John Hoeven

Mr. HOEVEN

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOEVEN

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am here today to discuss the Tax Increase Prevention Act. We are now getting down to the end of the year. It is important that we get our work done. An important part of that work is passing the Tax Increase Prevention Act. It is often referred to as the tax extenders package. What it really does is it extends tax credits and deductions used by small businesses across this country. The Tax Increase Prevention Act will extend for 1 year 55 different tax credits and deductions that expired either at the end of 2013 or during 2014. This is a bill that has already passed the House, and it passed with a huge margin, with a bipartisan vote of 378 to 46. One of the most important provisions in the act is the section 179 depreciation and expensing provision for small businesses. That is the provision I particularly want to focus on today and talk about and discuss why it is so important for our small businesses and for our entire country. Section 179 allows farmers and other small businesses to expense and depreciate property they have purchased or repaired for their operations. That is important to them so that they don't see a tax increase, but it also keeps our economy going. Without it, small business will buy and repair less equipment, slowing down our manufacturing base and slowing down our economy. Quite simply, that means fewer jobs. It is not only because small business's costs are increased, but it is also because of the uncertainty that is created when they don't know the rules of the road. That is why this fix needs to be done on a permanent basis. I think it could have been done on a permanent basis this year. We were working on a deal until the President threatened to veto that legislation. So now we have a 1-year fix, but we have broad support in this Chamber for the 1-year fix. We need to pass it now and then go back to work on a permanent fix next year. I was home for the weekend about a week ago, and I was talking to some of the farmers in our State. They told me what they have been telling me for some time now; that is, they need the section 179 expensing and depreciation, they need to know the rules of the road, and they need to know it now. We are at year-end. They are doing their year-end planning. They are doing their tax work. Some are still negotiating on buying equipment for next year. The depreciation and expensing rules affect the decisions they make. They will also affect the number of jobs in our economy. Agriculture alone is responsible for 16 million direct and indirect jobs in our economy. Ag is also a sector of our economy that produces a positive balance of trade. American agriculture provides the highest quality and lowest cost food supply in the world. It is something that benefits every single American every day. Section 179 expensing and depreciation is important for other small businesses as well. And it is not just small businesses, it helps keep our large industries going too. For example, Case New Holland and John Deere have manufacturing plants in my home State. They produce tractors, balers, and other equipment. In addition, they also make industrial equipment. When farmers and other small businesses slow down their purchase of equipment, these manufacturing facilities slow down as well. It means less business, fewer workers needed, and fewer jobs. That is how it works. It is that simple. The truth is that small business is the backbone of our economy in this country. The hallmark of America is that it has historically been the best place in the world to do business. It is where everybody has always come to do business. We have always had the best legal, tax, and regulatory business climate. We provided the certainty businesses need to invest, to hire people, to create jobs, and to grow the economy. That is the rising tide that lifts all boats--a higher standard of living for our people and revenue from economic growth, not higher taxes, to reduce our debt and deficit to get them under control as well. Let's create that certainty for our farmers and small businesses across this great Nation. Let's make sure their taxes don't go up. Let's start by passing the Tax Increase Prevention Act and section 179 expensing and depreciation now. I would like to close by reading from some of the letters I have received from some of my constituents. I think so often that the hard- working taxpayers of North Dakota, the small business people there who are getting it done every day, say it best. The first one is from Dick Hedahl, owner of Bismarck-based Hedahls Auto Plus. He said: Without section 179 and the bonus depreciation, Hedahls Auto Plus would really have felt the pinch last year when we purchased equipment to service diesel powered trucks and heavy equipment. Since the growth in the Bakken, his services have been especially important because he can save clients thousands of dollars by refurbishing worn diesel engine blocks. What makes the refurbishing possible is the 100 percent American-made equipment Hedahl bought in 2012 and 2013 for $450,000. At a 34-percent tax rate, he says he would not have been able to make those equipment purchases work, but with section 179 expensing and depreciation, he was able to make those things work. As a result, he is providing jobs in the western part of our State. Hedahls Auto Plus employs more than 200 people. Another constituent wrote in. Leann Slaubaugh of Rolette writes: I am concerned about Section 179 and what this is doing to the agricultural sector in North Dakota. Farm equipment is not being sold, as the farmers are concerned about the amount they will have to pay taxes on. I farm with my husband and work at a small town farm supply. Farmers have quit spending due to low commodity prices and Section 179. I am concerned with the effect on our small town economy if Section 179 is not revised. After meeting with our tax consultant, we are concerned with the possible tax liability we are facing and what this means to the future of our family farm. Please push for revision of Section 179. Dennis Miller, who grew up in Stark County and worked for an ag equipment