John Hoeven

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my Republican colleagues during our morning business time.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. This is a project that reduces our dependence on oil from the Middle East. This is a project that provides better environmental stewardship, as we have described. This is a project where we need to move forward. This body needs to be about solutions. This is a solution. We need to act. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. The amendment declares that the United States should maintain a triad of strategic nuclear delivery systems which includes missiles, bombers, and submarines. It also declares that it is the sense of the Senate that the President should budget for the modernization of those systems and the weapons they deliver. Over the past couple of years, numerous statements have been made in support of the triad. The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review concluded that the United States needs the nuclear triad. The Senate, in its resolution of ratification for the New START treaty, declared that the United States needs the nuclear triad. And President Obama last February certified that he intends to modernize the nuclear triad. However, the administration is now currently conducting a further review of the role nuclear weapons play in defending U.S. national security--a miniature Nuclear Posture Review. It is important that the Senate reaffirm its commitment to the nuclear triad once again. I am particularly concerned by statements that we can reduce our nuclear arsenal significantly below the requirements laid out in the New START treaty. Given the threats we face and the responsibility we have to the American people and to our allies, I believe we must retain the nuclear triad. The reasons are clear and compelling. We need missiles to provide a persistent, dispersed, and cost-effective deterrent. We need submarines to provide an invisible, mobile, and survivable deterrent. And we need bombers to provide a visible, long- range, recallable deterrent. The bottom line is that the triad provides us with a safe, credible, reliable nuclear deterrent that renders any effort to eliminate or sidestep our retaliatory capabilities completely meaningless. And those benefits accrue not only to the United States but to our allies as well. The Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the resolution of the ratification to the New START agreement, and the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review all concluded that the United States needs to maintain the triad. The triad was developed out of a need to counter an immense threat from the Soviet Union, but it now gives us the flexibility to adapt to an ever-changing international security environment. And supporting a triad means supporting a program to maintain and enhance the weapons and a delivery system that make up the triad. It is very important to point out--particularly given our fiscal situation--that the costs of updating and maintaining the weapons in the triad will not take up a very big percentage of the defense budget, particularly relative to the tremendous security advantages it provides. In fact, General Kehler, the head of Strategic Command, recently indicated his strong support for efforts to preserve the triad and modernize each of the associated delivery systems. It is tempting to assume that because the Cold War is over, we don't need the nuclear arsenal anymore. In fact, people who defend the nuclear arsenal are often accused of being stuck in a cold war mindset. The truth is just the opposite. Only in a cold war mindset would we assume Russia is the sole reason we preserve our nuclear arsenal. Today, our nuclear deterrent counters a variety of threats that did not even exist during the Cold War, and it hedges against the emergence of new nuclear threats. The decades following the end of the Cold War have made nuclear deterrence far more complicated than the old superpower confrontation of last century. We must now counter nuclear threats from multiple actors around the world. First, consider China. China's military modernization program is built on a foundation of a large and growing nuclear arsenal. Intelligence estimates suggest that the number of warheads atop Chinese ICBMs capable of reaching the United States could more than double within the next 15 years. Recent reports indicate that China is fielding four different new nuclear-ready ballistic missiles. China is prioritizing the development of mobile land-based ICBMs and submarine- launched ballistic missiles. China's nuclear posture is also troubling. China has not defined what it would consider a minimum nuclear deterrent, making it difficult to understand the motivations behind China's nuclear force expansion and their modernization efforts. Second, new nuclear powers such as North Korea and Pakistan further complicate how we calculate our need for deterrence. North Korea has pursued nuclear weapons using both plutonium and uranium and continues to develop long-range ballistic missiles that can threaten the United States. North Korea's nuclear arsenal forces our allies in East Asia-- especially South Korea and Japan--to put a premium on the U.S. nuclear deterrent. Pakistan's nuclear weapons greatly complicate the security situation in central Asia and create a serious risk of nuclear proliferation. The emergence of these two nuclear powers is a cautionary tale about the unpredictable ripple effects of new players in the nuclear game and a strong reason why reductions to U.S. strategic forces should only be made with the greatest caution. Third, nuclear proliferation will remain one of our foremost security challenges in the world. The IAEA reports that Iran has been researching and developing nuclear weapons, and it expressed serious concerns about the military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program. Syria was so serious about developing a nuclear weapon--probably with the help of North Korea and Iran--that in 2007 Israel had to destroy a Syrian nuclear site. Terrorist groups and other rogue actors also seek the development or the acquisition of nuclear arms. And, of course, fourth, we cannot yet forget about Russia. Under the provisions of the New START agreement, Russia can expand its nuclear force rather than pursue reductions. Russia intends to build a new heavy ICBM to be available by 2018. Russia expects to build eight new nuclear submarines, and it also plans on designing and building a new nuclear bomber. We cannot afford to let our nuclear deterrent atrophy in light of so many nuclear threats. Once we lose our nuclear capabilities, it will be extremely hard to reconstitute them. We need a reliable and credible nuclear arsenal. We need it to dissuade new nations from acquiring nuclear weapons. We need it to deter nuclear powers from using their weapons. And we need it to hold enemy arsenals at risk. People may not always stop and think about the demands placed on America's nuclear deterrent, but they are real and they are extensive. We have nuclear weapons as a guarantor of the security of the American homeland. Our nuclear arsenal renders any plan to strike the United States with nuclear weapons sheer folly. The investments made over the last several decades continue to pay dividends by creating the space within which America can address other security threats. Make no mistake, without a large nuclear arsenal other nations would move plans to strike the United States from the category of unthinkable to possibly thinkable. Second, and nearly as important, the United States nuclear deterrent replaces the need for our allies to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, keeping the peace in critical regions around the world. East Asia is a particularly good example. The status of U.S. nuclear posture is a major concern in Japan. Despite assurances from the United States that our nuclear umbrella will continue to protect Japan, Tokyo is worried about even the most subtle changes in U.S. policy. During his most recent trip, Secretary Panetta publicly reiterated the U.S. commitment to protect South Korea with our nuclear umbrella and our nuclear deterrent is probably the only reason South Korea has not developed a nuclear capability in response to North Korea's nuclear programs. I will conclude on the triad. Our nuclear deterrent has been the foundation of U.S. national security since World War II. The nuclear triad provides an incredible return on our investment and I urge the Senate to send a strong signal of support for the nuclear triad as laid out in amendment No. 1279. Amendment No. 1358 Madam President, if I may very briefly also address the importance of the Global Hawk with a brief overview of amendment No. 1358. This amendment simply states that it is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Air Force should continue to abide by the guidelines set forth in the acquisition decision memorandum issued June 14, 2011 from the Office of the Secretary of Defense. That memorandum on Global Hawk, the RQ-4 Global Hawk, found that the Global Hawk UAS is essential to national security and that there is no other program that can provide the benefits to the warfighter that the Global Hawk can provide. The Global Hawk is a vital intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance asset. The Global Hawk flies at high altitude. It can fly at extended ranges and for long periods of time, and it can carry a wide array of sensors simultaneously. We have invested a lot of time and a lot of money in this platform and it is paying fast dividends. The Global Hawk is flown in a wide variety of missions all over the world in support for things such as CENTCOM operations, humanitarian relief efforts in Japan and Haiti, and extensively for operations in Libya. For these reasons and many more, my amendment stresses that the Air Force must continue to heed the conclusions of the June 14, 2011 acquisition decision memorandum on the RQ-4 Program. The RQ-4, which is Global Hawk, remains essential for United States national security and is irreplaceable. The bottom line is America needs to support and continue the Global Hawk. Our commanders require as much information about the battlefield as they can get. The RQ-4 represents a new generation of ISR aircraft with unprecedented capabilities. Finally, we must invest in this essential capacity precisely because budgets are tight. As the Pentagon concluded in June, the Global Hawk represents the most cost-effective way to meet the requirements of our warfighters now and in the future. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to speak in regard to several amendments to the Defense authorization bill. First is in regard to the nuclear triad and the important role it plays in defense of our Nation and security of the world and also in regard to the Global Hawk unmanned aerial systems program and the important role it has for our forces, both today in our efforts around the world and what it means to us in the future. First, in regard to amendment 1279 and the nuclear triad, this amendment was cosponsored by Senator Tester, Senator Enzi, Senator Blunt, Senator Vitter. Also, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, be included as a cosponsor of the amendment, as well as Senator Baucus of Montana.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the North American Energy Security Act of 2011. This is legislation I am sponsoring, along with Senator Lugar, Senator Vitter, Senator Johanns, and 37 other cosponsors--we already have 37 cosponsors on this legislation. This is a solutions-oriented bill that addresses concerns along the route of the Keystone Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline is designed to carry 700,000 barrels a day of oil from Alberta, Canada, from the oil sands area in Canada, to refineries in the United States along the gulf coast, both in Texas and in Louisiana. This is a $7 billion high-tech pipeline that will make a huge difference for our country, both in terms of energy security and also job creation. This is a project, Keystone Pipeline, that I have been working on for quite some time, formerly as Governor of the State of North Dakota and now as part of this body, the Senate. There already exists a pipeline called the Keystone Pipeline, which was built by TransCanada, that goes from Alberta, Canada, all the way down to our refineries. This pipeline runs through the eastern part of North Dakota and on down to Paducah, IL, and other locations as well, bringing approximately 600,000 barrels a day of Canadian crude into the United States. The Keystone XL project would also be constructed by TransCanada, and it would come down from the Alberta area in Canada down just along North Dakota's western border in eastern Montana and go on down to Cushing and, as I said, to the refineries along the gulf coast. In addition to bringing Canadian crude into the United States, it would also pick up crude along the way, crude produced in North Dakota. For example, in my home State of North Dakota, we will add 100,000 barrels a day of light sweet crude produced in the Williston Bay, centered in North Dakota and Montana, into that pipeline. It is also designed to move our domestic crude to refineries as well. This is an important project that has been in the permitting process for 3 years. It has been going through the NEPA process, seeking an environmental impact statement and approval not only of EPA but of our State Department for 3 years. We need to get it going because it is not only about reducing our dependance on oil from the Middle East, Venezuela, and other places in the world that are not friendly to the United States, but it is also a huge job creator. This project is a big-time job creator. We are talking about a $7 billion investment to build the pipeline. We are talking about 20,000 construction jobs right away. We are talking about 250,000 jobs over time. We are talking about $600 million in tax revenue to States and other localities. This is a huge project, and we need to get it going. We particularly need to get it going at a time when we have 9 percent unemployment in our economy and more than 14 million people looking for work. So we need it to get that economic activity going. We need it to get people back to work. We need it for energy security. We need this project to reduce our dependance on oil from the Mideast. Where is the project right now? The latest issue that has been raised as far as not getting approval for the project from the Department of State was that the State of Nebraska had environmental concerns that the pipeline, this 1,700-mile pipeline running from the oil sands in Canada all the way down to our refineries, that in its route through the State of Nebraska, it was going through an area that was environmentally sensitive and that would create a problem. It is the High Plains area, the Sand Hills area of Nebraska. The concern was that with the Ogallala aquifer underlying that area and the irrigation for that farming and ranching region, that pipeline was a problem. In fact, there was opposition in the State of Nebraska to the project for that reason. However, working with the company, TransCanada, and with the State of Nebraska, we have addressed that issue. Recently, the State of Nebraska had a special session. Gov. Dave Heineman called a special session in Nebraska. They held the session, and they came up with a plan, through their Department of Environmental Quality, working with the EPA, to reroute the project in the State of Nebraska. On the basis of that rerouting and going through the approval process