allowing projects to move forward in a timely fashion. But it does not just speed up the clock. This bill is also about safety. It requires companies drilling offshore to have safety plans that must be certified by the Secretary of Interior. To further improve safety, it also requires ongoing preview and research into spill prevention procedures and methods. This legislation, the Offshore Production and Safety Act, is the kind of energy policy that will help to attract investment and increase production in this country. That means not only more supply to help bring down the cost of gasoline at the pump for American families, but it also means more jobs for American workers. It is a good piece of legislation and we ought to pass it. Although it is a step in the right direction, no single piece of legislation will do it all. Congress has not passed a comprehensive energy policy in years. But, frankly, we can no longer wait for that single sweeping master plan that will do it all at once. Again referring to my home State, we built Empower North Dakota over a decade piece by piece, and saw firsthand the power of energy development in our State. The bill before us today is one piece, a piece that can become part of a comprehensive national energy plan. To build a comprehensive plan we need other legislation as well, other legislation such as the Boutique Fuel Reduction Act of 2011, which would simplify our Nation's fuel standards and make more fuel available to American consumers. My esteemed colleague, Senator Roy Blunt from Missouri, was on the floor a few minutes ago talking about that piece of legislation, and also legislation such as the Regulatory Responsibility for our Economy Act, which would actually work with a directive from President Obama to review and remove outmoded or excessively burdensome rules that may be impeding economic development and job growth across our country. We need to work in a bipartisan way, because high gas prices, high unemployment, and low economic growth are not a Republican or a Democratic issue, they are an American issue. That is why we also need legislation such as the EPA Fair Play Act, which will prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from rescinding previously approved 404 permits. I am pleased to be cosponsoring that legislation with my colleague, Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia. Collectively, all of these pieces of legislation and more are the bricks and mortar out of which we can build a comprehensive national energy policy. But we need to get going, and we need to get going today. Let's get going with S. 953, and let's build a brighter energy future for ourselves and for future generations. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to speak this afternoon about the escalating cost of gasoline at the pump--something that affects every American consumer. Crude oil prices are now more than $100 a barrel and the price of gasoline at the pump for our consumers is about $4 on average across the Nation. It is even more here in the District. Despite some correction recently in the oil commodity markets, the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects that prices this summer will average $1 more than they did just a year ago. Gasoline price spikes are a form of stealth inflation eating away at the income of American families, impacting our economic growth, and deepening the hardship to the almost 14 million people we have still looking for work. Some economic analysts indicate that for each $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil, it has the impact of reducing our economic growth by about two-tenths of 1 percent. Each two-tenths of 1 percent equates to 120,000 fewer jobs that are created just in the first year of that type of increase. So you can see it has a very significant cumulative impact. Imported oil also greatly affects detrimentally our balance of trade. Last year alone that contributed to a $265 billion trade imbalance for our Nation. The high price of oil, whether it is at the wellhead or the price of gasoline at the pump, impacts every sector of our economy. It affects jobs, it affects economic growth, and it certainly affects the purchasing power of the American family; therefore, their standard of living and our quality of life. So what do we do? Well, the fact is, oil prices are subject to the same laws of supply and demand as other commodities. When we increase the supply, that helps bring prices down. When we reduce demand, that helps bring prices down. Of course, just the reverse is true as well. When we have less supply or more demand, that tends to push the price higher. So clearly--clearly--we need to do all we can to produce more energy in this country, and certainly we need to produce more domestic fuel, more domestic oil and gas. I don't know how many people realize it, but over the last few years--over the last approximately 5 years--oil imports into this country have actually been going down, and that is why I have brought this chart along which was prepared by the Congressional Research Service. As we can see from the chart, domestic oil was shrinking from about 1985 to 2005, and by 2005 we increased our imports to a total of 12.4 million barrels a day, approximately 60 percent of the total oil we consumed in 2005. However, since 2005 things have begun to change. We have made progress. We have made progress both because we are producing more oil and gas in this country and also because we are using less. So we can see from 2005 to 2010 we have actually reduced the amount of oil we import into this country from about 60 percent of what we use to less than 50 percent. Today, about 49 percent of the fuel we consume is actually produced in this country. That is a significant reduction in our imports of about 3 million barrels a day from 2005. So what changed? Well, what changed is we are producing more oil. We are producing more oil offshore and onshore in the lower 48, and we are also producing more natural gas liquids. As I said just a minute ago, we are also consuming less, and we need to continue to do both. In addition to those things, though, we are also increasingly relying on friendly governments for our imports rather than governments that are hostile to our country. For example, by last year we were importing twice as much oil from Canada as we were from Saudi Arabia, and that is certainly a good development. We need to continue to not only produce more domestic oil but, to the extent we import oil, we need to bring it in from countries that are friends rather than countries that are foes, or certainly that may not share our beliefs and our interests. We have opportunities to do that. For example, right now, very close to my State, we are working on a project which is the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline is designed to carry crude oil from the Canadian oil stands in Alberta, Canada, to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. The problem is, we are still awaiting approval for that pipeline. U.S. approval of this project will cost our Nation not one penny but will increase the supply of oil and gasoline in our country and help hold down the price of gasoline at the pump. At the same time, it will help reduce our dependence on oil from volatile parts of the world and create thousands of good jobs in America. We all know how important that is at a time when our Nation still has 9 percent unemployment and millions of people are out of work. We have similar opportunities to boost the supply of domestic oil and gas on American soil as well, and not just in the lower 48 but also in Alaska. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline could help increase supply enormously, but right now it is only carrying about one-quarter of its capacity. The pipeline has the capacity to carry 2 million barrels of oil a day. Right now it is carrying something over 600,000 barrels of oil a day. So, clearly, that is a tremendous capacity that is not being utilized. Senator Murkowski has eloquently pointed out that the State of Alaska holds an estimated 40 billion barrels of oil, the equivalent of more than 60 years' worth of imports from the Persian Gulf. Yet that oil is excluded from our Nation's reserve figures. The United States is already the third largest oil and gas producing Nation on Earth, with 28.4 billion barrels of proven reserves. But it also has an estimated 162, almost 163 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil, according to the Congressional Research Service. Only Russia and Saudi Arabia produce more than our country. So the lesson in all of this is clear. We can and we must increase domestic production of oil and gas in our country. The record over the past 5 years clearly indicates we can do it. As a matter of fact, we are on our way to doing it, and we can do much more. For example, in my home State of North Dakota, we have been working over the last decade to increase oil production, and we have. Since 2005, North Dakota has increased its production of oil by more than 200,000 barrels a day. North Dakota is now the fourth largest oil-producing State in the Nation. We have passed States such as Oklahoma and, more recently, Louisiana. We have the opportunity to produce much more. We have just barely scratched the surface. Last month, I hosted a meeting of the U.S. Geological Survey in Bismarck to make the case for a new, updated study of recoverable reserves in the Williston Basin. Of course, the Williston Basin covers parts of North Dakota, Montana, and extends into Canada as well. The last agency study was completed in 2008, and it indicated there are 3.5 to 4 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Bakken Shale Formation, which is in the Williston Basin--3\1/2\ to 4 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Industry scientists and engineers, however, who are working out in the Williston Basin right now feel that figure is low and the reality in terms of recoverable oil reserves in the Williston Basin is much higher. That is why we are asking the U.S. Geological Survey to come out and do a reassessment. If they are right, the results will attract tens of millions of dollars in new investment to the region, creating more domestic fuel and lower prices for American consumers, more jobs in our State, in Montana, and more jobs for our country. Also, it will help us develop infrastructure and sustain economic growth throughout the region. In North Dakota we focused on creating more energy, more oil and gas, and more other types of energy as well by creating a legal, tax, and regulatory climate--a business climate--that encourages private investment and job creation. I have spoken several times on the floor of the Senate and more times than I can count at home and around the country about the need to forge a legal, tax, and regulatory climate in America that will attract investment in the energy industry--whether it is wind, biofuels, coal, or oil and gas. At a time when America is struggling with a 9-percent unemployment rate, the need to create private sector jobs is absolutely paramount. It is job No. 1. Building our domestic energy industry is one of the keys to accomplishing that. The oil and gas industry alone supports 7.5 percent of the U.S. domestic product and more than 9 million American jobs. Government doesn't create those jobs, but government creates the environment that empowers and unleashes the creativity and energy of American enterprise. The challenge confronting the U.S. energy industry today, however, is a climate of legal, tax, and regulatory uncertainty. This uncertainty is not only sidelining investment and impeding production but also hindering job creation and raising fuel prices at the pump for American consumers. We all want to ensure we have clean air and water, but at the same time we all want to develop our Nation's abundant natural resources and do it with good, sound environmental stewardship. Clearly, we need to look at our current legal, tax, and regulatory environment to make sure we have the commonsense, reliable rules that not only enable but actually empower companies to invest the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars in new technologies that will help us unlock the energy resources in this country, and do it with the kind of environmental stewardship we all want. It is vital for the rest of our economy. The reason for that is simple. If the energy industry cannot grow, neither can our other industries. They cannot create the jobs and opportunities our Nation so very much needs, and they cannot provide the affordable energy American families and businesses depend on every day. Impeding domestic energy production, moreover, is a national security issue as well as an economic issue. Increased dependence for oil on unstable parts of the world, such as the Middle East and Venezuela, puts not just our economy but our Nation and our Nation's security at risk. Yet rather than reduce constraints on production, rather than encourage more exploration and recovery, rather than make our country a better place to do business, our laws and regulations too often seem aimed at serving every other purpose but increasing domestic energy production and supply. Ironically, at a time when we need to invest and create jobs, billions of dollars are not being deployed. That is because energy investors are waiting to see what kind of rules will govern things such as fracking for domestic oil, hydraulic fracture, CO2 management, and transmission line siting. Companies out there are ready to make billion-dollar investments that will have a lifespan of more than 40 years, but they do not know the rules of the road. By certainty, I don't mean more restrictive rules and regulations; I mean commonsense rules of the road that would not change arbitrarily or according to political crosswinds. A number of us in the Senate on both sides of the aisle are already working on commonsense initiatives to ensure that Congress, rather than government agencies, establish those rules. I have already spoken about some of those on the Senate floor. Today, I would like to talk about another one. Today, I want to discuss, for just a short period, another piece of legislation that I believe will help reduce the price of fuel at the pump--not by increasing production but simply by applying good judgment to the rules that govern distribution of gasoline in the United States. Senator Roy Blunt, myself, and a number of other Senators are promoting a bill called the Boutique Fuel Reduction Act of 2011. This legislation would simplify the Nation's fuel standards and make more fuel available to American consumers. It would give the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency--the EPA--the flexibility to waive certain agency requirements pertaining to the use of specific or boutique fuels--specialty fuels--when extreme or unusual distribution problems are limiting supply. Currently, the increased use of different types of fuel for different parts of the country is causing artificial shortages in some retail markets and, consequently, higher prices at the pump for our motorists. A service station in one city that runs out of fuel may not be able to use a certain blend of gasoline available just 50 miles away because it is not approved by the EPA for use in that location. Unfortunately, under current law, the EPA can waive the requirements only during a natural disaster, not to meet shortages or price spikes such as we have today. The law we are sponsoring would change that. In addition to the bill, myself and a group of Senators--and House Members as well--have also sent letters to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, calling