John Hoeven

Mr. HOEVEN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to respond.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would like to respond to my colleague from the State of New Hampshire. I thank her for her work on our Appropriations Committee on the Department of Homeland Security and--

Mr. HOEVEN. I will.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to highlight the importance of voting yes to proceed to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill for 2015, H.R. 240. This bill, which has passed the House, is necessary to protect our borders, fight terrorism, and defend communities under threat from natural disasters. The list of national security-related programs this bill provides resources for is long, but before I speak to those programs in greater detail, I will reinforce the importance of proceeding to this DHS appropriations bill. DHS's funding expires on February 27. To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who do not want to proceed to this bill, I would just point out, we need to take up this DHS appropriations funding bill and debate it--to let the Senate do its work. We just passed a Keystone bill after the consideration of more than 40 amendments. At the end of the day, we were able to produce a bill that garnered 62 votes. I urge my colleagues to let the Senate do its business. Vote yes on cloture on the motion to proceed. Now I would like to walk through some of the things this bill funds. I want to remind my colleagues how critical these DHS operations are to the economic prosperity, public safety, and security of the American people. The bill provides $39.67 billion in net discretionary appropriations plus $6.4 billion in disaster funding. Let's take a look at some of the critical security functions this bill provides. The bill provides $10.7 billion for Customs and Border Protection--an increase of $119 million over fiscal year 2014. It supports record levels of personnel, tactical infrastructure, technology, and air and marine assets, including 21,370 Border Patrol agents; 23,775 Customs and Border Protection officers; miles of fencing and border roads; fixed and mobile surveillance and detection technology; aircraft and vessels outfitted with the latest sensor technology, as well as unmanned aerial systems; reused technology from the Department of Defense, such as tethered aerostat radar systems. The bill also includes funding for a biometric exit pilot program in airports in 2015, as well as improvements to the Department's biometric system to support exit implementation in the future. The bill provides $5.96 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE--an increase of $689 million over fiscal year 2014, which is a 13-percent increase. It holds the administration's feet to the fire by maintaining a record 34,000 adult detention beds. It responds to the recent flood of families coming across our border by significantly increasing family detention beds from 96 to 3,828. It provides increases for the criminal alien program and for fugitive operations, both of which are critical to identifying, apprehending, and removing the criminals that the administration claims are a priority. The bill provides increases for Homeland Security Investigations to combat human trafficking, cyber crime, child exploitation, and drug smuggling. It also includes $50 million for the Visa Security Program and supports enforcement to address visa overstays. In addition, the bill provides strong support for the Secret Service, an organization that requires reform and congressional oversight, given recent incidents, with $81 million above fiscal year 2014. In addition to funding increases associated with preparations for the 2016 campaign season, the bill provides $25 million to begin addressing security needs at the White House complex. Recognizing the need for a state-of-the-art biosafety level 4 research facility to prepare for and respond to animal-borne and other biologic threats, this bill provides the funding necessary to construct the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility. The bill provides more than $10 billion for the Coast Guard. It continues our commitment to recapitalization of the Coast Guard fleet, including funding the 8th National Security Cutter. And it takes a serious step to address nearer term heavy ice breaker needs with $8 million for preserving the Polar Sea. The bill supports our cyber security efforts as a nation, both protecting government systems and working with the private sector to share threat information and protective measures. Since homeland security is a national effort, the bill continues funding for grant programs to State and local firefighters, emergency managers, and law enforcement--$467 million for State homeland security grants, including $55 million for Operation Stonegarden related to border security; $800 million for the Urban Area Security Initiative, port security grants, and transit security grants; $680 million for fire assistance grants; $350 million for Emergency Management Program grants. For research and development efforts, funding is provided consistent with fiscal year 2014 levels. The Science and Technology Directorate supports research and development at our national labs, with our university partners, and in the private sector to meet homeland security needs. The bill also provides for aviation security screening operations by the TSA, law enforcement training needs by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and E-Verify, which supports businesses across the United States in hiring legal workers. Finally, the bill provides the requested almost $7 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund to assist with recovery costs for communities hit by natural disasters. What the bill does not fund is the President's Executive actions. The House bill includes several amendments that are targeted at reversing the President's actions and articulating priorities for immigration enforcement. The President's actions overstepped his authority. His actions put illegal immigrants ahead of legal immigrants who are hoping to be a part of the American dream, who are following and respecting the Nation's laws. The immigration system is broken, but it cannot be fixed through Executive actions that exceed the President's authority. Instead, it should be accomplished through legislative reforms that start with border security, do not provide amnesty, and respect the rule of law. I leave my colleagues with this thought: We need to support these vital national security programs. Vote yes on cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill, and let's get to work. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, she and I will be continuing to work together on this and other important issues, but the reality is that we need to proceed to this bill so that we can get the funding in place. Let's proceed to the bill. Let's have the debate. Let's have amendments. Let's do the work of the Senate on this important legislation. That is why we need a ``yes'' on this cloture motion to proceed--so we can get on this funding bill and go to work, have debate, have amendments, and do the work of the Senate on funding DHS, which is very important for our country. Cloture Motion

