John Hoeven

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I just want to wrap up. I want to thank the Senator from West Virginia. I am glad we are engaged in this debate. I think we should debate all aspects of it, as we are, and I look forward to that continuing effort. I do, though, want to wrap up on a point as to the environmental impact. We have talked about a number of different aspects of this pipeline project. We are talking about taking great care in the approval process to address all the issues at the State level. We have talked about making sure we put provisions in the bill to respect that State process. That has been going on for more than 6 years and, obviously, it is now well past time for the Federal Government to move forward and make its decision. But again, back to that process. If the President continues to oppose this legislation--and he has indicated he will veto it because he has a process and he hasn't finished the process--then he needs to demonstrate and finish the process. He indicated he was holding out for the decision in Nebraska. Well, the decision in Nebraska has been completed. So if there is a process, if there is a real process, then he needs to make a decision and he needs to tell us when he is going to make that decision. And if the President follows his process, he needs to make a decision in favor of the project. Because as I am pretty sure we are going to hear from some of the opponents of the project, they will say: Oh, well, based on environmental issues, that is why he should turn it down. I understand and respect their views on some of the climate change issues, and they are certainly entitled to those opinions, but based on five studies--three draft environmental impact statements and two final environmental impact statements done on this project--the Obama administration's State Department in those environmental impact statements found this will result: As a result of this project, ``no significant environmental impact.'' I understand they are going to spend a lot of time talking about their views on climate change, and that is fine. I understand that. But there is a difference between opinion and that general discussion and the science of this project. That is the finding by the Obama administration. We will have more discussion on this issue, in addition to the fact that Canada is working to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from oil production in their country and in the oil sands. Since 1990, on a per- barrel basis, they have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by about 28 percent, and they are continuing to do more. So they are addressing the environmental issue by doing what? Investing in technology that not only produces more energy but does it with better environmental stewardship. So instead of empowering that investment, here we want to block it? That is not the way to address better environmental stewardship. The way to do it is by encouraging the investment that not only produces more energy but does it with better environmental stewardship. Again, I want to thank my colleague and fellow member of the energy committee for deferring so I could wrap up, and I look forward to continuing this debate and discussion on this important issue. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN. I wish to resume my time for the colloquy.

Mr. HOEVEN. I will take a couple of minutes to respond to the points that my colleague on the energy committee just brought up with regard to both the process and also in regard to the timeline for approval of this project. Then I will turn to my cosponsor, the Senator from West Virginia, and get some of his input on the project. Now we are starting to get into the kind of debate that we have wanted from day one. I had the good fortune to serve as Governor of my great State of North Dakota, and the good Senator on the floor with me from West Virginia was Governor at the same time of his State of West Virginia. We worked together many times on issues. I am a Republican, and he is a Democrat. We found common ground as Governors, and we found common ground in the Senate. This is what this is all about. This is what we want to have happen among our colleagues so we can get this and other important legislation addressed, passed, and help our country. But before I turn to my colleague from West Virginia, I wish to touch briefly on a couple of points that the ranking member of our energy committee brought up a moment ago. As she said, she opposes the project. I understand and respect her views, but she talked about the length of time the approval process takes. What I have to point out is that we have been in this approval process now for more than 6 years. So when she talks about needing more time to get the project approved, it is hard to understand how we are going to have a working, functioning economy, how we are going to get the private sector to invest the billions of dollars it takes. This project alone is the largest shovel-ready project that is ready to go-- just under $8 billion, $7.9 billion--and it has been held up for more than 6 years. America got into World War II and won the war in less than 6 years. Building the Hoover Dam, I believe, took less than 6 years. If we are going to create the kind of environment where we stimulate investment by the private sector, get our economy growing and growing and get people back to work, we can't hold private investment up. Remember, not one penny of Federal spending--almost $8 billion, almost all private investment that will help create jobs, help grow our economy, create hundreds of millions in tax revenue, help us to build our energy future, help us with national security by being energy secure--all those things--and the Federal Government has held them up for more than 6 years. How can we argue that there is any process there that works in any kind of a realistic or commonsense way when it has been up for more than 6 years. Specifically--as regards the State of Nebraska--in 2012 I put forward legislation which we passed in this body attached to the payroll tax holiday that required the President to make a decision. We didn't tell them what decision to make. We just said: Hey, you have to make a decision. At that point the project had been under review for 4 years--long enough, Mr. President, to make a national interest determination. That is what the legislation said that we attached to the payroll tax holiday. It passed with 73 votes. The President at that time said: No, I am not going to make a decision on the project now because of what he perceived to be the problem with the route in Nebraska. Remember, this project goes through States from Montana to Texas. Here it is. Remember, it is not carrying only Canadian crude. It carries crude from my State of North Dakota and the State of Montana. Light, sweet Bakken crude goes into this pipeline as well. Everyone talks about the Canadian crude, but they forget that this moves domestic crude as well. My State alone produces 1.2 million barrels of oil a day, and we are moving 700,000 of barrels a day on trains because we can't get enough pipelines. Here we want to put 100,000 barrels a day into this pipeline, and we have been waiting for 6 years putting more and more oil on rail cars, congestion on the rails. We can't move our agriculture products, and we have been held up for 6 years. But in 2012 we passed that bill. This body passed it, then the House, and it went to the President. Then he turned it down because he said the routing wasn't right in Nebraska. There is an objection here. Here we see the pipeline goes through Nebraska. He said: No, I am not going to approve it at this point because they have to square it away in Nebraska. In Nebraska, the State legislature, the elected body of the people, went to work with Governor Dave Heineman, a good friend of mine, and the Senator from West Virginia as well. We served with Governor Dave Heineman. The elected body of the people, the legislature, went to work with the Governor. They went through a long process. They rerouted the pipeline to address any concerns regarding the Ogallala Aquifer and any other concerns that had been brought--a long laborious process--and approved it. Every State on the route has approved the project. They have all approved it. They have had 6 years to do it. So it wasn't like they had to hurry, but they all approved it. Yet the Federal Government continues to hold it up and say: Oh, well, we have concerns. Now, my esteemed colleague from Washington, who opposes the project, said that she was concerned about the supreme court decision. Well, remember, the supreme court decision came up because after the State of Nebraska approved the project, then opponents challenged it, forced it into court, and it went to the Nebraska Supreme Court. The Nebraska Supreme Court found in favor of the Governor and the legislature for the State of Nebraska. They found in favor of the route, and the State of Nebraska said that is as it should be--OK. So that is all that was covered at great length by the elected representatives of the State of Nebraska and the Nebraska Supreme Court. I mean, how much more does this take? Furthermore, there is the point that my colleague was making: Well, if we had rushed, somehow this would have been a problem. We put it in the legislation in section 2, under the private property savings clause, to make sure that if there is any issue such as that it is addressed in this legislation. So the very concern that she has raised is in the legislation. The reason it is in there is because the good Senator from Montana-- which is also on the route--Mr. Tester, wanted this provision in the bill. He is also a Democrat. In showing the bipartisanship of the bill, he said: Well, let's make sure we take care of that. So we put language in the bill to make sure that the language we just addressed on the floor is addressed. It is very short, and I will read it--section 2, subsection (e): Private Property Savings Clause.--Nothing in this Act alters any Federal, State, or local process or condition in effect on the date of enactment of this Act that is necessary to secure access from an owner of private property to construct the pipeline and cross-border facilities described in section (a). So we tried to make sure--and furthermore--let me also read judicial review. That section is long, and I won't read it. But we also provided for judicial review so that if any of those issues are a concern--in addition to the language we put in to protect States rights--you also have judicial review. I don't know how much more we can do to make sure any and all concerns she just raised in regard to the process of the individual States is protected. Again, I make the case today that we have all gone through great lengths to approve the project. The only entity blocking it now after more than 6 years is the Federal Government. There is one other point I would make briefly before turning to the Senator from West Virginia. The good Senator from Washington talked about alternative energy sources, renewable energy sources, other energy resources, and how we need to develop them. They create jobs, and that is great. This is a note on which I will turn to my cosponsor, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. We are for ``all of the above'' energy approach, but we have to get over the idea that somehow they are mutually exclusive. We go forward and build important infrastructure so that we can make sure that we don't have to import oil from OPEC or from countries such as Venezuela or from other parts of the world, to ensure that we can be secure in energy and that we can produce as much or more oil than we consume--both domestic oil production and in Canada. We need the infrastructure. But that in no way precludes the development of any other sources of energy. They are not mutually exclusive. So to say that we should be doing one and not the other--how does that make sense? Let's do them both. On that note, I turn to my colleague. Ask anybody in this body, particularly those coming to the Senate as a former Governor. He is somebody who not only is very bipartisan in his approach to all of these issues, somebody who has not only advocated for producing all of the above in terms of energy, but somebody who has done it in his time as Governor. So I turn to my colleague and say: Can't we do both? Isn't approving this part of doing it all?

