John Hoeven

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish to thank my esteemed colleague, the Senator from Missouri. I appreciate working with him on many issues, including agriculture, and I share his concern. I have been on the floor of the Senate this week and past weeks, expressing my desire to pass a farm bill, including agriculture assistance. I believe we can do that. We passed a farm bill here in the Senate. The Agriculture Committee has come forward with a product. We absolutely need to come together, House and Senate, on the farm bill for the good of our farmers and ranchers, including drought assistance and for the good of the country. (The remarks of Mr. Hoeven pertaining to the introduction of S. 3512 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise on another issue, but I yield at least temporarily to see what the good Senator from Missouri has to say.

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator from Michigan, and actually I am going to yield to the good Senator from South Dakota. I know he has a commitment. He will be brief, so I yield to my colleague from South Dakota.

Mr. HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on another matter, important energy legislation for our country. I am today introducing the Hoeven-Conrad-Baucus Coal Ash Recycling and Oversight Act of 2012. In my home State of North Dakota there is a large powerplant just north of the State capital in Bismarck. It is a coal creek power station. Now this power station generates 1,100 megawatts of electricity every year. There are two 550 megawatt plants. It has the latest, greatest technology emission control and clean coal technology. They capture the steam that was formally exhausted from the plant. They capture that steam and use it to run an ethanol plant. They produce transportation fuel with steam, a by-product of the electric generation process. One of the other things they do, instead of land filling the coal ash, fly ash, or coal residuals, they recycle. So, in essence, they take that coal ash--they work with a natural resource company, Headwaters, based out of Utah, and they turn the coal ash into a concrete product, FlexCrete. It is used to make roads, bridges, buildings, and also products like shingles. They make building materials. So whereas they used to take about 600,000 tons a year of coal residuals and coal ash flash and landfill it, and it costs $6 a ton or so to landfill it, now they take that 600,000 tons a year of fly ash and residuals and turn it into building products. The difference instead of paying to dispose of something and now being paid to recycle something is about a $16 million a year revenue item for that plant. That means lower cost for electricity for businesses in States such as the great State of North Dakota and the great State of Minnesota and other States as well. It truly benefits our consumers, our families, and our economy. It benefits small businesses throughout the upper Midwest. So it is truly a great example of American ingenuity and innovation. In fact, I have a picture right here. This is the North Dakota Heritage Center. Right now there is a $50 million expansion being constructed in that Heritage Center which is located on the capital grounds in Bismarck. It is a $50 million expansion. They are using building materials made of coal ash for this facility. That is what it is going to look like after they do this $50 million expansion. Let me give another example. This is the National Energy Center of Excellence at Bismarck State College. It is a 2-year college that trains people for the energy industry. It is located right above the Missouri River. This beautiful window overlooks the Missouri River. Again this is a building constructed with building materials made of fly ash. We can see how this product is being used and how effectively this is being used. As a matter of fact, if we look nationwide, by recycling coal ash we reduce energy consumption by 162 trillion Btus every year. That is the amount of energy we would use to 1.7 million homes in a year. It is pretty substantial energy savings. Or measure it in terms of water use. By recycling coal ash, we reduce water usage by 32 billion gallons annually. That is about one-third of the total amount of water that the State of California uses in a year. Why do I tell the story? Because right now the EPA is looking at changing the regulation of coal ash. They are looking at changing the regulation of coal ash to doing it under subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The problem is that is the hazardous waste section. Right now coal ash is regulated under subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which is the nonhazardous waste section. The EPA is looking at making that change in spite of the fact that the Department of Energy, the Federal Highway Administration, State regulatory agencies, and the EPA itself have done studies, and those studies have shown that is not a toxic waste. The EPA first proposed this new regulation in June of 2010. This regulation would truly undermine the industry, drive up costs, and eliminate jobs when our economy can least afford it. In fact, according to industry estimates, it would increase electricity costs by up to almost $50 billion annually and eliminate 300,000 American jobs. Let me elaborate. Meeting the regulatory disposal requirements under the EPA's subtitle C proposal would cost between $250 and $450 per ton as opposed to about $100 per ton under the current system. That would translate into $47 billion in terms of burden on electricity generators that use coal and, of course, most importantly, their customers who would see their bills increased. As I said, overall it would cost about 300,000 American jobs for our economy. That is why I am introducing the Hoeven-Conrad-Baucus Recycling and Oversight Act, which is S. 3512, and it has very strong bipartisan support. It is truly a bipartisan bill, including 12 Republican sponsors and 12 Democratic sponsors. The Republican sponsors include myself, Senator McConnell, Senator Portman, Senator Boozman, Senator Blunt, Senator Ron Johnson, Senator Moran, Senator Alexander, Senator Toomey, Senator Graham, Senator Thune, and Senator Hatch. The Democratic cosponsors include Senator Conrad, Senator Baucus, Senator Kohl, Senator Landrieu, Senator Manchin, Senator Warner, Senator Pryor, Senator McCaskill, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Casey, and Senator Webb. I wish to thank them for their willingness to join together in a bipartisan way--12 Republicans, 12 Democrats--coming together to provide the kind of energy legislation that is going to truly help move this country forward, empowering not only more energy development but better environmental stewardship. This legislation is similar to H.R. 2273, which was sponsored by Representative David McKinley of West Virginia in the House, and it passed the House with strong bipartisan support. This legislation is very similar. We have made some enhancements, but it is very similar. The bill not only preserves coal ash recycling by preventing these by-products from being treated as hazardous, it also establishes--and this is important because it is also about good environmental stewardship--it also establishes comprehensive Federal standards for coal ash disposal. Under this legislation, States can set up their own permitting program for the management and the disposal of coal ash. These programs would be required to be based on existing EPA regulations that protect human health and the environment. If a State does not implement an acceptable permitting program, then EPA regulates the program for the State. As a result, States and industry will know where they stand under the bill, since the benchmarks for what constitutes a successful State program will be set in statute. EPA can say yes, the State does meet those standards, or no, it does not, but the EPA cannot move the goalposts. This is a States-first approach that provides regulatory certainty. Let me repeat that. This is a States-first approach that provides regulatory certainty, and it is that regulatory certainty we need to stimulate private investment that will deploy the new technologies that will not only produce more energy but will produce better environmental stewardship. What is certain is that under this bill, coal ash disposal sites will be required to meet established standards. Those established 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. This legislation is needed to protect jobs and help reduce the cost of homes and roads as well as to help reduce electric bills. I wish to thank both Republicans and Democrats who have taken a leadership role in this effort as original sponsors of the legislation. I especially wish to express thanks to my fellow Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, as well as Senator Baucus of Montana and their staffs for the hard work that has gone into this legislation. I urge our colleagues to join us in this important energy legislation.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on another matter, important energy legislation for our country. I am today introducing the Hoeven-Conrad-Baucus Coal Ash Recycling and Oversight Act of 2012. In my home State of North Dakota there is a large powerplant just north of the State capital in Bismarck. It is a coal creek power station. Now this power station generates 1,100 megawatts of electricity every year. There are two 550 megawatt plants. It has the latest, greatest technology emission control and clean coal technology. They capture the steam that was formally exhausted from the plant. They capture that steam and use it to run an ethanol plant. They produce transportation fuel with steam, a by-product of the electric generation process. One of the other things they do, instead of land filling the coal ash, fly ash, or coal residuals, they recycle. So, in essence, they take that coal ash--they work with a natural resource company, Headwaters, based out of Utah, and they turn the coal ash into a concrete product, FlexCrete. It is used to make roads, bridges, buildings, and also products like shingles. They make building materials. So whereas they used to take about 600,000 tons a year of coal residuals and coal ash flash and landfill it, and it costs $6 a ton or so to landfill it, now they take that 600,000 tons a year of fly ash and residuals and turn it into building products. The difference instead of paying to dispose of something and now being paid to recycle something is about a $16 million a year revenue item for that plant. That means lower cost for electricity for businesses in States such as the great State of North Dakota and the great State of Minnesota and other States as well. It truly benefits our consumers, our families, and our economy. It benefits small businesses throughout the upper Midwest. So it is truly a great example of American ingenuity and innovation. In fact, I have a picture right here. This is the North Dakota Heritage Center. Right now there is a $50 million expansion being constructed in that Heritage Center which is located on the capital grounds in Bismarck. It is a $50 million expansion. They are using building materials made of coal ash for this facility. That is what it is going to look like after they do this $50 million expansion. Let me give another example. This is the National Energy Center of Excellence at Bismarck State College. It is a 2-year college that trains people for the energy industry. It is located right above the Missouri River. This beautiful window overlooks the Missouri River. Again this is a building constructed with building materials made of fly ash. We can see how this product is being used and how effectively this is being used. As a matter