John Hoeven

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Would the Senator yield?

Mr. HOEVEN. I would ask, would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up Calendar No. 371, S. 2280, to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline; that there will be up to 4 hours of debate and that the Senate then proceed to vote on passage.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the esteemed Senator from Wyoming not only for being here today to talk about this important issue but for his tremendous leadership on energy issues. Wyoming produces an incredible amount of energy for this country, and the Senator from Wyoming well knows that you not only have to produce that energy, you have to get it to market, and you need pipelines to move oil and gas to market. We move some by truck, some by train. But we can't move everything by truck and by train. We have to have pipelines, and that is what this is all about. The Keystone XL Pipeline is the latest, greatest technology that is the most efficient and the safest way to move this product to market. It will actually result in less greenhouse gas than if we don't build the pipeline, as was determined by the administration's own environmental impact statement produced by the Department of State. I have some additional comments I wish to make on this important issue, but first I would turn to the esteemed Senator from Oklahoma and ask that he provide some of his comments and insights from a State that produces an incredible amount of energy, and where actually hydraulic fracturing started in this country and has been done safely since I think the 1950s; somebody who understands not only that we have to produce energy so we can get to energy independence, but that we have to have the infrastructure to move that product safely to market. With that, I turn to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma and ask his thoughts on this important issue as well.

Mr. HOEVEN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak today on behalf of our veterans. I am here to speak about both challenge and opportunity. The challenge is the problems we face with our Veterans' Administration, which is that we are not getting the care for our veterans that they need and that we all want them to have and that they so very much deserve. We also have a real opportunity because we have been working on legislation. We have legislation on the Republican side in the Senate and on the Democratic side, and now we are working to bring those two pieces of legislation together. So I think this creates a real opportunity, and it is a vitally important opportunity--one that we grab and that we address on behalf of our veterans. We need to make sure we come together on bipartisan legislation that fixes the Veterans' Administration health care system, and it takes care of our veterans. I believe the solution, the real key to solving the problem, is choice--or another way to put it might be access to health care. I think that not only solves the problems we have seen with the wait lists but also the problem of distance, which is also an issue, and it is a challenge we see in States such as my own. For example, in our State the issue truly is distance. In other places it is access to health care. We know, for example, in places such as Phoenix, veterans were put on wait lists and in that way denied access to care. That is absolutely unacceptable--absolutely unacceptable. I think the Veterans Choice Act, which I am pleased to cosponsor with a number of my fellow colleagues, solves that problem, and it solves not only the access and the wait list problem but also, as I have said, the distance problem essentially by providing choice, meaning that if a vet can't get access to a veterans health care facility, then the veteran can go to another health care provider. I believe that works for the vet and it works for the health care provider. The veteran can go to a hospital or a clinic that has the service he or she needs if he can't get into the VA facility in a timely way, and then that hospital or clinic is reimbursed just as if it were for a Medicare patient. Clearly, our health care system has the facilities in place, the resources to handle that type of reimbursement just as they do for Medicare patients. Now I wish to speak about the distance issue for just a minute because in North Dakota the distance issue is the one we face. For example, in North Dakota it is about 800 miles round trip from Williston to the VA health care system in Fargo. Some services, as we all know, are provided by CBOCs--community-based operating clinics--and we have those around the State. But where we don't have CBOCs or where they are not able to get the service they need from that CBOC or walk- in clinic, then it can be an 800-mile trip to get services. Not too long ago I held an open forum in Williston, ND, which, as many people know, is the site of an