John Hoeven

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the distinguished Senator from South Dakota and turn to our colleague from the State of Oklahoma, certainly a State that understands energy production and understands how vital this pipeline infrastructure is. So with the indulgence of the Senator from Texas, I would ask to return to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. HOEVEN. I would like to thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama not only for his outstanding argument but for his passion as somebody who truly cares about getting this economy going. I would turn to the distinguished Senator from South Dakota and also to the distinguished Senator from Texas, and I would like to ask that they both engage in this discussion, starting with the good Senator from South Dakota. In South Dakota they understand how to create a good business climate. They have no income tax. They have a strong economy because they understand what it takes to create a good environment so that businesses will invest and grow and create jobs. I would like to ask the Senator how this relates to the discussion of the Keystone XL Pipeline. To the distinguished senior Senator from Texas--clearly Texas knows energy production--I would ask for his thoughts in terms of how important this infrastructure is for energy development and production in our State. First, I would like to turn to the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, Prime Minister Harper of Canada has said on a number of occasions how important this project is to Canada. The Ambassador of Canada to the United States is Gary Doer, somebody who was formerly the Premier of Manitoba and somebody I worked with when I was Governor of North Dakota. We worked together for about a decade on all kinds of issues. As the Senator said, Canada is our closest friend and ally, and they are a huge energy producer. And we are producing more energy. So here is a project which is incredibly important to Canada. It is an opportunity for us to get more energy, both energy that we are producing and energy from Canada, rather than from the Middle East-- something the American people very much want. If we don't approve it, what are we saying to our closest friend and ally, when they have said very clearly and repeatedly, this project is very, very important to them? To add irony to that indignity, they will still produce the oil, but they will be forced to send it to China. So we will import oil from the Middle East and force our closest friend and ally to export their oil to China, creating more greenhouse gas emissions, not less? That is what happens if we don't approve the project. If the President refuses to do it, then we have the responsibility to step up and do it. Yes, the Senator is 100 percent right that it is not only a project that our people very much want approved but it is also something the people of Canada and the Government of Canada very much want approved. So the Senator is right. I would yield the floor back to the good Senator from Alabama and encourage him to bring in our esteemed colleagues from South Dakota and South Carolina as well into this important discussion.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa, who has made the case so well, and I look to his experience on energy issues and ag issues and his understanding of what it takes to truly have an all-of-the-above energy policy. As he said so well, it is not only needed infrastructure but it is jobs. Here we are, talking about getting the economy going and getting people back to work. This doesn't cost one penny of Federal spending, and it puts people to work and creates hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue to help reduce our deficit and our debt. So we are talking about putting people back to work, we are talking about energy for this country, we are talking about revenues to reduce the debt, and the administration refuses to make a decision. It is almost beyond belief. I turn next to the Senator from Alabama, the ranking member on the Budget Committee. He speaks eloquently and often on the need to balance our budget, on the need to reduce the deficit and the debt and to get our spending under control. So here we have a project that, without spending one penny, will generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues to help reduce the deficit and debt while we put people to work. Those statistics are provided by this administration's State Department. Those aren't our statistics. Those statistics come out of the environmental impact statement put together by the State Department of this administration. So I turn to the Senator from Alabama, somebody who has led on the need to get this economy going, to create good, quality jobs and to reduce the deficit and debt. I ask the good the Senator from Alabama: Won't this project help do all of those things?

Mr. HOEVEN. I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas for his words today and for his support of this important project. I would also like to turn to the distinguished Senator from Iowa, somebody who truly believes we should have an ``all of the above'' energy approach but one that means actually doing--not only producing from our traditional sources of fossil fuels but also our renewable sources. He is someone who also understands that if we are truly going to have an ``all of the above'' energy plan in this country and do it, not just talk about it, we need the infrastructure to make it happen. So I turn to the good Senator from Iowa and ask him: Isn't this the vital infrastructure this country needs in order to truly have an ``all of the above'' energy plan that works?

Mr. HOEVEN. I rise to discuss the Keystone XL Pipeline project. I will be joined by a number of my colleagues, whom I will thank at the beginning for joining me. They will come today with the same message that I have; that is, the Keystone XL Pipeline project, the project that has now been under review by this administration for more than 5 years--we are now in year 6. We are on the floor of the Senate asking for, quite simply, a vote to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline project. I have put legislation in on a number of occasions. In 2012 we approved a time limit for the President to make a decision. I believe that bill got on the order of 73 votes--strong bipartisan support. We attached it to the payroll tax holiday, and it said that the President had to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline within 90 days. He did. He turned it down, and he turned it down on the basis of the routing in Nebraska. So not only did the State of Nebraska go through an incredible amount of work, but the State Department and others went back to work, did a whole new environmental impact statement after Nebraska had rerouted the pipeline, which was approved by both its legislature and its Governor, and came forward with a new route and a new environmental impact statement. That was right at the beginning of 2012. So we set a timeline for the President to make a decision. He made the decision and he turned down the project, but we addressed the concerns he raised. They were fully addressed. Then later we also offered a resolution of support putting the Senate on record in support of the project. That was attached to the budget resolution at the beginning of 2013. We came back the next year, and on that occasion the Senate, with 62 votes, said: Hey, we support the project. Here is a resolution in support of the project stating that it is, in fact, in the national interest and ought to be approved. Since then the President has done nothing. Well, that is not quite right. Not only has he not made a decision now--and we are in the sixth year after four environmental impact statements, all of which said there is no significant environmental impact created by the project-- not only has the President not made a decision, with Congress on record supporting the project, but, in fact, a little over 1 week ago on Good Friday, on the afternoon of Good Friday, when he figured nobody was paying any attention, the President came out and basically put out a statement and said that not only has he not made a decision but he is not going to make a decision, that on the basis of litigation he is going to postpone the decision indefinitely. So we are in year 6, having met all of the requirements on numerous occasions on a project that will provide energy and jobs, that will help with national security by reducing our dependence on oil from the Middle East, a project that his own Department of State, after environmental impact statement after environmental impact statement, has come back and said will create no significant environmental impact, will create 42,000 jobs, and will help us get energy and not only move energy from States such as North Dakota and Montana in our country to the refineries safely but also bring in oil from Canada to our country so we don't have to import it from the Middle East. The President says: Well, we are in year 6, but I am going to postpone this decision indefinitely. Here we are. We have a bill I introduced some time ago. We have 27 cosponsors on the bill, both parties. What the bill does, it approves the Keystone XL Pipeline project congressionally. Instead of continuing to wait after 6 years and now the President's announcement that he is going to delay the decision indefinitely, passing this bill would approve the project congressionally. The way that works is that under the foreign commerce clause in the Constitution, Congress has the authority to approve this project. They have that authority under Congress's ability to oversee foreign commerce, commerce with other nations. We know that because we took time to research it. We had the Congressional Research Service do the research for us, and they say this is a constitutional authority of the Congress. We have provided that bill. The bill has been filed. As I said, we have 27 sponsors, and now it is time to vote. We have been holding off on having a vote because the President said: You know, we are going to go through the process--or he is going to go through the process and he is going to honor the process. The environmental--actually, the fourth and supposedly final environmental impact statement came out at the end of January. There was a 90-day comment period after that, which was to expire the first part of May. The expectation was that now that the process at that point--once the process was exhausted, the President would, in fact, render the long-awaited decision. But, as I say, on Good Friday, a little over 1 week ago, he came out and said: No, no decision. Furthermore, he is not going to make a decision, and that delay is indefinite. So clearly the administration opposes the project and they are going to defeat it with delay. They are going to defeat it with endless delays. There is no amount of process that will ever be adequate for the administration. They will continue to delay this decision, thinking that at some point it will go away, and so they defeat the project through one delay after another. That is why it is time to vote. In a recent poll that was released last week, 70 percent of the American people want this project approved--70 percent. That was a Rasmussen poll. The President is trying to defeat the project through delays in order to appease special interest groups while the American people very much want this project approved. It is Congress's responsibility to take a stand. It is long past time to vote. At this point, I am making some revisions to the legislation to update it for the final environmental impact statement. We are working to get every single Republican Member of this body on board, which I believe we will do, and as many Democratic Members as possible. We are pushing as hard as we can to get a vote. It is time for the Senate to stand, exercise its responsibility, and vote. Now the Senate majority leader is looking at moving to energy legislation, energy efficiency legislation. That is good. Let's go there. Let's have the debate. Let's offer amendments. Let's have votes. Let's do the work of the people that this body is elected to do. As part of that, we are going to require a vote on the Keystone XL Pipeline, a vote to approve it congressionally, and everybody can decide where they stand. But this is a project which is long overdue. It is time to vote, and it is time to vote on congressional approval. That is our message today, and that is going to continue to be our message as we work on energy legislation. I am very pleased to have other Members who have agreed to come join this discussion. I turn to the good Senator from Kansas, the senior Senator from Kansas, somebody who has been in this body for a long time, who has seen these issues, and who understands the responsibility we have to vote on behalf of these issues, to take a stand for the American people. I yield to the senior Senator from Kansas, a State through which this pipeline passes, and ask him does he perceive that this project is in the national interest.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his work on this important issue, and I turn to the Senator from Texas, a State that produces more oil and gas than any other State in the Union, and ask for his thoughts and support.