they developed between the State and Federal Government, on that basis, they have now addressed that concern in Nebraska. What this legislation does, it essentially is a solutions-based piece of legislation that says: OK, we are addressing these issues that have been raised. Now we need to move forward to capture the tremendous benefits for our country that this project provides: big-time job creation and reducing our dependance on Middle Eastern oil. How does the bill work? Specifically, what it provides is that 60 days after its passage, the pipeline is approved so work can commence on the Keystone XL pipeline. That means 20,000 jobs. That means $7 billion in investment starts right away. Then, as to the Wyoming piece, the State of Wyoming, together with EPA and the Federal Government, works through to reroute in Nebraska, so that a portion of the pipeline is then approved once they have gone through their process and decided on the route that meets the concerns in Nebraska. In essence, this legislation, again, it is about addressing the concerns, solving the problem, and moving forward. This incorporates the special legislation and the solution that has been put forward by the State of Nebraska. It incorporates it right into the bill and enables us to move forward. I have referenced the tremendous benefits in terms of energy security, in terms of job creation, in terms of working with our best friend and ally, Canada, in reducing our dependence on oil from places such as the Middle East and Venezuela. But let me address one other point. Another point that has been brought up in opposition to the pipeline project is that the production of oil in Canada, in the oil sand region, produces CO2. So that if this pipeline is built, some argue then there will be more CO2 released because of production in Canada in the oil sands and that product coming into the United States. But, in fact, without this pipeline, we will produce more CO2. The point, let me underscore, is that this pipeline project will actually produce less CO2 than we would otherwise produce without the creation of the pipeline. Why is that? Let me go through it. If we do not have the pipeline, then instead of bringing that product into the United States, that product will still be produced. The production will still occur in Canada. But the pipeline, instead of coming into the United States, will be rerouted to the western border of Canada, and it will be sent to China. That means large oil tankers will be hauling the product to refineries in China. The refineries in China produce higher emissions than our refineries. Plus, we have those ships that produce CO2 as they haul all this product to the Far East. Furthermore, since that supply is not coming to the United States, we have to continue to import product from the Middle East and also from places such as Venezuela, as I mentioned. In essence, we have supertankers bringing that product to the United States. So not only are we, in essence, now hauling the equivalent of 700,000 barrels a day around the world in supertankers and producing CO2 emissions there, we are also taking this product over to the Chinese refineries, where they have higher emissions. My point is, the oil sands are still produced, are they not, under either scenario? But without this pipeline, we actually have higher CO2 emissions on a global basis. Again, it is about addressing all the concerns that have been raised with this project, and it does that. At the same time, we create tens of thousands of jobs right off the bat. We create hundreds of millions in revenue for States and localities at a time when they badly need it and, again, we reduce our dependance on oil from parts of the world where it truly is an issue for our country in regards to energy security. It is about common sense. It is about addressing all the issues that have been raised. I urge my colleagues to join me and the 37 sponsors and cosponsors that we already have on this legislation to pass it and help put people back to work, help get our economy going, and help improve our national energy security. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of amendment No. 1045 to H.R. 2354, which is the Energy and Water appropriations legislation. This amendment rebalances funding for the fossil energy research and development account in the U.S. Department of Energy from within the existing budget. I want to point out that this action results in no additional spending. It is simply an adjustment within the existing budget. You may have heard recently about the tremendous progress we are making in the State of North Dakota when it comes to oil and gas development. We are also developing many of our other energy resources as well. Over the past decade, through a comprehensive energy plan called Empower North Dakota that we have put together, we have advanced all of our energy resources in tandem, and we have done it with good environmental stewardship. That includes coal, wind, biofuels and, of course, oil and gas. In a little more than a decade, North Dakota has grown from the ninth to the fourth largest oil and gas-producing State in the country, having surpassed oil-producing States such as Oklahoma and Louisiana. If our current estimates are on target, we will soon pass California and become the third largest oil-producing State in the Nation. That growth is the product of a progrowth legal, tax, and regulatory environment that we have built with the right kind of pro-business policies. At the same time we have, as I said, developed a comprehensive approach and a comprehensive energy policy called Empower North Dakota. In addition, we have put in place cutting-edge research, which has also been a very important part of our energy strategy for the State. It was new technologies and methods such as directional drilling that brought the innovative research over the past decade to tap the abundant petroleum reserves of the Bakken formation and other shale formations in North Dakota's oil patch. Directional drilling has not only enabled the recovery of oil in hard-to-reach vertical layers of shale, but it has also enabled multiple well bores to be drilled from a single pad. The result is more oil but also a much smaller environmental footprint. That is good for the energy industry, that is good for the environment, and that is good for American workers, with tremendous job creation, and, of course, for our consumers. My amendment would redirect research dollars within the budget of the fossil energy research and development provision in this appropriations bill, and that would include $5 million that would be provided for in the natural gas technologies research and development, and also $10 million would be provided for unconventional oil or fossil energy technology development. Both of these research and development areas are very critically important, not only for more energy development but again for doing it in an environmentally sound way. Because this $15 million is offset with funds from within the fossil energy research and development budget, it results in no additional expenditure to the account. Obviously with our deficit and our debt, that is very important. What the amendment will do is empower research into the next generation of petroleum and natural gas technologies to produce more energy, again, with better environmental stewardship. This amendment will fund research in a range of important areas, including using carbon dioxide to enhance oil recovery in mature oilfields and reducing the environmental impact of natural gas and oil development. Notably, this research will continue to drive and develop new technologies for gas purification to achieve near zero atmospheric emissions, an economic as well as an environmental goal. In short, this is the kind of research that will help to increase our supplies of domestic energy, reduce our reliance on foreign energy and foreign sources, and hold down the cost of foreign energy for American consumers and American businesses--all with better environmental stewardship. This amendment will help us do all of these things and much more, and I ask for my colleagues' support. Also, while I have the floor, I wish to express my support for two other amendments to H.R. 2354. These include amendment No. 975 and also amendment No. 976. I am pleased to have cosponsored both of these amendments with Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri. As you are well aware, there has been extensive flooding along the Missouri River over the course of this past year, all the way from Montana and North Dakota and the upper basin, down through the State of Missouri and the other lower basin States. As a result, we have been working hard with our citizens to recover from that flooding. One of the things we have pressed the Corps of Engineers to do as aggressively as they can is to provide more flood protection so we not only help our citizens recover from the flooding this year, but so we can do all that we can to prevent flooding next year. At the same time we are pressing them to take all of the preventive measures they can to reduce lake levels, reduce reservoir levels so we have adequate room and protection to prevent flooding next year, we are also working within their budget to make sure they have the resources to address these needs. Amendment No. 975 essentially takes $50 million that is within the Corps of Engineers' budget that is now used for the Missouri River recovery program--meaning things such as building sandbars and some of the riparian areas along the river. Currently there is a total of $72 million in that Corps of Engineers account. What we are doing is saying that $50 million of that should be made available so they can utilize it to enhance flood protection. This is a critical need right now. They are working diligently to repair dams, dikes, and levees. We are pressing for them to do more in terms of preparing as far as water levels throughout the upper and lower basin, and at the same time we are providing assistance in their budget by giving them the flexibility to use dollars where they need them to enhance flood protection. This is $50 million within their budget that can now be used to enhance flood protection, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 975 to H.R. 2354, again, giving the Corps of Engineers needed flexibility to provide flood protection that is so important to the people along the Missouri River in the upper basin and lower basin. Amendment No. 976 essentially provides that same flexibility and assistance. Essentially it eliminates the redtape. It prevents the Corps from having to get new permits, new licenses, or new approvals as they work to repair and restore levees, locks, and dams. So as they work along the Missouri River--the entire length of the Missouri River--to restore those flood protection measures--whether it is a levee, a lock, dike, or dam, whatever it might be--we are waiving those requirements to get new permits and new licenses and new approvals so they can get that work done now, this year, and be prepared for next year. Again, the flooding has been devastating and extensive along the Missouri River. In my home State, it is not just the Missouri River but along the Souris River, as well as other areas. The Red River and Cheyenne had a terrible time with flooding. We need to take the kind of steps that will help our people recover but will also help us prepare for the future so we don't face these types of floods next year or any other year in the future. Again, I encourage support from my colleagues on these very important amendments. I thank the Chair for this time. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, we have seen flooding of historic proportion in North Dakota this year, and, as you know, other States have also sustained severe damages from hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires and a range of natural disasters. In Minot, my hometown, friends and neighbors were forced to evacuate their homes and live day- to-day in makeshift accommodations. Some are not yet in temporary FEMA housing as winter approaches. Almost as severe as the impact of the floodwaters, however, is the anxiety of not knowing when and how much help is forthcoming from the federal government. The State of North Dakota, local communities, and the Federal Government are already providing extensive assistance, but uncertainty over housing and infrastructure persists in the aftermath of this disaster. We took an important step forward in the Appropriations Committee 6 weeks ago when we approved $400 million in supplemental CDBG funding, which goes directly to help with housing for people who have lost their homes. We are grateful to the subcommittee for approving that appropriation, but I am here to tell you there is more to be done. We look forward to working with subcommittee Chairwoman Murray and Ranking Member Collins to ensure that we do all we can to maximize CDBG assistance to those in need, not just in North Dakota, but across the Nation.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue of job creation as well, specifically in regard to legislation I will be introducing that seeks to not only create jobs but also to truly reduce the cost of electricity to Americans throughout this country. In North Dakota, we have a powerplant north of our State capitol, the city of Bismarck. It is about 1,100 megawatts. It consists of two separate plants, each of them 550 megawatts, so the complex provides 1,100 megawatts of electricity, power that fuels our State, as well as sending power to Minnesota and other places as well. This plant uses the latest in emission control technology. It is state of the art. We also have an ethanol plant attached to the powerplant, so the waste steam that comes off the powerplant is used to power the ethanol plant to make low-cost transportation fuel as well. In addition to those things, another innovation at this plant is that after they produce the electricity, they take hundreds of thousands of tons of coal ash and, rather than landfilling it, they actually reuse it, and they use it to make concrete--they call it FlexCrete--for highways, they use it in building materials, and they even use it in products such as the shingles we use on our roofs. Formerly, this plant paid about $4 million a year to landfill that coal ash. Now they sell it for all these products and generate around $12 million a year in revenue. If you take the $4 million they used to expend to landfill the material, figure in the $12 million they now make selling the product, that is a $16 million revenue benefit to the plant. That means a $16 million reduction in the cost of electricity to their customers throughout North Dakota and Minnesota. At the same time, because they have partnered with a company out of Utah called Headwaters, right there at the complex they also have a facility that manufactures these building products, FlexCrete, and creates good-paying jobs as well. Today I rise to introduce commonsense, bipartisan legislation--a jobs bill, if you will--the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act. In fact, this legislation has already passed the House of Representatives with a large bipartisan majority. In a true example of American ingenuity and innovation, entrepreneurs around the country are recycling coal ash. Millions of Americans now work in buildings that are either partially constructed from coal ash- strengthened building materials or they drive home from work on roads and over bridges that are made of coal ash concrete or, as I said, they live under roofs that are shingled, and those shingles are made out of this coal