Mr. HOEVEN. I ask the Senator to yield for the purpose of a question. I want to understand the time. I need about 3, 4 minutes to wrap up. I did relinquish 15 minutes for the other side, so I would request 3 to 4 minutes to wrap up and then I would certainly yield the floor to her.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to address my comments to the Keystone XL Pipeline approval bill--the legislation currently before the Senate--which is the motion to proceed to this legislation. The cloture on the motion to proceed to this legislation was passed 63 votes in favor to 32 votes against last night. I thank my colleagues for that tremendous bipartisan vote, and of course the good news is that the vote advances us to the bill. We have to have another vote now to actually move to the bill today, and we are working through an agreement to hold that vote. Then we will be on the bill and in a position where all Members of this body can offer amendments-- Republicans and Democrats alike. We will have an open amendment process. We will have regular order. We can have an energy debate. Members of this body are going to get to do what they haven't been able to do in some time, which is offer their amendments, bring forward their ideas, and let's have that energy discussion, let's have these amendments brought forward and debated, and if they can garner 60 votes, they will be passed and attached to the legislation. This is how the Senate is supposed to work and I encourage my colleagues to participate by offering their amendments to have the debate and do the work of this body--the important work for the people of this great Nation. I would like to begin the discussion today in support of the Keystone XL Pipeline, the Keystone XL approval legislation, which is the bill we have in front of us, S. 1. I note that my esteemed colleague, the senior Senator from Utah, is here. He is a Senator who leads us on a variety of issues and has for many years in our caucus, as the chairman of the Finance Committee. He certainly understands tax policy and fiscal policy for this country. This legislation we are considering is a jobs bill. It is about energy. It is about jobs. It is about economic growth. It is about national security. The Senator from Utah is working on reforming our Tax Code and how we can stimulate economic growth in this country. So I wish to turn to him right at the outset and ask--as someone who truly understands how our economy works and how we have to build a good business climate in this country and how we have to empower the development of infrastructure, roads, and rails, pipelines and transmission lines as part of building an energy policy that will truly make this Nation energy secure--if he would take a few minutes and address not only this project on the broad basis of its merits, but particularly some of the economic aspects that are so important when we are talking about growing our economy and putting our people in this country to work in good jobs.

