John Hoeven

Mr. HOEVEN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to finish my remarks, with the indulgence of the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, the next amendment I would like to review that I will be offering is identical to a bill introduced by Senator Manchin and myself. It is the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act of 2016, S. 2446. This legislation, which builds on our past efforts to find a bicameral, bipartisan approach to coal ash, ensures that there is safe disposal of coal ash and provides greater certainty for its recycling. This is a win from the industry standpoint of more energy, it is more cost-effective, but it is also an environmental win in terms of recycling coal ash, as well as making sure that when it is disposed of, it is done safely. Coal ash is a byproduct of coal-based electricity generation that has been safely recycled for buildings, roads, bridges, and other infrastructure for years. In fact, I think it is important to take note of the environmental and financial benefits of coal ash recycling. Over 60 million tons of coal ash were beneficially used in 2014, including over 14 million tons in concrete. It has been calculated that taxpayers save $5.2 billion dollars per year thanks to the use of coal ash in federally funded road and bridge construction. Products made with coal ash are often stronger and more durable, and coal ash reduces the need to manufacture cement, which resulted in greenhouse gas emission reductions of 13 million tons in 2014. In December of 2014, the EPA put forth new regulations for the management of coal ash. The regulations made clear--at least for the time being--that coal ash would continue to be treated and regulated as a nonhazardous waste consistent with EPA's earlier findings. However, the regulation has a major flaw: It relies solely on citizen lawsuits for enforcement. What this means is that neither the EPA nor the States can directly enforce the rules through a permit program with which owners and operators of coal ash disposal facilities must comply. Think about it. That means the regulation does not create the constructive regulatory guidance and oversight necessary to ensure the proper management of coal ash. Instead, the EPA regulation has created a situation whereby the only enforcement mechanism for the rule is that an operator of a coal ash site can be sued for not meeting the EPA's new Federal regulatory standards. Those subject to this regulation whose responsibility it is for keeping the lights on for our electricity consumers are themselves left in the dark about how the EPA standards will be defined in court cases across the Nation. Instead of direct oversight, we will have lawsuits brought by those who want to shut down coal production. Imagine building an addition to your house and there being no building permit process to go through with your local government. Let's just take this as an analogy. You want to build a house, but there is no building permit process to go through with the local government. You call the city or the county, and they say: Well, you should just read the rules, and if you violate the rules, know that you can be sued at any time by anyone who thinks that maybe you didn't build that addition according to the law. This process would leave you without any sort of assurances that you actually built your addition in accordance with the law. Worse, you would have the threat of litigation hanging over your head. Does that make any sense? Think about it. You build a house, a nice, beautiful house, in Phoenix, where it is nice and warm in the winter. You can't get a building permit. You build that house according to your interpretation of the regulations, but anybody--it might be your neighbor; it might be somebody who comes down from the great State of North Dakota to enjoy your lovely winter--anybody may decide to sue you, and they would be able to do it. That is how the regulation of coal ash is set up. Come on. It makes no sense at all. That is how it has been done, and that is why we need to fix it. Our amendment will directly address this problem by taking the best parts of our EPA rule--the standards for coal ash disposal--and incorporating all of them in EPA-approved State permit programs for both recycling and disposal. The States will have direct oversight over disposal sites' design and operation, including inspections, air criteria, run-on and run-off control, closure and postclosure care, and financial assurance. Meanwhile, we offer State regulators the same flexibility for implementing the groundwater monitoring and corrective action standards that are currently provided under existing municipal solid waste and hazardous waste regulations, allowing State regulators to make tailored, site-specific adjustments. We have been listening to the issues the EPA has brought up about our previous versions of this legislation. In fact, we changed the legislation to include a more traditional EPA application process for the State permit programs. If the EPA finds that a State permit program is deficient----

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015--legislation that has been advanced by our Energy and Natural Resources Committee chairman, Senator Murkowski, along with the ranking member, Senator Cantwell. As a member of the committee, I appreciate their leadership on this important issue and this legislation we are now considering on the floor. I think Chairwoman Murkowski is right when she speaks to the need to update our Nation's energy policy and, in that spirit, I filed several amendments designed to advance our Nation's energy policy in key areas. Today I wish to speak briefly about these three amendments. These amendments would help provide regulatory certainty for cross-border infrastructure projects, the regulation and recycling of coal ash, and reaffirm State primacy for energy development, particularly when it comes to hydraulic fracturing or fracking. First, let me talk about the North American energy infrastructure amendment. One of the necessary components to leveraging our abundant energy resources and strengthening our energy security involves building the infrastructure to take energy from where it is produced to where it is consumed. Whether it is transporting crude oil or natural gas or modernizing and connecting our electric grid, these projects require long-term planning and investment, as well as a regulatory environment that promotes certainty and transparency, as well as impartial review. That is why I have submitted an amendment which is identical to the North American Energy Infrastructure Act--S. 1228--that would modernize the existing Department of Energy Presidential permitting process for cross-border infrastructure projects. This amendment, which is cosponsored by Senator Donnelly of Indiana-- it is a bipartisan measure--removes the need for a Presidential permit for the construction, operation or maintenance of a new oil or natural gas pipeline or electric transmission facility with Canada or Mexico and instead places the process in the proper Federal agencies. While it does not alter the NEPA--again, I will repeat this. While it does not alter NEPA's--the National Environmental Policy Act-- environmental review process, our amendment sets time limits for Federal agencies to make a decision on projects once those necessary reviews are completed. This will add greater certainty to the permitting process, and that certainty will help attract the long-term investment necessary to help us build the energy infrastructure we need. These projects are too important to our economy and to our national security to be dragged out virtually for years, such as in the case of the Keystone XL Pipeline--more than 7 years. We need a process that is fact-based, transparent, consistent, and nonpartisan, that will help support the important energy relationship between the United States and our closest friend and ally--Canada. The Energy Department publicly states that it requires approximately 6 to 18 months to issue a Presidential permit. However, there are numerous examples of pipelines and electric transmission applications languishing far beyond that timeline. The many inconsistencies involving these applications speak to the need to update this permitting process. So let's start with crude oil pipelines. Take, for example, the bureaucratic delays for the Plains All American Pipeline, which secured a Presidential permit from the U.S. State Department for its crude oil pipeline in 2007. In February of 2013, the company sought a name change permit from the State Department. However, it took until August of 2015--2\1/2\ years--before a name change was approved. The State Department informed the company that its application for a name change required a new National Environmental Policy Act--or NEPA-- review because a separate pipeline, the Bakken North, based wholly within the United States, would connect to it. So to change the name, they had to do a NEPA review for 2\1/2\ years. Electric transmission lines. There have also been many delays in siting electric transmission lines between the United States and Canada, and in a lot of cases that is for renewable energy. One example is the New England Clean Power Link, a 1,000-megawatt project delivering renewable energy spanning 154 miles between Vermont and Quebec. The company filed its application for a Presidential permit in May of 2014. Yet its application has been pending for over 20 months for a renewable energy electric transmission line. Another example is the Great Northern Transmission Line, a 220-mile project that would connect Minnesota and Manitoba, bringing hydroelectricity and wind power across the border. The project's Presidential application was filed in April of 2014. While the review is ongoing and we hope an outcome will come soon, this application has been pending for almost 2 years. The third example is the Champlain Hudson Power Express project, a 333-mile underground and underwater project. It will bring 1,000 megawatts of hydroelectric power from Quebec to the New York City area. The application for a Presidential permit was initially filed in January 2010; yet it took almost 5 years--until October 2014--for the Presidential permit to be issued. Inconsistent delays in the Federal review timelines, which last longer than the Energy Department's 6- to 18-month target--the target is 6 to 18 months, not 5 to 7 years--inject uncertainty, risk, and costs into all of these vital projects. Commonsense reforms are needed so the project proponents and consumers can benefit. This is exactly what this legislation does. Specifically, this amendment would eliminate the Presidential permit requirement for construction or modification of new oil and natural gas pipelines, as well as electric transmission facilities, that cross the national boundary of the United States. Instead, it places the process in the proper agencies. It would require that the certificate of crossing will be issued by the Secretary of State for oil pipelines, the Energy Department for electric transmission lines, and FERC and the Energy Department for cross-border natural gas pipelines, as currently configured. It requires the State Department to issue a certificate of crossing on a cross-border pipeline permit within 120 days upon completion of a NEPA environmental review process. There is the NEPA environmental review process, but then 120 days after that, they have to make a decision and they have to issue a certificate of crossing unless the agency finds that construction of the cross-border segment is not in the public interest of the United States. It would retain the NEPA review of the potential environmental impacts of a new project at a border crossing and leaves unchanged all other environmental, land, or wildlife reviews currently applying to any other pipeline constructed in the country. In other words, the States would still oversee the NEPA and permitting processes, as they do now. It would provide for an open and transparent rulemaking process to determine the definition of ``cross-border segment,'' which would be used to help determine the scope of the NEPA review process. That is because requiring a NEPA review for the entire pipeline project duplicates the multiple Federal, State, and local agencies' regulations, processes, and authorities already in place. There are numerous existing State and Federal laws and regulations for the review and approval of siting, land acquisition, design, and construction of projects. Those remain unaffected by this amendment. For example--and this is important--State laws and regulations governing pipeline siting remain unchanged by this amendment. Federal laws and regulations governing design, construction, safety, and environmental review of the pipelines remain unchanged. State and local laws and regulations regarding land and rights-of-way acquisition for infrastructure projects, such as pipelines, would remain unchanged. Construction and operation of a pipeline in the United States must comply with the safety regulations