John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I appreciate the hard work of the Senator from Nebraska on this subject, as well as the Senator from North Dakota, and he has fashioned a solution which I think does give us an opportunity as a Congress to assert our role under the Constitution, under the commerce clause of the Constitution, to move this project forward, notwithstanding the opposition, really of one person--the President of the United States, who is the person right now who is standing in the way of this. I would again say to my colleague from North Dakota, as we wrap up here, I hear people say this needs to be studied further; that we need to do more analysis. It is sort of mind-boggling to think after more than 1,200 days of study, analysis, review, and scrutiny that people would come to that conclusion. The Keystone XL Pipeline I, which the Senator from North Dakota is well acquainted with because it goes through his State and he was involved in negotiating that project, took 693 days in the process of getting approved. What is interesting to me about this particular project is that after 1,200 days--longer than any of the pipelines of this magnitude--the extended review and more than 10,000 pages of environmental analysis concluded-- concluded--the pipeline will not adversely impact the environment. When the announcement was made to deny the construction of the pipeline, the State Department still had 5 weeks to review it if they had chosen to use it. Clearly, the announcement wasn't based on policy but on political expediency, which is what the Senator from Nebraska pointed out. There is a tremendous amount of resource in my colleague's State--the State of North Dakota--that could benefit as well. I think the State of North Dakota has the potential to generate somewhere on the order of 500,000 barrels of oil, about 100,000 of which, I am told, could be moved through this pipeline if it is approved. It seems to me at least, again, that here is a resource, an energy reserve in our country, in my colleague's State, that could benefit people in this country. By the way, in 2011, Americans spent more on gasoline than any other year since 1981. And reports indicate that 2012 could be even worse. So when we look at the economic impact on Americans, from our not having our oil and energy being produced in this country, it is a very real impact. In fact, since the President has taken office, gas prices have gone from $1.84 a gallon to over $3.30 a gallon, and this pipeline could be part of that solution. I want to end with a quote made by the State Department in their review of the pipeline. The Department of Energy, I should say, but it was part of the State Department's review. The Department of Energy noted: Gasoline prices in all markets served by East Coast and Gulf Coast refineries would decrease, including the Midwest. That is coming from the State Department's review, the Department of Energy, that gasoline prices in all markets served by east coast and gulf coast refineries would decrease. That is a pretty remarkable economic impact, not to mention all the jobs that would be associated with the construction, and once it is operational the jobs that would be created in refining this oil. So again it is a win-win, as we heard from the Senator from Nebraska, who said that initially their State had some concerns about the route, but that has been all resolved so this project can move forward. The legislation of the Senator from North Dakota, which I am proud to support and cosponsor, I hope gets a vote in the Senate, and I know the Senator is going to do everything he can to advance it--I hope he does--and I look forward to working with him.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, President Obama has said that every morning when he gets up, he thinks about what he can do to create jobs. Yet just in the last couple weeks, he turned thumbs down on a project that would create 20,000 shovel-ready jobs, the Keystone XL Pipeline, which is a project that is teed up and ready to go. It would invest $7 billion initially and create 20,000 jobs immediately. It will address a very important issue for this country--energy. We talk about getting away from the dependence on foreign sources of energy and becoming more energy independent, and we have an opportunity to do that and, at the same time, create economic opportunity in this country and get people back to work. It is a mystery as to why the administration and the President would not find this particular project to be in America's national interest. It comes down to whether we are going to continue to import the oil, the energy we need, from unfriendly nations--we get about 700,000 barrels a day from Venezuela--or whether we will get that oil from a friendly neighbor such as Canada. When we look at that juxtaposition, that comparison, and ask should we get that 700,000 barrels of oil from Hugo Chavez or from Canada, most Americans would say it makes more sense to do business with our friendly ally to the north. Also, we would have that come down into this country in a 1,700-mile pipeline, which would transport that oil to refineries in the United States, where it would be refined and create jobs there as well. In almost all respects, as we look at the project and the attributes that come with it, they are job creation, investment, energy security, not to mention the State and local tax revenue, which is something that is important to a lot of people whom I represent in South Dakota. In fact, I had someone from western