dealership for 28 years, is similarly concerned. I am going to paraphrase from his letter. Four years ago he started his own business, Southwest AG Repair, Inc. He sells new McCormick tractors and repairs all brands of farm equipment. He has six employees. Mr. Miller wrote to me earlier this year, anxious about the expiration of section 179: It is going to cut sales of farm equipment drastically if the farmers don't get a tax incentive to purchase equipment. The loss of sales will create backlash in the economy throughout the State and the country. There has to be a better way to create the tax revenue. Mr. Miller, there is. You create tax revenue with economic growth, not higher taxes, just like you create jobs, create economic activity, getting that rising tide that lifts all boats--that is when it enables us to invest in the future of our country, the roads and bridges, our schools, and all of the things people want for this great Nation. But it comes from a growing economy. Of course, that is what creates the jobs we need for our families across America. So when we talk about the Tax Increase Prevention Act, that is what we are talking about. We are talking about making sure here at the end of the year that taxes don't go up on hard-working taxpayers across this country, that taxes don't go up on our small businesses across the country, and that we understand that is truly the backbone of our economy, that all those people and all those small businesses are the ones who make our economy go every minute of every day. It is time to act. The time is here. The votes are here on a bipartisan basis in this body to get it done. Let's get it done. Our American citizens, our hard-working taxpayers have waited long enough. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from Alaska for her leadership of our energy committee on this and many other important energy issues. I want to follow along with much of what she just covered and why it is important. In this legislation, which is sponsored by Senator Portman and Senator Shaheen, there are a number of energy efficiency measures. But the one she emphasized and the one which I want to emphasize is the water heater efficiency provision. This is a commonsense provision. It is very important for people in rural areas across the country. The rural electric cooperatives have been very strong on working to get this legislation passed. They have gotten it passed in the House on behalf of all of those people out there in rural America where this can make a real difference in terms of quality of life, but at the same time save energy and save money. So it is one of those measures where everyone wins all the way around. We have sponsored this in a number of different forms. We have not been able to move it through the Senate yet. We will, I am convinced, move it through next year. But as the good Senator from Alaska said, there are some timelines here that make it very important that we get the measure passed. Essentially what we are dealing with is in 2010, the Department of Energy issued a rule on water heaters that will effectively ban the manufacture of large electric water heaters beginning in 2015--so next year--which could greatly affect consumers in rural areas and hurt the effectiveness of some of our demand-response rural programs. Many of our rural areas are not serviced by natural gas, and geothermal water heaters can cost many thousands of dollars. So this is a practical win-win amendment that improves the efficiency of electric water heaters but still lets our rural areas have access to affordable, efficient water heaters that can supplement renewable energy. Electric cooperatives and other utilities have voluntary demand- response programs that use electric water heaters to more effectively manage power supply and demand. In those areas where renewables are part of the electric generation system, those water heaters facilitate the integration of renewable energy that can be stored for use during peak hours, like wind and solar energy. So this provision would allow the continued manufacture of large grid-enabled electric resistance water heaters only for use in electric thermal storage or demand-response programs, meaning you are using offpeak load. So you are using lower cost energy, energy that otherwise would be lost. So, again, it really is a win for everybody involved. This provision would require grid-enabled water heaters to have a volume of more than 75 gallons, be energy efficient, and work on grids that have a demand-response program. It is that simple. It is that straightforward. It is that commonsense. But it affects a tremendous number of people across rural America, people in States such as Indiana, North Dakota, Ohio, across the country. I am convinced we are going to get this. The issue is when. We are facing this timeline, as I say, in 2015. I will conclude with some of the organizations that support this legislation. I do not know of anyone opposing it. We have got a tremendous number of organizations that support it, including the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the American Public Power Association, Edison Electric Institute, the General Electric Company, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the National Resource Defense Council, the Northwest Energy Alliance. The bill saves money, it saves energy, it benefits the environment, it benefits consumers. Look, we need to get it passed. This bill on the floor easily gets more than enough to pass on a bipartisan basis with flying colors. I would certainly yield the floor to our leader on this important issue, the good Senator from Ohio.