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Washington as the bill managers. I think they have done an exceptional job. I know that is not just my opinion, but it is the opinion on both sides of the aisle. It is not just that they were able to do the work on this bill, but actually to facilitate the debate that really enabled us to move through an open amendment process and a return to regular order. It is not easy to do. Because, obviously, we had people who had ideas on a whole variety of issues, and, clearly, we have strong support for legislation, but there are those who oppose legislation as well. So to find a way to keep that amendment process going and with more than 40 amendments and, of course, to get to a final vote and pass the legislation is a real testament to both of the bill managers. I thank all of the Members of this body who supported the legislation. A bipartisan vote getting more than 60 votes is no small achievement for any piece of legislation. Of course this bill already passed the House. We are already conferring now with the House on whether we will need to go to conference or hopefully get their concurrence, but obviously our objective is to put it on the President's desk as soon as possible. This is an important step in building the kind of energy plan this country needs. We can't get to energy independence or energy security without building the infrastructure we need to move that energy from where it is produced to where it is consumed. We have to remember that, yes, this is about working with our closest friend and ally, Canada. Some of the oil in the pipeline will be moved from oil production in Canada, but it is also about moving our domestic oil in this country from States such as mine and from the State of Montana and moving that oil as safely and as efficiently and effectively as possible and moving it in a way that actually produces less emissions than if we try to move all that oil on trains, which is what is being done now. Moved on trains, we are talking 1,400 railcars a day instead of moving it through a pipeline. It is not only a safety issue, it is not only a cost issue, it is not only an efficiency issue, it is about producing less emissions and making sure we don't create congestion on our railroads to move all of the other goods we want to move. This is about building the kind of infrastructure plan for energy and other things we want for this country. I hope the President now will join with us. Clearly we are going to move this to his desk, and I hope he will work with us. That is what the American people want. If we look at this legislation, if we look at this Keystone XL Pipeline project, it is about energy. It is about jobs. It is about helping to grow our economy. It is about working to achieve national security in terms of energy security. It is about building the right kind of energy plan for the future of our country. Here is where we are. This process was started over 6 years ago. Not only has this Congress, both the House and the Senate, now advanced this bill in a bipartisan way with strong bipartisan majorities in both Chambers, but every State on the route, all six States on the route have approved this project as well. We have the Congress that has approved it on a bipartisan basis. We have all six States that are included on the route. They have approved it through their processes. We have the supreme court in the State of Nebraska which has adjudicated, legislated in that State. That has been resolved. Our closest friend and ally, Canada, wants us to work with them on energy security for North American energy security, but most important of all the American people want this done. In poll after poll, the American people overwhelmingly support this project. Over the last 3 years, the support has ranged from 65 percent to 75 percent. Even in the most recent poll that came out this month, 3 to 1, 65 percent to 22 percent, the people want the President to sign this bill. Again, I hope the President will join with us and work with us and support this legislation as we work with our leader on the energy committee and with our ranking member. We don't agree on everything, obviously, but there are things we can work on together. We are working to build the right kind of energy plan for this country to get energy security. There will be more work to do, but I hope the President will join us in a bipartisan way and sign this legislation. Again, my thanks to the bill managers, to the Members of this body who supported the legislation. I appreciate it very much. I know the good Senator from Texas has a few words, but I will first yield the floor back to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Tomorrow there will be two stacks of votes on the Keystone bill. Senators should expect up to seven votes shortly after 11 a.m., and then an additional four or five votes at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the bill managers for their hard work today and for their efforts in the work that was done in a bipartisan way on this legislation. I know both the bill managers have spent an awful lot of time putting together these amendments, and I think they have really bent over backward to make sure Members on both sides of the aisle have had an opportunity to file their amendments, to make those amendments pending, and to get votes on the amendments. So I would like to express my appreciation to both of them for all the work they have done and for the process today in voting on amendments. With that, I yield the floor.

