John Hoeven

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator. I appreciate the Senator from Wyoming being here and for his leadership on energy. Again, I want to recognize that he comes from an energy-producing State, a State that is producing energy for this Nation and creating hundreds of thousands of good jobs in doing so. I thank him for his leadership on the Energy Committee as well. I want to turn to and recognize the Senator from Alaska, who is the ranking member on our Energy Committee. As the Senator from Wyoming said, she has recently put out a blueprint for energy development, energy independence, energy security for our Nation. It is comprehensive. It includes all types of energy and, again, developing-- developing--them the right way, with good environmental stewardship and the latest technologies but truly accomplishing something the people of this country very much want; that is, energy security. So at this point I would turn to the Senator from Alaska and ask for some of her comments on this Keystone Pipeline project in terms of the economic benefits and the need for our Nation to truly have energy security.

Mr. HOEVEN. North Dakota and Montana. It is very important to understand that is just when we start. The pipeline is expandable. Today, North Dakota is the second largest producer of oil in the Nation, second only to Texas. We produce 750,000 barrels a day--and it is growing--and more of our oil is leaving the State by truck and rail than by pipeline. We need these pipelines. This project alone will take 500 trucks a day off our roads, trucks which are beating up our roads and creating safety issues in our State. This is vital infrastructure we need to get this product to refineries in Louisiana, in Texas, in Illinois, and other points around the country. At this point, I wish to thank the Senator from Louisiana, again, for her participation in this colloquy. I wish to turn to the esteemed Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso, another major energy-producing State, and ask him for his thoughts in regard to the regulatory obstacles to energy development. If we are going to be energy secure, energy independent in this Nation, we have to find a way to empower project investment and empower the kind of development we are talking about--not only infrastructure but the new technologies that will help us produce more energy in our country with better environmental stewardship. That is what we seek to do and I know that is exactly what Senator Barrasso is working on in his State. I would like him to address that aspect.

Mr. HOEVEN. I appreciate the question from the Senator from West Virginia. For starters, it would put 100,000 barrels a day--this is for starters--into the pipeline. So day one is 100,000 barrels.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I wish to respond to the Senator from West Virginia. Right now, between the oil we produce in the United States, both together with Canada and Mexico, we generate about 70 percent of the oil we consume. This project alone would add 6 percent. We are talking about over 800,000 barrels a day this project adds and brings to market. So we go from about 70 percent just for this project phase 1 to about 76 percent. But understand this pipeline project is expandable to 1.4 million barrels a day, so we can see it would take us up even higher. So we are talking about a significant contribution to our oil supply, again, from North Dakota, Montana, and Canada, versus, as the Senator says, countries such as Venezuela or from the Middle East.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I wish to recognize the Senator from the great State of West Virginia.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Louisiana for her leadership in energy, onshore and off, in a big way. She is absolutely right. This is our opportunity to have North American energy security and North American energy independence, working with our closest friend and ally Canada. This is how we do it--Mexico as well. The Senator from Louisiana is also absolutely right: Canada will produce this oil. That is a fact. That is going to happen. The question is, Is it going to come to the United States or is it going to go offshore to China? We see these green lines; they show the pipelines that would take that oil to China rather than the United States. Net effect: We continue then to import oil from the Middle East, and Canadian oil goes to China. It makes no sense--not to mention better environmental stewardship that we would enjoy working with Canada, which we will touch on as well. I wish to at this point ask the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Boozman, to join the colloquy, and I would also invite Senator Manchin as well. I see Senator Begich is here also. So I invite Senator Boozman to make his comments but then also offer the opportunity for our other distinguished Senators to join in the colloquy.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Keystone XL Pipeline project. Gas prices are now about $3.50--actually, $3.53--a gallon, which is up over 90 percent since President Obama took office. Economic activity for the fourth quarter of 2012 declined by one-tenth of 1 percent. It was projected to go up by about 1 to 1.2 percent, and actually it declined by one-tenth of 1 percent. Still, the President refuses to approve a multibillion-dollar project-- the Keystone XL Pipeline--that will provide energy, create jobs, generate tax revenue, and help reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East. He is still delaying even though every State on the pipeline route has consented to the project. So every single State on the route has approved the project and will have better environmental stewardship with the project than without it. Let me repeat that. Every State on the route has approved the project and will have better environmental stewardship with the project than without it, and yet the President continues to delay. Let me elaborate. Recently, a group of 53 Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, signed a letter that I helped organize to President Obama asking him to approve without delay the Keystone XL Pipeline project. The letter was signed by a majority of the Senate within just 1 day--1 day--of Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman's approval of a new route through his State of Nebraska. The new path addressed Nebraska's concerns about the route, as well as the President's, by circumventing the environmentally sensitive Sandhills region, effectively removing the last obstacle to approval. Prior to sending this letter, in November Senator Max Baucus and myself organized a similar letter--that was in November--signed by nine Republican Senators and nine Democratic Senators asking to meet with the President to discuss the many benefits that accrue to our Nation by building the Keystone XL Pipeline. Now, let me read that letter. It is very short. With the elections of 2012 behind us, we write to remind you of the continuing importance of the Keystone XL Pipeline. We want to work together to keep creating jobs, and Keystone XL is one vital piece of the puzzle. We would like to meet with you in the near future to discuss this important project. Setting politics aside, nothing has changed about the thousands of jobs that Keystone XL will create. Nothing has changed about the energy security to be gained through an important addition to the existing pipeline network built with sound environmental stewardship and the best modern technology. Nothing has changed about the security to be gained from using more fuel produced at home and by a close and stable ally. And nothing has changed about the need for America to remain a place where businesses still build things. We hope that you will follow through on your directive of March 22, 2012, to Federal agencies to move forward vital energy infrastructure like Keystone XL. The state of Nebraska is nearing completion of the new pipeline route within Nebraska. With that process near completion, we look forward to an affirmative determination of national interest soon. We sent that letter to the President in November--a bipartisan letter, nine Republican Senators, nine Democratic Senators. To date, we have received no direct response from the White House despite the fact that there is clearly strong bipartisan support for the project. The only response we received was not from the White House but, rather, from the State Department. Let me read that letter. It is very short too. It is from David S. Adams, Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. Basically, it says: Thank you for your November 16 letter to President Obama concerning the status of the administration's review of TransCanada's new application for a Presidential Permit for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project. We have been asked to respond on behalf of the President. The letter then kind of goes: Yes, we recognize it is an important project. We are looking at it. We are doing some more draft supplemental reviews, and we hope this information is helpful to you. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance. That is the extent of the response. So it has now been more than 4\1/2\ years since the permit applications were submitted to the State Department for this vital energy project. Yet, even with an exhaustive review process, the consent now of every State along the route, the backing of a majority of Congress, and the support of the American people, the Keystone XL Pipeline project is still languishing at the hands of the President of the United States--after 4\1/2\ years. Let me expand on the point about all of the States on the route approving the project. After Governor Heineman, on behalf of the State of Nebraska, sent a letter to the President approving the project, which happened just several weeks ago, after I worked with Senator Baucus and others to get 53 Senators in 1 day on a letter saying to the President, let's get this approved, the Governors along the route also sent a letter to the President saying, hey, let's approve the project. So now you have every single State saying--every single State on the route saying: Hey, fine, let's do the project--every single one. Here is the letter. It also includes the Honorable Brad Wall, the Premier of Saskatchewan. The pipeline passes through Saskatchewan as well. I am not going to read the whole letter but just a few excerpts. Dear Mr. President: As you begin your second term, we are writing to respectfully urge you to move forward on the Keystone XL Pipeline project. The energy relationship between the United States and Canada is vital to the future of both our countries. It is an interest we share, transcending political lines and geographic boundaries. The letter goes on and talks about how the project is crucial to U.S. energy security, working with Canada for our energy rather than getting it from the Middle East. The letter talks about ``thousands of jobs'' the project creates not only building this $7 billion pipeline but then all the jobs that go to the refineries and the other activities that go with it. And it talks about safety, efficiency, and reliability. The letter concludes: Mr. President, we consider the Keystone XL Pipeline fundamentally important to the future economic prosperity of both the United States and Canada. We strongly urge you to issue a Presidential Permit and act swiftly to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. It is signed by Governors--now, remember, Senator Baucus and I have been working on this on behalf of Montana. You have Nebraska here. Governor Heineman just sent in a letter. Here are some of the other Governors on this letter: Gov. Sam Brownback from Kansas, Gov. Jack Dalrymple from North Dakota, Gov. Dennis Daugaard from South Dakota, Gov. Mary Fallin from Oklahoma, Gov. Rick Perry from Texas, in addition to other Governors who are not on the route, such as Gov. Butch Otter of Idaho, Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Gov. Matt Mead of Wyoming, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona--Republicans and Democrats. But the point is that on the whole route, all the Governors have written and said: Hey, let's do this. Let's do it. So what is going on here? Why does the President continue to delay the project? The long wait for approval is dismaying enough, but it represents a larger issue for our Nation and begs a bigger question for policyholders: How will America ever build an ``all of the above'' energy policy if the President takes nearly 5 years to approve one piece of an inclusive plan, particularly, as I say, after everybody on the route has said: Hey, can we do this after 5 years, please. Can we move forward, Mr. President? To account 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 U.S. sweet crude from the Bakken oilfields in North Dakota and Montana. Even by modest estimates, it will create tens of thousands of jobs, boost the American economy, and raise much needed revenues for State and Federal governments. We have a deficit. Here is a project to get substantial tax revenue without raising taxes, through economic activity, through job creation. Further, and perhaps most importantly, it will help put our country within striking range of a long-sought goal: 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, reducing or eliminating our reliance on the Middle East and other volatile parts of the world. The argument has been advanced that the oil sands will increase carbon emissions and that failing to build the Keystone XL will somehow reduce emissions. But let's look at that claim. That is the other piece. Let's look at the environmental aspects of this project. Today, more than 80 percent of all new recovery in the oil sands is being accomplished ``in situ,'' a 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, with some facilities achieving reductions as high as 50 percent. Today, heavy crude oil from the Middle East and even from California produces more carbon emissions over its life cycle than the Canadian oil sands. Let me repeat that. Today, heavy crude that we import from the Middle East and even some of the California heavy crude produce more carbon emissions over their life cycle than Canadian oil sands. We also 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. That is what I show right here on this chart. From there, the oil will be shipped across the Pacific Ocean, a much larger, sensitive ecosystem than the Sandhills--which we are not even going through now--to be refined at facilities in China with weaker environmental standards and more emissions than facilities in the United States. The United States, moreover, will continue to import oil from the Middle East, again, on tankers. 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 and a less secure distribution system without the Keystone XL Pipeline project. Think about it. So we say: OK, we are not going to have this pipeline, even though we have built other pipelines already. We are not going to get oil from Canada. What happens? That oil goes to China, with higher emissions. You are going to take it across the ocean, which is a greater risk than putting it in a pipeline. You are going to have it refined in refineries in China, which have much worse emissions standards than our own. And guess what we get to do. Let's see, we do not get the jobs. We do not get the tax revenues. Do you know what we do get to do? We get to continue to import our oil from the Middle East. How does that sound? Is that a good idea with what is going on in Iran and with what is going on in Egypt and with what is going on in Syria--the risk that the Strait of Hormuz could be blockaded or that you could have further conflict over there that could cut off oil supplies? Is that what the American people want? They want to continue to get oil from the Middle East rather than our closest friend and ally, Canada? The American people would rather that oil go to China? Of course not. And that is what we are talking about with this project. Well, that raises another important point. The administration's own State Department completed its 3-year National Environmental Protection Act--NEPA--review of the Keystone XL project back in 2011 and determined that ``there would be no significant impacts'' on the environment. That is what the administration determined in their own NEPA process. And that raises another point. The White House says: Well, we do not want to get ahead of the process. But the President effectively abandoned the process more than a year 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--after 4 years--by December 2011, according to a letter Secretary Clinton sent to me in August 2011. I have worked toward approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline--first as the Governor of North Dakota and now as a Senator--because I believe it is just the kind of project that will grow our economy and create the jobs our country so desperately needs, and it will do so with good environmental stewardship. At the same time, it will reduce our dependence on the Middle East for oil, which is what the American people have desired for decades. The Keystone XL Pipeline project is long overdue. For the benefit of our economy, our environment, and our long-term energy security, President Obama needs to approve it now, without further delay. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for several minutes on another topic in regard to a recipient of the Medal of Honor from my State of North Dakota.