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, in the new Congress we will welcome 12 new Republican Senators, and that is wonderful. They are great people. They are excited. They are enthusiastic. I think they are going to do wonderful things. So there are 12 new Republican Members coming into the new Senate, and I am looking and we are going to lose 3 of our Republican colleagues. I am thinking, maybe that is about the right ratio; it is about 4 to 1. But these are three individuals who are unbelievable in what they have been able to do in the relationships they built, the friendships, and the work they have done on behalf of the American people. So I am looking at that statistic and I am thinking: Wow, these are three great people who have done the work of many, and I think they have laid the foundation in many ways for us to get to a majority: Senator Johanns, Senator Coburn, and Senator Chambliss. I think they have done a lot of that work required for us to get to majority. We have heard about the great Senator from Georgia. But I think the things I am going to talk about for a minute in regard to Saxby Chambliss apply to the two individuals sitting here with him. They are cut from the same cloth: Senator Coburn, Senator Johanns, true public servants. People who ran for the right reason; people who serve for the right reason. I think we could ask anybody in this body on either side of the aisle, and they would tell us that these three individuals served for the right reasons, and served to the very best of their ability the American people--not just the people of their State, but the American people. They will be remembered long after they are gone. They will be remembered because of the great, wonderful people they are, for the relationships they have built, and for that service. So I echo Senator Ayotte's comments. Senator Coburn touched on it, too. One of the first people I looked to as a mentor when I came here 4 years ago was Saxby Chambliss. Now, that doesn't seem intuitively like something I would do--I am from North Dakota, he is from Georgia. Mike Johanns has been a mentor of mine since Governor days, so for more than a decade. But one of the first people I looked to as a mentor was Saxby Chambliss, and I don't even know why. It was one of those things that immediately you like the guy. But as you listened to him a little bit, you respected the guy. You thought: This guy has something to say. He knows what he is doing. But then, it is that relationship thing--that thing where he goes out of his way to work with you, to help you, to understand what you are trying to do in a friendly way, with great humor, and he does it naturally. It is just who he is. It is automatic. I think Senator Isakson really put his finger on it: It is just the way he is. You are naturally drawn to him. I think we could talk to any of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and they would tell you the same thing: integrity, honesty, intelligence; somebody you can work with, somebody who cares, somebody who always has the best interests of the American people at heart. I had the opportunity to work with him on the farm bill, and I was counting on Senator Coburn to kind of jump in there and do it with him, but that didn't happen right away. I am kidding a little bit. But we couldn't have had a farm bill without Senator Chambliss. When I think how difficult it is to move legislation like that, particularly over the course of the past year, and realize that a farm bill really isn't so much Republican/Democratic--it really isn't. If you look at how a farm bill works, that is not the makeup. It comes down to people who know and understand agriculture, who understand the importance of a good farm bill for our farmers and ranchers, but understand also that our farmers and ranchers across the country create the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world. It is not perfect, but every American benefits every day from the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world. So when I think of my State of North Dakota, or Senator Coburn's great State of Oklahoma, or Senator Johanns' State of Nebraska--we all produce all of these different ag products. We raise all these crops, we raise all these animals. And there are so many people out there, so many farmers and ranchers--they don't know Saxby Chambliss. But I will tell you what: They owe him a great big thank you. They really do, because without him we wouldn't have a good farm plan for this country. The reality is it is not just the farmers and ranchers. It is true for so many people across this country: They may not know Saxby Chambliss, but they owe him a lot. He is somebody who epitomizes the very best of this institution. I know his wife Julianne is here. I have to admit, when I first met her I thought it was his daughter because she is so young and beautiful. I am teasing him a little. But she is fantastic. And the same thing--she was immediately a friend and a mentor to my wife Mikey. When we talk about Saxby Chambliss, Tom Coburn, Mike Johanns, it doesn't get any better than that. We will miss them a lot. I wish all three of them Godspeed, and may God bless you in your next career.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to also express my appreciation for Senator Mike Johanns and for his wife Stephanie. I first met Mike shortly after I was elected Governor of my State. At that time Mike was serving as Governor of Nebraska. Right away when I went and visited with Mike I could tell this was somebody who was not only somebody we could count on but who had the right motivation in public service, had great ideas, and was somebody I could look to as a mentor, and I have ever since. From his experience at the local level as commissioner, then as mayor, then as Governor, then as Secretary of Agriculture, and then as a Senator, Mike has been somebody all of us have counted on and somebody whose advice we have sought when we wrestled with tough decisions. So I just want to add my voice as well to the others who have expressed our appreciation for Senator Mike Johanns and for Stephanie and to say how much we are going to miss him. We are going to miss him not only on a personal level--because he is a great guy and a great friend and somebody we can count on--but we are going to miss his advice, his counsel, his participation in this process on behalf of the American people. I think Mike epitomizes the kind of approach we need to have in this body to get work done--to listen, to think carefully, and to remember always that we work for the American people, and he has a long and distinguished career doing that. He is somebody who will be truly missed, and I think he is somebody who exemplifies the very best of this body and of public service on behalf of our great Nation.

