Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the distinguished former Southern University Director of Bands who passed on April 28, 2014, at the age of 85 in Baton Rouge, LA. Dr. Greggs was the third child born in Shreveport, LA on January 22, 1929 to Sarah and Isaac Greggs. Dr. Greggs was baptized in the Bethel Baptist Church in Frierson, LA and later joined the Mount Pilgrim Baptist Church in Baton Rouge. He was a visionary, who created and led the Southern University Marching Band, affectionately known as the Human Jukebox for 36 years. Dr. Greggs graduated from Central Colored High School in Shreveport, LA and at 15 years of age enrolled in Southern University and A & M College in Baton Rouge, LA. where he received a B.S. in music education. He received a M.S. in music education from Vander Cook College in Chicago, IL. Later, he entered the University of Peru to complete his doctorate degree in music. He was then drafted into the U.S. Army. His service in the Army was honored with and dedicated to playing in the Army band, 4th Division, 4th Infantry, APO 39, and to playing early morning reverie. While in Germany, he received the Occupational Medal. After his return from service in the U.S. Army, he began teaching at J. S. Clark Junior High School and Notre Dame High School in Shreveport, LA. He and his family later moved to Baton Rouge, LA where he taught and directed the band at the Southern University Laboratory School. During his tenure at Southern University, Dr. Greggs directed countless future band directors, musicians, and myriad of industry leaders outside of music. He attracted thousands of students to Southern, who were drawn as a result of his unmatched leadership and lyrical genius. Under his leadership, the Human Jukebox performed at six Super Bowls, four Sugar Bowls and three Presidential inaugurations. His grueling practices were well known throughout Louisiana and the discipline that Dr. Greggs instilled in his musicians produced exceptional results year end and year out. Dr. Greggs retired in 2005. With pride, the State of Louisiana honored Dr. Greggs in 2013 by inducting the legendary band leader into the Louisiana Black History Hall of Fame for his commitment to serving African American students for nearly four decades. He was also the recipient of the Key of Life Award at the 31st NAACP Image Awards; an award created in honor of Stevie Wonder and presented each year to a musician who embodies Wonder's ``inner vision.'' Dr. Isaac Greggs was a true inspiration to all that had the great privilege of knowing him. I am grateful and honored to have known him. He will be greatly missed. My deepest condolences go out to his wife of 58 years, Rose Audrey Metoyer Greggs; his children: Audree Greggs Vaughn (Percy), Colette Greggs, Dedrick Jon Greggs (Carla), and Mark Eric Greggs (Tricia); grandchildren: Kirsten Vaughn Watson (Benjamin), Kory Greggs Vaughn MD, Jamal Greggs Russell, Kyle Greggs Russell, Daniel Isaac Greggs and Casey Daniel Greggs; great-grandchildren Grace Makayla Watson, Naomi Love Watson, Isaiah Benjamin Watson and Judah Seth Watson, and a host of other relatives, family and friends. He was preceded in death by his parents: Sarah and Isaac Greggs, brother Edmond and sister Ellen Greggs. His legacy could not end without, ``It's gonna be alright; just make it right.'' It is with my heartfelt and greatest sincerity that I ask my colleagues to join me along with Dr. Isaac Gregg's family in recognizing the life and many accomplishments of this incredible musician, leader, and mentor, as well as his lasting impact throughout the Nation.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I am going to speak very briefly this afternoon about a very timely and important subject. My colleague and partner, Senator Hoeven, came to the floor earlier--I was unable to come at that time--to speak about a bill for which he has actually provided extraordinary leadership. I wish to thank the Presiding Officer, and Senator Hoeven for his leadership as well, to try to help bring to the floor of the Senate a vote to help construct the Keystone Pipeline. It is an issue a group of us have been working on now for quite some time. I wish to thank the Presiding Officer again. I wish to also thank the other Democratic leaders who have been so supportive and helpful to us in this effort: Senator Pryor from Arkansas, Senator McCaskill from Missouri, Senator Tester from Montana, who agreed to cosponsor the bill, Senator Warner from Virginia, Senator Hagan, Senator Begich, Senator Manchin, Senator Donnelly, and Senator Walsh. I really want to thank them and other colleagues who have decided they may not want to cosponsor the bill that will be introduced later tonight, but they very well may vote for it, and I appreciate it. I know this has been a very contentious issue for many, because people have very strong feelings about this particular pipeline called the Keystone XL Pipeline. Some of us who support it have a little trouble understanding why it is such a big deal, but I appreciate there are strong feelings on the other side of this issue. For those of us from States such as Louisiana and Texas and Oklahoma and North Dakota, particularly, that are affected by this pipeline, it is clear that the technology--and we should be proud of it--is extraordinary, it is exploding and, in some ways, unprecedented and unexpected. The technology is creating a real opportunity for America and for North America. That opportunity is for us to produce more oil and gas. The opportunity is to continue to maintain coal supplies that are clean and appropriate for the environment--or advanced coal technologies, I should say--and provide the kind of energy, including as well alternative energies that are emerging, such as wind and solar, and maintaining our nuclear and strategic advantage as part of our electric grid. It provides a real opportunity for us to go from a major country that was scrambling to plan where our energy was going to come from and really concerned about it--paying very high prices sometimes at the pump and through our electric grid--to now a country that gets to actually say, My gosh, look at the resources we have right here in America and the resources we potentially have with our partners and our allies. One of the strongest allies we have in the world is Canada, and an emerging ally--emerging in its relationship with us--is Mexico: The North American continent. I think there is so much potential for Canada, the United States, and Mexico--and others share my view--to become completely not only energy independent but an energy powerhouse for the world--a world in which the North American continent, at least, wants to promote freedom, democracy, and human rights. Senator Cardin was just on the floor talking about how important that issue is for our Nation and world. He has given literally his life as an expert on human rights around the world and is leading the Helsinki Commission. He was just talking with us about the importance of this and what is happening in Ukraine and in Russia and in Europe recently. So the issue of freedom and private enterprise and opportunity and education and energy self-sufficiency are goals we treasure and it is possible for the rest of the world and our allies around the world. But what signal does it send if America is not willing to do its part when it comes to production right here in America and transporting oil and natural gas and other emerging fuels--alternative fuels, alternative sources of electricity--when we are not doing our very best? I know it is contentious, but I come to the floor to talk about this issue. Senator Hoeven gave an excellent defense of why the Keystone Pipeline is important. But I want to underscore that in terms of jobs and the economy. I want to underscore the process. Because there are a lot of Democrats and others in my caucus--friends and colleagues--who have said: Well, has the process been complete? Has the process been thorough? I want to review for the record a couple of very interesting aspects. Before I start, I want to point out, again, this, shown on this map I have in the Chamber, is the Keystone XL Pipeline. There is already a ``Keystone Pipeline'' that has been constructed and has been operating for quite some time. This is an existing pipeline that is operating from Canada down to the refineries in Texas technically, but very close to the Louisiana border. We are very proud of our industry in Texas and Louisiana--the refining capacity we have, the ability to generate resources this country and the world need. Hopefully, if we can open exports appropriately--which is happening, as we speak. Permits are being issued. The jobs that are created here, the opportunity for creating jobs in every one of our 50 States, including Hawaii and Alaska, and in our territories and in our first nations, as they are called, in our tribal territories, is almost without peer in the last several decades. But this XL Pipeline is an alternative route, and it has been debated for quite some time. There have been these permits I am going to talk about in a minute that have been reviewed and will put that into the Record because there is some concern: Have we really reviewed what we need to do? Have the environmental studies been met? So into the Record I want to put: On April 16, 2010, the Department of State issued its Draft Environmental Impact Statement. It opened a 45-day comment period, which extended for additional days. Then, a year later, on April 15, 2011, the Department of State issued a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement and opened another 45-day comment period. At that time, there were 280,000 comments that were received. Those comments were read, responded to, and absorbed into the process. On August 26 of that year--2011--the Department of State issued its Final Environmental Impact Statement and opened an additional 90-day review period. The agency continued to accept public comments. Then, on March 1, 2013, the U.S. State Department issued its Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Presidential Permit application, which includes the proposed new route through Nebraska because