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I wish to make a number of points in regards to the Keystone XL pipeline approval bill, the legislation we are currently considering. But before I do so, I am planning to submit a resolution on behalf of the North Dakota State University Bison who won their fourth national championship on Saturday against the Illinois State Redbirds. It was a spirited and wonderful game in Frisco, Texas. I know, Madam President, that you had a team that was in the hunt, so to speak, and played a tremendous game in New Hampshire against the Illinois State Redbirds. It is a testament to the quality of the teams in the FCS championship, the Division I playoff series. Teams such as the University of New Hampshire had a tremendous year of outstanding coaching and great student athletes. I watched the game between the Illinois State Redbirds and the University of New Hampshire. It was a fantastic game that went right down to the wire. It just speaks to the fact that there are excellent teams in this division and tremendous athletes. A lot of teams had great seasons. So I certainly want to begin by commending all the teams that were in the playoffs, including our opponent in the championship game, the Illinois State Redbirds. They did a great job. But North Dakota State University, the coaches, everybody on staff, the leadership of the North Dakota State University and these student athletes had just a fantastic year. So I want to congratulate them. Four years in a row is unprecedented. Nobody has won the national championship in Division I football in their division in the playoffs in history. So this was certainty a great achievement. I am planning to submit the following resolution to honor the North Dakota State Bison. It says: Whereas, the North Dakota State University (referred to in this preamble as ``NDSU'') Bison won the 2014 National Collegiate Athletic Association (referred to in this preamble as the ``NCAA'') Division I Football Championship Subdivision title game in Frisco, Texas, on January 10, 2015, in a hard fought victory over the Illinois State Redbirds by a score of 29 to 27; Whereas, NDSU has won 12 NCAA football championships; Whereas, NDSU has now won four consecutive NCAA Football Championships since 2011, an unprecedented achievement in Football Championship Subdivision history; Whereas, the NDSU Bison have displayed tremendous resilience and skill over the past four seasons, with 58 wins to only three losses, including a streak of 33 consecutive winning games; Whereas, Coach Chris Klieman and his staff, through their dedication and talent, have continued the excellence of the Bison football program; Whereas, the leadership of President Dean Bresciani and Athletic Director Matt Larsen has helped bring both academic and athletic excellence to NDSU; Whereas, an estimated 17,000 Bison fans attended the Championship game-- Including myself--a fantastic game-- reflecting the tremendous spirit and dedication of the Bison Nation that has helped propel the success of the team; and Whereas, the 2014 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: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1), congratulates the North Dakota State University football team as the champion of the 2014 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Football Championship Subdivision title; (2), commends the North Dakota State University players, coaches, and staff for their hard work and dedication; and (3), recognizes the students, alumni, and loyal fans for supporting the Bison on the successful quest of the team to capture another Division I trophy for North Dakota State University. I will be entering that resolution into the Record to honor and recognize the team in a program that has done just an incredible job this year. I know how hard those student athletes worked. It is a privilege to honor them with this resolution and commend them on their outstanding achievement this year winning their fourth consecutive national championship. Thank you, Madam President. Now I would like to shift to the continued discussion of the Keystone XL Pipeline approval legislation that is currently pending on the floor. I am pleased to say that we have reached agreement now to proceed to the bill. In fact, we will be voting on amendments--not this week. But we can at least tee up amendments this week, and we will be starting votes on these amendments beginning next week. That has been the idea all along--first, to advance to this bill; it is important energy infrastructure legislation--but also to have an open process to return to what we have referred to as regular order on the Senate floor in an effort to work truly in a more bipartisan way and to get the work of the Senate done for the American people. That is the idea with this energy legislation--to make sure we are having the debate so we give everybody the opportunity to come forward and to present their amendments. We will debate them. They can then get a vote. For the amendments that can command 60 votes--it takes a bipartisan vote to pass anything because neither party has 60 votes--it requires bipartisanship. Any amendments that can garner 60 votes will be added to the legislation, and I hope that fosters the best legislation possible and enables us to get our work done on behalf of the American people--not only on this bill but on other important legislation to help move our country forward as well. There are a number of arguments that have been made this afternoon by some of the critics of the bill, and while greatly respecting their right to come forward and present their opposition to the legislation and any criticisms they feel they want to present, I also want to take the opportunity to rebut a number of those. Of course, that is the whole focus and effort here in terms of the debate--to have this debate and hopefully convince people that what we have is good legislation. If we can make it better with amendments, great, but at the end of the day, we pass this legislation and get this project approved on behalf of the American people. It is about energy, it is about jobs, it is about economic growth, and it is about national security. It is a great place to start in this new Congress, where we are focused like a laser on growing our economy and creating jobs for the hard-working taxpayers and people of our country, for the middle class, for the folks out there working every day. And for those not working and looking for a job, let's find ways to make sure we get this economy going and that we get jobs for them. This is a great example. This is the largest shovel-ready project--at almost $8 billion--that we have, and it is ready to go. It doesn't cost one single penny of government money. It is privately financed, and it is all about creating the kind of business climate and powering the kind of investment that will help grow our economy. One of the discussion points I have been hearing is this whole issue of, well, this somehow is just for Canada and not the United States or that we are doing this for Canada. I will start with the premise that our closest friend and ally in the world is Canada, so the idea of working with Canada makes a lot of sense to me. They are our largest trading partner. We work with them all the time. We have a unique and wonderful relationship that very few countries have. So to start with this criticism that this is just for Canada and not for the United States, I am thinking: Yes, and it is a bad idea to work with your friends, why? It seems to me that that is a good selling point. If this is good for Canada, then great. I hope we are doing good things for Canada, and I hope they are doing good things for us. That is how friends and allies work together. The whole concept that somehow this is a bad idea is lost on me. To me it seems as though it is a positive when we can work together with Canada. The fact is it is not just good for Canada--it is good for Canada, but it is really good for the United States too, and that is the whole point. In that line of argument that it is somehow good for Canada and not good for the United States--the critics say it is good for Canada because they produce oil up here in Alberta, and they are going to move that oil down to our ports and they are going to export it. Well, that is not the case. Is it possible that some oil could be exported? Yes. But the reality is a lot of this oil is coming to our country and will be used in our country, and even more than that, it is not just Canadian oil. The argument that this is somehow just Canadian oil and it is going to be exported is wrong. It is wrong on both counts. I wish to take a minute to rebut that because that argument has been brought up a number of times. As a matter of fact, I believe it is the focus of one of the first amendments that has been offered by the good Senator from Massachusetts. He wants to include a provision that says none of the oil can be exported because it is all Canadian oil and it is all going to be exported. Well, on both counts, that is wrong. Oil from North Dakota and Montana, out of the Bakken formation--our State oil in North Dakota produces 1.2 million barrels of oil a day. We are second only to the State of Texas. But because we don't have enough pipelines, we have to move 700,000 barrels a day on rail. We are trying to move agricultural goods. We are the leader of 14 different major agriculture commodities. We have all kinds of other products that we produce, as do the States in our region, which includes Minnesota, South Dakota, and Montana. But we have tremendous congestion on our rails because we are putting more and more oil on rail. We have 700,000 barrels a day going out on rail and growing as we continue to grow our production in this part of the country. So we need more pipelines. What you see on this diagram is the original Keystone Pipeline that was constructed and built when I was Governor of North Dakota, and this yellow shows the sister pipeline we are trying to build. As you can see, this goes right through our State, and the new pipeline goes right next to our State. The whole point is we want to put 100,000 barrels a day--at least for starters--of our light sweet Bakkan crude in this pipeline. It is not just moving Canadian oil, it is moving domestic oil as well. It is moving U.S. oil. When you hear that it is just going to move Canadian oil, that is already wrong. How about we stick to the facts? How about we make sure we foster real understanding? How about we tell people what is really going on here? It is not just Canadian oil, it is Canadian and it is U.S. oil. The whole point is this is the kind of infrastructure that helps us achieve North American energy security. What do I mean by that? I mean by the United States working with Canada, we can produce more energy than we consume, and that is energy security. That means we don't have to depend on importing it from OPEC, that means we don't have to depend on importing it from Venezuela. When push comes to shove, we produce more oil and energy than we consume. That is a national security issue. When you drive up to the pump today to fill up your car, take a look and check out the price at the pump. It is less than $2. It is about half of what it was maybe a year ago, right? That equates to $100 billion to $125 billion in savings for American consumers. Why is that happening? Is it that OPEC decided: Hey, let's give America a Christmas present? Is it because Vladimir Putin decided: Hey, let's get some energy over to America? Is it because Venezuela said: Hey, let's drop the price at the pump in America? Why is that happening? The reason it is happening is because we are producing so much more energy in our country in places such as North Dakota and Texas and the Bakkan and in the Eagle Ford. We are producing more natural gas in places such as the Marcellus and Utica, and the shale across our country, and because we are getting more oil from Canada because we have more supply, that is bringing the price down. More supply puts downward pressure on prices. Every consumer is benefiting at the pump. A 60-cent drop in the price of gasoline translates from a $100 billion to $125 billion tax cut for the people of our great country, for the small businesses, and for all the industry sectors that rely on energy, and that is most of them, right? That is the benefit we are creating by working together with Canada to produce more energy. It truly is more energy, lower prices for our energy, making us more competitive in a global economy, it is jobs for our people, economic growth, and it is a national security issue. It truly is a national security issue. Back to the point it is all going to be exported. First, it is not just Canadian oil. It is Canadian and U.S. oil, and I have gone through that. On the issue that it will be exported--they say, look, the pipeline goes from Hardisty in Alberta all the way down to these ports--Port Arthur. So that must mean it is all going to be exported. No. It is going from where it was produced to where it is refined and consumed. It comes from Hardisty, down to Steele City, and from there it can go to Patoka, IL. Why? Because there are refineries there and pipeline networks where it can go into the eastern part of the United States. It also goes to Cushing, OK--a huge pipeline network that goes all over the country, and it is based out of Cushing, OK, so it can go almost anywhere. The idea that building a pipeline is somehow an unusual or difficult thing to do--well, let's take a look at all the pipelines we have moving oil and gas around this country. The whole point is when you bring that pipeline through, you can interface with all of these networks so you can move it all over the country. For somebody to look at this and say: Oh, gee, look, because it goes from Hardisty down to here, it will all be exported. Come on, let's tell people what is really going on. There is the pipeline. It can go through many different routes and across the country. Don't just take my word for it because I am an advocate for the pipeline. People say: Well, he is pushing for the pipeline, and that is what he says. Fine. Let's go to what the State Department and the Department of Energy say. Let's go to the Obama administration's State Department and the Department of Energy and see what they say. Here in January of 2014, the State Department determined in its final environmental impact statement-- [The export of the oil] appears unlikely to be economically justified for any significant durable trade given transport costs and market conditions. That was in the final environmental impact statement, section 1.4.6.2. I will repeat that statement. [The export of oil] appears unlikely to be economically justified for any significant durable trade given transport costs and market conditions. So there we have the State Department and the environmental impact statement saying they are going to use the oil in the United States. How about the Department of Energy? In its report, the Department of Energy determined that it does not make economic sense to ship the oil to China. Furthermore, any export would need to obtain a Department of Commerce license before it is exported. I am not saying that none of it will be exported, I am saying that according to the State Department and the Department of Energy, it will be used in this country, and before it could be exported, you would have to have the Secretary of Commerce say it is OK for some of that oil to be exported. The Obama administration would have to approve exporting some of that crude before it could be exported. Furthermore, refiners that have contracts with TransCanada, which is Valero, have publicly confirmed that the oil that will be shipped through the Keystone XL Pipeline will be used for U.S. domestic needs. The United States retains 99 percent of all crude within the country and uses 97 percent of the gasoline refined in the country. A large majority--over 90 percent--of transportation fuel refined in the United States is for use in the United States. Look, these are global markets. I am not saying that there is none that would be exported, but my point is we are going to use this oil in the United States, and if we don't build this pipeline, then one of two things will happen--again, according to the environmental impact statement that was done by the Obama administration. If you can't build a pipeline, then it is going to have to be railed into this country, the same way I got done telling you that we rail 700,000 barrels a day out of my State of North Dakota. We will have to rail more of the domestic crude that I mentioned out of here, continuing the congestion on the rails, and we will have 1,400 railcars a day moving that oil because you can't move it on the pipeline. All of those locomotives produce emissions, right? We will either have to have 1,400 cars a day railing it or you are not going to build the pipeline and Canada is going to build pipelines to the west coast of Canada, and then they will load it on tankers and take it to China, thereby producing more greenhouse gas emissions, and refining the oil in Chinese refineries with higher greenhouse gas emissions. And, by the way, since we are not getting that oil, we will have to bring more in from OPEC for us, right? Under this scenario where they build the pipeline to the west coast and send it to China, how much of it will come to us then? Then it is all exported, isn't it? This argument that some of it might get exported, then the converse of that--or the result is to say, we don't want the pipeline because some of it might get exported. So, in