of fact, if we look nationwide, by recycling coal ash we reduce energy consumption by 162 trillion Btus every year. That is the amount of energy we would use to 1.7 million homes in a year. It is pretty substantial energy savings. Or measure it in terms of water use. By recycling coal ash, we reduce water usage by 32 billion gallons annually. That is about one-third of the total amount of water that the State of California uses in a year. Why do I tell the story? Because right now the EPA is looking at changing the regulation of coal ash. They are looking at changing the regulation of coal ash to doing it under subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The problem is that is the hazardous waste section. Right now coal ash is regulated under subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which is the nonhazardous waste section. The EPA is looking at making that change in spite of the fact that the Department of Energy, the Federal Highway Administration, State regulatory agencies, and the EPA itself have done studies, and those studies have shown that is not a toxic waste. The EPA first proposed this new regulation in June of 2010. This regulation would truly undermine the industry, drive up costs, and eliminate jobs when our economy can least afford it. In fact, according to industry estimates, it would increase electricity costs by up to almost $50 billion annually and eliminate 300,000 American jobs. Let me elaborate. Meeting the regulatory disposal requirements under the EPA's subtitle C proposal would cost between $250 and $450 per ton as opposed to about $100 per ton under the current system. That would translate into $47 billion in terms of burden on electricity generators that use coal and, of course, most importantly, their customers who would see their bills increased. As I said, overall it would cost about 300,000 American jobs for our economy. That is why I am introducing the Hoeven-Conrad-Baucus Recycling and Oversight Act, which is S. 3512, and it has very strong bipartisan support. It is truly a bipartisan bill, including 12 Republican sponsors and 12 Democratic sponsors. The Republican sponsors include myself, Senator McConnell, Senator Portman, Senator Boozman, Senator Blunt, Senator Ron Johnson, Senator Moran, Senator Alexander, Senator Toomey, Senator Graham, Senator Thune, and Senator Hatch. The Democratic cosponsors include Senator Conrad, Senator Baucus, Senator Kohl, Senator Landrieu, Senator Manchin, Senator Warner, Senator Pryor, Senator McCaskill, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Casey, and Senator Webb. I wish to thank them for their willingness to join together in a bipartisan way--12 Republicans, 12 Democrats--coming together to provide the kind of energy legislation that is going to truly help move this country forward, empowering not only more energy development but better environmental stewardship. This legislation is similar to H.R. 2273, which was sponsored by Representative David McKinley of West Virginia in the House, and it passed the House with strong bipartisan support. This legislation is very similar. We have made some enhancements, but it is very similar. The bill not only preserves coal ash recycling by preventing these by-products from being treated as hazardous, it also establishes--and this is important because it is also about good environmental stewardship--it also establishes comprehensive Federal standards for coal ash disposal. Under this legislation, States can set up their own permitting program for the management and the disposal of coal ash. These programs would be required to be based on existing EPA regulations that protect human health and the environment. If a State does not implement an acceptable permitting program, then EPA regulates the program for the State. As a result, States and industry will know where they stand under the bill, since the benchmarks for what constitutes a successful State program will be set in statute. EPA can say yes, the State does meet those standards, or no, it does not, but the EPA cannot move the goalposts. This is a States-first approach that provides regulatory certainty. Let me repeat that. This is a States-first approach that provides regulatory certainty, and it is that regulatory certainty we need to stimulate private investment that will deploy the new technologies that will not only produce more energy but will produce better environmental stewardship. What is certain is that under this bill, coal ash disposal sites will be required to meet established standards. Those established 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. This legislation is needed to protect jobs and help reduce the cost of homes and roads as well as to help reduce electric bills. I wish to thank both Republicans and Democrats who have taken a leadership role in this effort as original sponsors of the legislation. I especially wish to express thanks to my fellow Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, as well as Senator Baucus of Montana and their staffs for the hard work that has gone into this legislation. I urge our colleagues to join us in this important energy legislation.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the need for progrowth tax reform. It is a subject I have been here on the Senate floor speaking about repeatedly over the course of the year and certainly over the course of the recent weeks. Last week the Senate voted on several tax measures. One of the measures was a measure we offered which would continue the current tax rates for a year, giving us an opportunity to engage in progrowth tax reform. That bill was defeated in the Senate. The other bill, a bill which I voted against, was a bill that would raise taxes on approximately 1 million small businesses in this country. In fact, that bill was passed. But the fact is that under the Constitution any tax measure has to start in the House of Representatives. In fact, that is what is going on today. They are voting on a measure that would extend the current tax rates for a year, giving us the opportunity to engage in progrowth tax reform which I believe would truly help galvanize our economy and raise revenue for our country, not through higher taxes but in fact through growth and through more revenue from economic growth. I believe that is exactly what we have to support in the Senate as well. The measure the administration favored, and that was earlier passed, as I say, will be blue-slipped so it will not take effect, but the problem with that measure is it would raise taxes on individuals and small businesses. Almost a million small businesses across this country would pay higher taxes and they are the generators of jobs for our economy. It also raises taxes on capital gains and it raises estate tax as well. Let me talk about the estate tax or the death tax provision for a minute. Right now the estate tax provides an exemption on the first $5 million and then amounts in an estate over that $5 million threshold are taxed at 35 percent. However, reverting to the pre-2001-2003 tax rates, which happens at the end of the year unless action is taken-- unless action is taken by both the House and the Senate to extend the current rates--then we revert to the tax rates before the 2001-2003 tax reductions. That means instead of a $5 million exemption and a 35- percent tax rate on estate tax or the death tax, we go to a $1 million exemption with a 55-percent tax rate after that. Think about what that means to our farms and our small businesses across the country: 24 times more farms will then be in an estate tax situation and something like 14 times more businesses will be in an estate tax situation. What does that mean? What it means is when a family member dies and it is time to pass on that farm or pass on that business, they are going to have to borrow money to try to pay the estate tax. That farm or that business is going to have to generate enough revenue to pay that estate tax. If you cannot pay that estate tax at 55 percent of the value of what you are passing--if that business or that farm cannot service that level of debt, then you have to sell that farm or sell that small business, which may have been in the family for many generations. Remember that those farms, those ranches, those small businesses are the backbone of the American economy and here we are, at a time when we have 8.2 percent unemployment and we are trying to get this economy going and we are putting our small businesses across this country in that situation. That is why it is so important that we act. That is exactly what we have proposed. We have said rather than putting our economy in that situation right now, let's set up a 1-year extension of current tax rates, let's engage in progrowth tax reform where we actually lower rates but close loopholes, which will generate economic growth, and we will get revenue from economic growth rather than from higher taxes. That is vitally important. In fact, on a bipartisan basis 2 years ago that is what we did, we extended the current tax rates. I think we had 44 Democratic votes to do that here in the Senate. Republicans voted for it. I think across the board we had 44 votes on the Democratic side. Also, it was a bipartisan measure. I argue that is exactly what we have to do again. Even the President--who came out that he supported doing exactly what I laid out because, he said, we can't raise taxes in a recession. He said raising taxes would hurt the economy and would hurt job creation. If you look at the statistics today, we are actually in a more difficult economic situation now than we were then. Unemployment is at 8.2 percent and has been over 8 percent for more than 41 straight months. There are 13 million people who are out of work, 10 million people are underemployed, which makes 23 million people either looking for work or looking for a better job. Middle-class income has declined from approximately $55,000 to about $50,000 since this administration took office. Food stamp usage has increased from 32 million recipients to 46 million recipients, and as we have seen, economic growth is about 1.5 percent. As far as job creation, there were 80,000 jobs gained during the month, but we need 150,000 jobs gained during the month just to keep up with population growth and not have our unemployment rate increase. So these are the facts, and the facts speak for themselves. We need to extend the current tax rates, we need progrowth tax reform on a bipartisan basis, and we need to get control of our spending. If we look at the latest numbers from CBO, CBO says without taking those steps we are looking at economic growth next year of maybe one- half percent for the entire year. If we take the steps to address the fiscal cliff, as I have described, and take those steps to undertake progrowth tax reform, CBO talks in terms of a 4.4-percent growth rate next year. Think what that means to 13 million unemployed people. It means the difference between getting a job and not getting a job. The uncertainty that our economy faces right now because of the expiration of the current tax rates at the end of the year, and businesses not knowing what is going to happen, is freezing investment capital on the sidelines and freezing business expansion. There is more private capital and investment capital sidelined now more than in the history of our country. We unleash it, and we get it going not by raising taxes but by providing the legal tax and regulatory certainty-- the kind of progrowth tax reform with closing loopholes, as I have described--to get this economy going. The administration says: Well, everyone needs to pay their fair share. I think that is certainly true. We are saying exactly that. That is exactly what we do by engaging in progrowth tax reform and