there were some questions earlier in the process whether it should go through Nebraska. Let me say, as strongly as I support the Keystone Pipeline, I also support States--whether it is Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Nebraska, or North Dakota--to make determinations according to their own laws and their own constitutions about the takings of private property, which is sometimes required for projects such as this. Those processes cannot be shortchanged and they cannot be ignored. One of the court cases right now in Nebraska is because--the courts have ruled this--the Governor there overstepped his bounds and he, according to the court in Nebraska, took actions that were contrary to the law in Nebraska and the constitution. So these laws I am not dismissive of--the rules and regulations. Nebraska still has some issues that have to be resolved. But the rest of the pipeline to the south here has already been constructed. This part is being worked on. There are other parts of the pipeline that can be started while Nebraska finishes its very legitimate decisions between its courts, its public service commission, and its legislature about the issues in Nebraska--which, let me say, the landowners have valid concerns, and the courts have ruled so. But, nevertheless, on January 31, 2014--this year--the State Department issued its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the permit application, confirming that the project is safe and will have limited environmental impacts. The report reflects that TransCanada has agreed to incorporate 59 special safety conditions recommended by the pipeline safety commission. So to my colleagues who say: Have we given ample time to review, I would say the answer is clearly yes. Is it time to build the pipeline? Yes. And should we get about a vote on the Senate floor to express strong support for a piece of America's infrastructure--North American infrastructure that is critical to the future growth of our economy and to the promise of opportunity, economic opportunity for our citizens? I think the answer to that is yes. This group of Democrats--of which the Presiding Officer, Senator Warner from Virginia, is a part--has been working on this now for several years. One other point I would like to make: the comparison here of other pretty well-known and very large public works projects or private developments--some of them are public and some of them are private-- that have been constructed. The Hoover Dam--very well known--took 5 years to complete, from 1931 to 1936. From planning, design, to completion--5 years. The Pentagon took 2 years to complete, from 1941 to 1943. The Space Shuttle Discovery took 4 years to complete, from 1979 to 1983. The Ambassador Bridge between the United States and Canada--3 years to complete. Design, build, and complete--from 1927 to 1929. The Theodore Roosevelt--4 years to complete, from 1968 to 1972. America and Canada: Together we have been building major projects for many years--complicated, tough projects that require tremendous cooperation between agencies, and dealing with environmental protection rules and regulations, and meeting citizens' concerns. This is not anything new. We have been doing this in America for a long time. It is time to stop studying and stop waiting and start building this Keystone XL Pipeline. Now, again, the legislation we have introduced today--Senator Hoeven, Senator Landrieu, and 10 other Democrats, and several other Republicans--to build this pipeline would simply say it is time to stop studying; start building. With all due respect, the process is complete. We just acknowledged the process is done. We also acknowledge there is still an outstanding issue in Nebraska. Nothing in this bill will affect the court decisions, the timeframe in Nebraska. But what it will send is a signal that this other section can start to be built and constructed. And then, of course, Nebraska will take--we do not know. It could be 6 months, it could be a year. We do not know when that process will finally be resolved. But we can start now. It is going to take several years for this to be completed. If we wait another year, it is pushing this even further back for no good reason. Let me mention a third argument. I think some people are under the mistaken impression that this is maybe the first time we have built infrastructure with Canada. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There are 100 cross-border permits that have already been approved for oil and natural gas and electric transmission facilities crossing the U.S.-Mexico or the U.S.-Canadian border. Of these 100 are 21 oil pipelines crossing the border. So this is such a basic, important point of building infrastructure between Canada, America, and Mexico that some of us who support these kinds of things fairly routinely are having difficulty understanding why 5 years and five permits and five reviews is not satisfactory to build something that has been basically built multiple times before. Some people may say: Oh, but the difference is, this is connecting the oil sands. The oil sands in Canada are a very important resource, not just for Canada but for the United States. I am glad these oil sands are here as opposed to in Venezuela or I am glad the oil sands are here as opposed to in Cuba. I am glad the oil sands are here as opposed to in the middle of Russia with everything else they have. I am happy Canada has resources. I am happy. They are a friend and a neighbor and close to us. I am also really impressed with Canada's environmental standards, which are, by my calculations--not in depth, but just a broad review, after speaking to so many industry and government leaders there--very rigorous. I do not think there is anyone in this Chamber who would counter that. It is well known and understood that Canada has very high standards. They understand, accept climate change. They believe carbon is affecting the climate in a negative way. They believe they can reduce the amount of carbon coming out. They are sensitive to that. But they know what we know--that the world is going to need oil and gas for decades to come. It is not going to stop in 5 years or 10 years. We need oil and gas for decades. Why not use our own? Why not use the oil and gas from Canada, America, and Mexico--creating jobs right here at home, instead of importing it from places around the world that we do not even get along with or places around the world that do not share our values or places around the world that can use the price of oil or gas to hurt our economy. Why don't we take charge of our own economy? So when some people complain about the oil sands in Canada, I am, frankly, glad they are there. I am glad we can tap into them with extraordinary new, cleaner technologies to have oil and gas and energy for this country that has a very bright future. So with the reviews--five over 5 years--hundreds of thousands of comments from business, industry, citizens, environmental groups that have been taken into consideration, the Department of State has issued its final review, and that final review said it is safer and more environmentally in tune with our environmental rules and regulations to transport this oil through a pipeline than through rail or highway. For those of us who live in places that do a lot of production, we always say we are proud of the industry, and we are--the industry makes mistakes, and when they mess up, they have to clean up--but I also have to say, I am very conscious, as most Americans are, of the traffic on our highways, of the backups on our rail system. I hear complaints from businesses, manufacturers: We cannot get our products fast enough. So here we have a chance to move a commodity under the ground, safely through a pipe, but know if we do not build this pipeline, it is going to move by rail or truck, which congests our highways, congests our rail lines, and causes even more impact on our environment. I think the record is clear. I think the arguments are in. I think there is no question that this is right for the environment, right for the country, and clearly in the interests of the United States. This will benefit not just the gulf coast where the refineries are, but it is going to create jobs throughout our entire country. Suppliers to this project exist everywhere. There is a terrific map that I have shown before where suppliers from all over the country are providing either labor or support for the construction of this pipeline and much other similar infrastructure in the Nation. We already have 2.9 million miles of pipeline in America. This piece we are speaking about today is 1,000 miles. We already have 2.9 million miles of pipe. Yes, some of it needs to be upgraded. Yes, not every inch of it is safe. We are working on that. But this is probably going to be the safest pipeline ever built in the history of America. It has been reviewed so many times. I cannot wait to look at the details of what has been required. I am positive that it is going to be the safest pipeline ever built. It has taken 5 years to get it. So that is what our bill does. I am going to end with again thanking the Democrats who have joined with me to support the Keystone XL Pipeline. I thank the caucus for at least the opportunity. Hopefully, we will introduce this bill tonight. Hopefully, we can get a vote on this bill. Let me say that the vote will be in connection with the energy efficiency bill that will also be brought to the floor. The reason, as chair of the energy committee, I think that is so important is that while neither one represents a comprehensive energy plan for the country, which I hope to develop with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--I just stepped into this position in the last month-- these are two important energy-related pieces that need resolution. The energy efficiency bill has now been worked on by Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman--bipartisan--for 5 years, almost as long as the Keystone Pipeline has been under consideration by the administration. We have had an energy efficiency bill worked on by Republicans and Democrats that will create thousands of private sector jobs. It