South Dakota in my office last week, and he said: We care about the energy security issue, the jobs issue, and all that, but we need the tax revenue for our school districts and county governments that would be generated. So we have all these positive benefits associated with this particular project. Yet after having studied it for 3 years, about 1,200 days, and having done multiple environmental impact statements-- the last one concluded in August of last year--lo and behold, the President decides he is not going to move forward with this project. We think that is terribly unfortunate, not in the national interest. We believe it is in the national interest to move forward to address the important energy security needs, as well as the needs for job creation and economic growth. Two of my colleagues, former Governors, now Senators from Nebraska and North Dakota, are people who are well acquainted with these types of projects. The Governor from North Dakota was very involved when the first Keystone Pipeline that was built from Canada through North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and points south. That project went through a permitting process. It was a couple years in the making and it was approved. The construction process was concluded and it is now operational. That is an example of how this particular project can work. This pipeline would cross the State of the Senator from Nebraska. There were concerns about whether it had the right route in order for this to be done in the best environmental way. Those issues have been addressed. The Nebraska legislature met in special session, and they and the Governor came up with an alternative idea about how to do this. They have been supportive of moving forward with this project as well. The question before the House is if the President of the United States determines this is not in the national interest, notwithstanding the support of lots of Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and I think overwhelming support of the States through which this line would traverse and the labor unions which represent a lot of people who are involved. Many editorial pages support this, including the Chicago Tribune, which said: Obama's decision will cost the U.S. jobs. . . . He seems to think those jobs will still be there when he gets around to making decision on the pipeline. But they may well be gone for good. They go further and say his decision ``will deny the U.S. a reliable source of oil.'' They recognize the importance of this project and doing business with a friendly country, the importance of energy independence, and the fact that if we don't benefit from this, it will go somewhere else. They have made it abundantly clear this is not something--if the United States turns it down--they will continue to wait around for until sometime in the future when we might consider it. They will go somewhere else--probably China--with it. For those reasons, we believe we need to do everything we can do to move this project forward. My colleagues came up with legislation that recognizes the role of the Congress under the commerce clause and our ability to approve this project. I hope we will get an opportunity to discuss and debate this issue in the Senate and get a vote and perhaps get a vote as well in the House of Representatives, where Congress could weigh in and perhaps change the President's mind about this important project. I am glad to be with my colleagues today. I will yield to the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Nebraska, two great leaders on this particular issue and all issues relating to energy security. They understand the history of this, as well as its importance to America's future. I ask the Senator from North Dakota if he would like to give us an insight about the first Keystone Pipeline, built through his State a few years ago, the history of that, and the history of how this particular project was put forward as well and why we think it ought to go forward.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, with that, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues from North Dakota and Nebraska.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1477.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this amendment would make it easier for small business to better access capital in order to expand and create jobs. On November 3, 2011, the House of Representatives passed a companion measure, which was introduced by Representative Kevin McCarthy, on a near unanimous vote of 413 to 11; 175 Democrats in the House supported this legislation. We have an opportunity here to show the American people that we are serious about creating jobs and to pass this amendment here in the Senate. This amendment would remove a regulatory roadblock in order to make it easier for small businesses to access needed capital to expand and create jobs. Current SEC registration exemption rules severely hamper the ability of small businesses to raise capital by allowing them to raise capital only from investors with whom they have a preexisting relationship. By modernizing this rule, small businesses and startups would be able to more easily raise capital from accredited investors nationwide. According to the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council: This is a long overdue solution that will widen the pool of potential funders for entrepreneurs. Our economy will improve once entrepreneurs are provided the tools, opportunities and incentives that they need to hire and invest. Earlier this month, the