closing loopholes. Everyone is treated fairly, and everyone pays their fair share. In fact, just to give a sense of that whole concept, let's look at who pays the income taxes right now according to the National Taxpayers Union. Today the top 5 percent of taxpayers pay almost 60 percent of the income tax in this country. The top 10 percent pay almost 70 percent of the income tax in this country. The top 25 percent pay almost 90 percent of the income tax in this country. The top 50 percent of taxpayers pay 98 percent of the income tax that is paid in the country. So the point is, let's engage in progrowth tax reform that will get our economy growing rather than stagnant as it is today. It is that economic growth that puts our people back to work and truly generates the revenue, not higher tax rates which will hurt our growth. We can lower rates, close loopholes, come up with a fairer system that is simpler and will generate revenue through economic growth. That is the only way that economic growth, along with controlling and managing our spending, will get us on top of our debt and deficit and get Americans back to work. We need to do it in a bipartisan way. We can do it. We have done it before, and we absolutely need to get started, and get started now, for the good of the American people and the good of our country. If I may, I want to close on one short message; that is, as the House works on a tax measure--as I described today--to extend the current tax rates and put us in a situation where we can truly engage in progrowth tax reform, I also urge my colleagues in the House to make sure that at the same time they are acting on farm bill legislation and not just the drought legislation. We passed a farm bill in this Senate several weeks ago on a bipartisan basis. I hope they are able to do the same thing and pass a farm bill in the House on a bipartisan basis as well that we can go to conference with. I believe the bill we produced in the Senate and the bill they have produced in the Agriculture Committee can be brought together in a conference committee. We can pass a farm bill that will be cost effective, will save money, and help reduce the deficit. The bill we passed would generate $23 billion in savings to help address the deficit. It would provide the right kind of safety net for our farmers and ranchers and ultimately this: Good farm policy benefits every single American because our farmers and ranchers produce the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world. That benefits every single one of us, not to mention creating a lot of great jobs throughout the country. So I call on the House to act on that farm bill as well as engage in the kind of progrowth tax reform that I know will truly benefit our country. With that, Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator. I certainly want to accommodate the schedule.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to speak as if in morning business on the subject of energy. I commend my colleagues for their excellent work on cyber. I look forward to working with them, and I thank them for the incredible amount of work and diligence they are putting into this extremely important effort. I rise this morning to speak on the incredible importance of energy security for our country. Last week I introduced the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act along with 30 sponsors on the legislation. It is a comprehensive plan for energy security for our country. When I say energy security, what I mean is producing more energy than we consume; getting our Nation to energy security by not only producing enough energy for our needs, but even beyond that. It is absolutely doable. There is no question we can do it. It is about pursuing an all-of-the-above strategy, and I mean truly pursuing an all-of-the-above strategy; not saying it and then picking certain types of energy we want and don't want but, instead, creating a climate and a national comprehensive energy policy that truly empowers private investment to develop all of our energy resources and all types of energy. The Domestic Energy and Jobs Act is actually a package of energy bills. Many of these have already passed the House, and we have introduced them now in the Senate as well--13 separate pieces of legislation pulled together into this energy package, with energy leaders from both the House and the Senate. It clearly demonstrates that we have a strategy, we have a comprehensive energy plan to move our country, and it is ready to go. If we look at the situation right now, there are hundreds of billions of dollars of private investment, of capital that would be invested in energy projects in this country, but they are being held up. These projects are being held on the sidelines because of the inability to be permitted or because of burdensome regulation. We need to create the kind of approach, the kind of business climate, the kind of energy policy that will unleash that private investment. That is exactly what this legislation does. First, it reduces the regulatory burden so these stalled energy projects--again, hundreds of billions of dollars in private investment, not government spending but in private investment--that would move forward with energy projects that would not only develop more energy more cost effectively and more dependably, but also with better environmental stewardship, deploying the latest, greatest technology that would produce the energy, and do it with better environmental stewardship--not only for this country but actually leading the world to more energy production with better environmental stewardship. But these projects are held up either because they can't get permitted or because they can't get through the regulatory redtape to get started and get going. This legislation cuts through that. It also helps us develop the vital infrastructure we need for energy development. A great example is the Keystone XL Pipeline, a $7 billion 1,700-mile pipeline that would move oil from Canada to our refineries in the United States, but that would also move oil from my home State-- 100,000 barrels a day for starters--to refineries. We need that vital infrastructure. That is just one example. This legislation also develops our resources on public lands as well as private lands. So we are talking about expedited permitting both onshore and offshore, on private lands and on public lands, including for renewables. It sets realistic goals. It sets a market-based approach that would truly foster all of our energy resources rather than picking winners and losers. It would also put a freeze and require a study of rules that are driving up gasoline prices that are hitting families and businesses across this country. And it includes legislation that Senator Murkowski of Alaska has added to our package that would require an inventory of critical minerals in the United States and set policies to develop them as a key part of developing a comprehensive energy approach and a comprehensive energy plan for our country. So what is the impact? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in March of last year put forward a report. In that report they showed there are more than 350 energy projects nationwide that are being held up either due to inability to get permitted or regulatory burden, as I have described--more than 350 projects--that if we could just greenlight these projects, they would generate $1.1 trillion in gross domestic product and create 1.9 million jobs a year just in the construction phase. So this legislation truly is about energy--more energy, better technology, and better environmental stewardship. But it is also very much about creating jobs--creating jobs at a time when we have more than 8.2 percent unemployment, more than 13 million people out of work and looking for work. This will create an incredible number of jobs. It is about creating economic growth. Look at our debt and our deficit. Our debt is now approaching $16 trillion. We need to get this economy going and growing to reduce that deficit and reduce that debt along with controlling our spending. But we need economic growth to get on top of that debt and deficit. As I described, just the 350 projects alone and $1.1 trillion in GDP to help create that economic growth, to put people to work, and help reduce our deficit and our debt. Let's talk about national security. The reality is with the kind of approach I am putting forward in the United States and working together with our closest friend and ally Canada, we can get to energy security without a doubt in 5 to 7 years. That means producing more energy than we consume within 5 to 7 years. Think how important that is. Look what is going on in the Middle East. Look what is going on in Syria. What is going to happen there? Look at what is going on in Iran and their efforts to pursue a nuclear weapon and what is going to happen with the Strait of Hormuz. An incredible amount of oil goes through that area. Look at what is happening in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood. Do we really want to be dependent on the Middle East for our oil? I think the American people have said very clearly no, and we don't have to be. We just need the right approach to make it happen right here and to work with our closest friend and ally, Canada. The reality is developing our energy resources is an incredible opportunity, and we need to seize it right now, with both hands. We can do it. That is exactly the plan we are putting forward. Earlier this year we passed legislation through the House and through the Senate in conjunction with the payroll tax credit legislation. Attached to it we required the President to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline. He chose to turn it down. Shortly after that, the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, went to China. He met with Chairman Wu and China's energy leaders, and he signed a memorandum of agreement. That memorandum of agreement between China and Canada called for more economic cooperation and more energy development, with China working in conjunction with Canada. Just last week, CNOOC--one of China's largest government-controlled companies--made a $15 billion tender offer for the Nexen Oil Company, a large oil company in Canada, to purchase their interests in the Canadian oil sands. It also includes mineral interests offshore, lease interests offshore of the United States in the gulf region, as well as in the North Sea area. But primarily it is an acquisition by the Chinese of huge amounts of tracts in the oil sands in Canada. So just what we said: If we don't work with Canada on projects such as the Keystone XL Pipeline, the oil that is produced in Canada, instead of going to the United States will go to China or Americans will be put in the position of buying Canadian oil from the Chinese because of a failure to act on key projects such as the Keystone XL Pipeline because we are not acting on the kind of energy policy we are putting forward right here. Ask the American people what they want. What they want is that we move forward with the energy package we put forward, and we need to do it. If we check gas prices, they are now back up to $3.50 a gallon national average. When the current administration took office, it was $1.85 national average per gallon. That is a 90-percent increase. What ramifications does that have for our economy? What ramifications does that have for small businesses? What ramifications does that have for hard-working American families? I think we all know the answer to that. The time to move forward is now. It couldn't be more clear. We control our own destiny. We need to take action. We need to move forward on the kind of energy plans that truly benefit our people and our country. I call on my