incredible energy boon, the Williston Basin. Now in North Dakota we produce about 1 million barrels of oil a day--second only to the State of Texas. So we have a tremendous number of people moving into this region. We are the fastest growing State in the Nation. We have veterans there who are driving long distances to get medical services. So this is a different challenge than we faced in some of the centers such as Phoenix where they were waiting to get patient care. In our case they are having to drive long distances--as I said, 800 miles round trip to Williston; 400 miles to Fargo and then 400 miles back. I recently held a forum up in Williston to discuss this issue and look for solutions on behalf of our veterans. I met with our veterans, I met with veterans service officers, as well as health care providers from the region. I talked to two vets who told me their story about trying to get health care. We have a walk-in clinic, a CBOC--community- based operating clinic--in Williston. There were two cases where veterans needed some health care services. In one case, because they couldn't--the first veteran couldn't get it at the local CBOC, that individual took a day to drive to Fargo, which is 400 miles, stayed in a hotel, the next day went in and got those services, stayed in a hotel that night, and then drove back the third day. So he had to take 3 days off of work to get services. He had to drive 800 miles round trip. He had to be put up in a hotel for 2 nights. Now, all of that is reimbursed, as far as the travel in the State, by the VA. So for a relatively straightforward procedure, the VA paid a lot more and inconvenienced that veteran terribly and cost him money because that individual had to take 3 days off from work. That doesn't make any sense. In the second case, a veteran in a similar situation wanted to get the service at the local CBOC, wasn't able to do that, but instead of driving all the way to Fargo and doing what the first veteran did, the second individual just went into the local clinic or hospital in Williston and got the service that afternoon. Unfortunately, the second veteran is still trying to get reimbursement out of the VA for that procedure. The individual in the second case did not have to take 3 days off from work, which is smart and, frankly, saved the VA a lot of money because it was not a case where you had to drive down, get reimbursed for that stay with over two nights in a hotel, and then drive back. So it actually saved the VA money. But still they have not gotten a reimbursement for the cost of that medical treatment because the VA does provide that service in Fargo. But again, in that situation, unless that veteran is reimbursed, you are not truly serving the veteran and, frankly, not doing the sensible thing to save the taxpayer money. That is why the Veterans Choice Act that I am cosponsoring with others, again, is the solution because we provide choice, we provide access. If the veteran cannot get that service in a timely way in the local community, then the veteran can access another health care facility. That is why the legislation works. So what I have offered--and, of course, now we are working on bringing two bills together: the Veterans Choice Act, but then also legislation offered by Senator Bernie Sanders; and that legislation is the Ensuring Veterans Access to Care Act. I think we can bring them together, and I think we can get a good solution that serves everybody, most importantly that serves our veterans. But we need to serve all of our veterans--all of our veterans--regardless of where they live. That is why I have offered simple, clarifying language--this is a technical fix--that would clarify and ensure that if a veteran cannot get service in a CBOC, then that veteran can go to a local health care provider on the same basis as an individual who lives more than 40 miles away from the walk-in clinic. This legislation, this clarification is important to ensure that a veteran is not in any way actually disadvantaged by having a walk-in clinic in the local community, and that all vets can access services on the same basis. Again, it is because of the way this legislation is coming together that requires that if you are within 40 miles of a walk-in clinic or you have to wait more than 14 days, then you can go to another health care provider. But if either one of those criteria apply--you are within the 40-mile radius and you can get an appointment within 14 days to see a doctor--then you have to go to the VA. That works, and that is consistent only if you applied both criteria to the same clinic, to the same health care center. What I mean is this. Remember the example I gave just a minute ago: Williston, ND, and Fargo, ND. In Williston you have a walk-in clinic. In Fargo you have a full hospital--a full VA medical center. Take the test we are applying in this legislation: If you are within 40 miles, you have to go to the VA facility, as