John Hoeven

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for joining me this afternoon. Today we are introducing the Driver Privacy Act. I am very pleased to sponsor that legislation with the good Senator from Minnesota. We have a great group that has joined us as we introduce this bill today. This is all about protecting people's privacy in regard to their automobile. Every automobile that will be made going forward, over 90 percent, and something like 96 percent of the automobiles made now have a black box. This is actually silver, but we call it a black box because it is an event data recorder. It records information about your automobile. Ninety-six percent, I think, of automobiles made now have them, but the U.S. Department Of Transportation is requiring this year that every vehicle have an event data recorder in it. The Senator from Minnesota and I believe that should be the owner's information and that information should not be released without the owner's consent. We already have a good group who have joined us in the endeavor, including an equal number of Republicans and Democrats: Senator Johanns from Nebraska, Senator Angus King from Maine, Senator Kirk from Illinois, Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, Senator Saxby Chambliss from Georgia, Senator Michael Bennet from Colorado, Senator Roy Blunt from Missouri, Senator Mazie Hirono from Hawaii, Senator Johnny Isakson from Georgia, Senator Mark Begich from Alaska, Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah, and Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon. It is absolutely an equal number of Republicans and Democrats from across the United States have joined together, recognizing people are concerned about their privacy and we need to make sure their privacy is protected. I would like to make a few further introductory comments with the help of these charts and then turn to my colleague from Minnesota for her comments as well. We have seen with the NSA, with the IRS, with the Affordable Care Act, and with a whole range of issues that people believe what is going on, not only in government but with technology, is that their privacy is at risk these days and it is very much a concern. Many people do not realize that this event data recorder is in their car. It records all kinds of information, and in fact the Federal Government is requiring that this device be in their car. Neither is there a limitation on the amount of data that the device can record nor is there a law that protects individuals' privacy to make sure the owner of the car decides who gets that information, other than under very specific circumstances which I will take a minute to go through. What kind of data gets recorded by your event data recorder, this black box that is included in your car? There are more than 45 different data points that are in fact recorded right now. Again, the manufacturer can change this--add to it. There are no limitations or restrictions or guidelines or requirements on what manufacturers can have the event data recorder do. Right now it records things like speed, braking, engine, seatbelt usage, driver information, passenger information, steering, airbags, and crash details. As I say, at this point the manufacturer determines what goes into that black box in terms of what its capabilities are. Just to give a sense, if you delve further, for example, engine--just pick one here: ``Number of times engine was started since being manufactured prior to a crash.'' Obviously the idea here with the event data recorder is that it provides information just like an event data recorder on an airplane. In the event of a crash, it provides information about the accident. It is recording this information in a loop on a continuous basis, and it retains it for a short period of time and constantly updates it. For example, for your engine, it can record the number of times the engine was started since being manufactured prior to a crash. It can record the number of times the engine was started since being manufactured prior to the EDR data download that is taken in case the box is removed and the information is taken and there isn't a crash. It can record how fast the engine was running. That is just 1 of the 45 data points, but it shows the kind of information that is recorded and can be extracted from the black box. So what does our legislation do? It is very simple and very straightforward. The Driver Privacy Act provides that the data from your EDR in your car cannot be extracted or taken by another party other than under very specific circumstances, and that means it cannot be done without your consent unless it is authorized by a court of law or the information is retrieved pursuant to NHTSA, which is the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, recall or the information is needed in the event of a medical emergency, essentially unless there is some kind of recall on the car--and then they can't disclose any data about you as an individual. It is macrodata. But other than that, without your consent, that information can only be taken from you by a court of law or in the event of a medical emergency, and that is done, obviously, for the very reason you have the black box in the car--safety, right? Law enforcement might be getting it pursuant to a court order. They can't just take it; they have to have a court order. If you are in a car accident and they need that information because of a medical emergency, then there is a special condition to take it. In developing these, we were very careful to work both with the organizations that advocate privacy as well as the automobile dealers, the insurance industry, and law enforcement. We consulted with stakeholders, such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Heritage, AAA, the Auto Alliance, the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Again, we wanted to make sure the law enforcement issues were covered as well as the ACLU. We have a broad and diverse group that has been consulted and that we have worked with in putting together this information. Fourteen States have their own laws on this issue. I have highlighted the 14 different States that have passed laws that, in fact, assure you that this information is your information and cannot be taken from you without your consent other than through a court order or in the case of a medical emergency. But when you leave your State and you are driving in another State, you are no longer protected. So even though 14 States have stepped up and said: Yes, this is something we need to do--in fact, it was something we did when I was Governor in my State. Not only are the other States not protected, but you are not protected either when you drive outside your State, which all of us do on many occasions. So that is why we need a Federal law. The reality is this technology is evolving and developing. This technology is going to continue to develop with all kinds of other aspects--obviously now we have GPS--and all the different things that are being done with automobiles. In many cases these are things people want, but they need to know their privacy is protected, and that is what we are doing here. We are doing it in a way that we made sure we continue to assure law enforcement, first responders, and manufacturers that the safety issues are being dealt with, and at the same time assure American citizens and consumers that their privacy rights are being respected and protected as required under the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution. With that, I will turn to my esteemed colleague from Minnesota and again thank her and her staff for the work they have done on this bill. With her background in law enforcement, she truly understands the issues and has been invaluable in putting this legislation together. Again, I thank her and ask her for her comments.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I thank Senator Klobuchar for joining me on this legislation and working to develop a great group of 14 original cosponsors. Senator Klobuchar brings such a great background as a prosecutor in the law enforcement industry and truly understands law enforcement issues, safety issues, and the informational benefits there are with not only event data recorders, but also understands the need to protect individual privacy. As I think we both said very clearly here on the Senate floor, this is a technology that is new and evolving. It is not just that this is a new and evolving technology where new capabilities are being added all the time, we don't know what additional capabilities will be added. But now the Federal Government is requiring that this device be in every single automobile made. So when the Federal Government--the U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, the safety branch--steps up and says: OK, we are going to require this device to be in every single car, we need to make sure we are also providing the privacy that goes with it that assures our citizens that their Fourth Amendment rights will be protected. Again, I think the Senator from Minnesota makes a really great point that when we look at some of these areas in terms of whether it is NSA, IRS, or other areas, people feel there wasn't enough work done on the front end to protect their personal privacy, so we are in a catchup situation. Let's not do that when every single citizen across this country owns or their family owns or has access to some type of automobile. That is what we are trying to do. Again, as the technology develops we need to understand what the ramifications are and how to protect privacy. I think, on behalf of both of us, we are appreciative that we have 14 Senators engaged already, and we look to add, and we are open to ideas on making sure this is the right kind of legislation that addresses safety but ultimately protects the privacy of our citizens.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for joining me this afternoon. Today we are introducing the Driver Privacy Act. I am very pleased to sponsor that legislation with the good Senator from Minnesota. We have a great group that has joined us as we introduce this bill today. This is all about protecting people's privacy in regard to their automobile. Every automobile that will be made going forward, over 90 percent, and something like 96 percent of the automobiles made now have a black box. This is actually silver, but we call it a black box because it is an event data recorder. It records information about your automobile. Ninety-six percent, I think, of automobiles made now have them, but the U.S. Department Of Transportation is requiring this year that every vehicle have an event data recorder in it. The Senator from Minnesota and I believe that should be the owner's information and that information should not be released without the owner's consent. We already have a good group who have joined us in the endeavor, including an equal number of Republicans and Democrats: Senator Johanns from Nebraska, Senator Angus King from Maine, Senator Kirk from Illinois, Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, Senator Saxby Chambliss from Georgia, Senator Michael Bennet from Colorado, Senator Roy Blunt from Missouri, Senator Mazie Hirono from Hawaii, Senator Johnny Isakson from Georgia, Senator Mark Begich from Alaska, Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah, and Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon. It is absolutely an equal number of Republicans and Democrats from across the United States have joined together, recognizing people are concerned about their privacy and we need to make sure their privacy is protected. I would like to make a few further introductory comments with the help of these charts and then turn to my colleague from Minnesota for her comments as well. We have seen with the NSA, with the IRS, with the Affordable Care Act, and with a whole range of issues that people believe what is going on, not only in government but with technology, is that their privacy is at risk these days and it is very much a concern. Many people do not realize that this event data recorder is in their car. It records all kinds of information, and in fact the Federal Government is requiring that this device be in their car. Neither is there a limitation on the amount of data that the device can record nor is there a law that protects individuals' privacy to make sure the owner of the car decides who gets that information, other than under very specific circumstances which I will take a minute to go through. What kind of data gets recorded by your event data recorder, this black box that is included in your car? There are more than 45 different data points that are in fact recorded right now. Again, the manufacturer can change this--add to it. There are no limitations or restrictions or guidelines or requirements on what manufacturers can have the event data recorder do. Right now it records things like speed, braking, engine, seatbelt usage, driver information, passenger information, steering, airbags, and crash details. As I say, at this point the manufacturer determines what goes into that black box in terms of what its capabilities are. Just to give a sense, if you delve further, for example, engine--just pick one here: ``Number of times engine was started since being manufactured prior to a crash.'' Obviously the idea here with the event data recorder is that it provides information just like an event data recorder on an airplane. In the event of a crash, it provides information about the accident. It is recording this information in a loop on a continuous basis, and it retains it for a short period of time and constantly updates it. For example, for your engine, it can record the number of times the engine was started since being manufactured prior to a crash. It can record the number of times the engine was started since being manufactured prior to the EDR data download that is taken in case the box is removed and the information is taken and there isn't a crash. It can record how fast the engine was running. That is just 1 of the 45 data points, but it shows the kind of information that is recorded and can be extracted from the black box. So what does our legislation do? It is very simple and very straightforward. The Driver Privacy Act provides that the data from your EDR in your car cannot be extracted or taken by another party other than under very specific circumstances, and that means it cannot be done without your consent unless it is authorized by a court of law or the information is retrieved pursuant to NHTSA, which is the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, recall or the information is needed in the event of a medical emergency, essentially unless there is some kind of recall on the car--and then they can't disclose any data about you as an individual. It is macrodata. But other than that, without your consent, that information can only be taken from you by a court of law or in the event of a medical emergency, and that is done, obviously, for the very reason you have the black box in the car--safety, right? Law enforcement might be getting it pursuant to a court order. They can't just take it; they have to have a court order. If you are in a car accident and they need that information because of a medical emergency, then there is a special condition to take it. In developing these, we were very careful to work both with the organizations that advocate privacy as well as the automobile dealers, the insurance industry, and law enforcement. We consulted with stakeholders, such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Heritage, AAA, the Auto Alliance, the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Again, we wanted to make sure the law enforcement issues were covered as well as the ACLU. We have a broad and diverse group that has been consulted and that we have worked with in putting together this information. Fourteen States have their own laws on this issue. I have highlighted the 14 different States that have passed laws that, in fact, assure you that this information is your information and cannot be taken from you without your consent other than through a court order or in the case of a medical emergency. But when you leave your State and you are driving in another State, you are no longer protected. So even though 14 States have stepped up and said: Yes, this is something we need to do--in fact, it was something we did when I was Governor in my State. Not only are the other States not protected, but you are not protected either when you drive outside your State, which all of us do on many occasions. So that is why we need a Federal law. The reality is this technology is evolving and developing. This technology is going to continue to develop with all kinds of other aspects--obviously now we have GPS--and all the different things that are being done with automobiles. In many cases these are things people want, but they need to know their privacy is protected, and that is what we are doing here. We are doing it in a way that we made sure we continue to assure law enforcement, first responders, and manufacturers that the safety issues are being dealt with, and at the same time assure American citizens and consumers that their privacy rights are being respected and protected as required under the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution. With that, I will turn to my esteemed colleague from Minnesota and again thank her and her staff for the work they have done on this bill. With her background in law enforcement, she truly understands the issues and has been invaluable in putting this legislation together. Again, I thank her and ask her for her comments.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I thank Senator Klobuchar for joining me on this legislation and working to develop a great group of 14 original cosponsors. Senator Klobuchar brings such a great background as a prosecutor in the law enforcement industry and truly understands law enforcement issues, safety issues, and the informational benefits there are with not only event data recorders, but also understands the need to protect individual privacy. As I think we both said very clearly here on the Senate floor, this is a technology that is new and evolving. It is not just that this is a new and evolving technology where new capabilities are being added all the time, we don't know what additional capabilities will be added. But now the Federal Government is requiring that this device be in every single automobile made. So when the Federal Government--the U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, the safety branch--steps up and says: OK, we are going to require this device to be in every single car, we need to make sure we are also providing the privacy that goes with it that assures our citizens that their Fourth Amendment rights will be protected. Again, I think the Senator from Minnesota makes a really great point that when we look at some of these areas in terms of whether it is NSA, IRS, or other areas, people feel there wasn't enough work done on the front end to protect their personal privacy, so we are in a catchup situation. Let's not do that when every single citizen across this country owns or their family owns or has access to some type of automobile. That is what we are trying to do. Again, as the technology develops we need to understand what the ramifications are and how to protect privacy. I think, on behalf of both of us, we are appreciative that we have 14 Senators engaged already, and we look to add, and we are open to ideas on making sure this is the right kind of legislation that addresses safety but ultimately protects the privacy of our citizens.