is supported by the Business Roundtable, the Real Estate Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce, labor leaders all over our country, building owners, and retail establishments. The energy efficiency bill is a terrific piece of legislation. Again, it came out of our committee 18 to 3. There are very few things that have come out of the energy committee that are that impactful. There are little bills that come out that really do not mean much to anybody. They may come out unanimously. It means a lot to the person who is sponsoring it, but it does not have national impact. This has national and international impact--all positive. Senator Shaheen has been a champion of trying to bring this bill to the floor. We have been rebuffed and rebuffed and rebuffed by the Republican side for no reason because some of them are wanting to debate health care and some of them want to debate Iran sanctions. I said: Let's just talk about energy. It is important for the country to focus at least a few hours of the Senate's attention on energy. America is focused on it. They want it to be affordable. They want it to be as clean as possible. They do not want to have to buy it from countries they do not share values with and do not appreciate. They want less imports to America, more domestic production of alternatives and oil and gas. So let's get about that business. So efficiency is basically doing a lot more--a lot more with a lot less--saving taxpayers and saving huge sums of money. The example that everyone is becoming more familiar with is the Empire State Building in New York, an extraordinary private sector effort to take one of our most iconic buildings that we all know and which many millions of Americans have actually visited, and to take an old building that was constructed in the 1930s, retooling it with private money--not public grants, private money--and saving the building owners and the tenants of that building millions and millions of dollars as an example of what can be done in commercial buildings throughout this country. That needs to be unleashed with the legislation of Jeanne Shaheen-- that power, that promise, to do more of that is going to be unleashed by this bill that Senator Portman and Senator Shaheen have carefully put together and Senator Wyden also when he was chair, with Senator Murkowski's help, and they got it out of the committee. I committed when I stepped into the leadership of the committee to build on their good work and to do my very best to get that bill to the floor. We have an energy bill with Keystone. I thought the two of them, working together, Republicans and Democrats, we could get a good compromise by working on both of them at the same time. We are capable of doing it. They are clearly broadly supported. It will help create jobs in America. We will begin with two important steps--not the only ones. There is more that can be done. People come to me and say: Senator, we should do this, we should do that. Yes, we can work on coal. We can work on propane. We had a hearing on propane today. We can work on additional rail for the country. We can work on pipeline safety. We can work on alternative fuels. We can work on strengthening our relationship with Israel and China. We can work on new kinds of automobiles. But that is for another day. We cannot do all of it at one time. But what we can do is what is before us. We can do what is before us. We can do what is clearly timely. The energy efficiency bill, for 5 years, has been waiting for action by this Senate. The House has already passed an energy efficiency bill. The pipeline has been waiting 5 years and has been reviewed five times. It is time to move forward on both and create the kinds of jobs for America that we need--high-paying, middle-class jobs--and to begin to help build America and North America as the energy powerhouse that it can be, doing it together. We can recognize the transport of oil and gas, and the production is important, but also alternative and focusing on efficiency and conservation, and many of our Democrats are very proud of the work in that area. I am sorry to keep the Senate. I think I might be the last speaker of the evening. But I thank the leadership for providing the time, and again, I want to thank Senator Hoeven for his leadership.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I am going to speak very briefly this afternoon about a very timely and important subject. My colleague and partner, Senator Hoeven, came to the floor earlier--I was unable to come at that time--to speak about a bill for which he has actually provided extraordinary leadership. I wish to thank the Presiding Officer, and Senator Hoeven for his leadership as well, to try to help bring to the floor of the Senate a vote to help construct the Keystone Pipeline. It is an issue a group of us have been working on now for quite some time. I wish to thank the Presiding Officer again. I wish to also thank the other Democratic leaders who have been so supportive and helpful to us in this effort: Senator Pryor from Arkansas, Senator McCaskill from Missouri, Senator Tester from Montana, who agreed to cosponsor the bill, Senator Warner from Virginia, Senator Hagan, Senator Begich, Senator Manchin, Senator Donnelly, and Senator Walsh. I really want to thank them and other colleagues who have decided they may not want to cosponsor the bill that will be introduced later tonight, but they very well may vote for it, and I appreciate it. I know this has been a very contentious issue for many, because people have very strong feelings about this particular pipeline called the Keystone XL Pipeline. Some of us who support it have a little trouble understanding why it is such a big deal, but I appreciate there are strong feelings on the other side of this issue. For those of us from States such as Louisiana and Texas and Oklahoma and North Dakota, particularly, that are affected by this pipeline, it is clear that the technology--and we should be proud of it--is extraordinary, it is exploding and, in some ways, unprecedented and unexpected. The technology is creating a real opportunity for America and for North America. That opportunity is for us to produce more oil and gas. The opportunity is to continue to maintain coal supplies that are clean and appropriate for the environment--or advanced coal technologies, I should say--and provide the kind of energy, including as well alternative energies that are emerging, such as wind and solar, and maintaining our nuclear and strategic advantage as part of our electric grid. It provides a real opportunity for us to go from a major country that was scrambling to plan where our energy was going to come from and really concerned about it--paying very high prices sometimes at the pump and through our electric grid--to now a country that gets to actually say, My gosh, look at the resources we have right here in America and the resources we potentially have with our partners and our allies. One of the strongest allies we have in the world is Canada, and an emerging ally--emerging in its relationship with us--is Mexico: The North American continent. I think there is so much potential for Canada, the United States, and Mexico--and others share my view--to become completely not only energy independent but an energy powerhouse for the world--a world in which the North American continent, at least, wants to promote freedom, democracy, and human rights. Senator Cardin was just on the floor talking about how important that issue is for our Nation and world. He has given literally his life as an expert on human rights around the world and is leading the Helsinki Commission. He was just talking with us about the importance of this and what is happening in Ukraine and in Russia and in Europe recently. So the issue of freedom and private enterprise and opportunity and education and energy self-sufficiency are goals we treasure and it is possible for the rest of the world and our allies around the world. But what signal does it send if America is not willing to do its part when it comes to production right here in America and transporting oil and natural gas and other emerging fuels--alternative fuels, alternative sources of electricity--when we are not doing our very best? I know it is contentious, but I come to the floor to talk about this issue. Senator Hoeven gave an excellent defense of why the Keystone Pipeline is important. But I want to underscore that in terms of jobs and the economy. I want to underscore the process. Because there are a lot of Democrats and others in my caucus--friends and colleagues--who have said: Well, has the process been complete? Has the process been thorough? I want to review for the record a couple of very interesting aspects. Before I start, I want to point out, again, this, shown on this map I have in the Chamber, is the Keystone XL Pipeline. There is already a ``Keystone Pipeline'' that has been constructed and has been operating for quite some time. This is an existing pipeline that is operating from Canada down to the refineries in Texas technically, but very close to the Louisiana border. We are very proud of our industry in Texas and Louisiana--the refining capacity we have, the ability to generate resources this country and the world need. Hopefully, if we can open exports appropriately--which is happening, as we speak. Permits are being issued. The jobs that are created here, the opportunity for creating jobs in every one of our 50 States, including Hawaii and Alaska, and in our territories and in our first nations, as they are called, in our tribal territories, is almost without peer in the last several decades. But this XL Pipeline is an alternative route, and it has been debated for quite some time. There have been these permits I am going to talk about in a minute that have been reviewed and will put that into the Record because there is some concern: Have we really reviewed what we need to do? Have the environmental studies been met? So into the Record I want to put: On April 16, 2010, the Department of State issued its Draft Environmental Impact Statement. It opened a 45-day comment period, which extended for additional days. Then, a year