essence, we blocked it from coming here, and so then it will all be exported and it all goes to China. Wow. That makes sense? Let's see, because some of it might get exported, then let's make sure we don't have the pipeline so make sure it all gets exported, but we don't want it exported. What am I missing here? Where is the common sense? When push comes to shove and we are not in a situation like we are right now where prices are low, when prices start going back up based on supply and demand and all of those things, or when there is conflict in the world that disrupts supplies, would we rather have control of that supply of oil from Canada or would we rather make sure it all goes to China? When push comes to shove and we need the energy, when prices are high, or when there is volatility or conflict in the world, do we want to make sure that all of those resources are going to China and then we can go hat in hand and ask them for it, or would we rather have control of it? That is why I wanted to take a few minutes to rebut the argument that, oh, gee, it is all going to be exported rather than a more commonsense view of, well, gee, some might be exported because it is a global economy, but if it is, they have to get the Obama administration's approval to do it. If you don't build the pipeline, you are either going to have it all come by railcar or you are not going to have any of it, and 100 percent of it will be exported because we would force all of it to go to China. Under any of those scenarios, you are still producing the energy up there, aren't you? I will shift to the environmental argument. I will go back to this chart. There is another argument I wish to rebut for a minute. The argument is, oh, gee, all of this might be exported so we don't want the pipeline because we are trying to prevent the oil sands from being produced because of the environmental aspect of greenhouse gas. As I just pointed out, even without the pipeline, the oil is still going to be produced. Again, this is not me saying that. Go back to the environmental impact statement. Go back to the science. Go back to the report done not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but five times by the Department of State and their environmental impact statements--three draft statements, two final environmental impact statements, five different studies. What they say is the oil is still going to be produced so if we don't build the pipeline, our emissions are going to be higher from greenhouse gases than if we build the pipeline. Why is that? I went through some of that already. No. 1, we will have it all moved through railcars, which produce more greenhouse gases than a pipeline--1,400 rail cars a day. It will be shipped to China, which will refine it in refineries that have higher emissions than ours. And we are going to have to haul it in from other places such as Venezuela. So we have greenhouse gas emissions from the ships as well. So the reality is--and the environmental impact statements show it--that we have lower greenhouse gas emissions with the pipeline than we would without it. As we have talked about on the floor many times, everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. Those are the facts as laid out very clearly, as I say, in not one or two environmental impact statements but in three draft environmental impact statements and two final environmental impact statements. The other point I wish to make on the environmental aspect is that we produce oil in California and we import oil from Venezuela that has greenhouse gas emissions that are as high or higher than oil produced in the Canadian oil sands. Another point I wish to make is that Canada is working to reduce both the greenhouse gas emissions and the environmental footprint of their production in the oil sands. Since 1990, on a per barrel basis, in Alberta, Canada, the producers of oil from the oil sands have reduced the greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent--almost a third. So that is a 28-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in oil sands oil from 1990 to the present on a per barrel basis. So they have reduced it by almost a third, and they are continuing to find ways through better drilling techniques, through cogeneration, and through other efforts to improve the environmental stewardship of what they are doing there. That is the way it works. Rather than blocking investment in needed infrastructure, rather than blocking investment in new technologies, we need to encourage that investment because when we encourage that investment in our country and work with Canada, we produce more energy more cost-effectively with better environmental stewardship. When we block it, we don't get that technology, we don't get the energy, and we don't get the improvements in environmental stewardship. That is the way we should be approaching this. We should be encouraging the investment. As I said before, not one penny of government money is expended on the pipeline. We are simply allowing a project to go forward. Private companies invested almost $8 billion in the largest shovel-ready project we have after the project has been held up by the Federal Government for more than 6 years--held up after every single State--all six States--every single one of them has approved it. But here we are 6 years later and the Federal Government is saying to those States that even though every single one of those States on the route has approved it, even though they want it, even though all the States will realize hundreds of millions of dollars in cash revenues and benefits not only from construction but from property taxes and other sources of revenue in building the project, and even though it won't cost the government one single penny, the Federal Government said no. Even though we have studied it for 6 years, that is not good enough. Even though in poll after poll 65 percent of the American people want it built, even though Americans want energy security here at home and in Canada, even though a bipartisan majority in the House and in this Senate support it, the President says: No, that is not good enough somehow. We would rather keep importing oil from OPEC. That has to be music to OPEC's ears. Oh, good, the Americans aren't going to get serious and work with Canada and make sure they are energy secure. They are going to keep getting oil from OPEC. That has to be music to China's ears. They want it. They are trying to buy these oil resources in Canada. They are not only trying to buy the oil. They are trying to buy the resources in Canada. But last I checked, we work for the American people, and the American people want energy security. So we have an absolute obligation to make sure that as we are talking about this project, we are talking about the facts. We are not talking about our opinions. I know we are striving for clarity and an understanding of what is really going on. When it comes to the environmental aspects and when it comes to whether the energy is going to be exported or used here, when it comes to the economic impact, when it comes to the job creation, and to all of these different issues, let's debate them. If somebody has an amendment we can add, let's debate that, too. It needs to get 60 votes. But let's make sure we are fostering understanding of what is really going on here so we talk about climate change and that type of issue that is relative to this project. Let's make sure we are clear. Let's make sure we are telling the people that this project will have no significant environmental impact, according to the U.S. State Department--the Obama administration's State Department. According to the Obama U.S. State Department--the Obama administration--according to their environmental impact statements, including three draft statements and two final statements done over more than 6 years: no significant environmental impact. Then when we talk about greenhouse gas emissions and the oil that comes from the oil sands, let's be clear that this is not just Canadian oil. It is also domestic oil from our country, from States such as North Dakota and Montana. Let's also talk about how the investment in new technologies is reducing the environmental footprint and reducing the greenhouse gas for oil sands production. There has been a reduction of 28 percent in greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 in the oil sands because of their investment in new technologies, in better drilling techniques, as well as their efforts going forward. I do believe we are going to have officials from Alberta and from Canada coming during the next weeks to talk about what else they are going to do to make additional improvements in terms of environmental stewardship and the efforts they are undertaking to reduce further the environmental footprint and the greenhouse gas impact of the energy they are producing. So with that, I wish to close. This really is an opportunity to work with our good friend Canada on a project of great mutual benefit, and that is energy security for North America and energy security for our country as well as for Canada. I think this is a project Americans very much want. Again, I urge my colleagues to come forward to engage in this debate and, at the end of the day, let's get this done for the American people. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to again talk about the Keystone XL Pipeline approval bill. We will be voting on cloture on the motion to proceed in about 15 minutes or so. I believe we have a bipartisan majority. We have 60 sponsors of the legislation, and we will have some others join us in voting to proceed on the bill. That is important, not just because this is bipartisan legislation, important energy legislation for our country but, as I have said before, this is an opportunity for all the Members of this body-- Republican and Democrat--to come forward with their amendments in an open amendment process and really have an energy debate. Let's talk about the energy future of this country and let's bring forward amendments to this legislation that can be good amendments and help us build the right kind of energy plan for our country. What I would point out about this Keystone Pipeline approval bill is that as we work to build an energy plan for this country, as we work to produce more energy so we are truly energy secure--a lot of people call it energy independence--but the way I define it is energy security for our country where we produce more energy than we consume, so we control our destiny. If we produce more energy than we consume, then we control our destiny when it comes to energy. But to do that, we would not only have to produce that energy, we have to have the infrastructure to move it safely, cost effectively, and efficiently from where it is produced to where it is consumed. We have this incredible opportunity with Canada to have North American energy security. We are working with our closest friend and ally in the world. We together produce more energy than we consume, and we have the infrastructure in place to move it from where it is produced to where it is consumed in our country. Now we control our own destiny. When it comes to OPEC or when it comes to Russia or when it comes to China, when it comes to geopolitical events that affect the price of energy, we are in a strong situation. Look at what is going on in Western Europe right now. Look at what is going on in Ukraine. They are in a tremendously difficult situation because they are dependent on Russia for their energy, for their natural gas, at a time when Vladimir Putin is undertaking very aggressive action in Europe. He is invading Ukraine. He has taken Crimea. He continues his aggressive efforts. And at the same time the European Union is trying to support Ukraine, Ukraine is fighting with Russia. This is a situation where Ukraine is depending upon Russia for its energy. Does America really want to be in that kind of a situation in the future when we have real problems in the Middle East, when we have real problems with fundamentalists, Islamic jihadists conducting terror on our people and other freedom-loving people around the world? Do we want to be in a situation where we continue to depend upon the Middle East for our oil? Well, the answer to that is no. The American people resoundingly answer that question--no. Also, the American people well know that the reason gas prices at the pump today are lower is not because OPEC just decided to give us a Christmas present. They know the reason energy prices are low in this country, that when they pull up to the pump they are saving money, is because we are producing so much more energy in this country and we are getting more energy from Canada. Unless OPEC cuts back their production, more supply drives prices down. So it is not only about low prices now, it is about making sure we are able to control our energy destiny in the future. We have to take a long-term view. It is working. Of the 18 million barrels of oil a day this country consumes, we now produce 11 million barrels in this country. We are up to 11 million barrels that we produce in this country of the total we consume, so we are still importing about 7 million barrels a day. Canada is now up to 3 million of those 7 million barrels, so we are down to only importing about 4 million barrels a day, but if we keep working at this, we can continue to produce more in this country. Canada's production is continuing to grow. And if we build the infrastructure, we can make sure that we control that energy--North American energy security. That means not only now do our consumers and small businesses and our whole Nation benefit from lower energy prices, lower gas prices at the pump, but we have that ability to make sure we control our destiny and that we benefit in the future. Let's not repeat the mistakes of the past where we return to this dependency on OPEC down the road because we haven't built the infrastructure, we haven't worked with Canada, and we haven't brought our domestic industry to North America so that we truly are energy secure. If we don't build the necessary infrastructure, if we block the necessary infrastructure, we can't build that energy plan for the future. I have heard my counterparts, some of the critics, say: Well, it is not up to us to issue a building permit for infrastructure. Really? So you mean it is the President's job and it is Congress's job to block critical energy that will get us to energy security? Our job is to block it? Our job is to prevent the very infrastructure we need to build energy security for this country, to block the private investment, the $8 billion that private companies want to spend to build this infrastructure, to create jobs, to produce more energy in North America, and to help make this country's energy security? The President's job and this body's job is to block the ability of our country and Canada to build this necessary infrastructure? Well, I don't think so. If you want to put it in terms of: Oh, well, we are not supposed to issue a building permit--really? So our job is to prevent the building of critical infrastructure even when it does not cost one single penny--not one penny--of government money? This is almost $8 billion of private investment that will generate hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue--State, local, and Federal. Every State on the route has approved it. There is an idea somehow we are jumping the gun after 6 years? Let's see, it has been in process for 6 years. Every State on the route has approved it. We are not spending any Federal money. We are saying our job as a Congress and the President is to block that kind of investment, block that kind of job creation, block that kind of energy development, and block our ability to get to energy security for this country. Then there is this argument: Oh, well, it is TransCanada. It is one company. It is only one company, so it really doesn't matter. Really? Well, if you were a company--a Canadian company or a U.S. company--and you were about to build infrastructure so that we could continue to produce more energy in this country, would you do it? If, in spite of the process that the Federal Government has to approve this project, where all of the requirements have been met--not once, but over and over again--and Congress and the President continue to block your ability to build that infrastructure, are you going to jump up and spend billions of dollars and do it? I doubt it. And isn't that really what this is all about? That is what it is about, isn't it? It is for the folks, for the extreme environmental groups that don't want the development of fossil fuels--they are going to block it. This is sending the message and making sure they shut her down here. That has to be music to OPEC's ears. I have to believe that OPEC is going: Boy, that is great; they are not going to build the infrastructure in their country to produce the energy. That is going to keep OPEC in business. There is another country that I think will be very pleased, really excited, if this project gets blocked, and that is China. China is so anxious to get this oil, they are trying to buy that production in Canada. Because, make no mistake, if the energy doesn't come to the United States, it is going somewhere else, and it is most likely going to China. So when we get back in that situation down the road when oil prices move back up, energy demand goes back up, and we have prevented our industry from growing--and Canada is sending all the oil to China, and we have to go back hat in hand to OPEC, Venezuela, and all of these countries, remember----