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

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of our Nation's true heroes--Army SSG Clinton Romesha. On Monday the President will present Sergeant Romesha with our country's highest military award--the Medal of Honor--for ``acts of gallantry . . . above and beyond the call of duty.'' Clint comes from a long line of military heroes. His father is a veteran of the Vietnam war. His grandfather fought in the U.S. Army during World War II. Romesha often cites his grandfather as his greatest hero, so it was not surprising that Clint followed his example and joined the Army in 1999. Staff Sergeant Romesha showed courage every day that he donned his Army uniform but especially on October 3, 2009, one of the deadliest days of the war in Afghanistan. On that day hundreds of Taliban fighters ambushed American Combat Outpost Keating from all sides with grenades, machine guns, mortars, and rifles. Heavily outnumbered, Clint Romesha and his fellow soldiers quickly fought back in what would turn out to be a deadly daylong battle. Sergeant Romesha fought valiantly. He darted into danger to draw out the enemy many times. He himself took out a machine gun team. Staff Sergeant Romesha was working to take out a second when he was wounded by shrapnel from an exploding grenade. His Medal of Honor citation reads: Undeterred by his injuries, Staff Sergeant Romesha continued to fight and upon the arrival of another soldier to aid him and the assistant gunner, he again rushed through the exposed avenue to assemble additional soldiers. With complete disregard for his own safety, he continually exposed himself to heavy enemy fire as he moved confidently about the battlefield engaging and destroying multiple enemy targets. Staff Sergeant Romesha exemplified the valor that President Theodore Roosevelt--also a Medal of Honor recipient--spoke of when he said: ``Courage is not having the strength to go on; it is going on when you don't have the strength.'' Despite his wounds, Sergeant Romesha never stopped fighting. He stayed in the battle--leading his team, directing air support, protecting wounded soldiers, and helping to recover the bodies of his fallen friends. The battle lasted for 12 hours. Eight soldiers lost their lives, and 22 were wounded--a fact that Romesha humbly reminds us of whenever his bravery is touted. In fact, Sergeant Romesha said: What I got injured with was nothing. I have buddies who lost their eyesight, who lost limbs. For that, I would rather give them all the credit they deserve for the sacrifices they made. For me, it was nothing. To Sergeant Romesha, it was just doing his job. To the rest of us, he is a true example of courage and selfless sacrifice. He went above and beyond the call of duty, repeatedly risking his life to defend his post and, more importantly, to help his fellow soldiers. We are grateful for his service and for his example to us all. Today, Clint resides in Minot, ND, where he and his wife Tamara are raising their three children. I am certain he is every much the hero and inspiration to them that his own grandfather was to him. My wife Mikey and I join our fellow North Dakotans and Americans in honoring Sergeant Romesha for his heroic and selfless service. We thank him for his exemplary actions on that dangerous day in Afghanistan and every day he served our great country. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, please let the record show that I was in Minot, ND, on January 29, 2013, to speak at the funeral and honor the life of Chester Reiten when the confirmation vote on Senator John Kerry to be Secretary of State was held. Chester Reiten was a dedicated public servant who devoted a considerable amount of his time and energy to serving his community and State. His efforts included lengthy tenures as a State senator and mayor of Minot.

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to advocate for a secure energy future for our Nation. There is no question that we can achieve energy security or energy independence for our country, and I believe we can do it within the next 5 years. I define energy security or energy independence as producing more energy than we consume. I mean, this is an interrelated, high-tech global economy. Energy will move back and forth between nations, but we truly become energy secure when we produce more energy than we consume. But to do that, to achieve energy independence or energy security, we must take the commonsense steps necessary to achieve it. That is why today, once again, I call on President Obama to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline project now that Governor Heineman of Nebraska has approved the new route through his State of Nebraska. The Keystone XL Pipeline is not just about bringing Canadian oil to U.S. refineries, it is also vital to move our own U.S.-produced oil through our refineries. In fact, that is how I got involved with this project in the first place. Although it is hard to believe, TransCanada first applied for approval of this project 4\1/2\ years ago. Let me repeat that--4\1/2\ years ago. At that time, I was Governor of North Dakota, and I was working with Governor Brian Schwietzer, of Montana, to make sure that oil producers in the Bakken regions of our States, in North Dakota and Montana, could put light sweet crude oil from the Bakken into the Keystone XL Pipeline. We met with TransCanada, contacted our oil producers, met with TransCanada, and they agreed. TransCanada agreed to an on-ramp so that the Keystone XL Pipeline would move North Dakota and Montana light sweet crude from the Bakken to refineries throughout the United States--to refineries in Illinois, Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana, hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil from our oilfields from day one. That is what this chart shows. Here you see the original Keystone Pipeline that was built during my tenure as Governor. Here we show the route of the Keystone XL Pipeline, and you can see that it comes through North Dakota and Montana--our Bakken region--so that we can put oil into the pipeline. It gives us access to all these refineries in Illinois, Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana. We are talking about U.S. energy, we are talking about U.S. jobs, and we are talking about commerce in our country, getting our economy growing and growing. We are talking about generating tax revenue without raising taxes to help with our debt and our deficit, and we are talking about energy security. Why wouldn't anyone want that? Why wouldn't everyone support this project? Why is it being held up? Why is the President holding up this project? Because the net effect is, with President Obama continuing to hold up this project, we are continuing to rely on oil from the Middle East when we could be relying on oil that we produce here at home and from our closest friend and ally, Canada. Well, some argue, it is because producing oil from the oil sands in Canada creates more greenhouse gas emissions. Let's look at the facts-- not rhetoric, not hype, not spin, let's look at the facts. Oil sands crude produces about 6 percent more carbon dioxide than the U.S. crude supply average--the average. Canadian oil sands crude produces less carbon dioxide than the heavy crude we get from California or the heavy crude we get from the Middle East. Think of that. By blocking the Keystone XL Pipeline, President Obama will continue to require that we rely on heavy crude from the Middle East rather than crude that is produced with less emissions from Canada. How can that make sense? Furthermore, since 1990 Canada has reduced the greenhouse gas emissions associated with every barrel of oil sands crude by almost 30 percent, and the technology continues to improve. Canada is investing $3 billion in carbon capture and storage technology--$3 billion. Eighty percent of the new development in Canadian oil sands is in in situ production, meaning drilling--like conventional drilling--rather than the old method of excavation, and that means a smaller environmental footprint. Still, someone might say: Well, I don't care about that. I don't care. I just don't want the Canadian oil sands produced. The Canadian oil sands are going to be produced, just as sure as death and taxes. They are going to be produced. The only question is whether the oil comes to us or goes to China. I want to show my second chart. It is a simple map. The oil is going to be produced, but is it going to come down, pick up oil from our oilfields, and move that product to our refineries, state-of-the-art refineries with lower emissions, or is that oil, as you can see from these green lines, going to go to the west coast of Canada and there be put on ships and sent to refineries in China and be refined in their refineries, which have much higher emissions? If it goes to China, that means there will be more greenhouse gas emissions as the oil is transported via tankers across the ocean rather than a pipeline, and you also have the added risk of spills in the ocean, affecting the ocean ecosystem. Meanwhile, we will continue to get oil from the Middle East with higher greenhouse gas emissions and the risk of tanker spills rather than the greater safety and the lower cost of pipelines, not to mention the fact that we continue our dependence on oil from the Middle East. How can we continue to depend on energy from the Middle East when we see what is going on, when we see what is going on in Syria, when we see what is going on in Egypt and we see what is going on in Iran? Recently, I attended the movie ``Argo.'' It is a great movie. If you haven't seen ``Argo,'' I would recommend it. I would recommend it to anyone. It is about the Iran hostage crisis in 1979. Six