John Hoeven

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I wish to thank the Senator from Wyoming for his diligence and for his work. This is a bipartisan issue. We have legislation now with 57 supporters that is pending before this body. In fact, we have passed this legislation. We actually had passed very similar legislation, different only in the respect that it called on the President to make a decision--this was back in 2012. I think we had 73 votes on this issue. The difference is, the pending bill we have provides congressional approval because the President once again delayed the decision when we passed legislation calling on him to make the decision earlier. So now we have come back with binding legislation, after doing congressional research. This bill makes the decision congressionally under the commerce clause that gives Congress the ability to oversee commerce with foreign nations. Simply what this does is we say to our closest friend and ally, Canada--TransCanada is a Canadian company--that: Yes, you can cross the border with this pipeline, which is the latest, greatest technology we have for pipeline transport. Let me show one other chart here, so people understand. When we are talking about pipelines, oil and gas pipelines in this country, this gives you a little sense of the pipelines we have--thousands of pipelines, millions of miles of pipelines that move oil and gas around the country, from where it is produced to the consumers who very much need it. So that gives you a sense of all of the pipelines we have. Now we are talking about one that has the latest and greatest technology that we are seeking to get approved. To put this into some context, the project we are seeking to have approved is the Keystone XL Pipeline. The reason XL is because the Keystone Pipeline is this pipeline here, which goes from Hardisty up in Alberta down to the Patoka, IL, area as well as Cushing. That is the Keystone Pipeline. So I want to make sure there is no confusion. That is the Keystone Pipeline. That was approved in 2 years and built in 2 years. So in 2006 the TransCanada company--I was Governor of North Dakota at that time. You can see it runs right through North Dakota. Obviously these things are immensely important. We are now the second largest oil-producing State in the Nation. We produce over 1 million barrels of oil a day--light sweet crude, second only to Texas. We have to get that to our markets and to refineries. I started working on these projects when I was Governor. In 2006, TransCanada applied for approval of the Keystone Pipeline. Originally that was supposed to carry 640,000 barrels a day. I think it now carries 750,000 barrels a day. That application was applied for in 2006. It was approved in 2008. The pipeline was built and came online 2 years later. So 2 years to permit, and 2 years to build--4 years total. When TransCanada applied for a second permit in 2008 for a sister pipeline, Keystone XL, it seemed pretty logical that it was going to be approved, particularly when the initial project had been approved in 2 years, built in 2 years. This is the actual pipeline infrastructure we have. When they wanted to build the sister pipeline, 830,000 barrels a day, it seemed kind of pretty logical they would go through the process and get it approved. On September 19, 2008, they applied for that approval to move oil from Hardisty, pick up additional oil in North Dakota, Montana, take it down to Cushing and down to the refineries in the gulf, and get oil over to the refineries in Louisiana. September, 19, 2008. Tomorrow is September 19, 2014. Six years later, no decision. I wish to turn to my colleague, the senior Senator from the great State of Oklahoma. Cushing is a hub for oil from all over the country. It is vital that we are able to move oil in and out of there, because that is a huge transition point between where we produce oil, including our region, but from all over the country and Canada and move it to refineries where it is distributed throughout the country. So we need to be able to move product in and out of Cushing, which is truly a hub for the Nation. That is exactly what this pipeline does. I would turn to the senior Senator from Oklahoma. I would ask him: Why in the world, given what I have described here--we have thousands of pipelines, millions of miles of these pipelines. We have to get product from where it is produced to refineries and to our consumers. We cannot put it all on rail or you create incredible congestion that leads to accidents and backlogs in shipping of other products. This is the latest, greatest technology for pipelines, for the transport of oil. Why in the world--what rationale would there be not to approve this pipeline?

Mr. HOEVEN. I would like to thank the Senator from Oklahoma and pick up on a point he made very well. He made of number of points that are extremely compelling, but one of the points he made is that overall, since about 2008, 2009, that area, our oil production in America is up 40 percent. So people say: Well, we are producing 40 percent more oil than we did in 2008, the end of 2008, so that is good. That is reducing the amount of oil we have to import into this country. We were below 50 percent. Now we are closing in on 60 percent and more oil that we produce. Together with Canada and Mexico, we are up over 75 percent, in terms of the oil that we consume, we produce in this country or get, as I say, from our closest allies and working on getting to 80 percent. Well, people would say that is very good, but the Senator from Oklahoma made a very important point. Understand that is because we are up 60 percent in oil production on private land--on private land. We are actually down in terms of our production on public land; we are down between 6 and 7 percent. So when you net the two, we are up about 40 percent, but that is because we are up about 60 percent on private land. I will give an example of how that works on the ground. In North Dakota 90 percent of the land is privately owned, so our oil production is growing tremendously. As I said, we are at about 1.1 million barrels a day and on our way to 1.4 million barrels a day in a few more years. In Alaska, on the other hand, production is going down because their land is 90 percent public land and a very small percentage is private land. They can't get the permits and they can't build the infrastructure, so the amount of oil they produce is declining. The Alaskan pipeline can carry 2 million barrels of oil a day. It is down to less than 600,000 and declining. This is at a time when we are still getting oil from the Middle East and we are dealing with entities like ISIL, with terrorism, and with instability. How can we continue to be dependent on getting oil from the Middle East when we can produce that oil right here in our country and in Canada? I would ask the good Senator from Oklahoma to comment for a moment on the technology that is enabling us to do so. Hydraulic fracturing--I think the first well hydraulically fractured in this country was in about the 1950s in Oklahoma.