later, on April 15, 2011, the Department of State issued a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement and opened another 45-day comment period. At that time, there were 280,000 comments that were received. Those comments were read, responded to, and absorbed into the process. On August 26 of that year--2011--the Department of State issued its Final Environmental Impact Statement and opened an additional 90-day review period. The agency continued to accept public comments. Then, on March 1, 2013, the U.S. State Department issued its Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Presidential Permit application, which includes the proposed new route through Nebraska because there were some questions earlier in the process whether it should go through Nebraska. Let me say, as strongly as I support the Keystone Pipeline, I also support States--whether it is Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Nebraska, or North Dakota--to make determinations according to their own laws and their own constitutions about the takings of private property, which is sometimes required for projects such as this. Those processes cannot be shortchanged and they cannot be ignored. One of the court cases right now in Nebraska is because--the courts have ruled this--the Governor there overstepped his bounds and he, according to the court in Nebraska, took actions that were contrary to the law in Nebraska and the constitution. So these laws I am not dismissive of--the rules and regulations. Nebraska still has some issues that have to be resolved. But the rest of the pipeline to the south here has already been constructed. This part is being worked on. There are other parts of the pipeline that can be started while Nebraska finishes its very legitimate decisions between its courts, its public service commission, and its legislature about the issues in Nebraska--which, let me say, the landowners have valid concerns, and the courts have ruled so. But, nevertheless, on January 31, 2014--this year--the State Department issued its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the permit application, confirming that the project is safe and will have limited environmental impacts. The report reflects that TransCanada has agreed to incorporate 59 special safety conditions recommended by the pipeline safety commission. So to my colleagues who say: Have we given ample time to review, I would say the answer is clearly yes. Is it time to build the pipeline? Yes. And should we get about a vote on the Senate floor to express strong support for a piece of America's infrastructure--North American infrastructure that is critical to the future growth of our economy and to the promise of opportunity, economic opportunity for our citizens? I think the answer to that is yes. This group of Democrats--of which the Presiding Officer, Senator Warner from Virginia, is a part--has been working on this now for several years. One other point I would like to make: the comparison here of other pretty well-known and very large public works projects or private developments--some of them are public and some of them are private-- that have been constructed. The Hoover Dam--very well known--took 5 years to complete, from 1931 to 1936. From planning, design, to completion--5 years. The Pentagon took 2 years to complete, from 1941 to 1943. The Space Shuttle Discovery took 4 years to complete, from 1979 to 1983. The Ambassador Bridge between the United States and Canada--3 years to complete. Design, build, and complete--from 1927 to 1929. The Theodore Roosevelt--4 years to complete, from 1968 to 1972. America and Canada: Together we have been building major projects for many years--complicated, tough projects that require tremendous cooperation between agencies, and dealing with environmental protection rules and regulations, and meeting citizens' concerns. This is not anything new. We have been doing this in America for a long time. It is time to stop studying and stop waiting and start building this Keystone XL Pipeline. Now, again, the legislation we have introduced today--Senator Hoeven, Senator Landrieu, and 10 other Democrats, and several other Republicans--to build this pipeline would simply say it is time to stop studying; start building. With all due respect, the process is complete. We just acknowledged the process is done. We also acknowledge there is still an outstanding issue in Nebraska. Nothing in this bill will affect the court decisions, the timeframe in Nebraska. But what it will send is a signal that this other section can start to be built and constructed. And then, of course, Nebraska will take--we do not know. It could be 6 months, it could be a year. We do not know when that process will finally be resolved. But we can start now. It is going to take several years for this to be completed. If we wait another year, it is pushing this even further back for no good reason. Let me mention a third argument. I think some people are under the mistaken impression that this is maybe the first time we have built infrastructure with Canada. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There are 100 cross-border permits that have already been approved for oil and natural gas and electric transmission facilities crossing the U.S.-Mexico or the U.S.-Canadian border. Of these 100 are 21 oil pipelines crossing the border. So this is such a basic, important point of building infrastructure between Canada, America, and Mexico that some of us who support these kinds of things fairly routinely are having difficulty understanding why 5 years and five permits and five reviews is not satisfactory to build something that has been basically built multiple times before. Some people may say: Oh, but the difference is, this is connecting the oil sands. The oil sands in Canada are a very important resource, not just for Canada but for the United States. I am glad these oil sands are here as opposed to in Venezuela or I am glad the oil sands are here as opposed to in Cuba. I am glad the oil sands are here as opposed to in the middle of Russia with everything else they have. I am happy Canada has resources. I am happy. They are a friend and a neighbor and close to us. I am also really impressed with Canada's environmental standards, which are, by my calculations--not in depth, but just a broad review, after speaking to so many industry and government leaders there--very rigorous. I do not think there is anyone in this Chamber who would counter that. It is well known and understood that Canada has very high standards. They understand, accept climate change. They believe carbon is affecting the climate in a negative way. They believe they can reduce the amount of carbon coming out. They are sensitive to that. But they know what we know--that the world is going to need oil and gas for decades to come. It is not going to stop in 5 years or 10 years. We need oil and gas for decades. Why not use our own? Why not use the oil and gas from Canada, America, and Mexico--creating jobs right here at home, instead of importing it from places around the world that we do not even get along with or places around the world that do not share our values or places around the world that can use the price of oil or gas to hurt our economy. Why don't we take charge of our own economy? So when some people complain about the oil sands in Canada, I am, frankly, glad they are there. I am glad we can tap into them with extraordinary new, cleaner technologies to have oil and gas and energy for this country that has a very bright future. So with the reviews--five over 5 years--hundreds of thousands of comments from business, industry, citizens, environmental groups that have been taken into consideration, the Department of State has issued its final review, and that final review said it is safer and more environmentally in tune with our environmental rules and regulations to transport this oil through a pipeline than through rail or highway. For those of us who live in places that do a lot of production, we always say we are proud of the industry, and we are--the industry makes mistakes, and when they mess up, they have to clean up--but I also have to say, I am very conscious, as most Americans are, of the traffic on our highways, of the backups on our rail system. I hear complaints from businesses, manufacturers: We cannot get our products fast enough. So here we have a chance to move a commodity under the ground, safely through a pipe, but know if we do not build this pipeline, it is going to move by rail or truck, which congests our highways, congests our rail lines, and causes even more impact on our environment. I think the record is clear. I think the arguments are in. I think there is no question that this is right for the environment, right for the country, and clearly in the interests of the United States. This will benefit not just the gulf coast where the refineries are, but it is going to create jobs throughout our entire country. Suppliers to this project exist everywhere. There is a terrific map that I have shown before where suppliers from all over the country are providing either labor or support for the construction of this pipeline and much other similar infrastructure in the Nation. We already have 2.9 million miles of pipeline in America. This piece we are speaking about today is 1,000 miles. We already have 2.9 million miles of pipe. Yes, some of it needs to be upgraded. Yes, not every inch of it is safe. We are working on that. But this is probably going to be the safest pipeline ever built in the history of America. It has been reviewed so many times. I cannot wait to look at the details of what has been required. I am positive that it is going to be the safest pipeline ever built. It has taken 5 years to get it. So that is what our bill does. I am going to end with again thanking the Democrats who have joined with me to support the Keystone XL Pipeline. I thank the caucus for at least the opportunity. Hopefully, we will introduce this bill tonight. Hopefully, we can get a vote on this bill. Let me say that the vote will be in connection with the energy efficiency bill that will also be brought to the floor. The reason, as chair