colleagues to join me in this effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss this comprehensive plan for energy security for our Nation. When I say ``energy security,'' I mean producing more energy than we consume. I believe, with this approach, within 5 to 7 years we can truly be a nation that is energy secure. Again, I mean producing more energy than we consume. This comprehensive plan for energy security is about truly producing all our energy resources in this country. Many of these bills in this package of Energy bills have already been passed by the House that we are introducing now in the Senate, as well as additional legislation--ideas that Senators have put forward that were adding to it as well. The approach is similar to the approach we have taken in North Dakota over the last decade. My home State of North Dakota has developed all its energy resources--both traditional and renewable--in a vigorous way over the last decade, and we are now an energy powerhouse for the Nation. We can see what we are doing in oil and gas, but we are doing a tremendous amount in all other forms of energy as well--both traditional and renewable. It is because we worked in a very inclusive way to include everybody's ideas in building a comprehensive energy plan that we call Empower ND--Empower North Dakota. There was no one person who came up this whole comprehensive plan or with all the ideas, but we reached out to everyone--all the different energy sectors--and said: Let's collaborate, let's work together, let's pass a comprehensive energy plan, and then let's keep improving it. Let's make it a process rather than a one-time product and keep adding ideas and bringing forth items that will help us spur and drive our energy development in the State, ideas that will create the kind of business climate that will truly empower private investment--private investment that will deploy the new technologies that not only produce more energy but do it with sound environmental stewardship. That is exactly what is happening in North Dakota, and that is exactly what need to do at the national level. This Domestic Energy and Jobs Act clearly demonstrates that we have an energy plan and that we are ready to go and that we are coordinating with our colleagues in the House as well. Right now there are 30 sponsors for this legislation, including the Republican leadership, as well as the energy leaders. It also is a plan which has reached out to what the House calls their HEAT team--which stands for House Energy Action Team. Representative McCarthy and others, certainly Fred Upton, who is head of their Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative Hastings, and others who are truly energy leaders in the House--people whom I have worked with on things such as the Keystone Pipeline, Representative Terry and Representative Connie Mack and others. This is about getting people involved in an inclusive way and putting in place an energy policy that truly serves this Nation and empowers private investment. We see how important that is now. We have hundreds of billions of investment dollars waiting to be invested in producing more energy, more jobs, and more security for our country. This approach will empower private investment to develop all our energy resources. It does things such as reduce the regulatory burden, streamlines permitting--both onshore and offshore--and helps us develop vital infrastructure such as the Keystone Pipeline. It develops our resources on public lands, including our renewables, and setting realistic goals with a market-based approach, not picking winners or losers, and preserving multiple use on our public lands throughout this country. It would put in a freeze and require a study of rules that are driving up our gasoline prices. It also includes a bill from Senator Murkowski. It directs the U.S. Geological Survey to establish an inventory of critical minerals in the United States and to set policies to help us develop those minerals. What is the impact? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in March of 2011, undertook a study. In that study, they looked and determined there are more than 350 energy projects that are being held up because of an inability to get permitted or a regulatory burden or other hurdles and roadblocks. In that study, they determined that if these energy projects--again, more than 350 energy projects--could be green-lighted, it would $1.1 trillion in additional gross domestic product and 1.9 million jobs a year--1.9 million jobs a year just in the construction phase for those energy projects. So this legislation isn't just about energy for our country. It is about energy. It is about a comprehensive approach--more than 13 different pieces of legislation, many of which have already passed the House. It is about a comprehensive approach to get development of our energy resources underway in a big way. But it is about job creation. It is about economic growth. It is about economic growth that will help us get the 13 million-plus people who are currently unemployed back to work. It is about economic growth that will help us generate revenue to reduce our deficit and our debt, and it truly is about national security. Look what is going on right now in the Middle East. Look what is going on in Syria, in Iran, in Egypt with the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood. Look at the instability. Yet we still depend on oil from the Middle East and places such as Venezuela. There is no need for that. We can produce our own energy and more. It is an interconnected world. We all know that. So when I talk about energy security, I mean producing more energy than we consume. That is what I mean by energy security. Of course, when there is an increased supply, what happens? It helps bring prices down. Think of the impact that has for families and for our economy. Just recently, in the last few days, a company called CNOOC out of China--which is essentially a Chinese Government-owned company--offered $15 billion to buy Nexen, a major Canadian oil company--$15 billion. Why did they do that? To buy energy resources in Canada, so China would own energy resources in Canada. As you know, I have been down on the floor many times, and I have worked very hard to get the Keystone Pipeline approved because if we don't produce and get that oil from Canada, somebody else will, and China is working to do just that. So after the administration held up the Keystone XL Pipeline, what happened? Canadian Prime Minister Harper went to China. There, he met with Chairman Wu and the other energy leaders in China and they signed an MOU or MOA, a memorandum of understanding/memorandum of agreement. In it, what did they say? They said China and Canada are going to cooperate on developing resources, energy resources in Canada. Of course, that energy then goes to China. The question we have to ask is are we going to work with our closest friend and ally, Canada, to develop things such as the Keystone XL Pipeline so oil will come from Canada to the United States rather than going to China. Or are we in this country going to be in a position where we have to buy our oil back from the Chinese? I know how the Americans want that question answered. That is what I am talking about. We need to be developing these energy resources in this country, and together with our closest friend and ally, Canada, we can do it. There is another important point to be made here. I know there are some opponents of developing the Canadian oil sands concerned about CO2 emissions. But here are some things they have to think about. Already you can see China coming in, working with Canada to develop those resources. So those resources are going to be developed. The question is, is that oil going to China or is it going to come to the United States? The point is this: By building pipelines, we not only bring it to the United States but we empower investment in the Canadian oil sands that will help us produce more energy but do it with better environmental stewardship. Eighty percent of the new development in the Canadian oil sands is what is called ``in situ,'' which means drilling instead of the excavation. That means lower CO2 emissions, that means emissions very much in line with what we produce now in the United States with our conventional drilling. We have an opportunity, an incredible opportunity. We need to seize it with both hands. As I say, we can be energy secure in this country within 5 years. I think when people look at what is going on in the Middle East, when they see our soldiers over there, when they see the instability that is being created by regimes like Syria or Iran, when they see what is going on in countries like Egypt and they understand there could be an event that closes the Strait of Hormuz, they understand what that would mean for oil prices and energy prices in this country. We do not want to be dependent on that situation, which means it is time to act. This is not about spending money; this is about generating jobs and generating revenue that will help us reduce our deficit, that will put our people to work, that will unleash the private investment, the entrepreneurship, the ingenuity of the American people to truly propel our Nation forward, to propel our economy forward, and to make us safer and more secure. The time has come to act. The House passed much of this plan with bipartisan support. We need to do the same in the Senate. This is not the end of the story. This is an important part, the foundation, if you will, of building the right energy story for our country. We can do it and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. HOEVEN

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

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to speak on the need for progrowth tax reform rather than a tax increase. President Obama has proposed raising taxes. He says that we should raise income taxes on individuals and small businesses, that we should raise capital gains taxes on investments, and that we should raise the estate tax, meaning raise the death tax on American families. For example, take the estate tax. You have a farmer. Right now, if he wants to pass his farm on to the next generation, for any value over $5 million, he has to pay the estate tax. Generally, families may be able to do that. They may be able to borrow the dollars required and pass the family farm on to the next generation. But under this proposal, that changes. Instead of paying the estate tax on anything over $5 million, now that farm family would have to pay the estate tax on anything over $1 million. So think about a farmer in my home State of North Dakota or maybe in Minnesota or anywhere else throughout the Midwest. How do they pass on that family farm when they are going to have to pay taxes on any value over $1 million? So now they are looking at a situation where they are going to have to sell that farm rather than have their children continue farming an operation that may have been in that family for generations. That is a real problem for our farmers, for small businesses, and for families across this great country, and it certainly is not going to help our economy. In fact, it will hurt our economy. The President himself has said that we cannot raise taxes in a recession. He has said repeatedly that doing so would hurt the economy and would, in fact, hurt job creation. So let's review our situation right now. Our situation right now is that we have 8.2 percent unemployment. We have more than 41 months in which unemployment has been above 8 percent. We have 13 million people out of work, and we have another 10 million people who are underemployed. So you are talking about 23 million people in this country who are either unemployed or