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 that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I return to the floor today to discuss the legislation under consideration. As I did yesterday, I wish to begin by again thanking both the Senator from Alaska on our side of the aisle and the Senator from Washington on the other side of the aisle, who are the bill managers--the legislation managers in this case--of the Keystone XL Pipeline approval legislation that I put forward along with Senator Manchin. I wish to begin by thanking both of the managers for their diligence and for their bipartisanship and for working together to advance this legislation, but I also want to make sure all of the Members of this body get a chance to bring their amendments forward, debate those amendments, and have a vote. This afternoon we have scheduled 18 votes, and that is great. Some of those amendments I support; some I oppose. But we are going to do what this body is supposed to do and what the American people elected us to do, and that is to have this discussion and then vote. We are working to advance energy policy for this country that can not only truly help create more energy, jobs, and economic growth but also really address the national security implications of making our country energy secure. By that, I mean producing more energy than we consume and working with Canada, our friend and ally, to do that so that we don't have to depend on OPEC to do that and on parts of the world where there is great instability and where our interests are not aligned with the interests of some of those countries. Also, it enables us to actually weaken some of our opponents that are petro-dependent, countries such as Iran, which is now trying to build a nuclear weapon, as well as, right now, Russia, which is invading its neighbor Ukraine, one of our allies, where we are trying to stop the adventurism of President Putin. By truly becoming energy secure, by providing more supply of energy, we not only benefit every American at the pump--Americans are saving billions of dollars when they pull up to the pump. That is not only good for American consumers, it is good for our small businesses. Energy is a foundational industry that strengthens every other industry out there. It makes us more competitive in the global economy across the board. As I say, it weakens some of our opponents. So that is really the debate in which we are engaged. Yesterday I started to respond to some of the critics who oppose this legislation on the basis of saying this is a project for Canada and not for the United States, and that is not true at all. This pipeline would not only move crude from Canada to our refineries, it would also move crude from production in the United States, including in my State of North Dakota, which now produces 1.2 million barrels of oil a day-- second only to Texas--as well as Montana. So it also moves domestic crude to our refineries as well. Furthermore, it really is about making our Nation energy secure, working with Canada to become energy secure so we don't have to depend on OPEC. That is very much a national interest issue for this country, for this Nation, and for all Americans. I spoke about that a little bit yesterday. The second issue I would like to address is some of the environmental issues. I started to do that yesterday, but I deferred at that time because anytime we can get people to come to the floor to offer their amendments and make them pending, that is what we want to do. At that point we started getting people to come offer their amendments, and the bill managers, through their hard work, were able to get agreement, and we now have 18 amendments pending on a precloture basis. So we have made real progress in getting everyone involved and hopefully building more bipartisan consensus and getting on the energy debate the American people want and getting to a result where we can actually produce legislation that will help our Nation. So I started to get into the second point I wanted to discuss, which is some of the environmental aspects of the oil sands development and how technology is being deployed, with hundreds of millions of private dollars invested in new technologies that are not only producing more energy but doing it with a smaller environmental footprint. That helps to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of oil that is produced in the oil sands. There are two projects I wish to speak about to give examples of how, if we continue to work to empower this kind of investment in new technologies, we get not only more energy more cost-effectively and more dependably but we also get it with environmental stewardship. The first project I will speak about is a project that has been undertaken in the oil sands in Alberta, Canada. Going back to this earlier chart, we can see that it is up in the Hardisty area, and this second chart is a picture of the project. It is one that is undertaken by the Shell Oil Company. It is called their Quest project. I will read a little bit about the project. Shell Canada will this year complete the world's first oil sands carbon capture and storage project. This is CCS--carbon capture and storage--something we have been working to develop in this country and apply to fossil fuels, not only things such as oil and gas but also coal. This is the new carbon capture technology. They will complete the world's first project. Continuing: The project, called Quest, will begin permanently storing CO2 by the end of the year and will permanently store more than 1 million tons per year. Let me read that again. The project, called Quest, will begin permanently storing CO2 by the end of the year and will permanently store more than 1 million tons per year. Quest reduces the emissions from Shell's upgrader by 35 percent--that's the equivalent of taking 175,000 cars off the road each year. Shell will transport the CO2 50 miles north via pipeline and