residuals material. In fact, in my home State of North Dakota, we have both our Heritage Center, which is under construction now, and also the National Energy Center of Excellence that were constructed with these materials. First, this National Energy Center of Excellence, this is the Bismarck State College. They specialize in energy programs. This facility overlooks the Missouri River and it is about a $20-plus million facility. It is absolutely beautiful, and it is made with the coal residual building materials. On this other slide, right now this facility is under construction. This will be a more than $50 million facility, which is, in essence, a museum and a heritage center for the State of North Dakota. The building materials in this state-of-art facility will have both static and interactive displays and is being built with what is called coal ash--but coal residual materials. These are materials coming out of powerplants that were formerly simply landfill, and now we are using them for all these purposes. The important point is, we need to be able to continue to do that. That is exactly why I am introducing this legislation. It turns out that using this natural byproduct of coal combustion not only makes our buildings and infrastructure stronger, it makes homes, businesses, and highways more affordable to build. It also creates hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process, while using this cost- effective material. Meanwhile, by using coal ash in such an innovative manner, it is estimated the overall energy consumption in this country can be reduced by 162 trillion Btu's, British thermal units, and that water usage is reduced annually by 32 billion gallons a year. That is the equivalent of the amount of energy used by 1.7 million homes a year and the amount of water--actually one-third of the amount of water used in the entire State of California each year. So we can see from a conservation standpoint what an incredible impact using these materials has. Unfortunately, the EPA is now considering whether to overturn 30 years of precedent and regulate coal ash as a hazardous material, despite findings from the Department of Energy, the Federal Highway Administration, and State regulatory agencies throughout the country, as well as EPA itself. EPA's own studies show the toxicity level in coal ash is well below the criteria that requires any type of hazardous waste designation. In fact, the EPA's May 2000 regulatory determination--in that determination they concluded that coal ash does not warrant regulation as hazardous waste and that doing so would be environmentally counterproductive. However, new regulations first proposed in June of 2010 would create a stigma for coal ash recycling and expose it to frivolous lawsuits that could undermine the industry, cost thousands of jobs, and take billions of dollars out of our economy at a time when working families can least afford it. But the damage to American's pocketbooks would not just stop with the undermining of this recycling industry. It is estimated that meeting the regulatory disposal requirements under the EPA's subtitle C proposal would cost between $250 and $450 per ton, as opposed to about $100 per ton under the current system. That could mean up to another $50 billion in costs, a burden on our electricity generators that use coal and, most important, customers-- American families, businesses, and farmers--again, Americans throughout this great country. It is also estimated this regulation by EPA, this proposal, could mean the loss of more than 300,000 American jobs. That is why I have at the desk the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, which I am introducing today, along with Senator Kent Conrad, Senator Michael Enzi, Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Rob Portman, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Joe Manchin, and also Senator John Boozman; four Republicans and four Democrats. This is truly a bipartisan piece of legislation. As I said, it is a companion to H. Res. 2273 that passed the U.S. House of Representatives last Friday with strong--and I emphasize strong--bipartisan support. It takes a commonsense approach to ensuring we can continue this vital industry and, in fact, build it, save millions of dollars for American consumers and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. This bill not only preserves coal ash recycling by preventing the byproducts from being treated as hazardous, it establishes Federal standards for coal ash disposal. Under this legislation, States can set up their own permitting programs for the management and disposal of coal ash. These programs would be required to be based on existing EPA regulations to protect human health and the environment. If a State does not implement an acceptable permit program, then the EPA regulates the program for that State. Importantly, States will know where they stand under this bill since the benchmark for what constitutes a successful State program is set in statute. EPA can say: Yes, the State does meet these standards or, no, it doesn't. But EPA cannot move the goalposts. This is a State's first approach that provides regulatory certainty. What is certain is, under this bill, coal ash disposal sites will be required to meet established standards. These include groundwater detection and monitoring, liners, corrective action when environmental damage occurs, structural stability criteria and financial assurance and the recordkeeping needed to protect the public. The Coal Residual Reuse and Management Act is legislation needed to protect jobs and help reduce the cost of home and road construction and electric bills. I wish to thank both the Republicans and the Democrats who have taken a leadership role and are joining me in cosponsoring this legislation. I particularly wish to thank my fellow Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Kent Conrad. I urge our colleagues to join us and support this important measure.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue of job creation as well, specifically in regard to legislation I will be introducing that seeks to not only create jobs but also to truly reduce the cost of electricity to Americans throughout this country. In North Dakota, we have a powerplant north of our State capitol, the city of Bismarck. It is about 1,100 megawatts. It consists of two separate plants, each of them 550 megawatts, so the complex provides 1,100 megawatts of electricity, power that fuels our State, as well as sending power to Minnesota and other places as well. This plant uses the latest in emission control technology. It is state of the art. We also have an ethanol plant attached to the powerplant, so the waste steam that comes off the powerplant is used to power the ethanol plant to make low-cost transportation fuel as well. In addition to those things, another innovation at this plant is that after they produce the electricity, they take hundreds of thousands of tons of coal ash and, rather than landfilling it, they actually reuse it, and they use it to make concrete--they call it FlexCrete--for highways, they use it in building materials, and they even use it in products such as the shingles we use on our roofs. Formerly, this plant paid about $4 million a year to landfill that coal ash. Now they sell it for all these products and generate around $12 million a year in revenue. If you take the $4 million they used to expend to landfill the material, figure in the $12 million they now make selling the product, that is a $16 million revenue benefit to the plant. That means a $16 million reduction in the cost of electricity to their customers throughout North Dakota and Minnesota. At the same time, because they have partnered with a company out of Utah called Headwaters, right there at the complex they also have a facility that manufactures these building products, FlexCrete, and creates good-paying jobs as well. Today I rise to introduce commonsense, bipartisan legislation--a jobs bill, if you will--the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act. In fact, this legislation has already passed the House of Representatives with a large bipartisan majority. In a true example of American ingenuity and innovation, entrepreneurs around the country are recycling coal ash. Millions of Americans now work in buildings that are either partially constructed from coal ash- strengthened building materials or they drive home from work on roads and over bridges that are made of coal ash concrete or, as I said, they live under roofs that are shingled, and those shingles are made out of this coal residuals material. In fact, in my home State of North Dakota, we have both our Heritage Center, which is under construction now, and also the National Energy Center of Excellence that were constructed with these materials. First, this National Energy Center of Excellence, this is the Bismarck State College. They specialize in energy programs. This facility overlooks the Missouri River and it is about a $20-plus million facility. It is absolutely beautiful, and it is made with the coal residual building materials. On this other slide, right now this facility is under construction. This will be a more than $50 million facility, which is, in essence, a museum and a heritage center for the State of North Dakota. The building materials in this state-of-art facility will have both static and interactive displays and is being built with what is called coal ash--but coal residual materials. These are materials coming out of powerplants that were formerly simply landfill, and now we are using them for all these purposes. The important point is, we need to be able to continue to do that. That is exactly why I am introducing this legislation. It turns out that using this natural byproduct of coal combustion not only makes our buildings and infrastructure stronger, it makes homes, businesses, and highways more affordable to build. It also creates hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process, while using this cost- effective material. Meanwhile, by using coal ash in such an innovative manner, it is estimated the overall energy consumption in this country can be reduced by 162 trillion Btu's, British thermal units, and that water usage is reduced annually by 32 billion gallons a year. That is the equivalent of the amount of energy used by 1.7 million homes a year and the amount of water--actually one-third of the amount of water used in the entire State of California each year. So we can see from a conservation standpoint what an incredible impact using these materials has. Unfortunately, the EPA is now considering whether to overturn 30 years of precedent and regulate coal ash as a hazardous material, despite findings from the Department of Energy, the Federal Highway Administration, and State regulatory agencies throughout the country, as well as EPA itself. EPA's own studies show the toxicity level in coal ash is well below the criteria that requires any type of hazardous waste designation. In fact, the EPA's May 2000 regulatory determination--in that determination they concluded that coal ash does not warrant regulation as hazardous waste and that doing so would be environmentally counterproductive. However, new regulations first proposed in June of 2010 would create a stigma for coal ash recycling and expose it to frivolous lawsuits that could undermine the industry, cost thousands of jobs, and take billions of dollars out of our economy at a time when working families can least afford it. But the damage to American's pocketbooks would not just stop with the undermining of this recycling industry. It is estimated that meeting the regulatory disposal requirements under the EPA's subtitle C proposal would cost between $250 and $450 per ton, as opposed to about $100 per ton under the current system. That could mean up to another $50 billion in costs, a burden on our electricity generators that use coal and, most important, customers-- American families, businesses, and farmers--again, Americans throughout this great country. It is also estimated this regulation by EPA, this proposal, could mean the loss of more than 300,000 American jobs. That is why I have at the desk the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, which I am introducing today, along with Senator Kent Conrad, Senator Michael Enzi, Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Rob Portman, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Joe Manchin, and also Senator John Boozman; four Republicans and four Democrats. This is truly a bipartisan piece of legislation. As I said, it is a companion to H. Res. 2273 that passed the U.S. House of Representatives last Friday with strong--and I emphasize strong--bipartisan support. It takes a commonsense approach to ensuring we can continue this vital industry and, in fact, build it, save millions of dollars for American consumers and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. This bill not only preserves coal ash recycling by preventing the byproducts from being treated as hazardous, it establishes Federal standards for coal ash disposal. Under this legislation, States can set up their own permitting programs for the management and disposal of coal ash. These programs would be required to be based on existing EPA regulations to protect human health and the environment. If a State does not implement an acceptable permit program, then the EPA regulates the program for that State. Importantly, States will know where they stand under this bill since the benchmark for what constitutes a successful State program is set in statute. EPA can say: Yes, the State does meet these standards or, no, it doesn't. But EPA cannot move the goalposts. This is a State's first approach that provides regulatory certainty. What is certain is, under this bill, coal ash disposal sites will be required to meet established standards. These include groundwater detection and monitoring, liners, corrective action when environmental damage occurs, structural stability criteria and financial assurance and the recordkeeping needed to protect the public. The Coal Residual Reuse and Management Act is legislation needed to protect jobs and help reduce the cost of home and road construction and electric bills. I wish to thank both the Republicans and the Democrats who have taken a leadership role and are joining me in cosponsoring this legislation. I particularly wish to thank my fellow Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Kent Conrad. I urge our colleagues to join us and support this important measure.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. It is absolutely true. In handing off the ball in this discussion, I want to go back to the trade adjustment assistance, which I mentioned earlier. There were a number of things the administration wanted to see before bringing these trade agreements forward to us for ratification. Senator Blunt and Senator Portman were instrumental--and along with these two, Senator Johanns, myself, Senator Isakson, and others. We even signed on to a letter not once but I think twice, to make sure we got it right. Senator Blunt's leadership in making sure we had taken all the necessary steps so the administration was prepared and willing to bring these agreements to the Senate floor has been covered. I thank the Senator for that leadership. He may want to touch on that, but I know how important the trade agreements are to the State of Missouri. But I also thank the leadership of Senator Portman, as well, in making sure we addressed TAA and all of the issues that needed to be addressed as part of moving forward with these trade agreements.