Mr. HOEVEN. So I ask my friend from Oklahoma to talk for a minute about the technology and what that means for the future of this country and energy security.

Mr. HOEVEN. I again thank the Senator from Oklahoma. Since 1948, with the first well hydraulically fractured--there have been no cases of contamination since 1948. We are now using this hydraulic fracturing with the latest new greatest technology where, on one pad, on one what we call eco-pad, we will now drill down as many as 18 wells. These wells will have--we go 2 miles underground, and then we drill laterals 3 miles long. Eighteen wells all on one site. Think of how much we have reduced the environmental footprint with that technology. Think of how much less ground disturbance there is. You are covering 1,280 acres. In the old days--and again maybe my friend from Oklahoma would like to think of how many wells they would have had to drill and how much infrastructure and well derricks and pumpers they would have to have all over the landscape, and now we do it on one pad covering 1,280 acres going out 3 miles in all directions from one eco- pad. So it is not just about energy, I would say to my friend from Oklahoma, it is also better environmental stewardship.

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma, who has been a leader in energy for so many years. This morning we were addressed by the President of Ukraine. Look at their situation. Because they haven't developed their own energy resources and because they don't have their own infrastructure, they are now dependent--Ukraine is dependent, along with most of the European Union, on Russia for their energy. They get more than one-third of their energy from Russia. So at the same time that Russia is invading Ukraine, the European Union is reluctant to stand with the United States and our other allies on strong sanctions to prevent that type of aggression. Why? Because they get their energy from Russia. So when we talk about building the infrastructure we need in this country to work with our closest friend and ally, Canada, to make sure we are energy secure and that we do not need to get energy from places such as the Middle East or Venezuela or other places that may have interests that are antithetical to ours, think about how important it is for the security of our country with what is going on in the Middle East with ISIL, and see what is going on in Ukraine and Eastern Europe, and Russian aggression. So I turn to our colleague from Georgia, who has also been a staunch supporter of this project, and ask him what is going on in terms of national security, the situation we face today, and why in the world would we not be building--not only producing our energy resources in this country but deploying these new technologies we are talking about that produce energy with better environmental stewardship and building the infrastructure to move it to our refineries and move it to our consumers. Why are we waiting 6 years for a decision that would enable us to do that very thing on behalf of the American people?

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia for his strong support and his clear understanding of why we need this project and for putting the focus on national security. In poll after poll two-thirds of Americans support this project. I think in the final analysis the American people will make a decision here. If the President after 6 years refuses to make a decision, clearly his strategy is to defeat this project with endless delays, just defeat by delay. So here we are in year 6 of the application process. I would turn to my colleague from Georgia and ask his thoughts on this body's ability to step up and make the decision and approve this project on behalf of the American people. What does the Senator foresee? We have 57 who have signed on now. I believe we will get to 60. What is the Senator's sense of our ability to get this done for the American people?

Mr. HOEVEN. I have one more question for my friend from Oklahoma before I turn to my good friend from the State of Georgia. Answer, please, if you would. As we produce this energy domestically--so we are producing energy here, we are creating jobs, we are creating economic activity, we are creating revenue without raising taxes from a growing economy. We are helping national security because we are not getting oil from the Middle East or Venezuela or places that are hostile to our interests. Now we are talking about environmental stewardship. We are talking about minimizing the footprint with these new technologies. Why would we not want to move that product as safely as possible, with the latest, greatest type of pipeline, with the best technology and the most safeguards? Why isn't that an environmentally sound decision as well?

Mr. HOEVEN. That is absolutely correct. We have the dates of the approval of five different environmental impact statements right here, all finding no significant environmental impact.

Mr. HOEVEN. That is correct.

Mr. HOEVEN. That is correct.