of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. This is a separate process from the NEPA process and is also unchanged by this amendment. The measure would provide appropriate authority and scope to the State Department for examination of border-crossing impacts of projects. Other reviews by the Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for issues such as environmental, land, and wildlife impacts are appropriate and remain unchanged. The amendment would require FERC to approve natural gas cross-border pipelines consistent with current policy. It also requires the Energy Department to issue a permit within 30 days of the receipt of the FERC action. Again, these are rational timelines, so there is some consistency and dependability in the process. Finally, the amendment also specifies that existing projects do not need further approvals for new or revised Presidential permits for certain modifications. These include alterations such as volume expansion, adjustments to maintain flow, or changes in ownership. This is commonsense legislation that can help us build the vital energy infrastructure we need for this country. At this point, Mr. President, I would ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, that is absolutely right. I join my distinguished colleague from the State of Missouri, as well as my colleague from the State of Wyoming and our colleague from the State of Iowa. This is an incredibly important issue. It is probably the No. 1 regulatory relief that all business sectors need. Starting with our farmers and ranchers, this is a huge issue. This crosses all sectors because this is a big-time overreach by the EPA, and it really affects all property owners. You are talking about private property rights that are at stake here. There is a fundamental principle at stake in terms of how our government works, as well. The EPA has taken through its own regulatory fiat additional authority that it does not legally possess. It has done so under a legal theory that it has advanced called ``significant nexus.'' Essentially, it has gone beyond the jurisdiction it has, which is regulation with regard to navigable bodies of water, such as the Missouri River, for example, to, in essence, say it can now regulate all water wherever it finds it anywhere. Now think about that. If part of the executive branch or a regulatory agency can unilaterally say, ``You know what, we are not just going to operate under our legislative authority; we are just going to take additional authorities that we don't legally have in order to do what we think is our job,'' then we have a fundamental problem because that defies the underlying concepts of the checks and balances of our government, where the legislative, judicial, and executive all offset each other in order to protect private property rights. That is absolutely what is at stake here. Essentially, the EPA has set a rule where they can regulate water anywhere in any capacity. So if a farmer, after a rain storm, goes out and wants to move water in a ditch, or even an individual private property owner wants to do that, do they have to apply to the EPA for a permit? How do they know? To whom do they go? Are they going to get consistent rulings? Why in the world should they be subject to an agency without legislative authority, just deciding that they are going to have jurisdiction or authority in cases where they don't have it? It is a very important principle in terms of protecting private property rights as well as the fundamental fact that it has a devastating impact on farmers, ranchers, and every sector of our society. I would turn back to my colleague from Missouri and ask him to touch on, maybe for just a minute, what we can do about it. We are on the floor today to have a vote, and I think we need to point out how important it is that our colleagues join us in making sure that we override this Presidential veto.

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, western North Dakota is getting a lot of attention these days because of its vibrant energy economy. But people also need to know about the spectacular landscape and natural beauty that thrives side by side with energy development in my home State. So I want to speak today for a few minutes about a remarkable asset in my home State of North Dakota that was highlighted this past weekend in the New York Times. The Times ranked Theodore Roosevelt National Park in western North Dakota as fifth on its list of 52 worldwide destinations to visit in 2016. Only Mexico City, Bordeaux in France, the Mediterranean island of Malta, and the Caribbean city of Coral Bay St. John in the U.S. Virgin Islands ranked ahead of Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Tim Neville for the New York Times wrote of the park: Few presidents have done as much for conservation as Teddy Roosevelt. Fly into Dickinson in western North Dakota to visit the park named after him, where rolling grasslands dotted with bison collapse into the spectacular red, white and gold badlands of tumbling mud coulees. The more than 70,000-square-acre park consists of three parts: The south unit, which is the largest of the two units, the north unit, and the site of Roosevelt's Elkhorn Ranch, which lies between the north and south units. The Little Missouri River meanders through all three sections of the park. Roosevelt captured a colorful picture of life on the Elkhorn Ranch in his 1885 book called ``Hunting Trips of a Ranchman.'' My home ranch-house stands on the river brink. From the low, longer veranda, shaded by leafy cotton-woods, one looks across sand bars and shallows to a strip of meadowland, behind which rises a line of sheer cliffs and grassy plateaus. This veranda is a pleasant place in the summer evenings when a cool breeze stirs along the river and blows in the faces of the tired men, who loll back in their rocking-chairs (what true American does not enjoy a rocking- chair?), book in hand--though they do not often read the books, but rock gently to and fro, gazing sleepily out at the weird-looking buttes opposite, until their sharp outlines grow indistinct and purple in the after-glow of the sunset. Theodore Roosevelt National Park has preserved what Roosevelt saw more than a century ago. For that reason, it gets half a million visitors a year, but more should come to see it, and I believe more will as a result of the New York Times list. Speaking of New York, the Times was the right venue to highlight Teddy Roosevelt's National Park because Teddy Roosevelt was a native son of New York, born in the heart of Manhattan at the dawn of the age of concrete canyons and bustling growth. More than 135 years ago, he fled the hectic pace of New York for the solitude of North Dakota's western Badlands on a hunting trip. During that trip--his first to what was then called the Dakota Territory--he was so taken with the land that he bought a ranch before he left for home. Within a year, back at home in New York, however, tragedy struck in a cruel way. Both Roosevelt's wife and his mother died in the same House on the same day. He was crushed, but being a man of action, he sought to redirect his grief by throwing himself into a new adventure--cattle ranching in North Dakota. He went west and built the Elkhorn Ranch on a plot of land that is now part of the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Roosevelt long acknowledged his debt to North Dakota. He said: ``I have always said I would not have been President had it not been for my experience in North Dakota. . . . It was here that the romance of my life began.'' That romance is still alive and well in western North Dakota. I invite travelers from around the world to visit us and see what the New York Times described as a ``century of protecting America's magnificence.''

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, while I have the floor, if I might, I wish to shift gears. I know the Presiding Officer is a sports fan and that in her State they have many wonderful sports teams--football, basketball, and certainly the University of Iowa had an outstanding year this year. I certainly wish to commend them, compliment them on their great team. As a matter of fact, the team I am going to talk about next is going to play that team. I think it is our first or second game of the year next year. I am looking forward to it. I know the Presiding Officer is looking forward to it very much as well, when the North Dakota State University Bison play the University of Iowa. I don't know if the Presiding Officer is--I am sure she is a fan of the University of Iowa and Iowa State and Northern Iowa. They are all great sports programs. I don't know which one is her favorite and may not want to say, but we played Iowa State a few years ago. We play Northern Iowa every year. We have a great rivalry with Northern Iowa. Northern Iowa has a wonderful program--football and basketball. We enjoy playing them every year. This year it looks like they have a very good basketball team and are to be commended on beating North Carolina, the Tar Heels. We will certainly want to mention that to our colleagues. I am sure the Presiding Officer probably already has. North Dakota State plays Iowa every year and played Iowa State a few years back and we are very much looking forward to playing the University of Iowa. I wish to take a minute to speak about a resolution I will submit. I am going to talk about it now. The resolution is on behalf of the North Dakota State University Bison, which won a historic fifth consecutive NCAA Division I FCS national football championship on Saturday. Led by coach Chris Klieman, quarterback Carson Wentz, and a solid defensive effort, the Bison clinched the title 37 to 10 over a very talented team from Jacksonville State. The Gamecocks were truly great opponents. They played a fine game, and we congratulate them on a tremendous season as well. With Saturday's win, the Bison became the first football team in the modern era of college football to win five consecutive championships-- five titles in a row. The championships aren't won in a single game but as a result of years of hard work. The Bison overcame injury and adversity to make it back to the title game, and we are tremendously proud of our team, our players, the program, and all of their accomplishments. It was a thrill for my wife Mikey and me to join Bison Nation down in Frisco. The game was in Frisco, TX--a wonderful venue for the game. Having a dedicated fan base helped make their stadium feel a lot like one of our home games at the FARGODOME. It is an amazing experience. The game started with a flyover of a B-52 bomber from the Minot North Dakota Air Force Base. In addition to the thousands of dedicated NDSU fans, Thundar, the Bison mascot, and Corso, an actual bison--an unofficial mascot of the team--made the 1,000-mile trek down to Texas. The Bison had a loyal crew cheering them on, and it helped make this ``drive for five'' season very memorable. Five championships in a row is unprecedented. I want to congratulate the entire Bison community--NDSU's leaders, the coaches, the staff, and these tremendous student athletes, as well as Bison Nation, a wonderful loyal following wherever the Bison team goes. In recognition, I will submit the following resolution in their honor: Whereas the North Dakota State University (referred to in this preamble as ``NDSU'') Bison won the 2015 National Collegiate Athletic Association (referred to in this preamble as the ``NCAA'') Division I Football Championship Subdivision title game in Frisco, Texas, on January 9, 2016, in a decisive victory over the Jacksonville State Gamecocks by a score of 37 to 10; Whereas NDSU has won 13 NCAA football championships; Whereas NDSU has now won five consecutive NCAA Football Championships since 2011, an extraordinary and record-setting achievement in modern collegiate football history; Whereas the NDSU Bison have displayed tremendous resilience and skill over the past 5 seasons, with 71 wins to only 5 losses, including a streak of 33 consecutive winning games; Whereas thousands of Bison fans attended the championship game, reflecting the tremendous spirit and dedication of Bison Nation that has helped propel the success of the team; and Whereas the 2015 NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision title was a victory not only for the NDSU football team, but also for the entire State of North Dakota: Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) congratulates the North Dakota State University Bison football team as the 2015 champion of the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Football Championship Subdivision; (2) commends the North Dakota State University players, coaches, and staff for their hard work and dedication on a historic season and for fostering a continuing tradition of athletic and academic excellence; and (3) recognizes the students, alumni, and the loyal fans who supported the Bison in their quest to capture a fifth consecutive Division I national championship trophy for North Dakota State University. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Will the Senator from Texas yield for just a minute?