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank Senator Portman, and I thank Senator Johanns for organizing this discussion on a very important issue, a timely issue. It is good to be here with Senator Roberts, with Senator Blunt and Senator Isakson. I think, coming from our different States, we show how important these trade agreements are not only to our individual States across the country but how important these trade agreements are to our Nation right now. When we are talking trade, we are talking jobs. We need to create more jobs in this country, and it is the private sector that creates jobs. It is business investment, it is companies that create jobs. Our job, our task, our role is to create an environment where our companies and our entrepreneurs and American ingenuity that built the greatest economic engine in the history of the world--this country, this economy, this U.S. economy--we have to create that environment so they can invest and create those jobs. One of the important ways we do that is with good trade agreements. Let's make sure our companies can export their great products and services all over the world. We have to compete in a global, high-tech economy, and these trade agreements let us do it. That is why it is so important that we move forward. Today, we are on the floor of the Senate saying: Why do we have these trade agreements? Thursday night, we heard from the President that we need to move forward with these trade agreements. We want to move forward with these trade agreements. We are ready to go. We have been for some time. In fact, the Senators here on the floor and others have been working very hard to do everything we can to make sure we have cleared the path so these trade agreements can come to the Senate floor. It was not too long ago that Senator Johanns, myself, and Senator Portman went with Senator Mitch McConnell and Senator Moran over to South Korea to meet with President Lee. He wants the agreements. He is ready to go. As a matter of fact, he said, please ratify the agreements in your country, get them over to me, because I am ready to take that to my legislators and get this approved. Second, our President said there are some concerns we need to deal with as part of these trade agreements. He said we need to address TSA, trade assistant adjustment. We said we will work with TSA. We will make sure we have enough Senators so it is squared away. We have it covered. That has been communicated. So the question is: Why at this point don't we have the trade agreements? That is the question I think that has to be asked. Where are they? Why aren't they here on the Senate floor so we can move forward with them? In our State, as others mentioned in their States, they are incredibly important. A few big stats to follow on what Senator Portman mentioned a minute ago. For every 4-percent increase in trade, we create a million jobs in this country. For every 4-percent increase in trade, a million jobs in this country are created. How important is that? The United States- South Korea free trade agreement alone means more than a quarter of a million jobs, more than $10 billion in increased U.S. exports to that country alone. I cannot think of a time when it is more important to create those jobs than right now when we have more than 14 million people out of work and many more who are either not working because they have not been able to get a job or who are underemployed. Unemployment is more than 9 percent. This is one of the ways we create that environment that gets our people back to work by empowering the private sector to make that investment and create those jobs. I was just back in North Dakota, and one of the many events I went to was an expansion of one of the Caterpillar company's locations in West Fargo, ND. They remanufacture a lot of their equipment in West Fargo, ND. This equipment goes all over the world. It is part of the huge machines that Cat makes. They use these machines for excavating, for mining, road building, for all these things all over the world, and they are the technology leader in the world in this huge equipment. They bought Bucyrus, which is huge in mining, so now they are big in the mining business. Getting into places such as Colombia and Panama is incredibly important for Caterpillar. It is not just about creating jobs in North Dakota, but think of the impact throughout the heartland in Indiana or in Illinois or, as Senator Roberts talked about, agriculture. In North Dakota we have more cattle than people. I think we have more than 3 million cattle. Right now to send them to South Korea, we pay more than 40 percent tariff. How do we compete with Argentina or Australia in that situation? This is an opportunity. This is absolutely an opportunity. We need to reach out and grab it with both hands. We have the President right now saying, pass those trade agreements. Absolutely. Please get them down here to us. We have worked so hard to make sure we have cleared all the hurdles, TAA, or whatever else is required. Bring those trade agreements to us. We stand ready to pass them.

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a matter of great importance to our country, and that is jobs and our economy. I know the President will be speaking this evening. I want to emphasize the importance that we focus on a long-term strategy to get our economy going. By that I mean a pro-jobs, progrowth economic strategy for our country. The things that go into that include building the best possible business climate. We have got to have a business climate that will stimulate private investment, that will stimulate entrepreneurship, ingenuity, that will stimulate job creation by businesses small and large across our economy. We need to build a strong business climate. We need a long-term, progrowth economic strategy to do that. We also need to control our spending and live within our means. We need a comprehensive energy policy. All three of these things go into the right kind of long-term comprehensive approach this country needs to get our economy growing and get people back to work. I wish to start by taking a minute to look at our current situation, to talk about where we are. If you look at unemployment, unemployment is more than 9 percent, and it has been more than 9 percent for an extended period of time. Weekly jobless claims: more than 400,000. We have more than 14 million people who are out of work. That does not include people who are underemployed or people who are no longer looking for work because they have been discouraged and are not included in the workforce--14 million people we need to get back to work. We also have a tremendous deficit problem. If you look at our revenues today, we have revenues of about $2.2 trillion. Our spending is at a rate of $3.7 trillion. That is a $1.5 trillion deficit. That is adding up to more than a $14 trillion dollar debt--a $14 trillion debt that weighs on our economy. If we do not deal with it, it is a debt our children will have to pay. That is not acceptable for us and we have to deal with it at the same time we get this economy going. If you look at our current situation, we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, and deficit and our debt is growing at $4 billion a day. I brought some graphs so we can look at it graphically. Here you see revenues and spending. Unfortunately, the spending line is the red line along the top here. Spending is more than $3.7 trillion a year. At the same time, our revenues are $2.2 trillion. That gap is a $1.5 trillion budget deficit we are accumulating on an annual basis. As I say, it is now leading to a debt that is more than $14 trillion. If you look at this next chart, we talk about unemployment. Here you see annual unemployment. Currently we are at 9.1 percent. We have been there for an extended period of time. Again, that represents more than 14 million people who are unemployed that we need to get back to work. The other thing you will notice on this chart is the blue line. This blue line is the chart for my home State. There you will see our unemployment is about 3.2 to 3.3 percent. For the last decade in our State, we have focused on a progrowth, pro-jobs economic strategy. By that I mean building the best possible business climate, making sure we live within our means, and building a comprehensive energy approach to develop all of our energy resources. There is no reason we cannot do the same thing at the Federal level. In fact, we need to do exactly that at the Federal level. So I am here today to talk about some of the things we need to do to make that happen. The first is that I emphasize by building a good business climate, I mean a legal, tax, and regulatory certainty so businesses know the rules of the road so they can invest. They can invest shareholders' dollars so entrepreneurs can start new businesses, so existing businesses can expand. But to do that, they need to know the rules of the road. They need to know what our tax policy is. Right now we have a tax policy that expires at the end of the next year. So how do you as a business person go out there and start making investments when you do not know what the tax policy is going to be beyond the end of next year? We need tax reform. How about regulation? We have an incredible regulatory burden. How do you go out there and make an investment, get a business going, hire people, if you do not know what the regulatory requirements are? We need to reduce that regulatory burden. We need to pass trade agreements so our companies can sell not just here in the United States but they can sell globally. If you look at the history of our country, that is how we have grown this economy, how we have become the most dynamic economic engine in the world. It is through that private investment, that entrepreneurship, that American ingenuity. The role of government is to create a business climate that unleashes that potential. We have got to roll back the regulatory burden. We have got to create clear, understandable rules and tax policy to follow so these companies can make these investments, get those 14-plus million people back to work, get a growing economy, at the same time that we get a grip on our spending and start living within our means. That is how we not only raise our standard of living and our quality of life, but we make sure we do not pass on a huge debt to our children and our grandchildren. Let me talk about some of the kinds of laws and legislation we need to pass to make sure that happens. Not too long ago, President Obama issued an Executive order. I hope it is something he talks about this evening in his address to the joint session of Congress. In that Executive order, he said all of the agencies--all of the Federal agencies--need to look at their regulations, at their existing regulations and any regulations they are putting out, and make sure that if those regulations are costly, burdensome, if they do not make sense, if they are outmoded or outdated, they are eliminated, they are stripped away, so we empower people and companies throughout this great country to do business. He said in that Executive order make sure all of our agencies look at their regulations and eliminate those that do not make sense, that are costly, and that are burdensome, so we can stimulate economic activity and job creation in this country. I think we need to do exactly that. In fact, let's make it a law. Let's make it the law that all of the regulatory agencies need to look at their existing regulations and any regulations they are looking at putting out, to make darn sure they are clear, straightforward, understandable, that they are workable, and not only that our regulations are clear and understandable, that the regulators work with Americans and American companies to make sure they understand them and they are able to meet them so they can pursue their business plans, their business growth, their business investment, and that they hire and put people back to work. That is how it is supposed to work. Together, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, myself, and others have put forward the Regulatory Responsibility for Our Economy Act. That is just what it says. How much more bipartisan can we get than that? The President puts out an Executive order saying we need to roll back some of these regulations that are burdening our business base, and we as Republican Senators say: Okay, here is an act to put that Executive order into law. Let's work together in a bipartisan way to reduce this regulatory burden that is stifling economic growth and job creation in our country. That is what Congress is supposed to do. That is what we need to do. That is what the people of this country want us to do on a bipartisan basis. When the President comes to the Capitol this evening and talks about how we get business going, let's get it going by reducing this regulatory burden so private investment can get people back to work in this country. It is not about more government spending, it is about private investment and initiative. We have to create the framework to make it happen. We can do it, and we can do it on a bipartisan basis. Another example is that the United States has been the leader in aviation throughout its history. Throughout the history of aviation, since Kitty Hawk, the United States has led the world in aviation, in invention, development, and innovation, and all the things that have gone into the development of aviation. Again, throughout its history, the United States has been the leader. One of the key areas for growth in aviation right now is UAS, unmanned aerial systems or unmanned aircraft. They call them remotely piloted aircraft. Our military uses them to tremendous benefit in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. Even though our military flies UAS all over the globe, we can't fly them here in the United States together with manned aircraft. Yet if we are going to continue to lead the world in aviation innovation, we have to find a way to fly both manned and unmanned aircraft together in our airspace