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would like to take 5 minutes to respond to some of the comments the Senator from California made in regard to the environmental impacts. First, if we look at the environmental impact statements--actually, there were five environmental impact statements done. And what they found and said very clearly is that the Keystone XL Pipeline will have no significant environmental impact. Let me repeat that--no significant environmental impact. That is from the environmental study done by the Obama administration. Again, that is not me saying it. That is the State Department for the Obama administration saying no significant environmental impact, according to the environmental impact statement. In addition, I would point out that if we don't build the Keystone XL Pipeline, this 830,000 barrels of oil a day moves by railroad. Now think of that. What is going to produce more greenhouse gas emissions? Moving all this oil by rail--which by the way takes 1,400 railcars a day--or moving it in tankers across the ocean to China where it will be refined in refineries that have much higher emissions or you putting it in the pipeline? So again, just common sense, what is going to produce more greenhouse gas emissions, having the pipeline or 1,400 railcars per day or sending it in tankers to China to be refined in their refineries that have much higher emissions? Not to mention the fact that what are Americans going to think about that we are going to make Canada send their oil to China so we in America can import oil from the Middle East. That is a pretty tough sell. Again, with the pipeline you have lower greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the heavy crude we import from Venezuela now has higher emissions than the oil that will be provided by the Keystone. I am not even including the fact that it is not just Canadian crude that comes in. It is also light sweet Bakken crude from my home State of North Dakota and our neighbor to the west, Montana. We are not just moving Canadian. We our moving our own crude, and if we don't, we are going to continue to get that oil from Venezuela, which has as high or higher greenhouse gas emissions. As a matter of fact, the heavy crude in California, the good Senator's own State, has greenhouse gas emissions that are equal to or higher than the crude that would come through the pipeline. That is produced in California. The final point I would like to make on the environmental aspects is that 80 percent of the new production in Canada--in the Canadian oil sands--80 percent of the new production is being done by what they call in situ drilling. So instead of excavating, which is what is being done now with much of the production at the oil sands, they are drilling. They would drill down similarly to the way they would drill for oil with conventional drilling and then put steam down in the hole and have that bring up the oil. So the carbon footprint is reduced using this in situ method, and 80 percent of the production in Canada will be with this in situ method. That will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and the footprint, similar to conventional drilling in the United States. When you look at the environmental track record in Canada, the Canadians care about their environment too. We all want to find ways to produce energy and do it with good environmental stewardship. I submit to you that the way to do that is to empower and enable the deployment of new technologies that not only produce that energy more cost- effectively, more independently but also do it with better environmental stewardship because you are using the latest, greatest technologies. Instead of moving the product through railcars, you are moving it through the latest pipeline with the latest safeguards. So I wanted to take 5 minutes to respond to some of those environmental issues, and I thank the Senator from California and turn the floor now back to her.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, that seems to be the right way to go. I have no objection.

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

Mr. HOEVEN. I have 2 minutes remaining to start the final portion of the debate prior to the vote. So without objection----

Mr. HOEVEN. So I turn to my colleague from California and my colleague from Louisiana. The time has come to vote. We have had the vigorous debate. I would go back to what I said on this floor repeatedly and will continue to say until we get this project approved. This is about what the American people want. We work for the American people. I have gone through the merits. I have gone through the arguments. I laid out how the bill works. I talked about the history. But at the end of the day, this is about our job representing the people of this great country and listening to them and doing what they want us to do. The American people overwhelmingly support this project and want it approved. So I ask for an affirmative vote today to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HOEVEN. I would respond to the question of the Senator from Louisiana. My understanding is we were targeting to maybe have the vote at 5:30. I would be certainly pleased to work through that with the Senator and Senator Boxer, finishing up, maybe with me at 5:45 or whatever we work out within that timing.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I would inquire as to the remaining time.

Mr. HOEVEN. Would the Senator from Louisiana like to do that now? Then she would still have 2 minutes to use after I finish as well. I am trying to find out how the Senator would like to use her remaining time.

Mr. HOEVEN. Sure. That is fine. Madam President, I am going to go through a series of charts here. They are actually getting a little worn because I have used them now for a number of years. I am very hopeful that after today, or certainly after the first part of the next year, I can retire these charts, because it is long past time to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. This is an effort that started in September of 2008. The TransCanada company applied for a Keystone XL Pipeline permit. They started this process in September of 2008. I wasn't in the Senate then. I was Governor of North Dakota at that time. I worked on it for 2 years as Governor, and now I have worked on it for almost 4 years here in the Senate--not building the project, but trying to get approval for this project. The irony is--one of the many ironies--is that the TransCanada company actually built the Keystone Pipeline. A lot of people say, what? What do you mean? I thought that is what we are talking about. No, what we are talking about is the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline has already been built. In 2006, the company applied for a permit to build a pipeline from Hardisty, which is in Alberta, down to Patoka, IL, for the Keystone Pipeline. They applied in 2006. They were granted a permit in 2008. By 2010 they had the pipeline built and operating, bringing about 640,000 barrels a day, going down from Canada, through my State, through South Dakota, through Nebraska, and over to Patoka, IL. Permitted in 2 years, built it in 2 years, and 4 years from start to finish, all done. That is the Keystone Pipeline. What we are talking about here now is the Keystone XL Pipeline. It is a sister project, and the company has been trying for 6 years to get a permit. Here we see the route. It is very similar, but it also goes down to Cushing and to the Gulf of Mexico. It is hard to believe it has been 6 years in the making. We passed legislation to try to get a decision out of the