SEC Small Business Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies recommended that the agency ``relax or modify'' the general solicitation prohibition as a good policy to increase the amount of capital available to small businesses. In his State of the Union Address last week, President Obama called on Congress to pass legislation that will help startups and small businesses access capital in order to expand and create jobs. The President said: Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses. So let's pass an agenda that helps them succeed. Tear down regulations that prevent entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. Both parties agree on these ideas. So put them in a bill and get it on my desk this year. This is exactly what this amendment will do. And it has support from investors and entrepreneurs alike. When you have unemployment hovering around 9 percent, we need to pass legislation that will enable our job creators to expand and create jobs. As I said, this legislation received overwhelming bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. I hope we can do the same here in the Senate by passing this amendment. We all talk about the importance of making it easier, making it less costly, less difficult for our small businesses and entrepreneurs to get access to capital so they can create jobs and get the economy growing again. So many times these are contentious, they are controversial differences of opinion about how best to do that. We fight over regulations, we fight over taxes. This is something where there is broad bipartisan support, almost unanimous support in the House of Representatives, a vote of 413 to 11 in support of this legislation when it was voted on in the House of Representatives. We have an opportunity to do something that is very straightforward, that is broadly supported by both Democrats and Republicans--at least it was in the House of Representatives--that the President has suggested we ought to be working on, looking for these types of approaches to freeing up access to capital for our small businesses. You have the folks out there in the business community overwhelmingly supportive of doing away with the regulatory barrier, the regulatory obstacle this particular regulation represents in terms of access to capital for our small businesses. It seems like one of those issues on which there should be no disagreement. I hope that will be the case. I hope we can get a vote on this amendment, get this put into law and put into effect so our small businesses and our entrepreneurs in this country can do what they do best; that is, create jobs. They have to have access to capital in order to do that. This makes that process easier. It does away with some of these unnecessary regulations and roadblocks and barriers that exist today. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to, similar to all my colleagues, express our sympathy and support and prayers for our colleague, Senator Kirk. Senator Kirk is someone who is new to the Senate but served for a good number of years in the House of Representatives and has already made a tremendous impact in coming to the Senate--incredibly smart, hard-working, thoughtful, knowledgeable on so many different subjects. So obviously we will miss his presence in the near term but hope and pray for a full, quick, complete recovery and hope to have him back with us soon. I know I speak for many of my colleagues, but I certainly wish to express my and my family's prayers and support for Senator Kirk and for his family as he tries to get back on his feet. We wish him all the best as he does that and hope he will return soon and be able to get involved in many of the issues he was involved with and has been involved with since he has come to the Senate. The Budget If he were here, I think he would be very involved in the debates we are going to be having in the coming days about the budget. Today marks the 1,000th day since we have actually acted on a budget in the United States. That is something many people here who are interested in fiscal policy are very concerned about. Senator Kirk is one of those. I consider myself to be one of those. We have a lot of people in the Senate who are very concerned about where we are as a nation, about the amount of spending, the amount of debt we have racked up and continue to pile up on an annual basis. It all starts with a budget. We spend $3.6 trillion of the American people's money on an annual basis. Yet we have not had a budget in the Senate for 1,000 days, literally now for 3 years, essentially, since the Senate last passed a budget. We cannot continue with a straight face to go to the American people and say we are being good stewards of their tax dollars when, in fact, we don't even go through the exercise annually of determining and prioritizing how we are going to spend their hard-earned tax dollars. This is something that cries out for reform. My colleague Senator Isakson, who just spoke, has some proposals for budget reform that I think we ought to take up and we ought to vote on in the Senate. I have some ideas about budget reform. There is so much we need to do to change the budget process in the Congress because we have failed to pass a budget resolution, not just for the past 1,000 days but also for 5 of the last 7 election years, and we have only completed all the annual appropriations bills on time in 4 of the last 34 years. We clearly have a problem. I don't think there is anybody here who can't say this system is broken and needs to be