in the United States. Others and I have been talking to the FAA and working with the FAA, saying that you have to promulgate rules, set the rules of the road-- or, in this case, the rules of the air--so we can fly both manned and unmanned aircraft together in the U.S. airspace. The FAA has been working on this for I don't know how long but a long period of time. As of yet, they have not come out with those rules so we can fly both manned and unmanned aircraft in our airspace. But we need to, because if we don't, other countries will, and they will move ahead of us-- maybe not in military aviation, where we are flying unmanned aircraft all over the world, but how about in commercial and general aviation and all the other applications it will have for unmanned aircraft. The FAA bill, which we are now working to complete--a version was passed in the House and a version was passed in the Senate, and we are trying to reconcile the two versions. Again, we need to do this in a bipartisan way. I have included language that authorizes--in fact requires--that the FAA set up airspace in the United States so that manned and unmanned aircraft can be flown concurrently. Again, it is about making sure that we not only maintain our lead in aviation but create those exciting, good-paying jobs of the future. If the agency isn't going to take that step, we as the Congress have to make sure we take that step and move the aviation industry forward. Another example is how we have to create the environment, the forum that encourages that type of innovation, entrepreneurship, and investment in job creation. That is our role, our responsibility, in this most important of all issues, which is getting the economy going and getting people back to work. On the free trade agreements, we have three of them pending--one with South Korea, the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement, another is the Panama Free Trade Agreement, and the other is with Colombia. Those trade agreements have been negotiated for some time. For three years those trade agreements have been pending. It is time to take them from pending to being passed. We need the administration to bring those free trade agreements to the Senate and to the House and we will pass them. We have worked across the aisle in a bipartisan way to make sure that whatever issues needed to be dealt with to bring them to the Congress-- whether it is trade adjustment authority or whatever, we have worked together in a bipartisan way to say, look, we have addressed the issues. Now the administration needs to bring the free trade agreements to the Senate floor. We will pass them. With just one of those free trade agreements--for example, if we take the South Korea free trade agreement--we are talking about more than $10 billion in trade every year for our U.S. companies. These free trade agreements reduce tariffs on the order of 85 percent. We are talking more than a quarter of a million jobs that will be created if we pass these agreements. For every 4-percent increase in trade, we are talking about 1 million American jobs that we can create. Again, it is about creating the environment that empowers investment, empowers our entrepreneurs in this country, and empowers businesses large and small to invest and get our economy going. At the same time we get this economy growing, we have to start living within our means. Right now, as I indicated, we have a $1.5 trillion deficit and a debt that is closing in on $14.5 trillion. So at the same time we get the economy growing, which will grow our revenues--not higher taxes, but grow revenues from a growing economy, and with tax reform that empowers that economic growth, at the same time, we have to get control of our spending and live within our means. Along with some fellow Senators, we have sponsored a number of pieces of legislation that I believe we can pass in a bipartisan way to make sure we get spending under control. The first is a balanced budget amendment. I come from a State where I was Governor for 10 years. We have a balanced budget amendment. Every year, we are required by our Constitution to balance the budget. States have a balanced budget requirement, and businesses and families and communities all have to live within their means. Our Federal Government has to live within its means. If you think about it, a balanced budget amendment gets everybody involved. We not only have to pass it in the Senate and in the House with a two-thirds majority, but then it goes out to the States for ratification. What better way to get everybody throughout the country directly involved in making sure that we control our spending. Every State has to deal with a balanced budget amendment. So it is all of us working together as Americans, and it is the Congress going to the people of this great country and saying: Here is a balanced budget amendment, you tell us what you think. Again, what a great way to get everybody involved, the way we should get everybody involved in making sure we live within our means not only today but tomorrow and throughout future generations. At the same time, we need to pass other tools that can help us get control of our spending. For example, the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act. This is a bipartisan act that I think was originally sponsored by Senator Tom Carper, a former Governor, a Democrat from Delaware, and Senator John McCain. I am proud to be a cosponsor. One of the key provisions is to give the President a line-item veto. Reaching across the aisle, we are giving our President a tool--a line-item veto--to make sure we cut out waste, fraud, and abuse, and that we control our spending. As a Governor, the most effective tool I had was the line- item veto. We need to make sure our President has it as well. I think we also need to look at a biennial budget, so that we pass a budget on a two-year cycle--make sure we get it passed and the next year we can come back and make the adjustments we have to make; but at the same time we have time for oversight and making sure spending is going in accordance with the directive of the Congress, and whether it is waste, fraud, abuse, or duplication, that we cut it out. Again, this is absolutely what the American people want us to do. The third area I will touch on for a minute--and I will go to the next chart--is building the right kind of energy plan, a comprehensive energy policy that will help this country develop all of its energy resources. We did it in North Dakota. I know we can do it at the Federal level. If you think about it, energy development in this country is an incredible opportunity. It is an opportunity to produce more energy more cost effectively, with better environmental stewardship that will enable all of our industries to compete in a global high-tech economy. In addition, what a great opportunity it is to create high-paying jobs. Again, I go back to what I said before. For our energy companies looking to invest hundreds of millions and billions of dollars, they need to know the rules of the road. It comes back to creating a comprehensive energy policy that sets up those rules of the road so they know what their tax situation is and what the regulation and regulatory requirements are. When they make those investments to produce more energy more cost effectively, with good environmental stewardship, they have to know they are going to be able to get a return. They have to know they can meet the regulatory requirements. Those investments may last 40 and 50 years, and they know they are going to have to be able to recoup those investments. This first chart gives an example of some of the energy development in our State. Out West, there is oil and gas. North Dakota is now the fourth largest oil-producing State in the country. We have passed Oklahoma and Louisiana, and people don't realize it. Every State has some kind of energy. If you look at this map, we have oil, gas, coal, and wind. We are in the top 10 wind producers. We have biofuels, biomass, solar--we have all of them. Different States have different strengths. A lot of States have oil, gas, coal, or certainly wind, or they can develop the biofuels. It comes down to creating that environment that stimulates private investment so companies will come in and do exactly what I am talking about--at the Federal level, as well as at the State level. This next chart shows what is actually happening at the Federal level. This chart is the cost of major new regulations. What it shows over the last three decades is the cost of regulation by year, over the last 30 years. When the cost of regulation is high, if you go back and check, you will see our economy wasn't doing very well. When the cost of regulation was low, you will see that it was doing much better. Look at the cost of regulation today. It was $26.5 billion in 2010, the cost of meeting the regulatory requirements. That is what I am talking about. That is what is impeding job growth and economic growth and business investment. We have to address that. We have to roll back the regulatory burdens our companies and entrepreneurs face today. This last chart gives one example of some of the new regulations EPA is putting out that somebody who wants to develop energy has to meet. If you are an energy company or a young person with a good idea to develop a new type of energy, or existing type of energy with a new technology, can you meet all of these requirements? Can you even begin to understand them? Do you have a big enough legal team and scientific team, or a deep enough wallet to try to figure that all out before you put your money or your shareholders' money at risk? That is what is impeding economic growth in our country, and we have to deal with it. Congress has to deal with it. Again, this is not rocket science, and it is not about spending more Federal dollars. We have to create an environment that will encourage, stimulate, and empower private investment. It is that private investment throughout this land that will get our economy going and get people back to work. We can do it. It has to be a long-term strategy. It can't be a few stopgap measures that we put into place now for the next 90 days or for 1 year at a time. It has to be on a long-term sustained basis. I believe that is what the people want to hear this evening. I think they want to hear that kind of commitment to a long- term strategy, a progrowth, pro-jobs economic strategy that will get this economy going now, tomorrow, and for the long term. It has to be done in a bipartisan way to get it through this Congress and signed by the President. But it is that kind of vision we need for our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise once again to urge my colleagues to come together and address this debt ceiling to reduce our deficit and debt. We are at the 12th hour, and it is vitally important to the American people we move forward. I believe there is opportunity to do that. I think it is important we move forward in a way that makes sure we address the root of the problem. The problem is, we have a deficit and a debt that is out of control. As we work together to reach agreement on this very important debt ceiling issue, we need to be mindful that we have taken a big step forward in reducing the deficit and debt that our country faces. Let's start by taking just a minute to look at the numbers. Today this country has total revenues coming into the Federal Government at about $2.2 trillion. At the same time, we have expenses of $3.7 trillion, leaving an annual deficit of more than $1.5 trillion. Our debt is now in the range of $14.5 trillion. It is hard to even imagine what $1 trillion is, let alone $14.5 trillion. We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, and our debt is growing $4 billion a day--$4 billion a day. The unemployment is 9.2 percent, and the latest GDP growth came out for the second quarter for this year. It was an anemic 1.3 percent. We need to get our economy growing. We need to get people back to work. We need to get people working, and at the same time we have to control our spending. It is time to act. We are faced with two different pieces of legislation at this point. One is the Boehner plan, or the Budget Control Act of 2011, that the House will be voting on very soon, I believe. Also, there is another plan, the Reid plan, in the Senate. Although they have some similarities, as configured now they are different plans and different approaches. One, very importantly, gets us on the road to recovery. The other one doesn't. Let's take just a minute to talk about each of those respective plans to make sure we understand them. As they vote on them in the House, and as we face those important votes this evening or tomorrow or, hopefully, very soon, we can understand the differences between these approaches so we can find a way to come together on an approach that we can pass in this Chamber and also in the House, and, of course, that truly moves our country forward. Under the Boehner proposal there is $917 billion in savings that must be provided in order to raise the debt ceiling, and that allows the first tranche of increase in the debt ceiling in the amount of $900 billion. Those savings have to be identified first--in fact, more than the amount of the debt ceiling increase. Then the second tranche to increase the debt ceiling beyond that $900 billion, an additional $1.8 trillion in savings, has to be identified and provided--$1.8 trillion in savings. That is $2.7 trillion in savings to get this country back on the road to financial health in order to raise the debt ceiling. That is fundamentally important because that is the fundamental issue. It doesn't fully solve the problem, but it gets us on the right path, and we have to get going on the right path. The second tranche of savings is done by a committee of six Members of the Senate--three Democrat, three Republican--and six Members of the House--three Republican, three Democrat--in a bipartisan committee. I think that committee offers us real opportunity. Here is why: The committee has to come