American diplomats fled to the Canadian Embassy when the U.S. Embassy was stormed by the Iranians. Our people, as you remember, were held at the Embassy in Iran for 444 days. We all remember that terrible time. This movie is the story of how our government, working through the CIA, working with the Canadian Government, helped the six Americans out who were able to get to the Canadian Embassy. Our governments worked together and helped those hostages--in this case, the six who weren't taken hostage but the six who were at the Canadian Embassy--took them out of Iran. It really is a great story. It is a story of how the United States and Canada worked together when a Middle Eastern country that defines the United States as the ``Great Satan'' was holding our people hostage. Here we are today continuing to rely on oil from the Middle East. We cannot continue to rely on the volatile countries of the Middle East for our energy. The American people couldn't be more clear. We have to stop our addiction to Middle Eastern oil. At the same time, we can't continue to send them billions of our dollars as we buy the oil, billions of dollars that are used against us. We can and we must rely on ourselves. We must rely on those we can count on, such as our closest friend and ally, Canada. If we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat the failures of the past. The time has come to act. President Obama, the time has come to give us a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline. The time has come to approve it. On a bipartisan basis, we have worked to address all of the concerns you have raised regarding the project, including the new route through Nebraska. On a bipartisan basis, we have asked to meet with President Obama, Republicans and Democrats together. The response has been silence and delay. The fact is that we can build a bright energy future for this country, but we need the President to join with us to do that. We can create energy, jobs, tax revenues that will reduce our debt and deficit without raising tax rates, and energy independence for our Nation. Again, I ask President Obama to work with us, to work with us on a bipartisan basis, and the winners will be the American people.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent that the period of morning business be extended until 5 p.m, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of Chester Reiten who passed away January 22, 2013, in his beloved hometown, Minot, ND. Chester ``Chet'' Reiten was born in Hastings, ND, in 1923 and served in the U.S. Navy during World War II. He graduated from North Dakota State University in Fargo, ND, with a degree in agriculture and worked as a county agent until entering the radio and television field in 1951. His company, Reiten Broadcasting Co., eventually owned four television and three radio stations in North Dakota. In 1978, Chester Reiten and some of his Norwegian friends sat down to discuss a way in which they could celebrate their ancestry. Their discussion led to the birth of Norsk H

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise this evening to once again address the fiscal cliff. Clearly, the time to debate has come and gone. The simple fact is we need to act and we need to act now. Earlier today, we heard from the President, and what I heard from the President is that he feels we have the framework for an agreement on taxes. Also, the Senate minority leader has indicated, after his negotiations with the Vice President, that he believes we have the basic agreement on a tax proposal to avoid the fiscal cliff. So let's take that step. Let's address the tax piece. Let's get it done. Granted, the tax proposal is not the big agreement that will fully address our debt and deficit--an agreement we hope to be able to put together, an agreement I support and one that includes tax reform, bipartisan entitlement reform, and finding savings in the Federal budget. Clearly, these items all need to be addressed, and they need to be addressed on the order of $4 trillion to get our deficit and our debt under control. That is the type of deal I favor, and it is the kind of deal we have to get to. But if we can't do it all at once, let's do it in pieces. As the old saying goes, even the longest journey begins with a single step. If the first step is this tax deal, let's get going. To break the logjam, let's start with this piece--a tax deal that will ensure taxes are not increased for middle-class Americans. That is something we can and we must do. It does involve compromise. For example, I believe we should extend the current tax rates for all taxpayers. Real revenue comes from economic growth, not higher taxes. By closing loopholes and limiting deductions, we can create a simpler, fairer Tax Code that will help our economy grow. President Obama, however, has a different view, so we are forced to find common ground. In this case, that means extending the tax rates we can to help as many Americans as possible avoid higher taxes. We also need to fully address sequestration. Sequestration involves automatic spending cuts. Those spending cuts hit the military disproportionately, and I believe they need to be revised. But the pressure to do that kicks in after January 1, and I believe that pressure will serve as a catalyst for Congress to come up with and pass better alternatives. Also, we must address the debt ceiling, and it must be addressed in a way that reduces spending. We have no choice. We are borrowing 40 cents of every $1 we spend, and that is simply not sustainable. But, again, we have to break the current logjam, and if we can't get all these things done in one package, then let's get started with what we can do. Let's get this tax piece done for as many working taxpayers as possible and immediately move on to the next tax. Quite simply, that is what Americans want us to do. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I rise to speak on behalf of the senior Senator from North Dakota and to thank him for his dedicated service on behalf of the people of North Dakota and on behalf of the people of this great Nation. I think this is 26 years that he has served in the Senate, and he has always served with great distinction and great commitment. He has been a leader in agriculture, in energy, and in fiscal efforts and many other areas. I have to say on a personal note that since I came to the Senate last year, he has reached out to me and to my family in a very warm and positive way, both personally and professionally, and I would say the same about his wife Lucy. I think this is in the finest tradition of the Senate, in the tradition of bipartisanship, in the tradition of working together, and in the tradition of truly caring and being committed to getting things done. It wasn't just that he reached out on a personal level and said: All right, how can I be helpful, how can we work together; when I had questions or needed assistance, he was there. He was more than helpful. In terms of working on legislation that matters, a farm bill, working together on the Agriculture Committee--Senator Conrad has an amazing knowledge of agriculture and obviously incredible experience over the past 26 years building good farm policy for this Nation. So to work with him on the Agriculture Committee was not only rewarding but really an opportunity to craft good long-term policy for this country that will make a difference. I start with that example because when you look at it, here we are at a time when we need good policy for our country, but at the same time we need to find savings, real savings that will help us address the deficit and the debt. So we went to work on a farm bill--a farm bill that is not only responsive to the farmers, the ranchers, and the producers of this country who produce the highest quality of food supply in the world at the lowest cost--every American benefits from that. They wanted more crop insurance, and we went to work. We improved the farm bill in terms of the kind of crop insurance it provides, but at the same time we saved $23 billion to help with the deficit and the debt. That is doing it the right way. If you think about it and you went across all aspects of what we are doing here, all of the different types of policies that we have, if we could do the same--craft good policy and find real, meaningful savings on a bipartisan basis that empowers the very people who are impacted by that policy, the farmers and the ranchers who do such a great job producing food, fuel, and fiber, but at the same time grow our economy, create a favorable balance of trade and an incredible number of jobs-- that is what we have to do, whether it is agriculture, whether it is energy, whether it is disaster assistance when we have floods and hurricanes, whether it is our military. I am very pleased and honored to have had the opportunity to work with Senator Conrad on those types of issues to try to make a real difference for the people of this country. As Senator Conrad departs the Senate after 26 years--think about it: 26 years here, conducting himself in a professional manner with respect to this institution. He built relationships with Senators on both sides of the aisle but always with a commitment to the people of North Dakota and this country. As I look at the legacy he leaves, I think one of the most important right now is his willingness to work in a bipartisan way to get things done. He brings a practical, pragmatic approach that recognizes solutions are imperfect but that we have an obligation in a bipartisan way to come together and find real solutions for the people of the greatest Nation on Earth. It is that legacy, that willingness to be bipartisan and work together that I saw up close and personal here every day. I believe it is that legacy, as well as many others, that will continue here in this body when we think about Senator Kent Conrad and his service to North Dakota and his service to this great country. I rise to say thank you on behalf of the people of North Dakota and this country to my distinguished colleague for 26 years of dedicated service. Thank you, good luck, and God bless in your future endeavors. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, today I would like to speak on several important issues pending before the Senate--issues that I believe are related. I want to speak first about the recent proposal to change the rules of the Senate with a simple majority vote. Second, and related, I want to talk about the need for consensus and bipartisanship to address our Nation's pressing challenges; specifically, the fiscal cliff that we face. We must, and in fact we can, find consensus and agreement. We have done it before. We have done it in building a good solid farm bill which actually found $23 billion in savings toward the deficit. We did it in passing a strong highway bill that will strengthen our Nation's infrastructure. We did it most recently this week in working through a large and complex Defense authorization bill that will keep our Nation safer and more secure in these perilous times. It will take more of this kind of cooperation and consensus building to address the very real and substantial challenges facing our Nation today. That is why I am deeply concerned about a proposal floated recently by some Members of the majority regarding the rules of the Senate. They propose to change the nearly 100-year-old Senate rule that requires a two-thirds majority to change the operating rules of the Senate. Our colleagues in the majority are proposing to use a simple majority vote to make the change. That is the issue here. The issue is the manner in which they plan to do it. Once the precedent of changing a rule with a simple majority vote is established, 51 Senators could change the rules to suit their own convenience. In other words, they want to break the rules in order to change the rules. That would be a big mistake. That would be, as the majority leader himself said in his own book, the death of the Senate. Votes that require a supermajority serve a very valuable function in the Senate. They encourage consensus, they encourage bipartisanship, and they make certain that the minority has a voice in the lawmaking of this body. In recent history, both Democrats and Republicans have held the majority. In fact, it was not that long ago that the Democrats themselves were adamantly opposed to changing the rules of the filibuster. They argued that doing so could bring an end to a century- old tradition of bipartisan consensus building in the Senate and diminish the influence of minority voices. The reality is, we are now at a point in our history when bipartisanship and consensus is exactly what we need. Laws passed by a narrow majority will only fuel greater partisanship and greater divisiveness. We need both parties working together so that when we are done we can say, this is a plan the American people can agree on. That is the kind of approach we need to address the economic challenges that are posed by the fiscal cliff. We need bipartisanship and we need consensus building. With bipartisan consensus, I believe we can avert the fiscal cliff looming before us and put our Nation on a sustainable fiscal path. To do anything less could put our Nation and our future at risk. In little more than a month, nearly $400 billion in tax increases will combine with sequestration; more than 100 billion in mandatory across-the-board spending cuts over 1 year, to drag our Nation over the so-called fiscal cliff. What those tax increases mean to the average American family of four earning $50,000 a year is over $2,000 in higher income taxes. Add to that expiration of the alternative minimum tax patch new taxes mandated by the Federal health care bill, and the reinstatement of the death tax, which will impact the next generation of farmers, ranchers, and small business owners, and Americans will see the largest tax increase in the history of our country. If all of this happens, the Congressional Budget Office predicts the Nation's economy will shrink next year, and the unemployment rate could rise again. In other words, we go back into recession. I believe we can avoid the fiscal cliff and address our massive deficit. But that requires doing three essential steps: reforming our Tax Code, reforming entitlement programs, and better controlling our spending. We can get additional revenue by reforming our Tax Code. That means closing loopholes and limiting deductions. By closing loopholes and limiting deductions, we can make the Tax Code simpler and fairer to stimulate growth in our economy. Markets get the kind of certainty they need to invest, to grow, and to hire. It is a growing economy, a growing economic base that creates more jobs and revenue, not higher taxes. The simple fact is we must make America a great place to do business again. Our progrowth strategies in my home State of North Dakota have broadened our economic base and raised revenue without raising taxes. That has resulted in the lowest unemployment rate in the Nation, growing personal income, and, rather than a deficit, a budget surplus. In addition to progrowth tax reform, we also need to start a fair and thoughtful process to reform entitlement programs. If we do not, they will not be sound and solvent for future generations. For example, Medicare's Hospital Service Program is in serious financial trouble. In a report this spring, the Medicare trustees cautioned that the trust fund that covers the program's hospital services will be depleted and consequently insolvent by 2024. The fact is, we can accomplish entitlement reform in a way that does not change programs for people at or near retirement, yet ensures that those promises will be there for our children and grandchildren down the road when they need them. Republicans and Democrats should be able to come together, as should older and younger Americans, because thoughtful entitlement reform is in everybody's interests. Finally, we need to control our spending. Our Federal deficit for the fiscal year 2012 was $1.1 trillion. Our national debt is now more than $16 trillion. That is unsustainable. More revenues from tax reform and economic growth, combined with entitlement reform and controlling spending, will reduce our deficit and our debt. There is no question we can do it. For example, we can help make a downpayment on our deficit reduction right now by passing the farm bill we put together in this Chamber. The farm bill version we passed with broad bipartisan support in the Senate would save $23 billion over 10 years. The House version, which has been passed out of committee and is now pending on the floor, would save $35 billion. Passing a good farm bill can be part of the solution for the fiscal cliff. The reality is, solving our Nation's fiscal problems is achievable. We can find real budget savings in a far more thoughtful way than doing it through sequestration: Reforming our Tax Code, reforming entitlement programs, and better control of our spending will work. Add a measure of good-faith bipartisanship and we can get our Nation growing again. We can get people back to work. For the sake of our country, we need to do it and we need to do it now. Honoring our Armed Forces Sergeant First Class Darren M. Linde Specialist Tyler J. Orgaard I rise today to honor the lives of two North Dakota soldiers who were killed in action on Monday, December 3, in southern Afghanistan while serving in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. SFC Darren M. Linde and SPC Tyler J. Orgaard were both members of the North Dakota National Guard assigned to the 818th Engineer Company. Their unit had been tasked with an important but dangerous mission. They were conducting a route clearance operation when their vehicle struck an IED on Monday, fatally injuring both men and wounding SPC Ian Placek, who is currently undergoing medical treatment in Germany. We pray for his full recovery. Today we honor the lives of Sergeant First Class Linde and Specialist Orgaard. Our thoughts and our prayers are with their families and their friends as well. Sergeant First Class Linde of Devils Lake, ND, led a distinguished military career since enlisting in North Dakota National Guard in 1990. During the course of his career, he served with the North Dakota National Guard as well as the United States Army and the Montana National Guard. He earned several recognitions for his valor, including the Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal, and Army Good Conduct Medal. Since 2009, he worked as a full-time instructor with the North Dakota National Guard's 164th Regional Train Institute, Camp Grafton Training Center in Devils Lake. Sergeant First Class Linde was a devoted and selfless leader as well as a committed family man. He enjoyed spending time with his family and friends. He is survived by his wife Adrienne and four children. Specialist Tyler Orgaard of Bismarck, ND, joined the North Dakota National Guard shortly before his 2001 graduation from Bismarck Century High School, where he was a member of the Century Patriots wrestling team and began competing in the Impact Fighting Championships. He was passionate about training in mixed martial arts. His family and friends knew him to be an extremely disciplined, hard-working man who served his country with great pride. This was Specialist Orgaard's first overseas deployment. For his commendable service, he has been awarded the Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart, Army Good Conduct Medal, and the National Defense Service Medal. Specialist Orgaard is survived by many loving friends and family including his parents, Josephine and Jesse Orgaard. For the service and sacrifice of these brave men, we offer our thanks. We pledge to honor their lives through our commitment to supporting our troops and veterans and by remembering their lives of service. My wife Mikey and I also join our fellow North Dakotans and Americans in extending our deepest sympathy to the families of Sergeant First Class Linde and Specialist Orgaard. We recognize that these men have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our Nation. We will remain forever grateful for their selfless service and commitment to defending the principles of liberty and justice that continue to guide our country. May God bless and continue to watch over their families. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the esteemed Senator from Texas and the Senator from Kentucky. I see the Senator from Iowa has joined us as well. I rise to speak in support of the STEM Act but also to respond to the Senator from New York. I see the Senator has left, but I also want to respond to some of the points in support of the Senator from Texas. The STEM Act passed the House; it was H. Res. 6429, sponsored by Congressman Lamar Smith. I argue that it accomplishes both of the things we are talking about today. It provides us with the opportunity to have a greater pool of employees with training in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, which is what we need in this country. It also accomplishes the diversity that was referred to by the Senator from New York. So what the Senators from Texas, Kentucky, Iowa, and myself are proposing is to accomplish both goals. We are saying we can have the students who have graduated with either a doctorate degree or a master's degree in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, which is what we very much need to get our economy growing. A growing economy creates more employment. It also creates the revenue without raising taxes that we need to address our deficit and debt. So this legislation accomplishes both those goals and still provides an increase in diversity which is what the Senator from New York was talking about. The additional point is the point that the Senator from Texas very clearly made. This legislation passed the House. The last time I checked, legislation has to pass the Senate and the House. That is a pretty important distinction. Referring back to the comments of the Senator from Kentucky, who said if we cannot do it all at once because of disagreements, let's start getting done what we can get done, here is a bill that provides us with people in the science and technology fields who can help our economy grow. These are people we need very much. It will increase diversity, just as the Senator from New York said, and it has passed the House. Common sense says let's go. Let's pass the bill. So we want to join with the Senator from New York, the Senator from Delaware, and the other sponsors to whom he referred, but let's join on something we can actually get done, meaning a bill that passes the House as well as the Senate. I think that logic is compelling. I look at my own State of North Dakota. We are doing amazing things in energy. As a matter of fact, we are hot on the trail of the State of Texas when it comes to oil development. I am telling you, we are after you. So what is that going to take? It is going to take continued development of the technologies that not only helps us produce more energy, but helps us do it with good environmental stewardship. What we are talking about is when we have the engineers, scientists, technicians, and mathematicians who graduate from our great universities with doctorate and master's degrees, they can stay and help us here rather than help someone else in some other country that would then get ahead of the United States. This will help us solve the fundamental challenges we face today, which is getting this economy growing so we get people back to work and creating the revenue the right way with economic growth to help us address our deficit and debt. With that, I yield the floor to the esteemed Senator from Texas.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 125th anniversary of Thompson-Markward Hall, formerly known as the Young Women's Christian Home. Thompson-Markward Hall is located on Capitol Hill, directly across from the Senate Hart Building, and has long served as a temporary home for young women studying or working in our Nation's Capital, including many who have interned or worked in congressional offices. Thompson-Markward Hall was founded in 1833 by Mary G. Wilkinson. Wilkinson, who was grieving the death of her daughter, recognized the need to create a safe housing option for young women moving to Washington seeking employment, and he began housing two young women in her Capitol Hill home. The need for additional space soon led to the securing of a new location at Fifth Street, NW, where the early years of the home were funded through the generosity and hard work of Wilkinson, her friends, benevolent merchants, and other community members. In 1887, the Young Woman's Christian Home was chartered by Congress and incorporated to provide temporary housing for young women coming to the District of Columbia. The assistance Congress provided to this home during its early years stands today as a strong example of ways Congress can show support and lend short-term assistance to help an organization get its legs. By 1906, the trustees believed the home could manage without Federal assistance, and the congressional appropriation was discontinued Today the home remains a self-sustaining organization funded through endowments and residents. Today, Thompson-Markward Hall also remains, true to its founding principles, a safe, comfortable, moderately-priced place for young women to live when studying or establishing careers in Washington. Retaining the spirit of Mary G. Wilkinson's founding intentions, Thompson-Markward Hall has earned a reputation as a special place for its residents, helping equip them with a strong foundation for developing lifelong friendships and fostering a deep regard for Washington, DC, and the opportunities the city offers. As Thompson-Markward Hall celebrates another important milestone in its history, it is important that we recognize and congratulate this organization and especially the many talented individuals who have worked hard and given of their time and talents to help found this residence and now work to maintain and further its rich legacy. It is the efforts of all of these individuals, and especially Mar G. Wilkinson, Bessie J. Kibbey, Flora Markward Thompson, and past and present. Board of Trustee members and staff, who have helped make Thompson-Markward Hall a wonderful housing option for thousands of young women.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from South Carolina for his leadership on this incredibly important issue and to also express my appreciation for the Senator from Tennessee and my agreement with his remarks. I thought he was right-on with what he said, and I support what he had to say. I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 41 with Senator Graham. He is knowledgeable on this issue. He has dedicated an incredible amount of time and commitment to this effort. Recently I was with Senator Graham and Senator McCain and others. We were in Afghanistan, and then we were in Egypt, where we met with the Muslim Brotherhood. We were in Israel, where we met with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Then we were in Libya, where we met with a number of the militia groups who now control Benghazi and Mirsrata and, of course, Tripoli. And we were in Tunisia as well. I have to say that it is incredibly important that we had the opportunity to go to those countries. Senator Graham has been there many times, as has Senator McCain. But it is very important that we understand what is going on. Some of the comments Senator Corker expressed are so true. We have to understand what is going on in these countries. At the same time, we have to communicate with these countries as they try to build democracies. But we must be clear and consistent in our foreign policy that we support our friends, we support our allies, we will oppose our opponents, and that we demand safety for our embassies and for Americans abroad. We provide no less to the people who come to our country, and we expect the same in return. S.J. Res. 41 is a bipartisan effort. And I want to express that again; that is so important. It is a bipartisan effort--80 Senators standing together and expressing their support, bringing this resolution to the Senate floor, and saying to the administration: We need to take a tough stand with Iran. We cannot allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. It is not an option. Containment--a nuclear Iran contained is not an option. It does not work. Look what is going on in the Middle East right now, in Egypt, in Libya, Tunisia, Yemen. Across the Middle East right now, you have extremist groups--fundamental Islamic extremist groups--that are undermining the democratic efforts in those countries. Look at the attacks on our Embassy. Look at the killing of our Ambassador. We cannot allow that and can only prevent that through strength--through strength. So we have to stand for America's interests in all of these countries, and we have to prevent a nuclear Iran. Iran is helping the extremists throughout all of these countries, supporting Bashar Asad in Syria, supporting Hezbollah, Hamas--all these groups that are undertaking violence throughout the Middle East, not only against Americans but against their own people, undermining these