administration. Not only is this not the first pipeline, which is the Keystone XL Pipeline, after we already built the Keystone Pipeline, but this is not the first bill to approve it. In fact, we have passed other bills to approve it. As a matter of fact, in 2011 I introduced a bill which we passed in 2012 attached to the payroll tax holiday so the President wouldn't veto it, and what that bill said is: Mr. President, you need to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline. If we are going to have an energy plan for this country, if we are going to make this country energy secure, energy independent, we have to have the infrastructure to move that energy to market. We have to have this vital infrastructure. So all that bill said in 2012 is: Mr. President, make a decision. It has been years in the permitting process. Make a decision. And he did. He turned it down. He turned it down because he didn't like the route in Nebraska. So what did we do? We went to work with the good people of Nebraska and set up a different route. We addressed the concerns the President said he had. We rerouted the pipeline and we came back. Still no decision. Still no decision, making it very clear--the President won't turn down the project. We have to ask, why isn't he turning it down? Because it is about jobs and energy and economic growth. It is about energy security, therefore national security, and the American people overwhelmingly want this project--60, 70 percent every time it is polled. That is why he doesn't want to turn it down, because the American people want it but he won't approve it. So what is his strategy? His strategy is defeat through delay. Defeat through delay. Don't take my word for it. Actions speak louder than words. We are now in year 6 of the permitting process. What does this bill do, Senate bill 2280? We have 56 sponsors on this bill--56. It is a bipartisan bill. We already have a majority of the Senate. Now we just need to get to 60. What does it do? If the President won't make a decision, then Congress needs to. What this bill does is that under the commerce clause of the Constitution, Congress has the authority to oversee trade with foreign powers. We have the authority and the responsibility to oversee trade with foreign countries. So we have the authority to approve the cross-border approval for this pipeline. We have that authority under the commerce clause. So this bill simply says, all right, Congress approves the cross-border authority for this pipeline. That is it. The States still have their right to the route and the oversight in their respective States. We honor, we respect, and we protect. We protect property rights. We are just saying under the commerce clause of the Constitution that we can bring this pipeline across the border, just like the many other pipelines that have come across the border. This pipeline will have the latest, greatest technology, and it will be part of the more than--the millions of miles of pipelines that we already have, except this one will be newer with safety features the other ones don't even have. That is what this bill is about, and that is what we are working on today. It really comes down to a very simple decision. Do we make a decision for the American people, or do we make a decision for special interest groups that oppose the project? I wish to thank my colleagues for this very vigorous debate on the Keystone XL Pipeline today. It is very appropriate that we debate it. And it is very appropriate that we vote on it. I had not anticipated getting to a vote until the new Congress, but I am pleased to get a vote today. It is certainly past time that we approve the Keystone XL Pipeline--as I say, 6 years. Six years in the permitting process. How in the world are we going to build an energy plan for this country that truly makes us energy secure and energy independent if we can't build the infrastructure to move that energy around the country--to move the energy we produce and that our closest friend and ally Canada produces from where we produce it to the refineries and to the markets around the country? We can't build an energy plan for this country if we don't approve and build the infrastructure to make it work. A lot has been written and a lot has been said over these 6 years. But I go back to the most important point, and that is let's make this decision on the merits and let's make this decision on the facts. It is about energy, jobs, and economic growth, and it is about national security through energy security. On the environmental issues, after five environmental impact statements, the Department of State says there is no significant environmental impact. Look, this isn't me saying it. Read the environmental impact statement. It is not as though we just did it once. It is not as though we just did it twice or even three times. Five of them. Five environmental impact statements. Think about it. Where is the common sense here? Five environmental impact statements. Verdict: No significant environmental impact. On the jobs issues, the Department of State, again, in the environmental impact statement, says 42,000 jobs. Some say, those aren't good jobs, those are construction jobs. Really? If they are not good jobs, why are all the major national unions strongly supporting the project? Ask them if these are good jobs. Furthermore, energy is a foundational industry. Low-cost, dependable energy helps all of the other industry sectors in our economy go and makes us more competitive in a global economy. On the export issue, I think we have heard our President say, oh, it is just all going to be exported. Well, that is interesting, because his Department of Energy says otherwise. If we look at the report from the Department of Energy, it says we are going to use that oil here in the United States. We are going to refine it and use it here in the United States. Interestingly enough, in order for the oil to be exported, we have to get approval from the Department of Commerce--from the Obama administration's Department of Commerce. One other interesting point: It is not just oil from Canada, it is oil from my great State of North Dakota and oil from Montana--light, sweet Bakken crude that we have to find a way to get to our refineries in the United States. Right now North Dakota produces almost 1.2 million barrels of oil a day, and it is going up. The only State that produces more oil than North Dakota is Texas. Of that almost 1.2 million barrels of oil a day that we produce, 700,000 right now is moving on rail--700,000 barrels a day. That is a problem. This pipeline alone will take 1,400 railcars of oil--1,400 railcars to move that amount of oil. So if we don't have Keystone, we are going to have 1,400 railcars a day moving that product. We already have a problem. We already have our agriculture products backlogged in the Midwest because we are trying to move all of this oil. Look, we need infrastructure in the right balance. We need pipelines, we need rail, and we need roads. Without it, we have more congestion on the rail as well as more risks for accidents. For all these reasons and more, as I said a minute ago, the American people have spoken clearly. They have said that it is time to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. I hope that today that is exactly what we do. We are here now, and we agreed to have a vote at 5:45 p.m. I know that my colleagues from Louisiana----

Mr. HOEVEN. I would inquire of the Senator from Louisiana if she would like to use her 3 minutes in addition to the agreement for the final 8? Would the Senator from Louisiana like to use her 3 minutes at this time?