up with recommendations for real savings by November. It is bipartisan, and it is a straight up-or-down vote in the House or the Senate to put those savings in place, and those savings must be identified before we raise the debt ceiling further. So it is something we have to do. Let's think about that committee for a minute. That is a committee that can bring in the ideas of the Gang of 6. That is the committee that can bring in the Simpson-Bowles concept. That is a committee that can bring in tax reform. That is a committee that can bring in entitlement reform. These are the things we are going to need to address to get this economy going and get control of our spending. I know we have put together many pieces of legislation that have been bipartisan and have been very important for this country, and I think this committee truly offers us that opportunity. I hope it is something we in the Senate can find a way to come together on and that we can get our colleagues in the House to join us. In my view, I do think we need to engage in tax reform. I think the right kind of progrowth tax reform--some of the concepts brought forth by the Gang of 6--can truly help us to stimulate economic activity. I think the real way to get revenue for this country is through economic growth--not higher taxes, through economic growth. Expand the pie, the rising tide that lifts all boats. If we can engage in tax reform to stimulate economic growth, we reduce that unemployment rate by more than 9 percent. That is good for every American, but it is also the way we create revenue to get us out of this deficit and debt at the same time that we control spending. I absolutely believe it can work, and I think that we need to convince our Members we need to come together and make it happen. The Boehner proposal also includes a balanced budget amendment, and I know that has been an issue of great debate in this Senate. I believe we need a balanced budget amendment. I have said it many times before. I come from a background in my State, as a Governor, where we balanced our budget every year. There are 49 States that either have a constitutional or statutory priority to balance their budget. We need that fiscal discipline in Washington, DC. I think we need it to make sure we don't get ourselves into this situation in the future years for ourselves or for these young people we see here today with us. When we compare the approach of the Boehner plan, it is different from the Reid plan. It is important that we understand that. The Reid plan does provide that we identify $900 billion in savings, but that provides that once we have identified that $900 billion in savings, we raise the debt ceiling by $2.7 trillion, unlike the Boehner proposal where we are finding significantly more savings than we are increasing the debt ceiling. This is just the opposite. We are increasing the debt ceiling $2.7 trillion but only requiring $900 billion in savings. That doesn't get at the root of the problem. That continues the underlying problem of too much spending and too much debt. Like the Boehner proposal, the Reid proposal does provide for a committee. That is important. That is good. Unlike the Boehner proposal, it doesn't require that committee bring back the savings and that we put those savings in place before the debt ceiling is increased. It doesn't have the teeth we need to make sure we get this job done for the American people, and that is a problem. They are different approaches, and it doesn't include a balanced budget amendment. There has been talk that we must work together to find a way to bridge the gap and the differences, and I think that is true. We have to find ways to come together. Time is growing short. We need to get it done now. I think it is the approach identified in the Boehner plan that we need to take. We need to get our colleagues in this Chamber to join with us to do it. It is the only piece of legislation that can pass the House, but, more importantly, it is a big step forward. It is a big step in the right direction for our country. I thank the Chair. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN

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

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak to the need to come to an agreement. We need to come to an agreement on how we handle the debt ceiling. We need to come to agreement on addressing our Nation's deficit and debt. Let us review where we are right now. If you look at our fiscal situation, right now the Federal Government takes in revenues on an annual basis of $2.2 trillion--$2.2 trillion--a year, but at the same time we are spending $3.7 trillion. That is a shortfall, or a deficit, of more than $1.5 trillion a year. I look at these young people here in this Chamber--these great pages from all over the country--and I think about what that means not only for us today--for our economy, for our standing in the world, for the security of our country--but I think about what it means for future generations. What is it we leave them? Do we leave them a country that was founded on the concept of freedom and liberty, that people could pursue life on their own terms, raise their families the way they wanted to raise their families, live the way they wanted to live, do the work they wanted to do, have an opportunity to start a business, to build a life, and be successful and pass something of value on to their children? I think that is what we all want. That is the Nation we have--the Nation we have had for over 200 years. That is the Nation we want to pass on to these great young people. So we have had tremendous debate for an extended period of time--for a long time. Many good ideas have been brought forth by both sides of the aisle, by Republicans and by Democrats, on how we should address this debt ceiling agreement, how we should address the deficit and the debt. Nobody has the corner on good ideas. There have been many good ideas brought forward, but now is the time we have to realize we have to come to agreement. The American people want us to come to an agreement. Today the House is considering the Budget Control Act of 2011, referred to as the Boehner proposal, and they are over there working on it right now. As with any agreement, somebody can certainly find something to criticize. That is always true. No agreement is perfect. But it does represent many of the ideas that both sides have brought forward as a way to come to agreement on this debt ceiling and, more importantly, as a way to start to get our fiscal house back in order. Let's talk about it for just a minute. Under the proposal, first there would be a reduction in spending, a savings of more than $900 billion, and that would also provide for a $900 billion increase in the debt ceiling to get us past this immediate issue. Then, at the same time, it appoints a committee--not a commission but a committee--of Senators and Representatives, 12 members--6 Senators, 3 Republican, 3 Democrat; 6 House Members, 3 Republican, 3 Democrat--who are required to find at least another $1.8 trillion in savings. Those savings have to be found before there is another increase in the debt ceiling. That is the right way to do things. That is getting the horse in front of the cart, not the reverse. So they have to find those savings in a bipartisan way, and they have to bring those concepts back to the House and to the Senate, and the House and the Senate will have a straight up-or-down vote--the elected representatives of the people doing their job for the people in an open and transparent way. Think about this committee for a minute. Again, there are 12 members: 6 Republicans, 6 Democrats; 6 Senators, 6 Members of the House. They can bring forward all of these great ideas that have been debated in recent months. They can bring forward ideas from the Simpson-Bowles Commission that have gained support. They can bring forward ideas from the Gang of 6 that people believe are meritorious. They can bring forward ideas for savings. They can bring ideas forward for reform. They can bring ideas forward for tax reform that don't raise taxes but actually eliminate loopholes, reduce rates, create a progrowth environment, and the revenues come from a growing economy, not from higher taxes. They can come forward with all of these ideas and more. But the important point is they must come forward by November with $1.8 trillion in savings to help get us back on the right path, the right path to good fiscal management. The debt ceiling is not increased in that second step until they do. That is making sure we fulfill our responsibility and do things in the right order. Then this bill also provides that we have a vote on a balanced budget amendment, and that vote on the balanced budget amendment must be sometime between October 1 and the end of the year. Myself and others have cosponsored a balanced budget amendment, and I strongly believe that is what we need. I understand there are differences of opinion, but when we look at the situation we recognize we need that fiscal discipline in Washington, DC. If we just think about it for a minute, a balanced budget amendment, how does it work? Well, it works in a way that gets everybody involved, not just in Washington, DC, but throughout this great Nation--because what are we doing? By passing a balanced budget amendment in the Congress, which we have to do with two-thirds of the Senate and two-thirds of the House, what we are doing is starting that balanced budget amendment on its way traveling throughout this country and saying to the people of this good country: What do you want to do? Why not ask the people? That is how our democracy works. Why not ask them: Do you want to make sure we have a balanced budget that requires Congress to see that, year in and year out, we are living within our means? Forty-nine States have either a constitutional or statutory requirement to balance their budget to live within their means. Cities do, counties, families, businesses. Since three-fourths of the States would have to ratify that balanced budget amendment as well, we say to them: Look, we think we need a balanced budget, and we are going to make sure you have an opportunity to say what you think. I believe that is exactly what we should do. I bring experience as a Governor. I served as a Governor for 10 years, and we were required to balance our budget every single year. We went to the people and we talked to them. We said: Here is the plan. We don't have the dollars right now to fund all the things you want. This was back in 2000-2002 when we actually had to reduce our budget, make reductions across the board. We said: But do you know what we are going to do? We are going to make sure we live within our means and we create a progrowth environment, legal taxes and regulatory certainty that will enable business expansion, business growth, entrepreneurship, private investment, and get this economy growing, get jobs, get economic growth. Then with that growth we will make sure each year we fund our priorities; that we set some aside, some reserve aside for a rainy day, and that we do our best to continue to reduce the tax burden on our hard-working citizens. It doesn't happen in a week, it doesn't happen in a month, a year, or 2 years. It takes time to build to the position that you want. But we can do it. We have done it before. If we look at the late 1980s, coming out of the stagflation of the 1970s and the early 1980s, in the late 1980s we had stagflation-- meaning high inflation, meaning high unemployment, an economy that was moribund, people weren't working, a growing deficit. But by creating a progrowth environment and good fiscal management from the late 1980s over into the decade of the 1990s, we not only put people back to work, we eliminated that deficit and we built a surplus. We can do it again. It is all about the right approach. So here we are today. Today we need to take that first step, and I come back to where I started. It may not be the plan exactly the way everybody wants it, but it is a plan that we can approve, and it brings together concepts that people on both sides of the aisle have brought forward. So now we need to come together and do our work for the American people. We need to come together and pass this agreement. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, today I honor the life and exemplary service of North Dakota's late Senate majority leader Bob Stenehjem. Bob died last week in a car accident in Alaska on his way back from doing one of the things he loved best when not working: fishing in the great outdoors. During the 10 years he served as majority leader of the North Dakota Senate and the nearly 20 years he served as a State senator, I counted Bob as a friend, a colleague, and a partner in the important work we were doing to build a stronger, more dynamic North Dakota. It has been said many times by many people that Bob had the ability to see all sides of an issue and appreciate everyone's interest. That is an invaluable quality for a leader and essential to a good legislator. He worked well with others and considered among his dearest friends many on the opposite side of the aisle who held a different philosophical viewpoint. Bob could disagree without being disagreeable and always respected the opinions of others. It was that ability that helped him to forge good legislation for the people of North Dakota. As a public servant, as a citizen, Bob's deep love of North Dakota informed every decision he made in the legislature, and his legacy today is a more vibrant and secure State than it was when he was first elected to represent District 30 in 1993. His remarkable service and devotion to North Dakota benefited our State and our people in countless ways over the years, helping to bridge differences and improve the quality of life for all North Dakotans. Mikey and I extend our deepest sympathy to his wife Kathy and the entire Stenehjem family on this tragic loss. Our thoughts and prayers go out to them, and we pray that they will take comfort in knowing that he served his State and his fellow North Dakotans well.