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the good Senator from Georgia. I understand that our time has expired. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to wrap up this colloquy.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 35 minutes for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy with my colleagues on the issue of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my esteemed colleague from Texas, and I want to share my agreement with the important points he made so well. (The remarks of Mr. Hoeven pertaining to the introduction of S. 2823 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 minutes or as much time as I might need to discuss an important energy issue.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to present the North American Energy Infrastructure Act. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation that I think is very important to helping our country build the infrastructure we need to truly become energy independent or energy self-sufficient--energy secure, if you will. This is bipartisan legislation. It is legislation that has already passed the House. It was sponsored in the House by Representative Fred Upton, who is the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. It was cosponsored on the Democratic side by Gene Green, a Congressman from Texas. I have bipartisan sponsors for this legislation in the Senate as well--on the Republican side, Senator Lisa Murkowski, who is the ranking member on the energy committee; and then I have two other members of the energy committee who are Democrats cosponsoring this legislation as well, Senator Joe Donnelly from Indiana and Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia. Certainly Senator Manchin is recognized as one of the leaders in the Senate on important energy issues. I am very appreciative of having him join me on this legislation as well. I am introducing this legislation now. This is the sixth anniversary of the application by TransCanada for a permit to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. They applied for approval of a pipeline project--the Keystone XL Pipeline project--6 years ago as of Friday of this week. Can you imagine that? Americans fought and won World War II in less time than this application has been pending before the President of the United States, yet still no decision from this administration after 6 years. This is vital infrastructure we need to truly make this country energy secure. Working with Canada, we can truly produce more energy than we consume and make our country energy secure, but we cannot do it without the necessary infrastructure--the roads, the pipelines, the rail, the transmission lines--the energy infrastructure we need to get energy from where it is produced, places such as my State of North Dakota, which is now the second largest producer of oil in this country, second only to Texas. We produce more than 1 million barrels a day of oil, but we have to get it to market. It is getting loaded and overloaded on rail. We have tremendous congestion on rail. Our farmers cannot get their ag products to market anymore because we have so much congestion on the rail. Yet here we have an application that has been held for 6 years by the President of the United States without a decision. That is after last year when he came to the Republican caucus and told us point blank that he would have a decision before the end of 2013. No decision. Here we are in 2014, the sixth anniversary. Well, look, we cannot continue to have that problem. We have to find a way to build this infrastructure. Even though we are working on Keystone on a separate track--and I believe we will have the votes next year to pass it. We will have the 60 votes in the Senate we need to pass it. We are at 57 right now. We are very close. I think by next year we will have those 60 votes to pass Keystone, and we will work to do that and attach it to legislation the President will not veto. So we will continue to work on Keystone on that track, but at the same time we have to avoid this problem in the future with oil pipelines, with gas pipelines, and with transmission lines. We have to be able to build that infrastructure not only in this country, but we have to be able to cross the border with Canada. Canada is a huge producer of energy. So working together, we have this incredible opportunity if we can build the infrastructure to do it. It is not just for fossil fuels. It is not just for oil. It is not just for gas. It is for renewables as well. Canada produces an incredible amount of hydro, which, of course, is electricity. We need transmission lines to bring that renewable hydro across the border. So this is about all forms of energy, and this is about working with our closest friend and ally to truly address that energy issue. It is a job-creation issue. It is a national security issue. What does this legislation do, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act? What it does is it expedites, streamlines the approval process for cross-border construction of oil pipelines, gas pipelines, and electric transmission lines. How does it work? First, oil pipelines. Right now, a Presidential national interest determination is needed for approval or authority to build an oil pipeline across the Canadian border. Of course, that is the problem we see with Keystone. That has been held up now for 6 years. So this changes that process for future projects. As I said, it has already passed the House overwhelmingly--overwhelmingly. I think it had pretty much all of the Republican votes and I think more than 50 votes on the Democratic side. They had very strong bipartisan support in the House. What it does is it changes that approval process for crossing the border with an oil pipeline, moving it to the State Department. So the State Department will make that determination approving a cross-border transfer. It will still be subject to the NEPA process. You will still have to do an environmental impact statement. But the focus of that EIS--environmental impact statement--or the NEPA process, will be on the border section, not on the entire length of the project throughout all the States that pipeline may cross. It will focus on the border section. And the State Department has to come up with reasonable rules to determine what that distance is that constitutes crossing the border with Canada. Then the rest of the NEPA process will continue just as it does today for any other project that does not come across the border. Right now States have their jurisdiction in some cases and the Federal Government has its jurisdiction in some cases, depending on whether it is private land or it is public land or Federal land. Maybe it is a body of water. Whatever. So the NEPA process continues as before, driven by the States or the Federal Government depending on what particular part of the country or the type of land or the body of water you are crossing. I think that is why it garnered such strong bipartisan support. We continue that process and those protections, but we do not allow the determination on the cross-border process or the cross-border piece to be held up by all of the NEPA process and all of the sitings that may be covered in all the respective States that pipeline crosses. Those processes are already in place. Do not use crossing the border as an excuse to tie up all these other processes and basically usurp the authority of the States that are affected by that project. I think it is a very reasonable process, and it is one that I think we should be able to come together on in a bipartisan way to say: It is open. It is fair. That is why we have bipartisan