John Hoeven

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for organizing this colloquy with the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Ohio on this very important issue. We have our American consumers paying more than $3.70 at the pump today. Actually, today the price is $3.72. That is the right question because that hits every single American. As the Senator from Texas and the other Senators have pointed out, when the administration took office, the price of gasoline per gallon was about $1.85. Today, it is $3.70. Actually, again, this chart is already old; today the average price is $3.72. In some places, it is already well over $4. The projection is that by Memorial Day, gasoline will be $4 a gallon and by later this summer it could be as much as $5 a gallon. Let's put that into perspective for just a minute, following up on the question by the Senator from Texas. Recently, the President wanted a payroll tax cut, and the Congress passed that payroll tax cut. As the President liked to point out, that was about $1,000 a year. The benefit of that payroll tax averaged about $1,000 a year for the American worker or about $40 a paycheck. People get a paycheck every week, so it would be $40 a paycheck for the average working American. That is about $20 a week. When we are paying between $4 and $5 a gallon for gas at the pump, we more than pay that additional $20 we got in that payroll tax, don't we? In other words, it costs us more than that. In essence, we have gone back because of the high price of gasoline. What is the administration doing? As the Senator from Missouri just pointed out, the administration has an all-of-the-above strategy. What is that? That means we produce more energy from all our resources--oil, gas, biofuels, solar, wind, nuclear, and biomass. I agree with that. We should produce all our energy resources and have an all-of-the-above strategy. The problem is the administration is saying that, but they are not doing it. They are saying we should have an all-of-the-above strategy, but they are not doing it. Not only are they not doing it, they are actually blocking oil and gas development in our country, and they are blocking our ability to get oil from our closest ally and trading partner, Canada. The Keystone XL Pipeline, which they have turned down, is a great example of that. That is 830,000 barrels a day that we are not getting from Canada, because after 3\1/2\ years of study, the administration turned down the project. The Keystone XL Pipeline and projects similar to it are very important parts of the solution. We still get 30 percent of our crude from the Middle East and Venezuela. Oil prices are going up because of instability in the Middle East. That creates a risk premium to the price of gasoline, which we could reduce substantially by producing more oil and gas here at home and with our closest friend and trading partner, Canada. Ironically, the President wanted a payroll tax cut to stimulate our economy, he said, and to help the American worker. Then he more than takes away any benefit from that payroll tax cut by blocking our ability to develop oil and gas in this country and to get oil from Canada. In my State of North Dakota, not only can we not get our oil to market because we cannot put it into the Keystone XL Pipeline and get it to refineries, we cannot get the oil from Canada either, and our consumers, working Americans, pay the price at the pump. Why would the administration do that? Why? I think some insight is provided by Ted Turner's letter on the CNN Web site. He has a letter on that Web site, and everyone can check it out. Mr. Turner cites a number of arguments as to why we should not get oil from Canada. First, he says: That oil we get from Canada--we will just export it, so it will not reduce gas prices in the United States. But in a recent Department of Energy report, dated June 22, 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy says just the opposite; that the crude we bring in from Canada will be refined in the United States, and it will lower gas prices in the United States on the east coast, the gulf coast, and in the Midwest--not ``may'' reduce gas prices but ``will'' reduce them on the east coast, the gulf coast, and in the Midwest. Mr. Turner's letter says the pipeline will leak and, gee, we don't want a pipeline that leaks. As my second chart shows, this is the second Keystone Pipeline. This first Keystone Pipeline has already been built. He says that Keystone Pipeline leaked, so we cannot build a second one. The first one had no underground leaks. The leaks he refers to were minor leaks at some of the joints as they constructed the thing, which is normal and they were quickly and readily handled and they were no problem. That is functioning today just fine, and there are no underground leaks. So that is not accurate either, is it? As a matter of fact, let's take a look at this chart. Those are not the only two pipelines we have in the United States. There are others. We have thousands of oil and gas pipelines across the country. But somehow building one more that will bring in 830,000 barrels a day to help reduce the price of gas is a problem. Really? That doesn't make much sense. The other argument he uses is that we are producing that oil in Canada in the oil sands, and that is not good because we have to excavate to do it. What is the reality with producing oil sands? It does have somewhat higher greenhouse gas emissions. How much? About 6 percent. That is how much more greenhouse gas emission we get. But we are moving from excavating to produce that oil and gas to in situ. In situ is drilling just like we do for conventional oil. That means the same amount of greenhouse gas, the same footprint. Eighty percent is in situ. It has the same amount of greenhouse gas. We have deployed new technologies and produce more energy and do it with better environmental stewardship. So these arguments aren't accurate. But the reality is this: Folks like Mr. Turner, rich and famous, I guess they can pay $4 for gasoline. They can pay $5 for gasoline or a lot more. That isn't a problem for them. The problem is for hard- working Americans who have to pay that price at the pump every single day. So the administration has to decide who they are going to side with on this issue. Who are they going to side with on this issue? Are they going to continue to side with, I guess rich and powerful interests that want to see those gasoline prices go higher, and for whom the price of gasoline at the pump really isn't an issue or with hard-working Americans for whom this creates real hardship? That is the issue we have here with this vote that we will be having on the Keystone XL Pipeline. The reality is this: We can have North American energy security. We can do it. Right now, between Canada and the United States, with some help from Mexico, we produce about 70 percent of our crude. The Keystone XL project alone would take us up over 75 percent. And with other sources, which some of my colleagues have referred to, such as shale and the in situ drilling I have talked about, we can easily meet our needs. In fact, if we include the work we are doing with natural gas, with biofuels, and with energy efficiency, I believe we can truly have North American energy security--meaning we can supply the energy needs in the United States and North America, with our friends in Canada, within 5 to 7 years. But we have to get started. We have to get started. So let's get started, Mr. President. Let's start by approving the Keystone XL Pipeline project. Let's show the world we are serious about getting this done. Asking the Saudis for more oil, as some of my colleagues have done, doesn't solve the problem. Nor does taking oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That doesn't solve the problem. We solve the problem by truly producing all of the above--not saying it but doing it. It is ironic the administration praises TransCanada for moving forward on building the only portion of this pipeline they can build without a Presidential permit. He praises them for moving forward at the very time the administration is blocking the project. And while they are blocking it, that means not one more drop of oil is coming into this country from Canada, not one more drop of oil is coming from my State of North Dakota down to the refineries to help reduce the price of gasoline at the pump. That is not an all-of-the-above energy policy. That is not helping American workers. And that is exactly why gasoline is $3.70 a gallon and going higher. It is time for Congress to act. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank my esteemed colleague from the great State of Oregon, Senator Wyden, for his leadership on this important issue, for his work on the highway bill, and specifically for his work on the TRIP bonds, as he said, the Transportation and Regional Infrastructure Project bonds. It is a creative concept, and I think it is very timely. Senator Wyden approached me and said: As we are working on this highway bill, can we work together on this concept of something like a TRIP bond concept? I expressed my appreciation for his creativity and the offer to work together and said, one, I absolutely wanted to do it because it is so important to our country right now--we need the jobs, we need the economic activity, we need the infrastructure, that is clear--and, as the good Senator said, we have to be creative in figuring out how to do this. I said: We are going to have to do it within the framework of making sure it is paid for and making sure it does not add to the deficit or the debt. He said: Agreed. And we went to work on it. So this truly is bipartisan, and I thank him for taking the initiative and for all the work both and he his staff have put into what I think is a very creative idea and a real opportunity for us, as I say, in infrastructure and in job creation and economic activity for our country. I also extend my thanks to two Members of the House of Representatives as well, both Ed Whitfield, Congressman from Kentucky, Republican, and Congressman Leonard Boswell, Democrat from the State of Iowa. So in both the Senate and the House this has been a bipartisan effort. That is important because at the end of the day, if we are going to get this passed, that is what it is going to take, bipartisan support. So this is about addressing something that is vitally important: our infrastructure needs, job creation. It is something we pay for, so it does not increase the deficit or the debt, and it is absolutely bipartisan. Again, as my esteemed colleague just mentioned, I bring a perspective as a Governor. We are talking about $25 billion in addition to the normal highway funding. So this is for projects in infrastructure that State departments of transportation and Governors--people at the State level, at the local level--decide what infrastructure projects need to be done, and they can then use these funds accordingly. That is of tremendous value to them. Without exception, go across the States, ask any of the Governors or directors of transportation, and they will tell you: That is exactly the kind of funding we want and need to do the very best job for the people we serve in our respective States. Mr. President, $25 billion--$10 billion the first year, $15 billion in year 2--will make an incredible difference for every single State in the country. Now, the other thing to keep in mind is--Senator Wyden went through for just a minute how we have structured the bonds--essentially, it results in a 4-to-1 leveraging of funds for every State. They put their dollars into the sinking fund. They select the projects. Then, on a project-by-project basis, they put forward dollars in the sinking fund, and we provide them a 4-to-1 match. So, for example, $\1/2\ billion goes to a State. As they select projects, that $\1/2\ billion funds those projects. They put up $100 million as they select and advance those projects. For their $100 million, they are doing $500 million in projects. Again, this is exactly what the States are looking for. This is exactly what they need to meet their infrastructure needs. Anyone driving around the country--whether it is in the District or anywhere else--is going to tell you: Look, we have to address our infrastructure needs. And this is absolutely