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank Senator Johanns. It is an honor to be here with him, and also with the good Senator from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander. It is great to be here with them as well as Senator Risch from Idaho. We have a common shared experience as Governors. It is wonderful to draw on that. I also have to mention that the Presiding Officer in the Senate today, Senator Shaheen, is a former Governor as well. So we have that common, shared experience, actually, here today on both sides of the aisle. It is an honor and it is a pleasure to be here with you and talk about this matter that is so very important, particularly as we face the need to do something on the debt ceiling. This issue of dealing with a balanced budget is paramount for our entire country and your lead-in is exactly right. We served together as Governors. As a matter of fact, the truth is, I would call the Senator--because he was elected Governor before I was--for advice and ask him about some of the things he was working on in Nebraska. Our States share many things in common; one the Senator mentioned, a low unemployment rate. The unemployment rate in our State is 3.3 percent. Again, I attribute that to the ability of building a probusiness, progrowth, projobs environment that stimulates private investments, stimulates jobs. The Senator mentioned so very accurately that jobs are created by the private sector, not by government. We have to create an environment that stimulates and encourages and helps create a forum for that private investment. That is how we create jobs and get this economy going. On one side, we have to have a growing economy, which we don't have at the national level right now, and on the other side we have to live within our means. We have to control our spending, and the Federal Government has a responsibility to control its spending just as the States do, just as businesses do, just as families do. We have to not only balance this budget, we have to live within our means on an ongoing basis. We have 49 of the 50 States with either a constitutional or a statutory requirement that they balance their budget every year. Every single Governor with us today had to balance their budget every single year. It was recently reported that 46 States are already on track to make sure their budget is balanced by the end of their fiscal year. The Federal Government needs to do the same thing. Look at our situation right now. The Federal Government takes in $2.2 trillion in revenues. We take in $2.2 trillion in revenues, but we spend $3.7 trillion. That is a $1.5-plus trillion deficit every year, and that is rolling up to a debt that is now closing in on $14.5 trillion. We have to address this. This is not something we can hand off to future generations. So our message to the administration is, you are making it worse. We have to start living within our means. We cannot keep spending and then borrowing and then raising taxes and expect to have an economy that grows and a government that lives within its means, and that is exactly why we are here today talking about the need for this balanced budget amendment. If one thinks about it, the balanced budget amendment gets everyone involved both now and for the future because it has to be passed by both Houses of Congress with a two-thirds majority. That has to be done on a bipartisan basis and then it goes out to the States and three- fourths of the States have to ratify it for it to become part of the Constitution. That gets everybody involved in doing exactly what we need to do; that is, getting on top of this deficit and this debt, both now and for future generations. Again, I wish to thank the good Senator from Nebraska for holding this colloquy and for inviting me to be part of it with my fellow Governors. I appreciate it very much.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise, along with my fellow colleagues, to again address the need to reduce our deficit and our debt. The United States is the strongest country in the world--in the history of the world--but that will not be the case for long if we do not solve our deficit and our debt crisis. It is vital we solve it now for our generation, but it is vital we solve it for future generations as well. The wealth, the economic activity of this country, is created by the private sector, by hard-working men and women, not by the government. The government creates the forum, the environment, if you will, that fosters or allows economic activity. But the key is, the government should not just allow economic activity, the government needs to create an environment that truly empowers, that promotes economic activity, that encourages private investment, that encourages entrepreneurship, business expansion and job growth, innovation--the very entrepreneurial activity that has built this country. That is the success of America, that is the strength of our country, that is how America has become the greatest economic powerhouse in the history of the world. That is why our people enjoy the highest standard of living. But our current administration believes more government is the answer--more spending, more regulation, and more taxes. It is not the answer. That is the problem, and it is making the situation worse. Let's go through just some of the economic statistics. Today, we have 13.9 million--almost 14 million--people unemployed. The unemployment rate is over 9 percent. Gas prices, since the current administration took office, are up to more than $3.50 a gallon. That is almost a 100-percent increase in the cost of gasoline. Our Federal debt is closing in on $14.5 trillion. For every man, woman, and child in this country, that is almost $50,000 for every single person. We have 45 million people on food stamps today. Health insurance. In spite of the health insurance legislation, health insurance premiums are rising, and home values are going down. Clearly, we need to get our economy going. We need to get people back to work. We need that economic growth and dynamism that has been the hallmark of this country. Clearly, we need to reduce our deficit and our debt. The reality is, we can do it. We absolutely can do it, and we have done it before. But we need to begin with a comprehensive plan to reduce the deficit and the debt. Any agreement to raise the debt ceiling needs to include a comprehensive agreement to reduce the deficit and the debt. By a comprehensive agreement, I mean something that includes a balanced budget amendment, reduction in spending, and living within our means on an ongoing basis. It means reforming entitlement programs to save them from bankruptcy, not only to protect our seniors today but to make sure those programs are solvent and there for future generations. All these things and more can go into a comprehensive plan. But we need a comprehensive plan to reduce the deficit, to reduce the debt as part of the debt ceiling issue we need to deal with now--not put off but deal with now. If we think about it, a balanced budget amendment makes sense. Forty- nine of the fifty States--49 out of 50 States--have either a constitutional or a statutory requirement that they balance their budget--not just this year but every year. States balance their budgets. Cities balance their budgets. Businesses balance their budgets. Families balance their budgets, live within their means. Our Federal Government needs to do the same. Our Federal Government needs that fiscal responsibility, needs that fiscal discipline. Also, if we think about it, a balanced budget amendment gets everybody involved. It gets everybody involved in Congress. It takes a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House to pass a balanced budget amendment. Then what happens? It goes out to the States. It goes out to the 50 States, and three-fourths of the States must ratify that balanced budget amendment in order for it to be approved. So we not only have everybody at the Federal level working to live within our means and balance the budget, but we get all the States involved as well. This is a challenging problem--no question about it--getting on top of these deficits and our long-term debt not only now but for the future as well. So let's have everyone involved. A balanced budget amendment will do just that. Of course, at the same time, we have to reduce our spending both now and make sure we continue to live within our means going forward. The statistics are very clear. The statistics right now show that this year the Federal Government will take in about $2.2 trillion in revenue. So our revenue is about $2.2 trillion, but our expenses are $3.7 trillion. That is about a $1.5 trillion deficit. This year, actually, it will be larger than that number. So you can see that is why our Federal debt now is closing in on $14.5 trillion. We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend--40 cents of every dollar we spend--and every single day our debt goes up $4 billion. That is simply unsustainable. That is why any vote to increase the debt ceiling must include a comprehensive plan to reduce our deficit and our debt. No question, we need to control spending, but as we do that, at the same time, in order to truly solve the problem, we have to create, as I said at the outset, a government environment that not only encourages government investment but empowers private investment across our Nation. This next chart shows some of the challenges--barriers, if you will-- to doing that. We need legal, tax, and regulatory certainty to encourage private investment. A probusiness, progrowth, projobs environment is one that creates legal, tax, and regulatory certainty to not only encourage but empower private investment. One of the ways we do this is by reducing the regulatory burden. We have an incredible regulatory burden at the Federal level. We need to find ways to reduce that. That is what this chart shows. Earlier this year, President Obama issued an Executive order that proposes to review regulations that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and also to modify, streamline, or even repeal them. Just a week ago, he said again: What I have done--and this is unprecedented--is I have said to each agency, look at the regulations that are already on the books, and if they don't make sense, let's get rid of them. That is what he said. I absolutely agree with that. Yet, over the past 2 years, the administration has issued 502 proposed or enacted regulations and is on pace this year to exceed $100 billion in total regulatory cost burdens to industry. That is a huge regulatory burden. This chart shows the cost of major new regulations in billions of dollars over the last 30 years. As you can see, when the cost of regulation is low, the economy is strong, and when the cost of regulation is high, as it is now, the economy is weak; more important, job growth is weak. Look at 2010. In 2010, you see the highest regulatory burden, in adjusted dollars, in the last 30 years. How did our economy do in 2010? Senator Roberts, my colleague from Kansas, myself, and others have taken the President up on his pledge to review these regulations. We have introduced the Regulatory Responsibility For Our Economy Act, a measure that would give teeth to the President's directive. Regulators will have to show the benefits of a new rule and show that the benefits outweigh its cost. They will have to show that it imposes the least burden on society and that it maximizes economic benefits. That is an approach which would not only encourage but truly empower private investment. Let me give you another example of what I am talking about with the regulatory burden--again, trying to create that legal and tax certainty that stimulates the private investment we need to get this economy going, not more government spending. We are spending way beyond our means. What I mean is, more private investment that gets this economy going, gets people back to work, and generates revenue, which will help us, over time, reduce our debt. When we talk about onerous regulations, a key area of the economy that is incredibly overburdened and where we see a prevention of investment because of the regulatory burden is the energy industry. My next chart illustrates the long reach of the EPA and how it is sidelining and dampening job growth in the energy sector. It shows a long, complex obstacle course, if you will, of expensive standards and procedures and regulations that are not only being implemented now but will go on for the foreseeable future. How would you like to be an energy company looking at investing and putting hundreds of millions, billions of dollars into new plants and investments, whether it is producing oil and gas, whether it is biofuels or biomass--you name it--how would you like to make those investments on behalf of your shareholders and have some idea what rate of return you are going to be able to get and what rules of the road you are going to have to follow? This is just a small sampling of the regulations that are now coming into being and will continue to come into place for the foreseeable future. At a time of high oil prices, unrest in the Middle East, and sluggish economic growth, we are not only failing to provide Americans with affordable energy for their homes and vehicles, but we are actually discouraging the very investment that will make it happen, and this is just one small example. To remedy that, we need new legislation. I know the occupant of the chair and others are working on a lot of new legislation that will streamline regulations and encourage investment. I will give just a couple of examples. One of them I am working on with Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia. He introduced it, and it is called the EPA Fair Play Act. It would prohibit rescinding properly approved 404 permits. When EPA approves a 404 permit for mining, it says you can't arbitrarily withdraw that permit. So a company that has invested millions or billions of dollars can't find itself high and dry after it has already