support in the sponsorship--Senator Donnelly, Senator Manchin, Senator Murkowski, myself, all people who work on energy--because we have struck that balance. It is about creating a good business climate that will encourage that investment to create the infrastructure we need to move the energy from where it is produced to where it is consumed in the safest way possible--in the safest way possible--in the most economic way possible. That is what it is about, the best environmental stewardship. Isn't that what we all want? Obviously it is. But if we don't do this, where are we? Well, right now we are waiting 6 years for a determination on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Here is another example I will give, the Bakken North pipeline, a pipeline that goes from North Dakota to Cushing, and they have been waiting for 1\1/2\ years on an ownership name change from the Department of State, 1\1/2\ years to change the name. Really? Does that make sense to anybody? If it takes that long for something that simple, what do we do when we actually need to build this infrastructure that is so important to the energy future of our country? What about gas pipelines? Gas pipelines will be covered by FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. What we say is: Look, they will go through the NEPA process too. Just as we describe with the Department of State on an oil pipeline, they will take that cross- border piece and do the same thing, do a NEPA process so you have an environmental impact statement and cover all the bases. But then 30 days after, they have to make a decision. They can't just sit on it, and the rest of the NEPA process continues as we described on an oil pipeline. Again, very simple, very straightforward, and it comports with the free trade agreements we have with Canada and with Mexico. On the third piece, electric transmission lines, that process will be overseen by the Department of Energy. We simply streamline the process. Right now there are two permits required, one that is driven by the administration, one that is congressionally driven. We combine those and make it one process; again, cover all the bases, as I have described, with an oil pipeline or a gas pipeline, but we make it one process instead of a duplicative process. When we look at what is going on in the world today, we see why this legislation is so important. Look at ISIL. Look at ISIL in the Middle East and what is happening there. We are right now confronting how we need to address this very significant challenge, how we need to work with allies in the region to take out ISIL. Do we really want to continue to be dependent on oil from the Middle East? I think we could ask every single American that question and the answer would be a resounding no. There is no way we want to have to get oil from the Middle East. But we still are today. Yet we can produce more oil and gas in this country, particularly with Canada, than we can consume. Why would we continue to want to be dependent on the Middle East or Venezuela or any other place that is antagonistic or hostile toward our interests? We don't. This is a national security issue. It is an energy issue. It is a job creation issue. It is an economic growth issue. And it is for darned sure a national security issue. Which is why every time we ask the public about it, more than two-thirds say: Yes, build that infrastructure. Build that Keystone Pipeline. Let's work with Canada, our closest friend and ally in the world, to get our energy. Look what is going on in Europe. Look what is going on with Russia and Ukraine. Look at the situation a country such as Ukraine or the European Union is in because of Russian aggression. Where do they get their energy? Where does Ukraine get its energy? Where does the European Union get their energy? They get a third or more--from? Russia. Russia, the same country that is invading Ukraine, the same country occupying Crimea and the eastern part of Ukraine. Then when we try to get the European Union to join with us to push back, what do they say? Geez, I don't know. We can't, because Russia is going to cut off the gas and it is fall and it is getting colder. Does that make sense to anybody? Is that the situation we want to be in? I think it is pretty compelling. Do we want to be in a situation where we have to try to get oil out of the Middle East with ISIL over there operating the way they are? I don't think so. These issues are all interrelated, and they are not short-term issues. We can't start building that infrastructure today and have it done tomorrow. These are billion-dollar investments. They don't cost the government a single penny, but they are billion-dollar investments that private enterprise is willing to make and put people to work, provide that energy more safely, more securely, with better environmental stewardship, and address our national security challenges. That type of energy plan is a long-term plan for this country, and it is one we need to start now. For six years we have been waiting for a decision from the President on a multibillion dollar pipeline project that will not only bring oil from Canada to the United States but will move 100,000 barrels a day of oil from my home State to refineries in this country, that by the State Department's own admission will create more than 40,000 jobs, that will create hundreds of millions in tax revenue, that will help us create energy security for our country, that will allow us to work with our closest friend and ally, Canada, rather than telling them: No, we are not going to work with you. Send that oil to China. It is something the American people overwhelmingly want by about 70 percent in most of the polls that I guess is being held up by special interest groups. This is about how we run this country. This is about who we work for. This is about having a long-term plan to build the kind of energy future for America that I believe the American people very much want. Let's go to work and pass this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to present the North American Energy Infrastructure Act. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation that I think is very important to helping our country build the infrastructure we need to truly become energy independent or energy self-sufficient--energy secure, if you will. This is bipartisan legislation. It is legislation that has already passed the House. It was sponsored in the House by Representative Fred Upton, who is the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. It was cosponsored on the Democratic side by Gene Green, a Congressman from Texas. I have bipartisan sponsors for this legislation in the Senate as well--on the Republican side, Senator Lisa Murkowski, who is the ranking member on the energy committee; and then I have two other members of the energy committee who are Democrats cosponsoring this legislation as well, Senator Joe Donnelly from Indiana and Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia. Certainly Senator Manchin is recognized as one of the leaders in the Senate on important energy issues. I am very appreciative of having him join me on this legislation as well. I am introducing this legislation now. This is the sixth anniversary of the application by TransCanada for a permit to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. They applied for approval of a pipeline project--the Keystone XL Pipeline project--6 years ago as of Friday of this week. Can you imagine that? Americans fought and won World War II in less time than this application has been pending before the President of the United States, yet still no decision from this administration after 6 