of the energy committee, I think that is so important is that while neither one represents a comprehensive energy plan for the country, which I hope to develop with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--I just stepped into this position in the last month-- these are two important energy-related pieces that need resolution. The energy efficiency bill has now been worked on by Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman--bipartisan--for 5 years, almost as long as the Keystone Pipeline has been under consideration by the administration. We have had an energy efficiency bill worked on by Republicans and Democrats that will create thousands of private sector jobs. It is supported by the Business Roundtable, the Real Estate Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce, labor leaders all over our country, building owners, and retail establishments. The energy efficiency bill is a terrific piece of legislation. Again, it came out of our committee 18 to 3. There are very few things that have come out of the energy committee that are that impactful. There are little bills that come out that really do not mean much to anybody. They may come out unanimously. It means a lot to the person who is sponsoring it, but it does not have national impact. This has national and international impact--all positive. Senator Shaheen has been a champion of trying to bring this bill to the floor. We have been rebuffed and rebuffed and rebuffed by the Republican side for no reason because some of them are wanting to debate health care and some of them want to debate Iran sanctions. I said: Let's just talk about energy. It is important for the country to focus at least a few hours of the Senate's attention on energy. America is focused on it. They want it to be affordable. They want it to be as clean as possible. They do not want to have to buy it from countries they do not share values with and do not appreciate. They want less imports to America, more domestic production of alternatives and oil and gas. So let's get about that business. So efficiency is basically doing a lot more--a lot more with a lot less--saving taxpayers and saving huge sums of money. The example that everyone is becoming more familiar with is the Empire State Building in New York, an extraordinary private sector effort to take one of our most iconic buildings that we all know and which many millions of Americans have actually visited, and to take an old building that was constructed in the 1930s, retooling it with private money--not public grants, private money--and saving the building owners and the tenants of that building millions and millions of dollars as an example of what can be done in commercial buildings throughout this country. That needs to be unleashed with the legislation of Jeanne Shaheen-- that power, that promise, to do more of that is going to be unleashed by this bill that Senator Portman and Senator Shaheen have carefully put together and Senator Wyden also when he was chair, with Senator Murkowski's help, and they got it out of the committee. I committed when I stepped into the leadership of the committee to build on their good work and to do my very best to get that bill to the floor. We have an energy bill with Keystone. I thought the two of them, working together, Republicans and Democrats, we could get a good compromise by working on both of them at the same time. We are capable of doing it. They are clearly broadly supported. It will help create jobs in America. We will begin with two important steps--not the only ones. There is more that can be done. People come to me and say: Senator, we should do this, we should do that. Yes, we can work on coal. We can work on propane. We had a hearing on propane today. We can work on additional rail for the country. We can work on pipeline safety. We can work on alternative fuels. We can work on strengthening our relationship with Israel and China. We can work on new kinds of automobiles. But that is for another day. We cannot do all of it at one time. But what we can do is what is before us. We can do what is before us. We can do what is clearly timely. The energy efficiency bill, for 5 years, has been waiting for action by this Senate. The House has already passed an energy efficiency bill. The pipeline has been waiting 5 years and has been reviewed five times. It is time to move forward on both and create the kinds of jobs for America that we need--high-paying, middle-class jobs--and to begin to help build America and North America as the energy powerhouse that it can be, doing it together. We can recognize the transport of oil and gas, and the production is important, but also alternative and focusing on efficiency and conservation, and many of our Democrats are very proud of the work in that area. I am sorry to keep the Senate. I think I might be the last speaker of the evening. But I thank the leadership for providing the time, and again, I want to thank Senator Hoeven for his leadership.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, May 1, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is, Short on Gas: A look into the propane shortages this winter. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by email to John_Assini@energy .senate.gov. For further information, please contact, Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905, or John Assini (202) 224-9313.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I think we are prepared to have several unanimous consent requests regarding the issue of how to care for veterans in our country. I first want to begin by thanking Senator Sanders for his extraordinary leadership on the issue of caring for and supporting veterans, their families, their dependents, and the communities in which veterans live. There has been no stronger voice on the Senate floor for veterans on either side of the aisle than Senator Sanders, and I appreciate his leadership. He has been spending a great deal of time on the floor explaining the importance of his legislation. He has joined me today to talk further about it. Inside of this very important and major piece of legislation, there is a piece of it that passed the House unanimously that would authorize the construction of 27 major medical facility leases in 18 States and in Puerto Rico, two of which would be in Louisiana--one in Lafayette and one in Lake Charles. I have been leading the effort--contrary to the testimony put on the Record by the junior Senator from Louisiana-- with Congressman Boustany, whose district this is in, and he has been the leader of our delegation. There is no hesitation among our delegation about who the leader has been about getting these clinics built. We have been working with the veterans office for years. We got them to admit that they actually made the mistake that caused our clinics to have to be delayed in their construction because of a mishap of great proportion in the way these contracts were bid. The veterans in our State--and Senator Sanders knows this--have rightly been complaining for years that they have been left out and left behind. Our entire delegation, Democrats and Republicans, has been fighting on their behalf vigorously. We have written letters, made phone calls, and made multiple visits to the region. Contrary to the testimony by the junior Senator from Louisiana, the fact is everybody has been working well together. Congressman Boustany got to pass this piece of legislation out of the House that basically says: Yes, let's go forward and build these clinics and not require an offset. I ask unanimous consent right now to do just that and take the House bill that has passed with no amendments, no modifications, and pass this bill so it doesn't have to go back to the House. It can go right to the President's desk for signature. It costs $1.8 billion, and there is no offset. As I have said, in my view--and this is only my view--the veterans this is going to help have already paid the price. They have already paid the price. They should not have to pay twice. I agree with the House of Representatives. There doesn't need to be an offset to this. I don't agree with Senator Vitter's amendment that there needs to be an offset. I think we just need to go ahead and unanimously decide to send this to the President's desk for his signature. I am confident he would sign this, and it would authorize these clinics not only in Louisiana but in the States around the country. I understand there is some opposition from outside of our State. I don't understand any opposition from within the State. I ask unanimous consent the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3521, the bill read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Would the Senator yield for a question? Is that an order?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I understand that the House of Representatives passed this bill, H.R. 3521--and I will get the exact vote in a minute--with a vote of 346 to 1. They passed this bill, H.R. 3521, with a vote of 346 to 1, that has no offset. Does the Senator from Utah have any reason to know why Senator Coburn would now require an offset since the bill and the politics is controlled by the Republican leadership in the House?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, that is very good to know that Senator Coburn is objecting--or not objecting--to an offset that is not a real offset. The reason there is some objection from our side, and I think from Senator Sanders as well, is because the Vitter offset is not real. It doesn't generate $1.6 billion in savings. So I think we should go forward with no offset because the $1.6 billion is not a real offset. The CBO analysis of this offset basically says, from our preliminary estimate of the amendment, based on information from the Department of Defense, there are no savings--there are no savings--for drug-related purchases to the current law. The preliminary estimate is zero. With that, I wish to reiterate my unanimous consent request--please don't interrupt--I would like unanimous consent for my amendment, which has no offset--and the bill does not have to go back to the House of Representatives. The bill can go straight to the President's desk. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I regret having missed the April 7, 2014 vote on passage of H.R. 3979, as amended, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2014. Had I been present, I would have voted for the passage of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2014 to support the 16,000 Louisianians awaiting the extension provided by this legislation.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, April 10, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The title of this oversight hearing is ``Keeping the Lights On--Are We Doing Enough to Ensure the Reliability and Security of the U.S. Electric Grid?'' Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to dan_adamson@energy.senate.gov, or kristen_granier@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Dan Adamson at (202) 224- 2871, Kristen Granier at (202) 224-1219, or Afton Zaunbrecher at (202) 224-5479.