underemployed. Middle-class income, since this administration has taken office, has declined on average from approximately $55,000 to $50,000. Food stamps use. Food stamp recipients have increased from 32 million recipients, when this administration started in office, to 46 million food stamp recipients today. Home values have dropped on average from $169,000 to $148,000. Economic growth. Economic growth in this recovery is the weakest of any recovery since World War II. For the last quarter, our growth was 1.9 percent versus the prior quarter--1.9 percent. Job creation last month: 80,000 jobs. But it takes 150,000 jobs gained every month just to hold even with our population growth, just to start reducing that 8.2-percent unemployment rate. Those are the facts. They speak for themselves. You can draw your own conclusion. The President's approach to our economy is making it worse. His failure to join with us in extending the current tax rates and engage in progrowth tax reform rather than raising taxes is sitting on our economy like a big wet blanket. But we can change that, and we can change that right now. We do it by extending the current tax rates, the tax rates that have been in effect for 10 years--not raising them but extending the current tax rates for a year--by engaging in comprehensive, progrowth tax reform, and also, of course, by getting control of our spending. Business investment and economic activity would respond immediately. Look at the latest information from the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO projects that the economy will contract--will contract--by a 1.3-percent annual rate for the first 6 months of next year if the fiscal cliff is not addressed, meaning the current tax rates, which go up at the end of the year unless we address this, an increase in taxes and the sequestration. Now, if those things are addressed with the approach we have put forward, instead of an overall one-half percent of growth next year, you are looking at 4.4-percent growth for our economy. Those are the CBO's statistics. Think of the difference--think of the difference-- that would make for those 13 million people who are looking for a job. It just stands to reason because business needs certainty to invest, to grow, and to hire people, not higher taxes. With legal, tax, and regulatory certainty, businesses in this country would invest and grow. Right now, there is more private capital on the sidelines than at any other time in the history of our country. Private investment capital that businesses would otherwise invest and get this economy growing and get people back to work is sidelined because of the regulatory burden, because of the government spending and the deficit and because of plans like this to raise taxes. It is that situation which is sidelining private investment and private capital. That means slow economic growth. That means higher unemployment. That means more people without jobs. That means less revenue to reduce our deficit and our debt. So clearly raising taxes is not the way to go. But President Obama says: Now, wait a minute, everybody needs to pay their fair share. Right? You hear him say that all the time: Everyone needs to pay their fair share. Well, of course everyone needs to pay their fair share, but the way to do it is with progrowth tax reform and closing loopholes. That is exactly what we have proposed, not raising taxes on more than 1 million small businesses in this country--the very job creators in this country--as the President has proposed. Let's take a look at tax rates for just a minute. We talk about this all the time. Let's take look at these tax rates. According to the National Taxpayers Union, for the tax year 2009, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid almost 60 percent of the taxes. One more time. The top 5 percent of taxpayers paid almost 60 percent of all the income taxes paid. The top 10 percent paid 70 percent of all income taxes, and the top 50 percent paid 98 percent. The top 50 percent of taxpayers paid 98 percent of all income taxes. So what we are proposing is progrowth tax reform, closing loopholes. Let's extend the current tax rates for 1 year and set up a process to pass comprehensive, progrowth tax reform that lowers rates, that closes loopholes, that is fair, that is simpler, and that will generate revenue from economic growth rather than higher taxes. The reality is that, along with controlling government spending, is the only way we are going to balance our budget, that is the only way we are going to get on top of our deficit and debt, and that is the only way we are going to get these 13 million people back to work. Because that is how this American economy works--when we stimulate that private investment, that entrepreneurial activity of small businesses across this county that has made our economy the envy of the world. To be successful, this effort has to be bipartisan. We have to join together in a bipartisan way to make it happen. So let's get started. Let's give small businesses in this country the legal, tax, and regulatory certainty, the business climate, the environment they need to encourage private investment and innovation and job creation. That is the American way. That is the real American success story. We can do it, we need to get started, and we need to make it happen now. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN. That is exactly right. I am pleased to be here with my esteemed colleague from South Dakota as well as my esteemed colleague from Kansas. I wish to commend Senator Coats from Indiana for the strong and important points he made here as part of this discussion on the Senate floor. This vote we will have on the Tax Code and its impact on farming and small businesses across this country is certainly important. But Senator Coats also made a very important point a few minutes ago; that is, we already have farmers and ranchers--our producers--in a situation where they face difficult times because of the drought. So I join him in calling on our House colleagues to act on the farm bill. I think it is very important we pass a farm bill, as we have in the Senate. I had an opportunity to work on that farm bill with Senator Thune of South Dakota and others. We passed a good package in the Senate. The House Ag Committee has passed a good farm package as well. We need that to pass the House, get it into conference, and get a farm bill done for our producers. I think that is incredibly important always because good farm policy benefits every American. We have the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world thanks to our farmers and ranchers. Particularly now, with our farmers throughout the country looking at this drought, it is very important they know we have a sound farm program in place for now and for the future. As regards this vote in the Senate today, whether it is the good Senator from Indiana, from Kansas, from South Dakota or others, this is incredibly important. We are looking at a bill that is essentially a plan put forward by President Obama that will raise income taxes, that will raise taxes on capital gains, and that will raise the estate tax. I was on the floor this morning, as others have been, talking about the impact that those tax increases will have on small business when we have 8.2 percent unemployment. We have had 8 percent unemployment for more than 40 straight months. To a large degree, people are focused on the increase in the income tax and its impact on small business, but the impact from the estate tax--from the death tax--is a big deal, and people need to understand what the ramifications are if that estate tax is increased. We understand it very well in our States because of the case we are making right here. Look at how this affects our farmers and ranchers. We are talking about going from a situation where when a farmer or rancher, looking to pass on that farm or ranch right now, is taxed, from an estate tax standpoint, on the amount above $5 million and then it is set at a 35-percent rate. But the plan being put forward today-- and being put forward essentially by the President and by the other side of the aisle--would change that to go back to anything over $1 million would be subject to the estate tax and then would be taxed at a 55-percent rate. So just do the math; right? That is the point the good Senators from South Dakota and Kansas and others have been making. It doesn't work. It just doesn't work. In other words, that family can't borrow enough money to pay off the estate tax and keep the farm because they can't afford to pay back that level of debt. The farming operation will not sustain it. The ranching operation will not sustain it. You can't borrow that much money to try to keep the farm in the family because you can't afford to pay the debt. As a business enterprise, it can't service the debt. So what happens? The only alternative is to sell the farm. So we have farmers who have been farming for generations--their father, their grandfather, grandmother, mother, relatives all the way back--and now their kids are farming with them. Their children are involved in that farming enterprise, and they want to continue farming, but that is not going to happen because they are not going to be able to afford the estate tax. So this is exactly what we are talking about when we talk about how raising taxes will have a detrimental impact on our economy. We have talked about this in terms of small business and we have talked about it in terms of the income tax and the ramifications on capital gains tax, but I think this demonstrates how clearly it truly has an impact across this country on all small businesses because I think all of us, from our States and from many other States, know these farm families. We know this is not just a job or a vocation, it is a way of life, and it is a way of life these families have been counting on. I wish to make one further point before I turn the floor over to my esteemed colleague; that is, these farm families or any other small business, when we look at the estate tax, we have to keep in mind they are passing assets, but throughout their entire life they have been paying taxes. They have been paying income tax, sales tax, property tax. They have been paying taxes all the way along. So it is not as if they are just handing this stuff on to the next generation without paying taxes because they are not paying a death tax. They have been paying taxes on it all their lives and not just one or two taxes but multiple taxes. So this property has been taxed their entire life. They have worked their entire lives to pay those taxes and would now face a death tax that would force them to sell their business. That is not right. You know what. It is not right if it is a farm or a ranch or, frankly, any other kind of small business in this country because this country is about small business. That is the backbone of our economy. It is the economy of this country, and that is exactly what we are dealing with. That is why we put forward an option--and we encourage our colleagues to support this option--that will continue the current tax rates, that will not raise tax rates, and then we will work on extending those current tax rates for 1 year while we engage in progrowth tax reform. We close loopholes and we get more revenue from economic growth, from a growing, more vibrant economy that puts people back to work rather than raising taxes. With that, I yield the floor for my esteemed colleague from South Dakota.