long as you can get in within 14 days. But that 14 days has to also apply to the facility that is within that 40-mile radius; otherwise, you get an inconsistent, unfair result and actually disadvantage somebody who is within 40 miles of a walk-in clinic versus somebody who is outside that radius. Let me give two examples to illuminate what I am saying. You have a vet. He lives in Williston, ND. He is within 40 miles of that facility. He goes in, and he gets his shots or whatever it is in that facility--no problem. But what happens if he cannot, if that walk- in clinic does not supply the service? What does he do? Well, if the 14-day rule applies to the Fargo VA hospital, even though he is within 40 miles of the CBOC, if the CBOC--the walk-in clinic--does not provide that service, he still has to drive 800 miles roundtrip for that shot I just talked about a minute ago or that service--the two veterans I described a minute ago. So he still has to travel 800 miles to get service. Take another individual. He lives 41 miles from that walk-in clinic. Even if the Fargo VA can take him within 14 days, he can still go get local service in Williston, can't he? Why? Because he is 41 miles away. So ask yourself, the veteran who lives within 39 miles of that walk-in clinic, he might have to drive 800 miles roundtrip to get a service that the individual who is 41 miles from that facility can go get in the local community. Does that make sense? That is the kind of thing we have to make sure we get right so that all veterans, regardless of where they live, get the same fair and consistent treatment. That is why I am saying, as we put this legislation together, we have to be careful to make sure we get that kind of fair and consistent result so this legislation serves all of our veterans and takes care of all of our veterans, and they truly all have that access. Whether the problem is a wait list or long distances, let's make sure this works for all of them. Believe me, they are out there. Every one of them has put their life on the line and stepped up. All of them have done that for us. Let's make sure, as we work through and file this legislation--something I know we can do; on a bipartisan basis we can get this done--let's make sure it works for all of our veterans and it works well and it works consistently and it truly solves the problem; that is, we make sure they get the health care they deserve. I thank the Presiding Officer. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to speak with regard to ObamaCare. The good Senator from Wyoming made compelling points, as did the Senator from Indiana before him. What I would like to do is to start for a minute by reading from some letters I have received from constituents in my State with regard to ObamaCare or the Affordable Care Act. These are from hard-working people who are trying to figure out what to do about their health insurance with ObamaCare in place. I think really those are the voices that speak louder than any others--the voices of people from across this great country who live in all of our States--and they are writing to Members of this body and say: Hey, here is what I am experiencing. So this is not just coming down and expressing an opinion on the Affordable Care Act. This is what people are saying. This is what they are telling us. I think it is very important we take the time to listen and to understand the very real difficulties they are having with something that is so vitally important to all of us, and that is health insurance. I would like to start by reading some of these letters. The first one is from somebody who lives in the Fargo area. They start out: I live in West Fargo and my Employer is based out of South Dakota. In 2011 I obtained my own Family Health Care Insurance due to a job change and my new employer's Health Care coverage seemed excessive. In doing this I found coverage as follows: So they signed up for a policy that is an 80/20 copay, with a $1,000 deductible, with a $4,000 out-of-pocket maximum, with monthly premiums of just over $800--$809. That was provided through Blue Cross Blue Shield. The individual goes on to write: At the time this was more than $300 less costly than my new employer's monthly premium for similar coverage. I recently received a notice from [Blue Cross Blue Shield] that my coverage will be discontinued on May 1st, 2014 due to the Affordable Care Act. So they received a notice that their insurance is being discontinued due to the Affordable Care Act. Listed below are the options which are most similar to my current coverage: Now, instead of an 80/20 copay, it is a 70/30 copay, so the copay is higher. There is a $2,000 deductible. So instead of a $1,000 deductible, that doubled. Now it is a $2,000 deductible. There is a $9,000 out-of-pocket maximum, compared to what this individual had before, which was a $4,000 out-of-pocket maximum. So it more than doubled the out-of-pocket