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I came to the floor today with the intention of asking unanimous consent to pass H.R. 3521, which we have heard a lot about on the floor lately between Senator Vitter and Senator Sanders. This bill would authorize the construction of 27 veterans clinics--2 of them in our State, Louisiana, 1 in Lake Charles and 1 in Lafayette. It is a long and sad story about why these clinics have not been built. I will get into that in a minute. As you can see, Texas, California, Florida, Georgia, and other States are affected. I know the Senators from those States support what we are trying to do. Yesterday or the day before, my colleague came to the floor to call me ``ineffective.'' I would like to say that I was a little bit shocked to hear that. I have been called many things on the floor of this Senate--hardheaded, stubborn, tenacious, the Senator who never quits. I have never been called ineffective, so it was a little bit shocking. What I can say is that I think I have spent 18 years on the floor of the Senate and here working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle and developing very strong friendships, very good relationships and trusting friendships that I think have accrued in large measure in a very beneficial way to the State I represent and to the region of the country I am also so proud to represent, the gulf coast. Maybe my colleague was having a bad day. I am going to let it go, but it was a little shocking to hear that word. Back to the issue. The issue is quite serious. The issue is that we have had a process of building veterans clinics in this country a certain way for a very long time. About 3 years ago CBO kind of out of the blue decided to change the scoring mechanism--instead of the way we were doing it through a leasing process, change the scoring system to cause the budget problem, the constraints in the budget to not allow us to move forward with the construction of these veterans facilities. But added to that change, what is really happening in Louisiana and why this is such an important issue for us is that we were scheduled to build our two clinics and had waited in line patiently for many years. Our clinics were getting ready to be built in Lafayette and Lake Charles, which are a very important part of our outreach to the tens of thousands of veterans in our State. The Veterans' Administration itself made a very serious mistake, which they have admitted in writing, verbally. General Shinseki has been down to our State to visit these sites, to talk with many of us in Louisiana about how unfortunate it was that mistakes in the bidding process were made--not by us, not by the State, not by the locals, but by the Federal Government. Because of these mistakes, our process of building these clinics was delayed. That is why House Member Boustany--a wonderful colleague and a dear friend and a great leader--has been leading the effort. These are basically in his district. He and I have been working very closely to try to bring to the attention of the leadership here the fact that they made the mistake, not us. We should not have to pay the penalty because of that. Then, in the midst of that fight, this new scoring mechanism came down. Now we cannot get out from underneath either the offset required or the new process required to get our clinics built. It has nothing to do with need--we are at the top of that list. We have the need. We have the veterans. We have the commitment of the Federal Government to get these built. All of our delegation has been working very closely to try to get these clinics built. I am happy to say that I am here today--as I have always been on this issue--supporting it and will ask in just a minute--I wanted to ask but will not ask in just a minute--for unanimous consent to build these clinics without an offset, just as the House bill passed. It is a $1.6 billion charge. It would move without an offset. That is what the House voted on. It was a huge vote, 346 votes, Republicans and Democrats. I think when we have a vote like that, we need to really pay attention over here. They voted to build these clinics at a cost of $1.6 billion without an offset. That is what I am going to ask for. Senator Coburn will object. He has let me know he will object. Unfortunately, because of personal reasons, he is unable to be here today. So out of respect for the process of the Senate and out of courtesy, I will not be asking for that unanimous consent now, but I will be asking for it early next week. Just to be clear, it will be a unanimous consent to build these 27 clinics based on the House vote without this bill going back to the House, going straight to the President's desk for signature by the President. The offset the Senator from Louisiana offered is a bogus offset. We have a letter from CBO that I would like to read into the Record. The junior Senator from Louisiana offered his offset to supposedly raise the $1.6 billion that will pay for this. This is from the CBO analysis. It says: Based on preliminary estimates of the amendment offered by Senator Vitter, based on the information of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs and their current practices and joint purchases of prescription drugs, I do not estimate any savings for drug purchases relative to current law. My preliminary estimate of the amendment would be a minimal discretionary cost of less than $500,000. There is no money to be saved by the amendment offered by Senator Vitter, so I would be offering the bill to build these clinics with no offset, and that is what the House passed. It will go directly to the President's desk, and we will resolve the problem for these States. Then we will finally figure out a way to get back on track building clinics that we need and figure out a way to pay for these clinics in the future, but these clinics got stuck in kind of a technical bureaucratic mess in the recalculation. Ours, in particular, were caught because they should have been built in the 2 years before this new scoring process came to be, which is why Louisiana is having a particularly difficult time. But as the record will show, our entire delegation has supported this effort. I honor the leadership of Congressman Boustany from the House, who has literally worked on this tirelessly for 6 years. I thank the House delegation for sending this bill over. I will not require an offset. The offset Senator Vitter offered is bogus. As soon as Senator Coburn can get back, which will be early next week, I will be offering this unanimous consent. Unfortunately, I understand he will object to it because he believes we should find a way to pay for it. There might be other objections as well, but I am looking forward to the debate with Senator Coburn next week. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the oversight hearing scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will now be held before the Subcommittee on Water and Power. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 16, 2014, at 1 p.m., at the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii, Manoa Campus, in Honolulu, Hawaii. The purpose of the hearing is to examine the successes and challenges of meeting sustainability goals in Hawaii and the Pacific, including oversight of existing activities and Federal-Island partnerships in energy, water, land use, marine resources, and other sectors. For further information, please contact Al Stayman at (202) 224-7865 or John Assini at (202) 224-9313.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a business meeting has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The business meeting will be held on Thursday, March 27, 2014, at 9:45 a.m., in room, SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Building. The purpose of the business meeting is to resume consideration of the following nominations: Rhea S. Suh, to be the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks; and Janice M. Schneider, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Land and Minerals Management. The Committee previously met to consider the two nominations on February 13, 2014, but the meeting was adjourned in the absence of a quorum. In addition, the Committee will be asked to approve new subcommittee assignments, appointing Senator Wyden to subcommittee assignments previously held by Senator Landrieu. Because of the limited time available for the business meeting, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to Sam_Fowler@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Sallie Den at (202) 224-6836.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 25, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The Committee will conduct a hearing entitled ``Importing Energy, Exporting Jobs. Can It Be Reversed?'' Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to todd_wooten@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Todd Wooten at (202) 224- 3907, Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905, or John Assini at (202) 224- 9313.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I realize the Senator is trying to move through this very important bill on the floor, which I fully support and thank him for the amendment. Does the Senator know what the action of the Senate will be once this bill is completed? And is the intention to do final passage of this bill today?