Mr. HOEVEN. I note the presence of the chairman of the Energy Committee. I defer to her for some time if she wishes to speak before the vote. That would be my question, whether we could get maybe a couple of minutes for that purpose. I can certainly wrap up in a couple of minutes.

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

Mr. HOEVEN. I will wrap up on this note. Let's not get back into the same predicament we have gotten ourselves into before. Let's build this vital energy infrastructure so we can develop energy security for our country, together with Canada. The other point I want to make is on the environmental point: No significant environmental impact. That is the finding of the Obama administration's environmental impact statement done by the State Department. That is their own report: No significant environmental impact. I look forward to having more discussion on the environmental aspects as well. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. Cloture Motion

Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent to continue for 5 minutes.

Mr. HOEVEN. What time is the vote scheduled?

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am here this morning to once again talk about the Keystone XL Pipeline, the legislation we will be voting on next week. We will be voting on cloture on the motion to proceed to the legislation. Then, hopefully, we will be debating that bill and offering amendments, which is exactly what we are supposed to be doing in this Chamber. On Thursday, yesterday, we had a hearing on the bill. In that hearing we brought the bill forward. It is a bill I have authored. Joe Manchin is the lead Democratic cosponsor. We have 60 cosponsors on the bill. So we have strong bipartisan support. It is the Keystone approval bill. Essentially, what it does is under the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States, which authorizes Congress to oversee trade with foreign countries, we approve the Keystone XL Pipeline crossing the border from Canada into the United States. A lot of people do not realize the pipeline carries domestic oil from places such as North Dakota and Montana--the Bakken region of our country--to refineries, and it carries both Canadian and domestic crude. But part of the approval requires approval for crossing the border from Canada into the United States. Typically, that is done by a national interest determination by the President of the United States. But the President has been unwilling to do that now for more than 6 years. The company that is trying to build this pipeline, TransCanada, applied for approval to build this project pursuant to other pipelines it had already built. The original Keystone had already been built. This is the Keystone XL sister pipeline. But in September 2008 they applied for approval to build the Keystone XL Pipeline and to get a cross-border permit determination by the President that, in fact, this vital energy infrastructure is in the national interest. Well, more than 6 years have elapsed, obviously, since September 2008. The President has still not rendered a final decision, arguing that somehow the process has not been completed after more than 6 years. Of course, America was able to fight and win World War II in less than 6 years. But our President feels that somehow that process still has not been completed after more than 6 years on this project. So, of course, the purpose of the bill is, in essence, to say: All right, Mr. President, if you will not approve this project, Congress will--under the commerce clause of the Constitution--which we have the authority to do. Earlier we passed legislation. As a matter of fact, I had written a bill in 2011, which we passed in 2012. We attached it to the payroll tax holiday, a bill that got 73 votes, as I recall, which required the President to make a decision. At that time the decision he made was no, on the basis of the route in Nebraska. So what happened then in 2012 is that the good citizens of Nebraska went to work on a new route in Nebraska. The legislature, the Governor dealt with that new route, came up with a new route, and approved it overwhelmingly. It was then subsequently challenged by opponents of the project. Some of the extreme environmentalists have continued to oppose the project, and so that decision went to the supreme court. We learned today the supreme court has now decided in favor of TransCanada. The news came out this morning that yet another obstacle, after more than 6 years of obstacles, today has been taken care of. The problem is solved. The Nebraska State Legislature ruled in favor of the Governor-- Governor Dave Heineman, whom I know very well, the former Governor of Nebraska--and the legislature, and it said the way they sited this pipeline is, in fact, proper and upheld their decision. I will talk about that decision in a few minutes. But the other thing I wish to talk about in terms of the Keystone Pipeline is the discussion we had yesterday in the energy committee because it was an opportunity to begin the debate we are going to have on the floor next week. The proponents had an opportunity to state their positions and why, and the opponents had their opportunity to state their positions and why. So for several hours we began that debate. We then voted on the legislation and moved it out, without amendment, on a 13-to-9 vote. It was a bipartisan vote, 13 to 9, and we will have that bill for a vote on the floor Monday. I wish to address some of the arguments the opponents put forward in opposition to this project. I will start with the Nebraska court decision because that was one of the issues brought up at our energy hearing yesterday. Some of the opponents of the project said: Well, you know what. The process hasn't been concluded--even though it has been going on for more than 6 years. I will put a diagram up here that shows the route of the pipeline. As I mentioned, the original Keystone pipeline has already been built. That is the red. That has already been built. It was permitted. It took 2 years to permit and 2 years to build. I was actually Governor of North Dakota at that time. We can see it goes right through our State. It seems to me that application was submitted by TransCanada in 2006. It was during the Bush administration, obviously. It was approved within 2 years, and the project was constructed within 2 years. So from start to conclusion, 4 years to build this pipeline, which I think carries about 640,000 barrels of oil a day. It brings it down to Cushing so that oil can go into our oil refineries in the gulf. It also goes over here to Patoka, IL, so it can go to our refineries in the East. Based on that project, there are 640,000 barrels a day. TransCanada wanted to build a second pipeline. This one is 830,000 barrels a day. I think it is about a $7.9 billion project in all. Not only does this project carry crude from Canada, our closest friend and ally, but it also brings oil out of this Bakken region in North Dakota and Montana. We put oil on it as well. So both Canadian and domestic crude are going to our refineries. Again, it is just basic infrastructure that we need to move energy from where we produce it to where we refine it and consume it. We can't build an energy plan for this country without the necessary infrastructure. We have to have pipelines, roads, rail, and electric transmission lines to move electricity. We cannot build what we want, which is either--some people refer to it as energy independence. I call it energy security. But, net, we produce more energy than we consume. When we produce more energy than we consume, we get jobs, we get economic growth, we get national security because we don't have to depend on places such as the Middle East or Venezuela or Russia--as does so much of Europe. Western Europe and Eastern Europe is dependent on Russia for their oil and gas. What a terrible situation for them. The people of this country don't want to depend on OPEC for their oil. So we produce it here. We are doing that. You know what else. We are working with our closest friend and ally Canada, and already that is happening. We are already moving toward a situation--we already produce more natural gas, but soon, if we keep it up, we will produce more oil. Working together with Canada, we will get a little bit from Mexico, and we will produce more oil and gas than we consume. Some call it energy independence--not really, because it is a global market for energy. But it is certainly energy security. We don't have to depend on anyone else for our energy because we have it right here. Not only does that create jobs directly, but energy is a foundational industry for all of the other industry sectors. Think about it. If you are in manufacturing, high-tech--just name it--or if you are in farming, agriculture, you depend on energy. If you have lower costs and abundant, available energy, you are more competitive in the global economy, aren't you? So it is a foundational industry as well, and that is why we have to have this vital infrastructure as part of the energy building plan for our country. It is working. Don't take my word for it. Drive to the gas station. Go on over there. Fill up your car. Look at the bill when you are done. It is a lot lower than it was a few years ago, right? Check it out. Every consumer is benefiting at the pump. Small businesses are benefiting across the board. All the industry sectors benefit from lower oil and gas prices. Why did that happen? OPEC decided to give us a Christmas present; is that what it is? I don't think so. Russia decided: Oh, gee, to our friends in America, we better send them some oil to reduce the price at the pump. I don't think so. It is because we are producing so much more oil and gas--not only in the Bakken and in the Eagle Ford formation in Texas, which are shale, clays for oil, but also natural gas in the Marcellus, other areas of our country--in the eastern part--and by working with our closest friend and ally, Canada. We are getting millions of barrels of oil from Canada. So the oil we produce at home and the oil we get from Canada we don't have to get from Venezuela, we don't have to get from OPEC, we don't have to get from Russia, and we don't have to get from countries in Africa. When we send those dollars over to other countries, how are they using those dollars? Look at what is going on in Paris today. How many of those petro dollars fund terrorist activities? Isn't it better, if we are not going to produce that energy at home, that we get it from Canada? And isn't it better that we produce that energy at home? How are we going to produce that energy at home if we don't have the infrastructure to move it from where it is produced to where it is consumed? Gee, then somebody will say: Well, yeah, that is just common sense, of course, right? I mean, that is just basic common sense. Why aren't we doing it? Yet here we are in a process for more than 6 years still waiting to produce it because the extreme environmental interests have decided: Well, we just don't want to produce more oil. We don't want more oil produced in this country, and we don't want more oil produced in Canada. Of course, you say: Well, then what? We keep buying it from Russia or we keep buying it from OPEC? Oh, no, no, no, we will just keep developing all these alternatives. I am all for developing all kinds of energy. I would say go ahead. Let's do it. We worked hard in our State. We have not only oil and gas--we are now the second largest oil-producing State, second only to Texas, but we also produce natural gas. We have coal fired, we have solar, we have wind, we have biofuels. We have all of them. I am for all of them. What I don't understand is how developing our oil and