permanently store it more than a mile below ground under impermeable rock formations. My point is that here is an example of where a private company is working with the Province of Alberta on this project to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in carbon capture and storage technology that will not only apply to the oil sands, but--think about it--this is also technology that is not only being developed but deployed on a commercial scale in production that we can now take advantage of and use in this country to produce more energy from multiple sources-- again, smaller footprint, lower greenhouse gas. Isn't that the solution to better environmental stewardship where we get more energy that we produce here with our closest friends and allies, with better stewardship through investment by private companies in these new technologies and, in this case, working with Alberta? Alberta is also investing in this technology, but this is the innovation of our country, of our companies. This is the kind of ingenuity and innovation that helps us build the kind of future we want. In this case, it is a secure energy future by deploying these new technologies. The other point I will make as we look at this chart is that under the old system of oil sand production--remember, it is excavation, so they would be digging up this area and then extracting the oil from the oil sands. But under this new system of development, which is called in situ, they are actually drilling wells, and then they put steam down the hole to bring the oil up, and then they capture the CO2 and store it underground, so smaller environmental footprint and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Since 1990 the greenhouse gas emissions on a per-barrel basis for oil sands production has gone down by 28 percent. So they have reduced it by almost a third. These new technologies will reduce it further going forward. This is about finding good solutions to create jobs and economic activity and energy security and take us into the future. That is why I wanted to discuss that project for just a minute. A second project I will reference is Exxon's Kearl project, spelled K-E-A-R-L. Just by way of preface, Exxon currently produces over 100,000 barrels of oil a day in the Canadian oil sands. They are going to increase that amount this year to 345,000 barrels a day. Their objective is to get to half a million barrels a day of oil produced in the Canadian oil sands. They are investing $10 billion in this project. That is their investment in this project and these new, better drilling techniques. Let me tell my colleagues a little bit about their project. Exxon is doing it differently than Shell and Quest. They are employing different technologies but investing $10 billion to reduce the environmental footprint, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but produce a lot of energy for Canada and for our country. Exxon's Kearl project will use cogeneration for steam, which a low- energy extraction process to recover oil, and heat integration between the extraction and treatment facilities to minimize energy consumption. As a result, oil produced from Kearl will have about the same life- cycle greenhouse gas emissions as many other crude oils refined in the United States as a result of technologies which significantly enhance environmental performance--again, smaller environmental footprint, lower greenhouse gas emissions. This is how we work to address the challenges we face, whether it is producing energy or anything else. We deploy these new technologies that enable us to do it better. Other environmental innovations for Kearl include onsite water storage to eliminate river withdrawals in low-flow periods and progressive land reclamation, which will return the land to the boreal forest. I wish to emphasize that for a minute. What we see around this site, which is actually the Shell site--this is the boreal forest. I have been to Hardisty, and I have seen the oil sands production. I was also taken out to areas where they had reclaimed land that had been formerly used to produce oil sands. Now we can't tell the difference between the land that has been reclaimed and the land that hadn't ever been used in terms of oil production. I was there and I looked at both and I couldn't tell the difference. Of course, that is subjective. You want to return it to the state it was in before it was tapped. With this newer production, there is a much smaller area that we would ultimately have to return to its original state. I wanted to touch on those two projects for a few minutes as well as point out that the Alberta Government actually requires that all land used in the development of oil sands has to be returned to the same or equivalent condition when it is no longer in use. The final point I wish to touch on for just a minute or two is another issue that has been brought up, which is pipeline safety. There have been some references to recent pipeline spills--one in Poplar, MT, actually not too far from where I live in western North Dakota. But the spill is from what is called the Poplar Pipeline, which I believe is owned by the Bridger Company. It is a pipeline that goes underneath the Yellowstone River. It was built in the 1950s, so we are talking about a pipeline that is over 50 years old. Isn't that just the point, that whether it is roads or bridges or buildings or pipelines or transmission lines or anything else, we have to make the investment in new facilities rather than just continuing to rely on old facilities? That is what I want to emphasize about the Keystone XL Pipeline project. This is an investment of $8 billion, not a penny of government investment but $8 billion in private investment in new steel and new technologies. Also, the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration--PHMSA--the division of the Department of Transportation that oversees pipeline safety, has required 57 special conditions