Mr. HOEVEN. I want to pick up on that last point. It is particularly important when you consider this legislation that this bill just doesn't benefit the oil-and-gas-producing States, it really benefits everybody when you think about all of the infrastructure and the materials, the equipment that goes into producing that energy. When you talk about drilling down 10,000 feet, 2 miles underground, and drilling out 3 miles in multiple directions; when you talk about the equipment that is needed to do that, the tanks, the transportation; when you talk about all the things--the research, development, engineering--that go into it, I doubt there is a State in the Union that isn't touched by this energy industry. That is something I think all of our Members have to keep in mind when we look at this legislation. It is not just about energy-producing States, it is about all of us in terms of the economy, and it is about all of us in terms of national security. We are the ones leading forward with the newest technology that will leave the environment with better stewardship. I am glad the Senator actually brought up that point, and I hope our colleagues will keep that in mind as we bring forward this legislation.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise again to raise the case for lifting the 40-year-old ban on exporting crude oil. Lifting the ban will not only benefit my home State of North Dakota, but it will also benefit our Nation and our allies in a host of different ways, and that is why I worked hard to include legislation to repeal the ban in the year-end legislation that Congress now has under consideration. Importantly, this is must-pass legislation, meaning it will be very hard for the President to veto lifting the ban on exporting crude oil. When taken together, the reasons for lifting the oil export ban are very powerful. Doing so will encourage more domestic production, increase the global supply of crude oil, thereby reducing the cost at the pump for our consumers, particularly over the long term, and it will grow our economy and create good-paying jobs for our citizens. The last reason for lifting the ban is vitally important as well, particularly now as we work on making sure our Nation is secure. National security through energy security helps to keep our people safer. I will take a few minutes and go through those benefits one by one. Let's start with the American consumer. The price of oil is based on supply and demand. The more oil on the market, the lower the price. It is a matter of simple economics--supply and demand. The volatility and global price of crude oil is felt right down to the consumer level. More global supply means lower prices at the pump for gasoline, benefiting our consumers and small businesses across the country. That means more money in consumers' pockets. Those facts are backed up by studies at both the U.S. Energy Information Administration--the EIA-- which is part of the Department of Energy, as well as the nonpartisan Brookings Institute. This spring, EIA Administrator Adam Sieminski confirmed that finding in testimony before our Energy and Natural Resources Committee, of which I am a member. In September, the EIA released a new report that reaffirms the benefits to consumers and businesses that would result from lifting the decades-old crude oil export ban. It stands to reason if we just think about it for a minute. Oil is a global commodity, right? The global price is based on North Sea oil, or Brent crude, so that is the global price. Because we are not allowed to export oil, the domestic price is different. That is based on WTI--West Texas Intermediate--crude. So the West Texas Intermediate crude price typically simply runs somewhere between $5 and $8 a barrel lower than Brent crude, the international price. So here we are producing oil--my State of Texas and others--we produce some of the lightest, sweetest crude in the world. Yet when our producers sell that, they are getting $5 to $8 less per barrel than people who are producing internationally. So we are talking about OPEC, Russia, Venezuela, our competitors--they price off Brent. They are getting $5 to $8 more for every barrel they sell. Now, think about that. Let's say you are a store or a business of any kind. For selling the same product or selling a better product, you are going to get less money than your competitor. Which of you stays in business? Which of you grows and produces more of that product? Which of you goes out of business? So what is going on in the world right now? We have OPEC flooding the market. Why are they doing that? They are doing that to capture market share and to reassert their dominance. Once they put us out of business, then they are back in the driver's seat and prices will go right back up for the consumer. We don't want to let that happen. We want a robust oil and gas industry that will make sure that we have competition, that we have energy security, and that consumers have lower prices at the pump. Second, in addition to benefiting consumers, crude oil exports benefit our economy here at home. Crude oil exports will increase revenues and boost overall economic growth. It will help increase wages, create jobs, and improve our balance of trade. One area of our economy that currently enjoys a favorable balance of trade is agriculture. That is because our farmers and our ranchers successfully market their products around the globe. Our crude oil producers can do the same if they are given the opportunity. Local economies also benefit. Service industries, retail, and other businesses and communities centered on oil development will see more economic activity and growth if this antiquated ban is lifted. Also, crude oil exports will benefit our domestic industry, our energy industry, obviously. The EIA's latest study concluded that lifting the ban will reduce the discount for light sweet crude oil produced in States such as North Dakota, Texas, and others and encourage investment to expand domestic energy production. The drop in the price of oil this year has slowed domestic production. In our State of North Dakota, we continue to produce oil. In fact, our State increased production in October to almost 1.17 million barrels a day. That is up a little bit from last month when we produced about 1.16, but we are already down from our peak earlier this year of 1.2 million barrels a day. This goes back to what I am saying. We are in a fight to determine who is going to produce oil and gas globally. Do we want that to be America or would we prefer that to be OPEC, Russia, Venezuela, and some of our other adversaries? Our producers are resilient, innovative, and highly competitive. They are developing new technologies and techniques to become more cost- effective and more efficient all the time. Allowing them to compete in the global market will not only make us more inventive, more creative, and deploy better technologies but grow our economy and grow our domestic oil and gas industry. Of course, that means high-paying jobs for our people. According to a study by IHS, a global provider of industry data and analysis, lifting the ban will attract an estimated $750 billion in new investments and create nearly 400,000 additional jobs in the United States between 2016 and 2030. I have seen studies that are actually higher. That is $750 billion in private investment--not government spending, in private investment--to stimulate and grow our economy and 400,000 additional jobs. Again, those are jobs in the private sector--not more government--private sector jobs, economic growth, more revenue to help reduce the deficit and the debt without raising taxes. We know that from experience in North Dakota, where in recent years per capita personal income has been growing faster than any other State in the country, not solely but in large part because of oil and gas production. On a national level, crude oil exports will help to bring our energy policy into the 21st century. The crude oil export ban is an economic strategy that was implemented in the 1970s, and the world has changed dramatically since then. Back then, the conventional wisdom was that there was a finite amount of oil in the world, and we pretty much knew where it was, and there were even alarms at that time that we were going to run out of oil. Barton Hinkle pointed out in Reason magazine that as recently as 2005, the BBC asked: ``Is global oil production reaching a peak?'' In 2008, the Houston Chronicle declared: ``We are approaching peak oil sooner than many people would have thought.'' Two years later, the New York Times reported on a group of environmentalists who ``argue that oil supplies peaked as early as 2008 and will decline rapidly, taking the economy with them.'' Yet here we are. Nobody envisioned the kind of energy revolution we are seeing in the United States--in North Dakota, in Texas, and in other oil-and-gas-producing States--with new and creative technologies that produce more energy with better environmental stewardship. Back in 2011 I asked then-Interior Secretary Salazar to have the U.S. Geological Survey do a new study to update estimates of recoverable reserves in the Williston Basin. In April of 2013, the results came in and they were profound. The USGS found that there are approximately 7.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in the Williston Basin, which is more than twice the previous estimate. The upper end of that estimate is 11.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil. It is about twice the USGS estimate made in April of 2008, which projected about 3.65 billion recoverable barrels in the Bakken formation. So my point is, in less than 5 years' time, with the new technology and development, we have more than doubled the amount of recovery oil just in the Williston Basin, in the North Dakota-Montana area, from 3.65 billion barrels to 7.4 billion barrels, and we are just scratching the surface. The report also estimates there to be about 6.7 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered, technically recoverable natural gas, nearly three times the estimate 5 years earlier. So again my point: We don't even drill for natural gas. We are drilling for oil and we produce natural gas as a byproduct. And the amount available is going up dramatically. As I say, the most recent estimate for natural gas, 3.67 trillion cubic feet, is more than double the amount just 5 years earlier. That is what technology is doing with the resource. This is the opportunity we have. Recoverable oil projections to date may be as little as several percentages of what is actually in the ground. That is the kind of potential we have. That is the kind of potential we have to depend on ourselves for energy, not OPEC or anyone else. I recently asked the USGS Director, Suzette M. Kimball, to update the most recent assessments to provide more information on a new formation that we are producing in North Dakota--the Tyler. That is because industry advances in directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing have greatly expanded the ability to access formerly difficult areas. As I said, the industry is working on a new formation--the Tyler formation. I want to make one other point, too, and this goes to environmental stewardship. We are actually producing less greenhouse gas in the country today than we have in prior years. A big part of the reason is something called hydraulic fracturing because now, with hydraulic fracturing, we are producing so much more natural gas that we have low- priced, abundant natural gas, and as we use more of it we are actually reducing carbon emissions in the United States. So isn't it ironic that as we develop and deploy the new technologies to produce oil and gas more efficiently, more economically, and more dependably, at the same time, through hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling, we are also doing so with better environmental stewardship. Isn't that what American innovation and ingenuity is all about? Isn't that the creativity that we unleash in the private sector, when we create a good business climate and we empower investment, rather than block it with regulation and taxation and roadblocks and redtape that doesn't make any sense? That is how we create that rising tide that lifts all boats. That is how we become the most powerful and dynamic economy in the history of the world. That is how we create more jobs and opportunity for our people. So now, just 10 years after some were lamenting the depletion of the world's oil reserves, the model has shifted from scarcity to abundance, and we will need additional investments in technology, transportation, and energy infrastructure, such as pipelines, rail, roads, and other industry needs to produce that energy. The good news is that the industry will build the infrastructure, create the jobs, and produce the energy we need if we just provide