Ms. LANDRIEU. So final passage could potentially be--is it the Senator's understanding through the Chair--about 3 or so?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I wish to speak on this for 2 minutes now, because I know people are anxious to vote on final passage of this important bill, and I will speak at length after the vote. I just wish to say thank you to the two leaders who are on the floor, Senator Menendez from New Jersey, Senator Johnny Isakson from Georgia. They were the team who brought the coalition together when it was very hard--and still is difficult--to build a coalition on any subject. This subject is complicated. It is difficult. There are very strong feelings on all sides. There are different parts of the country that look at this in different ways, and there are debts that need to be paid attached to this program. So this was not an easy negotiation, and the leaders both did an extraordinary job keeping us on track. No. 2, this compromise--and that is what it represents--the best of the compromise was, in fact, debated at length on this Senate floor; it was debated at length in the House of Representatives; and it was voted on 67 to 32 in the Senate favorably and 306 to 91 in the House favorably. The minority view--represented by the Senator from Utah, which would throw this bill into a conference committee right now--is not what the American people want, and it is not what the majority of Republicans or the majority of Democrats want, as demonstrated by the vote I just put into the Record. We could all take this bill and rewrite sections of it that would work better for our home State, but that is not what this place is about. This place is not about perfection. It is about the art of the possible, and it is about listening to our constituents and responding to them when they have a great need. In the State of Louisiana, I have 400,000 people who are afraid they will lose their homes. For many of these families, that is the greatest asset they have, and they are close to losing it. They don't want us to go to the conference committee and perfect this bill. They want us to pass it today, right now, and that is what I think we are going to do. I know the Senator from Utah is disappointed. He may know the masters of the universe, but I am still looking for them. I could use a lot more wisdom and strength. If they are around here, I would like them to present themselves. All we have right now is each other--human beings trying to do the very best we can with a difficult circumstance. It may not be a perfect bill, but the concept of this bill got 67 votes in the Senate and 306 votes in the House. We have passed it in record time, given the pace around here. I am very proud. I see the Senator from Florida. I know he would like to say a word.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield and turn the floor over to the leader, Senator Menendez. I believe the time will be yielded back.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, when Hurricane Betsy roared ashore in Grand Isle on September 9, 1965, it wrought havoc in Louisiana and Mississippi and became the first natural disaster to cost American taxpayers more than $1 billion. It fundamentally changed the way our nation prepared for and responded to disasters. Private insurers fled the market, making it necessary for the federal government to step in and help communities rebuild and recover. The National Flood Insurance Program established building standards for flood prone areas to limit communities' exposure to flooding and rewarded responsible homeowners with affordable flood insurance that was no longer available in the private market. In response, Congress, led by Hale Boggs, passed the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 with the explicit goal of making ``. . . flood insurance available on reasonable terms and conditions . . .'' Affordability was one of the primary goals of the National Flood Insurance Program when it was created, and it remains an essential priority today. Unfortunately, affordability was virtually eliminated by the 2012 NFIP reform legislation known as Biggert-Waters, and we had to fight to get it reinstated in the compromise bill that cleared the House last Wednesday, March 5 with a strong, bipartisan vote of 306-91. On January 16, Speaker Boehner flatly refused to consider comprehensive flood insurance reform legislation in the House, telling an AP reporter bluntly: ``We're not going to do that.'' The decisive 67-32 Senate vote to pass the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act on January 30 demonstrated the breadth and depth of our coalition and provided the necessary momentum for House leadership to get engaged and support this strategy. Senior leaders of both parties worked closely with Rep. Maxine Waters, Rep. Cedric Richmond, Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Rep. Michael Grimm to reach a fair, bipartisan, bicamercal compromise that can get to the President's desk, and we owe it to our constituents to act as soon as possible with an up or down vote. The National Flood Insurance Program is one of the earliest examples of large scale community planning in America. It made community based mitigation a requirement for rebuilding. In order to be eligible for federally subsidized, low-cost flood insurance, communities had to pass ordinances restricting future development in floodplains. Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Wildlife Federation and others would have you believe that NFIP encourages development in flood plains, but the reality is that it does the exact opposite. By removing affordability from the core of the National Flood Insurance Program, Biggert-Waters put every policyholder on the path to Full Risk Rates whatever they may be. Speaking in support of the compromise bill, Steve Scalise, my colleague from Louisiana and Chair of the conservative Republican Study Committee, explained the problem clearly and directly saying: ``Sending somebody a $10,000 or a $20,000-a-year bill on a $200,000 house that never flooded is not an actuarially sound rate. It's a death sentence.'' Whether it takes 2 years or 20 years to get there, full risk rates of $20,000 or more will continue to freeze the housing market, depress property values, and prevent responsible homeowners from purchasing flood insurance. Program participation is already anemic with just over half--60 percent--of those required by law to have flood insurance in compliance and even less market penetration in low-risk areas where we want people to purchase voluntary flood insurance policies to grow and diversify the risk pool. The Senate bill delayed the worst rate increases until FEMA completed the affordability study and proposed an affordability framework to protect people from impossibly high premiums. This indiscriminate march to Full Risk Rates is further complicated by a fundamentally flawed mapping process that wipes local levees off the maps and excludes impacted communities from the mapping process. At my request last summer, David Miller, Association Administrator for the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration--the man in charge of the National Flood Insurance Program, stood on top of a $450 million levee in Lafourche Parish that was completely wiped off the map when FEMA released their new flood map in 2008. Their map remains under appeal to this day. The parish was one of 25 sites nationally included in the pilot program for FEMA's new Levee Analysis and Mapping Procedures, LAMP, that were designed to fix this problem, but that process only began last summer and has a long way to go before it is ready for prime time. The Senate bill delayed rate increases based on new flood maps until FEMA certified that their maps were accurate and reliable. Whereas the Senate sought to delay the worst parts of Biggert-Waters until maps were accurate and the affordability study was complete, the House took a different approach by repealing these provisions and replacing them with other annual fees and rate increases. We had a healthy discussion and debate about our two approaches and eventually arrived at a compromise we could all live with that will protect people from the most aggressive rate hikes included in Biggert-Waters. I commend Rep. Waters and Rep. Richmond for the leadership in reinstating affordability as an essential element of this program. Since Representative Cantor unveiled his bill on February 21, we successfully amended it to include an 18 percent annual cap on individual premium increases and an overall affordability target of 1 percent of the value of the policy. While I would have preferred lower annual premium increases and stricter standards on overall affordability, this bill is a decent compromise that will address the most pernicious pieces of Biggert- Waters and attract the bipartisan support necessary to get it to the President's desk. This is another important step in our ongoing efforts to provide affordable, accessible and sustainable flood insurance to middle class Americans, but this bill is not the end of the battle. Nothing is perfect. Nothing is permanent. After nearly 2 years of arduous work and steadfast determination by a broad coalition of individuals, business groups and community leaders, the most pernicious provisions and draconian rate increases of Biggert- Waters have successfully been stopped and affordability has been returned as the centerpiece of the National Flood Insurance Program. The passionate debate we had during the last 2 years--one that will continue--has shown that affordable flood insurance is about more than just actuarial numbers on a page. It is about protecting our unique culture, our treasured way of life, and preserving the historic coastal communities that built this nation and continue to drive its economy today. As Chair of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Committee, I will hold FEMA accountable for implementing this bill in a timely and transparent manner that provides homeowners and housing markets with