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I rise today to discuss the need for progrowth tax reform. I came to the floor last week, I have been here this week on the subject, and I am here again today to talk about the need to get started and get going right now on the progrowth tax reform that will unleash private investment in this country and help us grow our economy and create jobs for the more than 13 million people we have unemployed today. The current Tax Code changes at the end of the year. If we fail to act, the current Tax Code changes. That is a fact. Simply put, tax rates go up. The income tax rates rise. Capital gains taxes go up. The death tax goes up. Today, we voted on a measure regarding outsourcing. Its goal was to encourage U.S. companies to invest and hire workers in the United States rather than overseas. But, at best--at best--that is a piecemeal approach. The reality is, the tax increases that will occur at the end of the year will do far more to drive investment and employment overseas than any measure like the one we considered today. Those increases to the tax rates on small businesses across this country will have a much bigger impact than any single measure like the one that was offered today. So think about it. By not extending the current tax rates, we will have a business climate that makes it harder to do business in this country. It seems to me that makes the solution pretty simple. Let's extend the current tax rates for 1 year, and let's set up a process to engage in progrowth tax reform that will empower small businesses-- millions of small businesses across this country--to do what they do best; that is, to invest and hire people, to put Americans back to work. The question is, Why aren't we doing it? By setting up a process to undertake comprehensive, progrowth tax reform over the next year, everyone has a chance to provide their input and to provide their ideas, to offer their legislation, Republicans and Democrats alike. In fact, formats have already been proposed, formats such as Simpson- Bowles, Domenici-Rivlin, groups such as the Gang of 6 and others that have put forward different concepts. So there is absolutely no reason to wait. The question is not are we or are we not going to do it. The reality is, we have to do it. The reality is we have to do it to get our economy going. So let's get started. President Obama needs to join with us in this effort. Look at our economy. Look at the statistics since President Obama took office. Unemployment. We have 8.2 percent unemployment. Unemployment has been over 8 percent for 41 straight months. We have 13 million people in this country unemployed--13 million people in this country looking for work--and we have another 10 million who are underemployed; that is, 23 million people either unemployed or underemployed. Middle class income. Middle class income has declined from approximately $55,000 annually to $50,000 since the current administration took office. Food stamps. Food stamp usage has increased dramatically, from 32 million recipients to 46 million recipients. Home values. Home values have dropped. Home values have dropped, on average, from $169,000 to $148,000. Economic growth. GDP, gross domestic product, growth is the weakest for any recovery since World War II. Job creation last month. Mr. President, 80,000 jobs were created. But it takes 150,000 jobs each and every month just to keep up with population growth to actually reduce the unemployment rate. So these facts speak for themselves. These are the facts. The President's approach to our economy is making it worse, and his failure to join with us to extend the lower tax rates and engage in progrowth tax reform is sitting on our economy like a big wet blanket. But we can change that. We can change that right now. We can change that by extending the current tax rates and by together, on a bipartisan basis, with the administration, joining in a process to put in place progrowth tax reform and at the same time getting control of our spending. Business investment and economic activity would respond immediately. Look at the latest information from the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO. The CBO projects the economy will contract--will contract--by 1.3 percent on an annualized rate for the first 6 months of next year, meeting the definition of ``recession'' if the fiscal cliff we now face is not addressed. Overall, the economy, based on the CBO projection for next year, would grow by only one-half of 1 percent for the entire year. That compares to a 4.4-percent growth rate for next year if the fiscal cliff is avoided. Granted, that fiscal cliff includes not only addressing the tax increases that would go into effect but also sequestration. But we have put forward ideas to address sequestration as well. Clearly, the tax piece is a huge part of what drives that difference in economic growth--the difference between one-half of 1 percent and over 4 percent economic growth next year. Think of what that means in terms of employment to the people who are looking for a job. Think of what that means in terms of growth in the economy and revenue growth to help address our deficit and our debt. All that stands to reason because business needs certainty. Business needs certainty to invest, to grow, to hire more people. With legal, tax, and regulatory certainty--not more government spending but with legal, tax, and regulatory certainty, businesses in this country will invest and grow and put people back to work. There is more cash, there is more private capital on the sidelines now than ever before in our history. With the uncertainty about what the Tax Code is going to be, that investment will continue to be sidelined rather than deployed in ventures that will create jobs. The longer we go, the more uncertainty. That means slow economic growth; that means higher unemployment; that means more people out of work rather than finding a job; and it means less revenue to help reduce our deficit and our debt. Clearly, that is not the way to go. President Obama, however, says: But wait a minute. Everyone needs to pay their fair share. So he is proposing tax increases on that basis. Of course, everyone needs to pay their fair share. But the way to ensure that gets accomplished is with progrowth tax reform and closing loopholes. That is exactly what we have proposed--not by raising taxes on more than 1 million small businesses across this country, which is what the President has proposed. Let's extend the current tax rates for 1 year. Let's set up a process to pass comprehensive, progrowth tax reform that lowers rates, closes loopholes, that is fairer, that is simpler and that will generate revenue to reduce our deficit and our debt through economic growth rather than through higher taxes. In reality, that is the only way we will get our economy going, and that along with controlling our spending will reduce our deficit and our debt and it will put Americans back to work. Leadership is all about finding common ground. President Obama needs to join with us to find common ground on this issue. We have offered it. We are offering it right now. I hope the President will join with us in this endeavor. It is simple. It is straightforward. It is what the American people want and what they need and we need to get started right now. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 to speak about progrowth tax reform. One week ago Monday, President Obama proposed to raise taxes on over 1 million small businesses in this country. Even though he said in the past that we cannot raise taxes in a recession and that higher taxes will hurt our economy and hurt job creation, he proposed raising taxes on more than 1 million small businesses across this country. Last week I came to the floor to talk about why that is not the right approach and to discuss the approach we should take, the right approach. I pointed out that his approach--the administration's approach--has made our economy worse since he took office. Here are the facts, and they speak for themselves. Today we have 8.2 percent unemployment. We have had over 8 percent unemployment for 41 straight weeks. We have more than 13 million people who are out of work and another 10 million people who are underemployed. That is 23 million people who are either unemployed or underemployed. Middle-class income has declined from an average of $55,000 down to $50,000 since the President took office. Food stamp usage is up. There were 32 million food stamp recipients at the beginning of the Obama administration; today there are 46 million recipients. We have gone from 32 million people on food stamps to 46 million people on food stamps. Home values have dropped from an average of $169,000 to an average of about $148,000. Let's talk about economic growth. GDP growth is the weakest for any recovery since World War II. In the last quarter, the rate of growth was 1.9 percent over the prior quarter. There were 82,000 jobs created in the month of June. We need 150,000 jobs gained each month just to keep up with population growth and to reduce the unemployment rolls. Those are some of the statistics. When I spoke on the Senate floor last week, I also read a letter from one of my constituents back home who is a small business owner. He owns an Ace Hardware store. In his letter, he stated very clearly and very eloquently that the President's approach with small business is hurting our economy. I am not going to read the full letter, but I do want to read a couple of lines from his letter. His letter states: The president's programs not only limit my company's potential to grow, but they destroy any incentive to work and hire more people. I just don't know if he doesn't understand what he's doing, or just doesn't care. I am taking that right out of a small businessperson's letter. Keep that last line in mind for just a minute. I just don't know if he-- President Obama-- doesn't understand what he's doing, or just doesn't care. I referenced that because the President gave a speech last Friday in Roanoke, VA. In his speech, he followed up on his plan to raise taxes on small businesses. I am going to read right from the President's speech. I think it gives insight as to his view of small business and how our economy works. He said: There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me--because they want to give something back. They know they didn't--look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something--there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business--you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. So that is right out of the President's speech in Roanoke, VA, last Friday. I think these comments provide real insight into President Obama's view of our economy and the role of small business in our economy. He says we have all had help in our lives, and that is certainly true. There is no question about that, and I don't think anyone disputes that. He makes it clear that he believes government, not small business, is the driver of our economy. He says it is government that paves our roads and invented the Internet. In essence, it is government that made successful people successful and government that makes our economy go. That is just not right. It is small business that makes our economy go. It is small business that made our economy the envy of the world. It is small business that serves as the backbone of our economy, that employs our people, that generates tax revenue to build our roads, creates innovation like the Internet, and that provides Americans with the highest standard of living in the world. Small business is the engine that drives our economy, and we need to get it going. We don't do that by raising taxes and growing government. Clearly, that is not the way to go. The President says everyone needs to pay their fair share. Well, of course everyone needs to pay their fair share, but the way to ensure that gets accomplished is with comprehensive progrowth tax reform and closing loopholes. Let's extend the current tax