Mr. HOEVEN. To respond to the Senator from Texas, of course, by not having a median pipeline infrastructure we are forced to move oil by other means and that means primarily railcars, and it is overburdening our rail system. As you have seen, we have had accidents, and it is just the overburdening of the current capacity of our rail system. For example, in North Dakota we produce a million barrels of oil a day. Over 700,000 now has to move by rail car because we don't have adequate pipelines. So this is not just about bringing oil from Canada to the United States. It is also about moving oil from States such as Montana and North Dakota to refineries in the most efficient and safest way possible. For example, the Keystone XL Pipeline on the day it opens will take 500 trucks a day off some of our roads in the western part of our State. So it is clearly a safety issue. The State Department says if this pipeline isn't built, to move that amount of oil you would have to move 1,400 railcars a day. That is 14 unit trains of 100 railcars a day. Clearly, we don't have that rail capacity. Clearly we don't have that rail capacity, so we need this vital infrastructure. We can't develop the energy in this country and work with Canada to truly become energy independent without vital infrastructure, which this project represents.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the esteemed Senator from Wyoming for leading this colloquy. Our effort here is to address in real terms the problem--the legislation we have on the floor right now is the unemployment insurance bill--to truly address the problem, which is getting people back to work, rather than additional government payments added onto the payments already made. What we are trying to do is make sure there are jobs to get people back to work. Energy is an incredible opportunity to do just that. So when we talk about this energy legislation, it is about producing more energy for our country. But it is about jobs, it is about economic growth, and it is about national security. So I commend the esteemed Senator from Wyoming for leading the charge on legislation which would allow us to export liquefied natural gas. We currently consume in the United States on an annual basis about 26 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year, but we produce 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year. So we are already in a situation where we are producing more than we consume. We import some from Canada, and we are growing in terms of our domestic production in States such as Wyoming, my home State, and others. Across the country with the shale gas development, we are producing more and more natural gas. We need a market for that natural gas, and Europe very much needs natural gas so they are not dependent on Russia for their energy. So we are talking about an opportunity here at home to actually create more economic activity and put people back to work. That is the real solution. It doesn't cost the government one penny. Instead, we get revenue--not from higher taxes, but from a growing economy and people going back to work. When we look at this legislation, we have taken legislation led by the Senator from Wyoming and we have tied it together with Keystone legislation I have submitted. We call it the Energy Security Act, and it does those two things--it approves the Keystone XL Pipeline, a $5.3 billion investment by private companies in our economy. By the Obama administration's own estimate, their State Department has said it will create more than 40,000 jobs in the construction phase. We tie that with legislation which has been put forward by the Senator from Wyoming, which I am extremely pleased to cosponsor. We put those two together, LNG exports with Keystone. We call it the Energy Security Act. We have submitted it and we have filed it as amendment No. 2891. I therefore ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer my amendment No. 2891.

Mr. HOEVEN. With due deference to the good Senator, I understand his desire to make sure people who are unemployed receive assistance. I think he truly is a champion in that effort. I appreciate the opportunity to work with him in a bipartisan way. But I would submit this very legislation absolutely complements what he is trying to do, and does it in a number of ways, first, in terms of a permanent, real, long-term solution--meaning getting those people back to work, but, second, in terms of paying for it, in terms of actually paying for the cost of unemployment insurance, these provisions--this amendment and the other amendment we are offering--will actually help create revenue to do what the Senator is trying to do. For that reason, I think it is absolutely complementary to the legislation at hand and will in fact add bipartisan support to passage of that legislation. I will cite one more extremely compelling study which relates to this point before I turn back to the Senator from Wyoming. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2011 commissioned a study. They had experts do an evaluation of energy projects awaiting approval to proceed from the administration--awaiting permits or other requirements so they could proceed with these energy projects. What I am talking about are energy projects that total billions, even hundreds of billions, of dollars where private companies are willing to invest their money and develop energy resources across this great country. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce study I cite was performed in 2011. It came back and said there are more than 350 energy projects, both renewable type energy and traditional energy, that are stalled because of bureaucratic redtape on the part of the Federal Government at a cost of $1.1 trillion to the American economy and nearly 2 million jobs for the American people. Think about that, 2 million jobs for the American people, when what we are talking about here today is the unemployed. What we are talking about here today is putting people back to work. I will cite from that study: In aggregate, planning and construction of the subject projects (the ``investment phase'') would generate $577 billion in direct investment, calculated in current dollars. The indirect and induced effects (what we term multiplier effects) would generate an approximate $1.1 trillion increase in U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) including $352 billion in employment earnings, based on present discounted value (PDV) over an average construction period of seven years. Furthermore, we estimate that as many as 1.9 million jobs would be required during each year of construction. Good-paying construction jobs. The Keystone XL Pipeline is just one of those more than 350 projects, and it alone is an investment of $5.3 billion. It alone, according to the State Department's own estimates, will create more than 40,000 jobs. What are we trying to do here? I thought it was to put people back to work, trying to make sure they have an opportunity--in States such as Ohio. Of course, in my State we have an energy boom. We are trying to get people. We have more jobs than people because we have unleashed this investment in energy. We have done that in our State. Why not do it across the country? Why not do it across the country? There is no question we can. We have offered other amendments as well. The other point I want to make is they are bipartisan amendments. They are amendments that don't cost the Federal Government any money but create incredible investment and incredible opportunity for our people, and they are bipartisan. One of the amendments put forward by the Senator from Missouri passed through the House with 1 dissenting vote. I don't know if the 1 dissenting vote was Republican or Democrat, but I don't know how you get any more bipartisan than that, because they were one short of unanimous. So that is what we are talking about here. I know negotiations and discussions are going on as to votes we may get on the legislation we are offering as part of this unemployment insurance bill. I ask the leadership on the majority side to allow us to vote on these amendments. We will accept the verdict of the Senate; all 100 get to vote, which is what we were sent here to do. I will close with that. This isn't about either the Democratic side of the aisle or the Republican side of the aisle. This is about people who are unemployed and need an opportunity. We absolutely have the ability to give them that opportunity, so let's do it. Let's do it. That is what this debate is all about. Again, I thank the distinguished Senator from Wyoming for leading the discussion. He has been an energy leader as well as a physician, so he certainly has been a leader on the health care issue too. But he has certainly been an energy leader, and his State is a leading energy- producing State. As I said at the outset, and he has made the point so eloquently, this is an opportunity. Energy is an opportunity. It is jobs, it is economic growth, it is national security. Let's go. Let's get it done. With that, I turn to my colleague from Wyoming and again thank him for his leadership of this important discussion.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the unemployment insurance legislation we are currently considering. While we all want to help those who are unemployed, the real solution is to get them a job, is to create a growing economy and more jobs. We need to get this economy going. One way we can do it is by empowering our energy sector. That does not mean spending more government money. What it means is taking the shackles off billions in private investment that is ready to go into energy development in this country. In 2011, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce commissioned a study. The study took a look at the energy projects that are stalled in this country due to government bureaucracy and redtape. That study found there are more than 350 energy projects, projects that will both produce renewable energy as well as projects that will produce traditional energy that are stalled at a cost of $1.1 trillion to the American economy, at a cost of almost 2 million jobs for the American people. I want to take a minute to read from that report: In aggregate, planning and construction of the subject projects would generate $577 billion in direct investments, calculated in current dollars. The indirect and induced effect, where we apply the multiplier, would generate an approximate $1.1 trillion increase in U.S. Gross Domestic Product, GDP, including $352 billion in employment earnings based on present discounted value over an average construction period of 7 years. Furthermore, we estimate that as many as 1.9 million jobs would be required during each year of construction. Two million jobs. Many of these projects are still blocked by government redtape and the permitting process. That is why I have introduced a States First All-of-the Above Energy Plan for our country to get these projects going. If you think about it, it just makes sense. The States, after all, are the laboratories of democracy. Let's make them the laboratories of energy for our country. The right energy plan is about much more than just energy. It means economic growth, it means national security, and it means jobs--jobs for those who are currently unemployed and jobs at a good wage. Today I am offering amendments to the unemployment insurance legislation that will do all of those things. The first one I wish to talk about for a minute is the Energy Security Act. I am pleased to join with the senior Senator from Wyoming Mr. Barrasso and also our ranking member on the Energy Committee, Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, as well as other cosponsors on the legislation, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, obviously a big energy- producing State, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, and Senator David Vitter of Louisiana. What the Energy Security Act does, quite simply, is first it approves the Keystone XL project. This is a more than $5 billion pipeline that has been in the permitting process now for more than 5 years. We are now in the sixth year of the permitting process trying to get a permit from the administration. We have thousands of pipelines all across this country, millions of miles of pipeline, and here is a project that for 6 years the administration has held in limbo. The latest greatest technology moves Canadian oil, our closest ally, Canada, moves oil from Canada as well as oil from my State, North Dakota, and Montana to refineries across the United States. We import 50 percent of our oil. Do Americans want to get that from the Middle East or do they want to produce it here in our country and get it from our closest friend and ally, Canada? That is an obvious answer. That is why in poll after poll, 3 to 1, Americans want this project approved. But it