them with that good business climate and that opportunity to do it. As I said, as they deploy those advanced technologies, as they make that investment, they produce jobs, economic growth, more tax revenue, without raising taxes, to help with the debt and deficit, and they do so with better environmental stewardship. That is how we lead the world forward with better environmental stewardship, with American ingenuity, creativity, and innovation. Lifting the ban will create more domestic production and energy infrastructure, which holds two key benefits. First, more domestic production and infrastructure means that in a national emergency, Americans will not be dependent on the need for oil from elsewhere in the world--places like OPEC. Americans do not want to return to depending on OPEC for our energy. The second benefit is that U.S. crude oil will provide strategic geopolitical benefits for us and for our allies around the world. It will provide our friends with alternative sources of oil and reduce their reliance on Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and other unstable parts of the world for their vital energy needs. As a further security advantage, adding more domestic supply will provide a buffer against shortages going to volatile conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere around the globe. We finally have an opportunity to curb the disproportionate influence OPEC has had on the world oil markets for almost half a century, and we need to capitalize on it. One final point on national security. We must recognize the implications of the President's deal with Iran, which lifts sanctions against Iranian oil. That agreement will put 1 million barrels a day of Iran's oil on the global market and billions of dollars in their Treasury. Does it make any sense at all to maintain a ban on U.S. oil exports while the President lifts a ban on Iranian oil exports? Of course not. Clearly, it does not. In fact, we should be maintaining the sanctions on Iran even as we lift the oil export ban on our producers. The consensus among lawmakers and experts in the field of energy and national security is evident: Lifting the ban on U.S. oil exports will create jobs, boost our economy, and bolster our national defense. It is supported by studies done by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, EIA--part of the Department of Energy--the nonpartisan Brookings Institute, and Harvard Business School. Last week we held an Energy and Natural Resources Committee meeting to examine the link between terrorism and the global oil and gas market. The results were telling. Expert witnesses from such highly regarded, nonpartisan think tanks as the Center for a New American Security and IHS, a global provider of data and analysis, affirmed that lifting the oil export ban will enhance national security. Representative of the general opinion in the hearing was testimony by Dr. Sara Vakhshouri, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, who said that with the Middle East in turmoil and confronting terrorist attacks and threats, it is important to have alternative resources and ``especially from the U.S.'' Jamie Webster, senior director at IHS, capped the issue, saying: ``We have put out a couple of studies on the crude export issue and our finding is that this is a clear win for the U.S. economy and also for energy security. It's difficult to find a case where this is not a positive.'' The ban on crude oil exports is an anachronism, a solution to a problem that no longer exists owing to the innovation of the American energy industry. At this time in our history, all the circumstances argue for lifting the ban. Americans need jobs, the economy needs a free market boost, and the American people deserve the security of knowing that in an emergency, we have a reliable and abundant source of energy as well as the infrastructure to deliver it. Lifting the ban on crude exports is an idea whose time has come. Let's get it done. I am very pleased to see my esteemed colleague from the great State of Texas, the only State that produces more oil than my home State of North Dakota, but we are working hard, and you know when you are in second position, you always run a little harder, work a little harder. We are hot after them, but I must say they do an amazing job down there. His leadership on this issue has been tremendous because he understands it is not only important for the Lone Star State, but it is important for our country. With that, Mr. 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. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of repealing ObamaCare and replacing it with a step-by-step approach that restores choice and competition to consumers. The problems with ObamaCare are legion and have often been reported in the media and identified on the floor of the Senate. I know we have all heard from our constituents. Hundreds of thousands have written and called all of our offices and, as a matter of fact, I will read one of the letters that came into my office--or at least part of it. It is addressed to me and starts out saying: I'm sure I'm not the first one to contact you about rising health insurance deductibles. I have had this job for 3 years. The first 2 years my company plan had a $3,000 yearly deductible with no copay. So he had a $3,000 yearly deductible with no copay. He continues: Last year, it went to $4,000 with a 20 percent copay. Again, it goes from $3,000 to $4,000 in annual deductible and it goes from no copay to a 20-percent copay. This coming year, 2016, it will go to $6,700 with a 20- percent copay. So in just 3 years it goes from a $3,000 yearly deductible with no copay to $6,700--more than double--with a 20-percent copay. He goes on: Even before my current job, I had a Blue Cross North Dakota policy that had a $2,000 deductible and a very fair monthly premium. I have always had good health insurance. Now I have an essentially worthless policy. I had bone cancer in my pelvis 1\1/2\ years ago. Had to go to Mayo and have my left pelvis removed. I have spent the last 18 months learning to walk again. Doctors weren't able to reconstruct it. I will have twice yearly follow up cancer screenings for the next several years. These follow ups cost about $3500.00 each. So I spend $7000.00 a year, which is all of my deductible. He goes on: What are you doing to make changes to this health care act? He clearly identified what consumers across the country are experiencing. This is just one example. I have many more, as do all of the Members of this body. As bad as ObamaCare is for them, it is going to get worse. In 2016, consumers will see significantly higher premiums yet again. Premiums for the lowest cost silver plan will increase by 13 percent, and the lowest cost bronze plan will rise by 16 percent on average. That is not all. The inaptly named Affordable Care Act has led to higher out-of-pocket costs for older, middle, and lower income Americans as well. Today, the average deductible is more than $2,000 and for some it exceeds $6,000, discouraging people from seeking necessary care. The law is also resulting in fewer choices. Employers are already reducing benefits for many family members. By 2018, more than half of employers plan to significantly reduce benefits for employees' children and spouses. While many are seeing higher premiums and deductibles with fewer choices, ObamaCare has created dozens of new taxes that ultimately are passed down to small businesses and consumers. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that ObamaCare will increase taxes by $1.2 trillion over the next decade. The result is fewer jobs. Simply put, employers are already cutting jobs or reducing hours to part time to avoid the higher costs of ObamaCare. I do believe there is a consensus across the Nation that we need health care reform, but ObamaCare is not the answer. Americans want commonsense reforms--reforms that truly are affordable and that truly do empower patients to make their own choices. In the short run, we need to pass budget reconciliation legislation that repeals ObamaCare, and, in particular, the individual and employer mandates. In the long run, we need to take a step-by-step approach to put individuals, families, and businesses on a path to better reforms. The right approach to health care reform empowers people to make their own choices in selecting health care providers and insurers that is patient centered and respects the relationship between doctor and patient. The way to accomplish that is with a market-based plan that creates more competition and reduces health care costs. Here is what we could do: To foster competition and reduce health care costs, we can do things like expand tax-free health savings accounts, flexible savings accounts, and Archer medical savings accounts to encourage individuals to save for future health care needs. Combined with high-deductible, low-premium policies, people will be able to meet their immediate health care needs and still be protected in the event of costly, serious illness. We should provide portable health care plans so that individuals and families don't experience gaps in coverage when they change jobs. These plans could be given favorable tax treatment. For example, they could be treated as tax-preferred accounts so that dollars towards premiums could receive tax-exempt treatment. We should allow health care policies to be sold across State lines. This would result in more choices, more competition, and reduced costs for customers. We should give States more flexibility to manage Medicaid for low-income individuals and families. We should ensure affordable health care options are available to those in need and certainly those patients with preexisting conditions. That means bolstering State high-risk pools to make sure everyone has an opportunity to be covered. ObamaCare is far from being the panacea it was promoted to be. The sticker shock hasn't faded. On the budget reconciliation we now have a real opportunity to turn the page on a failed experiment so that we can take steps toward replacing it with something the American people want. I urge my colleagues to get behind the effort so we can start that process. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to make the case for lifting the 40-year-old ban on exporting crude oil. Lifting the ban is a smart move and it is long overdue. It will benefit not only my home State of North Dakota but also our Nation and our allies. That is why I am proposing to include legislation lifting the ban in the new highway bill that Congress is on track to pass this month. The highway bill is must-pass legislation, and the benefits of allowing crude oil exports are multiple. Taken together, they make a powerful case for allowing our producers to market their product on the world markets. Doing so would enhance domestic production, increase the global supply of crude oil, grow our economy, create good-paying jobs for our people, and make our Nation more secure. So let's look at these benefits one by one. First and foremost, crude oil exports will benefit American consumers. The price of oil is based on supply and demand--the more oil on the market, the lower the price. The volatility and the global price of crude oil are felt right down to the consumer level. More global supply means lower prices for gasoline and other fuels and more money in consumers' pockets. Those facts are backed up by studies at both the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the nonpartisan Brookings Institution. This spring, EIA Administrator Adam Sieminski confirmed these findings in testimony before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on which I serve, as does the Presiding Officer. In September, the EIA released a new report that reaffirms the benefits to consumers and businesses that would result from lifting the decades-old crude oil export ban. Second, in addition to benefiting consumers, crude oil exports will benefit the American economy. Crude oil exports will increase revenues and boost overall economic growth. It will help increase wages, create jobs, and improve our balance of trade. The one area of our economy that currently enjoys a favorable balance of trade is agriculture. That is because our farmers and ranchers successfully market their products around the globe. Our crude oil producers should be allowed to do the same. Local economies also benefit. Service industries, retail, and other businesses in communities centered on oil development would see more economic activity and growth if this antiquated ban is lifted. Crude oil exports will also benefit the U.S. energy industry. The EIA's latest study concluded that lifting the ban will reduce the discount for light sweet crude oil produced in States such as my State of North Dakota, as well as Texas and other States, and encourage more investment in domestic energy