for this pipeline to make sure it is as safe as possible. I am going to touch on some of those to give a sense of what they are. The whole point is that here we are trying to create a business climate, a business environment where companies can put billions of dollars into these new technologies and this new infrastructure so that we can have energy as safely as possible, with the best stewardship possible, so we aren't relying on pipelines or other infrastructure that is more than 50 years old. We are trying to get that upgrade. We are not doing it at taxpayer expense. We are getting tax revenues. We will get hundreds of millions of tax revenues that will come back in from private sector projects where we are trying to empower that investment. At the same time, the PHMSA, the Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, has all these requirements that they are making part of the approval process--57 different special safety conditions for the Keystone XL Pipeline. They are conditions such as puncture resistance. For example, TransCanada is required by PHMSA in the environmental impact statement to ensure that the steel used in the pipeline can withstand impact from a 65-ton excavator with 3\1/2\-inch teeth. There is corrosion resistance coating, making sure it has a coating on it that is resistant to corrosion. There is cathodic protection. Cathodic protection is applied to a pipe so where it connects to other--it could be structures such as a bridge. It could be any place where the pipes are connected to make sure those other connections don't rust through into the pipe. For maintenance, TransCanada must submit certification that demonstrates compliance with all 57 conditions before they commence operation of the pipe. Airplanes will patrol the right of away at least 26 times a year. They will send cleaning and inspection tools through the pipeline once a year to collect and analyze basic sediment and water. Compare all of this to a pipeline that was built 50 years ago and laid on the floor of a river--versus a pipeline now, where if they have to cross a river, they use directional drilling. So they go down 25 feet below the river and put the pipe 25 feet down in the rock below the river, versus older pipelines that were just laid in there. Again, this is the new technology--the new safeguards. In horizontal drilling and directional drilling the pipe will be buried approximately 25 feet below riverbeds. So if there any riverbeds that cross, that is 25 feet below using directional drilling. There are automatic shutoff valves. So they will have automatic shutoff valves and they will be placed every 20 miles along the pipeline route. Extra miles will also be placed where there are protected water crossing and other areas of higher consequence. They can be closed remotely on either side of the line, isolating a damaged area within minutes of detection. Again, it is about making sure if there is an issue of any kind, that you can minimize and mitigate any kind of spill. With 100 percent weld inspections, there is a requirement that 100 percent of welds are inspected rather than just some of the welds under a test basis. With satellite monitoring and leak detection, Keystone XL will have more than 13,500 sensors feeding constant and detailed information about flow rates to the control center 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That is so that if any kind of a leak is detected, it is immediately shut down so you minimize the amount of product that would leak. Those are the kinds of safety features--and there are 57 of them-- required by the administration's Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration. When we talk about pipeline safety and somebody comes in and says there is this pipe that broke so we should never have another pipe, we need to talk about that and address that in a sensible way. We have over 2 million miles of pipe in this country. The point is we do need to build new pipelines and upgrade them and take other steps to make sure the system is safe. But you don't do that by blocking investment in the new technologies and the new pipeline that will help us move product more safely, more cost-effectively, and more dependably. Those are the three issues I wanted to address. Again, I covered some of them yesterday, but I wanted to make sure that any time we had somebody coming down to offer amendments, we deferred to those individuals. I am pleased now we have 18 amendments pending on a whole gamut of issues related to this project, to this energy discussion, and to our efforts to advance a better energy future for our country. Again, I look forward to the debate this afternoon, to voting on these amendments, and to continuing to advance this legislation on behalf of the American people. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 50, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. HOEVEN. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 51, submitted earlier today.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., tomorrow, Thursday, January 29. I ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and that the Senate then be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the Democrats controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; and that following morning business, the Senate then resume consideration of S. 1 under the previous order.