something that will make a big difference in doing that. Again, in addition to being truly a bipartisan effort, and a bicameral effort, at this point we have received tremendous support and encouragement from across the country and from truly a diverse range of groups--from labor, from business, from mayors, from county commissioners. It truly has not only bipartisan support but incredibly strong support across the country. Just some of the various groups that have come out and already endorsed the project include the American Association of Road and Transportation Builders, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Highway Users Alliance, the Associated General Contractors of America, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Labors' International Union of North America, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Society of Civil Engineers. Again, mayors, commissioners--this truly has broad, strong support at the grassroots level. That is reflective of the fact that it is exactly the kind of project we need to advance. So as we work on this highway bill, I see this as a tremendous opportunity--really an opportunity, and not just in terms of the infrastructure we so badly need but to put people to work in good jobs, in good-paying jobs. Think of the ramifications that has, the secondary ramifications that has for our economy right now. It is incredibly important. It makes a huge difference, and then we have the lasting infrastructure, we are meeting the lasting infrastructure needs of this country. Before I yield the floor, just a final comment and that is to ask our colleagues to join us in this effort. If they have good ideas, we are absolutely open to those ideas. But this is a concept whose time has come. We need to make sure, as we work forward on this highway bill, we include the TRIP bonds as part of that package. With that, I yield the floor back to my esteemed colleague.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to speak on the issue of energy security for our Nation. I have filed legislation which would approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. I filed our bill as an amendment to the highway bill. That bill is the Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter-McConnell-Johanns- Hatch bill. But it actually includes 45 Senators as cosponsors of the legislation. As I said, I filed it now as an amendment to the highway bill. The fact is Congress needs to act. The administration, after more than 3 years, has decided not to act--evidently will not act on this important issue. So we in Congress need to. This highway bill provides a tremendous opportunity. The highway bill is about infrastructure, vital infrastructure for our country. That is exactly what the Keystone XL Pipeline is. It is vital infrastructure that is very much needed by our country. Look at gas prices today. According to the Lundberg Survey or AAA, gas prices are now more than $3.50 a gallon. That is the highest they have been at this time of year ever--more than $3.50 a gallon. Since President Obama took office, gas prices are up 88 percent. They are up 88 percent. That is even though demand is down. We are using less. Demand in the United States for gasoline is down by 5 percent. Yet we are seeing record high gas prices. AAA is now projecting that gasoline will go to $4 a gallon by Memorial Day. Some are saying we could see $5 gasoline this year--$5 a gallon. Why is that? All we have to do is look to the Middle East to understand what is going on. With the turmoil there, Iran is threatening to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. Something like between one-fifth and one-sixth of all the seaborne oil in the world goes through the Strait of Hormuz. So we can imagine what would happen if Iran blockaded that strait. Why are we continuing to get oil from the Middle East and places such as Venezuela? Nearly 30 percent of the crude we use comes from places such as the Middle East and Venezuela. Why? Why are we doing that when we don't have to? We don't have to. Why not produce that oil in this country and get it from our closest friend and our strongest trading partner, Canada? The reality is, we can have North American energy independence. We absolutely can do it. I believe we can do it within the next 5 years. In my home State of North Dakota, we now produce 535,000 barrels a day of light sweet Bakken crude oil. But the problem we have is we cannot get it to market. In the last 5 years, we have increased production from about 100,000 barrels a day to more than 500,000 barrels a day, and it is continuing to grow. But we need pipelines to get that product to refineries in the United States. That is what the Keystone XL would do. More than 100,000 barrels a day of our oil would go into the Keystone Pipeline to get it to refineries. From Canada, 700,000 barrels a day would go into the Keystone XL Pipeline. So we are talking about 830,000 barrels a day that would go through the Keystone XL Pipeline, which we would not need to get from the Middle East. Between the United States and Canada, and some from Mexico, building infrastructure such as the Keystone XL Pipeline, we can produce more than 75 percent of the crude oil we need in our country, and that is growing. When I talk about North American oil independence or North American energy independence, that is very attainable. It is something we can absolutely do, but we need the infrastructure to do it. Today, in North Dakota, light sweet Bakken crude is suffering a discount of $27 a barrel. Our oil is suffering a discount of $27 a barrel because we are constrained by pipeline capacity. In Canada, Syncrude is suffering a discount of $21 a barrel because of that pipeline capacity. Even in Cushing, OK, a hub for oil in this country, oil has been discounted because it cannot move to the refineries because we lack the pipeline capacity. But even with these bottlenecks, as I have pointed out, these discounts at the pump, consumers and businesses are paying more than $3.50 a gallon. The bottlenecks create those constraints. Think of the impact on our economy and to our consumers. There are other impacts as well. For example, in North Dakota, we have more truck traffic on our western highways than ever before. That means more fatalities, more traffic accidents. It also means a lot more wear and tear on our infrastructure. So we are talking about a highway bill to maintain and improve our highway infrastructure throughout the country, and in my State our roads are getting worn out by all that truck traffic. The Keystone XL Pipeline alone would reduce the truck traffic on our highways just in North Dakota by 17 million truck miles a year. Again, that is 17 million truck miles a year--all that without one penny of government spending, not one penny of Federal Government spending. So it is a $7 billion private investment in enhancing our infrastructure that would not cost us a penny. The Keystone XL Pipeline will create needed infrastructure, tens of thousands of jobs, more energy security for our Nation, and millions in tax revenues, all with no government spending. The U.S. Department of Energy said the Keystone XL Pipeline will lower gas prices--not ``may'' but ``will''--for the east coast, the gulf coast and the Midwest. But the Obama administration says no. So the Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, goes to China last week. While there, he met with President Hu Jintao of China about selling Canadian oil to China. Prime Minister Harper said this in The Gazette: We are an emerging energy superpower. . . . We have abundant supplies of virtually every form of energy. And you know, we want to sell our energy to people who want to buy our energy. It's that simple. He also spoke of ``a new era in a strategic Canada-China energy partnership.'' To the United States, he said: If you don't want Canadian oil sand crude, China is a waiting customer. To back it up, he returned with a memorandum of understanding from China to develop energy sales from Canada to China. To those who don't think the Canadian oil sands are going to be produced, that is wrong. They are going to be produced. This oil will be produced. The issue is whether it is going to go to China or come to the United States. The reality is, if it goes to China, it will be worse environmental stewardship. If it comes to the United States, there will be better environmental stewardship. Let's talk about that for a minute. First off, if it comes from the United States in a pipeline instead of going to China, we don't have to haul it in tankers across the ocean, which produces greenhouse gas. The oil going to China creates more greenhouse gas because we have to haul it to China. Second, if we are not getting it in the pipeline, we are going to have to continue to have tanker loads coming here from the Middle East and Venezuela--again, producing more greenhouse gas. Third, we have the best refineries in the world. We have the highest standards and the lowest emissions in our refineries. Instead, this oil will go to China, where they have more emissions and more greenhouse gas. That is worse environmental stewardship by sending it to China, not better. Another point. Eighty percent of new production in the Canadian oil sands is in situ. That means drilling down to bring up the oil, as we do with conventional oil, not excavating, as they have done historically but drilling or in situ, which has the same impact on greenhouse emissions as conventional drilling. So 80 percent of the new development is in situ, with the same impact as conventional drilling. That is the real solution. The real solution is using better technology to not only produce more energy but with better environmental stewardship. That is the real solution, and it means jobs and energy independence for North America. Finally, on the issue of reexporting the oil, the issue has been brought up that, OK, if we bring the oil in from Canada, it will just get exported to some other country and not be utilized in the United States. But 99 percent of the crude in the United States is refined here; 97 percent of the gasoline refined in the United States is used in the United States; 90 percent of the transportation fuel refined in the United States is used in the United States. We need this oil. We need the refined product. The reality is, for the small amount exported--think about that. For that, we get jobs, and we get dollars for our economy. Think about it like manufacturing for just a minute. Refining is a process. We take crude oil, refine it, and we have a finished product, a refined product. Similar to manufacturing, we take inputs and manufacture and we have a finished good. Would anybody, for a minute, argue that we don't want to manufacture products in the United States and send them overseas? Of course we do because we get jobs and wealth from that, don't we? In other words, we want to manufacture and process goods in the United States, and when we export them, we get value, we get jobs, and we get a growing economy. What is going on with this argument? If we think about this argument in the simplest form--for those who say we don't want to build the pipeline because some product might get exported, stop and think for a minute. If we don't build the pipeline, all the oil goes to China; none of it comes here. So we are worried that some might get exported? That makes no sense. None. I will wrap up. The reality is this: Whether we measure it by jobs or whether we measure it by energy security for this Nation--national security with what is going on in the Middle East--or whether we measure it from an environmental stewardship standpoint, it absolutely makes sense to develop this infrastructure. This is an important step in the right direction toward North American energy security. There is a lot more we need to do, but the reality is we can get there with this kind of private investment by creating the right environment for that. With the infrastructure and steps we need to take, we can get to energy security. It is time for Congress to step forward and act. This is vitally important infrastructure for our country. This is a vitally important step in terms of national security for the American people. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I will.