rates for 1 year, and let's set up a process to pass comprehensive progrowth tax reform that lowers rates, closes loopholes, that is fair, that is simpler, and that will generate revenue to reduce our deficit and our debt through economic growth rather than through higher taxes. The reality is that is the only way to go--along with reducing government spending--that will get our debt and deficit under control and get our people back to work. To be successful, this effort needs to be bipartisan, and the clock is ticking. So let's get started. Let's give small business in this country the legal, tax, and regulatory certainty to encourage private investment and innovation. That is the American way. That is the real American success story. We can do it, and we need to make it happen now. Thank you, Madam President, and I yield the floor. I would also suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the need for progrowth tax reform. Recently, President Obama--in fact, on Monday--in a speech proposed a plan to raise tax rates rather than continuing the current tax rates. That means raising taxes on individuals and small businesses and raising the capital gains tax on investment--not only the income tax, but also the capital gains tax on small businesses, individuals, capital gains tax on investments. It also means raising the death tax on American families--the estate tax. He made that proposal even though he has repeatedly said we cannot raise taxes in a recession. He has made that statement repeatedly in recent years, that we cannot raise taxes in a recession because it would hurt the economy, and raising taxes would hurt job creation. But here we were on Monday, and he proposed we raise the tax rates. This is at a time when we have 8.2 percent unemployment; in fact, we have been over 8 percent unemployment for 41 straight months. We have 13 million people who are unemployed whom we want to get back to work, and we have another 10 million who are underemployed. On the order of 23 million people are either unemployed or underemployed. Since this administration has taken office, middle-class income has declined from approximately $55,000 to about $50,000. The number of people on food stamps has grown from 32 million recipients to 46 million recipients. Home values have dropped from an average of about $169,000 to an average of about $148,000. In the area of economic growth, GDP growth is the weakest of any recovery post-World War II. The last quarter, it was reported that it was about a 1.9-percent increase over the prior quarter. In the area of job creation, the report for June, as far as the number of jobs gained in the month, came out last week. In June, we gained about 80,000 jobs. That is far short of the 150,000 jobs we need to grow each month just to keep up with population growth. So now the President says the solution is to raise taxes on our job creators. This week, after the President's speech--as I said, he spoke on Monday--I received a letter from a small business owner in my State of North Dakota. I know this individual. In fact, he has a hardware store in Bismarck. I have often gone there for items I need when I am working on my home. In fact, last year, when we had terrible flooding throughout North Dakota, in Minot and other communities--we had flooding in Bismarck, and my home is along the Missouri River and was in the way of the flood--I often went there to get needed items. He runs a good business, a good small business, and it is very helpful. He sent me this letter after the President's speech on Monday. I will read it. It is short: Senator Hoeven: The president's recent comments on raising taxes on high income earners concern me greatly. Perhaps he just doesn't understand that for people like me, who own a business, the bulk of those earnings actually go to the bank payments for what I borrowed to be here. I am actually in danger of being taxed to a point of no living wage for myself. The taxes and bank payments come first. Out of an income that classifies me as rich, I actually take $40,000 home to my family. How much more do they want? John, you've shopped in my store, you've seen all how we have grown, and you know people like me would use every available dime to grow more. This president's programs not only limit my company's potential to grow, but they destroy any incentive to work and hire more people. I just don't know if he doesn't understand what he's doing, or just doesn't care. Please, Senator Hoeven, share with your partners in the Senate how critical an issue this is for small business owners like me. Oh, and Thanks for Shopping at Ace when you're home in Bismarck. Jeffrey Hinz, Kirkwood Ace Hardware. I think Jeff sums it up well--better than I could. Jeff represents millions of small businesses across this country that are the very backbone of our economy. They hire the people, they pay the wages, they pay the taxes. They fuel the growth and the dynamism of our economy. In short, they make our economy go. Small business in this country makes our economy go. Yet the President's proposal would raise taxes on about 1 million business owners, hurting their ability to grow our economy, hurting our ability to get those 13 million unemployed people back to work. That is not the way to go. Very clearly, that is not the way to go. This administration's policies are making it worse. But the President says everyone needs to pay their fair share. How many times have you heard him say that? Well, of course, everyone needs to pay their fair share. But the way to do it is with progrowth tax reform and closing loopholes, not by raising taxes on some people, some businesses, and not others. That is what we have proposed. We have proposed progrowth tax reform and closing loopholes. Let's extend the current tax rates for 1 year and set up a process to pass progrowth tax reforms that lower rates, close loopholes, are fair, simpler, and will generate the revenue to reduce our debt and deficit, along with savings and spending less-- controlling government spending, but that will generate the economic growth to drive revenue, not higher taxes. The reality is that is the only way to get on top of our debt and deficit and to get people back to work. We need economic growth to reduce the debt and deficit, along with more savings at the Federal level, controlling spending, and we need economic growth to get people working again. That is why we have put forward our approach--a simple approach--to extend the current tax rates for another year and set up a process for comprehensive progrowth tax reform. That is the right approach. From 2000 to 2010, I served as the Governor of my State. That is the approach we took. Look at the results in our State of North Dakota. Look at the results in States such as Indiana, where that approach has been taken. It works at the State level. It will work at the Federal level. We need to do it. I call on President Obama, as well as my colleagues, to engage in this vital effort now for the good of the American people. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to discuss national flood insurance today. Flood insurance is vitally important to our Nation. It is vitally important to my home State of North Dakota, and I know it is vitally important to our sister State of Minnesota, which the Presiding Officer represents. Last year, in 2011, flooding in North Dakota included flooding in the Red River Valley, which is the Red River of the north. That included both sides of the border, North Dakota and Minnesota as well. We also had flooding in the James River Valley, in the Cheyenne River Valley, and in the Missouri River Valley. Also, the Little Missouri River flooded in the very western part of our State. We had ongoing flooding in Devil's Lake, and we had flooding in the Souris River Valley. In fact, when the Souris River flooded, one of the communities that was flooded was Minot and the surrounding area. Minot is a community of about 40,000 people. It is growing rapidly. I think it is the eighth fastest growing community under 50,000 in the country now. So it is a rapidly growing, dynamic community of 45,000 people, and last year we had to evacuate 12,000 people from their homes. More than 4,000 homes were destroyed or severely damaged. FEMA, of course, has been in there helping. It is FEMA's third largest housing effort in its history. The largest housing effort was after Hurricane Katrina. The second largest housing effort was after Hurricane Ike. And the third largest housing effort for FEMA in history is in response to the flooding in Minot, ND. So in my State we understand flooding, we understand the challenge, and we strongly support reauthorizing the national flood insurance legislation. There is no question. However, we need to get it right. We need to get it right, and there are some important policy implications in the bill that are being put forward in the package that we likely will be voting on, along with the highway bill, as well as student loans. So we are looking at a package that includes reauthorization of national flood insurance, a package that addresses the interest rate on student loans--something I absolutely believe we need to do--and also a package that includes the highway legislation. But there is policy that is being inserted into the flood insurance bill that involves something called residual risk. It is a new policy, and we haven't carefully considered it. We haven't voted on it, and we need to. We need to vote on this policy provision. In fact, the flood insurance bill that was passed in the House did not include this residual risk provision. It was not included in the House package, but now we are looking at a package including all three of these large pieces of legislation--the highway bill, student loans, and national flood reauthorization--and we have this new residual risk policy in there. That is not the approach we should take, and that is what I am here to address along with my esteemed colleague Senator Pryor from Arkansas. I want to thank him for his leadership on this issue. In fact, Senator Pryor and myself have an amendment which would specifically address this issue. This issue is in section 107 of the national flood insurance legislation, and that is exactly what we address, and I think we address it the right way. So it is very important that we have an opportunity to vote on this important issue. So let me talk about it in just basic, straightforward, commonsense terms. The concept is residual risk. What we are saying is we need to have a separate vote on residual risk. That needs to be struck from the flood insurance reauthorization. We can study it and evaluate it. Then once we have had an opportunity to adequately both understand it and debate it, we can make a determination about how best to proceed. But it should not be included as part of this comprehensive legislation along with the other legislation in the package. So residual risk. Let's say we have two individual homeowners: one who lives just outside the 100-year flood plain, thanks to natural geography, and a second individual who lives within the flood plain but behind dikes, levees, or other infrastructure that is federally certified and constructed to protect residents against a 100-year flood event. Let me repeat that: That is federally certified by the court and constructed to protect residents against a 100-year flood event. Under the flood insurance legislation as it is currently written, the resident behind the certified flood protection will be required by Federal law to buy flood insurance. But the one living outside the 100- year flood plain would not, even though they have essentially identical risk. So in short form the individual behind the certified dike or levee is required to buy flood