gas resources, building the vital infrastructure--how does that prevent us from developing any other type of energy? How does it prevent that? It doesn't. It just makes sure that as we work on anything else, we don't have to continue to be dependent on OPEC or somebody else for our oil and gas. That is all we are doing. So let's not sit here and pick winners and losers and do that kind of thing. Let's create the best business climate we can. Let's develop the vital infrastructure we need to move energy around our country, and let's truly become energy secure. That is what this project represents. Make no mistake. At the end of the day, that is what this project is about. It has been held up for more than 6 years with hurdle after hurdle. Somebody says: Oh, well, gee, that is TransCanada. That is one company. Who cares about that? Think about it. If you are going to build a pipeline or move energy around this country, if you are going to try to develop oil and gas-- whether it is for Canada or anyone else--and you see a company that wants to build a simple pipeline--something that has been done, I think, 19 times before--and they have to spend billions of dollars and take years and years and years, and they still don't have it, are you still going to rush out and do that? Are you going to rush out and build a lot more infrastructure? Probably not. So isn't this really about trying to shut her down? Isn't this the opponent saying: No, we are going to shut down developing the energy resources in this country. We are not going to work with Canada to do it. And then what do we end up doing? We say: Well, we will have all these other things. Maybe we will, maybe we won't or maybe we will go right back to what has been happening--history tends to repeats itself--and we will go back to remaining dependent on OPEC oil, back to remaining dependent on OPEC. It has to be music to these guys' ears. I wish to take a couple of minutes--I know the chairman of our energy committee will be coming to the floor and speaking on this issue as well--and work to rebut some of the other arguments that have been brought up on this issue, and some of these were brought up yesterday at our energy committee. The first one, as I say, was: Well, look, the process isn't done because the decision in Nebraska hasn't been made. Well, in fact, the decision in Nebraska has been made several times. Now the Nebraska Supreme Court put out a ruling today saying that it is fine. All the work the legislature in Nebraska did, all the work the Governor in Nebraska did--the rerouting in Nebraska is upheld. That is done. That excuse is gone. As the House works to pass this bill today, and as we work to pass it next week, that argument is off the table. That has been taken care of. The biggest argument is the environmental argument. The opponents say: Oh, well, it will produce greenhouse gas emissions. They are opposed to oil development because it produces greenhouse gas emissions. Yet the environmental impact statement--I should say the multiple environmental impact statements done by the State Department--this is what they say. Understand there have been five different reports--three draft reports and two final reports--over a 6-year timeframe. The State Department has done this not once, not twice, but three times in draft form and two times in final form. They have gone in, and they have analyzed the environmental impact of this project. When you read the report, do you know what it says? ``No significant environmental impact'' is what it says. That is the Obama administration's State Department environmental impact statement, after 6 years of study--not once, not twice, but five times between three draft statements and two final statements--``No significant environmental impact.'' That is what it says. It just stands to reason because if we don't build the pipeline, they pointed out, then what happens? Well, if you don't have this pipeline, the environmental impact statement pointed out that it will take 1,400 railcars a day to move that oil. So instead of moving that oil from Canada, not even counting--I mean, we have to move our oil too. If we don't have the pipeline to move that oil in the safest, most cost- effective and efficient way, then it has to be moved by rail. If you don't have a pipeline, you have to move it by rail. Now you have 1,400 railcars a day creating congestion on the rail. That creates more greenhouse gas, that creates more congestion, more difficulty in moving our ag products and other products. We are already seeing that. We already have congestion on our rail that is backing up the shipment of other goods. We had a tremendous problem moving our ag goods this year. So are we going to have another 1,400 railcars on a railroad system that is already overloaded? It doesn't make much sense. You know what. It creates more greenhouse gas. So by not having the pipeline, you increase the greenhouse gas emissions. I suppose Canada could say--although it is unlikely because they are already moving it by rail. In my home State of North Dakota we are already moving 700,000 barrels a day by railcar because we can't get enough pipeline, and we are producing more oil. We are up to 1.2 million barrels a day, moving 700,000 barrels by railcars because we can't move it by pipeline, benefiting the rest of our country--light, sweet Bakken crude. The other thing with Canada is they say: If we can't bring the pipeline down and work with our closest friend and ally, the United States, if they would rather work with--I don't know--OPEC than Canada--we can't figure that one out. I am sure Prime Minister Harper is saying: Oh, boy, that is unbelievable. But OK, then I guess what we will have to do is we will build these pipelines--and they are already in the process of doing so--to the west coast of Canada. We will load that oil on tankers, and we will send it all to China because China wants it. They are not only willing to buy the oil, but they are trying to buy the source of the oil. So then it gets on the pipeline, and then it goes on tankers over to China. Well, those tankers produce greenhouse gas emissions as they haul that oil to China. In China the refineries have much higher greenhouse gas emissions. They are much less efficient. They are much less environmentally sound than our refineries in this country. So what do we end up with? We end up with much higher greenhouse gas emissions because we didn't have the pipeline. Oh, and by the way, instead of us then refining it, tankers have to bring that petroleum to us from OPEC, from Russia, heavy crude from Venezuela, creating some more greenhouse gas. So the net effect is we have increased the environmental impacts by not allowing the pipeline. It increases it. It doesn't reduce it, it increases it. Furthermore, Canada's laws, in terms of environmental stewardship, are tougher than ours, but they are continuing to move to what is called in situ development in the oil sands. What is in situ development? In situ development is drilling and then the use of steam to bring up the oil rather than excavating, which is the traditional way they produce oil up here. So the greenhouse gas footprint is very similar to drilling in the United States. In fact, it has a lower footprint than the heavy crude that comes out of California--a very environmentally conscious State. Again, when we talk about the environmental impact, let's talk about the facts. Let's talk about reality, and those are the facts. That is what it is truly about. Safety is another thing they brought up. Something could happen with the pipeline. That is true, and we always have to work on safety. It is very important we always address safety in whatever we do. The best way to have a safe infrastructure system to move energy around this country is to have the right mix of pipelines and roads and rail--the right mix along with transmission lines--so we move all types of energy as safely and as effectively as possible. This graph reflects the pipeline system in our country. Oil and gas are moving through millions and millions of miles of pipelines in our country. This pipeline is going to be the newest, with the latest and the best technology. Oh, by the way, if we don't have the pipeline, as I mentioned just a minute ago, we are adding 1,400 railcars a day. Everyone can do their own calculation, but do we think we are safer and more likely to have less accidents with another pipeline--with the latest, greatest technologies and safeguards--or would we rather have 1,400 railcars a day going through our communities loaded with oil? Common sense again, and the statistics support it. There is more. They brought up more concerns, but I am nearing the end of my time, in terms of floor time right now, and I know our chairman is coming down, so I will have to wrap this up. I went a little longer on some of these issues they brought up, and they brought up others, but here is the good news. We are going to vote on a cloture motion to proceed to the bill on Monday. I am hopeful, with our 60 sponsors on this legislation--we will have 60, maybe 63 votes based on what people have indicated to me as to how they will vote right now-- that after the vote on Monday we will be on the bill. Unlike the past several years in the Senate, once we are on the bill, we will be open for business, and we are welcoming amendments. We are saying to Republicans and Democrats alike: Bring them on. Bring on your amendments. If you have a good idea, come on down. If you have a good idea, come on down and let's talk about your amendment. Let's debate your amendment, and you know what. You are going to get a vote, and if you get 60 votes in support of your amendment, then we will make it part of this legislation. We are hopeful that in allowing amendments, we can improve the legislation, we can make it more bipartisan, and we can get more supporters, so if in fact the President does decide to veto it, we will have 67 votes instead of 60 or 63 votes. That is how the process is supposed to work. We are supposed to be able to have that debate, offer those amendments, and produce the best product we can. That is what we are hoping to do with this legislation. We are also hoping that will not only generate more bipartisan support on this issue, on this legislation, but on other energy legislation and other legislation of all types so we can get the important work of the American people done in this body. That is what it is all about: finding a way to get things done--get the job done for the American people. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I would like to thank the Senator from Montana again. We are hearing from somebody who is there, who is talking to people, where this project is going to be located, one of the States it would pass through. I thank the Senator for his perspective and for his hard work and commend him for being here and for his continued efforts not only to work with our caucus but to reach out to the Democratic caucus as well and find common ground on this important issue--something the Senator from West Virginia said a minute ago; that is, let's focus on the facts. I think the more understanding we create as to what the facts are, the more this gets done on the merits. I turn to the Senator from Wyoming--somebody who has long experience with energy, somebody who comes from an energy State, a State that produces a variety of sources of energy, and pose the same question to him. In terms of focusing on the facts, whether it is the environmental aspect, whether it is the jobs, whether it is making our country energy secure, talk to us a little bit about the importance of this kind of vital infrastructure--projects such as Keystone--for our country.