the immediate relief they need to recover from these draconian rate hikes. Over the course of the past week, we were able to improve the original Cantor bill by removing onerous and unnecessary bureaucratic provisions, but I am not confident that FEMA will execute this either efficiently or effectively. The great coalition of home builders, realtors, bankers, insurance agents, mayors, local governments and individual homeowners that fought to make flood insurance reform a national priority must remain vigilant and engaged. The National Flood Insurance Program expires in 2017, and we will need to include strict affordability language to protect responsible homeowners from impossible premiums. The compromise bill that passed the House last week with a vote of 306-91 has the support of the coalition that helped secure the strong 67-32 vote in the Senate earlier this year. Some of the key industry groups behind the bill are: Greater New Orleans Inc--GNO Inc, National Association of Realtors, National Home Builders Association, National Association of Counties--NACo, National League of Cities, American Bankers Association, Independent Community Bankers of America, and the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America--Big ``I''. Biggert-Waters was built backwards and upside down. It authorized immediate rate increases on responsible homeowners without any understanding of how they would impact individual policyholders or the program at large and before FEMA was able to certify that their maps are accurate and reliable. Lafourche Parish has been appealing their new map since 2008 because FEMA cannot figure out how to give them credit for local levees, including an 8-16 foot, 40 mile ring levee that was authorized by Congress in 1965--the Larose to Golden Meadow Hurricane Protection Project. To date, $450 million has been invested in this project, including $200 million from the Federal government. This past summer, FEMA began a pilot program that is supposed to solve the problem, but it will be another 2-3 years before that process is complete. FEMA needs to get their flood maps right the first time. Currently, only 60 percent of the homeowners and businesses that are REQUIRED to have flood insurance actually do, and the aggressive rate increases authorized under Biggert-Waters threaten to make that problem a whole lot worse. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that every 10 percent increase in premiums leads to a 3 percent drop in overall program participation. Katherine in Houma, LA cannot sell her home because a pernicious provision in Biggert-Waters that immediately increases premiums hundreds or thousands of dollars when you sell your house. When the young couple that was trying to buy her house went to closing, they learned that the flood insurance would go from $1,400 to $8,000 and could no longer afford the house. Katherine is stuck with a house she cannot sell and insurance she cannot afford. Biggert-Waters threatens the very foundation of home ownership, the cornerstone of the American Dream. Fixing this flawed legislation is about protecting people's homes and equity and preserving the American dream that if you work hard and play by the rules you can have a secure future. Our bill structures NFIP in an affordable, comprehensive and sustainable way. For decades, the program was sustainable until the 2005 storm season resulted in an unprecedented $17 billion in claims. Prior to that, it had an annual average deficit of just $19 million per year. This is not just a Louisiana or coastal issue. Fifty-five percent of our nation's population lives within 50 miles of the coast--and that doesn't include those living along inland waterways. Ten percent of the homes in the United States have a one-in-four chance of flooding in the lifetime of their mortgage. In 2010, the 15 percent of U.S. counties that are located directly on open ocean, the Great Lakes, major estuaries or coastal flood plains contributed $8.3 trillion--55 percent--to the Nation's Gross Domestic Product, and these communities proved more resilient during the 2007 recession, actually growing employment by 1.4 percent while the national employment rate fell by 2.3 percent. This is not about millionaires in mansions on the beach. This is about middle class Americans who need affordable flood insurance so they can live where they need to work to harvest fresh seafood, produce domestic energy, and manufacture and transport the goods we need to maintain America's competitive advantage in the 21st century. In response to all the concern I have heard from my constituents, I launched ``My Home, My Story'' to show you, literally, show some of the people and properties facing these rate increases that we are aiming to help. These aren't mansions, these aren't millionaires. These are middle class, working people living in normal, middle class houses doing their best to raise their kids, contribute to their communities and make a living. I received over a hundred pictures and stories from my constituents. Cody put his home on the market for less than its value and still couldn't sell it because of the high premium on his flood insurance. Rachel lives in a 1,000 square foot elevated home with no central air or heat, one small bathroom, a quaint front porch and a beautiful sycamore tree. Three months after moving in, her flood insurance increased by $750 per year, and she's is struggling to make payments. Maggie is a 66-year-old woman who has lived in the same house since 1974 and plans to stay there for the remainder of her life. She lives on a very strict budget and just received her first Social Security payment. If the law is not changed, it will be impossible for her to stay in her home or sell her home. It provides basic consumer protections to responsible homeowners who built to code and played by the rules are struggling to stay in the NFIP. It protects home equity. In St. Charles Parish, LA, the Assessor is reducing home values up to 30 percent because of the dramatic rate hikes that take effect overnight when a person goes to sell their home. Based on the average mortgage, every $1,000 increase in annual flood insurance premiums reduces an individual's purchasing power by $20,000. This provision affects 20 percent of all NFIP policyholders--1.1 million properties nationwide. It ensures FEMA Flood Maps are Accurate. In 2011, FEMA acknowledged the failings of its ``without levees'' policy that resulted in local levees being literally wiped off the map, but it took them over two years to develop a new policy--the Levee Analysis and Mapping Procedures, LAMP. A pilot program for 25 sites nationwide--including 5 in Louisiana--Lafourche, Terrebonne, St. Charles, Plaquemines and St. Tammany--began in July, but it will be another 2-3 years before that process will be complete. It allows FEMA to Complete the Affordability Study. FEMA must complete the affordability study mandated by Biggert-Waters and propose solutions for Congressional review. Our bill creates an expedited process for Congress to take action on these recommendations while maintaining critical checks and balances on FEMA's authority. Provides Fair Credit for Local Levees--Removes the penalty on locally-financed flood protection projects and ensures that local and state investments in mitigation are accurately factored into the flood mapping process. I thank the following Senate cosponsors for all their hard work throughout this process: Robert Menendez, Johnny Isakson, Mary L. Landrieu, Thad Cochran, Jeff Merkley, David Vitter, John Hoeven, Tim Scott, Roger Wicker, Heidi Heitkamp, Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Ed Markey, Bill Nelson, Mark Begich, Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Joe Manchin, Robert Casey, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Kay Hagan, Lindsey Graham, Brian Schatz, Richard Blumenthal, Jack Reed, Sheldon Whitehouse, Lisa Murkowski, Ron Wyden, Susan Collins and Debbie Stabenow. This bill does not incentivize unsustainable development--In order to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program, communities have to adopt national building codes governing new development in flood prone areas. Our bill provides basic consumer protections to homeowners that build to code and played by the rules. It does not alter or amend any rules governing new construction. The National Flood Insurance Program is one of the earliest examples of federal land use planning. It does not put American Taxpayers on the hook for a small sub-set of NFIP policyholders. Prior to Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, NFIP was basically self-sustaining with an average annual deficit under $20 million over that 26-year span. The $24 billion debt incurred as a result of 2005 and 2008 storm seasons was the driving force behind the rate reforms in Biggert-Waters which required NFIP policyholders, not American taxpayers, to pay down that debt and establish a reserve fund for future catastrophic events. Our bill does not change that, it merely gives responsible policyholders a little more time to adjust to the higher premiums they have to pay as a result of Biggert-Waters. FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate estimates that the NFIP saves taxpayers $1.6 billion every year in avoided flood losses and disaster response costs due to the national building codes each participating community and policyholder were required to adopt and adhere to. I would also like to thank the following staff members for their hard work throughout this process: Jason Tuber, Kirby Mayo, Karissa Willhite and Tim Del Monico in Senator Menendez' office; Zack Rosenblum and Meghan Tiara in Senator Schumer's office; Joan Kirchner in Senator Isakson's office; Adam Telle in Senator Cochran's office; Travis Johnson in Senator Vitter's office; Claire O'Rourke, Liz Craddock, Matt Lehner and Wes Kungel in my office; Lisa Lederberger in Maxine Waters' office; Zach Butterworth in Cedric Richmond's office; Dill Dauster and Alex McDunah in Senator Reid's office and all of the exceptional floor staff. On behalf of myself, the Senate cosponsors, and the entire flood insurance reform coalition, thank you.