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about jobs, energy independence, and good environmental stewardship for our country. I rise to speak about working with our strongest ally and trading partner, Canada. I rise to speak about moving forward on behalf of the American people and not delaying, not failing to act in their best interests. Yesterday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper left for China. He left for China with five of his top Ministers, including his Minister of Trade and his Minister of Natural Resources. He also took along 40 leading businessmen from Canada, including many of their leading businessmen in the area of energy, oil, and gas. He left on a trade mission to China. And what is at the very top of his list? At the very top of his list in his trade mission to China is selling Canadian oil to China. Why is that? The reason is because our current administration evidently would prefer that we buy oil from the Middle East and from Venezuela rather than buying oil from our closest friend and our No. 1 trading partner, Canada. That seems hard to believe but, if not, how else can we explain the administration turning down the Keystone XL Pipeline project after more than 3 years of study--not 60 days but more than 3 years of study. We recently passed legislation in this Chamber and in the House that was approved by the President, and in that legislation we said the President needs to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline within 60 days of the date of that legislation, but that is after 3 years of study. The administration came back and said: Well, it cannot make a decision in 60 days but forgot to mention they have been looking at it for over 3 years. In fact, let's go through that timeline. I think it is important that the American people understand the real timeline. The real timeline has nothing to do with 60 days. The real timeline is more than 3 years that a project has been held in limbo. On September 19, 2008, TransCanada applied for a permit to build the Keystone XL Pipeline. That is more than 3 years ago. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department said they would have an answer on the project before the end of last year. They made it very clear that after going through the full NEPA process-- including the full environmental impact statement, doing all of the due diligence, all the work over more than a 3-year period--they would have an answer before the end of the year. The administration then says: No, that is not enough time. We don't have enough time in more than 3 years to make a decision, so the decision is null. You ask: Why would that be? Is this such a unique project that we have never done this before; that after more than 3 years of study--not 60 days--this is so unique we cannot make a decision in that amount of time? So the administration says no. On this chart we see this red line that runs from Hardisty, which is Alberta, Canada, all the way down to Patoka, IL, to refineries we have in this country. This is the Keystone Pipeline. That was approved in 2 years, roughly 2006 to 2008, and then constructed. It now moves almost 600,000 barrels of oil a day from the Canadian oil sands down to our refineries. So that project already exists. We are talking about building a sister pipeline, the Keystone XL Pipeline, that will bring it from the Calgary area, the Province of Alberta, Canada, down to Cushing, which is a major oil hub, and our refineries in the gulf. So it is not a new concept; we are already doing it. This pipeline carries almost 600,000 barrels a day. The new pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels a day. It is not just about Canada. It is not just about moving Canadian crude to our refineries. My home State of North Dakota, and Montana, produce oil as well--light, sweet, Bakken crude--good stuff. We need to get that product to market as well; 100,000 barrels a day from North Dakota and Montana will go into this pipeline. Now, that is incredibly important to States such as North Dakota and Montana because right now we have to move that product by truck and by train. There is incredible wear and tear on our roads, and with the congestion on our roads, there are also traffic accidents and traffic fatalities. Mr. President, 100,000 barrels a day represents 500 truck loads a day on some of our highways in western North Dakota and eastern Montana. This pipeline would reduce the number of truck miles to move that product by 17 million truck miles a year. So it is not just about moving that product from Canada to our refineries, it is about moving our own crude, crude that we produce in this country to market. Our States need that vital infrastructure, and the government is not building this infrastructure--not one penny of tax money, not one penny of Federal Government spending. This is a $7 billion-plus investment from the private sector to give us the infrastructure we need to get our oil to our refineries. So it is not a new project. It has been done before. As a matter of fact, as my next chart shows, not only has this been done before, but the Obama administration has approved similar projects before. In August of 2009 the current administration approved a 1,000-mile pipeline that moves 800,000 barrels of oil a day that is moving oil right now. They approved this project in August 2009. It came online in October 2010. It goes from the Province of Alberta down to refineries in Wisconsin. So they approved it in August 2009. So what is going on here? Well, the issue they have talked about is that they have to delay this because of the western Sandhills region of Nebraska. The western Sandhills region of Nebraska includes something called the Ogallala Aquifer. The Ogallala Aquifer is obviously very important for water supply and irrigation. That is here in western Nebraska, so that concern has been raised. So we put forward legislation that addresses that issue. We put forward legislation that follows the lead of the State of Nebraska and says: We will reroute the pipeline in Nebraska. For example, rerouting it over here where there is already the existing Keystone Pipeline. But in the legislation we put forward we say we will reroute the pipeline in Nebraska; that issue will be fully addressed, and we do not set a timeline on doing it and we expressly provide that we work with the State of Nebraska to do it. Nebraska had a special session in November. After their special session where we all agreed to do the rerouting, the State of Nebraska--their legislature, their Governor, and their Senators-- supported the project. They said: Yes, we need to move forward with the project. As you can see, there are many pipelines through there already. Nevertheless, we said: OK, the administration said that is an issue. We do the rerouting and we set no time limit to do it. So why aren't we proceeding with the project? What are we waiting for? And what are the ramifications of waiting? Look at all these pipelines. This is not a new concept. So I take a step back to what I mentioned earlier: What is going on here? Why is it that Prime Minister Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada in China today, is arranging to sell oil that they produce in Canada to China rather than to us in the United States when we need it so badly--not just for our economy, not just for the jobs, but for energy security at a time of incredible upheaval in the Middle East? Now this oil is going to go to China. What is going on here? Well, the only thing that I guess we can figure is that the administration has decided they don't want oil produced from the Canadian oil sands. They have decided they don't want oil that is produced in Canada in the oil sands. The argument is that somehow that oil will have higher greenhouse gas emissions, so we are not going to take it and somehow that is not going to be produced. So it is an environmental issue. The only problem with that is that it is going to be produced. It just won't come to us, it will go to China. And maybe an even bigger irony--although certainly not a bigger problem but a bigger irony--is that the environmental stewardship will then be worse, not better. So if that is the argument, it is going in the wrong direction. This oil, which will be produced up here--that is exactly the agreement Prime Minister Harper is now working on with China and, believe me, China wants the oil. There is no question about that. They have made it very clear. While we continue to put Canada on hold, China is working very hard to make sure that oil comes to them. Lets talk about the environmental aspect of that. Now, instead of bringing this oil in a pipeline down to our refineries--the best technology in the world in terms of refining, so we put it in a pipeline and we have lower emissions in the very best refineries in the world--we are going to put this oil in thousands and thousands of tankers that have to go across the ocean, producing greenhouse gases, and it is going to be refined in China, where they have lower emission standards, meaning higher emissions. They don't have the same standards we do, so we end up with more greenhouse gas, and yet at the same time we continue to have tankers of oil coming in from the Middle East producing more greenhouse gas because we can't get the oil from Canada. So if that is the argument, what are we doing? We are saying: OK, we are going to say no to the jobs and we are going to say no to the fact that we can be energy independent in terms of oil. Between the United States and Canada, we can be independent in our oil needs. We won't need to get oil from Venezuela and we won't need to get oil from the Middle East--a huge national security issue. Look at what is going on in Syria and look at what is going on in Egypt and look at what is going on in Iran. Look at what is going on with the price of gasoline. We can become oil independent with our best friend and ally, Canada, but we say no instead. After 3 years, we are going to say no to the project, so Canada sells it to China and we get worse environmental stewardship. I hope the American people fully understand exactly what is going on here because it is time to act. Right now, Prime Minister Harper is talking to President Hu Jintao, the President of China and, believe me, China wants the oil. Prime Minister Harper and Canada, our closest ally in the world, have waited 3 years--3 years--to get a ``no'' answer from the administration. So we will see what kind of agreement he comes back with from China. The reality is, it is time to act. Here are some of the pipelines that are moving crude oil and other product around our country. Do we really think that is a problem, particularly when we put in legislation--when we went specifically and found out what the administration's concern was and we solved it and we built it into the legislation? The time has come to act. I call on my colleagues to join me. We put forward legislation that addresses the concerns. But it is time to act for the good of the American people. Thank you, Mr. President. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their help in passing S. 2039 by unanimous consent last month. This bill, which establishes a pilot program in North Dakota, will provide a great deal of help to citizens in my State. I sponsored this legislation because Federal policy has stood in the way of flood protection measures necessary for communities in North Dakota. I want to highlight a couple of situations, one in Fargo and one in Minot, that illustrate the need for this bill. First, Fargo, ND, has faced repeated flooding in the Red River, which runs through the heart of the city. The city has constructed a permanent levee to run along as much of the river as possible. However, over the years, some properties along the river bank were bought out using funds from FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. HMGP guidelines prohibit the construction of any structure, including a levee, on land bought out under the program. So as a result, Fargo's levee stops every time it comes up to HMGP land. When the waters rise, the city builds a temporary extension of its levee that goes over the HMGP land and connects to the next section of the permanent levee, and when the waters recede, the city has to take down the temporary levee to remain in compliance with the HMGP no-construction policy. Year after year, Fargo has constructed and then removed several temporary levees at great expense and for no apparent reason other than the letter of the HMGP law. Second, Minot, ND, is about to run into the same problem currently facing Fargo. As my colleagues know, Minot faced enormous flooding during the summer of 2011, losing thousands of homes and sustaining hundreds of millions in damages. In response, the city plans to build a major new flood protection system, including levees through the middle of town along the river. In order to build that system, Minot will have to buy out dozens of properties and create space for a levee. The Federal Government will make money available through the HMGP program for property buyouts, but we are unable to use it if spending it precludes construction of a levee on these properties. In both cases, the solution is simply to permit levee construction on property purchased with HMGP funds. HMGP restrictions on construction were intended to ensure that the Federal Government would not be on the hook to pay for future flood damages on property it had bought out. For the most part, that makes sense. But when a community wants to add flood protection in the form of a levee, it should be allowed to do so. A levee across HMGP-purchased land does not create future liabilities for the Federal Government; instead, it increases flood protection for local residents--something that will save the government money in future flood situations. The text of S. 2039 allows for levee construction on North Dakota land purchased through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The legislation directs the FEMA Administrator to approve construction of a levee on HMGP land after the Administrator determines that the levee would provide better flood risk mitigation than maintaining the property as open space. The Administrator is also directed to ensure that the levee would comply with relevant levee construction and maintenance standards and would minimize future costs to the Federal Government. And I would like to put particular emphasis on the subject of costs to the Federal Government. This legislation does not affect the amounts of money provided under the HMGP program. It does, however, allow communities like Minot to use HMGP dollars more efficiently by permitting property buyouts to be linked with new flood protection plans. The legislation eliminates the costs FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers incur every time they are forced to build and then tear down temporary levees on HMGP properties. Finally, the legislation ensures that any costs associated with the process the FEMA Administrator and the Army Corps Chief of Engineers use to approve levee construction are borne by the State, local, or tribal government requesting the levee. Any Federal funds approved elsewhere of course remain available for levee construction and are not affected by this legislation. S. 2039 has moved on to the House of Representatives where I hope it can be approved expeditiously and sent to the President. The bill will provide important benefits to the people of Fargo, Minot, Devils Lake, and other North Dakota communities facing repeated flood risks. I thank my colleagues for their support of this common sense legislation, and I hope it can be an example of how to improve flood protection nationwide.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota for organizing the colloquy and I also thank the good Senator from Nebraska for joining us as well. I appreciate working with them on this project, which is not only vital to our State but to our country. As the Senator from South Dakota said, this project is critically important to our country for a number of reasons. First, it will create tens of thousands of jobs. There will be a $7 billion investment, not one penny of which will be Federal Government spending but all private sector investment. The Perryman Group projected, when they did a study on the job creation, that it would create 20,000 construction jobs right away; it would create upward of 100,000 spinoff jobs as they expand refineries and with the other economic activity that is created. Some might dispute those job numbers, but any way we look at it, tens of thousands of jobs will be created by the private sector, which is why it has strong union support at a time when we have 13-plus million people out of work and we need the jobs. As the Senator from South Dakota said, it will generate hundreds of millions in tax revenues from a growing economy, from more economic activity. The last I checked, it is pretty important at the local, State, and Federal levels to have those revenues coming in. In addition, it will reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East. With what is going on in Iran--and they are threatening to blockade the Strait of Hormuz--and with gas prices at $3.50 a gallon, roughly, and going up, it is important to consumers and the businesses of this country that we use the oil in this country and from our closest ally, Canada, rather than relying on the Middle East. The third point is, this oil will be produced. If we don't build the pipeline capacity to bring it to our refineries to be refined, it goes to China. That is a fact. It will be produced. It will either go to China or it will come to us. I have this chart to give a history of the project because, as the good Senator from South Dakota said, this has been under review for more than 3 years. TransCanada, the company that is trying to build the pipeline, built this Keystone Pipeline already. That is this red line on the chart. That project was approved in 2 years. Again, Keystone XL has been under study more than 3 years. The sister pipeline has already been built, and that was approved in 2 years. It comes from Alberta, Canada, to the refineries in the Patoka, IL, area. The existing project, as we can see, comes through North Dakota--that was when I was Governor--through South Dakota, and down through Nebraska. The Keystone XL comes just to the west. I point that out because of the Bakken oil play in North Dakota and Montana, it is very important we have the ability to put oil into this pipeline. We are looking at putting 100,000 barrels a day of U.S. crude into this pipeline so it can get to our refineries. In other words, it is not just about bringing Canadian crude to our refineries; it is about bringing our own crude to them. It also saves wear and tear on our roads, and it is a safety issue because it reduces truck traffic. We are talking 500 truckloads a day and 17 million truck miles a year that we don't have to put on our roads. We don't have to have the traffic issues, the safety issues or the road issues in our country because we have the ability to move the product with this pipeline. Let's look at this timeline. September, 2008. I know this is hard to read. I will make an important point. In September 2008, TransCanada applied for a permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline. In November of 2008, the current administration was elected. For the entire time the current administration has been in office, they have held up this project. It has gone through the full NEPA process. It had the full environmental impact studies done. Even the State Department said there would be a decision before the end of last year. For the entire time this administration has been in office, TransCanada was working to go through the process with EPA and the Department of State, and the Department of State said they would have a decision before the end of last year, but we still don't have a decision. We have to ask why. Why don't we have a decision? That is what we are talking about. It is long past time to act. Let's look at this chart. What are we talking about? What we are talking about is this--another pipeline. We are talking about another pipeline just like the one that has already been built. How about the hundreds or maybe I should say thousands of pipelines we already have, and somehow we cannot build this pipeline? That doesn't make any sense. Somebody needs to explain this to us. We have legislation, with 45 Senators, 45 sponsors, who are saying: Hey, it is time to move forward and build the project. As a matter of fact, we are doing everything we can to address any and all problems or concerns the administration has raised. That is why I am going to turn it over now to my good colleague from Nebraska, because when the administration says there is an issue or a State or the EPA says there is an issue, we stepped up in our legislation and solved it. We say: Great, let's address it, but let's move forward for the good of our economy and the good of our country. I defer now to the good Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from South Dakota again for organizing this colloquy this morning. I thank him and the esteemed Senator from Nebraska for their support of this legislation. Again, we have taken a problem-solving approach to this legislation, and we are continuing to do that. We will continue to work with other Members of the Senate and our colleagues in the House, but we need the administration to engage with us on this important issue for the good of the American people. Again, I thank my colleague from South Dakota.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about legislation I am introducing. I am pleased to introduce this legislation, along with 43 cosponsors, making that 44 Members of the Senate sponsoring legislation to improve the Keystone XL project. This legislation would approve Keystone XL under article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. That provision, the commerce clause, gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign countries, and that is the authority Congress needs to use, just as Congress used that authority in 1973 to approve the Alaskan Pipeline. Moving forward with the Keystone project will create tens of thousands of jobs--tens of thousands of jobs at a time when our country badly needs those jobs, at a time when we have more than 13 million people out of work, or 8\1/2\ percent unemployment. It will create those jobs without spending one Federal taxpayer dollar. Not one. This is private sector investment--more than $7 billion that will help generate tens of thousands of jobs at a time when our economy badly needs them and when we need to get people back to work. Also, this will reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East-- 830,000 barrels a day. The Keystone XL Pipeline will move 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada and from States such as my own, the State of North Dakota. That is 830,000 barrels of oil a day we don't have to get from the Middle East at a time when we have rising tensions in the Middle East, at a time when Iran is threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, at a time when we could see gas prices going to $4, maybe even $5 a gallon. The reality is, even if we don't build the project, the oil will still be produced. The oil in Canada will still be produced. It is just that it would not come to the United States. It will go to China, and we will have worse environmental stewardship, not better. Building the project will actually help us provide better environmental stewardship because we don't need to haul that oil overseas, around the world. We would not need to continue bringing in oil from the Middle East. That 830,000 barrels a day will go to our refineries where there are higher standards with better environmental stewardship. President Obama recently turned down this project. He turned down the project because he said he couldn't make a decision in 60 days. He said he couldn't make a decision on the project in 60 days. That was too soon. But the project has been under review for more than 3 years. Let me repeat that. This project has been under review by the administration for more than 3 years. The EPA and the State Department have been reviewing the project. In our legislation we simply say this has been under review for more than 3 years, and it is time to make a decision. It is time to move forward. Furthermore, for the one portion of the route that was contested, the Nebraska portion, we say: Take as much time as you need to reroute in Nebraska--after 3 years--to