remains in limbo, now in its sixth year of the permitting process on the part of the administration. So when I talk about those 350 projects, when I talk about $1.1 trillion in GDP, when we talk about almost 2 million American jobs that study performed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce identified, you can see what they are talking about when you talk about this project that has been held up now into the sixth year. The legislation, the Energy Security Act, would approve that project, but it would also approve the 24 pending applications that would allow us to export LNG, liquefied natural gas, to our allies who need that help. Right now in this country we produce 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year. We consume about 26 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is growing rapidly. Believe me, I know. We are flaring off natural gas in our State that we want to get to market. We need a market for that product. But right now we are not allowed to export liquefied natural gas to countries such as the NATO countries. Look what is going on in Eastern Europe, such as what Russia is doing in Ukraine. What is next? One of the reasons Russia is able to take that kind of action and the European Union is reluctant to put sanctions in place as a response is because Europe, Ukraine, are dependent on Russia for natural gas for energy. Over one-third of the supply of the EU's energy comes from Russia. So we have an opportunity here. We can create economic activity. We can create jobs. We can use that natural gas we produce beyond what we need here at home to help our allies and at the same time stand up to Russian aggression. That is why I say this is about jobs. This is about getting our economy growing. But this is also very much about national security, our national security here at home, energy security for our country, but also security working with our allies to stand up against the kind of aggression we see from Russia and from President Putin right now. In terms of jobs, the Obama administration's State Department, their own State Department, has estimated the Keystone XL Pipeline during the construction phase will create more than 40,000 jobs. That is just that one project, more than 40,000 jobs. If you look at some of the studies, very conservative studies on job creation that will occur by approving these LNG applications, the National Economic Research Associates identifies more than 45,000 jobs that would be created by expediting approval of those permits. Let me give you two examples so you understand the magnitude of what we are dealing with here. Cheniere Energy wants to invest $11 billion in an export facility at Corpus Cristi, TX. That is not one penny of government spending--not one penny. We have a huge deficit and we have a huge debt. We have got to get on top of it. That means controlling our spending, but that means we have to have economic growth. So here are companies willing to invest and create jobs and create economic growth and create tax revenues--not raising taxes, creating tax revenue. Why in the world do we hold them up? How does that make sense? How is that common sense? Here we are on an unemployment insurance bill where we are going to spend more government money to pay people who remain unemployed when we could approve these projects and put them back to work at good-paying jobs. Instead of growing the deficit, we could actually create tax revenues from a growing economy-- again, not higher taxes, from a growing economy that helps reduce our deficit and debt. So the Cheniere Energy project, $1 billion investment facility in Corpus Christi, creates a market for some of the natural gas that is now being flared off, according to the Perryman Group, 3,000 direct construction jobs, far more indirect jobs during the construction phase. Here is another project. Exxon wants to build the Golden Pass LNG facility at Sabine, TX, which is on the border between Texas and Louisiana. That is a $10 billion investment. Perryman Group estimates that between both the direct construction jobs and indirect jobs, on the order of 45,000 jobs for that project during construction, almost 4,000 permanent jobs. So you can see when we talk about NERA, the National Economic Research Associates, saying, hey, there are going to be 45,000 jobs for these projects, that is a very conservative estimate. It creates so much more--not just good-paying jobs but also a growing economy, cash revenues to help with the deficit and national security, and security working with our allies at a critical time, a critical time in Eastern Europe. In addition, I have offered other legislation I filed, that I am now offering as an amendment to this unemployment insurance bill--again, legislation that will create jobs and help people get back to work. The second one I want to mention is the Empower States Act. The Empower States Act gives primary regulatory responsibility to the States when it comes to regulating hydraulic fracturing. The reality is, a Federal one-size-fits-all approach does not work for hydraulic fracturing, because the way hydraulic fracturing is done across this country is different in different States. The way they hydraulically fracture in States, for example, in West Virginia, where they are going after natural gas is very different than the way they do it in North Dakota where we are going after oil. We drill down 2 miles, 2 miles vertical drill bore to reach the oil, and then we drill out for miles at that level. We produce primarily oil and natural gas--huge amounts of natural gas and gas liquids as a byproduct--but we are miles away from any potable water, which is much closer to the surface, so it is very safe. The water that is produced--both the frack water as well as the water that comes up with that oil and natural gas--we put back downhole through saltwater disposal wells, in essence recycling the water. Anything that can't be reused goes back downhole and that creates a recycling process. That is different than the way it is done in the Marcellus shale in places such as New York, Pennsylvania, and it is different than the way it is done in West Virginia and different than the way it is done in the Utica shale in Ohio. There are some similarities with the way it is done in Texas in the Eagle Ford, where they also drill for oil. But the point is, the way this is done, the technologies that are used, even the product we are going after--and certainly the formations are different across the country. When we put a Federal one-size-fits-all approach in place, it doesn't work. Not only does it not do the job in terms of making sure we have the right kind of regulation, it holds up projects. It prevents job creation. It doesn't allow our economy to grow. It doesn't empower us to produce the energy that could be produced across this country with the right approach, with the right energy plan. As far as job creation, our State is now the fastest growing State. We have the lowest unemployment, and we have the fastest growing economy, 7.6 percent in the most recent statistic versus a 2.6-percent average for the other States. Again, this is about creating a growing economy. It is about creating jobs. Also, I am offering the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act legislation I filed as an amendment to this bill. DEJA is a series of bills that has already passed the House. This is all legislation that has already passed the House. So we know if we can get a vote in the Senate, the legislation we can pass in the Senate has already gone through the House. We are already a huge distance on the journey to getting this done. What does the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act do? It does exactly what the title says. It reduces the regulatory burden, it sets goals, it helps us produce more energy and create jobs. For example, we establish an American energy development plan for Federal lands. We have all of these Federal lands--millions and millions of acres of Federal land both onshore and offshore. The Department of Interior should have a plan to develop energy on those public lands, and they should set goals to do so. This legislation would require them to do just that. We freeze and study the impact of EPA rules on gasoline regulations. That benefits all Americans at the pump, not only small businesses that are looking to hire people but families, all consumers. We provide onshore oil and gas leasing certainty, meaning that the Department of Interior has to approve the permits within a stipulated, reasonable period of time. It advances offshore wind production. This is about producing renewable energy as well as traditional energy. It streamlines the permitting process. It provides access to the National Petroleum Reserve for development in Alaska. It requires the BLM to hold live Internet auctions. Let's use this new technology to encourage investment in job creation and energy development in new and creative ways. It establishes rules on surface mining that make sense, commonsense rules. It increases States' revenue sharing for Outer Continental Shelf drilling, offshore drilling, and it also offers lease sales off the Virginia coast. Clearly, developing these new areas creates revenue for the States, creates revenues for the Federal Government, creates more energy for our country, and creates more jobs--not spending Federal money, investing hundreds of billions of private dollars that are currently sidelined in these new and exciting projects. Finally, I am offering the stream buffer rule legislation that I filed as a stand-alone bill. I am offering that as an amendment as well to this UI bill. The Department of Interior wants to implement a Federal one-size-fits-all rule for stream buffer zones, meaning mining proximity to rivers and streams. Again, a one-size-fits-all, one-size Federal approach for every situation does not work. Allow the States to take the primary role in regulating the stream buffer zones and let them do what makes sense. With all of this legislation, we can empower hundreds of billions in private investment. We can put that investment in good old-fashioned American ingenuity into getting our country going, getting our economy growing, and getting our people back to work. We can do it. The way we can get started is simply by voting. That is what we do in the Senate. That is what we do in this Senate forum. Let us put forward our ideas and let's have a vote. If it passes, we can do these things. But why in the world wouldn't we get a vote? That is what this body is all about. Let's have the debate. Come to the floor and let's have a debate. Let's debate each one of these and a lot more. That is what we do. Then let's vote. That is how we will decide. That is what the American people expect us to do. They sent us to the Senate to do just that. The question I have is why aren't we voting on these amendments and a lot more if we are serious about getting people back to work? If somebody wants to come down and refute this, come on down, do it, and then let's vote. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I come to the Senate floor today to address the legislation that we are considering, legislation that will provide economic and diplomatic sanctions to deter Russian aggression and also provide financial assistance in the form of a loan guarantee to the Ukraine to provide financial assistance that will be combined with $15 billion in loan guarantees from the European Union as well as assistance from the International Monetary Fund that can truly make a difference for Ukraine in helping them to stand up to this Russian aggression, while at the same time undertaking sanctions that I believe can be effective in deterring the incursions Russia is making into Ukraine. A very important part of what we do is to be united with the European Union in this effort. For the sanctions to work, for the economic assistance to Ukraine to work, we have to have a united front. We have to work with our allies throughout Europe. But the European Union's ability and willingness to stand with us is greatly impacted by their energy situation. So how do we help? How do we help them address a very difficult situation in energy so that they will stand with us in putting forth the kinds of sanctions that can truly make a difference now? And the time to take action is now. The time to stand up to Russia's action of invading another country unlawfully, taking part of that country, holding an election that is not bona fide, and amassing troops on the border of a country and threatening to make additional incursions into a country--the time to stand up and put sanctions in place that will deter that behavior is now. But the European Union finds itself in a situation where fully one- third if not more of its energy comes from Russia. Half of that is piped through the Ukraine and 50 percent or more of Ukraine's energy comes from Russia as well--specifically, natural gas. So the EU finds itself in a very difficult position when it comes to energy, and obviously that is a very important factor as they deliberate their steps in terms of both sanctions against President Putin and Russia and the activities he has undertaken and may undertake in the future and also in terms of their willingness to stand up and to halt those actions and to assist Ukraine. So as part of this legislation we are considering, we have offered to help provide energy to Europe. The good Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso, was on this floor. He is the prime sponsor of legislation that would help move natural gas in the form of LNG--liquefied natural gas--from this country to Europe. I am a cosponsor of that legislation. We filed that legislation as an amendment to the bill we are considering, and we are asking for a vote on that legislation. I think there would be very strong bipartisan support in this Chamber, and I have no doubt whatsoever that the legislation will pass the House as well. Representative Gardner has introduced the same or very similar legislation on the House side, and there is no question that the support is there to pass the legislation. So as we look this week--and I think we will pass a bill this week-- to both put sanctions on Russia in place and to assist Ukraine, we can add this energy legislation which is an integral piece in helping the EU stand with us in standing up against Russian aggression--very simple, straightforward legislation. What the legislation provides is that for companies in the United States that are willing to build LNG facilities and export liquefied natural gas, which they are prepared to do--and we will expand the countries to which they can export. Right now we have a limitation in terms of the exports. They can go to countries with which we have free- trade agreements, but there are many other countries that we have strategic security interests in that make a huge difference in terms of our security and security in the world, NATO countries, the EU, Ukraine. I understand it would take time to build the facilities and move that product, but there is no question in the near term that if we pass this kind of legislation, we will be sending a very strong signal to world markets and, even more importantly, a very strong signal to President Putin that we are serious about working with the EU to provide energy so that they have sources other than Russia. That strengthens the EU, and it also weakens Russia because Russia is entirely dependent for revenue on their sales of energy. So as we take this step, we not only strengthen our allies, we weaken Russia's ability to make the kinds of incursions they have made into the Ukraine. This is a very straightforward amendment. It has bipartisan support. We are offering it as part of this bill. As we work through the amendment process and we determine the form this bill is going to take--and again, I think there is strong bipartisan support to move this legislation. I believe we can move it this week. I believe we can get agreement to have the votes and to move it this week. But I call on our leadership, I call on the leadership of the majority party in a bipartisan way to come together and give us the opportunity to vote on this amendment. It is part of a commonsense, comprehensive approach to truly deal with the situation in Eastern Europe. In addition, I would like to take a moment to call on the President of the United States to take concrete steps that could make a big difference in the energy equation. The President is negotiating with our NATO allies right now, with the EU, which is now the G7--formerly the G8 but the G7 without Russia--talking about what steps can and should be undertaken to address what Russia has done and may do in the future. On a bipartisan basis, I joined with Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, and on May 21 we wrote a letter to the President calling on him to undertake an energy plan. I would like to take a minute to read that letter on the Senate floor because I think it is a straightforward, commonsense energy plan that the President could undertake right now and show the world and show specifically President Putin that he is serious, that we are serious about working with the EU starting immediately. So it addresses taking short-term steps but undertaking a long-term plan that will ensure that the EU, working with the United States and others--countries such as Norway, which is producing incredible amounts of natural gas in the North Sea--working with countries that can supply natural gas to the EU, that we will end their dependence on Russia. And if Russia continues the kinds of activities it is undertaking, they will find themselves isolated. Dear President Obama. We write to you today because we are deeply concerned with the events unfolding in Ukraine and Crimea that have been instigated and supported by Russia. President Vladimir Putin's aggressive actions and intransigence, and his continued dismissal of U.S. and European Union warnings, is of particular concern. We share your view that tough sanctions from both sides of the Atlantic will be required to provide the necessary motivation to change Putin's behavior, and to enable a diplomatic resolution of this crisis. The sanctions that have been implemented so far are good and appropriate; however, we believe that energy security is a critical component to achieving a successful outcome in the region. Russia provides one-third of Europe's natural gas needs. With Russia in a position to slow or stop gas flowing into much of Europe, Putin retains leverage to continue to dominate European energy markets. Though Russia has publicly committed to maintaining a full supply of gas to Ukraine and Europe, their recent history contradicts those proclamations. In January 2009, Moscow cut its supply of gas flowing through Ukraine, and at least 18 European countries saw their supplies completely or partially reduced. Some governments declared states of emergency and ordered factories and schools to close, while millions of people struggled to cope in freezing temperatures. As long as Vladimir Putin continues to use energy as a weapon, we must take this threat seriously and take this Russian threat off the table. For the first time in a generation, America is in a position to export energy, and acting strategically to increase our natural gas exports accompanied by a more comprehensive U.S.-EU energy security dialogue will weaken Putin's grip on European energy markets. We produce 30 trillion cubic feet of gas a year in the United States. States such as mine are producing incredible amounts. We are flaring off gas we would like to get to markets. This is a winning proposition to the United States. If we provide gas to the EU, that generates economic activity and jobs here and helps strengthen the EU and reduces our dependence on natural gas from Russia. We urge you to take five specific actions that will have near and long term positive impacts on the energy security of Ukraine and the EU. First, direct the Department of Energy to accelerate the natural gas export permit process by approving the pending permits within 60 days, or providing specific reasons why it cannot approve individual permit applications. Though exports would not start immediately, and though the price points in Asian markets are currently more attractive to natural gas exporters, calling for expedited approval of Liquefied Natural Gas exports will increase liquidity on the global markets and will improve the European energy security. Second, conduct a strategic review of U.S. energy policies, and expand the group of nations that currently qualify for U.S. energy exports beyond those with free trade agreements to include our NATO allies, the EU, Ukraine, and any others that are in the national security interest of the United States. It just makes sense. The review could include examining the potential of additional investments of facilities capable of liquefying natural gas. Third, launch a joint U.S.-EU initiative on energy security at next week's-- Meaning this week-- U.S.-EU summit in Brussels, with specific near-term and future deliverables. One area of critical importance to ensure greater energy security in Europe is the natural gas infrastructure. While some European countries such as Lithuania and Austria receive 100 percent of their gas from Russia, others receive far less, and by improving the interconnections, these countries could far more easily direct supplies to one another in case of an outage. One specific fix would be to reverse the flow of gas from Slovakia to Ukraine, a proposal that is under consideration by the European Commission. Additionally, we should assist Ukraine to establish and maintain a high level of security around its strategically significant gas storage facilities in Southern Ukraine. Countries such as Norway--Statoil--can supply more gas. Working cooperatively, we could have an impact right now as well as put a long- term plan in place that sends a very clear message to President Putin that we are going to change the energy equation. Fourth, help Ukraine implement a significant energy productivity initiative. U.S. businesses have developed many off-the-shelf technologies that can greatly reduce energy waste and promote greater efficiency, which will reduce Ukraine's energy needs. This has the potential to greatly reduce the amount of energy required by Ukraine and lessen their dependence on Russia. I was recently in Ukraine. We have many U.S. companies doing business over there. Many of the companies were from my State. I met with 10 CEOs from different companies in Kiev that are doing business throughout Ukraine. There is no question that by working with our companies they can have a major impact on what happens in Ukraine both in terms of conserving energy but also producing more energy, and that goes to the final point. Finally, help Ukraine implement energy development technology to enhance domestic production and promote energy security. We have been contacted by several U.S. companies that are ready to make strategic investments to help Ukraine increase production of their own energy resources to reduce reliance on Russian energy supplies. We urge you to support and encourage the U.S. State Department's Unconventional Gas Technical Engagement program that allows U.S. local and state-level officials to share best practices with European government officials. Already, U.S. oil and gas companies are leading EU countries in shale gas exploration and off-shore exploration in Eastern Europe to help these countries diversify their energy sources. We urge you to use the meetings to encourage more European cooperation to solve their own energy dependency problem. A recent proposal from the United Kingdom provides a series of recommended reforms to the European energy infrastructure. We believe our proposal aligns with the British recommendations will provide a helpful starting point for the discussions next week. The U.S. has a long history of supporting the transatlantic relationship on areas of security and defense, and energy security should be part of that dialogue. We then close the letter saying: We look forward to working with you to implement this plan. Think about it. These are steps the administration can and should take now. There is bipartisan support for energy legislation in this body to back it up and make it happen. I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together as part of an effort to deter Russian aggression, help Ukraine. To help the EU stand strong and united with us, we need to address the energy issue. We can and we should. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I wish to take a moment to commend the Senator from Minnesota on her remarks. She expressed what we feel very strongly in this body. I wish to express both my agreement with her comments as well as the importance of moving this legislation. I believe there is very strong bipartisan support to move this legislation. I think we can get it done this week. Again, I express my appreciation for her words here today and I believe that is exactly the kind of cooperative spirit we need on the part of all 100 Senators to get this done. Now is the time for action. I join with the good Senator from Minnesota in calling for that action. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. This morning I spoke on the floor and I talked about energy. I talked about the need for a States first, all-of-the-above approach to a comprehensive energy plan that will not only produce more energy for our country but will get us to energy independence or energy security within a very short period of time and will also help with environmental stewardship and will help us deploy the technology that will not only produce more energy--and do it in a dependable, cost effective way--but at the same time the same technology as we deploy it will help us produce that energy with better environmental stewardship. That is the right kind of plan for America. We have legislation that I introduced along with my colleagues both on the Republican side of the aisle and the Democratic side of the aisle to accomplish that plan, including a good friend of mine, a Senator from West Virginia, a Democrat. I am a Republican, but we have been able to work together on legislation that will empower hundreds of billions in private investment into the energy sector to produce more energy more cost- effectively, more independently, more efficiently, more reliably, and with better environmental stewardship because it deploys the new technologies that not only will make a difference in this country, but will be adopted by other countries around the globe. That means lower-cost energy. That means more energy, and at the same time better environmental stewardship. That is the right approach. That is the right approach to a comprehensive energy policy. The fact is, we do not just have one bill to do what I am talking about--not just one big, monolithic Federal approach--but rather we have a whole series of bills that would create a step-by-step approach to a comprehensive energy plan for this Nation that would truly create a States first, all-of-the-above approach. That would create more jobs and economic growth. It would create tax revenue to help address our deficit and our debt without raising taxes through economic growth. It would create more domestic energy, and more domestic energy means national security, not being dependent on oil from the Middle East. This country does not want to be dependent on oil from the Middle East and there is no reason that we should be. Together with our closest friend and ally Canada, we can produce more than enough energy for our needs. That means national security, and as I said, with the new technologies and better environmental stewardship. As I said, I put forward legislation with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to accomplish just that. Again, this isn't one big, comprehensive 1,000-page bill that you have to pass to understand what is in it. These are individual bills that are very understandable, that are common sense--legislation that includes approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline. As I said this morning, the administration has been reviewing the Keystone XL Pipeline for more than 5 years. This Congress can approve it, and it should. It includes items such as the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, which has already been passed by the House. It includes a whole series of bills that would help us to develop a strategic, comprehensive plan and goals to make sure we are producing more energy in this country on public lands both onshore and off. The Empower States Act makes sure that States have a primary responsibility for regulating hydraulic fracture. Hydraulic fracturing is enabling us to tap new areas of energy that we never thought we would be able to develop. Coal ash recycling legislation. Together with my good friend from the great State of West Virginia, we have a coal ash recycling bill. This bill not only will help us recycle coal ash for building materials, for building roads, but it will also help make sure that when we landfill coal ash, it is done with good environmental stewardship. That is a win-win. This is something the EPA is working on. They have to have a solution in place by the end of the year, and we have worked with the EPA to actually come up with something that is clear and understandable and works, not only to make the landfill safer but to make sure we can recycle coal ash in a way that reduces the cost of our roads and our buildings. Again, just another commonsense example of what is in the Domestic Fuels Act. The Domestic Fuels Act allows marketers, gas stations, to not only sell oil and gas products but actually makes it easier for them to sell renewable fuel as well--ethanol, biofuels, hopefully hydrogen and other fuels of the future. It makes it easier for them to get permitted and to use the same equipment to sell a whole variety of different types of fuels. What does that mean? That means consumer choice. That means more competition to help bring down the price at the pump. Now this is the same kind of comprehensive plan that we developed in my State of North Dakota. We called our energy plan EmPower ND--EmPower North Dakota. The idea was to unleash all of our energy resources, both traditional and renewable. Our State is now an energy powerhouse for the Nation. The only State that produces more oil for this country now is Texas. We are closing in on a million barrels a day of oil, and producing it in new ways with new techniques that people thought were not possible a few years ago, and with a smaller footprint and better stewardship. That is what the technology does. When you create an environment where you empower the investment, that technology unleashes the energy and does it with better environmental stewardship. We did that as a State, and we can do it as a country. It builds on the very foundation of how our government works. The States in our great country are the laboratories of democracy. What I am proposing is that we also make the States the laboratories of energy development. We do that by giving them the primary role in how they develop energy, how they develop their energy resources and how those energy resources are regulated. So whether it is oil or gas or nuclear or biofuels, hydro, wind, solar, biomass or whatever else may be an area of strength for that State, they decide and they figure out how to develop it. Who will be more concerned about good environmental stewardship than the people who live right there and deal with it every single day? It is a States first, all-of-the-above comprehensive plan for energy development for this country instead of the current approach, an approach where there is too much regulation, taxation, and restriction by big Federal policies. This one-size-fits-all approach is, in fact, preventing investment in energy development in this country. I will give you the Keystone XL Pipeline as a great case in point. There is $5.3 billion in investment and not one penny of Federal spending, but $5.3 billion that has been held on the sideline now for more than 5 years. In 2011 the Chamber of Commerce put forward a study. They cited hundreds of projects across the country totaling hundreds of billions of dollars that were being held up that would create energy and jobs and economic activity for our country. If you think about it, you cannot regulate it. The Federal Government cannot regulate our way to a solution--think about it--even if you put out regulations. If the Obama administration could say, OK, only these kind of energies can be produced and they have to be produced this way--even if that worked in this country, what about the rest of the globe? This is a global issue. So instead of holding up the development and deployment of these new technologies with regulatory barriers, we need to empower that investment. As you empower investment and you produce energy and you deploy new technologies, you get better environmental stewardship. It doesn't happen in just this country. It will happen in other countries too. Why? Because they will adopt the technology we develop. That is how it works. When somebody develops a better technology, then other companies, other countries adopt it. So let me contrast what is going on right now. One of the things I worked on both as a Governor and now here in the Senate is getting the Keystone XL Pipeline approved. It has been more than 5 years--more than 5 years--and the administration still refuses to make a decision. That is defeat by delay, sidelining $5.3 billion of private investment that the administration's own studies show will create jobs. The final environmental impact study produced by the Department of State said that the Keystone XL Pipeline project will create 42,000 jobs without spending a penny of Federal money. The $5.3 billion in private investment would create 42,000 jobs at a time when we need to get the economy growing and creating jobs. It also will create hundreds of millions in revenue that will address the deficit and the debt at the local, State, and Federal level. It will also create hundreds of millions in revenue over many years at a time when we have deficit and debt without raising taxes. It also strengthens national security. There is no question when you go to the public and say: Do we want to get our oil from the Middle East or would we rather get our oil from right here in the United States and Canada, if we can produce it ourselves and get it from Canada, is that what we want or do we want to continue to rely on the Middle East, obviously that is a pretty easy answer, isn't it? In a recent public poll performed last week, March 7, by the Washington Post and ABC, two-thirds of Americans support building the Keystone XL Pipeline and 22 percent oppose. After 5 years and study after study, the administration still can't make a decision. Yet two- thirds of Americans know what we need to do. Two-thirds of the American people say: Build the pipeline. What are you waiting for? Only 22 percent oppose it. The final environmental impact--I believe it is either the fourth or fifth environmental impact study--done by the Obama administration came out and again it showed there was no significant environmental impact. That was released at the end of January. The inspector general's report that was released at the end of February said there was no conflict of interest by the company hired to do the environmental impact statement. Yet still we wait. There is still no decision. So you wonder why. You look at our economy and you say: Why isn't our economy growing faster? Why isn't our economy stronger? Why isn't unemployment going down? Why is there so much investment capital sidelined? Why aren't businesses growing? Why aren't small businesses growing? Why aren't small businesses across the country hiring people? Then we see regulations which are holding up approvals for more than 5 years. Maybe that is the answer. America has always been the place where everybody came to do business because it was easier to do business. As a result our economy has always been the greatest economy in the world. When we have a government that can't even make a decision on a regulatory approval to approve a project billions of dollars after its own agency has come out time and time and time again and said there is no reason not to go forward, maybe that is the problem. Obviously the people of this country know that. That is why when you go out and ask them a commonsense question, they give you a commonsense answer: Build the pipeline. We listened to the arguments about how we can't build the pipeline because of CO2 emissions because using oil from the oil sands in Alberta, Canada, will create CO2. The reality is--and as the environmental impact study done by the State Department clearly shows--you have more CO2 emissions without the pipeline than you do building it. How does that make sense? How does it make sense to hold it up on the basis of CO2 emissions when you have more CO2 emissions without the pipeline than with it? Of course the net result is instead of having the energy come to the United States, it goes to China. And what do we do? We keep importing oil from the Middle East. What I am talking about is commonsense legislation. That was just one example. I can give you others. Earlier this year we passed a bill I put forward with other Members. It is the BLM bill, Bureau of Land Management streamlining bill. It is a simple, commonsense bill. It simply says BLM offices can work across State lines. For example, the BLM office in Miles City, MT, can work across the State line in North Dakota. That just makes sense because we have so much oil activity in our State. Not only can they work in our State, they can also work on the reservation. We have the three affiliated tribes reservations: Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara. It is a very large reservation in our State with incredible oil activity, but they have to get all these regulatory permits to drill wells too, and the Bureau of Land Management could not keep up in our State or on the reservation. Now they can bring their people from other offices in to help. When we look at this, it is not just about producing more energy, is it? That is a simple, commonsense act which we passed in both this Chamber and the House. It is now law. It not only helps us produce more energy in our States, such as North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, and other places, but it also helps our reservations. We now have