fixed. It strikes me, at least, that as we went through the 2012 budget process, we failed again to complete the appropriations work on time, and so we had to go through this annual exercise of doing a nearly $1 trillion omnibus spending bill at the eleventh hour yet again. During the past 3 years, we have consistently had record deficits of $1.3 trillion or more. Clearly, what we have in place is not working, and the American people are the ones who are paying the price for that because the debt per person is now over $48,700. That is an increase of nearly $14,000 on an individual basis since President Obama took office. If we think about it on a per household basis, it represents $126,000 per American family, per household that is their share of our Federal debt. That is a massive amount of money we pile onto people in this country. If we add in the unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare, which exceed $40 trillion, then we start talking about over $\1/2\ million in liability for every family in this country. The national debt is now more than $15 trillion, which is literally over 100 percent of our gross domestic product. To put that into perspective, 1 year ago, Greece was at 143 percent. We are not far behind. We are now 1 to 1, 100 percent debt to GDP. We are seeing the effect of high levels of sovereign debt on the economies of European countries such as Greece, and if we fail to get spending in our country on a sustainable path, we are going to face a similar crisis in the not-too-distant future. If we continue to see an economy that is struggling and growing at a very slow rate, we cannot grow that economy by making the Federal Government larger. If that is the case, the $1 trillion stimulus bill that passed in 2009 would have brought unemployment down. But, as we know, the unemployment rate in this country is still at 8.5 percent. So we have to unleash the economy. We need to cut spending in Washington, DC. We have to make the Federal Government smaller, not larger, and get Federal spending as a percentage of our gross domestic product, as a percentage of our entire economy, back to more of a historical average. Today, the spending as a percentage of our GDP is about 25 percent. If we go over the last 40 years of American history, the average has been 20 to 21 percent. Ironically, there have only been five times since 1969 where the budget has actually been balanced. In those cases where the budget was balanced, spending as a percentage of GDP was 18.7 percent, on average. So it can be done. But we have to get spending back to a more historic and reasonable level relative to our entire economy. The debt to GDP, as I mentioned earlier, is also historic because we haven't seen debt-to-GDP levels such as this literally since the end of World War II. We would have to go back over half a century to find a time when we were carrying debt to GDP that was literally 1 to 1, where the amount of debt we have in this country is 100 percent of our entire economic output in a given year. That is a staggering number and one that should make us all very concerned about our future if we don't take steps to correct it. I think that point was driven home by the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, who has said in testifying before congressional committees that the greatest threat to America's national security is our national debt. Think about that. He didn't say the Iranian nuclear program. He didn't say China. He didn't say North Korea. He didn't say al-Qaida. He said the greatest threat to America's national security is our national debt--that coming from the person who used to be the highest ranking military official in this country. I think that speaks volumes about what we need to be focused on and why it is so important we start getting our budgetary, our fiscal house in order and why it is so important, frankly, that we pass a budget. One thousand days without a budget, and we spend $3.6 trillion every single year of the American people's money. I think, again, in order to get our fiscal house in order, in order to get our economy back on track, we have to cut spending. We have to reduce the amount we spend. That means we have to take on some of the big challenges before us, such as entitlement reform. We all know about three-fifths of all Federal spending is what we call mandatory spending, and that represents programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that are not annually appropriated for by Congress but are a function of the law. If a person is eligible for a particular program they are going to get a benefit under that program. That type of spending in our budget represents about three- fifths of all Federal spending. If we add interest on the debt, which is also mandatory spending, we get up to about 65 cents out of every dollar spent right now is mandatory spending. If we have programs such as Medicaid growing at three times the rate of inflation, and Medicare growing at two times the rate of inflation, it is pretty clear that is not sustainable over time. We have to figure out a way to get these programs where they are not growing at 12 percent a year or 8 percent a year--closer to the rate of inflation. That means we have to reform these programs if they are going to be sustainable and if they are going to be there for future generations of Americans. That can be done without impacting the benefits that people who are on those programs today receive and those who are nearing retirement age receive. There is a real concern, there is a lot of