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her work on the flood insurance bill. I am pleased to join her in that effort. It is very important. I hope we do have an opportunity to address that this week. We will continue to do all we can to help in that endeavor. Again, I thank her for all her work on that very important legislation. (The remarks of Mr. Hoeven and Ms. Klobuchar pertaining to the introduction of S. 1925 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I thank the esteemed Senator from Ohio for his remarks and express my support for his remarks as well. Myself and other colleagues have been on the floor today talking about the need to work in a bipartisan way. Obviously, the business before the Senate right now is nominations, and we want to emphasize again the importance of advice and consent in the nomination process but that it needs to be on a bipartisan basis. The change that, of course, has been made is that now the majority party can vote through, confirm a nomination without any input, any consent, any debate from the minority party. That is an issue not only in terms of the nomination process, the confirmation process of advise and consent, but that is also very much an issue in legislation. The importance of bipartisanship, whether it is in advise and consent in the confirmation process or whether it is in passing legislation, is seen because we have a country of more than 300 million people-- Republicans, Democrats, Independents--but at the end of the day, if we are going to have broad-based public support for the work we do, for the legislation we pass, it has to be done in a bipartisan way. My colleagues have been pointing that out in terms of the confirmation process. Also, they have been pointing that out in the context of the Affordable Care Act and ObamaCare. That is legislation that was passed on a partisan basis. One party, and one party only, voted for that legislation. What we have seen is that does not work. To get broad-based support for any legislation--let alone something as important as reform of health care--both parties have to be part of that work product. That is the only way we are going to get broad-based support across this great Nation on the important issues we face. Earlier today I read story after story from people from our great State expressing real challenges, real difficulties--the higher costs, higher deductibles, higher premiums, higher copays--they are facing as a result of the Affordable Care Act. I talked about the need to engage in the right kind of health care reform, the kind of health care reform that truly empowers individuals to pick their own health care insurance and their own health care provider; the need to pass the kind of legislation that will help us provide expanded health savings accounts tied with higher deductible policies that will encourage our young people to purchase health care insurance because they will be able to do so with lower premiums; the need for tort reform to help bring down health care costs; the need to increase competition across State lines so people have more choice, and with that competition, lower prices when it comes to choosing their health care insurance; and I talked about the need to reform Medicare, as the Presiding Officer knows, to provide the right incentives. Look at our great State of North Dakota. We have lower health care costs than most other States, and we have very good outcomes. For that we get not more Medicare reimbursement but less. That is exactly the wrong incentive--providing more reimbursement to States that have high costs regardless of outcome and lower reimbursement for States even with lower costs and better outcomes; in essence, getting less reimbursement, getting penalized for good performance. That is exactly the wrong approach and why we so desperately need to make reforms that create the right approach. These are the kinds of solutions we are advocating that we will continue to advocate to put in place for the American people. We need Members on both sides of the aisle to come together with a step-by-step, comprehensive approach, market-based approach, that will truly create more choice, more competition, and empower people-- empower people--the great citizens of this country to take control of their health care decisions and make the decisions that best suit them and their families. I see that my colleague from the great State of South Dakota is in the Chamber. As always, I am very pleased to see him, and at this time I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to continue the discourse my esteemed colleague, the good Senator from Missouri, was engaged in on the Senate floor just a minute ago, talking about the importance--the importance--of bipartisanship as we work to craft policy for this country, policy that all Americans can support and policy that truly moves our country forward. So whether we are considering nominations or whether we are considering legislation, we need to find ways to come together and come up with solutions that the American people support across the board in a bipartisan way. So as we consider these nominations, we have to consider the fact that now the Senate will be approving these nominations with essentially a 1-party vote, 51 votes. Right now, the Democratic Party has the majority in the Senate, so they can put judges on the bench, confirm other nominations without any Republican support whatsoever. Of course, under that approach, at some point the reverse may very well be true, that nominees may be confirmed--whether it is judicial nominees or other types of appointments--with only Republican votes if the Republicans are in the majority without any Democratic votes. Why does that matter? Why it matters is because, again, I go back to my earlier statement that in crafting policy, crafting laws and making appointments, nominations to the bench, we need to do it in a way where we garner broad support across the country. More than 300 million people's lives are affected dramatically by all of these things, by who those appointees are, the offices they hold, what they do with the laws we pass. So if we are going to impact everybody in the Nation with these laws, with these appointments, we have to make sure there is input, consideration by and, if you will, from both sides of the aisle. That is how we get the kinds of policies and we get the kinds of nominees and we get the kinds of judges and Justices that truly will have the support of people across this great country. I believe that is what we need to truly build the kind of future we want for ourselves and for our prosperity. As we talk about nominees, we consider also implementation of the Affordable Care Act. This is a huge topic of discussion in our country right now, and it is going to continue to be a huge topic of discussion. You are talking about one-fifth to one-sixth of our economy engaged in health care. So this is something that touches every single American in their daily life in a big way. It is so important we get it right. As was the case with my esteemed colleague from the State of Missouri, he was presenting anecdotes, presenting stories, real stories, real-life stories, of people who are impacted by the Affordable Care Act and how they are impacted. It is very important we do that because we need to know how people's lives are affected by the Affordable Care Act and what we can do to make sure they have the best health care possible. By the way, I think of hopefully building bipartisan support to get the kind of health care reform we truly need. I am going to present some of these real-life cases, as my colleague from Missouri just did, and I am going to start with one that talks about the marriage penalty created by ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. This is from someone in Grand Forks, ND, who writes in about the marriage penalty created by the Affordable Care Act. This citizen writes: My husband and I met with the primary health insurance carrier in ND and were told that our current coverage, under the guidelines of the Affordable Care Act, will cost us at least another $400 more a month, and our deductible will increase from $2,000.00 to $12,000.00, and because we are married, we cannot choose individual plans, which would be a much lower deductible. In essence, we are being punished for being married. We are looking at paying more than $1500.00/month in health care, because we are only 61 years old and not eligible for Medicare for another 4 years--[that is] $18,000 a year for health care! We were told that part of the problem is the provisions in the law require us to choose a plan that has maternity benefits. How does this make sense for seniors to be forced to buy coverage that does not apply to them? We agree that benefits shouldn't be denied to people but it is not fair to be forced to buy coverage that does not apply. Well, let's delve a little deeper into exactly what this individual is writing about. What is the marriage penalty that is, in fact, created by ObamaCare? Let's talk about that. The ObamaCare tax subsidies actually create a marriage penalty. They create a disincentive for individuals who are cohabiting to become legally married. From the standpoint of marriage, the subsidies represent a hidden tax on marriage whereby married couples purchasing their coverage on the exchanges will be subsidizing similarly situated but cohabiting single adults who earn the same or more income. In 2011, the House Oversight and Reform Committee held a hearing on the topic of ObamaCare's penalty against marriage. But since then little has been devoted to this topic in the House or the Senate. So how does it work? It works through the requirement of household income when calculating the ObamaCare tax subsidy. For those persons not eligible for Medicare earning up to 400 percent of the Federal poverty level, the law entitles them to a tax subsidy in the form of a refundable credit so long as they purchase their coverage on the ObamaCare exchanges. To calculate income, however, the law requires the reporting of household income rather than individual income. Household income includes the income of any family member residing in the household, such as a spouse, but not that of a cohabiting unmarried partner. So when a person shops on the exchange's Web site for a plan, he or she must first provide the financial information and identity of all family members in the household, even if none of those persons intend to purchase their insurance on the exchange because that information is required to calculate subsidy eligibility. Subsidy eligibility is then calculated using a complicated formula involving household income in relation to the poverty line, family size, and the price of plans offered through a State's marketplace. The value of the subsidy awarded to an eligible person adjusts on a sliding scale in proportion to household income, up to 400 percent--up to 400 percent--of the Federal poverty level. Above 400 percent of the Federal poverty level, no tax credit. Right. The marriage penalty results when a spouse's income causes an otherwise eligible individual to no longer be eligible for the subsidy and could cost a married couple in their household in excess of $10,000 a year in lost subsidies versus two individuals who are cohabiting but not married. So let's go through an example. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation's health reform subsidy calculator, a 62-year-old individual in a high-cost area who earns $46,000 a year, which is equivalent to 400 percent of the Federal poverty level, would be entitled to $7,836 in a government tax credit. However, if that same individual earns an additional $22 or $46,022 a year--just over $46,000 a year--which is now 401 percent of the Federal poverty level, they lose the entire credit. They lose the entire $7,836 credit. Similarly, any married couple that earns more than $62,040--400 percent of the Federal poverty level for a family of two--earns too much to qualify for a subsidy. But that same couple if unmarried and cohabiting could earn up to $45,960 each--or $91,920 total--and they are still eligible for subsidies in a high-cost area such as New York State, for example. So the limit for a married couple is just over $62,000. OK. So for a married couple, you can earn up to $62,040 before you lose the credit, but it is almost $30,000 higher for two people living together who are not married. They can earn $91,920 for an unmarried cohabiting couple. So if you have two people living together, they each get the individual exemption, which is more than $45,000. So they can earn $91,000-plus together--they still get the credit--but for a married couple, just over $60,000. Mr. President, $62,000 is the limit. So you can earn $30,000 more if you are living together and still get the credit than you can if you are married. That is the marriage penalty. So why would we design a health care program that discourages or penalizes marriage? Further, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax subsidies are projected to be the biggest deficit-increasing component of ObamaCare, and CBO estimates they will add $100 billion to the deficit by 2018 and grow even more thereafter. By 2019, CBO estimates that about 19 million people will be receiving the subsidies to purchase their insurance through the exchanges. As I say, I became aware of this problem when I was contacted by a North Dakota couple. I read that short vignette. We looked into it, and it is, in fact, true. This is just one of the many problems created by ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act, which is why Republicans have said: Look. We need to replace this with a comprehensive, step-by-step, market-based approach that truly is focused on competition and choice, that empowers individuals, empowers people across this great Nation to choose their own health care insurance and their own health care plan. We can absolutely do that. That is why I am here on the floor and others are here on the floor continuing to talk about Americans and their everyday lives and the challenges they face because of ObamaCare. I have more of these stories from North Dakotans, people in my State who are facing real challenges because of ObamaCare. So often we hear: Well, wait a minute, if we are not going to do the Affordable Care Act, if you do not like the Affordable Care Act, then what is your solution? We continue to put solutions forward, solutions such as expanded health savings accounts, which, combined with high-deductible policies, can create tremendous incentives for young people to purchase health care; more competition across State lines, which can help give citizens more choice and reduce costs; tort reform, which can help bring down cost; reforming Medicare to create the right incentives; giving States more control over Medicaid. The list goes on. We will continue to advocate for those types of solutions--real solutions that empower Americans to choose their own health care insurance and their own health care providers. Let me read some more letters from North Dakotans who talk about the challenges they are facing because of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. This individual from Hankinson writes: I am writing about the health care mess ObamaCare is creating. I am a retired teacher running a daycare with my wife. Hence, I am self-employed. I buy my own health care through Medica. Under the new ObamaCare rules, my monthly premium is going from $302 to over $500 per month. I am 58 years old, not on any medications and have no illnesses. Because of this forced health care, I am supposed to pay a 60-percent increase in health care coverage. If I drop my health care coverage, the government will hunt me down and fine me. Please stop this ObamaCare boondoggle. From Harvey, ND, a disgruntled grandpa who has to pay for maternity care: The Affordable Care Act is an excellent example of an oxymoron. Since the Affordable Care Act was passed, my insurance rate has escalated an additional $4,000 per year, not the $2,500 reduction that President Obama speculated. I have yet to find anyone whose health care costs have declined. Oh, yes. I just received my cancellation notice from Blue Cross Blue Shield. Thank you very much. I was happy with my Blue Cross Blue Shield plan. I had a low deductible, prescription and hospital coverage, everything that I needed. Now, as a grandfather, I will be paying for maternity, pediatric dentistry, contraception, drug, alcohol recovery, et cetera. The government has bloated my policy with useless fluff so my premiums will support others' subsidized policies. The President said, ``If you like your health care plan you can keep it. Period.'' The truth is, if you can't afford health insurance, you can afford ObamaCare if someone else pays the premium for you. Also all of these years I have paid taxes on things that I possess or purchase. Please explain why I have to pay a tax if I choose not to purchase ObamaCare. From Fargo, ND, a retired couple faced with canceling their own wellness center membership to pay for ObamaCare. This individual writes: Last week Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota sent my wife and I a letter stating that the health insurance coverage we carry is no longer acceptable or allowable under the new health care law. It was a health insurance package that we had selected after retiring from the field of education 2 years ago. It was a great package for us since we are both in good health. It offers us lower premiums, a higher deductible, which, by the way, we wanted, and more than adequate coverage for us. Now, we have to look at other more expensive health care packages which we do not want, some of which will include wellness center coverage. Well, we go to a wellness center here in Fargo, pay for it ourselves, and it costs us considerably less than any of the new packages that include it. So if I have this right, the following needs to take place for us. 1. We can no longer keep our present insurance that we wanted to begin with. 2. We can, however, select another package that will cost us, at the very least, an additional $1,800 in premiums per year. Remember, this is being paid for out of our retirement check. 