years. This is vital infrastructure we need to truly make this country energy secure. Working with Canada, we can truly produce more energy than we consume and make our country energy secure, but we cannot do it without the necessary infrastructure--the roads, the pipelines, the rail, the transmission lines--the energy infrastructure we need to get energy from where it is produced, places such as my State of North Dakota, which is now the second largest producer of oil in this country, second only to Texas. We produce more than 1 million barrels a day of oil, but we have to get it to market. It is getting loaded and overloaded on rail. We have tremendous congestion on rail. Our farmers cannot get their ag products to market anymore because we have so much congestion on the rail. Yet here we have an application that has been held for 6 years by the President of the United States without a decision. That is after last year when he came to the Republican caucus and told us point blank that he would have a decision before the end of 2013. No decision. Here we are in 2014, the sixth anniversary. Well, look, we cannot continue to have that problem. We have to find a way to build this infrastructure. Even though we are working on Keystone on a separate track--and I believe we will have the votes next year to pass it. We will have the 60 votes in the Senate we need to pass it. We are at 57 right now. We are very close. I think by next year we will have those 60 votes to pass Keystone, and we will work to do that and attach it to legislation the President will not veto. So we will continue to work on Keystone on that track, but at the same time we have to avoid this problem in the future with oil pipelines, with gas pipelines, and with transmission lines. We have to be able to build that infrastructure not only in this country, but we have to be able to cross the border with Canada. Canada is a huge producer of energy. So working together, we have this incredible opportunity if we can build the infrastructure to do it. It is not just for fossil fuels. It is not just for oil. It is not just for gas. It is for renewables as well. Canada produces an incredible amount of hydro, which, of course, is electricity. We need transmission lines to bring that renewable hydro across the border. So this is about all forms of energy, and this is about working with our closest friend and ally to truly address that energy issue. It is a job-creation issue. It is a national security issue. What does this legislation do, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act? What it does is it expedites, streamlines the approval process for cross-border construction of oil pipelines, gas pipelines, and electric transmission lines. How does it work? First, oil pipelines. Right now, a Presidential national interest determination is needed for approval or authority to build an oil pipeline across the Canadian border. Of course, that is the problem we see with Keystone. That has been held up now for 6 years. So this changes that process for future projects. As I said, it has already passed the House overwhelmingly--overwhelmingly. I think it had pretty much all of the Republican votes and I think more than 50 votes on the Democratic side. They had very strong bipartisan support in the House. What it does is it changes that approval process for crossing the border with an oil pipeline, moving it to the State Department. So the State Department will make that determination approving a cross-border transfer. It will still be subject to the NEPA process. You will still have to do an environmental impact statement. But the focus of that EIS--environmental impact statement--or the NEPA process, will be on the border section, not on the entire length of the project throughout all the States that pipeline may cross. It will focus on the border section. And the State Department has to come up with reasonable rules to determine what that distance is that constitutes crossing the border with Canada. Then the rest of the NEPA process will continue just as it does today for any other project that does not come across the border. Right now States have their jurisdiction in some cases and the Federal Government has its jurisdiction in some cases, depending on whether it is private land or it is public land or Federal land. Maybe it is a body of water. Whatever. So the NEPA process continues as before, driven by the States or the Federal Government depending on what particular part of the country or the type of land or the body of water you are crossing. I think that is why it garnered such strong bipartisan support. We continue that process and those protections, but we do not allow the determination on the cross-border process or the cross-border piece to be held up by all of the NEPA process and all of the sitings that may be covered in all the respective States that pipeline crosses. Those processes are already in place. Do not use crossing the border as an excuse to tie up all these other processes and basically usurp the authority of the States that are affected by that project. I think it is a very reasonable process, and it is one that I think we should be able to come together on in a bipartisan way to say: It is open. It is fair. That is why we have bipartisan support in the sponsorship--Senator Donnelly, Senator Manchin, Senator Murkowski, myself, all people who work on energy--because we have struck that balance. It is about creating a good business climate that will encourage that investment to create the infrastructure we need to move the energy from where it is produced to where it is consumed in the safest way possible--in the safest way possible--in the most economic way possible. That is what it is about, the best environmental stewardship. Isn't that what we all want? Obviously it is. But if we don't do this, where are we? Well, right now we are waiting 6 years for a determination on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Here is another example I will give, the Bakken North pipeline, a pipeline that goes from North Dakota to Cushing, and they have been waiting for 1\1/2\ years on an ownership name change from the Department of State, 1\1/2\ years to change the name. Really? Does that make sense to anybody? If it takes that long for something that simple, what do we do when we actually need to build this infrastructure that is so important to the energy future of our country? What about gas pipelines? Gas pipelines will be covered by FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. What we say is: Look, they will go through the NEPA process too. Just as we describe with the Department of State on an oil pipeline, they will take that cross- border piece and do the same thing, do a NEPA process so you have an environmental impact statement and cover all the bases. But then 30 days after, they have to make a decision. They can't just sit on it, and the rest of the NEPA process continues as we described on an oil pipeline. Again, very simple, very straightforward, and it comports with the free trade agreements we have with Canada and with Mexico. On the third piece, electric transmission lines, that process will be overseen by the Department of Energy. We simply streamline the process. Right now there are two permits required, one that is driven by the administration, one that is congressionally driven. We combine those and make it one process; again, cover all the bases, as I have described, with an oil pipeline or a gas pipeline, but we make it one process instead of a duplicative process. When we look at what is going on in the world today, we see why this legislation is so important. Look at ISIL. Look at