hot political rhetoric about Republicans just want to cut benefits for seniors across this country. I think most of my colleagues know there have been several proposals put forward that would address the long-term challenges we face with regard to Medicare and Medicaid and for that matter Social Security, all of which would not impact people who are retired today nor those who are nearing retirement age but simply put in place some reforms that would impact younger Americans who, today, are working hard, putting money into these programs, but if we do not take steps to fix these programs they are not going to be around when those people retire. Entitlement reform is so important in terms of getting Federal spending under control. That is why, notwithstanding the fact it is an election year, I hope there will be the political will in the Congress and with the President. Frankly, it is going to take Presidential leadership to do these types of things. We cannot do big things, we cannot conquer big challenges and big problems in this country absent Presidential leadership. There are 535 Members of Congress and there is only one President, one person who can sign a bill into law, one person who can engage the Congress and work toward a solution to some of these big problems. So far this President has demonstrated no willingness to take on the challenges we face with regard to our budget. It was demonstrated last year when he submitted his budget. It was ultimately voted on in the Senate, voted down by a vote of 97 to 0. I think that tells us they have not been serious about taking on the major drivers of Federal spending in this country. With regard to the other part of the budget, the discretionary part, we saw spending increase in that part of our budget by about 24 percent between 2008 and 2010. It literally grew at about 8 to 10 times the rate of inflation. So we need to get that side of our spending under control as well. Many of us supported legislative efforts that would roll back discretionary spending to 2008 levels to get us back into a place where we can defend the things we are doing to the American people at a time when they are seeing their family budgets shrink, that they are seeing their personal assets shrink, and many of them are having a very hard time finding work. Cutting spending, reducing spending, reforming entitlement programs, getting our fiscal house in order, is just essential, absolutely essential if we want to put our country on a path and a track that will prevent us from heading for the train wreck that many of our allies, many of the countries in Europe, are facing right now simply because they made promises to their people they just could not keep. We have to get our spending under control in this country and rein it in or that is our future. I hope for the sake of our children and grandchildren in this country we are willing to make the hard political decisions that will enable that to happen. The second thing we have to do if we are going to get out of this sort of morass we are in right now, in addition to reducing spending, is we have to get the economy growing again. We have to expand this economy, grow this economy. It has been said the rising tide lifts all the boats. We need to get a tide that starts lifting all Americans. Instead of talking about how we are going to redistribute the pie, we need to make the pie bigger. The way we do that is to grow and expand the economy. If we start growing and expanding the economy we will get more Americans back to work, more people making money, more people investing. When more people are working, there are more people paying taxes and that gets revenue going up and that makes these other issues manageable. But we have to have economic growth and we have to have policies in place that promote economic growth. Regrettably, the policies of the current administration have had the opposite effect. They have made it more difficult, more expensive to create jobs in this country. We need to put policies in place that will make it less expensive, less difficult to create jobs, and that will encourage people and provide the kind of economic certainty that gets people to invest their money, to put their capital to work, and to get Americans back to work in this country. I think there are several things, obviously, that need to be done. No. 1, of course, is to reform the Tax Code. In my view, right now that is a roadblock, if you will, an obstacle, an impediment to economic growth. We are not competitive in the world marketplace because of our tax policies. What we need today is a clear, fair, simple tax code that does away with a lot of the special interest loopholes that exist today, one that broadens the tax base in this country but at the same time one that lowers rates so that businesses want to invest in America as opposed to moving their headquarters and taking their jobs overseas. We want to encourage investment. That means we have to reform our Tax Code and, as I said, we have to do away with a lot of the Tax Code that is riddled with loopholes. We have to do away with those loopholes and get our tax rates down to where they are competitive with countries around the world that are stealing business from us and taking jobs overseas. Tax reform is, in my view, an essential element of an economic growth strategy that will get us on a path where the economy is growing and expanding and we are creating jobs in this country. That is going to take Presidential leadership just as entitlement reform is going to take Presidential