on the agency and the Department of Energy to complete the fuel harmonization study which Congress requested more than 5 years ago. That report was due in 2008. This report would examine the effects of the Nation's varying boutique fuels on retail prices and also assess the feasibility of developing national or regional standards to reduce the multiple varieties required today by the EPA. Having fewer types of fuel would make more fuel available during shortages, thereby putting downward pressure on prices at the pump. It would give refineries more options to meet demand and help stabilize and reduce the retail price of gasoline. We expect EPA and the Department of Energy to follow through on the congressional intent that was outlined in the 2005 law and conduct and complete that study as soon as possible, which correlates closely with the legislation we are sponsoring. Bear in mind, the measures I just discussed do not cost anything. They take no funding to work. Yet they can help us reduce fuel prices for the American consumer, for our American families. They can make doing business in America more affordable, reduce our trade deficit, and help get Americans back to work again. We need to increase domestic fuel production, and we need to provide regulatory relief in order to do it because high energy prices, whether it is fuel for our cars or electricity for our homes and businesses, impact virtually every sector of American life. That includes jobs, that includes economic growth, that includes the purchasing power of the American family, and ultimately includes our standard of living and our quality of life. Our future is fueled by energy and that future depends on the decisions and the choices we make right now. We need to get them right. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I say to my colleagues, Senators Portman, Alexander, Barrasso, and Cornyn, that it is great to be here this morning to engage in this colloquy. I want to follow up on the points that my esteemed colleague referred to on both energy and trade. They are very important in terms of job creation for our country. If I could, I will start for a minute on the comprehensive nature of this jobs plan that Republicans have put together. If we look at it, we will see that it is truly comprehensive. It is about living within our means, about reforming our Tax Code, without raising taxes, to create a progrowth environment, create jobs, and get our economy moving. It is about unburdening our economy from the overregulation that is hurting job creation. It is about helping to create a more competitive workforce to compete in a global economy. It is about increasing our exports, and it is about a truly comprehensive approach to energy that will help us develop all of our sources of energy, both traditional and renewable. It is also about commonsense health care reform. We need to do that because we have more than 15 million people who are unemployed. Every day they are unemployed is one day too many. We also have to get on top of this deficit and debt we face. That means controlling our spending, reducing our spending, but it also means growing our economy. That is the way to not only get people back to work but reduce the debt and deficit. If we look at the 1990s when we were in a somewhat similar situation, that is exactly what we did. We need to go back and do that. North Dakota is a large energy-producing State--oil, gas, clean coal technology, and also the renewables, biofuels, and wind. But the way we did it wasn't through government spending. It was through creating a legal, tax and regulatory environment and creating certainty so that companies and entrepreneurs could invest in energy and advanced manufacturing and technology--the whole gamut. But there are hundreds of millions to billions of dollars today that would go into investments all over this country in the energy patch, both traditional sources and renewable sources of energy, with the latest, greatest technology--more energy, more dependable, and cost effective, with better environmental stewardship. That is what this is about, creating the right environment. By the same token, we are looking at three different trade agreements: the South Korea Free Trade Agreement, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, and the Panama Free Trade Agreement. These would create more economic activity. The Korea agreement alone is expected to increase U.S. exports to South Korea by $10 billion a year. We are talking hundreds of thousands of jobs. We need to be working on those free-trade agreements right now, today, to approve them. I urge our leadership and the administration to work with us to get those trade agreements to the floor and get them approved as part of this comprehensive jobs plan. I thank my esteemed colleagues again, and I commend Senator Portman for his outstanding work on this plan. I thank all of the members of our caucus for the contributions they have made to this plan. Also, again, I express our desire to go to work with our friends across the aisle on all of these provisions for the benefit of all of those who are looking for work, for the benefit of our economy, and for the important role that economic growth, along with spending restraint, will play in helping us get on top of our debt and deficit. With that, I turn the colloquy back over to Senator Portman for his additional remarks.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the important issue of the day. Sometimes complex challenges present clear and compelling choices. That is the case for the fiscal challenge before us today. We have a choice between delay and disruption or progress and accord. The Nation's eyes are upon us. We need to vote to keep our government running, to pay our military, and at the same time take essential steps to tame our uncontrolled spending and deficit. Most important, we need to ensure that our men and women in uniform continue to receive their well-earned pay while we undertake the work of balancing America's books and they undertake the vital work of defending our Nation, both here at home and abroad. In that regard, I am proud to be one of the sponsors of a bill introduced by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison that will make sure that happens, even after the work of the 111th Congress is finished. I am also pleased to report that we are now up to 74 cosponsors. But in the final analysis we need to reduce our overall spending, which Americans recognize is necessary, necessary because every day we delay we are spending ourselves $4 billion deeper into debt. Right now, this fiscal year, we are on a path to spend $3.7 trillion, but we are taking in only $2.2 trillion in revenue, leaving a deficit of more than $1.5 trillion. To make up for that shortfall the Federal Government is borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar that we spend, with a national debt of more than $14 trillion. Our largest lender is China, which now holds more than $1 trillion in American bonds. No American family would practice that kind of fiscal management, and neither should our country. Reducing our debt and deficit is something the American people understand and support because the American people are the ones suffering the impacts. Nearly 14 million of our country men and women are out of work and another 8 million are underemployed because they have had their hours cut back or they cannot find a full- time job. Sadly, 1 million more have stopped looking. As private investment has plummeted, unemployment has climbed sharply to levels we have not seen in decades. For those who are fortunate enough to be working, the American dream is getting more and more difficult to achieve. In response to growing inflationary pressure, the Federal Reserve Bank now says that interest rates are likely to rise at the end of the year