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his comments today and for his continued hard work in support of the issue. I look forward to working with him again to get this done for the American people. I turn to our leader on the energy committee, the chairman of the energy committee, the Senator from Alaska, who understands energy. She is from another State that produces a huge amount of energy for this country, wants to produce more, and can produce more but only with the infrastructure to do it. Isn't that what we are talking about here today? This country can have more jobs, more economic growth, and more energy that we produce right here at home. But, Senator, don't we need the infrastructure to move that energy as safely and as cost- effectively as possible?

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from West Virginia not only for his support on this project but for his willingness to work hard, to work together to find bipartisan solutions, whether it is this legislation or other legislation. That is what it is incumbent upon us to do. It is not easy, but we have to be willing to engage in the hard work it takes to get to this legislation, to get these solutions in place for the American people. I again thank the Senator for his leadership. I look forward to continuing to work with the Senator and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come to good solutions. That is what this effort is all about. I want to turn to the Senator from the State of Montana. The pipeline project goes right through his State. Here is somebody who has dealt with the issue on the House side of Congress and who has the project in his home State. So he is talking on behalf of people where the pipeline is right there. I would like to turn to him and ask: What are the people in Montana saying? It is fine for somebody far removed from a project to say I am OK or I am not OK with it, but how about the people who are right there on the site? They are directly affected. Tell us what is the sense in the Senator's home State? What is the Senator hearing when he talks to people?

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, along with Senator Joe Manchin--and actually a total of 60 sponsors--I have filed S. 1, which is the Keystone approval bill. It is a very simple, straightforward bill. This is legislation we have seen before in this body. What it does, under the commerce clause of the Constitution, is authorize Congress to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline project. I have this map in the Chamber to show you the project. It runs from Hardisty in Alberta, Canada, all the way down to our refineries in Texas along the gulf coast. This project will move 830,000 barrels of oil a day. Some of that will be oil from Canada. Some of that will be domestic oil from the Bakken region in Montana and North Dakota. This is part of building the infrastructure so we can build a comprehensive energy plan for our country. We are producing more and more oil and gas in our country from shale from places such as the Bakken in North Dakota and Montana, the Eagle Ford in Texas, natural gas from places such as the Barnett and the Marcellus in New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. What we are working toward is--some people refer to it as energy independence, but really energy security for our country. What does that mean? It means we produce more energy than we consume. Obviously, energy has a global market. The market for energy is a global market. We know that. The market for oil and gas is a global market. But the point is, working together with our closest friend and ally, Canada, we can have North American energy security where we produce more energy than we consume. Why is that important? That is important because it is about creating jobs. It is important because it is about economic growth. It is important because it is a national security issue. Why do we continue to rely on oil from the Middle East? Why are we continuing to send dollars to the Middle East where you have--look at what happened in Paris today with an attack by Islamic extremists. One of the ways we fight back, one of the ways we push back is we take control of our own energy destiny. We can do it. We are doing it. Why are gas prices lower today at the pump? Is it because OPEC decided to give us a Christmas present? I do not think so. It is because we are producing far more energy than we ever have before. But to continue to produce that energy, we have to have the infrastructure to move that energy from where it is produced to were it is consumed. That means pipelines. That means roads. That means rail. For electricity, that means transmission. But we cannot have an energy plan for this country that really works without the infrastructure to move that energy safely and effectively. That is what this project is all about. So why are we here talking about it today? It seems like a pretty straightforward proposition. After all, I think there are something like 19 different pipelines that cross the border. In fact, there are millions of miles of pipelines in this country. Here is a map I have in the Chamber of just some of them. We have millions of miles of pipeline in this country. A lot of them, as you can see, cross the border. So why are we standing here today talking about another pipeline project? Because for the past 6 years--for the past 6 years--the administration has held this project up. They keep saying: There is a process. As a matter of fact, Josh Earnest, just yesterday, said: Oh, we have a process. Congress should not intervene in the Keystone XL Pipeline approval issue because there is a process. Really, Mr. President, there is a process? Let's see. The TransCanada company filed application to build the Keystone XL Pipeline in September of 2008-- September 2008. If you do the math, that is more than 6 years ago. And there is a process somehow to get to a conclusion? So that company, which has invested hundreds of millions already, wants to build, ultimately, an $8.9 million project that will move 830,000 barrels of oil a day. And here they are 6 years later still waiting for approval. That is why today we are asking Congress to step forward and do what the American people want. Keystone is not a new issue. The American people understand this issue. Poll after poll shows the American people, by a margin of about 70 percent to 20-some percent, support this project. Whom do we work for? We work for the people of this great country, and 70 percent of the people of this great country say: Approve the project. After 6 long years, where all of the requirements have been met, approve the project. But the President, of course, continues to hold it up, and even yesterday issued a veto threat. Why? Why is he wanting to threaten a veto on a project that 70 percent of the American people support? It is really hard to understand, isn't it? Because every time an objection comes up, we have worked to address that objection. When there was an objection on the route, the company rerouted. So the President says: Well, it is an environmental concern. He says: Well, it is an environmental concern. Really? An environmental concern? This is what his own study found. After 6 years of study, the State Department, in multiple environmental impact statements--three draft statements and two final environmental impact statements--this is what they found: no significant environmental impact, according to the U.S. State Department environmental impact statements. That is not something I did. That is not something the company did. That is something the Obama administration did--repeatedly--and came to the same conclusion: no significant environmental impact. In fact, if you do not build the pipeline, you have to move that oil with 1,400 railcars a day. Now, Canada is going to produce the energy. North Dakota, Montana, other States, are going to continue to produce the energy. So that energy is going to move. The question is, how and where? If we cannot build the pipeline, then it has to go by railcar. So do we really want 1,400 railcars a day moving that product around or do we want it to move more safely, more cost-effectively, with better environmental stewardship through a pipeline? Common sense. Then there is this idea somehow: Well, Canada is not going to produce that oil if they do not have a pipeline. Wrong. They will move it by rail, and they will build other pipelines. Here are several that are already in the planning stages, as shown on this map. They will move it to the East Coast to refineries they have there or they will send it west and it will go to China. Now, does that make sense? It does not make sense to the American public, which is why the American public wants to work with Canada as well as produce energy in our country to become energy secure. The idea that we would say no to our closest friend and ally, Canada: We are not going to work with you, we are going to continue to buy oil from the Middle East, and we are going to have you send your oil to China, makes no sense to the American people. And it should not. It should not. That is why they overwhelmingly support this project. So here we are. We are starting the new Congress. I think, very clearly, in the last election, the people said: We support this project. You saw it time after time with candidate after candidate who supported this project who won their election. But on an even bigger issue, an even bigger message, the people of this great country said: We want the Congress to work together in a bipartisan way to get things done. We want the Congress to work together in a bipartisan way to get things done. So here we have legislation that has passed the House repeatedly with a bipartisan majority. Here we have legislation that has bipartisan support in this body. Here we have legislation that the American people overwhelmingly support, after clearly giving the message in the last election that they want us working together to get work done, and the President issues a veto message right out of the gates. Why? For whom? Whom is he working for? So it is incumbent upon us to work together in a bipartisan way to get this legislation passed. The way we are approaching it--and I see my good friend and colleague from the great State of West Virginia is here. I want to thank him and turn to him, but I want to do it in the form of a question. It was my very clear sense from the last election--and I think the very clear sense that we all got from the last election--that they want to see Congress working together in a bipartisan way, in an open process to get the important work of this country done. So with this legislation, it is not just that it is about important energy infrastructure. It is also that we want to return to regular order in this body, offer an open amendment process, allow people to bring forward their amendments, offer those amendments, debate them, and get a vote on those amendments. If they have amendments that can add to and improve this legislation, great, let's have that process. Let's have that debate. Let's have those votes. Let's make this bill as good as we can possibly make it. Then the President needs to work with us. The President needs to meet us halfway and get this done for the American people. So I would like to turn to my good colleague from the great State of West Virginia and say: Aren't we doing all we can here to try to make sure we are approaching this in a bipartisan way with an open, transparent process to try to build support for this legislation?