maximum. There is a monthly premium of $1,625. That is compared to an $809 premium. So the premium doubled. So for a higher copay, for a higher deductible, for a higher out-of-pocket maximum, they are paying double the premium. If they wanted to go to another policy, it was an even higher deductible. The individual goes on to say: We are NOT eligible for Tax Credits because my employer offers affordable health coverage. So because the employer offers a policy, this individual is not eligible for any tax credits. At this point my best option is to obtain my employer's health coverage. However Open enrollment is not until August 2014. So the individual has to wait until August. My HR department along with my current Insurance Specialist has contacted [Blue Cross Blue Shield] and asked that this be considered a ``Life Changing Event'' so I can join the employer plan by the May 1st deadline. They will not classify it as such. I asked if I could pay some type of early sign on fee. They indicated that is not an option. So if I cannot join my employer's plan, my BEST options for coverage are those options listed above-- The ones I just read-- which are at best a 37% increase-- ``[A]t best a 37% increase''-- in monthly premium with a 110% or more increase in deductible and out of pocket max. So let me say that one more time. This individual's best options now with the Affordable Care Act are a 37-percent increase in the monthly premium, with a 110-percent or more increase in the deductible and the out-of-pocket maximum. Then the individual finishes: Do you see my frustration? This is just one of the letters we have received, but it is representative of so many others. How can that be an affordable care act? How is that affordable care? Here is another one. My insurance premium tripled for less coverage. I thought our insurance was supposed to stay the same if we had it. . . . Please put a stop to it! It isn't right to make people pay for something they may not be able to afford. I already had health insurance! I also send money to my sister to help with her baby. Now I won't be able to do that. That is another letter--a real person, a real situation. Here is one: To Our Elected Representatives; We petition you not as Democrats, Republicans, Independents or members of any special interest group, but as concerned taxpayers. We urge of all of our elected representatives to vote against this administration's health care plan. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cost will be more than $1 trillion over 10 years and we know from experience that it will cost far more than any government estimate. Well, these stories go on, and I know I have colleagues who are waiting to speak, as well, during this time slot. So rather than continue to go through these letters--and I have many more; I brought more than I anticipated reading today--I will come back again and read some more of these. But I want to conclude with what I believe is the right approach, and I think it is something Republicans are talking about and have been talking about and will continue to talk about. So when we come down and say the Affordable Care Act is not working, do not just take our word for it. Listen to the people from across this country who are writing to us and telling us their very real stories. Sometimes you hear: Well, but you don't have a solution. That is wrong. We do. We absolutely have a solution, and we have talked about it over and over on this floor and in every other venue where someone is willing to listen. We need to implement a comprehensive approach, and we need to do it on a step-by-step basis so people understand it and know exactly what we are putting in place. It needs to be an approach that empowers people to make their own choices--their own choices--about their health care insurance and their health care providers. Again, I want to repeat that: They choose their own policy and their health care providers. It includes market-based reforms that promote competition, that will help increase choice, not reduce choice, and competition that will help bring prices down, not see them continue to spike higher. It includes aspects such as tort reform, to reduce the cost of health care. It includes allowing insurance companies to sell policies across State lines. It includes expanding health savings accounts, so individuals can combine high-deductible health care policies with a tax-deductible savings account. It includes reform of Medicare and Medicaid, to give States more control and to encourage the kind of reforms that will improve service, improve outcomes, and reduce costs. That is the kind of approach that truly serves the American public. That is the kind of approach we will continue to work, on behalf of the citizens of our respective States in this great Nation, to put in place. With that, I see my esteemed colleague from the great State of Mississippi is in the Chamber. I yield for the good Senator.