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I will wrap up in 2 minutes and will then yield the floor to the Senator from Alabama. I have been talking about a number of different points, but right now I would like to defer. I will be back on the issues as we continue this debate. Again, I thank the bill managers, and I am very pleased to see that Senators are coming down and making these amendments pending. That is what we need do now. I thank Senators on both sides of the aisle for doing that. With that, I yield the floor to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the legislation before this body, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act. I wish to address three issues that have been brought up as we have continued this discussion. I start out by thanking the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Washington who are leading this effort to bring forward amendments from both sides of the aisle. I think they are doing great work. They are heavily engaged in trying to make sure the people's amendments are brought forward and that we have a vote. So I thank them for that and again encourage everyone to work with both these bill managers who I believe all of us feel are doing an excellent job. So let's get going. Let's get voting on these amendments. Let's make them pending and have that vote. This is again, after all, an effort not only to advance this legislation but also to reestablish regular order in this body and move to an open amendment process--which is so important again not just in terms of people being heard on this legislation, having votes on amendments, but for other legislation that Senators want to bring forward for the good of this country, to have the debate, to offer their ideas, to get a vote, and to get things done for the American people. That is what it is all about. We have to keep that in mind and not lose track of that. This is truly about not just this legislation but getting to regular order, which I think is so important for the work we do, to accomplish the work we need to do on behalf of the American people. Let me touch on three aspects of the current legislation that have been brought up. One is that it is a bill for Canada rather than for the United States. It is something that is very much in the interest of the United States, so I want to address that. I also want to talk about some of the environmental aspects from the standpoint that there are hundreds of millions of dollars being invested in new technologies by major companies in the oil sands in Alberta, Canada, that are going to help deploy and develop things such as carbon capture and storage, which can be used not only to reduce the environmental footprint and the greenhouse emissions of oil produced in the Canadian oil sands, but that is technology then that will get adopted in this country and around the world because it enables us to produce more energy more cost-effectively, more dependably, and with environmental stewardship. So that is a win on both counts, and here is a place where it is being developed. So let's empower that investment that produces more energy with better environmental stewardship as we go forward into the future. Then the third area I want to touch on for just a minute is pipeline safety because some of the recent spills have been brought up. It is so important that we have the new infrastructure to replace older infrastructure. For example, the pipeline spill in Poplar, MO, near Glendive, MO, has been brought up. It is a pipeline that I think was originally built and put in place in the 1950s. So we are talking about a 50-year-old pipeline with 50-year-old technology. Whether it is roads or bridges or pipelines or transmission lines or any kind of infrastructure--we need infrastructure for this country, but we have to update it. Think about building a road 50 years ago and then not putting in a new one to replace and update it with the new technologies that have been developed to make it better. When we talk about trying to get these new infrastructure projects going--again, paid for 100 percent with private dollars--this generates revenue for the taxpayer. This doesn't take one penny of taxpayer money. This is an $8 billion state-of-the-art pipeline. It is important for all the reasons we have talked about, but it also is the kind of thing that will replace some of the older technologies and give us that updated new infrastructure we need. So I think when we hear about a spill, wherever it may occur, we want to make sure it is taken care of and fully remediated and take precautions so it doesn't happen again. But we have to understand we have to put the new infrastructure in place if we want to reduce the number of spills we have as we continue to rely on infrastructure that is 50 years old--when we don't make or allow these new investments to be made. So I will touch on all those for just a few minutes. Again, I know the bill managers are hard at work. They are having great dialogue. If they come out and are ready to go, I will yield the floor right away to do that. Again, the priority is to keep the process moving and get amendments up and have them voted on. The first issue: It is a Canadian project somehow, not a U.S. project. The first point I would make, on its face, is it is going to move domestically produced crude as well as Canadian crude. Everybody talks about the fact that it starts up in Hardisty and says it is going to move Canadian oil, and then they stop there. But it is not only going to move Canadian oil, it is going to move oil from North Dakota, Montana--light, sweet Bakken shale oil--out of this region of our country. So it is going to move both domestic crude as well as Canadian crude. So when somebody says it is just a Canadian project, that is not true. That would be akin to somebody saying it is only a U.S. project because it is moving U.S. oil. For beginners, it is important that people understand it is not just Canadian oil, it is oil we produce in our country that needs to get to refineries as cost-effectively and safely as possible. What is happening is because we are being blocked from getting these kind of pipelines developed because they can't get through the regulatory process, the oil production we are producing in our part of the country, in North Dakota, Montana, and the Bakken area, as well as other areas of the country is all having to move by rail. For example, right now my State of North Dakota produces 1.2 million barrels of oil a