3. The plans include a wellness center option, which we currently have at our own expense at a cost of $600 a year. So based on the law's requirements, it will cost us another $1,200 if we discount our current $600 wellness cost over and above what we now pay. All of this for insurance we do not want. There is an old saying from our neck of the woods: If you want something screwed up, give it to the government. Sorry, but this new law makes that old saying prophetic. From Bottineau, ND, a couple faces cancer treatment and tripling costs with ObamaCare. This individual writes: Here is my story on ObamaCare. I have a Blue Cross Blue Shield policy that I have had for many years. In 2008 my wife was diagnosed with a very aggressive breast cancer. We did all of the treatments, surgeries, et cetera. The insurance paid all but the deductible and the coinsurance, just as it was supposed to. We had no problems. Our deductible has been $500, with an 80/20 copay up to an out-of-pocket maximum of $5,000. Now my wife's cancer has reoccurred and we are starting all over. On the Affordable Care Act policy, to keep my premium close to what we have had, our deductible will be $4,000 each, and our out-of-pocket maximum will be $12,500 per year. By the way, the premium will be over $1,200 per month, an increase of over 140 percent. That is not affordable care. So which policy is more substandard? A retired couple from Fargo, ND, writes: Upon visiting with my Blue Cross Blue Shield rep, he informed me that our present affordable plans--we currently have two single plans, one for each of us--will no longer exist under the Affordable Care Act. We will have to switch over to Blue Direct, which does not allow single plans, but family plans only. This will then force us to pay $1,200 per month, or $14,400 per year, compared to our present cost of $6,000 per year. Let me repeat that. This will then force us to pay $1,200 a month or $14,400 per year compared to our present cost of $6,000 per year. What sense does that make? Why do I want to give up a plan that is one I selected for us, and is very affordable, and change it over for one that will cost us another $8,400 per year? I can definitely see where this is headed. It will send both my wife and I back to the workforce to be able to pay for a health insurance policy that we do not want. So why can't I keep my health insurance policy that I already have? I like it. I want to keep it. But Uncle Sam says no. Why? I understand the need to take care of those who do not have insurance and cannot get insurance for medical reasons. But why take away from millions of us that do have insurance and want to keep it? You have seen that in the numbers, right? I believe Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius testified in front of the House either yesterday or the day before and indicated that there are something like 360-some-thousand signups for ObamaCare. But the statistics are in the range of 4 to 5 million as far as the number of policies that have been reported as canceled so far since ObamaCare came into effect. These are the real stories behind those statistics. These are the real-life stories of people who have been impacted behind these statistics. From Bismarck, ND, a young working family has seen their costs skyrocket. Dear Senator Hoeven, I am a young pharmacist in Bismarck who graduated from North Dakota State University in 2011. I have the job I have always wanted, although it is with a small pharmacy, so my employer cannot afford health insurance for the seven employees who work there. So my family and I went out and did the responsible thing: Qualified medically, back when you had to, and bought what I thought was the perfect health insurance plan. For the whole family, it was this easy. High deductible. No coverage except preventative, until we paid $2,500 per person or $5,000 per family. My premium started out at an amazing $666 a month in 2011, went up a few dollars in 2012, and increased by 12 percent in 2013 to $762.30 a month. Still quite affordable. This year we had our third child, along with experiencing some health issues with one of our other children. My wife obviously met her $2,500 maximum and ended up needing surgery and nearly died from complications, and spent a couple of nights in the hospital. My insurance worked just like it was meant to. That meant that $7,000 was paid 100 percent. As of now, we have only paid $4,100 in out-of-pocket costs. I think that is pretty darn good coverage for that premium. My policy does not qualify for the new Affordable Care Act regulations. So it will end at the end of April, according to Blue Cross Blue Shield. Fine. Whatever. But what really upsets me is that my current coverage, which assumes a lot of responsibility on myself, falls into the ``gold'' category on the ObamaCare exchange based on the maximum out-of-pocket limits. We are a young, generally healthy family. I do not need to save nickels and dimes throughout the year to cover copays and whatnot. I need a responsible limit that I know I am not going to spend over. On the exchange, if I match my same premium, then I end up with a maximum out-of-pocket limit of $12,700--$12,700. How affordable is that? If I want a plan similar to the plan I have now, then I have to spend over $900 a month, or $150 a month more. That is $2,000 per year more for coverage I do not like. This is very frustrating. Please fix this mess. From Kensal, ND, this is from a family who is unable to afford the rising premiums. I just got an insurance letter that said my family's monthly premium was going from $385 to $840 per month. I cannot afford that and keep the heat on this winter. That represents over half of my take-home pay. I am now thinking that I will have to get divorced just to keep my health insurance for my three children and my wife. Keep the government shut down forever if this is how you want to treat the hard-working class. From Donnybrook, ND, self-employed family business owners see rising costs. They write: My husband and I farm and have three children, ages 4, 2, and 7 months old. Because we are self-employed, we carry our own health insurance. Last week we received notice that our premium will be increasing by 43% due to the Affordable Care Act. We will also be losing the freedom to cater our health plan to meet our individual needs. We are very healthy non- smokers, and our children have yet to see a physician for anything more than a well-child check-up. Our health history is spotless. Our previous premiums were anything but ``cheap,'' making this 43% premium increase unbelievable [to us, and unaffordable]. From Argusville, ND, self-employed face canceled policy. They state: About a year ago, my husband left his job and started his own computer software consulting company. Contrary to what we have been led to believe, we were able to find affordable insurance for our family. We have three children under 18. We found a family policy for about $480/month. This past year (2013), it was moderately increased to about $520/month, which we thought was a reasonable increase. We were very happy with the insurance. However, today, I received a letter stating that due to the new healthcare law, our insurance premium for the next year would go up to $918.21. They are going from $520 a month to $918.21 a month. Continuing: This means we are facing a $400/month increase in our insurance premium. This amounts to a $4,800 tax increase for our family. We are a middle income/small business-owning family. This is an outrageous intrusion by the Federal Government into an area that it had no business going. It WAS possible for the self-employed to get their own insurance. There WAS a safety net through state and Federal programs for people who couldn't get insurance. The Affordable Care Act is not affordable, and was not ever necessary. What we are seeing is people in all different walks of life in different situations, some working for themselves, some working for small businesses, some working for large companies, some retired, some with kids, and some elderly, but what is the consistent theme? What is the consistent theme? Higher costs, less choice, and not being able to get policies that fit their needs because of this standardization. From Enderlin, ND, small business loses employee coverage. This constituent writes: My husband is a Veterinarian who has been in practice for over 40 years. We have 5 employees for which we provide the best health coverage that money can buy. We pay all their premiums. Last week, we received a cancellation letter from the insurance company. We believed President Obama when he said that because we had insurance for our employees, and because we have less than 50 employees, we could keep our insurance. At no time did we receive information by letter or email or on the Internet about the fact that if you changed anything in your policy you would not be grandfathered in. We had one person retire, hired a new employee, and an employee's husband came onto the policy, changing the deductible, which has meant that we have now lost our insurance. This will mean a much larger premium! We work! We are not happy about this situation. The President lied! This will mean no raises and we will not be able to hire anyone. Park River, ND, rising costs for the young invincibles. Our family has had health insurance all of our adult lives. My son, aged 28, also had his own health insurance with Blue Cross Blue Shield of ND. He is single. His policy was cancelled because of ObamaCare. His premiums are now tripled and his deductible will be over $6,400.00. That is unacceptable. No person can afford to pay a $6,400 deductible. If he fell into the poverty level to be eligible for the tax subsidy, then he could get better coverage for less money under this law. That is also unacceptable. We all have worked to afford health insurance on our own . . . and now it is not affordable, nor are the deductibles affordable. He was happy with his own policy, one that he could afford, and with better coverage for him. And now the government is mandating what he can afford. How is this acceptable? I have one more I am going to read from a young family in Thompson, ND. In this case, the family's policy was canceled just before their baby was to be born. They write: My daughter and her husband are expecting their first child in January, and on Friday they received a letter from their insurance carrier stating that due to the new health law reform they would no longer be covered. So, in January, when the baby is to be born, they may have no health insurance. Our president stated on more than 28 different occasions that if you liked your health insurance, you could keep it. My question to you is: What are you going to do about it? Will you hold him accountable to his word? We listen to all these real-life stories from people in my State--and they reflect stories from people across this country--and that is why it is so important that we do get the kind of health care reform that this country needs and that these citizens so very much want. It truly makes a difference. As we debate this important issue, I think it makes an incredible difference. This isn't me saying ``OK, we need to do it'' or any one of us saying ``OK, this is what we need to do.'' We are hearing from Americans--in this case, from my State of North Dakota. But as Members come down and speak on the floor on this issue, we are hearing from 300 million Americans across this free country. We are hearing real stories about real hardship and what they are going through. I go back to where I started this discussion; that is, why it is so important that as we approach these issues we take a hard look at ObamaCare and the Affordable Care Act. It was passed with only Democratic votes, no Republican votes whatsoever. It is as I said before: If we are going to get the kinds of policies that truly work for the American people, we have to come up with policies that can garner bipartisan support, support from both sides of the aisle. I truly believe they have to be the kinds of policies that empower our people, that empower our people to choose their own health care provider, that empower them to choose their own health care insurance. I go back to the types of solutions I talked about earlier. These are the kinds of solutions that we have put forward in legislation, that we will continue to put forward in legislation, and we ask for Members of this body and the House to join us on a bipartisan basis and pass market-based solutions that truly empower people. These are such things as expanded health savings accounts combined with high-deductible policies. Think about young people going out into that market and buying health care insurance, maybe for the very first time. Maybe they have been operating without health care insurance and they say: You know what. I have to get health care insurance. Think about it. Think about what works for them. If we take a health savings account, a high-deductible policy, low premium--they are healthy, don't think they are going to get sick--that is the kind of thing that will encourage them to buy health insurance. If they have more choice and more competition, not only are they going to get it at a more affordable price, but they are going to have more options from which to choose. Likewise, let's make sure we provide for more competition across State lines so they are not only then looking at companies in their State but companies from across the country. More choice and more competition brings down prices. As we look at health care costs, let's look at tort reform. There is no question that lawsuits are driving the cost of health care higher. We can do something about that. Affordability is a huge issue we have to address as part of the right kinds of reforms for health care. When we talk about reforms, we have to reform Medicare to create the right incentives. What do I mean by that? Now, under Medicare, if someone lives in a State where they have high costs, regardless of outcome, the Federal Government provides more reimbursement under Medicare in that State than they do in a State that has lower costs even though they may have better outcomes. Does that make sense? Think about it. Think about that for a minute. A person has Medicare--and it is vitally important health care for seniors across this Nation, but the incentive is not to reduce costs. The way the