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I yield back time.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Hoeven pertaining to the introduction of S. 2280 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. HOEVEN. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, today I filed an updated bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline project. That bill is at the desk. What this legislation does is it approves the project congressionally, which is authorized under the Constitution of the United States. Section 8 of article 1 of our Constitution expressly gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That is the determination we are looking for here from the President on this pipeline project. The decision is simply: Is the project in the national interest or is it not? The President and his administration have been considering this project, and this decision--is it in the national interest or not--for more than 5 years. We are now in the sixth year. It was our expectation the process would be completed on or about the first week in May. The final environmental impact statement came out at the end of January and, as the prior environmental impact statements had determined, this environmental impact statement said there is no significant environmental impact caused by the project. This is a study done over years by this administration's Department of State. For the fourth time the report came out with no significant environmental impact created by this project. So as I say, it was the expectation of this Senate and really of Americans across the country that sometime in May the President would make a decision because all along he said he was following the process, and once the process was completed he would make a decision. A little over a week ago, on the afternoon of Good Friday-- a time that I believe was selected in order to minimize the news coverage--the President or the administration made the announcement they would now delay this project indefinitely--indefinitely. Not a statement of: We are just going to follow the process, which is what had been said before. Even though the President, in a meeting with me and our conference, came out and said we would have a decision before the end of 2013. That is what he told us. That didn't happen because then he changed it to: We are going to follow the process. Now it is not even going to follow the process. He is just going to delay a decision indefinitely. The rationale for that is that there is litigation in Nebraska as to whether the public service commission in the State of Nebraska has the right to determine the route of the pipeline through Nebraska or whether in fact the legislature does. Some time ago, right at the beginning of 2012, we had passed legislation in this body, which I sponsored, that required the President to make a decision on the project within 90 days. We passed that bill and, in fact, he then made a decision to decline the project based on the route in Nebraska. So Nebraska went through the work of rerouting the pipeline in the State, and that new route was approved by the legislature and it was approved by the Governor. But opponents of the project decided to sue on the basis that, no, the PSC should make a decision as to the route in Nebraska. So be it. That can be adjudicated in Nebraska, as can any other issue that somebody may choose to file a lawsuit over. But that really has nothing to do with the decision the President needs to make. The decision the President needs to make is a very simple decision: Is this pipeline project in the interest of the United States or is it not? This is after his State Department has said there is no significant environmental impact created by the project not once, not twice, but four times. So it is a simple decision. It is a decision of whether we should have more energy that we produce in our country and that is produced in Canada, our closest friend and ally, or whether we should keep getting energy from the Middle East. It is a decision about whether we should have more jobs. The State Department says 42,000 jobs are created in constructing the pipeline. It is a decision about economic activity. This creates economic activity, with hundreds of millions in tax revenue to help reduce the deficit and debt without spending one penny of Federal money. That is the decision before the President. But he refuses to make it. So it is long past time--long past time, as we are now in year 6--for this body to step forward and make the decision. As I said just a minute ago, we have the authority to make the decision. Section 8 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations. So we need to make the decision. The time is long past when we can continue to wait. How can we continue to wait when the President says it will be an indefinite time period before he will even consider making a decision? So the bill we have put forward is a very simple, straightforward bill. As a matter of fact, I am going to take a couple minutes and read it because it is three pages. It is an updated bill to a bill I provided on a bipartisan basis earlier. We had 27 cosponsors of the earlier legislation. We now have 56 Republicans and Democrats on this bill, and we are working very hard to get 60 so there is no procedural way to stop this legislation, but I will take just a minute and read it because it is self-explanatory, it is simple, it is straightforward, and it is common sense. A bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, today I filed an updated bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline project. That bill is at the desk. What this legislation does is it approves the project congressionally, which is authorized under the Constitution of the United States. Section 8 of article 1 of our Constitution expressly gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That is the determination we are looking for here from the President on this pipeline project. The decision is simply: Is the project in the national interest or is it not? The President and his administration have been considering this project, and this decision--is it in the national interest or not--for more than 5 years. We are now in the sixth year. It was our expectation the process would be completed on or about the first