make sure we provide enough time for the decision. I have a chart here that shows this timeline. Let's take a minute and go through it. The application was originally submitted in September of 2008. September of 2008 is when the process started. So as you can see, it has been under review in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011. The State Department itself, EPA through the NEPA process and the State Department, has responsibility to make a decision on the project and, as you can see, on their own timeline they had planned to render a decision before the end of last year. As a matter of fact, I received a letter from Secretary of State Clinton indicating they intended to have a final decision before the end of the year. Yet, when we passed our earlier legislation, the President said, Well, we can't make a decision in 60 days. Do you mean 3 years and 60 days? How long does it take to study this process and make a decision--particularly when in the last bill which we passed 89-10 by this body, and now in this legislation again we say, as to the only contested portion of the rule where you may want to reroute through Nebraska due to the Oglala aquifer, we provide as much time as needed to do the rerouting. But at some point we have got to make a decision to move forward with the project. So maybe you say, Well, okay, it has been studied for 3 years, but more time is needed somehow because it is a unique project. Actually, it is not a unique project. Before coming to the Senate last year, I was the Governor of North Dakota for 10 years. While I was Governor, TransCanada built a very similar project. The red line here is the Keystone project. It goes from Calgary down to Patoka, IL, much the same route, bringing oil from Canada into our refineries. That was permitted, not in 3 years, that was permitted in 2 years. In 2 years, that was permitted. We have been studying Keystone XL, a sister pipeline--very similar. It goes down to Cushing into the refineries along the gulf coast. We have been studying for 3 years a very similar project already approved in 2. You may say, Well, I don't know. Still, you only have one kind of project there and maybe there is some new or challenging thing you have to take into account. So, yes, we have been studying it for 3 years and you need that kind of time because somehow we are recreating the wheel or doing something new and different. Well, that is not quite the case, either. Let's go to my third chart. These are the oil and gas pipelines in the United States. All these red lines show oil and gas pipelines throughout our country, already existing, already in place, already moving oil and gas around the country. So now we are going to bring another one through here with all these pipelines, with the latest technology, the latest safeguards. And you mean to say that, after 3 years, that is not time to figure out whether we can approve another pipeline when we have hundreds of pipelines all over this country that people count on every day for their supply of oil? For their supply of gas? That is the situation. Clearly, we can make this decision. Clearly, after more than 3 years of study, it doesn't make sense to not move forward, particularly when we are talking about tens of thousands of jobs that we need. Not only will it not cost our Federal Government revenue, it will generate hundreds of millions in revenue back to local, State, and Federal Government. In addition to creating jobs, it reduces our dependence on Middle East oil. And if we don't do it, the oil goes to China. It is still produced, but it goes to China. So, actually, we have better environmental stewardship with the project. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce last year did a study. In that study, they cited 351 infrastructure projects that are being held up in the country right now--351 infrastructure projects that are being held up in the country right now due to regulations and bureaucratic delays. If we can get those projects going, based on the study the U.S. Chamber did, that would generate almost $1.1 trillion in gross domestic product for our country. It would generate--their estimate--1.9 million jobs, not with more government spending, but enabling the private investment to go forward by taking the bureaucratic delays out of the way, by reducing the regulatory burden, by green-lighting projects like Keystone XL, which has been under study for more than 3 years. Back to one of these earlier charts. In my home State of North Dakota, we now produce more than 500,000 barrels of oil a day. We need to put 100,000 barrels a day into this pipeline so we can get it to market, so we can get it to consumers and companies throughout this country. That is 100,000 barrels a day right now that we have to move through other means, such as truck or rail. That is equal to 500 truckloads a day, or 17 million truck miles a year. Think of the toll on our roads, think of the traffic fatalities that result when that product should be going through pipeline. And at the same time that we have less traffic safety, tremendous wear and tear on our roads, we suffer a discount. Our companies, our mineral owners, our people suffer a discount because it is more expensive to transport that product by rail and by truck. Those are the realities of getting our economy going. Again, I go back to the national security concern: 830,000 barrels a day that we have got to get from the Middle East. With these kinds of developments, with this kind of infrastructure, together with Canada and some oil that we get from Mexico, by building Keystone XL Pipeline we can produce more than 80 percent of the oil we consume right here in our country. That means we don't have to get it from the Middle East. And look what is going on in the Middle East. Look at Iran, threatening to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. That is a fundamental national security issue. Unions across this country have said, Hey, we need these jobs. We support this project. We want to move forward with this and other infrastructure projects. But it is not just about the jobs and the economy, although that is vitally important to all the people who are out of work; it is a vital and national security issue, and it is going to continue to be a more important national security issue as we continue to see gas prices rise and as we continue to see instability in the Middle East. Again, back to the environmental issues. This oil will be produced. It is either going to China or it is coming here. If we bring it here, we have better environmental stewardship because it goes in a pipeline to refineries that have the lowest emission standards. If we don't, the pipeline goes to the west coast. They load it on tankers. You have to haul it to places such as China where it is refined in refineries with higher emissions. And then, guess what. We have to ship oil from the Middle East--generating more emissions--to bring to our refineries. Again, it makes no sense. It is time to move forward. There is clear precedence and clear authority. Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the constitutional authority to act under the commerce clause. Congress exercised that authority in 1973 for the Alaskan pipeline. It is time for Congress to exercise its authority again for the good of our economy and for the good of our country.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Hoeven pertaining to the introduction of S. 2041 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about legislation I am introducing. I am pleased to introduce this legislation, along with 43 cosponsors, making that 44 Members of the Senate sponsoring legislation to improve the Keystone XL project. This legislation would approve Keystone XL under article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. That provision, the commerce clause, gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign countries, and that is the authority Congress needs to use, just as Congress used that authority in 1973 to approve the Alaskan Pipeline. Moving forward with the Keystone project will create tens of thousands of jobs--tens of thousands of jobs at a time when our country badly needs those jobs, at a time when we have more than 13 million people out of work, or 8\1/2\ percent unemployment. It will create those jobs without spending one Federal taxpayer dollar. Not one. This is private sector investment--more than $7 billion that will help generate tens of thousands of jobs at a time when our economy badly needs them and when we need to get people back to work. Also, this will reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East-- 830,000 barrels a day. The Keystone XL Pipeline will move 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada and from States such as my own, the State of North Dakota. That is 830,000 barrels of oil a day we don't have to get from the Middle East at a time when we have rising tensions in the Middle East, at a time when Iran is threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, at a time when we could see gas prices going to $4, maybe even $5 a gallon. The reality is, even if we don't build the project, the oil will still be produced. The oil in Canada will still be produced. It is just that it would not come to the United States. It will go to China, and we will have worse environmental stewardship, not better. Building the project will actually help us provide better environmental stewardship because we don't need to haul that oil overseas, around the world. We would not need to continue bringing in oil from the Middle East. That 830,000 barrels a day will go to our refineries where there are higher standards with better environmental stewardship. President Obama recently turned down this project. He turned down the project because he said he couldn't make a decision in 60 days. He said he couldn't make a decision on the project in 60 days. That was too soon. But the project has been under review for more than 3 years. Let me repeat that. This project has been under review by the administration for more than 3 years. The EPA and the State Department have been reviewing the project. In our legislation we simply say this has been under review for more than 3 years, and it is time to make a decision. It is time to move forward. Furthermore, for the one portion of the route that was contested, the Nebraska portion, we say: Take as much time as you need to reroute in Nebraska--after 3 years--to make sure we provide enough time for the decision. I have a chart here that shows this timeline. Let's take a minute and go through it. The application was originally submitted in September of 2008. September of 2008 is when the process started. So as you can see, it has been under review in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011. The State Department itself, EPA through the NEPA process and the State Department, has responsibility to make a decision on the project and, as you can see, on their own timeline they had planned to render a decision before the end of last year. As a matter of fact, I received a letter from Secretary of State Clinton indicating they intended to have a final decision before the end of the year. Yet, when we passed our earlier legislation, the President said, Well, we can't make a decision in 60 days. Do you mean 3 years and 60 days? How long does it take to study this process and make a decision--particularly when in the last bill which we passed 89-10 by this body, and now in this legislation again we say, as to the only contested portion of the rule where you may want to reroute through Nebraska due to the Oglala aquifer, we provide as much time as needed to do the rerouting. But at some point we have got to make a decision to move forward with the project. So maybe you say, Well, okay, it has been studied for 3 years, but more time is needed somehow because it is a unique project. Actually, it is not a unique project. Before coming to the Senate last year, I was the Governor of North Dakota for 10 years. While I was Governor, TransCanada built a very similar project. The red line here is the Keystone project. It goes from Calgary down to Patoka, IL, much the same route, bringing oil from Canada into our refineries. That was permitted, not in 3 years, that was permitted in 2 years. In 2 years, that was permitted. We have been studying Keystone XL, a sister pipeline--very similar. It goes down to Cushing into the refineries along the gulf coast. We have been studying for 3 years a very similar project already approved in 2. You may say, Well, I don't know. Still, you only have one kind of project there and maybe there is some new or challenging thing you have to take into account. So, yes, we have been studying it for 3 years and you need that kind of time because somehow we are recreating the wheel or doing something new and different. Well, that is not quite the case, either. Let's go to my third chart. These are the oil and gas pipelines in the United States. All these red lines show oil and gas pipelines throughout our country, already existing, already in place, already moving oil and gas around the country. So now we are going to bring another one through here with all these pipelines, with the latest technology, the latest safeguards. And you mean to say that, after 3 years, that is not time to figure out whether we can approve another pipeline when we have hundreds of pipelines all over this country that people count on every day for their supply of oil? For their supply of gas? That is the situation. Clearly, we can make this decision. Clearly, after more than 3 years of study, it doesn't make sense to not move forward, particularly when we are talking about tens of thousands of jobs that we need. Not only will it not cost our Federal Government revenue, it will generate hundreds of millions in revenue back to local, State, and Federal Government. In addition to creating jobs, it reduces our dependence on Middle East oil. And if we don't do it, the oil goes to China. It is still produced, but it goes to China. So, actually, we have better environmental stewardship with the project. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce last year did a study. In that study, they cited 351 infrastructure projects that are being held up in the country right now--351 infrastructure projects that are being held up in the country right now due to regulations and bureaucratic delays. If we can get those projects going, based on the study the U.S. Chamber did, that would generate almost $1.1 trillion in gross domestic product for our country. It would generate--their estimate--1.9 million jobs, not with more government spending, but enabling the private investment to go forward by taking the bureaucratic delays out of the way, by reducing the regulatory burden, by green-lighting projects like Keystone XL, which has been under study for more than 3 years. Back to one of these earlier charts. In my home State of North Dakota, we now produce more than 500,000 barrels of oil a day. We need to put 100,000 barrels a day into this pipeline so we can get it to market, so we can get it to consumers and companies throughout this country. That is 100,000 barrels a day right now that we have to move through other means, such as truck or rail. That is equal to 500 truckloads a day, or 17 million truck miles a year. Think of the toll on our roads, think of the traffic fatalities that result when that product should be going through pipeline. And at the same time that we have less traffic safety, tremendous wear and tear on our roads, we suffer a discount. Our companies, our mineral owners, our people suffer a discount because it is more expensive to transport that product by rail and by truck. Those are the realities of getting our economy going. Again, I go back to the national security concern: 830,000 barrels a day that we have got to get from the Middle East. With these kinds of developments, with this kind of infrastructure, together with Canada and some oil that we get from Mexico, by building Keystone XL Pipeline we can produce more than 80 percent of the oil we consume right here in our country. That means we don't have to get it from the Middle East. And look what is going on in the Middle East. Look at Iran, threatening to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. That is a fundamental national security issue. Unions across this country have said, Hey, we need these jobs. We support this project. We want to move forward with this and other infrastructure projects. But it is not just about the jobs and the economy, although that is vitally important to all the people who are out of work; it is a vital and national security issue, and it is going to continue to be a more important national security issue as we continue to see gas prices rise and as we continue to see instability in the Middle East. Again, back to the environmental issues. This oil will be produced. It is either going to China or it is coming here. If we bring it here, we have better environmental stewardship because it goes in a pipeline to refineries that have the lowest emission standards. If we don't, the pipeline goes to the west coast. They load it on tankers. You have to haul it to places such as China where it is refined in refineries with higher emissions. And then, guess what. We have to ship oil from the Middle East--generating more emissions--to bring to our refineries. Again, it makes no sense. It is time to move forward. There is clear precedence and clear authority. Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the constitutional authority to act under the commerce clause. Congress exercised that authority in 1973 for the Alaskan pipeline. It is time for Congress to exercise its authority again for the good of our economy and for the good of our country.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Russell Evenmo, an intern in my office, be permitted floor privileges for today. It is his last day and I wish to get him on the floor, if I could.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the subject of the Keystone Pipeline. I am pleased to follow my esteemed colleague from the great State of Texas. I think it is only appropriate that I follow him, both because I agree absolutely with his remarks and I think it shows the importance of this project to North Dakota and Texas and across this country. This is an incredibly important project, so I am pleased to be here again today to address it. Russell Evenmo First of all, let me say it is nice to welcome Russell Evenmo to the floor on his last day. He has done an outstanding job working for me. He also has my chart, so I am glad we are able to get him on the floor. The legislation we have authored on the Keystone Pipeline is included in the House package that provides an extension for the payroll tax cut. It is very appropriate that it is in that package, so I come today to talk about some misperceptions I am hearing out there in regard to this legislation. The first is that somehow this is an add-on to the payroll tax holiday extension legislation which some think shouldn't be there. I wish to address that, because it is absolutely where it should be. It is a jobs bill. The extension of the payroll tax cut, the payroll tax holiday, is about helping to create more jobs in this country. It is about helping people who are out there working hard every day. It is about stimulating economic activity. It is a tax reduction to help get this economy going and to help get people back to work. Keystone is a jobs bill. It belongs in a jobs package. This is a jobs package. This is about creating jobs. It creates jobs without the Federal Government spending 1 penny. In fact, this will generate hundreds of millions of dollars of State and local tax revenues. It will generate private investment, but it will create jobs. This is a jobs package. So I wish to address that misperception I have heard from time to time and respond that this does belong as part of a jobs package. Of course it does. This is how we create jobs. I appreciate greatly the esteemed Senator from Texas speaking about some of the things that are going on in North Dakota, and he is absolutely right; Texas has a long history with the energy industry. North Dakota is increasingly becoming a stronger and stronger energy player in all types of energy. We have wind; we have hydro; we have biofuels; we have biomass; we have solar. We are now the fourth largest oil-producing State in the country. Next year we will be the third largest oil-producing State in the country behind only Alaska and, of course, No. 1, Texas. But to do that, we need infrastructure. We need to be able to transport our oil--oil that we produce--to the refineries around the country. We will put 100,000 barrels of oil a day that we produce in North Dakota into this pipeline and get it down into the gulf refineries. So this isn't just about moving Canadian crude into the U.S; this is about moving our own domestic product as well. As the Senator from Texas may have explained, there is a backlog of oil in Cushing right now, which is a hub for oil. But we need to move that oil from Cushing, in Oklahoma, down to the refineries in Texas and Louisiana. This pipeline will move that product to these refineries. So, again, it is not just about moving Canadian crude into the United States; this is about moving product throughout the United States as well where we have serious bottlenecks. When we have those bottlenecks, our producers in North Dakota get less. They face a discount. If the product has to move by rail or by truck, we suffer a discount. That affects not only the oil companies themselves but it also affects the individual producers, the mineral owners who get royalty payments. This is about truly creating economic activity. The first point I want to emphasize is that this is absolutely--is and should be--part of this jobs package. The second point I want to talk about for a minute is that the concern has been expressed that somehow we are rushing this process. Somehow we are not taking enough time in terms of approving this pipeline, so maybe that could create an environmental concern. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are taking more time than we did for almost the exact same project that has already been approved. This red line here on this chart is the Keystone Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline runs from Alberta, Canada, down to Patoka, IL. It brings product down to refineries in the United States. That pipeline has not only been approved but it has been built. It moves 590,000 barrels a day of oil from the Alberta, Canada area down to our refineries. That has been approved and built, and we are moving almost 600,000 barrels of oil today. This is the Keystone XL project, right next to it--a very similar project. I want to talk a little bit about the timeline on this as well. I was formerly the Governor of North Dakota. While I was Governor, TransCanada built the Keystone Pipeline and now they are working to build the Keystone XL Pipeline. Let's walk through that timeline for a minute. First let's start with the Keystone Pipeline. That project initially applied for a permit on April 19, 2006. The final environmental impact statement was issued 2 years later--actually less than 2 years later. It was issued on January 11, 2008. So in less than 2 years, this project, very similar--in less than 2 years they got a final environmental impact statement. And amazingly enough, within 60 days after that final environmental impact statement it was signed off on and approved by the State Department. It had final approval. So it all happened within a 2-year process for that project. Now let's talk about the Keystone XL project. Keystone XL: TransCanada, the same company, is building it. The same company is building both projects. They filed for a State Department Presidential permit in September 2008. That is when they filed for their permit. They went through the whole process. They got a final environmental impact statement on August 26, 2011--3 years. The first project, the whole project was approved in less than 2 years. This project, we have already been at it for 3 years. So people are saying this is rushing--somehow rushing the project. Almost an identical project, fully approved from start to finish in 2 years, and we are sitting here 3 years later, and we don't even have approval yet, and we are rushing the process somehow. Furthermore, the Department of State indicated that after all this environmental work--after 3 years of environmental work the State Department said, We