program works, it actually increases cost because States with higher costs, regardless of outcome, get more reimbursement under Medicare than States with lower costs even if the States with the lower costs have better outcomes. Let's reform Medicare to have the right kinds of incentives, to encourage savings, to encourage better outcomes, and to encourage preventive care. We can do that. That is a win-win. We get better care at a more affordable price, and we help address the debt and deficit of this Nation. Those are the kinds of reforms that work for Americans. For Medicaid, Medicaid provided for individuals with low income, let's empower the States. Let's give the States more flexibility, more control. Rather than a Federal one-size-fits-all, give those States more control to truly not only improve health care outcomes but to do so at affordable costs, and reward them for controlling costs. These are the kinds of solutions that will not only produce better health care that I believe our providers can get behind and support because it rewards them for managing costs and good outcomes, which is what we want, but it also truly is how we address the deficit and make sure we save these programs--Medicare and Medicaid--and keep them sound for the future so that we not only can rely on them today but for years to come. We make sure that we save and protect those programs by creating the right kinds of reforms. Those are the kinds of reforms that truly empower people and give them the opportunity--which I think we all want--to choose their own health care providers and their own health care insurance. As we go through these issues, again, I want to emphasize the need-- and I come back to the reason I am on the floor--not only to talk about the right kind of health care reform but to go back to the issue before the Senate today: the nominations that we face and determining how we come together as a Senate, as a body, and we get Members on both sides of the aisle who come together and say: OK, how do we make sure that we have bipartisan solutions, that we create a bipartisan Senate where we are making sure that, as we look at confirmation of these nominees, there is an investment from both sides in getting it right and that there is input, deliberation, consideration, and debate on getting it right for the American people? Whether it is health care, whether it is energy, whether it is good ag policy, whether it is law enforcement, whether it is support for our military, whether it is anything else, how do we make sure that all of us--because it is incumbent upon all of us--how do we make sure we have protected what this institution has provided for since the inception of our country; that is, bipartisan consideration, deliberation, and debate that produces the best outcome for the American people. We have nominations that we are going through now and that we will continue to go through. We have important policy matters we need to get done now for the American people, such as a budget, Defense reauthorization for the defense of our Nation, a farm bill that needs to be passed, and an energy policy that we need to address--all things that can truly move our country forward. As we do that, we need to come forward with solutions that will truly be bipartisan. To do that, we need to have a very sincere and direct dialog as a body and Member to Member to come up with solutions to determine how we are going to make sure we are doing the very best job for the American people. That is what this is all about. We are here to do the work of the American people. And you know, we look across this vast, wonderful Nation, and there are people who are Democrats and people who are Republicans and people who are Independents, and we serve that whole spectrum. We serve them all. We are faced with a real challenge right now to make sure that bipartisanship continues in this Senate and in this Congress. I am going to turn to another matter before us that is incredibly important. It is a matter that is truly bipartisan. It is bipartisan, and I am going to use this as an example of how bipartisanship can and does work in this body and in the House. It is a matter we should be voting on right now, and I sincerely hope we will be voting on it in a few short weeks when we return, and that is the farm bill. I am a member of the Agriculture Committee, a member of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee, and I am also a member of the conference committee that is working to reconcile the differences between the farm bill that has been passed in the House and the farm bill that has been passed in the Senate. I bring up this example purposely, because we are focused on how we operate in a bipartisan manner to meet the challenges this Nation faces, and we are at a point where we need to redo the farm bill. We need to put a new long-term, 5- year farm bill in place. Right now we are operating under an extension. I use this as an example of a truly bipartisan approach. I use the farm bill for another reason too. As we go through this process, where confirmation of nominations are now being done essentially on a partisan basis--not a bipartisan basis but on a partisan basis--and as we talk about ObamaCare, which was passed on a partisan basis--not a bipartisan basis--I want to bring up an example of how things should work on a bipartisan basis. When we look at the farm bill, the breakdown in terms of how the votes have gone, it hasn't been Republican and Democrat. We have had both. We have had some Republicans and Democrats voting against it and some Republicans and some Democrats voting for it. It really is focused on what is the policy and what best serves this great Nation. Here is the other reason I bring it up right now. We are trying to address the deficit and the debt this country faces; right? This year CBO says the deficit is going to be somewhere between $650 billion and $700 billion--the deficit. The debt is $17.3 trillion. We must address the deficit and the debt. So as we work on a new farm bill, we are not only reforming the current farm bill, which is operating under an extension, we not only make reforms that make for a better farm program, but we are going to save on the order of $25 billion to $30 billion to help reduce the deficit and the debt. Isn't that what we should be doing across government on a bipartisan basis--coming up with better policy that actually reduces the deficit and the debt, controls spending, reduces spending and helps our economy grow? That is what we are doing with the farm bill, and that is what we should be doing in these other areas as well. So as we continue to work on the farm program, I had hoped we could be to the point where we would be voting this week or next on the Senate floor and in the House as well. It doesn't look like that is going to happen, but we are very close. We can have a framework in place this week or next so that we can vote on it as soon as we return in January, and that is what we need to do. The current farm bill, the current extension, expires at the end of the year, meaning we need to get a new farm bill in place--not an extension but a new farm bill. We have put the framework in place. We are there. We now just need to get people to agree and we need to get the bill to the House and to the Senate floor. I believe we are absolutely there. We just have to have the will to make it happen and to make it happen on a bipartisan basis. Not only is it vitally important we pass this farm bill, but it truly can be an example in terms of how we approach other policy as well on a bipartisan basis. At this point, Mr. President, I see the leader is here and I would ask of the Chair as to my time allotment and also the time for the next vote.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I and my colleagues stand here holding the floor in defense of fair and free debate, and the longstanding traditions of the Senate that promote consensus. We are here working on nominations because the majority leader has determined that is the agenda for today. But there are important issues we need to move to: the Defense reauthorization bill, the Water Resources Development Act, the farm bill, the budget, and other vitally important legislation. We need to move to these bills and we need to deal with them in a bipartisan way. Instead, we continue to work on nominees. We are working on nominees without the discussion and the debate and the consideration and, most importantly, without that bipartisan consensus which has always been a hallmark of the Senate. Because of the unilateral change to the longstanding rules of the Senate, that consensus is no longer required for advice and consent; a simple partisan majority will do. I would use time today to talk about need for bipartisanship, bipartisanship in nominations, but also bipartisanship in the important legislation that we need to address for the good of our country, legislation such as the right kind of health care reform. I have provided real-life stories from citizens from my State about the impact that the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, is having on them and their lives and why we need to replace it with market-based reforms, a step- by-step comprehensive approach that fosters choice and competition. We have put forward proposals to do that. I have also used time today to talk about other important issues that we need to advance on a bipartisan basis; for example, the farm bill. We need a 5-year farm bill. We are currently operating under an extension. That extension expires at the end of the year. We need to get a farm bill in place, and a farm bill is a great example of how we do things on a bipartisan basis, not only in the Senate but also in the House. I wish to talk about another subject that is vitally important to our country, to our economy, to job creation, and to national security, that also needs to be advanced and needs to be advanced in a bipartisan way, and that is energy. I want to provide a specific example; that is, the Keystone XL Pipeline. I know the Presiding Officer wishes to see that project approved. That is the point. This is a project that will create jobs, create economic activity, it will create greater energy security, it is something that we can work on with our closest friend and ally in the world, Canada. It is something that goes to national security so we are no longer dependent on the Middle East for oil, and it is something that is supported on a bipartisan basis and there is strong support from the American people. The polls show somewhere between 70 and 80 percent of the American public supports this project and wants to see it move forward. It has now been more than 5 years since the permit applications were submitted to the State Department for the Keystone XL Pipeline project--more than 5 years in the application process and still no decision--an exhaustive review process, including five environmental impact statements, showing no significant impact to the environment. The most recently issued draft statement was only last spring. The consent of every single State along the route of the pipeline is in place. Every single State on the route supports and approves the project, with the backing of a majority of Congress. Legislation to approve the project has passed in the House and we have passed it in the Senate only to have the President turn it aside. As I said a only minute ago, it has the support of the American people. More than 70 percent--in the most recent poll--of the American people support moving forward with this project. Despite all of this support, the Keystone XL Pipeline project is still awaiting decision from the President of the United States. The long wait for approval is troubling enough, but it represents a larger issue for our Nation and begs a bigger question for all of us who serve our States and the American people in this institution: How will America ever build an all-of-the-above energy policy if the President takes more than 5 years to approve only one piece of a comprehensive plan? The Presiding Officer has seen this issue before in his State when it comes to the Alaska pipeline, how for years and years it was worked on until it was finally approved. Once approved, not only is it a vitally important piece of infrastructure for the State of Alaska, but contrary to all the concerns that were raised in regard to the Alaska pipeline, such as the environmental concerns, it has proven to work and work very well. They addressed the concerns and the project was approved. The same is true for the Keystone XL Pipeline. To recount briefly, this $7 billion, 1,700-mile high-tech pipeline will carry oil not only from Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Oklahoma and the Texas Gulf Coast, but it will also carry growing quantities of sweet crude from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota, my State, and also Montana--light, sweet, Bakken crude, the highest quality oil produced. Even by modest estimates it will create more than 40,000 jobs. There have been a lot of estimates out there, some much higher. But the State Department itself, the administration's own State Department has come out after more than 5 years of study and said that this project will create more than 40,000 jobs. At a time when unemployment is still 7 percent, these are good jobs, jobs that put Americans back to work. It will create more than 40,000 jobs, boost the American economy, and raise much-needed revenues for States and the Federal Government. It is not raising revenues by raising taxes, it is raising revenues through economic growth. That is the way to do it--not higher taxes but through economic growth. Further, and perhaps most importantly, it will help put our country within striking range of a long-sought goal, a vitally important goal for our country, true energy security. For the first time in generations, the United States--with its friend and ally Canada--will have the capacity to produce more energy than we use, truly, North American energy independence, eliminating our reliance on oil from the Middle East, Venezuela, and other volatile parts of the world. This is something Americans very much want. When we see in the polls they support this project by more than 70 percent, it is with a clear recognition of what are we doing getting oil from the Middle East when we should be getting it from ourselves in this country and from our closest friend and ally Canada. We absolutely can do it, we can do it to an extent that is beyond our needs, and we can do it in short order, easily within the next 5 years if we approve projects such as this one. Now we produce about 60 percent of our fuel domestically. We still import 40 percent, much of it from the Middle East, and other areas of the world that are hostile to our interests. The question is why would we want to import oil from an unstable region of the world when we can import it and when we can work with our closest friend and ally Canada, as well as move it from parts of our country that produce that oil, such as my State and others, and transport it to our refineries. The 40 percent that we don't produce domestically has to come from someplace else. Why not from our closest friend and ally Canada. With a true all-of-the-above approach to energy development in this country, including projects such as the Keystone XL Pipeline project, I absolutely believe we can be energy independent within 5 years. The argument has been advanced that the oil sands will increase carbon emissions and that failing to build the Keystone XL Pipeline will somehow reduce emissions. Let us look at the facts. Let us look at this claim more closely. Today an ever increasing percentage of new recovery in the oil sands is being accomplished in situ. That means with technology that makes the oil sands carbon footprint comparable to conventional drilling. In fact, the oil sands industry has reduced greenhouse gas emissions per barrel of oil produced by an average of 26 percent since 1990 and with some facilities achieving reductions as high as 50 percent--a 50- percent reduction in carbon emissions. Today heavy crude from the Middle East--and even from California--produces more carbon emissions over its life cycle than the Canadian oil sands. Also, we need to factor in that if the pipeline is not