nations' democracies. The way we help stop that and the way we help support freedom and democracy is through a strong, consistent foreign policy. That is what the resolution, on a bipartisan basis, is all about-- saying to the administration: We must stand up to Iran, and we must prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. And if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon, that could also start a race for other countries in the Middle East to develop a nuclear capability. Look at the unstable situation there. It is certainly not a situation where nuclear weapons can be added to the equation as well. We have worked in the Senate, in the House, to provide tools to the administration to put sanctions in place to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The Kirk-Menendez legislation, which was passed as part of the Defense authorization bill, provides strong sanctions against Iran that still have not been fully implemented. The best way to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is through sanctions. All options have to be on the table. We must support Israel in whatever action Israel determines it must take to protect itself. All options for the United States must be on the table as well. The best way to stop Iran, if we can, is with sanctions, but the only way that is going to work is if they are fully imposed to the full extent possible. Let me use Kirk-Menendez as an example. What did that legislation provide? That legislation provided a tool to the administration that essentially barred any company or country that does business with Iran or its Central Bank from doing business with the central banking system in the United States. That is an effective tool because if Iran cannot sell its oil, it cannot continue to function. We must fully impose those sanctions. We must stand strongly with our closest friend and ally Israel in the region. This resolution is a bipartisan message to our administration saying: Stand strong. We can and we must prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. With that, Mr. President, I see the majority leader and the minority leader are on the floor, and I will turn the floor back to the esteemed Senator from South Carolina and thank him for his work.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, look at what is going on in the Middle East. We have more than 20 countries demonstrating with anti-American protests. Look at countries such as Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Look at what is going on in Iraq. Yet at the same time we continue to import our energy from the Middle East. So look at what is going on in the Middle East at the same time we are dependent on them for our energy, when we can produce that energy right here at home and work with our closest friend and ally in the world--Canada--and when we can create American jobs. This is an opportunity. We can produce more energy in this country. We can create jobs. We can get this economy going, and we don't have to be dependent on the Middle East. It just takes the will to move forward with the energy plan we have proposed, but we need an administration that will work with us to advance that energy plan. Gas prices, which affect every working person, every consumer, every family, every business in this country, for the month of September are the highest they have ever been for any month of September. What does that do to American pocketbooks? This is an opportunity. This is an opportunity we need to reach out and grab with both hands. The only question I can ask is: Why aren't we? Why isn't this Senate acting on that right now and why isn't this administration working with us? Why do veterans have to come back from the Middle East and go to Canada to get a job to work on something such as the Keystone Pipeline? Because the administration is blocking it in this country. The question I have is: Why? We need to get going on this right now. The American people deserve that.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to speak on energy legislation which is important to this country and legislation I truly believe we can and, in fact, need to pass this year. The U.S. House of Representatives is working on key energy legislation. I think it is very likely they will pass it this evening. That legislation includes a bill that is very similar to energy legislation I have put forward in the Senate. The legislation I am talking about is the Coal Ash Recycling and Oversight Act of 2012. Simply put, this legislation sets commonsense standards for managing and recycling coal ash with a States-led, States-first approach. We have strong bipartisan support for the bill. As I said, we need to take up the bill this year and pass it. Simply put, we have the support on a bipartisan basis to support it. We have more than a dozen Democratic sponsors and more than a dozen Republican sponsors. So why is it important? In simple terms, this is exactly the kind of energy legislation that can help take our Nation to energy security or energy independence. What I mean by that is with the right energy plan, we can move this country to the point where we produce more energy than we consume. Working with our closest friend and ally, Canada, we can produce more energy than we consume--meaning we truly are energy independent or energy secure so that we are not importing energy from the Middle East. And it is not just about energy, it is about jobs--good-paying jobs at a time when we have more than 8 percent unemployment. It is about economic growth--economic growth that we need to get on top of the debt and the deficit. We need to find savings, but we also have to get this economy growing to get on top of this deficit and our $16 trillion Federal debt. It also is about national security. Look at what is going on across the Middle East. Yet we still import energy from the Middle East. Americans do not want to be dependent on importing energy from the Middle East. The reality is, with the right energy plan, we can produce that energy at home and be energy secure, create good jobs, and get our economy growing at the same time. This is just one step, but it is one more important step on that journey. Let me give an example of what we are doing in my home State of North Dakota and doing in States across the country. In North Dakota, just north of the capital Bismarck, there is a large electric power complex, the Coal Creek Power Station, that is operated by Great River Energy, a company that operates from North Dakota to Minnesota. It is a large complex. It generates 1,100 megawatts of electricity, two 550-megawatt powerplants. It employs the latest, greatest technology. It has emissions controls that are state of the art. This plant captures waste steam, steam that was formerly exhausted into the air, and uses it to power an ethanol plant. So they are making renewable transportation fuel with waste steam, very low cost, very efficient. It reuses the coal ash or the coal residuals that are produced. It recycles those for building materials. Along with a company called Headwaters, a natural resource company out of Utah, Great River Energy takes this coal ash and makes FlexCrete out of it, which is concrete they use on highways, roads, bridges, anywhere you would use concrete. But they also make other building products as well, such as shingles, that one would use to put on the roof. So this is truly a concept where we are recycling the coal ash and the coal residuals. Formerly, coal ash was put in landfills, and the company would pay about $4 million a year to landfill hundreds of thousands of tons of coal ash. Now they sell it, and it is made into these building materials. They generate something like $12 million a year selling this coal ash for building material. If we do the math, that is about a $16 million swing from across the $4 million a year to a revenue stream of $12 million a year. What does that mean? That means families, small businesses, consumers throughout North Dakota, Minnesota, and beyond now pay $16 million less for their electricity than they did before because of this creative use. This truly is American ingenuity and American innovation at work. In fact, I have a couple examples of buildings that are made from building material produced with coal ash. The first one is the National Energy Center of Excellence at Bismarck State College, where we train people in the energy field. So people are learning how to have a great career in all different types of energy at a facility that is made with the coal ash that I am talking about. It overlooks the Missouri River. It is an absolutely beautiful facility. Let me give another example. This is a building under construction right now. This is the North Dakota Heritage Center on the capitol grounds of our State capital in Bismarck. It is our heritage center, so it is a museum of our State history. Right now, we are doing a $50 million expansion to this facility that is being constructed with coal ash. It is a beautiful building being constructed right now. By using coal ash nationwide, we reduce energy consumption by 162 trillion Btus a year. That is an energy amount that is equal to 1.7 million homes. So we save an amount of energy equal to powering 1.7 million homes. Water use. We save by recycling coal ash; we save 32 billion gallons of water annually. That is equal to one-third of the amount of water used in the State of California. So talk about saving energy and saving water use. This is truly a concept on which those who favor renewable energy, as well as those who favor traditional sources of energy, ought to be able to get together. This is recycling, saving huge amounts of energy, saving huge amounts of water. So why do I tell this story? The reason I tell this story is