activity on the three affiliated tribes' reservations. They have tremendous employment and tremendous growth. They are getting revenue from their oil wells that they can use for social programs to help needy families, to pay for education, and to use for roads and vital infrastructure. Tomorrow--along with Senator Barrasso and Senator Enzi of Wyoming--we will introduce another similar bill that makes it easier to build gas- gathering systems both on reservations and off. Instead of flaring off gas at the wellhead site, you are able to build gathering systems and get that gas to pipelines and get it to market and use it. Again, that is not just about producing more energy; that is an example of better environmental stewardship. By putting these commonsense measures into place, we create economic activity and more energy, but as I said from the outset, we get better environmental stewardship. I mentioned that the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act is part of that comprehensive plan to have the States first all-of-the-above energy approach for our country; that legislation will help us produce more energy both onshore and offshore on our public lands. Again, that is good for all the reasons I have identified but think about it in this context too: By producing more energy on public lands, we will also create more revenue for the Federal Government. Without raising taxes, we create more revenue for the Federal Government. That is important to address our deficit and our debt. We have something else coming up that we are going to have to find a revenue source for; that is, a highway bill. In September the highway bill expires, and we are going to have to have a highway bill. We want a 5-year highway bill that is a very strong, well-funded highway bill to address the infrastructure needs in this country. Whether you talk to Republicans or Democrats in this Chamber, they will tell you we need to address infrastructure across this country. In order to address infrastructure, we have to have a way to pay for it. How are we going to pay for it? How are we going to pay for that next highway bill? Right now the trust fund doesn't have the money to do it, so we are going to have to find a source. How about we tap into more energy on our Federal lands onshore and offshore? Without raising taxes, we have a revenue source so we can actually pass a 5-year highway bill. That is a long-term revenue source that we can actually use to fund the highway bill and address the infrastructure in this country. It is about more than energy. This commonsense approach to building an energy plan for our country--and again it is not that big 1,000- page, one-size-fits-all Federal approach where everybody has to do the same thing. It is a step-by-step process to build a comprehensive plan that empowers the States to build on their strengths and make things happen. We can do it. It has all of those benefits. As I mentioned earlier, it even comes down to our national security. I will close on this point: Think about what is happening in Western Europe. We have a situation where Russia--President Putin has decided he is going to invade Ukraine and he is going to take Crimea and put it under Russian rule and maybe more. We will see. So what do we do? What does the European Union do? One of the decisions the European Union has to address is the energy situation. They are asking: What is the energy situation in Europe? Right now 30 percent of the natural gas the European Union utilizes comes from Russia and half of that goes through Ukraine. It is a particularly acute issue for West Germany. What do they do? Are they going to be willing to get tough with Putin when they are dependent on Russia for their natural gas for their energy? What decision do they make? The same thing for our country: What decisions do we make when we continue to get our oil from places such as the Middle East and Venezuela? We say no to getting oil from Canada and force our closest friend and ally to turn to exporting that oil to China. How do we deal with China? How are we dealing in that situation with our allies, such as Canada, that want to work with us, and how are we dealing with countries that have different interests than we do? All of these things tie together to a good energy plan and a good energy policy. We all want better environmental stewardship, but we want solutions. The American people want solutions. They want commonsense, real solutions to address these problems. We put forward an approach that can make a big difference for our country, and I call on my colleagues to join with me and to work to put that in place for the good of our country today and for future generations. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I ask the Chair for 2 minutes.

Mr. HOEVEN. Thank you, Madam President. Last night the majority party had an all-night session talking about energy, but there is no specific proposal coming forward. We are here ready to vote to do our job representing the American people and actually craft a plan, a comprehensive energy plan for this country that works. Since we didn't hear one last night, I thought I would come today and propose one. I would like to propose a States-first all-of-the-above energy plan. This isn't new. This is a plan I proposed along with others, my good colleague from South Dakota, my good colleague from Wyoming who was just here, and others. This is a comprehensive approach, a bipartisan approach, and actually specific legislation, a number of bills that will create a comprehensive plan to not only produce more energy for our country but to create more jobs, to grow our economy, to help expand our tax base, so we can reduce the deficit and the debt without raising taxes and, maybe most importantly of all, actually providing national security so we do not have to import oil from the Middle East--a specific action plan with legislation drafted and introduced that, instead of talking about it here on the Senate floor, let's do it. Let's start voting. Let's pass it. Let's put solutions in place for the American people. Now this is not one big monolithic one-size-fits-all Federal plan, Federal approach. Instead, it is a series of bills sponsored, as I say, by Members on both sides of the aisle that would truly create a States- first, all-of-the-above energy approach. It includes measures such as my good colleague from South Dakota just said. Let's approve the Keystone Pipeline. The administration has been working on it for 5 years. Maybe they are going to work on it for another 5 years. I don't know. Well, let's approve it here in Congress. Let's act. Another bill, the Dominion Energy and Jobs Act, is a bill I introduced that has already been passed by the House. It is a series of 13 different pieces of legislation that would help us produce more energy in this country both onshore and off. The Empower States Act is another piece of legislation I put forward that would address hydraulic fracturing which is unleashing new areas of energy production in our country, or the coal ash recycling bill, that not only would help us recycle coal ash, but provide better standards to make sure that we are storing ash that is recycled in environmentally sound ways, addressing a problem that EPA is working on, and has to come up with a solution by the end of the year. We work with the EPA to come up with a commonsense solution that also encourages recycling coal ash to use on highways and buildings and other construction, and for other construction purposes. There is the Domestic Fuels Act, which is another piece of legislation that not only helps us market traditional fuels at the pump, such as traditional oil and gas products, but also renewable fuels, such as biofuels, biodiesel, ethanol, hydrogen, other types of energy that we are working to develop--renewable fuels. Let's make it easier to give consumers choice at the pump and more competition that will help reduce their costs. This is the same kind of comprehensive plan that we developed in North Dakota when I was Governor. I was a Governor there for 10 years. We developed a plan that we called EmPower North Dakota, and of course the whole idea was to unleash the energy resources of our State--all of our resources. I am not just talking about oil and gas--traditional sources of energy--but all traditional and renewable energy that have truly made our State an energy powerhouse for the country. We did it at the State level, and we can do it at the national level. So how does it work? Quite simply, it empowers States to build on their relative strengths. It does so by giving them the primary role, or the primary responsibility, in terms of regulating energy development and growth in their State. That may be oil, gas, nuclear, biofuels, hydro, wind, solar, biomass or whatever else may be an area of strength or expertise for their respective State.

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Presiding Officer. If you think about it, it builds on the very foundation and very concept of how our country works. The United States is the laboratory of democracy. The States are the laboratories of democracy. Let's make them the laboratories of energy development in this country. Why not? Let's make them the laboratories of energy development in this country, whether it is Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota or Wyoming. You name it. Different places have different strengths. When it comes to producing energy, let's empower them to produce the type of energy that works best in their respective State. It is bipartisan, it is inclusive, and it includes not only the Federal Government, but it includes the Federal Government in a way where they are working with the States and building on the very strength of our country. I know my time is limited. I will be back later today to talk about it some more. I want to leave with this point: It is not just about energy. It is about better environmental stewardship because we unleash the very investment that drives and deploys the new technology that produces more energy and does so with a better environmental stewardship. It is about a growing economy that creates revenues without raising taxes to help address the deficit and debt. It creates good-paying jobs that we need in this country. It is also about national security. Think about what is going on in Europe right now. Is the European Union going to join with us and impose sanctions on Russia? Are they? Do they have the will or are they concerned that 30 percent of all of the natural gas that goes to Europe comes from Russia and half of it goes through the Ukraine? Are they so concerned about their energy future that they are not willing to stand with us to do the things we need to do to make sure that an aggressor like Russia doesn't invade another sovereign country? So energy is very much about national security, and we can be energy secure in this country in very short order with the right approach. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the Iran sanctions legislation, but first I want to talk about the veterans legislation we are on, and why it is so important that we include the Iran sanctions provision. I believe we all want to make sure we take care of our veterans. We will have on the floor two bills today which deal with our veterans, one offered by Senator Sanders of Vermont and another offered by Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina. I am asking the majority leader to allow an open process so we can craft a good bill for our veterans. This means allowing amendments. This means allowing a vote on both bills. I believe that with an open process--with an open amendment process, by allowing votes as I have described--we can in fact build the kind of bipartisan support, the kind of bipartisan consensus we need to pass this legislation. There are provisions in the bills which I think have broad bipartisan support, which is why it is so important we have this open process. One such provision which can help us build that kind of bipartisan support is the Iran sanctions provision in the legislation. It is sponsored by Democratic Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey and also Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, and it is cosponsored by 57 other Senators, including myself. So we are talking about a piece of legislation within the Burr bill which has 59 Senators cosponsoring the legislation. If this legislation is put on the floor included as part of the Burr bill, it is pretty much guaranteed we can pass it. It has 59 cosponsors. If we pick up one more vote, we pass the bill. It is good for our veterans and it is also very important for our national security. Let me talk about the Iran sanction provision for a minute. Right now the Obama administration is trying to negotiate an agreement with Iran to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, and while the administration is negotiating, Iran continues to develop its nuclear weapon. While President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry negotiate with President Hassan Rouhani, Iran continues to build a nuclear bomb. While the administration and our Secretary of State talk with our allies in Europe about the negotiations with Iran, the Supreme Leader and Iran continue to build a nuclear bomb. The reality is the only thing which has brought Iran to the negotiating table is sanctions and only continuing those sanctions will get them to stop building a bomb. The sanctions should be reinstated, and they should not be lifted until, one, Iran agrees they will not build a bomb, and we have an open, verifiable transparent process to make certain they are not doing so. Sanctions take time to work. The sanctions we applied more than 1 year ago--particularly the Kirk-Menendez banking sanctions--have had a real impact on Iran's economy. I bring a background as a banker to my work experience, both as a Governor for 10 years, and my work experience here in the Senate. The reality is that the Kirk-Menendez banking sanctions have been extremely effective. It is a well-crafted piece of bipartisan legislation which passed this body overwhelmingly, which is really effective. The reason it is so effective is because it prevents any company, any country which wants to do business with the U.S. banking system--and countries and companies worldwide have to be able to transact with the U.S. banking system, but they are not allowed to transact with our banking system if they also do business with Iran. If Iran can't sell its oil because it can't get paid for its oil, they are in a very tough situation. Not only do they not have the resources or the funds to build a bomb, their administration--the regime--does not have the money to operate their country. So we not only prevent them from building a bomb, but we put the regime itself at risk if they continue to build a bomb. That is why the Kirk-Menendez sanctions--those banking sanctions--have been so effective. But they work over time. They work over time. When the sanctions are lifted, the relief is immediate, the relief is immediate because now Iran can sell and get payment for their oil. They can purchase what they need, not only to continue to build a bomb but to keep their country and keep the regime in power. When we are talking about sanctions and negotiating an agreement to get them to stop building a bomb, it is important that we have a process that is open, transparent, and verifiable. We need to know that they have stopped building the bomb and are dismantling their nuclear weapons enterprise. It is very important to understand that sanctions work over time, but when sanctions are lifted, the relief is immediate. That is why we cannot lift sanctions while we negotiate the agreement. We have to get Iran to stop first and give us a process to verify that, in fact, they have stopped before we can lift those sanctions. We have the opportunity in this body right here, right now, today, to address that problem. It is incredibly important that we do address this issue. We have 59 sponsors on the legislation. We are one short. If you put it up for a vote, we will have well more than 60 votes. If we impose those sanctions now, we will tell Iran: You stop, and we make them stop. That is the option before us today. That is what we need to do. If we don't do it, what are our options? A military strike? That is the last option. That is what we don't want to have to do. We don't want to have to do a military strike to take out their bomb-making capability. But if we don't act and reimpose those sanctions, that is the option that is left. Today we have a choice. I ask that we be allowed to vote on the Burr legislation, that we be allowed to vote on amendments, and that we be allowed to vote to reimpose sanctions on Iran. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I see the good Senator from New Mexico is here. I am willing to defer to the Senator if time is an issue for him. If it is not, I will proceed.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I ask to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to speak on the issue of the military COLA. This is a cost-of-living adjustment for our military retirees. In the budget agreement, the COLA was reduced for military retirees by 1 percent until they reached age 62, and then the COLA is restored. I am opposed to this provision in the budget, and I have since cosponsored legislation to fix it, meaning fully reinstating the COLA for our military retired. The bill we are considering and voting on later today fixes the COLA problem. It reinstates the COLA in full, and that is good. That is what I want to do, and that is what I believe the vast majority of Members in this body on both sides of the aisle want to do. We should pass the bill, and I believe this afternoon we will. The bill we have been considering this week fixed the COLA problem and restored the cost-of-living adjustment for our military retirees, but it did not cover the cost of doing so. The cost of the legislation is about $6.8 billion over a 10-year period, which, of course, is the Congressional Budget Office's scoring period. We can cover that cost, and we should. We have the deficit and the debt. We have to address our deficit and debt. We have to make sure we are paying for things, and we can absolutely do that in this case. In fact, we put forward amendments to do just that. The first amendment I joined in putting forward was one led by Senator Kelly Ayotte, the Senator from New Hampshire. Her amendment fully covers the cost of fixing the COLA. The way it works is it covers the cost by simply requiring that the additional child tax credit statute is properly enforced. I will explain that. This amendment will require families with children who apply for the additional child tax credit must have Social Security numbers for those children. This is a simple straightforward enforcement provision to ensure the law is followed. Why wouldn't we make sure the law is enforced? After all, I believe that is an important part of our job. In fact, I also believe the Treasury Department supports this enforcement provision as well, and I would wish to cite from a recent inspector general's report. In 2011, the Treasury Department's Inspector General reported that individuals who were not authorized to work in the U.S. received billions by claiming the ACTC, and several news investigations found troubling instances of abuse of this tax credit. In just one example, according to a 2012 news report, an undocumented worker in Indiana admitted that his address was used to file tax returns by four other undocumented workers who fraudulently claimed 20 children in total--resulting in tax refunds totaling nearly $30,000. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this change would save approximately $20 billion over 10 years. That is $20 billion in savings over 10 years, which obviously far more than covers the $6.8 billion cost of the COLA fix we are putting forward. Clearly that works. I understand we have not been able to get bipartisan agreement on this pay-for, so we need to find something we can agree on because we need both Republicans and Democrats to pass this legislation to fix the COLA, and that is why I have since offered another pay-for. It is a simple 1-page amendment that provides a pay-for for restoring the cost- of-living adjustment for our military retirees. What it does is it simply extends the provisions of the Budget Control Act--the budget we passed--for one more year, from 2023 to 2024. I am pleased to say we will be voting on my amendment this afternoon--not because I have offered the amendment but, rather, because the leadership has agreed to offer the House version of the COLA fix. The legislation we will be voting on this afternoon has the pay-for I have just outlined. It is not identical to the amendment I have submitted, but it is very close to it. It ensures our military retirees will receive their much-deserved retirement. I have urged my Republican colleagues in our caucus to fix this problem, and I have urged my Democratic colleagues on the Senate floor to fix this problem. I believe we will fix the cost-of-living adjustment in a bipartisan way today and restore it for our military retirees. This amendment will make sure we pay for it so we are not increasing the deficit or the debt. As a former Governor and now as a Senator, I have had the honor and privilege to work with our military men and women. I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan. I have gotten the calls when one of our heroes makes the ultimate sacrifice. I know they put it all on the line for us. Today I ask my fellow Senators to join with me and vote for our men and women in uniform. We need to fix the COLA for our military retired. We should support those great men and women who wear the uniform and honor and protect us and serve this Nation in the cause of liberty and freedom with their dedicated service. Join with me and support them and vote for this legislation. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, it is interesting that I follow our minority leader who spoke about the Keystone XL Pipeline issue, as well as the chairman of the agriculture committee in the Senate, the esteemed Senator from Michigan Ms. Stabenow, who has done such a marvelous job of leading the farm bill. The role of Congress is to govern. The people of this great country-- more than 300 million people, and the country that leads the world-- send us here to govern. To govern, we have to join together on a bipartisan basis to get something done. Solutions, by their nature-- particularly solutions to complex problems--are never perfect. There are no perfect solutions. But we are elected to join together, Republicans and Democrats, and solve problems; to put together solutions, although not perfect, that will meet the challenges this great Nation faces. Regarding energy, I echo the sentiments of the minority leader. I have worked on the Keystone project for more than 5 years now, first as a Governor and now as a Senator, and we have tremendous bipartisan support on that project and we need to move forward. The minority leader is right on point. I come today to talk about what I believe we are on the cusp of moving forward on, something we have worked on very hard, particularly these last 2 years, and that is the farm bill. I wish to begin by thanking and commending the Senator from Michigan who is the chairman of the Senate agriculture committee, who has worked with unbelievable dedication and who has truly shown the spirit of bipartisanship I am speaking about. So I begin by thanking our chairman Senator Stabenow, who has worked with Democrats and Republicans. She has continually reached across the aisle not only to her ranking member, the good and senior Senator from Mississippi Mr. Cochran, but also to our counterparts in the House, including Representative Frank Lucas, who is the chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the House, and Representative Collin Peterson, who is the minority member in the House. One is from Oklahoma and one is from Minnesota. So north and south, east and west, across this great country, Republicans, Democrats, Senators and House Members, and our chairman have worked to fashion a product that truly is a compromise but which is a vital solution we need to put in place and we need to put it in place now for our farmers and ranchers. I will begin with this chart, and I have to say it is the only one I brought. It is the same chart I am going to end up with. I am going to talk about the farm bill for a few minutes, but here is why a farm bill is so important. It is not just that it is so important to our farmers and ranchers; it is important to every single American and beyond, for these simple reasons: The farmers and ranchers we have in this country produce the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world--the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world. That is what we are talking about. When we talk about good farm policy, we are talking about something that benefits every single American every single day. Somebody can say, Oh, well, gee, we don't need a farm bill. Don't worry about the farm bill; just let the farmers and ranchers do it the way they do and we will see what happens. Really? That is what we should do? We should take a chance on not having the kind of sound farm program we have now, when we have the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world, in the history of the world, that benefits every single American every single day? We should say, Oh, let's not worry about that; let's just let it go and see what happens? I don't think that is a very good argument. So let's talk about this farm bill that is so