built from Alberta to the United States, a similar pipeline will be built to Canada's Pacific coast. What does that mean? That means from there the oil will be shipped on tankers across the Pacific Ocean, a much larger and more sensitive ecosystem than the Sandhills--which, of course, have been at issue in terms of the route of the pipeline. It will be shipped across the ocean to be refined in facilities in China with weaker environmental standards and more emissions than our refineries in the United States. The United States, moreover, will continue to import its oil from the Middle East, again on tankers so that again has to be transported across the ocean. Factor in the cost of trucking and railing the product to market overland, and the result, contrary to the claims of opponents, will be more emissions, more CO2 emissions, and a less secure distribution system without the Keystone XL Pipeline than we will have if it is built. In fact, the administration's own State Department has released three draft Environmental Impact Statements finding ``no significant impacts'' on the environment. Let me read that again. In fact, the administration's own State Department has released three draft Environmental Impact Statements finding ``no significant impacts'' on the environment. What does the administration do? They delay and ask for another Environmental Impact Statement. What is going on? In its latest analysis in March, the State Department concluded that ``there would be no substantive change in global greenhouse gas emissions'' associated with the Keystone XL Pipeline. That raises another important point. The White House has said repeatedly they ``don't want to get ahead of the process,'' but the President effectively abandoned the process more than 2 years ago when he halted the project by executive action. Had he not, the State Department, in keeping with the usual process, would have issued a decision on the permit by December of 2011. That is according to a letter that was sent to me by Secretary Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State at that time, which she sent to me in August 2011. I wish to point out that this body, the Senate, as well as the House of Representatives, has embraced the Keystone XL project with bipartisan majorities. Congress has expressed support for the Keystone XL with two majority votes in the Senate and several bipartisan letters to the President. The American people have also expressed overwhelming support for the project, as I have stated. In a Harris poll released this summer, 82 percent of voting Americans voiced support for the Keystone XL Pipeline project. I want to emphasize that and say it again. In a Harris poll released this summer, 82 percent of voting Americans voiced support for the Keystone XL Pipeline project. According to Harris, 9 in 10 Republicans and nearly 80 percent of Democrats and independents believe the pipeline is in our national interest. In July, Senator Landrieu and I led a bipartisan group of our colleagues to introduce a concurrent resolution declaring the Keystone XL Pipeline project in the national interest of the United States and calling on President Obama to approve it. The resolution notes that every study conducted by the State Department, including the Department's draft Environmental Impact Statement issued in May, has found no significant impacts to the environment. This is the text of S. Con. Res. 21. Expressing the sense of Congress that construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the Federal approvals required for the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline are in the national interest of the United States.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I want to reserve the right to object. I am certainly willing to let the good Senator make comments. But at this point I want to reserve the right to object.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I objected earlier, and I want to express my appreciation to the good Senator from Rhode Island. I understand his concerns, but I want to take a minute just to explain the objection that we have. I don't think there is anyone in this Chamber who is indifferent to the plight of the long-term unemployed. However, this legislation falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee and, as of yet, the committee has not had the opportunity to consider it. There are a number of concerns that Members on our side of the aisle have with the legislation, most notably the price tag. According to the CBO, a full 1-year extension of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program would cost $25 billion for a single year. That is the cost of this bill, and the bill contains no offsets to cover that cost. So the Senate Finance Committee needs to have an opportunity to consider this legislation to find a way to pay for it. In addition, the committee needs to have an opportunity to consider alternatives. Rather than simply providing additional benefits to the unemployed, hopefully we can come up with something that really helps them get back to work. Republicans are willing to consider such ideas and need to have an opportunity to do so through the committee process. It is on that basis that I object to my colleague's unanimous consent request. I thank the Chair for the time and the courtesy of my colleague.

Mr. HOEVEN. I object.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I thank the good Senator from Louisiana. I am very pleased to join in this colloquy with my cosponsors of this very important piece of legislation. This is about affordability of home ownership. The American dream is about home ownership. It always has been, and we want to make sure that continues. So it is about affordability, but it is also about getting it right. Look, if we are going to reset flood insurance rates, we need to get it right. This affects people across this great Nation. It affects their ability to own and continue to own their own home. We need to make sure, as we make this transition, which we are all working on--we are all working on it--that we get it right. So that is why we see this bipartisan legislation, and we urge our colleagues to join us in this effort. This is about home ownership, this is about affordability, and this is about getting it right. To the point the good Senator from Louisiana just made and as the Chair knows well, in the great State of North Dakota we have the Red River Basin, the Cheyenne River Basin, we have the James River Basin, we have the Missouri River Basin, the Devils Lake Basin, and more. So we know flooding, and we have seen it from year to year. There are a number of provisions in this bill which the Senator has already identified which are critically important, and I will not repeat those, but I wish to focus for a minute on the basement exemption. Legislation to preserve the basement exemption was included in the Hoeven-Heitkamp Flood Safe Basements Act, S. 1601. That has been incorporated into this bill. As sponsors, we appreciate that very much because this is a collaborative effort to get it right as we make this transition in flood insurance rates and make sure we protect the affordability on a fair basis as we move to financial viability for the long term for flood insurance rates. When a homeowner has put the cost into making sure they have a flood- proof basement, if we don't take that into account in the insurance rates, we are penalizing them and we are charging them twice. It makes no sense. It makes no sense at all. That is why we have to have the basement exemption continued in this legislation, and that is why its sponsors, on a bipartisan basis, are not only pursuing this as stand- alone legislation, but we are also introducing it as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill or other legislation that can move, because we need to address it and we need to address it now. As the Chair well knows, the mayor of a small community in northeast North Dakota, which has seen repeated flooding, contacted our congressional delegation and said: Hey, look. What is going on with FEMA right now is they are changing these flood insurance rates, and we have examples of homeowners who are going from less than $1,000 a year to more than $5,000 a year--a fivefold increase--and it is not a new home. The home has been there a long time and it has never been flooded. It has never been flooded, and they are going to go from less than $1,000 to $5,000 on a home that has been there for a long time and never been flooded? That is not how this is supposed to work. That is not how it is supposed to work, and that is why we need this legislation. Again, I thank the good Senator from Louisiana. All of the sponsors-- and we have a great bipartisan group going already--urge our colleagues to join us, and we urge them to join us without delay. We seek a common objective: We will adjust the flood insurance rates to make sure the program is viable for the long term, but we need to get it right, and that is what this is all about. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, in North Dakota we have a lot of farmers and we have a lot of ranchers. They are small businesspeople. They run small businesses. They are being hit very hard by ObamaCare like other small businesses across this country. A rancher from Rhame contacted us. His name is Wayne. He ranches there. Rhame is an area where we have a lot of cowboys, a tremendous rodeo. They compete nationally. They have great livestock herds there. He writes and he says: I'm not one to get too upset about things, but this deal really has me mad. We got a letter a few weeks ago that said they were dropping our policy. I paid my own insurance for years and years. When I got that letter, it just hit me-- because somebody in Washington decided I was too stupid to figure out if my policy was right for me or not. I don't pay a lot of attention to politics, but usually what gets decided in Washington doesn't slap you in the face like this law has with me. I have gone on HealthCare.gov and used the estimators they direct you to. I could be going from a $2,500 deductible to something between $10,000 and $12,000, the way it looks to me. This is going to cost me a lot more for something I don't even want. If I could, I would like to read another short story from a couple in Grand Folks who got ahold of us on the marriage penalty that ObamaCare creates. She wrote: My husband and I met with the primary health insurance carrier in North Dakota and were told that our current coverage under the guidelines of the Affordable Care Act will cost us at least another $400 more a month, and our deductible will increase from $2,000 to $12,000. Because we are married, we cannot choose individual plans, which would be a lower deductible. In essence, we are being punished for being married. We are looking at paying more than $1,500 a month in health care because we are only 61 years old and not eligible for Medicare for another 4 years--$18,000 a year for health care! We were told that part of the problem is the provisions in the law which require us to choose a plan that has maternity benefits. How does this make sense for seniors to be forced to buy coverage that does not apply to them? We agree that benefits shouldn't be denied to people, but it is not fair to be forced to buy coverage that does not even apply.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I wish to thank my esteemed colleague from Illinois and take this opportunity to offer some remarks on the debt ceiling and the continuing operations of the government. I come to the floor to make an appeal for action, action on opening the government and action on addressing the debt ceiling. Of course, that requires bipartisan effort. This is something our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have to work together to accomplish. We have been negotiating, not only our leadership, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, but the Members of this body, Republican and Democratic, both sides of the aisle. We have been negotiating and talking about many different ideas, but now we need to come together and find a way to both address the debt ceiling and to reopen the government. The kinds of ideas we have discussed include a short-term extension of the debt ceiling. Certainly Members on my side of the aisle feel we have to also address the underlying problems that are leading to our growing debt and deficit. We need savings and reforms as part of addressing that debt ceiling. Also, we have talked about ideas for a continuing resolution to reopen the government, one that follows established law. By that I mean the Budget Control Act, which establishes budgetary caps that need to be kept in place and honored as part of this agreement. The continuing resolution we have talked about would also include flexibility for agencies to prioritize spending subject to congressional oversight, but we have to have budget discipline. We are spending more than we are taking in. Whether it is a family, whether it is a business, whether it is the Federal Government, that doesn't work. We must exercise budget discipline. Also, we have talked about ideas that might include addressing the medical device tax, possibly repealing the medical device tax or at least deferring it for 2 years and paying for it with pension smoothing under provisions similar to those in MAP-21. We have looked at and talked about requiring income verification under the Affordable Care Act to avoid fraud, ideas Republicans have put forward. I think there has been broad support for it on the Democratic side of the aisle. An agreement composed of these kinds of ideas would open government and address the debt ceiling on a short-term basis, but the reality is we need to find savings and reforms to address the underlying problems that are driving our deficit and our debt. As part of a debt ceiling agreement, we need to have savings and reforms that underlie our problem. Our problem is that we are spending more than we take in. We can't raise the debt ceiling for another year and add $1 trillion in debt to the debt that we already have of $17 trillion. It is kind of like going to the bank. When you go to the bank and you talk to the banker, you say: Hey, I want a loan. I want to increase the loan I have, and I want to raise my credit limit. The banker may be willing to give you the loan, but he is going to say to you: What are you going to do to address the underlying problem, the problem you have that you are spending more than you are taking in? What are you going to do to address that? If you said to the banker: I am not going to do anything to address it, you might have a hard time getting the loan, right? That is true whether you are a family, that is true whether you are a business, and that should be true for the Federal Government. So let's put the necessary savings and reforms in place. In his budget, the President identified more than $600 billion in changes and savings and reforms that he could support to mandatory spending programs, and we have talked to him about those time and again. Now is the time to implement those savings and reforms to those mandatory spending programs. Let me cite an example of one I have been hard at work on for the last 2 years; that is, the farm bill. The farm bill is a mandatory spending program. I am a member of the agriculture committee, and we have worked hard on changes, on improvements, on actually strengthening the farm bill by strengthening crop insurance under the farm bill, which is what our farmers and ranchers want. As we worked through that, at the same time we identified on the order of $25 billion to $30 billion in savings that we can generate by reforming the farm program. I am a member of the conference committee on the Senate side. The House has now appointed their conferees. We are ready to go and resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions of the farm bill, and we can have a stronger farm program and save billions of dollars. Those are the kinds of mandatory spending program reforms we need to put in place as part of the debt ceiling agreement. And we need to find a common commitment, a bipartisan commitment, and a commitment on the part of the administration as well as the Congress to do that. When we talk about addressing the debt ceiling, that is what it really means. It doesn't just mean raising the debt ceiling. It doesn't just mean borrowing more money. It means fixing the problem. So we need to act. We need to address the debt ceiling. We need to get the government open, but we need to have a common commitment, a bipartisan commitment to solving the underlying problems and to getting the reforms and the savings that will ensure we aren't spending more than we are taking in. Of course, a big part of that is economic growth as well. We understand that. And at the point where we truly come together in a bipartisan way--and I would argue this is that point and this is that time--I think the markets will react, and I think business across this country will react. Businesses large and small will react because the certainty of knowing we truly are dealing with our debt and our deficit will give them the confidence to invest and hire more people, not only bringing people back to work, reducing unemployment, but getting economic growth--economic growth not by raising taxes but, with economic growth, broadening and growing the base and generating revenue to help with our deficit and our debt. By putting these commonsense reforms, these solutions, these savings in place as part of this debt ceiling agreement--a commitment to doing that on both sides of the aisle--we will help unleash the power of the strongest economy in the world, and that economic growth will be a huge part of solving our deficit and our debt as well. It is vitally important that we do it. It is vitally important that we do it for the strength of our country, to get people back to work, but most of all for our children and for future generations. I don't believe there is anybody here in Congress--in the Senate, in the House--or anywhere else who wants to leave our children with a $17 trillion debt. So let's solve this. We can do it, and now is the time. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Reserving the right to object, the good Senator is talking about a resolution that has already gone from the Senate to the House. That has already been done. Why do we keep going back to things we don't have agreement on, rather than advancing on the things where we can get agreement? We have instances where our National Guard is not getting paid. We have instances where our Reserve members are not being paid. We have instances where death benefits are not being paid to members of the military who made the ultimate sacrifice. We passed the Pay Our Military Act. It went through the House, and it went through the Senate. We passed the Pay Our Military Act. All of our military members and the civilians who support them should be paid. We passed legislation to do that, whether it is Active Forces, Guard, or Reserve. We have done that. What we are simply asking for here is a measure that would make sure that gets done. That is what we are asking for. Let's make sure they all get paid. We passed the legislation in both Houses. Let's start working on the things we can agree on. That is why I have asked for consent to proceed with the measure, and I object to the request to modify it. Again, I ask unanimous consent that my original measure, H.R. 3230, Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act, be considered.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 206, H.R. 3230, making continuing appropriations during a government shutdown to provide pay and allowances to members of the Reserve components of the Armed Forces; I further ask unanimous consent that the measure be read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, in the United States we have the best health care in the world. We have the best doctors, the best nurses, the best hospitals, the best clinics--across the board, the best health care. I believe that is because we have a health care system where individuals make decisions about their health care. They decide what doctor they go to, what hospital, what clinic. They decide what health care plan or what health care policy to choose. But ObamaCare changes that. It brings government into running the health care system in a way we have never experienced before in the United States, a level of government involvement far beyond what we have ever had before. The proponents of ObamaCare say otherwise, but that is just not the case. Government will set up exchanges and operate those exchanges, and it actually limits the number of policies and options that can be offered on those exchanges. At the same time, the government also prescribes coverage that must be offered in policies, driving up costs and again reducing options--choices--for consumers. Furthermore, ObamaCare kicks in effectively October 1--the start of the fiscal year, next week--but clearly neither the Federal nor State governments are ready to go. That has been very well publicized, and, of course, that is why the administration has delayed the employer mandate for a year. The question then is, Why hasn't President Obama also delayed the individual mandate? Why would you delay the mandate for big companies across this country but then not at the same time delay the mandate for the American people, for individuals across this country? That is just one of the many inconsistencies in the law and in the administration of this law. That is why I support anything we can do to either defund or delay ObamaCare, and that is why our entire Republican caucus supports doing anything we can to defund or delay ObamaCare. Granted, we have some different ideas on tactics, how best to do it, but we are absolutely united in our effort to oppose ObamaCare. The reality is that instead of ObamaCare, we should be encouraging more choice and more competition in health care, not more government control. That means things such as tort reform to help reduce the cost of health care. It also means encouraging more competition among health insurance companies across State lines and expanded health savings accounts. Expanded health savings accounts, combined with high- deductible insurance policies, will encourage young people to buy health insurance because their insurance premiums will be much more affordable. Again, more competition, more choice, more participation by people of all ages, and as a result, a system that is sound, a system that truly encourages and empowers individuals. That is how we empower people to take control of their medical costs--not with a government- run system but by empowering individuals. We empower health care providers with tort reform, and we empower consumers with more choice, more competition, and more options. At the same time, we need to reform Medicare and Medicaid. We can save hundreds of millions of dollars by reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. But we also need to provide the right incentives and more flexibility. Take Medicare, for example. Right now in my home State of North Dakota, on a relative basis we have lower cost health care than many other States, and at the same time that we have lower costs in North Dakota, we have better outcomes. On a comparative basis, we have very high-quality medical care. So think about that--lower costs, better outcomes. But under Medicare, for that performance we are not rewarded. We don't get more reimbursement, we get less reimbursement. That makes no sense. Think about it. So a State with low costs and better outcomes gets lower Medicare reimbursement than a State with high costs regardless of outcomes. Then you get more reimbursement? Think about that as a system, rewarding higher costs, penalizing lower costs. That is the exact opposite of what we should have. Those are the kinds of things we should be reforming, and we should reform them in a way that creates the right incentives. Take Medicaid. Medicaid, the same thing. Here, you have way too much of a Federal one-size-fits-all. Why not give the States more flexibility so that they can respond to the circumstances in their State, find ways to improve care, and reduce costs and make sure those States benefit when they do that so that they have the right incentives. These are the kinds of health care reforms that make sense, common sense. These are the kinds of health care reforms that empower people. These are the kinds of health care reforms we need. Republicans will vote to defund ObamaCare. We need some Democrats to join us for the sake of health care, for the sake of our economy, full- time employment versus part-time employment. ObamaCare is hurting our economy and hurting job creation. So for the sake of health care in this country and for the sake of our economy, it is what the American people want. They want us to fund this continuing resolution and they want us to defund ObamaCare, and I ask our colleagues to join us in this effort. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to mark the fifth anniversary--the fifth birthday, if you will--the fifth anniversary of the application of the Keystone XL Pipeline. TransCanada applied for approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline in September of 2008, and here we are, 5 years later to the date, without a decision. Normally, when we celebrate an anniversary or birthday, if you will, it is a good thing. It is positive. Obviously, in this case, that is not the case. Five years have gone by with no decision from this administration on the Keystone XL Pipeline. It is mind-boggling. How can we be following the laws, the rules, and regulations of this country when a company applies for approval of something and there is a decision the administration has to make--is it in the national interest or is it not? That is the decision before the administration. We have to make a decision. We elect Presidents to make decisions. So here we are 5 years later with no decision, not a yes, not a no--five years of study of the project and still no decision. This project will help generate more energy for our country, more jobs, economic growth, and tax revenue without raising taxes. It is a project that will help us become energy secure, energy independent, with Canada. Working with Canada, our closest friend and ally, will enhance national security so we don't have to get oil from the Middle East, something Americans very much want. As a matter of fact, there was a recent poll put out by Harris done this summer. In that poll--and I have it right here--in a Harris poll released this summer, 82 percent of voting Americans voiced support for the Keystone XL project--82 percent. Think about that: 82 percent of Americans want the project approved, but for 5 years the administration hasn't been able to make a decision, and they are still not making a decision. The indication now is this could go into next year. So now we are working on year 6. Think about our economy. Our economy is stagnant. Businesses aren't investing in new capital and equipment and creating jobs. One of the reasons is because of burdensome regulation. This is a clear example: 5 years with no decision. This poll I referred to, some of the other results of it: 82 percent of voting Americans support the Keystone XL Pipeline project. That is not an old poll; that was done this summer. Some of the other information from that poll: 85 percent of people agree Keystone XL would help strengthen America's economic security--85 percent. Eighty- one percent of people agree Keystone XL would strengthen America's energy security. Seventy-seven percent of the American people--voting Americans--agree that Keystone XL will help strengthen America's national security--as I just mentioned, not getting oil from the Middle East. That is a no- brainer. Seventy-five percent agree that Keystone XL would benefit the U.S. military by increasing access to oil from Canada, our closest friend and ally. One of the issues this has brought up is concern about the environmental impact. Let's look at the facts: In the 5 years since TransCanada applied for approval--in that 5-year span--the State Department has done multiple environmental impact statements, I think on the order of four draft or supplemental environmental impact statements. The finding on the environment has been: ``No significant environmental impact.'' That is the Obama administration's own State Department: ``No significant environmental impact'' after 5 years of study. How many more years of study do we need? How is our economy going to work when businesses that want to invest billions in building vital infrastructure for our economy and create jobs have to wait 5 years before they get a go-ahead? And we are wondering why we have a sluggish economy. We are wondering why we are still importing oil from the Middle East. This isn't just about working with Canada to produce energy for this country. My home State will put 100,000 barrels of oil a day into this pipeline--the lightest, sweetest crude produced anywhere in the country--and take it to our refineries in this country to be used by American consumers and businesses. Another criticism the opponents will sometimes bring up is that the oil is going to be exported. They say: Oh, no, the oil is going to be exported; we shouldn't approve the Keystone XL Pipeline; we shouldn't work with Canada; we shouldn't move our own long-term refineries because it is going to be exported. Again, let's take a look at the facts. In June 2011, the Obama administration's Department of Energy put out a study which said specifically that the oil will be used in the United States. The oil will be used in the United States and it will help reduce gasoline prices for Americans. That wasn't some proponent who put that out; that was the Obama administration's own Department of Energy after doing their study. Again, let's take a look at the facts. In my State, this kind of pipeline, as I said, will move 100,000 barrels a day on this pipeline which we are now moving by truck and by train. This pipeline will help take 500 trucks a day off our highways, saving incredible wear and tear but also providing greater safety because we will not have all of those trucks transporting this oil and gas. Another argument is, if we don't build the Keystone XL Pipeline, then the oil in the oil sands in Canada will not be produced. Those who are against using fossil fuels--folks who just say, no, we are not going to use fossil fuels anymore, we don't want to use them--they say we don't want to use the pipeline because then the oil sands in Canada will not be produced. Again, look at the facts. The facts are very straightforward. The oil is already being produced and it is moving by truck and train, not by pipeline. If we don't utilize it in the United States, then instead of coming to the United States, it will go to China, where now we are moving it by tanker across the ocean, and it is going to refineries that have much higher emissions. So we have worse environmental standards, and instead of us working with Canada to get our oil rather than getting it from the Middle East, which we are doing now, all of that oil goes to China. Think about it. Is this what Americans want? Go out and ask them. That is why I cited the poll just a minute ago, saying 80 percent-plus support this project. I think some of them who don't, aren't aware of the project. But if we ask any American, they are going to say they don't want to rely on the Middle East for oil. They would much rather work with Canada. They would much rather produce it here, such as in my home State, and work with Canada so we are energy independent, we are energy secure, we don't have to rely on the Middle East. Let China and the other countries work with the Middle East to get their oil. Ask any American what they think about that proposition and we know what answer we will get. But the President, for whatever reason--here we are 5 years later and he is still not making a decision. Today is the fifth anniversary. We are starting on year 6, and the question is, How much longer does this go on? I have spoken about this in terms of energy and energy security for this country: low-cost, dependable energy, so when American families and businesses need energy to fuel their vehicles, they know it is reliable, dependable, it is produced in this country and in a country such as Canada, our closest ally, not in the Middle East, and that we are not going to have to send our men and women in uniform into a very difficult situation. We will not have to send them, at a minimum, into the middle of a situation where--look at what is going on in Syria. Look at the volatility. We want to depend on that area for our oil? Of course not. It is about energy. It is about energy security. It is a national security interest. It is about jobs. There have been many studies on the number of jobs; the proponents argue for one and the opponents argue for another. But let's go back to the State Department's own numbers after 5 years of study. They say more than 42,000 jobs will be created by the project. Don't take a study from the opponents of the project. Don't take a study from the proponents of the project. Take the State Department's own study: more than 42,000 jobs, at a time when our economy badly needs quality construction jobs, and it doesn't cost one penny of taxpayer money. As a matter of fact, the project produces hundreds of millions to help reduce debt and deficit without higher taxes. For all of these reasons, this project should be approved. For all of these reasons, this project is very much in the national interest. I have worked in this body, and I have worked with our friends and colleagues in the House, to see if we can't approve this congressionally. This is a Presidential decision. The decision before the administration is to decide is this project in the national interest or is it not in the national interest. The American people have already decided. In poll after poll, 70, 80 percent of the American people have decided--it doesn't take them 5 years--but the administration can't decide. So Congress should. Congress should step up and decide. I believe it is very clearly in the national interest for all of the reasons I have clearly laid out. I think we need to work with our colleagues in the House and find a way to make a decision that the President seems to be unable to make. I believe that this project is in the national interest; that we do need to be energy secure; that we do want the jobs and the economic activity for our people in this country. And I believe this decision needs to be made not on the basis of what special interest groups want but on the basis of what the American people want, and that verdict is in, and it is overwhelming. Thank you. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to introduce two energy efficiency amendments that I am offering for attachment to the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill. I thank both of the bill's sponsors, the Senators from New Hampshire and Ohio, for their willingness to work with me and with our cosponsors on this bipartisan legislation. I also thank both the Senator from Oregon, who is the chairman of the energy committee, as well as the ranking member of the energy committee, the Senator from Alaska, for working with us as well. Obviously, I hope we will be able to work through the list of amendments to this legislation so that we can get votes on these bills. We have broad bipartisan support on both of these measures, so I wish to take a few minutes to introduce them and to briefly describe them. The first is an amendment regarding water heaters. It is actually the water heater efficiency amendment. Currently, a 2010 Department of Energy rule on water heaters effectively bans the manufacture of large electric water heaters beginning in 2015, which will greatly affect consumers in our rural areas and hurt the effectiveness of some of the demand-response rural electric programs. These demand-response rural electric programs are designed to use off-peak loads, which is both energy efficient and also generates big-time savings for consumers. So it is one of those win-win deals. But many of our rural areas are not serviced by natural gas. As a result, they would be forced to buy multiple water heaters in order to meet their need because the load doesn't enable them to store enough heat. That doesn't make any sense. What I am offering is a practical amendment that improves the efficiency of electric water heaters but lets our rural areas have access to affordable, efficient water heaters that can supplement renewable energy. Much of this off-peak energy is renewable energy, so there is another benefit as well. This is one that saves money, is energy efficient, and also provides good environmental stewardship. Many of our electric cooperatives and other utilities have voluntary demand-response programs that use electric water heaters to more effectively manage power supply and demand. In those areas where renewables are part of the electric generation system, these water heaters facilitate the integration of renewable energy that can be stored--like at nighttime, obviously--for use during peak hours. That includes such things as wind and solar energy. This amendment would allow the continued manufacture of large, grid- enabled, electric-resistance water heaters only for their use in electric thermal storage or demand-response programs, meaning that they use off-peak load or lower cost energy that would otherwise be lost or not used. The amendment would require that grid-enabled water heaters have a volume of more than 75 gallons, be energy efficient, and work on grids that have a demand-response system. So, again, you are using off- peak loads, using renewable energy, and it saves the consumer a lot of money and makes sure they have the hot water they need for their use but is a big-time cost saver and good environmental stewardship measure. We have broad support from the energy efficiency groups, from the environmental groups, from manufacturers, and from the rural electric cooperatives. I will name some of them. These include the Air- Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the American Public Power Association, Edison Electric Institute, General Electric Company, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the National Resource Defense Council, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and there are many more. This has broad support. I am not aware at this point if there are opponents. The Shaheen-Portman bill is an energy efficiency bill. It is about using energy more wisely, benefiting both providers and consumers alike. And that is exactly what this amendment does. It saves money, it saves energy, it benefits the environment, and it benefits consumers.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the good Senator from Ohio. It really does comport both with the spirit and intent of the legislation that he has coauthored with the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, but really it actually accomplishes what the Department of Energy set out to do. In rural areas across this country, whether in North Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia, New Hampshire, or anywhere else, we have rural consumers who are looking at having to buy multiple water heaters just to have enough hot water because they are on these off-peak load programs, which makes sense and which is what we want. We want them on these off- peak programs because it is more efficient and saves money and utilizes renewable energy, but we have to enable them to do it. So this accomplishes what DOE set out to do. Again, I thank the distinguished Senator from Ohio. Mr. President, I wish to offer another amendment to the underlying legislation. This is the ``all of the above'' Federal building energy conservation. We talk about doing ``all of the above'' energy development in this country, and we have to get from talking about it to doing it. This is a great example of what I am talking about. It actually goes back and addresses a problem that was created in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In that act they set efficiency standards for Federal buildings that have to be achieved by 2030 and then they limit it as to which types of energy can be used, creating a real problem for the Department of Energy, which is actually having to implement that legislation. This is a piece of legislation that actually will enable some of these energy efficiency goals to be achieved with better environmental stewardship but with a commonsense ``all of the above'' approach in terms of energy sources. Frankly, the goals of that cannot be achieved without them. The Shaheen-Portman legislation is an on-subject piece of legislation that really allows us to correct the problems in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and really accomplishes what that act set out to do, so if I could just take a couple minutes to describe it. This ``all of the above'' Federal Building Energy Conservation Act, amendment No. 1917, is a commonsense piece of legislation that saves taxpayers money by enhancing the energy efficiency of Federal buildings by allowing all forms or all sources of energy to power our buildings while still meeting the objectives of the underlying legislation. Currently, section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 mandates the elimination of all fossil fuel-generated energy use in any new Federal building by the year 2030, but the mandate also covers any major renovation of $2.5 million or more to any Federal building. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy has been unable to finalize a rule because the law itself is unworkable. Think about it--any Federal building where there is a renovation of more than $2.5 million, you can no longer use fossil fuels--think natural gas--in that building. So what are you going to heat and cool the building with? Are you sure you are going to have enough intermittent power--whether it is solar or wind or something else--to make sure that for any Federal building where you make a change of more than $2.5 million you are going to be able to meet the energy needs of that building? The Department of Energy can't do it. They can't write a rule that meets that statutory requirement. So we fix it in this amendment. My amendment would replace an unworkable mandate that is impossible to implement with a practical, time-proven approach, using technology and all of our energy resources to achieve the goal of energy efficiency. Again, this will enable us to achieve the energy efficiency goals of the underlying legislation, which is the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Instead of prohibiting the use of fossil fuels, including next- generation technologies as section 433 would currently provide as written, this amendment creates sensible energy efficiency guidelines to make Federal buildings more energy efficient, thereby lowering emissions. The measure also helps to make sure when we do major renovations we use the most up-to-date building codes. We do all of this in a transparent manner by having the Secretary of Energy make information available as to how the Federal Government is improving its efficiency in Federal buildings. Current law is unable to do any of this. The reality is section 433 does not work, as I said, and cannot be implemented without a fix. We are providing that fix. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy: The current section 433 is not very workable because in its present form it discourages investments in long-term energy savings contracts and in combined heat and power systems. So if you care about efficiency--that is what this underlying bill is all about, energy efficiency--if you care about efficiency, we need to change section 433. If you care about making sure our taxpayer dollars are well spent, we need to pass the amendment I am offering. It is better to have aggressive yet achievable goals with a means to obtain them through private sector financing mechanisms than to have an unfunded mandate that will not produce the intended results. Major conservation stakeholders agree. This amendment is supported by a remarkably broad coalition. That coalition includes: the Alliance to Save Energy, the Combined Heat and Power Association, the American Gas Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the Edison Electric Institute, the Federal Performance Contractors Coalition, Owens Corning, Siemens, the National Association of Energy Service Companies, the American Public Power Association, Lockheed Martin, Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Energy Association, Honeywell--the list goes on, and there are many more. That is because, again, it is about common sense, it is about energy efficiency, and it is about doing it in a way that actually accomplishes those goals. Energy conservation is an objective where we should be able to find consensus. Everyone agrees it makes good sense to save energy. This amendment makes the current law both practical and achievable. The Congressional Budget Office says it saves money. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. Finally, if I may before I close, I would like to make some brief comments in regard to the farm bill. We have been working on a farm bill for over 2 years. I am a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Last year we passed a solid farm bill from the Senate Agriculture Committee that strengthens and enhances crop insurance and saves money. At a time when we are running a Federal deficit and debt, we are saving money. We passed the bill out of the Agriculture Committee last year. The House passed a bill different than the bill we passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee, but the House Agriculture Committee passed a farm bill as well, and a good farm bill. On the Senate floor last year we passed the farm bill and passed it with a large bipartisan vote. On the House side they were not able to pass it. They were not able to pass their bill, so at the end of the year when the current farm bill expired we were forced to do an extension. We come back this year. The Senate Agriculture Committee again passes a good solid farm bill that strengthens crop insurance, is good for farmers and ranchers, and saves money. We pass it on the Senate floor as well. On the House side, they pass the bill through the House Agriculture Committee and they pass a bill on the floor. It did not include the nutrition piece, but they did pass a bill on the floor. This week they are set to vote on a nutrition bill. That is good. They need to do that and they need to make their decision on how they want to handle the food stamp reform, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program reforms. But the key is they need to name their conferees. They need to take action this week and name their conferees. We have named our conferees. I am pleased to be a member of the conference committee. But we need to work. We need to get this finished. The reality is, for our farmers and ranchers, we should not be providing another 1-year extension. These are business people. They need to plan. They need to know what the 5-year farm program is going to be so they can plan and operate their business accordingly. There are on the order of 16 million jobs in this country that are dependent, directly or indirectly, on agriculture. We want to get this economy growing. Those are a tremendous number of jobs, 16 million jobs, that, directly or indirectly, rely on agriculture. Agriculture creates a positive balance of trade. We are talking about an energy efficiency bill right now and our farmers are out there right now, not only producing food but fuel as well--food, fuel, and fiber. They create not only jobs in this country but they have a positive trade balance, which is tremendous for our country. The bill, as I mentioned earlier, saves money. At a minimum we are going to save $24 billion, and it will likely be more than that. It helps with the deficit and the debt. I want to close today by again calling on my colleagues on the House side to deal with the nutrition issue, name their conferees, let's get into conference, and let's get a farm bill done. Thanks to our farmers and ranchers, we have the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world, in the history of the world. That benefits every single American--whether you live in rural America or in the biggest city. Let's get it done. I again thank the sponsors of this bill. They are working hard. You know what. They are setting an example for this body on the kind of bipartisanship and working together we need to have to get things done for the American people. I commend them both and thank them for this opportunity to present these amendments to their bill.