week in May. The final environmental impact statement came out at the end of January and, as the prior environmental impact statements had determined, this environmental impact statement said there is no significant environmental impact caused by the project. This is a study done over years by this administration's Department of State. For the fourth time the report came out with no significant environmental impact created by this project. So as I say, it was the expectation of this Senate and really of Americans across the country that sometime in May the President would make a decision because all along he said he was following the process, and once the process was completed he would make a decision. A little over a week ago, on the afternoon of Good Friday-- a time that I believe was selected in order to minimize the news coverage--the President or the administration made the announcement they would now delay this project indefinitely--indefinitely. Not a statement of: We are just going to follow the process, which is what had been said before. Even though the President, in a meeting with me and our conference, came out and said we would have a decision before the end of 2013. That is what he told us. That didn't happen because then he changed it to: We are going to follow the process. Now it is not even going to follow the process. He is just going to delay a decision indefinitely. The rationale for that is that there is litigation in Nebraska as to whether the public service commission in the State of Nebraska has the right to determine the route of the pipeline through Nebraska or whether in fact the legislature does. Some time ago, right at the beginning of 2012, we had passed legislation in this body, which I sponsored, that required the President to make a decision on the project within 90 days. We passed that bill and, in fact, he then made a decision to decline the project based on the route in Nebraska. So Nebraska went through the work of rerouting the pipeline in the State, and that new route was approved by the legislature and it was approved by the Governor. But opponents of the project decided to sue on the basis that, no, the PSC should make a decision as to the route in Nebraska. So be it. That can be adjudicated in Nebraska, as can any other issue that somebody may choose to file a lawsuit over. But that really has nothing to do with the decision the President needs to make. The decision the President needs to make is a very simple decision: Is this pipeline project in the interest of the United States or is it not? This is after his State Department has said there is no significant environmental impact created by the project not once, not twice, but four times. So it is a simple decision. It is a decision of whether we should have more energy that we produce in our country and that is produced in Canada, our closest friend and ally, or whether we should keep getting energy from the Middle East. It is a decision about whether we should have more jobs. The State Department says 42,000 jobs are created in constructing the pipeline. It is a decision about economic activity. This creates economic activity, with hundreds of millions in tax revenue to help reduce the deficit and debt without spending one penny of Federal money. That is the decision before the President. But he refuses to make it. So it is long past time--long past time, as we are now in year 6--for this body to step forward and make the decision. As I said just a minute ago, we have the authority to make the decision. Section 8 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations. So we need to make the decision. The time is long past when we can continue to wait. How can we continue to wait when the President says it will be an indefinite time period before he will even consider making a decision? So the bill we have put forward is a very simple, straightforward bill. As a matter of fact, I am going to take a couple minutes and read it because it is three pages. It is an updated bill to a bill I provided on a bipartisan basis earlier. We had 27 cosponsors of the earlier legislation. We now have 56 Republicans and Democrats on this bill, and we are working very hard to get 60 so there is no procedural way to stop this legislation, but I will take just a minute and read it because it is self-explanatory, it is simple, it is straightforward, and it is common sense. A bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the esteemed Senator from Texas. I wish to turn to the distinguished Senator from Missouri for his thoughts on the importance of this project and the need for our country to become energy independent.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I turn to the Senator from South Carolina and I welcome his comments on this important topic.

Mr. HOEVEN. That is correct.

Mr. HOEVEN. I wish to thank the Senator from South Carolina for putting this issue in very human terms, including what it means for people in this country who want a job. I thank him for his passion on this important issue. I turn now to the Senator from Missouri for his input on this important issue.

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator from Missouri and turn to our ranking member on the Energy Committee, the Senator from Alaska, who deals with energy issues every day.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I have conferred with the good Senator from Illinois and beg his indulgence. He has offered 3 minutes for each of our remaining speakers. I thank him for that and ask for the Chair's indulgence.

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from Illinois and turn to the Senator from South Carolina for his thoughts on this important issue.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina and turn to the esteemed Senator from Georgia.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the good Senator from Georgia, who is putting forward common sense. I would like to turn, in closing, to the Senator from Wyoming, who is a senior member of the energy committee and truly understands energy issues.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I will close. It is time for the Senate to vote on this important issue. With that, I will turn to the Senator from Illinois and again thank him for the additional time. I yield the floor.