day, second only to Texas, and that number has been growing. That growth I think will slow down right now because the price of oil has come down so much. But the point is we are having to move 700,000 barrels a day by rail because we don't have the pipelines, such as the Keystone XL Pipeline, approved. That creates other problems as well. We produce a tremendous number of ag commodities and ag products. We actually are the leader of 14 different major ag commodities in the country--things such as wheat, for example, and many other farm commodities as well. All of those things get backed up on the rail system because we are trying to move so much oil on the rail that we can't handle all the congestion. So it is not just an issue in terms of energy for our country, but it is affecting our other commerce, our farmers, and other goods that are trying to be shipped. It is not just goods that originate from our part of the country but all the goods that go back and forth and are trying to go through that bottleneck. But the biggest reason it is very much a U.S. project is because it is about getting to energy security and energy independence. Right now the United States consumes about 18 million barrels of oil a day. We produce about 11 million barrels a day--which is up tremendously in recent years because of production on private and State lands in places such as North Dakota. That means we still import about 7 million barrels a day. We use 18 million barrels of oil a day. We produce 11 million barrels a day. We import 7 million. The amount of oil we get from Canada is increasing. We are up to more than 3 million barrels a day that we import from Canada. So if we take the 11 million we produce plus the 3 million we get from Canada, that is 14. That leaves us 4 million short of what we use on a daily basis. We get that from places such as OPEC, Venezuela, and other parts of the world that have very different interests in many cases than our own. I think the American people very much want to get to a position where we don't have to rely on OPEC anymore for the oil we use. In fact, we are getting there. We are getting there. As I say, we are at the point now between ourselves and Canada where we have 14 million of the 18 million a day we use covered. If we can continue to develop our energy resources and work with Canada, we can truly have North American energy security--meaning we don't have to rely on OPEC anymore for our oil. That is a national security issue. It is an energy issue. It is a jobs issue. It is an economic growth issue. It is a national security issue. Look at what is going on in the Middle East. Americans do not want to rely on OPEC for their oil anymore. Look at the benefit. As we produce more energy in this country and work with Canada, look at what is happening at the pump. Oil prices are down more than $1 from 1 year ago because we are producing so much more. Basic economics: More supply helps bring prices down. So it is not just about energy independence and energy security for our country, it is about lower energy costs for consumers, for small business. It is not only good for our hard-working Americans as they pull up to the pump and benefit every day from those lower gas prices, but it helps make our economy grow because energy is a foundational industry. When we have low-cost energy produced in this country that we know we can rely on, that makes us competitive in every other industry sector in a global economy. So when somebody says: This is just about a pipeline or it is just about a Canadian issue, it is not the case. This is very much about our energy future in this country and how we are going to build it, both to be energy secure and to make our economy go when we have to compete globally. The second issue--and I often show this chart because it makes the second part of that energy security point. If we don't work with Canada so that this oil comes to us and we control that oil and control our energy future, Canada is going to make other arrangements. They are going to build pipelines to their west coast, and that oil is going to China and we will continue to import oil from OPEC. That is how life works. We either take advantage of this opportunity with our closest friend and ally in the world or somebody else will. The next one I want to touch on for just a minute is the environmental. We hear about this so much, the environmental aspects of this project. I have been on the floor and I have talked about various aspects of the project based on the science and based on the fact that there have actually been five environmental impact statements produced. The environmental impact statements produced by the Obama administration say there will be less greenhouse gas emissions with the pipeline than without it because we will be able to move that 830,000 barrels a day of oil by pipeline, rather than moving it by either 1,400 rail cars or sending it to China where the refineries have higher emissions than ours do. But I would like to go beyond that and talk for a minute in a broader sense about our energy future and how we not only produce more energy more cost-effectively from all sources, from all kinds of energy, but how we can do it with better environmental stewardship. And the way forward there is really technology. It is the American ingenuity, the investment in technology, and the creativity of our companies and our entrepreneurs. That is the real key to success in the future in terms of producing more energy more cost-effectively, more independently, and with better environmental stewardship--by leading the way forward with technology development. We cannot export our regulations, but as we develop technologies, those, in effect, get exported around the world because other countries adopt those technologies. So I will talk just a minute about the technology development that is going on in the oil sands. Since 1990 the greenhouse gas emissions on a per-barrel