production. The drop in the price of oil this year has slowed domestic production, but we continue to produce oil. Today my State of North Dakota produces about 1.16 million barrels of oil a day, only down slightly from our peak of more than 1.2 million barrels of oil a day. The reason is that our producers are resilient and innovative. They are developing new technologies and new techniques to become more cost effective and efficient all the time. The American energy industry is here to stay. The energy sector, moreover, provides high-paying jobs for our people. We know that from experience in North Dakota, which has had the fastest growing rate of per capita personal income in the country among all the States in recent years. On a national level, crude oil exports will help to bring our energy policy into the 21st century. The crude oil export ban is an economic strategy implemented in the 1970s, and the world has changed dramatically since then. Back then, conventional wisdom was that there was a finite quantity of oil in the world and we pretty much knew where it was. Nobody envisioned the kind of energy revolution we are seeing in States such as North Dakota, Texas, Colorado, and many others. Consequently, the model has shifted from scarcity to abundance, and we need to have a comprehensive approach to energy that reflects the new reality. That means we need additional investments in technology, transportation, and energy infrastructure, such as pipelines, rail, roads, and other industry needs. By leveraging our natural resources and American innovation, the United States is in a position to demonstrate real global energy leadership. Last but not least, crude oil exports will strengthen national security. U.S. crude oil will provide strategic geopolitical benefits, not only for us but also for our friends around the globe. It will provide our allies with alternative sources of oil and free them from their reliance on energy from Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and other unstable parts of the world. As a further security advantage, adding more supply would add a buffer against volatile events in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. We finally have an opportunity to curb the disproportionate influence OPEC has had on the world oil market for 5 decades, and we need to do it. The President's deal with Iran lifts sanctions against Iranian oil, bringing 1 million barrels a day of their product on to global markets. Clearly, it is inconsistent for us to maintain a ban on U.S. oil exports while the President lifts a ban on Iranian exports, sending jobs, revenues, and economic growth to places such as Iran while blocking the same benefits for American citizens. The ban on crude oil exports has long outlived its usefulness, and repealing it is long overdue. For consumers, jobs, the economy, and national security, we need to come together and lift the ban. We can do that by including legislation lifting the crude oil ban in the bipartisan highway bill set to pass Congress this month. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency's new rules on carbon dioxide, which I believe need to be rescinded. On August 3, 2015, the EPA released its so-called Clean Power Plan. This final plan will impose a 32-percent reduction nationwide in CO2 emissions in the existing electric power sector compared with 2005 levels. This is an increase from a 30-percent reduction outlined in last year's proposed rule. North Dakota's mandated reductions, however, far exceed those levels. The EPA originally proposed an 11-percent reduction, but then in the final rule that went from 11 percent to a 45-percent reduction. Let me repeat that. For our State, the EPA put out a proposed rule and said North Dakota has to reduce by 11 percent. Then, without reissuing a new proposed rule or anything else, EPA said in the final rule, no, it is not an 11-percent reduction in the State of North Dakota, it is a 45- percent reduction. Not only does that create real problems in real terms as far as our industry addressing that level of reduction, but I think it raises real questions as to whether EPA followed the law and regulation in promulgating the rule. It is critical to communicate the impacts this rule will have on our State and across the country, especially in our electricity generation and mining sectors. People need to know that thousands of workers' families and communities across the country will be negatively impacted by this rule. On September 30, 2015, I hosted a meeting with North Dakota's coal industry and regulators to meet with Janet McCabe, the EPA Assistant Administrator in charge of issuing the new carbon dioxide rule. We directly communicated our State's opposition to the rule. We also called on the EPA to provide greater flexibility by recognizing the investments and advances made by industry in reducing CO2 levels and North Dakota's unique coal and geographic resources. As a result of the meeting, EPA officials agreed to provide flexibility for the State to submit its State implementation plan, its SIP. Essentially, instead of requiring a plan in 1 year, we will be able to provide a draft plan in 1 year, with 3 years to submit the final SIP. We also received a commitment from the EPA to send technical staff to North Dakota so that the Agency can hear firsthand from North Dakota regulators and officials about the challenges in complying with the Agency's mandate. Also, here in the Senate, I am working with colleagues on several legislative efforts to halt and repeal this rule. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I worked to include language in the fiscal year 2016 interior and environmental funding bill to block the EPA from implementing this rule. We are working to include this priority in the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus appropriations bill that Congress will take up in the coming weeks. I have also joined with Senator Capito of West Virginia to introduce a bipartisan bill, the Affordable Reliable Energy Now Act, or the ARENA Act. This legislation would empower State Governors to protect ratepayers from increases and ensure the reliability of the electric grid. At the same time, it would prevent the EPA from mandating unproven technology or withholding highway funds from States not in compliance with the rule. Further, I am cosponsoring the resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to repeal the new EPA regulation which we are considering on the Senate floor right now and which we will be voting on in a little more than half an hour. The Congressional Review Act, or CRA, authorizes Congress, by a majority vote, to repeal actions by a Federal agency after they are formally published and submitted to Congress. In North Dakota, we have successfully adopted an ``all of the above'' approach to energy development, and we have demonstrated that we can utilize our natural resources to do it with better environmental stewardship. EPA's new rules on carbon dioxide neither reflects our State-led approach nor accounts for the significant investment our industry and workers have already made to improve the way electricity is generated in our State, and that is true across the country. I encourage my colleagues to vote for Senator Capito's CRA which disapproves the EPA's carbon rule for existing electric utility sources, as well as Leader McConnell's CRA to disapprove the EPA's rule for new sources. We can produce more energy with better environmental stewardship, but the way to do it is not by shutting down powerplants and destroying jobs as well as raising costs on hard-working families and small businesses. Instead, we need to create a business environment that will attract more investments so that the industry can develop and deploy new technologies that help us produce more energy more dependably and more cost-effectively while at the same time promote better environmental stewardship. That is the right way to do it. That is the way we are doing it in North Dakota. Thank you, Madam President. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of bipartisan legislation to fix intrusive regulation that will hurt job growth and that threatens to place a large share of our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and small businesses in the regulatory grip of the EPA. This burdensome regulation is the EPA and Army Corps' final rule on the waters of the United States. The bill to fix it is called the Federal Water Quality Protection Act. That is the bill we are seeking to proceed to today so that we can debate it, amend it, and pass it to deal with this onerous regulation. The burdensome regulation we are talking about, of course, is the EPA and Army Corps' final rule on waters of the United States. The Federal Water Quality Protection Act is legislation to address it. It was authored by my good friend from Wyoming Senator Barrasso, and I cosponsored this legislation, along with many others on our side of the aisle. This is also a bipartisan bill with our colleagues from across the aisle as well. This is bipartisan legislation. It has had bipartisan input, and I encourage Members on both sides of the aisle to proceed to this legislation. Let's have this very important debate on behalf of our farmers, ranchers, and so many other job creators across this country. As I say, let's offer amendments and have our votes, but we need to deal with this very important legislation for the benefit of the American people. This waters of the United States final rule greatly expands the scope of the Clean Water Act regulation over America's streams and wetlands. It is a real power grab by the EPA, and it exceeds the statutory authority of the EPA. The Supreme Court has found that Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act extends the ``navigable waters.'' I don't think anyone is arguing about the EPA's ability to regulate navigable bodies of water like the Missouri River, in my State, but the Supreme Court has also made clear that not all bodies of water are under the EPA's jurisdiction. Yet, under the administration's final rule, all water located within 4,000 feet of any other water, or within the 100-year flood plain, is considered a water of the United States as long as the EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers decides it has a ``significant nexus'' to that navigable water in the opinion of either the Corps or the EPA. These agencies define significant nexus so that almost any body of water qualifies. For instance, if an area can hold rainwater or has water that can seep into ground water, which is almost any water anywhere, then there is significant nexus, according the EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers, not to mention the fact that areas like the Prairie Pothole region in my State of North Dakota are specifically targeted as waters of the United States. The result is that the vast majority of the Nation's water features are located within 4,000 feet of a covered body of water. If this expansive rule sounds out of bounds to you, you are not alone. In fact, the waters of the United States rule is such an overreach by the EPA and the Corps that 31 States are suing to overturn it, including my State of North Dakota, which has led a lawsuit brought by 13 of those 31 States. When granting a preliminary injunction against this rule, the North Dakota Federal District Court stated that ``the rule allows EPA regulation of waters that do not bear any effect on the `chemical, physical and biological integrity' of any navigable-in-fact water.'' It went further to state that ``the rule asserts jurisdiction over waters that are remote and intermittent waters. No evidence actually points to how these intermittent and remote wetlands have any nexus to navigable- in-fact water.'' Meanwhile, the Sixth Circuit Court in Cincinnati, OH, issued a nationwide stay of the rule, citing that the EPA and the Corps did not identify ``specific scientific support substantiating the reasonableness of the bright-line standards they ultimately chose.'' This waters of the United States rule is clearly flawed from a legal perspective, but I think it is even more important to take a look at how this rule, if allowed to be implemented, will affect hard-working Americans with excessive regulation. For those of you who haven't had the opportunity to visit with a farmer from my State of North Dakota, know that dealing with excess water is a common issue, a daily issue, to say the least. Those farmers can tell you that if there is water in a ditch or a field one week, it doesn't mean there will be water there the next week. It certainly doesn't make that water worthy of being treated the same as a river. A field with a low spot that has standing water during a rainy week and happens to be located near a ditch does not warrant Clean Water Act regulation from a legal or, more importantly, from