to tighten our money supply. Every percent increase in interest rates adds $140 billion to our debt. Higher interest rates will erode the income of every American and make it harder to buy a home, a car, or a college education. Spending more will not help them. In fact, spending more will prolong the problem. In the 1990s, when government spending as a share of GDP shrank, employment grew. Despite the surge in government spending over the past 2 years, unemployment still hovers stubbornly at about 9 percent. We do not need more public spending. What we need is more private investment. When private investment grows, unemployment shrinks. The American people understand all of this and that is why they want us to arrive at a plan that keeps our government running, that respects the sacrifices of our military in real terms, and puts us back on the road to fiscal health. We owe it to these hard-working men and women to bring the 2011 budget to a reasonable and realistic conclusion and then move on to the important matters that still lie before us, including the 2012 budget. That is where we can address all of the substantive and urgent issues that we must resolve to get America's financial house in order; issues such as making sure we have a prudent level of spending, reforming our Tax Code, and making entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare solvent and more secure for our seniors, both now and long into the future. We owe that not just to our current constituents but to future generations of Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would like to speak this afternoon about an issue that I believe is of paramount importance to our efforts to restore America's economic vitality and to control our debt and our deficit. I would like to talk about jobs. I wish to begin, however, by telling you a little bit about my home State of North Dakota. That is because today, while much of the Nation is greatly challenged by recession and joblessness, North Dakota is strong--arguably the strongest we have been at any time in our history. The reason is jobs. Last week, we learned that North Dakota--at 3.7 percent--once again has the lowest unemployment rate in the Nation, a distinction we have held since June of 2008. Nationally, the picture is much different. As I speak, nearly 14 million Americans are still out of work, and the rate of unemployment is hovering at nearly 9 percent, where it has been for many months. Another 8 million Americans are underemployed, working part-time because their hours have been cut or they haven't been able to find a full-time job. Sadly, 1 million more have stopped looking. Make no mistake, America has a budget problem because of too much spending but also because America has a jobs problem. I ask you: How do we generate revenues to help balance our budget, pay down debt, and provide the essential services people need without raising taxes? Jobs. How do we empower people to access affordable health insurance and quality health care without intrusive government programs? Again, jobs. How do we help secure Social Security and Medicare for our seniors and future generations? Jobs. If we put 10 million of those 14 million unemployed workers back on the job, at the average national wage of about $45,000, it would generate more than $50 billion in additional revenues for the Social Security trust fund and an additional $13 billion for Medicare every year. Obviously, that would make a huge difference for both those programs. Clearly, to fully address our current economic predicament, we need to create jobs and lots of them. Those jobs will be created by the private sector--not by government, by the private sector. But to help our entrepreneurs and businesses create them, we must build the best business climate possible. Ten years ago, in North Dakota, we set a course to do that. Beginning in 2001, when I first took office as Governor of North Dakota, we made conscious policy decisions that would, over time, grow and diversify our economy and create thousands of jobs for our citizens. First, we set out to build the best business climate possible, forging a legal, tax, and regulatory climate that would attract investment and stimulate innovation. Second, we developed a roadmap for success--an economic development strategic plan that targeted industries where North Dakota holds natural advantages owing to our resources and our people. As part of our larger strategy, we also developed a comprehensive energy policy, called Empower North Dakota, which worked aggressively to develop all of our State's natural resources and energy resources, both traditional and renewable. We even established a North Dakota Trade Office, a public sector-private sector partnership that helps market North Dakota products and services around the world to bring new dollars into our State. As a result of these efforts, between 2000 and 2009, North Dakota's economy grew at an annual average GDP growth rate of 6.4 percent, so that by the end of the decade we had grown by 75 percent. That compares to a national growth rate over the same time period of 41 percent. All that work to cultivate overseas markets worked too. Our exports of farm machinery, aircraft parts, biotech products, and other North Dakota goods grew by more than 300 percent in 10 years. That compares to a national growth rate of just over 60 percent. As a result, we balanced our budget year in and year out. Today, we have no general obligation debt, we have a substantial surplus, and strong reserves to secure our economic future. Furthermore, to get there, we not only held the line on taxes, but we reduced them. We reduced property tax and we reduced income tax. Over the decade, we generated nearly 15 percent growth in total employment, encompassing almost every sector of our economy and every region of our State. At the same time, we boosted per capita income from 84 percent of the national average in 2000, well below the national average, and today we are above the national average--at 103 percent--in per capita income. We have moved up from 37th among all the States to 17th in terms of our ranking among the 50 States. The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, the New York Times, USA Today, the Economist, Forbes, Money magazine, even the London Times, all have written about North Dakota's progress. Joel Kotkin, in a recent Wall Street Journal piece, called North Dakota's approach ``sensible thinking'' about the economy. Last year, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ranked North Dakota as No. 1 among all 50 States as the Nation's top overall economic growth performer and job creator and not for the year but for the decade. The things we did in North Dakota are not unique to our State. The principles we used are based on common sense and a belief that the American economy is the engine that drives the car. We can create jobs and lift our Nation out of the financial quandary we are in if we have the will to act and if we focus tirelessly on the kinds of things that create jobs and opportunity for our people. To do that, I would like to propose a three-part strategy to get America working again. First, we need to create a legal tax and regulatory climate that gets business investment off the sidelines and gets people back to work. Second, we need to rein in spending and control our debt and deficit. Third, we need a comprehensive, progrowth energy policy to fuel our economy, reduce our dependence on foreign energy, and create good jobs for American workers. Let's go through each of these very straightforward recommendations, starting with the need to create a strong business climate for America with the kind of legal tax and regulatory certainty that investors need to create jobs. That means passing legislation that will eliminate or modify unwarranted or misguided regulations that are impeding business investment and stifling innovation in our country. That effort is already underway in the Senate. Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas has offered a bill called the Regulatory Responsibility for Our Economy Act, which I am proud to be a cosponsor of. This bill will give the force of law to a Presidential Executive order issued earlier this year that proposes to review ``rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand or repeal them,'' in some cases. If passed, our bill will make sure we will take a clear-eyed look at the rules and help restore regulatory certainty to the markets. When we talk about unwarranted laws and regulations, however, we don't need to look too far into the past; we need only look to recently enacted laws that impede job creation and sap economic vitality. Last year's Federal health care bill, for example, included a 1099 reporting provision that introduced a new level of bureaucracy and expense for America's nearly 28 million small businesses--the very engines of job creation in this country. Small businesses have created 64 percent of all the new jobs in this country over the past 15 years, and they account for more than 97 percent of all employers. If we expect them to create jobs and get our economic engine going again, we need to reduce their regulatory burden, not bury them under burdensome new mandates such as the 1099 reform. That is why I and a bipartisan group of Senators, led by Mike Johanns, signed on to a bill that just this week eliminated this onerous provision in last year's health care law and sent it off to the President for signature. I wish to commend my good friend, Senator Johanns, for his leadership and his hard work on this important issue. But that is not the only feature of last year's health care bill that is undermining our business climate, driving up health care costs, and limiting choice for consumers. Punitive lawsuits and defensive medicine are inflating the cost of health care for American consumers by as much as $100 billion every year. Yet the health care bill that is now being implemented across our country doesn't reduce these costs. We need tort reform that will help make health care more available and reduce costs. Similarly, we need to expand competition among health insurance companies. More competition will give consumers more choice and expand the pool of the insured, thus creating further downward pressure on the cost of premiums. Just as important, by reducing health care costs and the regulatory burden on American businesses, we can help them reduce costs and do what they do best--create jobs. Competition works to our advantage not only in markets at home but in global markets as well. Another way to strengthen our economy and get job creation going again is by promoting more international trade. Smart trade agreements can restore America's competitive edge, create more income for American citizens, more opportunities for American entrepreneurs, and more foreign dollars to help balance our trade deficit and our budget. They can also help us turn around our trade imbalances with countries such as China, South Korea, and the European Union. We have multibillion dollar trade deficits with all of them--$23 billion with China in January alone. We can start the process of turning these deficits around by ratifying impending trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama that have been languishing for 3 years. Our trade imbalance with South Korea alone last year was $10 billion, but the agreement awaiting approval right now could create up to 250,000 American jobs. On the other hand, if we fail to act, we stand to lose 380,000 jobs to the European Union and Canada, which have already completed their own trade agreements with those countries. With bipartisan support for these agreements, there is no reason for further delay. We need to act. Empowering American businesses and entrepreneurs to do business around the world is just common sense, and that common sense is precisely what we need to apply to all our Nation's challenges. I can give you a good example in my home State of North Dakota. Right now, we are facing serious flooding in the Red River Valley, and for some time we have been working to fight chronic annual flooding in the Red River Valley, which includes the city of Fargo, one of our region's most dynamic economic engines. Part of government's role in creating private investment and economic development is securing and protecting infrastructure so businesses can thrive. In the case of Fargo and the Valley, the Federal Emergency Management Agency--FEMA--has found it necessary to buy out houses in that area because it is more cost effective than protecting them year in and year out. When the Agency buys out a property, however, it has a hard-and-fast rule prohibiting building structures on that property--even flood mitigation structures--to prevent development that might require future protection from flooding. It is a reasonable ban in some, maybe in many, cases but certainly not in all. As a consequence of the rule, every year the Federal Government helps to pay to build temporary levees to protect homes along the Red River, and every year we are compelled to tear those levees down again after the flood, at great expense to the government and, ultimately, of course, great expense to the taxpayer. Everyone knows that permanent dikes would clearly be more cost effective and save money for the local, State, and Federal Government. Residents know it, FEMA knows it, local officials know it. But under current law, there is nothing they can do about it. That is why I will be introducing legislation called the FEMA Common Sense and Cost-Effectiveness Act of 2011, to give the Agency the flexibility it needs to make commonsense decisions in these cases. Building those levees once and leaving them in place will provide better flood protection for people and for property, better fiscal stewardship, and save taxpayer dollars. That is important. Because good fiscal stewardship is now a matter of pressing, decisive consequence for America's future. That is why the second thing we need to do, of no less importance than building a good business climate, is to reduce spending. We need to control spending by the Federal Government. Here, the numbers speak more clearly than words. Revenues this year are projected to be--revenues, now--$2.2 trillion. At the same time, current spending by the Federal Government is more than $3.7 trillion, leaving a deficit of $1.5 to $1.6 trillion. To meet that shortfall, we are borrowing 40 cents of every single dollar we spend, and our debt is growing at the rate of $4 billion a day. Every dollar used to service the national debt is a dollar that will not be used to build America's infrastructure, that will not be used to keep Social Security solvent, that will not be used to reduce taxes on American businesses so they can create jobs and raise the standard of living for American workers. That is why I and 63 other Senators--32 Republicans and 32 Democrats--sent a letter to President Barack Obama earlier this month urging him to show leadership in those efforts to achieve comprehensive deficit reduction. It is also why I and 46 other U.S. Senators announced last week that we were cosponsoring a bill to create a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I thank our leader, Senator McConnell, for leading that effort. Nearly all States have been bound for years by a constitutional provision to keep spending within their means. This amendment requires that the Federal Government do no less. It would cap spending and balance our budget, but it also allows an appropriate exception for times of war. At the same time, it provides a transitional pathway to implement the law and protect programs such as Social Security and Medicare for our seniors