Mr. HOEVEN. I certainly yield to the good Senator from Ohio.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the Keystone XL Pipeline. I am going to submit a concurrent resolution that I am sponsoring with Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, but before I do that, I want to talk specifically in terms of the Keystone XL Pipeline and correcting the record. I am correcting the record relative to statements the administration has made recently about the project. As we all know, the Obama administration has been reviewing this project for 5 years. The initial application was submitted by TransCanada, the parent company, in September of 2008, and we are now almost in August of 2013. So in addition to delaying the project, they are also putting out false information. President Obama and Treasury Secretary Lew presented information this week on the Keystone Pipeline that is wrong, and today I want to correct the record. I want to quote directly from an interview President Obama conducted and reported in the New York Times on Saturday. I am going to read from that transcript because it goes to a number of issues in terms of jobs and energy development as well as the requirements the administration says need to be addressed for the Keystone Pipeline. However, I think the company has addressed those issues in great detail. Again, this is the transcript from the New York Times. Also, the interview was conducted last week when the President was on his jobs tour. The interviewer said: A couple of other quick subjects that are economic-related. Keystone pipeline--Republicans especially talked about that as a big job creator. You've said that you would approve it only if you could be assured it would not significantly exacerbate carbon in the atmosphere. Is there anything that Canada could do or the oil companies could do to offset that as a way of helping you reaching that decision? That was the question asked of the President. The President responded: Well, first of all, Michael, [the interviewer] Republicans have said that this would be a big jobs generator. There is no evidence that that's true. And my hope would be that any reporter who is looking at the facts would take the time to confirm that the most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline-- That is the Keystone Pipeline. which might take a year or two--and then after that we're talking somewhere between 50 and 100 [chuckles] jobs in an economy of 150 million working people. The interviewer goes on: Yet there are a number of unions who want you to approve this. Mr. Obama: Well, look, they might like to see 2,000 jobs initially. But that is a blip relative to the need. So what we also know is, is that that oil is going to be piped down to the Gulf to be sold on the world oil markets, so it does not bring down gas prices here in the United States. In fact, it might actually cause some gas prices in the Midwest to go up where currently they can't ship some of that oil to world markets. Now, having said that, there is a potential benefit for us integrating further with a reliable ally to the north our energy supplies. But I meant what I said; I will evaluate this based on whether or not this is going to significantly contribute to carbon in our atmosphere. And there is no doubt that Canada at the source in those tar sands could potentially be doing more to mitigate carbon releases. The interviewer asked: And if they did, could that offset concerns about the pipeline itself? To which the President responded: We haven't seen specific ideas or plans. But all of that will go into the mix in terms of John Kerry's decision or recommendation on this issue. That was the key part of the interview I want to address in my comments. There are three points I would like to make. The first one is jobs. President Obama says the project will create 2,000 jobs during construction. Then he says maybe 50 or so after that, and he kind of chuckles as he says that. The first question is: Where does that number come from? Where is he getting his number? His own State Department has a very different number. They say it is going to create more than 42,000 jobs during construction. They didn't say 2,000 jobs during construction, but more than 42,000 jobs during construction. I will read from the State Department report. It is a draft from the environmental impact statement which came out on March 1, 2013. The State Department report says: Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, the proposed Project would potentially support approximately 42,100 average annual jobs across the United States over a 1- to 2-year construction period. That is right out of the report. The State Department goes on to talk about some of the other employment benefits created by the Keystone project. This employment would potentially translate into approximately $2.05 billion in earnings. Direct expenditures such as construction and material costs . . . would total approximately $3.3 billion. Short-term revenues from sources such as sales and use taxes would total approximately $65 million in states that levy such a tax. So you are getting tax revenues and $65 million as well. Yields from fuel and other taxes could not be calculated, but would provide some additional economic benefit to host countries and states. There is the environmental impact as to the employment right out of the State Department report. We have to ask: Why is President Obama talking about a number like 2,000? It appears the number he is quoting comes from opponents of the projects. Rather than taking his own State Department numbers--done after 5 years of study--he is quoting numbers which are wrong from opponents of the project. Again, don't take my word for it. Recently the Washington Post--in their fact-check article--stated that President Obama appeared to be using numbers from opponents of the project rather than from his own State Department. So why would he do that? Why would he take numbers from opponents rather than the State Department? Well, here is what Sean McGarvey, president of North America's Building Trades Unions, had to say about it in a statement he issued several days ago. According to Sean McGarvey, president of North America's Building Trade Unions: America's Building Trade Unions were disappointed to see that the President chose to minimize the importance of jobs for construction workers and to use employment figures promulgated by special interests and activist billionaires rather than his own Department of State's findings that the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline would support approximately 42,100 average annual jobs across the United States over a 1- to 2-year construction period. But the President goes on--it is not just the jobs number that is incorrect. The President also stated this in that New York Times interview: What we also know is, is that that oil is going to be piped down to the Gulf to be sold on the world oil markets, so it does not bring down gas prices here in the United States. In fact, it might actually cause some gas prices in the Midwest to go up where currently they can't ship some of that oil to world markets. So he is saying the oil won't be used in the United States and, in fact, it might cause gas prices to go up. But now he is contradicting a report from his own Department of Energy. His own Department of Energy addressed those very issues back in June of 2011. They issued a report, and that report forecasted that the oil will be used in the United States and, further, that it will reduce the price of fuel at the pump for Midwest consumers. I will quote from that report. Again, this is a report from the Department of Energy that was provided in June of 2011. Without a surplus of heavy oil in (the Gulf Coast), there would be no economic incentive to ship Canadian oil sands to Asia via Port Arthur (in Texas). Many of these (Gulf Coast) refineries rely on declining supplies of Mexican and Venezuelan heavy crudes. . . . They would be natural customers for increased supplies of Canadian dilbit (oil sands oil). . . . The Gulf Coast appetite for Canadian oil sands . . . will be much higher than can be supplied by just the Keystone XL Pipeline. So they are saying it will be used in the United States. Concerning the cost of fuel to customers, DOE said: With substantial additional volumes of light-sweet and other crudes accessible to Gulf Coast refineries, (West Texas Intermediate) prices would increase, Brent, Argus and other market crude prices would decline. Crude costs to (East Coast) and (Gulf Coast) refineries would be lower. Here is the key sentence from this section: Gasoline prices in all markets served by (East and Gulf Coast) refineries would be lower, including the Midwest. So the Department of Energy in its report specifically states that the oil will be used in the United States--we are a net importer of crude oil--and that gas prices would be lower, not higher. As I said earlier, the State Department in the EIS said the job number will be 42,000, not 2,000. The President then concludes the interview by essentially telling Canada what they should do in terms of their regulatory requirements. He says: And there is no doubt that Canada at the source in those tar sands could potentially be doing more to mitigate carbon release. The interviewer then asks: And if they did, could that offset the concerns about the pipeline itself? President Obama declines to indicate any specifics, but he says essentially all of that will go into the mix for the decision on whether to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. So here we are. After 5 years--after 5 years of delay, the President is talking about adding new requirements to the project. He is talking about adding those requirements in another country--our closest friend and ally, Canada--or I guess he is essentially saying he would turn down the project--a project that actually reduces greenhouse gas because there is less greenhouse gas if we move that oil by pipeline than if it is moved by truck, by train, or by tanker. Furthermore, perhaps the biggest irony is that he is imposing this type of regulatory barrier at the same time he is on a jobs tour, which created some problems for his Cabinet members as well. For example, Jack Lew was on ``Fox News Sunday'' with Chris Wallace, and he got it wrong on Keystone as well last Sunday. The following is part of that transcript. Again, this was ``Fox News Sunday'' with Chris Wallace and Jack Lew. Wallace asked this question: Let me ask you one question. If you're so interested in creating more jobs, why not approve the Keystone Pipeline which would create tens of thousands of jobs, sir? Lew responds: Chris, I think, as you know, the Keystone Pipeline is being reviewed. It's been in the process that was slowed down because-- Wallace then says: Several years it's being reviewed. I think what, three, four years. Lew responds: It was--there were some political games that were played that took it off the trail, past its completion. When Republicans put it out there as something that was put on a timetable where it could not be resolved, it caused a delay. We are getting to the end of the review and we'll have to see where that review is. But I think playing political games with something like this is a mistake. So he is saying that somehow the Republicans were playing political games and that slowed down the project and that is why it has been in review for 5 years. Five years it has been in review. Well, as for Secretary Lew's remarks on ``Fox News Sunday,'' we need only to let the facts--especially the dates--speak for themselves. Secretary Lew claimed that the Keystone XL project was delayed because Republicans politicized it. I would be happy to share with them a letter I received in the summer of 2011 from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In that letter the Secretary assured me that the Department was poised to make a permitting decision on the Keystone XL project by December of that year--December of 2011. I have the letter here. It is dated July 26, 2011. It is addressed to Senator Hoeven. It says: ``Thank you for your letter regarding the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline.'' It goes on to make various comments. The key line in the letter is this: ``We expect to make a decision on whether to grant or deny the permit before the end of the year.'' This is for the Keystone XL Pipeline project from, at that time, Secretary of State Clinton. Instead, however, during the 2012 Presidential election--less than a year away in November--President Obama intervened to postpone that decision until after the election. Then and only then did I press to seek legislatively for a timely decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline and introduced legislation, which we passed, calling for a decision within 60 days, which the President declined to make. So clearly the delay of 5 years is because the administration has refused to make a decision and not for any other reason. It is not only time to make a decision on the Keystone Pipeline, it is far past time. That is exactly what the American people want. As a matter of fact, in a recent--the most recent poll on the Keystone Pipeline project, Harris Interactive Poll, 82 percent of Americans support approving the Keystone XL Pipeline--82 percent. The President has continued to review it and talk about more requirements. He has provided incorrect information on the jobs and whether the oil will be used here and the impact on gas prices. But 82 percent of Americans want this project approved. It is about energy. It is about jobs. It is about economic activity. It is about energy security for our country. That is why, as I conclude here today, I wish to submit for the Senate Record today, along with Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the Federal approvals required for construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline are in the national interests of the United States. Essentially, with this concurrent resolution, what we are saying is that the Keystone XL Pipeline is in the national interests of the United States and that the administration needs to approve it. It is a bipartisan resolution, and we will seek to have it approved here in the Senate and approved in the House as well. This is in addition to bipartisan legislation I have already introduced which would approve the project congressionally. The simple point is this: We need to keep the push on to get this project approved, whether it is with a joint resolution of Congress in support of the project, getting the President to make a decision and to make a favorable decision and to do it now instead of continuing to postpone after 5 years or whether Congress steps forward and approves the project directly through legislation I have already submitted. We need to get this project done for the American people. It really is about jobs. It is about economic growth and activity. It is about energy for our country and getting this country to the point where we are energy independent, energy secure, where we don't need to rely on oil from the Middle East. That is why 82 percent of Americans in the most recent poll across this country are saying this is the kind of project we need. Mr. President, step up and get it done for the American people.