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Today we vote on S. 2280, introduced by myself and Senator Landrieu. There are actually 54 sponsors on the legislation with us. So we have a total of 56 sponsors of this bipartisan bill. That is the same bill that has been passed in the House of Representatives. That was passed on Friday--the same version. The prime sponsor in the House was Representative Cassidy. The bill we vote on today, S. 2280, is approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline. We have actually passed legislation on the Keystone XL Pipeline before. This is not the first bill. In 2012, we passed legislation that required the President to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline. We attached it to the payroll tax holiday. At that time the President turned down the pipeline project. So today we have submitted a number of different pieces of legislation, but this legislation actually has Congress approving the Keystone XL Pipeline. When the President turned down the project, what we did was we went back and we did the research. Under the commerce clause of the Constitution, Congress has the authority to oversee commerce with foreign powers, with other countries. So in this situation, Congress has the authority to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline crossing the border from Canada into the United States, and that is what we crafted in this legislation. So rather than the President making a national interest determination, which he seems to be unwilling to do--and I say that based on his actions--we have now been at this for about 4 years in this Senate trying to get approval. But this project has been in the application process for 6 years. I was Governor of North Dakota in September of 2008 when the TransCanada Corporation applied for a permit to get approval to build the Keystone XL Pipeline. They had already built the Keystone pipeline, so they were applying for approval to build the sister pipeline, the Keystone XL Pipeline. It started in September of 2008, and 2 years went by. We started actually working on it in about 2011 in the Senate, as I say, and we passed legislation, trying to get the President to approve it. But it has now been--and I can show a chart with the time line, but it is a little hard to see--6 years in the permitting process. The time has come to act. The time has come to act, and that is what this legislation is all about. It provides approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline so they can move forward and it can be constructed. We have debated this issue in the Chamber for almost 4 years. So we have gone through all of the merits, and we will do that again today. We have not only come to an agreement on getting a vote, but we have also come to an agreement on the parameters for the debate. It is 6 hours of debate, with 3 hours for the proponents and 3 hours for the opponents. On the Republican side of the aisle we are taking 2 hours solely on the proponent side because all 45 Republican Senators are in support of the project, will be voting for the project, and will be making the case for the project. On the majority side there will be 3 hours for opponents of the project making their case and 1 hour for the proponents making their case, and we will alternate throughout this debate. We will be having this debate today and we will make our case. I will continue with my colleagues to make the case for the pipeline. There will be Members of the majority party that will make that case and there will be some Members, obviously, in opposition. So I will reserve some of my time to speak later, but the point I want to make at the outset is this is really about the American people making this case. When we look at this project, it is about energy, it is about jobs, it is about economic growth. It creates tax revenue to help reduce the deficit and the debt. It doesn't cost 1 penny of Federal money or government money. It is privately funded, and it is about national security. It is about national security by helping us build energy security in this country with our closest friend and ally, Canada, working together with Canada so that we don't have to get energy from Venezuela or from the Middle East or from other parts of the world, and so we can produce at home. That is not only a vitally important issue in terms of our economy and being competitive in a global economy because energy is truly a foundational sector for all the other industry sectors. When we have low-cost dependable energy, we are more competitive as a country, but it really is a national security issue. I see the good Senator from Vermont is on the floor. He has a bill that deals with how we handle surveillance and covert information, given the terrorist threat we face. It is important that we do that well. But one of the ways to truly strengthen our country is to make sure we are energy secure, to make sure we don't have to get oil from the Middle East, to help our friends and allies in Europe so they are not dependent on Russia for energy when Putin engages in the kind of aggression he has. So when we talk about this energy issue, it is not just jobs, it is not just the energy we get that makes us stronger in a competitive global economy, it really is a national security issue, and it is long past time to act. It has been 6 years. Today we will have that debate again, and I hope at the end of the day we will have the 60 votes that we need. We will find out this evening when we vote. Again, it comes back to what do the American people want. We are here representing the American people. Overwhelmingly, in poll after poll when they have been asked, 60 percent, sometimes 70 percent or more say: Build the Keystone XL Pipeline. That is whom we work for. I hope today, at the end of the day, that is the work we will get done for the American people. I see my cosponsor on the floor, and I would turn to the good Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I would like to thank the minority leader. I would like to thank all the Members of our caucus for joining on this bipartisan legislation. You know, we are continuing to work across the aisle to get 60 votes. At the end of the day, you have got to go back to what this is all about. This is about building an ``all of the above'' energy plan for this Nation. You cannot build an ``all of the above'' energy plan for the Nation if you do not have the infrastructure to move that energy around