and future generations of Americans. To put this into perspective, the cost of serving America's debt over the next 10 years under the President's proposed budget--$992 billion-- is more than the entire Social Security deficit for the decade, which is about $600 billion. In fact, fixing our debt and deficit involves not only setting priorities and cutting discretionary spending, which we are already working hard to do and we need to work hard to do, but also addressing the three entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which account for more than 60 percent of Federal spending. We need to undertake a bipartisan effort to reform these important programs in a way that safeguards our seniors and other vulnerable individuals now while protecting the solvency of these programs for generations to come. We need our President to engage with us in this process. We can do it, we must do it, and we need to start now. My third recommendation is that we begin the process of building a comprehensive energy policy for the Nation, an ``empower America'' plan, if you will, that promotes the development of all of our Nation's vast energy resources, both traditional and renewable. Creating a comprehensive energy policy is especially important because our entire country--our entire economy and consequently job growth--depends on affordable and abundant energy. A few weeks ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a study identifying 351 stalled energy projects nationwide that are costing the American economy $1.1 trillion in lost economic impact and, more importantly, nearly 2 million jobs annually. By impeding our energy industry, we are impeding one of the most potent areas of prospective job growth. Yet Congress has not passed a comprehensive energy policy in our country in years, and frankly I don't know that we can wait any longer for that single sweeping master plan that will do it all at once. We need to build it as expeditiously as we can. In North Dakota, we built Empower North Dakota over a decade, piece by piece, and saw firsthand the power of energy development to boost our economy. By embracing Empower North Dakota, our State alone has realized $12 billion in new energy-related investments since 2005. With the right kind of energy policy, imagine what the impact would be for our Nation. To expedite the process of building that energy policy on a national level, I am working with Leader McConnell and the entire Republican Conference to create the kind of legal and regulatory climate our country needs to jump-start America's energy sector and create jobs. For example, this week, I, along with other Senators, cosponsored an amendment introduced by Senator McConnell to the small business authorization bill. Based on legislation offered earlier this month by Senator Inhofe, which I and others cosponsored, this legislation sought to curb the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas and encourage domestic energy development. A permanent measure such as this is needed to provide the certainty businesses need to make billion-dollar investments in new energy projects and, more importantly, create the good-paying jobs a robust energy sector can provide our country. Our measure won 50 votes yesterday but failed to gain the 60 necessary for passage. We need to continue to work with our colleagues across the aisle to pass this legislation or legislation like it because impeding the energy industry is not a Republican problem or a Democratic problem, it is an American problem. It is a challenge we need to step up to and solve. That is why, in a similar bipartisan effort, I am working with Senator Joe Manchin to support the EPA Fair Play Act to create more certainty and more energy investment for our country. I have also asked the Energy Information Administration to conduct a focused analysis of regulations that could be impeding the development and growth of the Nation's domestic energy production in an effort to find more ways to create rules of the road that will encourage energy companies to invest billions and to build our energy future in America. Increased domestic energy production is a three-fer. We not only promote economic vitality, but we reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy and we create jobs. The reality is that we can do all of these and more. We can provide a commonsense legal and regulatory environment, a favorable business climate for our industries. We can build a comprehensive energy policy that leverages all of our vast energy resources together with good environmental stewardship. We can reduce spending, and we can live within our means. We can pay down our debt and leave our children a strong financial legacy instead of a large debt. These are all things we can do and we must do for our Nation. We need to work together, my fellow Senators, to do just that, for the strength and financial well- being of our country today and for the benefit of future Americans for generations to come. The future is truly in our hands. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I would like to speak this morning on an issue that I believe is of great importance to our economy and to our national security. In recent weeks, we have seen political turmoil in Libya and Egypt and Tunisia and throughout the Middle East and other North African nations. Only time will tell what the outcome of these historic events will be. What is clear, however, is that there is, once again, disruption in the worlds's petroleum supplies as a result of the turmoil in this region of the world, and American consumers and businesses are feeling the brunt of it. In the United States, we have seen the price of gasoline and other petroleum products increase dramatically. The pain is particularly sharp at the pump. Over the last few weeks, retail gasoline prices have risen to more than $3.50 a gallon. They are expected to rise to more than $3.70 a gallon during the peak summer driving season and, of course, they could go substantially higher. This is a reflection of what is happening in the crude oil commodity markets around the world. In fact, the Energy Information Administration's latest forecast of the average West Texas spot price for the remainder of this year increased from $93 a barrel to more than $100 a barrel. The EIA expects continued tightening of world oil markets in the next 2 years in light of the events in North Africa and in the Middle East. For example, in Libya it is widely reported that much of the country's 1.6 million barrels a day of total production in 2010 has been largely shut down. It is unclear how long this will last. However, the reality is that the problem is not a matter of current supply. Prices are going up not because of lack of supply but because of concerns in the market about future supplies. Therefore, to address this problem, we must increase domestic production. We must produce more American energy, and we can do it. Furthermore, taking steps now to create a legal, tax, and regulatory environment that will stimulate more domestic production will help take pressure off prices even before that supply comes on line, as markets anticipate more production. Of course, the opposite scenario exists today as markets anticipate less supply from the Middle East and they do not see the commitment domestically to offset that reduction in supply. We must change that perception by taking real action to encourage production here at home. Stalled energy projects and impediments to domestic oil production in our own country are costing our Nation's economy billions of dollars and millions of jobs. A study released last week by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says 351 energy projects, both renewable and traditional, are stalled, at a cost of $1.1 trillion to the American economy and nearly 2 million jobs for the American