Mr. HOEVEN. I want to thank my colleague from North Dakota for speaking on the important points she made, and that is that the energy we are producing in this country is helping consumers at the pump by bringing down prices. I want to turn to my colleague from Kansas who wants to close this colloquy and address the very point that we need this infrastructure to keep doing that, to benefit our consumers at the pump.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for her leadership on the Energy Committee and also for her willingness to work in an open way on these important issues. Across this body, on both sides of the aisle, there should be a deep appreciation for her willingness to bring these bills forward so we can debate them and we can offer amendments and we can build the kind of energy future for this country our people so very much want to have. The Senator from Alaska is somebody who lives and breathes this topic when we talk energy--somebody who is truly committed to it but truly committed to an open dialogue on all types of energy, giving everybody an opportunity to weigh in and build the best energy plan for our country that we possibly can. So I extend my thanks to her and also my appreciation, and likewise say I look forward to working with her on this issue and on so many important energy issues. I wish to turn to my colleague from the State of North Dakota and ask her for her perspective on why this project is so important for our country and for the energy future of our country.

Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent to exceed for 5 minutes to wrap up the colloquy.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from Kansas, and with that we will wrap up the colloquy. I would like to thank my colleagues, and we will be back. Again, we are looking to work with all of our colleagues here in an open process to offer amendments and pass legislation that is important for the American people. I thank the Presiding Officer, and with that I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to engage in a colloquy until 3:15 p.m.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am here this afternoon to talk about the Tax Increase Prevention Act. I have been speaking on this issue and I intend to speak on it until we get this legislation passed. I am hopeful that we will get this legislation moved tonight or maybe even tomorrow. But in any event, we need to get this very important legislation passed this week to make sure that taxes don't go up on our small businesses, farmers, and the hard-working citizens of this country. That is why I have been down talking about the legislation and its importance, and I have also been presenting and reading letters and emails from my constituents who have been contacting me about the importance of getting this done. I want them to be heard because they know very well how heavy their tax burden is and why we need to make sure they get relief for their families and for their businesses. I am talking about family farmers, men and women who work long hours and long days on the farm. I am talking about small business owners, manufacturers, shopkeepers, the whole gamut of small businesses across this great country, your neighbors and mine. First I am going to talk about some of the provisions in the legislation. I am going to start with one that is incredibly important for farmers in my State but really for small businesses across the country, as I said earlier. That is the section 179 small business expensing and depreciation provision. The section 179 small business expensing limitation and phaseout amounts in effect from 2010 to 2013 through 2015: Taxpayers can expense up to $500,000 of acquired business property, rather than the current level of expensing $25,000 and $200,000 respectively. The $200,000 is on the depreciation. The section 179 expensing and depreciation provision is very important for small businesses. It is very important that we get it in place now because they are doing their year-end planning, and they are doing their tax planning. They need to know the rules of the road. They need to know what they can expense and what they can depreciate and how much. It is not just an issue of preparing their tax returns; it is also very much an issue in terms of their planning for next year. What equipment do they buy? If you are a farmer, what ag equipment do you buy? If you are a small manufacturer, what manufacturing equipment do you buy? What repairs do you do? Can you expense those repairs or do you have to go through an elaborate process of setting up a depreciation schedule and then depreciate that repair over a long period of time? These are things that make it very difficult to do business for small businesses and also impede their willingness and their ability to go out and buy equipment and to make those needed repairs to keep their operation running. That hurts our economy. That hurts job creation in our country. It is very important. The section 179 provision is incredibly important to our farmers and small businesses throughout the country. Also, another very important provision is the bonus depreciation for property that is placed in service during 2014 or, in some cases, 2015 for property with a longer production period. If we are not allowed to take that depreciation, you may not buy that new equipment. If you don't buy that new equipment, obviously that has ramifications all the way through our economy. There are eight provisions in the legislation for individuals, including the deductibility of State and local sales tax, the deduction of certain expenses for elementary and secondary schoolteachers, the extension of the above-the-line-deduction for qualified tuition, and the extension of tax redistributions from individual retirement plans for charitable purposes. Also included in the legislation are a total of 30 business-related provisions in addition to section 179 and the bonus depreciation. They are very important and make a big difference in terms of the taxes our businesses will be required to pay. The legislation includes the research and development tax credit that allows companies a 20-percent credit for incremental qualified research expenses or a 14-percent alternative simplified credit for R&D performed in the United States. I will use an example. We have a large Microsoft location in my State, in Fargo. They employ more than 1,700 people at their campus in Fargo. I am going to use Microsoft as an example. Microsoft is on a pace to spend over $12 billion on research and development this year, primarily on U.S. jobs. Other countries are competing for the same R&D investment from Microsoft and other companies. Many of them have lower corporate income tax rates, they have stable R&D incentives, and plenty of research and development talent. A consistent and stable U.S. R&D tax credit gives businesses such as Microsoft an incentive to invest and do that research and development in the United States versus some other country. Again, we are talking about not only economic activity and jobs in our country, but we are talking about innovation right in our country that drives job creation and economic growth. As I said, the real key, I believe, is the impact this legislation has on small business across this country. Small business is the backbone of our economy. I want to take a few minutes to read some more of the letters and emails I have been receiving on the importance of passing this legislation and putting in place the section 179 expensing and depreciation for our small businesses. The first letter I am going to read is from Wayne Hauge, a CPA from Ray, ND, a small town in North Dakota. He is speaking on behalf of many of his clients. He writes: Senator Hoeven, what about the IRC Section 179? $25,000 is far too low of a limit, and should be eliminated if that is all that can be expensed in a year. Far better would be reinstating prior limits and making such a change permanent. A farmer does not plan a crop after you've harvested it. You plan it a year in advance. Income tax planning is the same. It is an extremely poor financial planner who decides to buy something based on an ever-changing tax policy, and after the fact. I realize the political system in this country is stagnated, with refusals by both parties to agree on anything. But the time is now to put some semblance of future planning back on the table and help us to stay on top of the game, rather than whining about what should have been done. We owe it to Wayne and his clients to get this bill done before we leave. Here is another one. This one is from Mike Van Gorkom with Titan Machinery in Wishek, ND. Titan Machinery is a dealer for Case IH, Case Construction, New Holland, and New Holland Construction. Titan Machinery also represents Titan Rentals, Titan Aggregate, and a varied list of short-line equipment to meet specialized customer demand and niche product needs. I was just wondering if anyone can tell me when to expect a vote on extending Section 179 tax deductions. I have been following this bill along with many of my customers. Many farmers are waiting to purchase equipment from me until they find out if they can use it for this year's deductions or wait until next year. Thank you and have a nice day. Lawrence D. Stockert, a small business owner in Bismarck, ND, wants to purchase new equipment this year, but he is not certain he can because we have yet to pass the tax extender package. He writes: I would like to know if there is a possibility for the Senate to pass the increases in the Section 179 depreciation rules. The previous year's provision enabled me to buy new equipment. Can you take this bill to the Senate and get it passed? I would like to purchase additional equipment this year as well. Then from Stephen Stafki, vice president of service, General Equipment & Supplies in Fargo, ND. He is concerned about the bonus depreciation provision in the extender package. The Tax Increase Prevention Act extends the 50-percent bonus depreciation to property acquired and placed in service during 2014 or 2015 for certain property with a longer production period. He writes: Senator Hoeven, I am writing to you to express my support for passing bonus depreciation before the end of 2014. As a small business owner this legislation is crucial to us and our customer base. I truly hope you will fight to push this legislation through Congress and garner enough support to be able to override any Presidential veto. The last letter I would like to read today comes from Jay Hansen of Fargo, ND. It is especially telling, because like the earlier letter I read from a CPA, he is also a CPA. Essentially he is speaking for the 1,000 farmers whom he does work for. My name is Jay Hansen. I am a CPA working for Iver Eliason CPA PC in Minot, ND. We have approximately 1,000 farm clients who rely heavily on depreciating farm machinery as part of their overall tax planning strategy. With the discussion regarding the tax extender bill being on the agenda before the end of the year, we are curious to know if you have any insight on what we can expect and when we can expect it. Any information you can provide me regarding the Section 179 expense deduction would be greatly appreciated. So time is of the essence. We are days from the end of the tax year, days away from the holidays. Millions of Americans are depending on us to spare them a burden that will hurt their businesses and hurt their families. If we do not act, taxes will go up on hard-working Americans, on small businesses across this country, on farmers. So we need to act. We need to make sure that does not happen. We need to pass the legislation we have here on the floor. We need to get it done now. So I urge my colleagues to join together in bipartisan fashion and get this done. Let's pass the Tax Increase Prevention Act and make sure we do not see a tax increase on our small businesses and the hard- working taxpayers of this great Nation. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.