ISIL in the Middle East and what is happening there. We are right now confronting how we need to address this very significant challenge, how we need to work with allies in the region to take out ISIL. Do we really want to continue to be dependent on oil from the Middle East? I think we could ask every single American that question and the answer would be a resounding no. There is no way we want to have to get oil from the Middle East. But we still are today. Yet we can produce more oil and gas in this country, particularly with Canada, than we can consume. Why would we continue to want to be dependent on the Middle East or Venezuela or any other place that is antagonistic or hostile toward our interests? We don't. This is a national security issue. It is an energy issue. It is a job creation issue. It is an economic growth issue. And it is for darned sure a national security issue. Which is why every time we ask the public about it, more than two-thirds say: Yes, build that infrastructure. Build that Keystone Pipeline. Let's work with Canada, our closest friend and ally in the world, to get our energy. Look what is going on in Europe. Look what is going on with Russia and Ukraine. Look at the situation a country such as Ukraine or the European Union is in because of Russian aggression. Where do they get their energy? Where does Ukraine get its energy? Where does the European Union get their energy? They get a third or more--from? Russia. Russia, the same country that is invading Ukraine, the same country occupying Crimea and the eastern part of Ukraine. Then when we try to get the European Union to join with us to push back, what do they say? Geez, I don't know. We can't, because Russia is going to cut off the gas and it is fall and it is getting colder. Does that make sense to anybody? Is that the situation we want to be in? I think it is pretty compelling. Do we want to be in a situation where we have to try to get oil out of the Middle East with ISIL over there operating the way they are? I don't think so. These issues are all interrelated, and they are not short-term issues. We can't start building that infrastructure today and have it done tomorrow. These are billion-dollar investments. They don't cost the government a single penny, but they are billion-dollar investments that private enterprise is willing to make and put people to work, provide that energy more safely, more securely, with better environmental stewardship, and address our national security challenges. That type of energy plan is a long-term plan for this country, and it is one we need to start now. For six years we have been waiting for a decision from the President on a multibillion dollar pipeline project that will not only bring oil from Canada to the United States but will move 100,000 barrels a day of oil from my home State to refineries in this country, that by the State Department's own admission will create more than 40,000 jobs, that will create hundreds of millions in tax revenue, that will help us create energy security for our country, that will allow us to work with our closest friend and ally, Canada, rather than telling them: No, we are not going to work with you. Send that oil to China. It is something the American people overwhelmingly want by about 70 percent in most of the polls that I guess is being held up by special interest groups. This is about how we run this country. This is about who we work for. This is about having a long-term plan to build the kind of energy future for America that I believe the American people very much want. Let's go to work and pass this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the good Senator and I appreciate it very much.

Mr. HOEVEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I come to the floor to offer a compromise on the LNG export issue. I will put up my first chart. I think this is both a solution and a compromise to LNG exporting. The reality is we need to be able to construct LNG export facilities. There has been debate in this body as to how that approval process should work. Some want to take the Department of Energy completely out of the process and just allow companies to build LNG facilities--let the market work--and that is actually an approach I advocate and I have joined with others on that type of legislation. That legislation has bipartisan support. I think we could get it to the floor and we would have more than the 60 votes it needs to pass. Others have advocated a more cautious approach, which is essentially continuing the current state of play wherein DOE can take years before they make a decision on these LNG export terminals. So what I offer today is the LNG Certainty Act, which I believe is a compromise between those two points of view. It would provide for an expedited process but would do it in a way where we keep the Department of Energy in the equation. Why is it so important that we act now? This is a bill that is very much about jobs. Right now we are on a motion to go to a bill that purportedly would create jobs. I don't think that bill will create jobs; I think it will create more regulation and more costs for companies that are trying to create jobs. So instead why don't we bring up some of these energy bills that will not only create jobs but accomplish much more as well, such as economic growth--economic growth that will generate revenues to reduce the deficit and the debt without raising taxes or increasing regulatory burdens? Why not pass some of these energy bills that will provide better environmental stewardship? LNG production certainly would provide job growth, economic growth but also better environmental stewardship, and it will also help provide national security--national security for us and for our allies. That is a very big reason it is so important that we act now. We have a President who is talking about what Vladimir Putin and Russia should do and what they shouldn't do. He is talking about it, but we need to go beyond talk to action. What is that action? We need to impose stronger sanctions on Russia. I think there is broad bipartisan support in this Senate to impose stronger sanctions on Russia, but for those sanctions to be truly effective, we need the European Union to join with us in imposing those sanctions. We can have a meaningful impact on what Putin and Russia do, but we have to act and we have to get the European Union to act with us. So why aren't they acting with us? The reality is Vladimir Putin has them over a barrel--literally. European countries are dependent on Russia for their energy. So they are very reluctant to impose sanctions when they have to get their energy from Russia. Here is a graph that shows how much all of these different European countries get in terms of their energy, their natural gas from Europe. We can see in some cases it is 100 percent, 60 percent, 50 percent. For some obviously it is less. But for many European countries, they are dependent on Russia for this natural gas. Here is the pipeline network coming in from Russia. Here we see Russia and all of these pipelines coming into Europe through the Ukraine supplying natural gas. Obviously, these countries are very worried about imposing sanctions which, of course, would create difficulty for them from an economic perspective as well as Russia, but they are very concerned about energy supply. That is why we have to act and we have to act now to make sure they have another supply of energy so they can join with us in meaningful sanctions against Russia. So how does the LNG Certainty Act work? Quite simply, it provides that the Department of Energy must make a decision on whether to approve an LNG export application