people. When we combine disruptions in foreign sources of production and a domestic market hobbled by bureaucracy and delays, the result is higher energy prices, a sluggish economy, and fewer jobs. That is exactly what we see happening. That should be a cause of huge concern, but it should also be a huge call to action. There is a path out of this for America, a path we in my home State of North Dakota successfully followed starting a decade ago by building a comprehensive energy plan called Empower North Dakota. Through Empower North Dakota, we worked to create a business climate that incentivized energy companies across all industry sectors, including the oil industry, to invest in our State. We created the kind of legal, tax, and regulatory certainty that attracted capital, expertise, and jobs to North Dakota. In fact, when we started 10 years ago, oil companies had either left or they were leaving the oil- producing region in our State, the Williston Basin. Why was that? First, they were getting better returns elsewhere. Technology was lacking to produce oil economically from new formations. Companies were going to other places in the world where they could extract oil less expensively. Second, data on confirmed reserves was lacking, and the technology to produce oil from shale wasn't sufficiently developed. Third, the workforce was aging, and we lacked the training and education for new workers. And fourth, transport constraints limited production. In other words, there were better places for the industry to invest shareholder dollars and earn a return. To turn that around, we built a climate for investment. We established an oil and gas research fund paid for by the industry. We put tax incentives in place. We initiated studies of the Bakken formation at the heart of the Williston Basin through the North Dakota Geological Survey. That was followed by a U.S. Geological Survey study. I have requested another USGS study I believe will demonstrate that we have billions more in recoverable oil reserves in our State. We also improved infrastructure. We created a pipeline authority to expand transportation capacity, and we established a center of excellence for petroleum safety and technology at Williston State College to train workers in oilfield drilling and recovery methods. Before that we had to send workers to Wyoming or Oklahoma and other places for training and education. Now we do it in our State. In response, our enhanced business environment drew investment capital, technology, and ingenuity to Williston Basin which unlocked the potential of North Dakota's oil patch. We took full advantage of the Bakken and Three Forks, which are deep shale formations with billions of barrels of oil locked away in porous rock, by using innovative, unconventional technologies and with good environmental stewardship. To release the oil, companies in North Dakota use hydraulic fracturing which involves pumping water under pressure deep into the Earth to crack the shale and release the crude oil. The water is then recycled or deposited safely back into the ground 2 miles down, well below, far below the water table. Companies also use directional drilling which enables drilling rigs to drill one vertical bore and multiple horizontal bores deep in the ground, producing more oil with a smaller footprint and, again, better environmental stewardship. As a result, this year North Dakota will produce more than 120 million barrels of oil. That number is growing dramatically. This is sweet crude oil. Since 2006, we have grown to become the fourth largest oil-producing State among all 50 States in the Union, passing States such as Oklahoma and most recently Louisiana. Bear in mind that in North Dakota the measures we took were not about government spending. They were about creating an environment for private investment that generated revenues for the State, broadened the economic base, and actually enabled us to reduce taxes. This isn't a Republican or a Democratic issue. It is an American issue, and it will take both parties to fix it. That is why I am cosponsoring a bill with Senator Roberts that actually works with a directive from President Obama. The Regulatory Responsibility for Our Economy Act will give the force of law to a Presidential Executive order issued in January. The order proposes to review rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, or repeal them. We are all committed to good environmental stewardship and effective consumer protections. But the President's order acknowledges that Federal regulations are hindering the Nation's economic growth and our ability to create jobs. The law we are proposing, if passed, will make sure we take a clear-eyed look at our rules and help to bring regulatory and legal certainty to the markets. While we are working to produce more oil in America, with the right approach, with the approach I am describing, we can also enlist the help of our friend and close ally to the north, Canada. To do that, for example, we need to complete some very ambitious projects that need permitting and approval. One example is the Keystone XL pipeline. This $12 billion, high-tech transcontinental petroleum pipeline is designed to carry crude from the Canadian oil sands in Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico. As it passes through the Midwest, an onramp will receive midwestern sweet crude from States such as North Dakota and Montana to mix with the heavier Canadian crude and send it to refineries that will turn it into gasoline and diesel fuel in America. With no overseas involvement, this one promising project would help double current flows of oil from Canada, which is already our No. 1 trading partner. One estimate projects that the project will create--and these are numbers the company has put forward in advancing this project--at least 20,000 high-paying jobs during the construction phase and more than 250,000 permanent jobs. It will spur more than $100 billion in annual total expenditures in the U.S. economy. It will generate $6.5 billion in new personal income for U.S. workers and their families, and it will stimulate nearly $600 million in revenue for State and local governments along its route. Federal approval is something that will cost our Nation not one penny. What it will do, however, is create assurances in markets that the energy we need to power our Nation will be there in the future, and it will be there when we need it. That in turn will help to reduce our dependence on unstable overseas regimes, hold down the cost of gasoline at the pump, and create thousands of good American jobs at a time when unemployment is still hovering at about 9 percent. Keystone XL is just one example. Across America there are hundreds of projects like it that could be advanced with good environmental stewardship and responsible oversight, if we resolve to do it and we create the climate to do it. Today the United States, Canada, and Mexico combined produce 75 percent of the total oil we need. We can do much more. Our Nation needs to send a signal to energy markets that the United States is committed to a policy of aggressive domestic energy development by creating a strong business environment and a pro-energy agenda, including the legal, tax, and regulatory certainty companies need in order to make the kinds of investments that will truly lessen our dependence on foreign oil. We are at a moment in history when we can truly turn adversity into opportunity and potential into reality. I urge Members to seize this opportunity to make America stronger, safer, and more financially secure with a comprehensive approach to truly develop American energy right here at home, to meet our needs both now and for future generations. We can do it. We must do it, for the well-being of our country today and for future generations. I thank the Chair for this