the country. We are seeing what is happening. Because we have been blocked on building these pipelines, now we are not able to move our grain to market, because there are so many rail cars now trying to move crude oil--700,000 barrels a day out of our State alone, and it is growing. Keystone alone will replace 1,400 rail cars a day that are now carrying oil. That is 10-unit trains. So, you see, this is about so many aspects of our economy, strengthening our economy and creating good-paying jobs that people want. That is why the American people--and that is who we work for, that is who we represent. That is what this is about. That is what we heard loud and clear in the election, is that the American people want us to work together. They want us to get jobs going, get this economy going, build the right kind of energy future, get our budget deficit under control. That means we have to do the fundamentals. When we talk about building infrastructure, we are talking about the fundamentals. That is what is going on here. This has been 6 years. We need to get this economy going. That starts with common sense. This is common sense. This is common sense because it is about energy, it is about jobs, it is about growing the economy, it is about national security, it is about not having to get oil from the Middle East, and it is about doing what the American people overwhelmingly time and again have told us they want us to do. Again, I want to thank the minority leader. I will turn to him and again say: You know, I believe we can find a way, either in this lameduck or in the next Congress--and I would ask the leader--in the next Congress, and I believe it to be true, as the majority leader, he will make this a priority as part of an energy plan for this country.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, there have been a whole range of numbers offered. But I think to cut through to a number that people should be able to accept and to agree on is to take the number the State Department has put forward in the environmental impact statement. As a matter of fact, I think there have been either four or five environmental impact statements done on this project over a 6-year period, going all the way back to starting in September 2008 when TransCanada initially applied for approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which is the sister pipeline to the Keystone Pipeline, which was already built--permitted in 2 years and built in 2 years--and that happened when I was Governor. I actually started working with this project when I was Governor and it continued when I came to the Senate. But TransCanada originally applied for their permit back in September of 2008. So for 6 years this has been going on, and in the final environmental impact statement, which stated the project will have no significant environmental impact--it stated that very clearly--they also said it will create about 42,000 jobs. And these are good-paying jobs, construction jobs and other types of jobs that are good-paying jobs. So here is a project, when we include Canada, about $7.9 billion. It is not going to cost the government one penny--not one penny. By the State Department's own admission, it will create 42,000 jobs. It will generate hundreds of millions in tax revenue to help the States and help with our deficit and debt, and it is to move oil not only from Canada, but from my State of North Dakota and Montana to refineries in Texas and Louisiana and other places that need the crude, and right now that crude is coming from places such as Venezuela or the Middle East. It is a job creator, and there are all of these other benefits. Again, it is an excellent example of the kind of infrastructure we need to build the energy plan this country needs. I ask the minority leader if I have answered his question adequately.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the minority leader, but I ask him to repeat his question.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the minority leader. That has been the case, that we have worked for some time to get a vote on this important issue. We actually had passed a measure back in 2012 attached to a payroll tax holiday. At that time the President turned down the Keystone XL Pipeline project on the basis of the route in Nebraska. So that work has been done. It has been rerouted. Some time ago, we put together a bipartisan bill. It is a bill I drafted and wrote. Senator Landrieu from Louisiana agreed to cosponsor it. We have all 45 Republicans on the bill, and we have 11 Democrats. We have 56 cosponsors on the legislation, but we have not been able to bring the bill to the floor. So I really had anticipated that we would have to wait until the new Congress in order to get a vote on the bill, because as the minority leader said, the American voters spoke. And particularly with the new Members we have coming, we will have more than 60 Senators who support the legislation. So I had anticipated that we would have to go into the new Congress to get a vote on the bill. However, the cosponsor on the bill, Senator Landrieu, yesterday requested that we call the bill up, and she worked on her side and we have worked on our side to get unanimous consent to get a vote on the bill. So we are certainly happy to vote on this important issue for the American people. We will have a vote in the House on the very same bill. They now have taken up the very same bill. I believe it will pass easily tomorrow in the House. And then on Tuesday, we will have a vote on our bill here, S. 2280. We will have 45 Republicans, and we hope to have 15 Democrats. And if we do, we will pass the bill and send it to the President for signature. If we don't get to the 60 votes, I believe we will still be able to bring the bill back in the new Congress and have the 60 votes. So I believe we will now be able to advance this bill to the President. The question is, What will the President do? The indication was from one of his spokespersons traveling with him yesterday that he may well veto the legislation. If that happens, I still think, again, based on the fact that the American people overwhelmingly support this legislation, that we will be able to come back, work with our colleagues on a bipartisan basis and perhaps make this legislation part of a broader energy bill, or attach it to an appropriations measure. But I think we will be able to find other legislation that we can attach approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline--this