gotten the proper permit. Another example of legislation that we have introduced that would make a difference is Defending America's Affordable Energy and Jobs Act. The primary sponsor of that is Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming. This legislation ensures that Congress makes the call on regulating greenhouse gases, not the EPA through regulatory fiat. Another example is the Gas Accessibility and Stabilization Act, which I am pleased to cosponsor with Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri and others, which will simplify the complex rules and regulations that govern refining and distribution of fuel throughout the United States. There are many other examples I could give as well. The point is, with 14 million Americans out of work, we can no longer delay. It is not just regulations, it is legal, tax, and regulatory certainty that will empower investment by entrepreneurs and companies all over this great Nation. We don't just have to talk about regulations. Let's talk about trade for a minute. Right now, we have three trade agreements pending: the United States-South Korea Free Trade Agreement, the free-trade agreement with Panama, and another one with Colombia. These agreements have been pending since 2007. The benefit of these agreements, for example, is that they would generate more than $13 billion a year in economic activity for this country and create up to 250,000 American jobs. If we fail to act, we will lose on the order of 380,000 jobs to the European Union and Canada, which have already approved their trade agreements. Why aren't we dealing with those trade agreements now, when we have 14 million people out of work, when we have an economy we need to get going, and when we have huge deficits and debt, increasing at the rate of $4 billion a day? Well, the deadline on the debt limit is fast approaching. The time to act is now. The simple truth is this: We cannot continue to spend more, tax more, and regulate more. It is time to control our spending and create an environment that unleashes the entrepreneurial power and spirit of the American people. We can do it. In fact, we have done it before. We just need the will to act for ourselves today and for the benefit of future generations. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I thank my esteemed colleague, the senior Senator from Utah, for taking the lead on this balanced budget amendment. I am pleased to join him, pleased to be one of the original cosponsors, and I am extremely pleased every member of the Republican caucus--all 47 Senators are supporting this balanced budget amendment and doing everything we can to reach across the aisle and bring our Democratic colleagues with us and then to send this balanced budget amendment to a vote--to pass this balanced budget amendment by a two- thirds vote--and then send it out to the States for ratification. Three-fourths of the States would have to ratify it as well. I believe they will. What a great way for us to join together at the Federal and State level to make sure we live within our means, that we balanced our budget, that we do the things we need to do to not only get this economy back on track but to make sure future generations can enjoy the great country, the great opportunity we and those who have gone before us have enjoyed in the United States of America. We have that opportunity. We need to seize that opportunity by passing this balanced budget amendment. As the senior Senator from Utah correctly mentioned just a minute ago, I had the opportunity--the great honor and privilege--to serve my State as Governor. As a matter of fact, at the time I was elected to the Senate, last year, I was the longest serving Governor in the United States. I served for a decade. Every single year we balanced our budget. Madam President, 49 of the 50 States have some form of balanced budget requirements. The only one that does not is Vermont. Forty-nine States have that requirement. This year, so far, 46 of the States are expected to balance their budgets. Families balance their budgets. Businesses have to balance their budgets. Cities have to balance their budgets. States have to balance their budgets. The Federal Government needs to balance its budget. It is not doing that. When we look at the statistics--we have gone through them before, but these statistics we have to continue to talk about; our current situation is something we have to continue to talk about with the American people--right now, our revenues are $2.2 trillion. The annual revenues to the Federal Treasury, $2.2 trillion. Our expenses are $3.7 trillion. That is about a $1.5 trillion, 1.6 trillion deficit each and every year. When we roll that up, that is why we are now at $14.5 trillion in debt, and that debt continues to grow. But it is similar to any debt, as any family can tell us or any business can tell us or any State can tell us, that as we continue to accumulate and grow that deficit and accumulate that debt, it gets harder and harder to get on top of it. It is akin to having credit cards. As one continues to charge and add to that balance on the credit card, it gets more and more difficult to get on top of that debt and deficit and reduce it. So we have to get started. We have to get going. The task gets harder, not easier. That is what the balanced budget amendment is all about. We need the President to lead. When we talk about getting this debt under control, we need the President to lead. We cannot have a situation where we spend more and then simply borrow more or try to raise taxes to cover that spending. That is making it worse. We need this administration to join us. We need our colleagues to join us, to get a grip on this spending, to start by passing this balanced budget amendment. If we look back to the decade of the 1980s and then into the 1990s and we look at President Reagan and his approach and his leadership for this country, he came and said: We have the most dynamic economy in the history of the world, so we have to create an environment, a pro-jobs, pro-growth environment that stimulates job creation, that stimulates private investment, that puts people back to work, that gets this economy growing. As we get that economy growing, we have the resources then to do the things we need to do: to invest in infrastructure, to make sure we take care of those who need help, to make sure we have health care for our citizens. But at the same time--at the same time-- we need to control our spending and live within our means. That is the rising tide that lifts all boats. That is how we make sure everybody participates in the great opportunity that is the very foundation of this country. But to get back to that point, we need this balanced budget amendment. We need this fiscal discipline in Washington to make sure we continue to honor the legacy we have, the legacy we have been given, and that we continue to make this country the country of opportunity. I know we can do it. I thank the Senator from Utah for his leadership in this effort, and I thank my colleagues for joining together on this balanced budget amendment. I ask all our colleagues to join with us so we can pass it.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to my home State of North Dakota where we have terrible flooding occurring. We have flooding today on the Souris River and the community of Minot is now in the process of evacuating more than 11,000 people from their homes. In truth, we have had tremendous challenges with flooding all spring, throughout the State of North Dakota--the Red River Valley, Cheyenne River Valley, James River Valley around Devil's Lake, the Missouri River, Bismarck, Mandan area, up and down Missouri, all the points throughout western North Dakota and today it is in north central North Dakota. The Souris River is flooding, not only in the community of Minot but also in communities upstream to the north, small communities, counties, rural areas, and downstream as well, creating real hardship for citizens. Even as I speak, more than 11,000 people are leaving their homes in and around the community of Minot. The Minot community is something over 40,000 people, so somewhere between a third and a fourth of our citizens in that community and the region will be displaced from their homes and their businesses. Our thoughts and our prayers go out to all of them. At the same time we must do all we can to help them, both now at this time of need but also in the days coming as we go forward. Minot and the region have been in this flood fight for some time. In fact, together with the Corps of Engineers, with the National Guard, with local contractors, with the local officials, State support, the Federal agencies, the citizens have been fighting a battle against flooding for months this spring. They have built up their defenses. They have built levees along the river, the Souris River that flows through the Minot community and through the region. They built those levees up to an elevation of 1556. They built levees and dikes along the river. In addition, years ago the community in fact levied a sales tax on itself to help build dams in Canada, Rafferty Dam and Alameda Dam, to try to have permanent flood control in place. This is a community and this is a region of our State that has worked very hard, using its own local dollars along with State and Federal sources, to build permanent flood protection--dams in Canada, as well as levees along the river. Those defenses have stood for more than 30 years and protected the community and the region from flooding but this time they are not enough. As I say, the elevation is about 1556 on those levees along the river and it looks as though the crest will be 1563, 7 to maybe 10 feet higher than the levees provide defense. That means people have to leave their homes and their businesses and their property. Ironically, 3 weeks ago with the projections that we had at that time, roughly 10,000 to 11,000 people were forced to leave their homes at that time. But fortunately the crest came in lower than was projected and, with the work they were able to do on the levees, raising the levees yet again, they were able to keep the water within the banks of the Souris River so people were able to return to their homes and their property was not damaged. But unfortunately that is not the case now. Already the water is rising to the very tops of the levees and, as I say, the crest is projected to be well above those levees. The first priority must be to keep people safe, to protect lives and protect people. The mayor, Mayor Zimbelman, is working with local officials and our Governor, Governor Jack Dalrymple. The National Guard is there. On the order of 500 National Guardsmen are helping with this evacuation process. Local law enforcement, fire emergency responders, they are all engaged. We truly appreciate their help and their efforts. Minot Air Force base, a major Air Force base for our Nation, is located right near the community. I think there are on the order of 12,000 more people who live at that Air Force base. Some of the air men and women who are stationed at the base of course live in the community. Those men and women of the Air Force are helping the community. Minot Air Force base is providing a place for shelter for our citizens and providing help. I have spoken with the Air Force officials and we truly appreciate their help with manpower, with transportation, and with shelter. Also Minot State University, our local university, is providing shelter for people who need it in the community. We have the relief organizations there as well, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and others. Of course, in addition to all of that, we have citizens helping each other. That is truly the North Dakota way and they are doing a fine job. As a matter of fact, in the recent evacuation I mentioned several weeks ago, even though more than 10,000 people were evacuated, very few ended up staying in the shelters because friends and family, caring people in the community and in the region, provided a place for so many to stay. Of course, we know that will happen again as people open their homes to help others in a time of need. But clearly more help will be needed and help with recovery will be needed as well. That means Homeland Security, that means FEMA, that means the other Federal agencies as well. Many homes and many businesses will be flooded and those homes and businesses will be likely in floodwaters until into July. That assistance will be very much needed, very much required. That means programs such as public assistance and individual assistance through FEMA to help with public infrastructure that is damaged, to help individual homeowners with damage to their homes, will be necessary, along with flood insurance, SBA disaster assistance for businesses--because this flood is right through the very central part of the community so it affects not just homes and property but many businesses as well. Of course, it will affect public infrastructure. To that end, I am already meeting with the Director of FEMA Craig Fugate this afternoon. We must be committed to that process, to help all we can, both in this flood fight and in the ensuing recovery. It has been a real challenge this year. As you look around the country, look around our State, the flooding I described, not just here in Minot but throughout the State, and as you look around the country with flooding up and down the Missouri, up and down the Mississippi, and you look at the tornadoes and now look at fires occurring in the Southwest--this has been a tough year. It is a challenging year. So we need to pull together and we need to help each other. I know we will, because that is the American way. That is the way we have always done it and I know we will be there to help each other, to help our citizens in Minot, in the Minot region, throughout the State of North Dakota, but in other places around the country as well. As I say, that is the American way. We will prevail in this endeavor. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.