opportunity, yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would like to speak this morning in support of amendment No. 32. This amendment introduces new language to section 320 of the Federal Aviation Administration's authorization bill concerning unmanned aerial systems. It has been offered by Senator Ensign, Senator Conrad, and myself. It calls for the FAA to develop a process to integrate unmanned aerial systems--unmanned aerial vehicles and remotely piloted aircraft--into the National Airspace System. We have all seen on television and read in the media about the remarkable role unmanned aerial vehicles and remotely piloted aircraft are playing overseas in the security of our Nation in the war on terror. They achieve military objectives without putting our men and women in uniform in harm's way. Unmanned aerial systems will continue to play that vital role in our Nation's security abroad, but they are also poised to play a big role here at home in other important areas as well--areas such as enhancing our ability to patrol our borders and secure vital infrastructure, fight crime, detect wildfires, provide valuable crop data for our farmers, and respond to emergencies such as floods and fires. I can give you a practical and personal example of their value. Two years ago, when my home State, along with our neighbor to the east, Minnesota, was battling flooding in the Red River Valley--many of you throughout the country saw this on television--Predator aircraft on loan from Customs and Border Patrol gave us real-time data on the status of ice jams and overland flooding all along the river and made a real difference in helping us to fight those floods and protect our citizens. That vital information enabled both States to deploy resources in a timely and efficient manner and made a real difference for the people of North Dakota and Minnesota and throughout the region. Just a few years ago, that would have been the stuff of science fiction, a vision of the future. But today it is reality, and we can do much more. In fact, unmanned aerial systems are about just that--they are about the future of aviation technology in America, and I am proud to say our State of North Dakota is playing an important role in that endeavor. The Grand Forks Air Force Base in northeastern North Dakota is already home to Predator B aircraft that fly missions for Customs and Border Protection, and it will soon be home to the Global Hawk as well. Right now, overseas, Predator missions are being operated by our North Dakota Air Guard in Fargo, ND. The Grand Forks Air Force Base is also a partner with the State's Unmanned Aircraft Systems Center of Excellence and UND--the University of North Dakota--School of Aerospace. These programs provide access to state-of-the-art training and technologies for the base. Our Center of Excellence operates up to nine unmanned aircraft and is in the process of installing UAS simulators and training programs to prepare a generation of young pilots for this rapidly growing field. The program is designed to combine the visionary thinking of researchers with the practical energy of entrepreneurs and businesses. In fact, the commercial applications of unmanned aircraft and the opportunities for America's aviation industry are enormous. UAV spending will more than double over the next decade, from current worldwide UAV expenditures of $4.9 billion annually to $11.5 billion annually, totaling just over $80 billion for the next 10 years, according to a 2010 Teal Group market study. Here and abroad, our Nation has led the way in this breakthrough technology. But we need to do more. We need to seize the opportunity, and this amendment provides our opportunity to not only maintain but build on that leadership position. This amendment will authorize the FAA to set up pilot projects in the United States that will develop a plan for these aircraft to fly safely either concurrently or in layered air zones in our Nation's skies. We need them to develop air traffic requirements, as well as certification and flight standards, for unmanned aerial systems to fly in the national airspace. We are already flying UAVs in airspace all over the world. Now we need to open the skies for them right here at home to make our Nation more secure, our communities safer, our economy more dynamic, and create jobs and opportunity throughout our country. If we do not, you can be sure other nations will. The goal is to make UAVs, with all their remarkable capabilities, a fully functioning, fully empowered component of America's aviation system. American industry and ingenuity can continue to lead the way. They can continue to lead the way forward in the world of aviation, but we must provide the environment that enables our aviation industry to do it right here at home. This amendment will help us do that. I strongly urge support for this amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I also rise today to congratulate the Senator from West Virginia on his speech and welcome him to the Senate and express pleasure in working together. I want to echo the comments of Senator Lamar Alexander, the good Senator from Tennessee, as well. Being a former Governor, I actually got to know Joe Manchin in his days as Governor. We worked together in his days as Governor and certainly I look forward to working with him as Senator. Our States share many interests. One of those interests is coal. I want to express my intent today to join as a cosponsor on legislation regarding EPA regulation that Senator Manchin is putting forward. That is a good example where we can work together to create jobs and opportunities. I certainly look forward to doing that. Again, I congratulate the good Senator on his speech today. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, today, when our country faces enormous challenges--both domestic and international--we have an opportunity to recognize President Ronald Reagan on the 100th anniversary of his birth. Today--when we need big doses of optimism and a renewed faith in America--the memory of Ronald Reagan tells us that our challenges can be met and our obstacles can be overcome. I remember the Reagan era well. The late seventies and early eighties were tough times. I had just finished college and returned to North Dakota, and America was clearly hurting. It was the era of stagflation--stagnant economic growth and inflation, all at the same time. It was an era of fuel shortages, long lines at the gas station, and sticker shock when you got to the pump. A few years later, America was emerging from that recession and the country was on the mend. We could see light on the horizon. President Reagan told us: ``It's morning again in America.'' And it was. It was also the era of the Cold War. For more than a generation, the Soviet Union had kept Eastern Europe and its own people under its heel, and threatened the West with belligerent rhetoric and an arsenal of nuclear weapons. In 1987, at a time when much of the world was resigned to a tense doctrine of coexistence, with a literal and figurative wall between us, President Ronald Reagan would have none of it. He stood at the Berlin Wall, and challenged: ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!'' And made it happen. In some of our Nation's darkest hours, President Ronald Wilson Reagan was there to remind us that we are a great nation and a great people--a nation kind and generous beyond measure, when deserved, but tough and enduring when circumstances warranted. He knew that believing in ourselves was vital, and then working together to get the job done. That is a lesson worth remembering, today, 100 years after the birth of one of America's greatest presidents. We can--and we will--build a brighter future for ourselves and for future generations. We will continue to truly be that shining city on a hill--a beam of light and liberty for the world.