basis in the oil sands have gone down by 28 percent, almost one-third. On a per-barrel basis they have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent since 1990. They are engaged in major projects now to develop and deploy new technologies that will help them produce oil in the oil sands region with a smaller footprint--which is what I am showing here--through in situ development and also through carbon capture and storage. We talk so often about developing carbon capture and storage in this country. That is being developed and deployed in the oil sands right now. The Quest project, which is a project Shell Oil Company is undertaking--let me read from a bit of a summary on their Quest project, which is a project for carbon capture and storage they are developing right now. This is a picture of it. It is in situ--which means drilling and using steam to bring the oil out rather than excavation, which is the old style--so it has a much smaller environmental footprint, but it also reduces greenhouse gas emissions because they capture the CO2 and they store it. A point of inquiry, Mr. President. I would like to ask the bill managers if they are ready to move forward or make any announcement. If we have any amendments, I would gladly yield the floor for that purpose. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the bill manager on our side of the aisle, the good Senator from Alaska, as well as the bill manager on the Democratic side, the Senator from the State of Washington, for working together and trying to get a list of all of the amendments and do everything possible to get them scheduled for a vote. I ask that Members on both sides of the aisle work with the bill managers to try and get a list of amendments so they can be scheduled for a vote. As the Senator from Alaska said, we have already had at least 19 amendments. We know there are more amendments that Senators would like to have a vote on, and we appreciate and understand that. There has been a real effort to try to get those votes scheduled. Again, I thank the bill managers for their hard work and ask that Members on both sides of the aisle work with the bill managers to try and get those amendments identified where they need to have a vote and get them scheduled so we can get to the votes in a timely manner so Members can have as much information as possible ahead of time in order to consider their respective issues and have a vote. We have to remember that in trying to go back to an open amendment process and regular order, there is some work on figuring out how to get that going and to do so in a bipartisan way, and of course we are working through it on this legislation. A final point: At the end of the day, we will be discussing more about this legislation, but it comes down to how the individual Members of this body feel about this underlying legislation. It is about energy, jobs, economic growth, and national security at a time when energy security for our country is so very important. Again, this goes to the underlying merits. Let's see if we can't get these amendments scheduled and vote on them and move this along as well as we can this week and get that done. It is not only important for this legislation, but we want to have that same kind of open process with other legislation as well. It is about getting the work done for the American people. With that, I yield back to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds for a simple point of clarification.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to my esteemed colleague from the State of Illinois. Of course the answer to the question is that in fact it is a regulated substance, and it is primarily regulated at the State and local level. In the State of Illinois, for example, petcoke would be regulated by the State of Illinois. What I understand the Senator from Illinois to be saying is that he is dissatisfied with the way the State of Illinois has chosen to regulate petcoke. But in fact the EPA has found that petcoke has a low hazard potential. According to the Congressional Research Service, most toxicity analysis of petcoke, as referenced by EPA, finds it has low health hazard potential in humans, has no observed carcinogenic, reproductive or developmental effects. In fact, it is a byproduct of not just oil from the oil sands but also some of the oils from California, Venezuela, and other places. So it is a byproduct that in fact is recycled. It is used in products such as aluminum, steel, paint. It is used to produce electricity. Here is a case of a product that actually can be and is in fact recycled. I would argue that what we want to do as we produce energy is continue to invest in these new technologies that will help us produce more energy but also do it with better environmental stewardship, which means we not only work on CCS, carbon capture and storage--which is a major undertaking in the oil sands right now; and I would be willing to engage in that discussion as well--but then also work to find uses for these byproducts in things such as steel and aluminum. For example, the President last night talked about how the auto industry is making a resurgence, and he talked about the CAFE standards. One of the things they are doing in Detroit with new automobiles is they are using more aluminum in the construction of the cars to reduce the weight to try to meet those CAFE standards. So here is a product from the oil sands oil that is actually used in aluminum to make those vehicles lighter to achieve one of the things the President talked about in the State of the Union Address last night as a byproduct from the oil sands oil. So I appreciate the question and look forward to further dialogue.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, if the Senator from Vermont is only going to speak for 5 minutes, then I will defer to him. I may go longer than 10 minutes, so I will defer to him if we would like to proceed at this time.