within 45 days of that company completing its preliminary application to the FERC--the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. So understand, right now companies have to apply to both the Department of Energy and to the FERC--the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. They have to apply to both in order to get approval to build an LNG facility. When we talk to these companies we learn that the FERC has a fairly rational process that they know they can step through in an orderly fashion. It is pretty dependable, pretty certain. It takes a certain amount of time, covers all the bases, but they know they can get through it. The DOE--the Department of Energy--on the other hand, doesn't have any specific timeframes or criteria on how or whether they will give approval to these companies, so it creates uncertainty and it creates real delay. As I said, some people want to take the Department of Energy out of the equation completely; others want to continue just as it is. That is why this act truly is a compromise in that we keep the Department of Energy in the mix, but we require that within 45 days after the preliminary application to the FERC is approved, which takes about 6 months, up to as much as 1 year--within 45 days after that preliminary application is filed with the FERC, the DOE then has 45 days to make a decision. So we still have whatever safeguards some people feel need to be in there, as far as the DOE. The DOE is still in there. They still have that safeguard, but we have a reasonably expedited process and a reasonably certain process for these companies that are applying to try to get approval. Right now we have on the order of 13 different companies--1 has conditional approval but 13 different companies-- seeking approval to build LNG facilities. Many of these companies have been waiting for over 1 year--some 1 to 2 years--and they are not even through the Department of Energy process yet. So while we need to start moving natural gas to Europe, since Europe needs that source of supply so they can stand with us in sanctions against Russia, these applications continue to sit in limbo. How does that possibly make sense? Why aren't we acting? Why is it adequate or satisfactory for the President to just talk about what should be done instead of doing something? This is action we can and must take. I will give my colleagues an example of a project showing what we are talking about. I am showing my colleagues 13 different projects that are in limbo. Here is one right here where we take a specific example. This is the Golden Pass project. It is a project ExxonMobil wants to build. They are ready to invest $10 billion--$10 billion--today and save these taxes to build an export facility that will move liquefied natural gas from this country to Europe. Why would we want to sit and hold them up? Here you see a timeline. They have been in this process already for more than 1 year. It looks to me as though they do not even figure they are halfway done yet, and there is no certainty from the Department of Energy when they will be done. Yet here is a $10 billion project that is sponsored by a company--ExxonMobil--that certainly has the ability to build it, that will take LNG, liquefied natural gas, to Europe. What is the rationale for holding them up, for just making them wait? Aren't we moving to a so-called jobs bill? How many jobs do you think will be created in building a $10 billion facility? A lot of jobs. This is just 1 example of the more than 13 I just showed that are sitting in limbo. That is exactly why I have joined with Senator McCain, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Barrasso and we proposed the North Atlantic Energy Security Act. The whole focus of this act was to streamline oil and gas production, to build the gathering systems we need, move it to these LNG facilities, and give companies the approval and the authority to build those LNG facilities so they can move that gas to our allies. All of these steps create jobs. They all create jobs. We create jobs in all of these steps: producing more gas, building the gathering systems, and building the LNG facilities. But instead of doing this--in this picture we have an oil well, which is flaring off gas, meaning burning it off. This picture is an example in my State of North Dakota where we are flaring off $1.5 million worth of gas a day. So instead of just burning up that gas, we would actually have a market for it, so we can capture it, move it to the LNG facilities, and export it to our allies, not only strengthening our national security and their national security but creating a market for our gas. Right now we produce 30 trillion cubic feet of gas a year in this country, and we use 26 trillion. So gas is flared off instead of captured and sent to market. If we want to talk about job creation, if we want to talk about economic growth, if we want to talk about environmental stewardship, if we want to talk about working with our allies to actually do something in response to Russian aggression, do we want to actually do something or just keep talking about it? So while we are considering jobs bills, why don't we consider this jobs bill? Why don't we consider the LNG Certainty Act. The reason I have introduced this compromise bill is so we can do this: move natural gas from the United States, through facilities, to our allies to deter Russian aggression. It is that simple. That is what it is all about. That is why, again, I joined with Senators McCain, Murkowski, and Barrasso to introduce the North Atlantic Energy Security Act. But if that is too heavy a lift--if that is too heavy a lift--then let's take up the LNG Certainty Act and just approve the ability to build these facilities. Let's at least take that first step. There are other bills we can take up as well that are true job creators, real job creators, where we empower companies across this great Nation, large and small, to create jobs, to create more energy, to create better environmental stewardship, and to strengthen national security--energy bills that myself and others have introduced: the LNG Certainty Act which I am talking about right now, the North Atlantic Energy Security Act which I have referenced as well, Keystone--the Keystone XL Pipeline. Why aren't we building that right now to make sure, with Canada, we produce more oil than we consume so we can tell the Middle East we do not need any oil, we have it covered or the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, which is a whole series of bills that have been passed in the House that I have introduced in the Senate that would cut the regulatory burden, increase the amount of energy we produce in this country both onshore and offshore or the Empower States Act, where we give States the ability to take a primary role in regulating hydraulic fracturing so we have the certainty to continue the investment that is producing an energy renaissance in this country. All of these acts have been filed. All of these acts create jobs. Why are they being held up so we can consider a bill that increases regulation, increases taxes on companies in the country, and will have the impact of reducing jobs and reducing economic growth rather than accomplishing all of the things we are talking about--not just jobs, not just economic growth but national security and actually working with our allies to accomplish something instead of just talking about it, making Putin tow the line rather than just telling him he should. With that, I know my colleagues are here to propose additional job- creating ideas as well, and at this time I yield for the outstanding Senator from the State of Georgia.