are going to have a decision out before year end, meaning now. Before the end of this year, the State Department says, we are going to have a decision. So myself and others who have been working on this say: Well, that is great. Finally, we are going to get a decision. Then all of a sudden the administration says: No, no, we are not going to have a decision. We are going to need another 18 months. We are going to need another 18 months somehow because there is concern about the route through Nebraska. That was the concern. So the State of Nebraska then--let's make sure I have my dates right--then said: OK, we are concerned in Nebraska. But we are going to address the problem. We are going to solve the problem. The State of Nebraska had a special session on November 1 of this year, which concluded on November 22. In their special session, they agreed that they would reroute the Keystone XL Pipeline as to the route in Nebraska. The concern was that it went through western Nebraska, what is called the Ogallala Aquifer or the sandhills region. There is a lot of irrigation there. Even though there are other pipelines there, they said: We do not want it in that part, so we will agree to reroute the pipeline in Nebraska. All this legislation provides, the legislation we have written--and there have been other bills on this--but the legislation included in the House package we are working to get passed in the Senate, here is what it says: 60 days after the bill is passed, the President, through the Department of State, has to make a determination on whether this project is in the national interest. They do not have to say yes. They can say yes or they can say no, but they have to determine whether it is in the national interest--60 days after the bill is passed. But as to the Nebraska piece, we say, Nebraska's Department of Environmental Quality will work with EPA and the State Department and take the time they need to reroute in Nebraska. Because that was the concern. It does not set a timeline on how fast they have to do it. It says: You have the time you need to reroute and address the concern that was raised. This legislation is all about solving the concern that was raised so this project can go forward. It does not set a timeline on it. Again, where is this rush that it could somehow create an environmental issue? It is not there. The point is this: If we do not pursue this project, this oil will still be produced--700,000 barrels a day--700,000 barrels a day of Canadian crude. It will still be produced. But instead of coming down to our refineries in the United States, instead of creating jobs in the United States, instead of reducing our dependence on oil from the Middle East, the oil is going to China. That pipeline, instead of going south, will go west. The product will be put on oil tankers and it will go to Chinese refineries. In the Chinese refineries there will be higher emissions, lower environmental standards. So you are going to have more emissions, more environmental impacts. Again, I come back to the point: Are we going to create more energy independence for ourselves, are we going to create more jobs here, or are we going to send that product to China? Because that is the choice. That is the real choice. Do you want to deal with reality, real terms? That is the choice we face. Look, this project is about creating jobs. It belongs in a bill that is about creating jobs. This--and I will wrap up, Mr. President-- legislation is about reducing our dependence on oil from the Middle East--700,000 barrels a day--not to mention the product it helps my State of North Dakota, Montana, and others move down to our refineries in Texas and Louisiana. With this pipeline, we will have better environmental stewardship, not worse. This is a project on which we need to move forward. We have drafted this legislation. We have worked on a bipartisan basis to get legislation that addresses the concerns. It is time to move forward. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I wish to begin by thanking my esteemed colleague from the great State of North Dakota. I appreciate very much his support for this important project as he has again expressed. This is something we worked on for a great length of time. It is something we have quite a bit of background and experience with, energy production and the infrastructure needs that go with it. Again, I express my appreciation to Senator Conrad for his support of the project, and also for expressing, and I think doing so in very eloquent terms and in terms that are very much appreciated, that he feels this is something that needs to advance; that he feels as we work forward in terms of determining how to handle the payroll tax cut holiday issue, this is something that can be helpful and constructive. I am here to speak in support of the Keystone project. You might say, Why? Why is it important that we move forward with this project? Well, first and foremost, because it is a tremendous job creator, but also because it reduces our dependence on foreign sources of oil as well as improving environmental stewardship. I want to take a minute to talk about all three aspects of the legislation. Together with my colleagues, I put forward the North American Energy Security Act of 2011. Essentially, that legislation clears the path to move forward with the Keystone XL Pipeline project. For those who may not be familiar with the Keystone XL Pipeline, I brought this chart that actually shows the route it travels. It is a 1,700-mile-long pipeline which runs from Alberta, Canada, down to our refineries in the gulf coast region. As you can see, it is this blue line laid out on the chart. Right next to it we have this red line. This is the Keystone Pipeline. I will take a minute to talk about that, because I think it is important in the context of what we are trying to do with Keystone XL. Prior to being elected to the Senate, I served the State of North Dakota for 10 years as Governor. During that time, we worked with many companies to develop pipeline infrastructure in North Dakota as we produced more and more oil for this Nation, but we also worked with our neighbors from the North who provide oil to our country as well, in fact 2.2 million barrels a day, to move that product safely into our country. The Keystone Pipeline, built by TransCanada, as you can see, tracks from Alberta, Canada, all the way down to Patoka, IL. So it is similar in that it brings Canadian crude into our refineries here in the United States, which is refined and reduces our dependence on other sources of oil. About 590,000 barrels a day flow through the Keystone Pipeline right now. So when we talk about the Keystone XL project, we are not talking about something which hasn't been done before. In fact, we just got done permitting this pipeline, which is almost identical, bringing oil from roughly the same place in Canada down to refineries into the United States. That has already been approved by EPA and the Department of State. It went through the requisite NEPA and study processes, it went through the proper processes with the Department of State, and it has been approved, 590,000 barrels a day coming into our country to reduce our dependence on oil from places such as the Middle East and Venezuela right now. So when we talk about Keystone XL, we are not talking about doing anything we haven't already done. This pipeline--which would run a little bit to the west--again roughly starts up about the same place, Alberta, Canada, comes down further than the existing Keystone Pipeline down to our refineries. It is important to know that this isn't just about moving crude oil from Canada to the United States. This is also about moving oil within the United States. In this part of our country, in North Dakota and in Montana, we are producing a tremendous amount of oil. My home State of North Dakota today is closing in on oil production of 500,000 barrels of oil a day. We will put 100,000 barrels a day of crude oil, such as sweet crude, into this pipeline as well. So it is not just about moving Canadian oil in America, it is about moving oil within our country, production from the Bakken region in the Williston Basin, down to our refineries. Also, you will notice that the pipeline comes down to Cushing, OK. Right now we have a backlog of oil in Cushing, OK, and this pipeline will move oil from Cushing down to the refineries in Texas and Louisiana. So it helps solve bottleneck issues, moving oil in our country, which will help reduce prices to consumers as you eliminate some of these bottlenecks and price disparities. Again I go back to the point of my being here today, talking about this legislation, which is solutions-oriented legislation, problem- solving legislation. What it does is it creates jobs, it reduces our dependence on Middle East oil, and again it provides better environmental stewardship. So when I say it is solutions oriented, what do I mean by that? The issue, as I think most people who follow this issue will recall, the concern or the problem was in the Sandhills region of western Nebraska. Concern had been expressed about going through the Sandhills of Nebraska. That is an area where we have the Ogallala aquifer, and there was concern there that there might be an issue should there be any kind of breach in the pipeline. So that was the issue. However, the State of Nebraska recently had a special session. In that special session, they said, Hey, we will work to reroute the project to eastern Nebraska, similar to the pipeline that already exists. That eliminates the problem. Now we don't have an issue anymore in the Sandhills area of Nebraska. The legislation we have written and that has now been incorporated into the House bill takes that very solution and incorporates it into the legislation. It says the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality can work with EPA and the State Department to reroute the project in Nebraska so there is no longer an issue. We solve the problem. It is problem-solving legislation. We say as to the entire project that the administration, with State, the EPA, and so forth, has to make a decision on whether to approve the project within 60 days. Is it in our national interest? They have to make that decision within 60 days so the project can get started and we can start creating those construction jobs. But as to Nebraska, they are not bound by the 60 days. They have the time they need to incorporate the solution from the State's special session. All we are saying is this project has been studied for 3 years. It has been studied for 3 years already. It has gone through the NEPA process. It has gone through the full EIS. State was ready to make a decision. It got held up because of Nebraska, and we specifically addressed that problem. Now it is time to go forward. That is why this is problem-solving legislation. Again, this is about creating jobs. This is about reducing our dependence on Middle East oil. We absolutely address the issue of Nebraska. We do not set a 60-day time limit on it. As to the rest of the project, we can get started. Let's talk about who supports the project. The Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, has talked to our President and said, look, our greatest ally is Canada. Canada says, this is a very important project for Canada. This is about producing our energy resources in Canada. This is about jobs and economic opportunity in Canada. Let's join with our best ally and together create jobs and produce energy we can count on. The issue has been brought up about environmental stewardship. For those who say we have some concerns about producing oil in the oil sands region of Canada, I submit Canada is doing what we are doing. North Dakota all the time is improving their technology in order to improve their environmental stewardship. For example, going to in situ mining rather than for excavation for things such as producing the oil sands. The point we have to understand that is very important is, if the pipeline doesn't go this way, if the pipeline doesn't go south, it is going to go west. If this product does not come to the United States, this 700,000 barrels, it is going to the west coast of Canada, where it will be loaded on ships and it will go to China. We have a choice to make. Do we want to reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East and from Venezuela and other parts of the world where we have real security issues? Do we want to increase the relationship and the economic ties with our best ally in the world or do we want 700,000 barrels a day of Canadian oil going to China instead? By the way, let's talk about the environmental stewardship. That means we have to haul it over there on oil tankers. We have to continue to bring our product in on oil tankers, so we have higher emissions instead of lower emissions. Instead of that oil being refined in the cleanest refineries in the world, which we have, it is going to be refined in refineries in China, which have much higher emissions. Again, the whole focus of the legislation--I authored the bill. The whole focus in writing this bill was to say: How do we solve the problem? How do we deal with the concerns? How do we make sure we are being fair to people but that we move forward with real job creation, with producing more energy to increase our energy independence with our good friend and neighbor, our strongest ally--Canada? How do we continue to do more in terms of private investment, deploying technologies, creating better environmental stewardship? It is about problem-solving legislation. We can see we have not only the U.S. Chamber of Commerce now supporting this legislation, because they want to see job creation, but we have all the large building and trade unions supporting it as well-- AFL-CIO, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Labors International Union of North America, United Association, International Union of Operating Engineers. It is America's workers who are clamoring for the expedited approval of this important project. We can't wait. Mark Ayers, president, Building & Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO: The Keystone Pipeline project will offer working men and women a real chance to earn a good wage and support their families in this difficult economic climate. James P. Hoffa, International Brotherhood of Teamsters: At a time when jobs are the top global priority, the Keystone Project will put thousands back to work and have ripple benefits throughout the North American economy. Our members look forward to being part of this historic project and pledge to deliver the highest quality work to make it a success. President Edwin D. Hill, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The list goes on. As I said, this project has been studied for 3 years. We have already built the sister project. We have gone through that whole process. This has been studied for 3 years already. How much will this project cost the American taxpayer? This is a $7 billion investment, but it is private investment. It is private investment that stimulates job creation. Not only will it not cost the American taxpayer one dime, The Perryman Group from Waco, TX, estimates it will create hundreds of millions of dollars in local and State revenues. Our country faces some real challenges. One of those challenges is we have to get people back to work. We have 8.6 percent unemployment. We have 13.3 million people looking for work. We need to get them back to work. So government needs to create the legal, tax, and regulatory environment that stimulates private investment and gets people back to work. This legislation, this project, helps do that. We have a deficit and a debt--a deficit of about $1.3 trillion, a debt that is now $15 trillion. When our President took office, our debt was $10 trillion. The national debt was $10 trillion. Today it is $15 trillion. We have to get a grip on our spending. We have to start finding savings, but at the same time we have to grow this economy. We have to get private investment going and grow this economy. That growth in revenues and controlling our spending is what will reduce the deficit and the debt. You know what, we have to do more to reduce our energy dependence on places such as the Middle East and Venezuela, where we have real challenges. This is the kind of project that can do it. I submit we need to move forward. This body has the opportunity to truly empower the kind of investment we need to move our economy forward, to create greater energy independence, and to help Americans get back to work. That is exactly what they want. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator from Texas. Senator Hutchison is, as usual, not only eloquent but has hit the nail on the head. Looking across our country from North Dakota to Texas to Oklahoma, across our country we need these jobs. This is the way to get them, and we can get them now. We need our President to act. This legislation is a solutions-oriented bill. It is about job creation. It is about energy independence. It is about good environmental stewardship. We need to do it. I would like to now turn to my esteemed colleague from the State of Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, who is the ranking member on Environment and Public Works. He has a tremendous background in energy, as does Senator Hutchison. I would turn to Senator Inhofe for his comments.

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank Senator Isakson and thank him for being here. I will turn to Senator Hutchison from Texas. We have actually 40 Senators already on this legislation--40 Senators. It is bipartisan. This is something we absolutely need to move on. I spoke with the Canadian Ambassador today, Ambassador Doer. He talked about how they are already looking at Western routes to send this oil to China. So this oil is going to be produced. It is going to be produced. The question is, Does it come to the United States and help us reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil? Does it come here and create thousands of jobs or do we send it to China where there will actually be more emissions because it will be refined in refineries that produce higher emissions? We will also have the emissions of shipping product all around the world, not only shipping this oil to China but then we are going to continue to have to ship oil from places such as the Middle East and Venezuela. So we actually increase CO2 emissions without this project. Now, in Texas, of course, we have refineries, and Senator Hutchison is here to talk about just how important it is we bring this product down to our refineries in the gulf coast region.

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank Senator Isakson and ask the Senator if he has any more he wants to add. I know the Senator has to leave and is on a tight timetable.

Mr. HOEVEN. I would ask Senator Isakson to join us at this point. He is here specifically to talk a little bit about the issue with oil sands development and China. So Senator Isakson, and then certainly Senator Hutchison as well.

Mr. HOEVEN. I ask Senator Johanns, would he like to respond?

Mr. HOEVEN. This is a project that is absolutely ready to go and will not cost the Federal Government one penny. It puts 20,000 workers on the job right away. The hurdle was the route through Nebraska, but we have now worked with the State of Nebraska. They have had a special session. They have set up a process to clear that part of the route. Our legislation says within 60 days after passage of this bill the route is deemed approved. That is after 3 years of process through the EPA. So we are ready to go. We have addressed the issues. We can put these people on the job now if we can get the Presidential approval.

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the esteemed Senator from Oklahoma. He is so right. That is what it is all about. It is about putting people back to work. It is about American ingenuity, private investment. It is about getting this economy going. We have to find ways to save dollars, to reduce the spending that has gotten out of control. But a big part of getting out of the deficit and the debt is getting people back to work and getting this economy rolling. We are talking about a project that will create 20,000 construction jobs right upfront, 250,000 permanent jobs, $600 million in State and local tax revenues.

Mr. HOEVEN. If I may, I would like to ask the esteemed Senator from Oklahoma to talk for a minute on the subject of how we create that environment that gets job creation going. I think this project is a perfect example of what we are talking about. We have to create an environment--a legal, tax and regulatory environment--that empowers private investment, not government spending but private investment, to get job creation going. Here we have a regulatory issue, where we just--TransCanada has worked for 3 years to meet the environmental process. Most recently, the problem was in Nebraska, the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, the Ogallala aquifer. But now we have come up with a solution to make sure we deal with that issue. So we have cleared that process. That means this project is ready to go as we have just described. Leader McConnell just a minute ago talked about how the labor unions strongly support this project. I can go through that whole list as well. In addition, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says: Let's go. We support this project. So we have 40 Senators, bipartisan, labor unions, Chamber of Commerce. Here is an another interesting statistic. This example is such a good example of what we are talking about. I ask the Senator from Oklahoma to maybe expand on the point. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce last year released a study identifying 351 stalled energy projects nationwide costing the American economy $1.1 trillion in lost income impact, and nearly 2 million jobs annually. My point is this: We have to find a way to empower private investment to get job creation going. The esteemed Senator from Oklahoma is ranking member on Environment and Public Works. He sees this every day. But without more government spending, the secret to unlocking jobs in this country is to empower the investment. I would ask if the Senator from Oklahoma can address that for just a minute because I think this project is such a perfect example of what we are talking about.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise this morning to discuss the North American Energy Security Act in a colloquy with my colleagues. Joining me will be our leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Senator Johnny Isakson from the great State of Georgia, Senator Mike Johanns from Nebraska, and Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma. We are here to discuss a very solutions-oriented piece of legislation. It is about creating jobs. It is about creating energy security for our Nation. It is about good environmental stewardship. It is about all of these things and more. We want to take this opportunity to discuss the legislation and encourage--to urge--our fellow colleagues to join with us to create jobs and opportunity for the American people. In a nutshell, this legislation clears the way for the Keystone XL Pipeline, which is a 1,700-mile pipeline that will run from Alberta, Canada, all the way down to the gulf coast region of the country, down to the refineries in the United States. This blue line shows the route of the Keystone XL Pipeline. This red line shows an existing pipeline, the Keystone Pipeline, which was built very recently by TransCanada. It provides almost 600,000 barrels a day of crude to the United States. The Keystone XL Pipeline would provide more than 700,000 barrels a day of crude oil to our refineries. In addition, it will also haul domestic crude from States such as North Dakota and Montana. It will put 100,000 barrels a day of our own light, sweet, domestic crude into the pipeline to bring it down for our needs in the country. It will also bring oil from places such as Cushing, OK, where we currently have backlogs to the refineries, as well. So it is also about moving oil within our country as well as bringing Canadian crude to the United States and to our refineries. I mentioned it is a job creation bill. As our leader said just a minute ago, just the construction alone will put 20,000 workers on the job--20,000 workers on the job--just constructing the pipeline. The Perryman Group out of Waco, TX, has indicated more than 250,000 jobs. It is a huge job creator. I yield to our leader, Senator McConnell.