insurance. The other individual, who is in essentially the same situation but by natural topography or natural geography rather than certified protection, that individual is not required to purchase flood insurance. One is protected by the natural landscape, the other is protected by good, solid engineering and an understanding of the risk involved and what it takes to protect against flooding, but only one of them has to buy flood insurance. That is not fair. Homeowners and businesses are already paying for flood protection through the infrastructure they have elected to build to protect themselves and their property. So they are already paying for it when they build that certified infrastructure. Nobody is more aware of their flood risk than individuals in those situations, whether it is their home or their business. Communities that have already invested in flood protection infrastructure now in essence are going to be in a situation where they are paying twice for flood protection. Yet the Johnson-Shelby substitute would force those communities to pay essentially every year for that flood protection. They would first pay for the infrastructure they have already paid for through their local taxes and again, then, each year through a government-mandated insurance purchase of flood insurance. Further, Federal, State, and local governments invest billions of dollars nationwide in flood protection infrastructure. In my home State of North Dakota, communities such as Minot, Fargo, Bismarck, Mandan, Jamestown, and others are all working with the local, State, and Federal Government to build and/or fortify literally hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of flood protection. This substitute amendment will ignore that. In essence, this is not a good return on investment for the American taxpayer. The mandatory flood insurance purchase will have a harmful effect economically on communities already contending with flood risk or, worse, communities already in a flood recovery mode. A mandate to buy flood insurance will discourage businesses from building or rebuilding in an area certifiably protected with flood protection. That will reduce a community's revenue base and impede new opportunities to create jobs and economic activity often in a community already struggling to recover its economic base. Additionally, the substitute amendment requires both mandatory insurance purchased for people behind certified flood control infrastructure and, at the same time, a study on the very same policy it intends to implement. We shouldn't be enacting a provision into law until we understand its implications and its consequences. The Pryor-Hoeven amendment allows the study to move forward, but it removes the mandatory insurance purchase requirement. We should determine more about how it impacts individuals and communities before this new mandate is considered. We have to keep in mind that we are talking about a policy change that affects millions of people across the country. If we look at this chart, all these dark green areas represent counties throughout this country with levees. So we are talking about millions of people who are currently protected with levees. In the case that they have certified levees right now, they are not required to purchase flood insurance. But with this vote on the whole package, if we don't address residual risk in the way that I have put forward, that changes. All of them then become subject to purchasing flood insurance. I submit that there are a lot of mayors, city council members, and county commission members who would like to know if there is going to be a policy change where they are now going to be required to purchase flood insurance before that happens. Keep in mind, working with the Federal Government at the State and local level, they have built flood protection. That flood protection has been certified. Whether they made special assessments to do it or whether they have a tax base to do it or however they do it, they have gone out and told the people in their communities: Look, we are going to build this flood protection. You are going to pay to build that flood protection. And we are going to do that so once constructed, you are, A, protected, and, B, you will not have to buy flood insurance along with your home mortgage. That is what people expected. That is what is in place. My simple point is, before we change that, we better go out and talk to them. We better go out and tell them. We better go out and say: You know the way flood insurance works? It is going to change. When you were told that if you built that flood protection, you would not have to buy flood policies, that is now going to change; in fact, you will have to buy a policy under this residual risk, under this new approach. My point is that we have to make sure people understand that, and we have to understand the ramifications and how it is going to work before we make this change. That is why it is so important that we get a chance to vote on this amendment and address it. Again, as I have said, our amendment makes sure we study the issue. We make sure that FEMA and the Corps are in a position to actually do the analysis and determine whether it works or what the ramifications are, at least, of putting it into place before we put a mandate like that into effect. Again, as we go forward with this package that will include national flood insurance, that will include the highway bill, that will include reducing the rate on student loans, we have to make sure we have an opportunity to address this issue. It is not only basic fairness in terms of how the Senate works, but it is also a fundamental issue of making sure we are letting our constituents know--the mayors out there, the county commissioners, the city commissioners, and the citizens themselves who have counted on flood insurance working a certain way and who have built flood protection, certified flood protection, paid to build certified flood protection--that there may be a change coming and give them a chance to weigh in. We have to make sure what we do is not only something we have communicated to the citizens we represent but that it is absolutely fair, that it makes sense, and that it is consistent, that it treats individual who are in like circumstances, whether it is true natural topography or whether through certified flood protection--if they are in a similar or same circumstance, they need to be treated consistently in order for the legislation to be fair. I urge my colleagues to support our effort to get a vote on the Pryor-Hoeven amendment so we can properly address this issue. I yield the floor. I note that my colleague from the great State of Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey, is here. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I would like to join with Senator Pryor in this objection. He clearly laid out a path to resolve the situation, and that is to have a vote on the amendment we put forward. There are other ways to resolve it as well. We have made that very clear. Look, this is a clear case where, in order to make a policy change of that magnitude, it needs to be properly discussed, properly debated, and certainly voted on. This is a situation where we clearly laid out any number of ways to resolve the issue, but this legislation, section 107 that Senator Pryor referred to, should not be included in this legislation. If it is, then I will seek to join Senator Pryor in his objection. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I thank Senator Cantwell, and I rise to speak in support of this amendment. I cosponsored the legislation. This would provide that pulse crops--peas, beans, and lentils--are used in school lunch programs. It does not add additional cost. They are a high source of protein, very cost effective, and it is a growing--no pun intended--crop in our country.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Utility MACT issue. EPA's Utility MACT rule is a clear example of how overzealous regulations and a lack of a sensible energy policy are derailing investment and costing America jobs. I support good, responsible policies to protect human health and safeguard our environment. These rules, however, need to bear the qualities of all good rules: They need to be simple, efficient, achievable, and affordable. In short, they need to make sense from both an environmental and economic perspective. Unfortunately, as written, the Utility MACT rule--and others similar to it that the EPA is proposing--fails to find that proper balance. To the contrary, burdensome and complex new rules for the coal industry will not only discourage responsible energy growth but will prompt the complete shutdown of dozens of powerplants. That will increase energy costs for consumers and businesses and, sadly, force thousands of hard-working Americans onto the unemployment rolls. Utility MACT alone will require powerplants to install costly emission controls by 2015, with a pricetag for compliance of nearly $10 billion annually. Moreover, EPA has made it clear there will only be limited extensions to give utilities the time they need to make the changes. We now have an opportunity to vote either to retain or reject the Utility MACT rule under the Congressional Review Act. In fact, it is exactly this kind of rule that the Congressional Review Act was designed to address, by allowing Congress to review a new regulation and overrule it if that regulation is unfair or overreaching. So we can send the EPA back to the drawing board and insist that the Agency come up with a plan that is simpler, more affordable and, most important, that is fairer by taking into account the livelihoods of hard-working Americans and their families. That is exactly what we need to do. In my State of North Dakota, we have a lot of coal-fired electric generation. We supply power not only to our State but to the surrounding States as well--Minnesota, South Dakota, Montana, and well beyond. The reality is that we are producing more power, more electricity, and we are doing it with better environmental stewardship because, in our State, we have created the right legal tax and regulatory climate to stimulate that private investment, which is driving the new technology. In fact, we not only produce coal-fired electricity, we convert coal into synthetic natural gas. But we are successfully doing that because we are driving the investment that is spurring the new technology that is producing more energy. And as we produce more energy, that same technology is also enabling us to do it with better environmental stewardship. That is the win that we all seek. That is the win we all seek. Because that is not only about providing more electricity, more power, more energy for this country at a lower cost so that consumers benefit, it is also about creating high-quality, high-paying jobs for our American workers and, at the same time, providing better environmental technology through this investment, providing better environmental stewardship through this investment in new technologies. That is exactly what is happening, because we are empowering the industry to produce more electricity to develop, to grow and, again, to develop the technology that produces more technology with the better stewardship. That is the direction we need to go, and that is why I urge my colleagues to vote for this Congressional Review Act that would require EPA to go back and redraft this rule. It is in the interest of the American workers whose jobs depend on the coal industry, and, ultimately, it is in the best interest of Americans who not only need the energy but, again, as we are able to continue to develop the technology, we produce better and better environmental stewardship. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.