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to start with my support of the comments of the Senator from Oregon. We need to get a highway bill done this week, and I look forward to working with him, particularly on a long-term plan with some of the concepts he has put forward. We need it for our infrastructure across this great Nation. Again, I look forward to working with the Senator in that endeavor and express my thanks. I rise to speak on the issue of Ukraine and the need to address that situation and address it with a long-term strategy. Last week Russian separatists shot down a Malaysian airliner with 298 souls on board. Innocent people were killed because Russia wants to control Ukraine--if not all of Ukraine, certainly Eastern Ukraine. The Obama administration is struggling to respond. President Obama talks about the need for Vladimir Putin and Russia to be accountable. Meanwhile, Russia continues to deny what is going on. Putin continues to arm Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine, separatists led by Russian special forces, military operatives armed and directed by Moscow. We need to respond. Our country needs to respond, and we need to respond with a long-term strategy and not just talk and not a short- term strategy, and that is something we can do. We can respond, and we need to respond with a long-term strategy. We can lead with strong sanctions against Russia--sanctions that would truly affect the banking sector and other sectors of their economy in a meaningful way. We can help Europe follow us with these same sanctions. We can help them by providing energy to the European Union. Europe is dependent on Russia for its energy. I brought some charts to depict the situation. The first chart shows countries in Europe and how many of them get all or a very large share of their natural gas from Russia. So they are dependent on Russia for their energy, and that is an incredible source of strength for the Putin regime. Here we see--I know it is somewhat difficult--all of these pipelines coming out of Russia through Ukraine and into the European Union, supplying all of that energy to these European countries. Because of that, we see all of these countries that are dependent on Russia. That is an incredible source of strength and power for Russia, and it is holding up Europe from engaging in the kinds of sanctions that could really stop Russia--stop the Russian economy and stop President Putin in his tracks. We can break that trend and we can break that stranglehold by allowing more LNG--liquefied natural gas--exports from our country. We have the companies right now, today, that want to build LNG export facilities, but they are being held up from doing so. I wish to go to my third chart. This isn't all of them, but right here there are 16 companies--13 on our coast, 3 in Canada--and 1 of these actually has received conditional approval. But here are 13 applications for companies that want to build LNG facilities to export natural gas, and they are being held up. All of these have been held up somewhere between 1 and 2 years. They can't even get permitted or approved by the Department of Energy to build those facilities. What are we talking about? Let me give a specific example of one of them--a company my colleagues have probably heard of--ExxonMobil. They want to build a $10 billion facility at Sabine Pass in Texas. I just pointed this one out on this chart right here, in this area on the gulf. They are ready to go right now. They have been in the application process for maybe 1 or 2 years, and they think they are maybe halfway through it. So they have another year or 2 years before they can build a $10 billion facility that will move natural gas. They will bring it right into the UK, right into Europe. Why aren't we green-lighting this right now, today? Why do we continue to hold this up? Some critics say it is going to take them some time to build it. Well, of course it is going to take some time to build, but the faster we get these projects permitted, the sooner they are going to get built. The reality is they will not only have an impact as they are able to move gas into the market, they will have an impact today because those European countries will know these other sources of supply are coming. Also, Vladimir Putin knows we are serious about providing alternative energy to Europe, and I think that will make a big difference in terms of strengthening the European countries' readiness to join us with the kinds of sanctions we need to truly make a difference. Two weeks ago I introduced legislation to do exactly what I am talking about--the North Atlantic Energy Security Act. The cosponsors include Senator McCain, Senator Barrasso, and Senator Murkowski, who is the ranking member on the energy committee. Senator Barrasso worked to put a lot of the legislation together. Senator McCain has always been very active in the Ukrainian situation. Together we put together this bill with a lot of pieces of this legislation that have already been passed in the House--already passed the House. Quite simply, it will enable us to produce more natural gas, move it to market, and export it to our allies. It increases onshore production of natural gas. It allows us to gather it and move it to market, and it allows it to be exported. Quite simply, what does that enable us to do? Well, States such as mine today are flaring off, burning off $1.5 million a day of natural gas because we don't have a market for it. So we just burn it. We just burn it because we can't get the kind of legislation we have developed passed. We can't get it to the floor for a vote. So instead of taking that natural gas--millions of dollars a day--that is going up in smoke and moving it down to these facilities and over to our allies, we are burning it. It would be better for our economy. It would create jobs. It would be better for our environment. It would create jobs. It would certainly be better for our economic growth. It would create revenues to deal with the debt and deficit without raising taxes--just through economic growth. It would make a big difference for the national security of our country and our allies. It is common sense. What are we waiting for? Let's get beyond just talking about what needs to be done in Ukraine and let's get going. Let's get going with a long-term strategy. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Absolutely an environmental win.