important to every single American. Sixteen million jobs in this country, either directly or indirectly, rely on agriculture. We have a favorable balance of trade in agriculture, and we have a net worth of farmers and ranchers across this country who do an amazing job every single day. I am going to start out by talking about the fact that we actually saved money. We saved more than $23 billion. So think about it. Here is a mandatory spending program where we strengthen the farm program, we improve it, we make it more cost-effective, and we save $23 billion to reduce the deficit and the debt. How about we go through every other program in government and see how we make it better and reduce spending. Because when we do that, then we will have done what we are talking about here with the farm bill. It seems like a good idea. I see the good Senator from Montana on the floor and the Senator from South Dakota as well as the esteemed Senator from Michigan, and they will tell us the same. Here we are reforming a mandatory spending program and we are reducing the cost while strengthening the program. It seems like what we ought to be doing. I know some folks will come here today and say, Gee, it could be better because of this or that, or we should have done this or that, and go right back into the same old gridlock and, I guess, argue for having yet another extension on a farm bill that expired over a year ago and should have been done a long time ago. We provide a better program with savings of more than $23 billion to help reduce the deficit and the debt. What did we focus on in this bill to make it more cost-effective and to make it better? As our chairman on the agriculture committee said, we eliminate direct payments. People want to talk about reforms. We eliminate direct payments for the first time in a long time--more than $50 billion in direct payments--and we replace it with something that is much more cost-effective. We replace it with strengthened crop insurance so that farmers and ranchers can insure like other small businesses across this country to manage risk, even though they operate in an environment where they certainly can't control the risks. When we talk about weather, whenever we are putting in a crop and then waiting to see what the weather will be, that is a very difficult proposition. So we worked with them on crop insurance so they can try to insure the same way other types of businesses insure. That is much more cost- effective than the old direct payments. As our chairman said a minute ago, those direct payments were going out good years and bad, whether farmers and ranchers needed them or not. Now it is insurance, the way other businesses work. We give them an option. We give them a countercyclical program called the price loss coverage that works on a countercyclical basis. So if times are tough, if prices are low, if they need help, they get help. And if times are good and prices are high and they have a good crop, they do not get help. That is cost effective. We have tried to design it so we generate real savings--more than $23 billion--but if it works as we hope, it will generate more savings so we will continue to have the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world, continue to support a growing job base--16 million and growing--continue to help us in our balance of trade by creating a favorable balance of trade for this country in agriculture, and we hope with the reforms made we will continue to help reduce the deficit and the debt. We also provide strong support for livestock. I think perhaps the Senator from South Dakota will tell you about a terrible storm that occurred earlier this winter. This has been a tough winter across the country. But for livestock producers out in the Midwest--in South Dakota, in my home State of North Dakota, and other areas--thousands and thousands of cattle were killed in an early blizzard. We provide help and support for those cattlemen. We continue to provide other programs that will help them market not only here in our country but overseas, to continue to build that favorable balance of trade for our country. In the dairy program--and it was very important to get agreement in the House; this is yet another example of how the conferees had to work to strike the right balance between what everybody wanted, Republican and Democrat, to come up with a program we could get support on--there is no supply management in the dairy program. It helps our smaller dairy producers with an insurance type product, and the cost of the premium increases with higher levels of production by the dairy producers. So it is designed the way that I think everybody should feel is a fair basis, where, again, when our smaller dairy producers need help, it is there, but it is cost effective and it is done without supply management. The conservation title--again, the Senator from Michigan talked about the importance of conservation--is an example where we had disagreement. Right. This goes to the heart of what is in this farm bill. Here is an example--as I have said, our chairman did a marvelous job on the ag committee, working with our ranking member and everyone else--on conservation, I have to say, I had some different ideas than what is in the final compromise bill. I felt that crop insurance and conservation should have remained decoupled. But they are not. They are coupled in the final product. But, to make things work, again we sought and found compromise. We made changes in the bill that truly make the conservation provisions much more farmer friendly. What do I mean by that? I mean it is not retroactive. It is forward looking. The conservation rules in the bill apply going forward. They do not go back retroactively to the start of the last farm bill. That is very important. You cannot put people in a situation where they are being forced to go out and change their farm or ranch on a retroactive basis. That is also very important. Another provision we were able to include in the report language is mitigation. Farmers and ranchers do a tremendous job on conservation. I love to hunt and I love to fish. My wife likes to fish even more. But when I am out there hunting, I see what is going on, I see who is taking care of the land and making sure the water is there, the cover is there, the food is there for wildlife--deer, birds. For any conservation program to be truly effective, you have to enlist the farmers' and ranchers' support so the conservation community and farmers and ranchers are working together in a way that works for those individuals, those business people, those families, those farmers and ranchers who are out there making their living. Every day they are out there. They are not just out there once in a while. They are not just out there sometimes, as I am when I go out hunting. They are out there all the time making it work. So these provisions have to work for them. That is why when we talk mitigation, the mitigation rules have to work for the people who own the land--the farmers and ranchers. That is why we have worked to include language that makes sure USDA is focused on an acre-for-acre approach, as long as there is reasonable and commensurate value, and we set up a fund to help them do that. I think we achieved a good result. All of the wildlife groups, the conservation groups, and the hunting groups are on board. They are endorsing this bill. Even the NRA is endorsing this bill. There is strong support from conservation groups, from hunting groups, fishing groups, wildlife groups. But at the same time, I think we have provisions that truly make it farmer friendly so that it works for our farmers and our ranchers. I know that was something we had to work on very hard to get to but is vitally important. The bill has a strong energy title. We included and, in fact, strengthened the beginning farmer and the beginning rancher provisions. I want to end on reform. Clearly, with our debt and deficit, it is vitally important we find ways to achieve savings. So as we go through all the discretionary spending programs--which is one-third of the Federal budget--we have to find savings. We are working to do that. Since I have been here, we have reduced discretionary spending from $1.35 trillion to roughly $1 trillion. Since the beginning of 2011-- discretionary spending at that time was $1.35 trillion--this year and next year, it will be about $1 trillion. So you can see we have reduced discretionary spending about 35 percent--and over this 5-year stretch-- and that is without counting inflation. But two-thirds of the government is mandatory spending. Two-thirds is mandatory spending programs. So we have to find ways to make revisions so we protect and preserve the programs that are vital to us, such as Medicare and Social Security, but we also have to find ways to take these mandatory programs and find savings and reforms as we do here in this farm bill. So when we talk about eliminating direct payments, when we talk about payment limitations that for the first time apply to everything, whether you are getting the ARC program--the ag risk coverage--or the price loss coverage program, as in your farming operation, whether it is the marketing loan program, your total payments cannot exceed $125,000. That is the first time we have had a cap that applies to everything. Right. We have had caps before, but they did not apply to everything. That is a real reform. You are going to hear others come down and say: Well, gee, it should have been better. It should have been like this. But I am telling you, we have not had one that applied to everything before where you truly had a cap. So when we talk about eliminating direct payments, when we talk about a cap that applies to everything, that is a real reform. Furthermore, we have an AGI limit--adjusted gross income limit--that also applies to everything for the first time, just like the payment limit. Right now, if you make $900,000 or more, you do not get any program assistance. Before, again, it did not apply across the board. That is real reform. I think in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--where we knew it would be tough to come up with a compromise--clearly, there were differences of opinion on each side of the aisle and between the Senate and the House. Here again, I commend the leaders of our conference committee--Senator Stabenow, Senator Cochran, Representative Lucas, and Representative Peterson--and the members of the conference committee. There was a lot of work to do in this conference committee. To get an agreement on food stamps, on SNAP, supplemental nutrition assistance payments, was no small effort or accomplishment. Again, like all compromises, if you look at it, it really is fair to both sides. The compromise itself--based on the reforms we made in LIHEAP and getting the States to truly make sure we do not have waste, fraud, and abuse, but that people who need help get help--we have truly strengthened those provisions. The scoring by CBO is about an $8 billion reduction. But again, we get our economy going. These kinds of reforms will generate more savings while still ensuring people who need help get help. If you look at that number, then it is very close to what the Senate said they had to have. So for those who are in that camp, they should feel this is a bill they can support. That is a fair compromise. On the House side, where clearly there was a desire to have a significantly larger number, if you look at this as a two-step process, where you take the savings that come out of expiration of the stimulus program-- where there was about $11 billion in savings--and combine it with the reforms we made here--the $11 billion and the $8 billion; $19 billion-- that was $20 billion. That was close to the House's original number. Like all good compromises, it is fair and it does seek to get the kind of reforms that I think the American public wants to make sure there is not waste, fraud, or abuse in the Food Stamp Program, but for those who need help, they get that help. Again, I commend not only the leadership in the ag committee but also the leadership in the House and the Senate for recognizing that it is time to put a solution in place for the American people. Again, no solution is perfect. But we cannot continue to operate with an expired policy that not only does not give our farmers and ranchers the certainty they need to continue to produce the highest quality, lowest cost food supply, which benefits every single American, but where we do not achieve the very savings and reforms that we have been sent here by the American people to achieve. So it is time to vote. We will vote on this farm bill. There was a very strong vote in the House--250 to 160--a strong bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle. The Senate needs to step up now and put this solution in place for the American people. With that, I yield the floor.