a simple commonsense standpoint. The Corps and EPA have responded to these concerns by saying they are exempting dozens of conservation practices, but these exemptions cover farmers and ranchers only for changes made before 1977 or for changes that don't disturb any water or land now considered to be a water of the United States. In other words, if you need a new Clean Water Act permit, you are not going to qualify for the EPA's exemption under this rule. Moreover, the exemption does not cover all Clean Water Act permits. Because of this rule, the farmer with the low spot in the field next to a ditch, described above, may now be sued under the Clean Water Act's Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. This farmer now faces the risk of litigation costs for the United States of everyday weed control and fertilizer applicants, among other essential farming activities. Farmers and ranchers are far from the only job creators who will suffer under this rule. In fact, the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy has expressed concern about the impact it will have on other small businesses as well. I am so concerned about this rule that I have led the effort on our Appropriations Committee to stop the rule in its tracks. We were successful in including language in the committee-passed Interior-EPA Appropriations bill to do just that. The Federal Water Quality Protection Act, however, offers a long-term solution by vacating the waters of the United States rule and sending the EPA and the Corps back to the drawing board to develop a new rule with instructions to consult with States, local governments, and small businesses. America's farmers, ranchers, and entrepreneurs go to work every day to build a stronger nation. Thanks to these hard-working men and women, we live in a country where there is affordable food at the grocery store and where a dynamic private sector offers Americans the opportunity to achieve a brighter future. The Federal Government should be doing all it can to empower those who grow our food and create jobs. Yet, instead, regulators are stifling growth with burdensome regulations that generate cost and uncertainty. The final rule on the waters of the United States produced by the EPA and the Corps to regulate virtually every body of water--pretty much water anywhere in the United States--is not the way to go. Let's stop this regulation. Please join me in voting to proceed to the Federal Water Quality Protection Act. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am here to actually address some of the recent developments on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Before going into that, I would like to take a minute, though, and mention the Congressional Review Act that is before us now and how important it is that we pass it. I want to commend Senator Ernst for her diligence on this very important matter. The waters of the United States is a regulation issued by the EPA that goes far beyond their statutory authority, far beyond the statutory authority that Congress has given them under a legal theory referred to as ``significant nexus.'' It is something I have worked on for a long time. In fact, I have included a bill that would defund the regulation as part of the EPA appropriations bill in our appropriations, both at the subcommittee and the full committee level. So I certainly hope and feel that the good Senator from Iowa will be successful in this CRA effort, as far as getting it through Congress. I think it will go through in strong fashion in both the Senate and the House, thanks to her good work and, of course, the underlying importance of the issue. Of course, our challenge will be with the administration. I hope the administration will look at the strong support here in Congress and listen to the people of this great country, the farmers and ranchers across our country, and the small business people across the country who know so well that WOTUS is a serious problem for them. I hope the President will consider them and not veto the legislation, but I am concerned that he will veto it. And if he does, then we will continue to work through the appropriations process to defund this legislation. Again, even if we are not able to deauthorize it through the CRA process, we will work to defund it. Of course, the disadvantage with defunding is that only goes for a year, but obviously that would take us through most of the balance of the Obama administration and hopefully get us to a fresh start. I think the key point, though, is that we rescind this onerous regulation. That can be through deauthorizing it, it can be through defunding it, and, in fact, it can be through litigation. I think in excess of 30 States have joined in litigation across the country pushing back on this onerous regulation. In fact, the Federal district court in North Dakota stayed the regulation. That stay was upheld, that injunction was upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, OH. So right now there is a national stay on this regulation, which I think just goes to show that we are on the right track here because we are coming at it from so many angles with so many people who are saying: Look, this is common sense. This is a big-time overreach by EPA. It adversely affects farmers, ranchers, small businesses, and property rights. In fact, in this great country, it adversely affects property rights. So through deauthorization, defunding, and the legal process, we will work to rescind it. Again, I wish to echo the strong comments of my esteemed colleague from the great State of Colorado and also acknowledge and commend the good Senator from the State of Iowa on her efforts to lead the charge. Keystone XL Pipeline Mr. President, I wish to speak, as I said, for up to 10 minutes as in morning business on the subject of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Yesterday, after 7 years--7 years starting in September of 2008--the TransCanada company asked the U.S. State Department to pause or suspend its application to build the Keystone XL Pipeline. The company asked for that pause because it is working through an application process for route approval by the Public Service Commission in Nebraska. The Governor and the legislature in Nebraska actually approved the route for the pipeline in Nebraska, but after many lawsuits in the State of Nebraska and demonstrations, often led by movie stars and other celebrities, the company has chosen what I would call a belt-and- suspenders approach. Essentially, they have decided that in spite of the fact that they have received approval from the Governor, the legislature, and that that decision has been upheld by the Nebraska Supreme Court, they are going back and they are going through the process with the Nebraska Public Service Commission. So that is why I say it is really a belt-and-suspenders approach. Now they are going back, and in addition to the approvals they have already received, in addition to the decision by the Nebraska Supreme Court, now they are going back through the Public Service Commission process in Nebraska as well. The thing about that is it will take about a year to do it. So now TransCanada is asking for forbearance from the Obama administration--not because the company hasn't met all the legal and regulatory requirements. It has. It has met all of them and it spent millions of dollars doing so. But, rather, TransCanada is asking for forbearance on the project because the company is once again going through all of the requirements, all the regulations, and all the redtape to get every approval--State, local, and ultimately Federal-- for the project. That is why I call it, as I said, the belt-and- suspenders approach. Now we will see what the Obama administration does with TransCanada's request. Will they now hold off or wait on their denial decision, which the Obama administration obviously wants to make based on their environmental agenda, or will they honor TransCanada's request to pause or suspend the project, just as they have made TransCanada wait now for 7 years pending all of the administration's requirements, including the Obama administration's adamant concern that the process in Nebraska be fully completed before the administration render a decision. Remember, this administration made a big deal about waiting until the Nebraska process was fully completed before the administration would make a decision. So let's see what they do. As I have just outlined, that process would probably take another year. So will they forbear on making a decision now after they held the process up 7 years? Will they honor the request by TransCanada to pause while the company completes this process in Nebraska or will they say no, in spite of their concern that that be fully completed? Will they go ahead and in essence reverse themselves on process and deny the project? Well, we will see. We will see what they do. But if they don't grant this pause or suspend the application pending completion of the project in Nebraska, it seems to me like a double standard. On the one hand, they hold up the project for 7 years and they say the company must go fully through the process in Nebraska. So for them now to say ``No, we are not going to provide the time to do that'' seems, in fact, very much like a double standard. As I have talked about in this Chamber before and as I think the administration is very well aware--and I think that is part of the reason they have held up on making a decision rather than turning down the project--this is a project which is overwhelmingly supported by the American people. In poll after poll, there is 65 percent to 70 percent support by the American people. Also, it is supported by Congress. It passed overwhelmingly with more than 60 votes in this Chamber. It passed with a big bipartisan majority in the House. Another consideration obviously now for the administration is, what about the new administration in Canada? The Trudeau administration is coming in, and the new Prime Minister in Canada supports the project. So what is the message to Canada if the administration says ``No, we are not going to honor that company's request for a stay or a pause or an extension on the project now'' and instead goes ahead and turns it down? The administration's own Quadrennial Energy Review dedicates a whole chapter to the benefits of integrating North American energy markets. The administration states that ``energy system integration is in the long term interest of the United States, Canada, and Mexico, as it expands the size of energy markets, creates economies of scale to attract private investment, lowers capital costs, and reduces energy costs for consumers.'' That is right out of their own Quadrennial Energy Review, prepared by their own Department of Energy, which says we need to work with Canada on energy. So what will they do? In spite of all of that, will they turn down the project now or will they treat the company fairly and give them due process? Well, regardless of the decision the Obama administration makes, I think in the final analysis the project will be approved. It might take a year, it might take a little over a year, but I think in the final analysis this project will be approved. It should be approved because the people of this country overwhelmingly support it and recognize that it is in their interest and to their benefit. But what it really comes down to is the merits. In the final analysis, a project should be approved or disapproved on the merits, right? And the merits are these, very simple: To build the kind of energy plan that we want for this country, where we are energy secure--meaning we produce more energy than we consume--we have to build the energy infrastructure we need to move that energy safely and efficiently from where it is produced to where it is consumed. That means we need pipelines, we need transmission lines, we need rail, and we need road to move that energy as safely and cost-effectively as possible. If you think about it, that doesn't mean just oil and gas; that means all types of energy. That means renewables too, right, to move those electrons through transmission lines. We need the energy infrastructure for the right kind of energy plan for this country--energy from sources, traditional and renewable, to move that energy as safely and as cost-effectively as possible. So what is the message here? The message is very simple: If we want companies to step up and invest the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars it takes to build that infrastructure, then we have to have a legal and regulatory process where they know that if they go through it and they meet all the requirements, they can then get approval for the hundreds of millions that they invest to get that done and to build these projects. That is energy infrastructure we need to build so that we don't continue to rely on OPEC or let Russia dominate the energy markets or rely on countries such as Venezuela, and ultimately, that is what the American people want. That energy security, that energy independence, if you will, working with our closest friend and ally, like Canada, and developing energy in this country, is what the American people want. That is what the American people want because it makes us strong and secure. This is just one project, but it is about all of the projects we need to build to make this Nation energy secure. That is why ultimately this project will be approved on the merits. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to discuss the legislation before this body, the National Defense Authorization Act. Before doing so, I want to take a minute and address the DRIVE Act. I strongly support the DRIVE Act. It is very important that we have a 6-year highway bill for our country and that we get it in place. It was passed in a bipartisan basis. I think there are many provisions in it that will be very helpful, not only to our country but to each and every one of our States. We have worked on that legislation; we have passed it through regular order. It is vitally important. When I go home and talk to my constituents in North Dakota, as I know is the case for all Members of this body, they express how important it is that we get not only a highway bill passed but a 6-year highway bill, a long-term highway bill passed so that these multiyear projects can go forward. We do need to get that done and get it done now so that we don't have an interruption in the Federal highway program. To my esteemed colleague, I want to express my support as well for this important legislation. I appreciate both the work of the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and of the ranking member--my colleague who is the ranking member on EPW. This is important legislation. We need to continue to work in a bipartisan way in both Houses--the Senate and House--and get this legislation done.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, again, I thank the Senator from California. This is important bipartisan legislation, and we need to continue to work to get it done. I rise today to discuss the NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act. It is likewise incredibly important legislation, in this case for our military--for our military and for the defense of this great Nation. I want to begin by commending the members of the Armed Services Committee, and especially Chairman McCain, but all of them for their diligence. That means Members of both the Senate and the House, working together in conference committee after both Houses passed this legislation, passed the legislation through regular order. I emphasize that because it is so important that we follow regular order in this body and in the House, where we bring forward the legislation from the committees, bring it to the floor, have the debate, have the opportunity to offer amendments, debate those amendments, vote on those amendments, and then vote on the legislation. Let these bodies work their will. Send the legislation to the President. He makes his decision and we move forward. I emphasize this right at the outset because it is so important that we work in this way through regular order so that we get to the important work of this country. I use this legislation as a great example--the National Defense Authorization Act, the defense of our Nation. We are moving forward because we are following regular order. We are working in the way I just described in both the Senate and the House, and that is what we need to do. It is hard to overstate the importance of this legislation for our men and women in uniform and for the security of our Nation. I am pleased that we are now debating this conference agreement, and I look forward to moving to final passage. In just a few hours, at 2 p.m. eastern time today, we will be voting on final passage on this legislation. There are several features of this bill that I want to highlight, and I am going to talk about a few of them. There are many important provisions, but I do want to highlight some of them here over the next few minutes. The first is in the area of personnel and benefits, taking care of those who put on the uniform--men and women who wear the uniform and put it all on the line for us and for our country. This bill represents a continuing commitment to the well-being of our service men and women. It makes significant improvements to the benefits we offer to those who serve, particularly, by allowing military participation in the Thrift Savings Plan, as recommended by the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. We recognize that we need to reward those who stay in the military for 20 years with a strong retirement package. We also recognize through this legislation that those who serve less than 20 years deserve something in retirement as well. The Thrift Savings Plan provides a great mechanism to do that. I am very glad that we are able to include that in this legislation. Let me touch for a minute on international security assistance. We face an incredible array of threats to our security and to the security of our allies. Those threats require immediate and careful attention, and this legislation points us in that direction and provides important tools. Because of the serious concerns many of us have about the efforts to fight ISIL, the National Defense Authorization Act increases congressional oversight of the effort to support the fight against ISIL in Syria. We should not wait to pass this legislation. There is too much at stake in critical regions of the world, and we need to move forward. We should pass this legislation immediately, and the President should sign it right away so that our military has all of the authorities it needs to address threats such as ISIL as soon as possible. I will talk for a minute about some of the critical defense programs. Of course the military needs the best tools available in order to meet the security threats of today and tomorrow. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 provides authorization for a number of key weapon systems, including the Air Force's new long-range strike bomber and the aerial refueling tanker programs, missile defense, and a wide range of other procurement priorities. Delaying these programs now will harm our national security in the future, so it is important to keep them on track by passing this legislation and getting it signed into law. I am also very pleased that the fiscal year 2016 legislation provides full authority for the Air Force's nuclear forces, including the B-52 bomber and the Minuteman III ICBM as well as the Global Hawk unmanned aircraft. Our Global Hawks provide incredible intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. In North Dakota, we are proud to host the capabilities that make such vital contributions to the defense of our Nation--two of the legs of the nuclear triad--the intercontinental ballistic missiles and the B-52 bombers, as well as the unmanned Global Hawk. I also want to say another word about remotely piloted aircraft, RPAs. The Air Force has been squeezed by the demand for the capabilities we have in the Predator and the Reaper, and it has been difficult to meet those demands and still have the capacity to train new pilots for these RPAs, remotely piloted aircraft. I wish to commend the members of the conference committee for a very strong section in this legislation that requires the Air Force to consider all of its options to train additional RPA pilots. I have been advocating using the private sector to increase our capability to train those pilots. That is a step that can be done in the short term without drawing down our ability to support commanders in theater. Right now the commanders in theater want those remotely piloted aircraft for the mission. That is a very high operations tempo. That doesn't leave pilots available here at home to train new pilots to fly these aircraft. That is why a private sector solution can be so helpful to our Air Force, and that is the language I worked so hard to include in this legislation. I also have language in the report that goes along with the fiscal year 2016 Defense appropriations bill. The companion bill to the authorization bill is the appropriations bill. I included language in the appropriations bill that instructs the Air Force to look at private sector-led training. My hope is that between that language and what we are passing in this authorization bill, the Air Force will find a way to leverage the private sector to enhance what the Air Force can do with its RPA fleet, meaning a higher ops tempo, and at the same time train new pilots and bring them into the system to fly unmanned aircraft. Finally, I will highlight a couple of items that are important to North Dakota specifically. One is an amendment I offered during floor consideration of the NDAA in the Senate. This language directs the Air Force to determine the feasibility of partnering the Air National Guard with the Active-Duty Air Force to operate and maintain the Global Hawk. Similar to what it does in support of the Predator and Reaper missions, I believe the Air National Guard can provide a valuable contribution to the Global Hawk missions. I am very grateful that the conferees retained this amendment in the bill, and I hope that it will prove to be valuable not only in North Dakota but will set an example that can be followed with other aircraft and the Air National Guard units in other States across the country. I also wish to thank the conferees for including a $7.3 million authorization to construct a new Intelligence Targeting Facility at Hector Field in Fargo. Our Air National Guard is taking on an exciting new targeting mission and this much needed facility will give them the space required and the capability--the facilities and resources necessary--to do that job right. They are already doing an outstanding job, but they need this secure facility as part of this highly specialized and highly important mission. I worked on this project through the military construction appropriations subcommittee, and I look forward to completing the authorizing and appropriating legislation so we can get construction started on this new facility in Fargo. The bottom line is that this legislation includes many provisions that are important for our men and women in uniform, that are critical to our national security, and that are vital to each of our States. The bill is well crafted, and it has received bipartisan support. It is absolutely necessary that we move forward and pass it and that it becomes law, so I will touch on that aspect of the legislation for just a minute as well. The President has indicated that he intends to veto this legislation. So he intends to veto legislation that is passing through this body with very strong bipartisan support. The irony is that he is vetoing this legislation because we included additional funding in the legislation for our military that is incredibly important and is very much needed. But he is saying, nope, that is not what he wants done and has indicated that he will veto the legislation. It is very important today that we have strong bipartisan support to send a clear message that if this legislation is vetoed, this body and the House will override that veto. We have to stand strong on a bipartisan basis. We have to make sure that we get this legislation passed, not just for our men and women in uniform but for the good and for the security of our country. This is vitally important legislation. This is about making sure that we join together in a bipartisan way and get it done for our men and women in uniform, and then there is still more to do. This is the authorizing legislation. Then we have to pass the appropriating bill that goes with this legislation so that we fund the authorizations provided in this legislation, and not until all three things are done have we stepped up and got the job done for our military. We need to pass this authorization. We need to make sure that we override any veto--should the President decide to veto this very important legislation--and then we need to stand strong, come together, and make sure we do not have a filibuster of the companion bill, the Defense appropriations bill, which goes with this authorization. Then, and only then, will we have the job done that we need to do for our men and women in uniform. That is the task before us, and that is what we need to get done. We need to keep our eye on that ball very clearly, and we need to make sure the American people understand that we have to pass this legislation, override any veto, and then pass the companion Defense appropriations bill. Only then have we got the job done for our men and women in uniform who put it all on the line for us. With that, I yield the floor. Section 1045

Mr. HOEVEN. I will.