bill--to. That makes it very likely that we could either override a veto or maybe the President wouldn't veto it. Because at the end of the day, what this is all about is more energy for this country, produced here and working with our closest friend and ally, Canada. This is about jobs. By the State Department's own environmental impact statement, 42,000 jobs. So it is about energy. It is about jobs. It is about the infrastructure we need to build the right kind of energy plan for our country. Whether one comes from North Dakota or Kentucky or Texas or Louisiana or wherever, we have to have infrastructure as part of our energy plan. It is also about national security. Americans do not want to have to depend on getting oil from the Middle East. They want to produce it here at home, and they want to work with our closest ally, Canada, and we want the jobs and the economic activity that come with it. So that is where we are. That is the game plan, to get this important legislation passed, and that is what this is all about. This is about moving forward on approving the Keystone XL Pipeline. When asked, the American people in the polling showed anywhere from 65 up to about 75 percent overwhelmingly support it. So that is what this issue is all about. Now is our chance to show that we can move forward, and in a bipartisan way, and get this done for the people of this great Nation. We are hopeful that we can get it in the lameduck. That is great. We have cleared the way to get a vote, and if we can't, then we will be right back to work on it in the new Congress.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. On the facts and on the merits--which is how we have to make decisions for the American people--this is a project about energy, producing energy here at home so we don't have to get it from the Middle East. We know what is going on with the Middle East with ISIL and other organizations that are creating huge problems and that are a danger not only to this country but to the world. It is about energy here at home and working with our closest friend and ally, Canada. It is about jobs. The State Department itself says more than 40,000 jobs are created with this project. It is about economic activity, a $5.3 billion project and not one penny of Federal spending, just private investment. It is about national security, as we have talked about. But it is also about congestion on our rails. It is about making sure we don't try to move all this oil on rail so we have so much congestion, we have accidents, and we have seen that happen. It is about harvest and moving ag products from the heartland throughout the country. It is about using the latest, greatest technology to make sure we produce more energy more dependably and with better environmental stewardship than without the project. Six years. It is time for this body to step forward on behalf of the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, tomorrow is the sixth anniversary of the application for approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Six years. Six years ago, September 19, 2008, the TransCanada company applied for a permit for approval to cross the Canadian border to build the Keystone XL Pipeline from Hardisty, Canada, down to Cushing and ultimately the gulf coast, to provide not only oil from Canada but to move oil from States such as my State of North Dakota, of light, sweet Bakken crude, oil from Montana, to our refineries here in the United States. Six years ago, that application was filed, effective tomorrow. So we are here today to talk about the need not only for a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline but for approval of this vitally important project. The reality is we can make this country energy secure, energy independent, working with our closest friend and ally, Canada. But to do it we not only need to develop all of our resources, our energy resources in this country, and work with Canada as they develop their energy resources, but we need the infrastructure to safely, effectively, efficiently, dependably move that energy to where it is needed, to our consumers. That is what the Keystone XL Pipeline project is all about. This is truly about building the roads, the rails, the pipelines, the transmission, the energy infrastructure we need as a vital part of our energy plan for this country. We have bipartisan support. We have 57 Senators who support this legislation--57. The reality is I think by next year we will have 60. So while we sit here and wait--now for 6 years, effective tomorrow 6 years, waiting for a decision from the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline--ultimately I believe this decision will be made by the American people, as it always is and as it always should be. Because I believe that after these elections in November as we go into next year we will not only have 57 Senators who support this project, we will have over 60. Then Congress will pass legislation, a bill that we have submitted, a bipartisan bill we have pending before this body right now. We will pass it. We will attach it to something the President will not veto. The House has already passed this legislation. Because over 70 percent, I think in the most recent poll, of the American people want this project. They want this project approved. So here after 6 years--we are going to talk about some of the history of this and all of the work we have done. But before I do that, I want to turn to my colleague from Wyoming, somebody who is incredibly knowledgeable when it comes to energy, somebody who has worked on energy in all different aspects, somebody who truly understands that, look, for the benefit of the American people to build our energy future we not only need to produce that energy, we need the infrastructure to transport it safely, effectively, and well. I wish to call on the Senator from Wyoming for his remarks on this sixth anniversary of the application, waiting for approval, waiting for a decision from the administration on the Keystone XL Pipeline, for his thoughts and for his comments. I turn to the good Senator from Wyoming. Can the Senator give us his thoughts as to why this project is still awaiting a decision from the administration, after the President told us, told our caucus last year, at a caucus we had here in an adjacent room, that we would have a decision by the end of 2013, why we are here still awaiting a decision on behalf of the American people?