this: Right now, coal ash is regulated under subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. That is nonhazardous waste, but EPA is looking at changing that to regulating it under subtitle C, which is the hazardous waste section. They are looking at doing that in spite of the Department of Energy, the Federal Highway Administration, State Regulatory Authorities, and even EPA itself acknowledging that it is not a toxic waste. The EPA proposed that change in regulation in June 2010. Clearly, that would undermine the industry, drive up costs, and eliminate jobs when our economy can least afford them. Just to put that in perspective, the industry estimates that it would cost $50 billion annually and eliminate 300,000 American jobs. Let me go through that. Meeting the regulatory disposal requirements under the EPA's subtitle C proposal would cost between $250 and $450 a ton as opposed to about $100 a ton under the current system. That translates into a $47- billion-a-year burden on electricity generators who use coal. And, most importantly, of course, who pays that bill? Their customers, families, and small businesses across the country. Overall, that could mean the loss of 300,000 American jobs. That is why I brought this legislation forward with Senator Conrad, my colleague in North Dakota, and also Senator Baucus of Montana and others. We have more than 12 Republican sponsors on the bill and 12 Democratic sponsors on the bill. So it is very much a bipartisan bill. Furthermore, this bill not only preserves coal ash recycling, as I have described, by preventing these byproducts from being treated as hazardous--and this is important: This bill establishes comprehensive Federal standards for coal ash disposal. Under this legislation, States can set up their own permitting programs for the management and the disposal of coal ash. These programs would be required to be based on existing EPA regulations to protect human health and the environment. If a State does not implement an acceptable permit program, then EPA regulates the program for that State. As a result, States and industry will know where they stand under this bill, and the benchmark for what constitutes a successful State program will be set in statute. EPA can say, yes, the State does meet the standards or, no, the State does not meet the standards. But the EPA cannot move the goalpost. This is a States-first approach that provides regulatory certainty. What is certain is that under this bill, coal ash disposal sites will be required to meet established standards. Again, this is important. We are requiring that they meet established standards. These standards include groundwater detection and monitoring, liners, corrective action when environmental damage occurs, structural stability criteria, and the financial assurance and recordkeeping needed to protect the public. So we set stringent standards. This legislation is needed to protect jobs and to help reduce the cost of homes, roads, and electric bills. I thank the Republicans and the Democrats who have stepped forward on this bill, particularly Senator Conrad, my colleague in North Dakota, Senator Baucus, and others. We have the bipartisan support to move this bill forward. We need to be able to bring it to the floor and do it this year. It is about energy for this country that we need, and it is about jobs for American workers. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the veterans jobs bill. That is the legislation before us. We voted on it last night, and we will likely be voting on it again today and possibly tomorrow. I rise to speak on that bill. I have in fact offered an amendment to the bill because we should do all we can to support our veterans. It is very important. They put their very lives on the line for us, and we need to do all we can to support them. But we need to do it the right way, and that is why I am offering this amendment. We are talking about creating jobs for our veterans. The right way to do that is long-term jobs, quality employment, not short-term stimulus-type jobs. That is exactly why I am offering this amendment to the legislation that would include approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline project. The VFW, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, is an organization that does a tremendous amount for our veterans. We all know the VFW. We all know the great work they do on behalf of our veterans. The VFW is already working to help returning vets get jobs--and that is great. They are working to help our returning veterans get jobs constructing the Keystone XL Pipeline. The only problem is those jobs are in Canada. Those jobs are in Canada because they have not approved the Keystone XL Pipeline in the United States. After 4-plus years, it is still in the permitting process. Since the administration has approved the project, we need to step up and approve the project, and we can do that. This amendment would do that. I want to talk a little bit about what the VFW is doing to help veterans get jobs in the energy industry by doing things such as building the Keystone XL Pipeline, as I mentioned, right now in Canada. VetJobs is a job placement company of which the VFW owns 10 percent, so it is partially owned by the VFW. They are working with the Edmonton Economic Development Corps to hire Canadians in Edmonton and the surrounding area in Alberta. Of course, we can see that is where the pipeline is being constructed in Canada. They are working right now to hire vets to work on such things as the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Several days ago I spoke with Ted Daywalt. Ted Daywalt is the CEO of VetJobs. He told me that in Alberta they have listings in 17 different job categories and they could use between 12,000 and 15,000 people in Alberta, Canada, just working in the energy industry. Why not put those veterans to work right here at home? We all want to have good-quality jobs, but we want to have it near our home and not have to go to a different country to get that job. The Perryman Group estimates that the Keystone XL Pipeline will create 15,000 to 20,000 direct construction jobs right away, and that it will create thousands and thousands of permanent jobs in addition to those construction jobs. That is without spending any tax dollars, that is without adding to the deficit, that is without adding to the debt, and that is jobs here at home, not in Canada. Also, TransCanada, the company building the Keystone XL Pipeline, gives a hiring preference to veterans. They give a hiring preference to veterans in Canada and they give a hiring preference to veterans in the United States. In fact, they also sponsor a program that is actually delivered by a nonprofit entity called Helmets to Hardhats. They train returning veterans so they can do these kinds of jobs. So we can make these quality, long-term, permanent jobs available right away here in the United States by supporting this amendment. In addition, we get more safe, dependable, reliable energy. Has anyone checked gas prices recently? It is more than $3.80 a gallon on average in this country. That is more than double what it was when this administration started in office. There is another benefit as well. We reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East. Now compare this legislation to the Veterans Job Corps proposal we are looking at in the bill that is under consideration right now on the Senate floor. The Veterans Jobs Corps proposal spends $1 billion. At this time we are $16 trillion in debt, and that is growing. We have legislation that spends $1 billion to create government jobs for our veterans. Well, let's take a look at those jobs. We want to create 20,000 jobs with that $1 billion, so that means $50,000 a job for 1 year. Then what do we do? We spent $1 billion, we created a bunch of temporary jobs for 1 year. Then what do our veterans do? Do we spend more to try to keep this going? Where does this go? Instead of doing that, by approving this legislation I have offered, we can create thousands of more jobs and we don't spend anything and it creates tax revenues, it creates economic activity, and it reduces the deficit. It also helps us generate more energy for this country instead of more government spending, a bigger deficit, and temporary jobs. I think our veterans would very much appreciate knowing that they are working on producing and transporting more energy for the country and that they are helping to reduce gas prices at the pump for our hard- working taxpayers and our consumers. I think they would also appreciate the fact that we are working to reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East. Maybe that way we would not have to send them back to the Middle East for energy or security reasons. I think our veterans would appreciate that. The proposal we are putting forward creates permanent jobs, and it creates them the right way. I encourage support for it because it is about supporting and creating jobs in this country the right way and supporting jobs for our veterans. This amendment is about jobs, and it will help our veterans. It is about energy that will help hard-working Americans with gas prices at the pump. It is about economic growth which will help our economy. Economic growth and better control of spending is what we need to do to address the deficit and the debt. This legislation is about energy security, to make our Nation more energy secure. Here are my concluding questions: Why wouldn't we vote on this amendment? Why wouldn't we have a vote on this amendment? Why wouldn't we approve it for the benefit of our economy, for the benefit of the American people in our country and for the benefit of our veterans? I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.