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue of the fiscal year 2016 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill--the bill that, in fact, is now before the Senate. We just voted at 2 o'clock this afternoon on the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act. That is very important because we need to pass that legislation for our military. In fact, we did, and we passed it with 70 votes. That is incredibly important because the President has threatened a veto on the National Defense Authorization Act. This is legislation that has passed the House, and now it has passed the Senate and it is going to the President. If he vetoes it, we have to have the votes to override because we have to get that legislation done for our men and women in uniform. Not only, as I spoke earlier on the floor, is it about making sure we are doing our job on behalf of our military but also on behalf of our Nation's defense. The other thing I mentioned in regard to that legislation is we also need to pass the companion bill, which is the Defense appropriations bill. So very soon we will be taking up the Defense appropriations bill, which is the funding that goes with the National Defense Authorization Act. We authorize those military programs and then we have to fund them. That is why the Department of the Defense appropriations bill has to be passed along with the Defense Authorization Act in order to get the job done for our military. I make that point because until we have done both of those things, we have not funded the military the way we need to. I make that point as part of a bigger point and that is this: The Appropriations Committee, of which I am a member, has passed all 12 appropriations bills out of committee, and they are awaiting action on the floor of the Senate. Those bills have been passed with strong bipartisan votes. Instead of having each and every one of those bills filibustered, we need to take those bills up and debate those bills. People should offer the amendments they have, we can debate those amendments, and then we can vote. That is our job. That is how the Senate works. That is what the people of this great country send us to do. That is the work of the Senate. That is regular order. As we talk about authorizing programs for men and women in uniform, we also have to pass the Defense appropriations bill. That will be coming before this Senate. I make that point because what we have been facing is a filibuster of all these appropriations bills. We will have another test. We will have another test now this week, and this is on the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. This is energy, Corps of Engineers, vital fundamental infrastructure for this great country. So we will see if our colleagues will join us. Can we join together in a bipartisan way and advance through this appropriations bill, have the debate, offer the amendments, and get this work done? I hope the answer to that is yes. We will find out over the course of today and tomorrow if our colleagues would join together and get this work done for the American people and then on we go. We may have to deal with a Presidential veto on the National Defense Authorization Act. If so, let's do so. Let's do so in a bipartisan way. Then let's take up the appropriations bill that goes with that Defense authorization. Let's make sure all 12 of these bills, all of these appropriations bills are brought to this floor, people have their opportunity for the debate, people can offer their amendments, and we will have our votes. If something can get 60 votes, it passes. That is the work of the Senate. That is the work of the Senate. If it is not done, the reason it will not be done is because there will be an ongoing filibuster. It is very important that the American people understand that because this is the work of the Senate, this is the work of the Congress, and we need to be clear about whether we are getting that work done or whether we continue to face a filibuster that does not allow us to bring this legislation forward to debate it in an open, transparent debate. Put it out there in front of the American people, make the argument, offer the amendments, and vote. That is how it is done. That is how it is done in this democracy. That is how it is done in this Senate. So I rise to talk about the merits of the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. This measure appropriates funding for the U.S. Department of Energy, including national nuclear security and energy research and development, as well as critical infrastructure projects administered by the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved this bill in May. I am a member not only of this Appropriations Committee but this subcommittee, and we voted out of committee 26 to 4. So there are 30 members on the full Appropriations Committee, Republicans and Democrats, and by a vote of 26 to 4 we voted in favor of this legislation. That is about as bipartisan as it gets. It was supported by all of the Republican members of the committee and 10 of the Democratic members. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, I thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Feinstein. They have crafted a bipartisan bill within our budget framework that balances our energy priorities and our national security preparedness. I also commend Senate Appropriations Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Mikulski. They brought the measure up in regular order, allowing amendments and debate, and they advanced this bill, as I said, with a very strong bipartisan 26-to-4 vote. The fact is, this is the first time in 6 years the Appropriations Committee has passed all 12 appropriations bills. All 12 have been passed in a bipartisan manner, awaiting action on the floor. As I said, this legislation is within the budget guidelines. The Senate Energy and Water bill includes $35.4 billion in overall funding, which is $1.2 billion more than last year's funding level. The Energy Department's nuclear security program is funded at $12.3 billion, which is $856 million more than last year. The Department of Energy programs receive an additional $270 million. This is important because our Nation has significant infrastructure needs, and that is what we are addressing, basic infrastructure needs of this kind. The longer we wait to improve America's infrastructure, particularly our waterways, the higher the cost will be. So it is very important that we get this legislation moving. One of the ways we can cost-effectively improve the Nation's infrastructure is by using public-private partnerships, P3s, to fund water projects. I worked closely with Senator Alexander, the chairman of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee to include support for P3-style projects in this legislation. I see that our chairman has joined us. Again, I commend him for not only the overall legislation but for his support for the P3s, public- private partnerships. By leveraging the resources of the private sector, we can accelerate construction and reduce overall project costs. This creates a win for citizens who benefit from the project and a win for taxpayers who save money on projects that are constructed on a more cost-effective basis. I look forward to passing this legislation so we can advance this P3 concept. In fact, we have a project in Fargo, ND, that is perfectly suited for this type of approach. A P3 project can save the government hundreds of millions of dollars in construction costs, but we need to get this legislation passed so the Corps has the ability to start these types of projects and get them constructed for our country. I am also pleased the legislation permits the Army Corps of Engineers to get a handful of new feasibility studies. Mother Nature doesn't wait on the Senate or Congress, so we have to keep looking at areas where we need to upgrade infrastructure and respond to things as they occur; for example, some of the recent events, as the Presiding Officer knows, which occurred in Colorado, the Animas River. One area I am very familiar with that needs better protection is Minot, ND, where we had a devastating flood in 2011. We need to do a feasibility study to determine how best to make sure that flood protection is put in place. Finally, I am strongly supporting funding included in the legislation for improvements to water infrastructure across this country. Whether it is our ports or whether it is large or small, this is basic infrastructure we need for quality of life in this country. This is a long-term investment for the future of our country, the quality of life, the welfare of our people, and the ability to grow our economy. Let me touch on a couple of areas before I turn over the floor to our chairman. In addition to the Corps of Engineers, this legislation provides funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration, the agency that develops and maintains the Nation's nuclear warheads. NNSA relies on the funding provided every year in the Energy and Water bill to preserve the Nation's nuclear deterrents. It is critical that this legislation moves forward. I am particularly pleased the legislation meets the fiscal year 2016 budget request for funds needed to refurbish the W80 warhead, which is the warhead that goes on our nuclear cruise missiles. The W80 warhead is aging and needs to be refurbished so it can move to the new cruise missile being developed by the Air Force. The W80 is critical to the air leg of the Nation's nuclear triad. I am glad this legislation provides the funding to help keep our triad intact and in fact modernized. The bill also makes advances in our energy security priorities. It increases funding for the Energy Department's energy research and development, which will help provide the research for technologies that will advance coal, natural gas, oil, and other fossil energy resources and innovations. This is important in order to pursue a true ``all of the above'' energy policy that enables our country to produce both traditional and renewable energy with better environmental stewardship. The bill also provides support for the coal Advanced Energy Systems Program to research the efficiency of coal-based power systems and enabling affordable, commercially viable CO2 capture technologies. It continues funding for many other research and development programs that will strengthen our energy future, not only by enabling us to produce energy more cost-effectively and more dependably but also with better environmental stewardship. I will start to wrap up and turn the floor over to our esteemed colleague from the other side of the aisle and the outstanding Senators who are members of the committee who are here and looking to speak in support of this very important legislation, but I want to finish on the aspect I started on earlier. We have passed all 12 appropriations bills out of committee. This is the fundamental work of the Senate, making sure we fund the government, we fund the enterprise we are talking about, and we do so within the budget that was duly and properly passed by this Senate and by this House--by the Congress. This is the work we need to do. That means we have to proceed to these bills, that we have to offer the opportunity for debate, the opportunity for amendments, debate those amendments, and vote. That is our job. That is our responsibility. That is how we get the work done for the American people who sent us to do just that. This is good legislation. These bills were passed with bipartisan support. As I said in the case of this bill, 26 in favor, only 4 opposed. Let's get going. Let's get the work done we were sent to do. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

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