leadership. We cannot do big things in this country absent Presidential leadership. This is another area where we have not seen that from this President. I hope he will engage the Congress--again, notwithstanding the fact that this is an election year--in a debate and perhaps more than a debate, a solution to the problems in the Tax Code in this country that will get us on a competitive footing and make us more competitive in the world marketplace. The President is going to have to be involved in that debate or it is not going to happen, particularly in a political year. We also have to get our arms around these overreaching, excessive regulations that are strangling small businesses in this country. I cannot tell you how many times, when I travel my State of South Dakota or anyplace else for that matter, that I hear from small businesses that the No. 1 obstacle right now to us creating jobs is this massive amount of regulation coming out of Washington, DC. In fact, there have literally been thousands and thousands of pages of new regulations that have been promulgated and issued since this President took office. They affect every sector of our economy. The one we hear about the most probably is the EPA, but we have the Department of Labor, we have other agencies of government that are constantly putting forward new regulations which make it more difficult, more complicated to get people in this country back to work. Just as a point of fact, regarding a recent set of regulations proposed by the Department of Labor--by the way, there was no complaint about this that there was no consultation with the people who would be impacted by this--there was really no reason we can come up with for why these regulations were put forward. But the Department of Labor, in their infinite wisdom, decided they knew better about how to run a farming operation or a ranching operation in this country, better than the people who are involved in those endeavors, and they have basically put forward some regulations that would put all kinds of new restrictions on young people working in family farming or ranching operations--incredibly prescriptive regulations, I might add, detailed regulations that are going to change the culture and the economic fabric of ranching and farming in this country more than anything we have seen before. Anybody who has been around a farming operation or enterprise in my part of the country realizes they are inherently family operations. Young people are involved in those operations. When the Department of Labor comes out and says young people cannot operate certain types of equipment or young people cannot work with farm animals that are older than 6 months or cannot be at an elevation that is any more than 6 feet, it is a complete contradiction to the way that work gets done in rural parts of this country. But that is what we have. We have a massive amount of new regulation coming out of the Department of Labor that will forever change the way farming operations are carried out and the way work gets done on a family farm. That is the kind of thing I am talking about. It is overreaching. It is excessive. It goes beyond the pale in terms of what we need by way of regulation in this country. We need smart regulation. There are public health and safety reasons why we need that. But this kind of overreaching and excessive regulation is making it that much more difficult for people to get jobs in this country. The final thing I will mention in regard to an economic agenda that I think will create jobs is the issue of energy security. We need an energy policy in this country that promotes domestic production, that recognizes that we have enormous amounts of resources at home, that we should not have to continue to import a lot of our energy from outside the United States. The Keystone Pipeline, which was just recently vetoed by the administration--turned down--is an example of that. It was studied 3 years extensively by many agencies of the government. At the EPA there were serious environmental impact statements done. They all cleared, they all teed this up to be done, and just this last week the President said: No, it is not in the national interest. I, and I think a lot of people on both sides in the Senate, would argue this is in the national interest. It is a lot better for us to get 700,000 barrels of oil a day from a friendly neighbor such as Canada as opposed to a country such as Venezuela. We can continue to buy oil from Hugo Chavez or we can get the same, the equivalent amount of oil from a friendly neighbor such as Canada, bring it into this country where it is refined and creates jobs, puts people back to work, puts capital to work in this country, and gets investment in the United States. Instead, we are going to see that energy source go in the other direction. It is going to Asia, it is going to go to China, if we are not able to get projects like this approved. Interestingly enough, there was a pipeline just like this that was built a few years ago, and it goes right through the eastern part of my State and other States. This pipeline would go through the western part of my State of South Dakota as well as other States, but it would bring much of that energy resource into this country, create jobs, and help create economic growth in America as opposed to sending that energy overseas and making us even more dependent upon foreign sources of energy at home. It makes absolutely no sense. If the President of the United States is serious in his rhetoric about focusing every morning on creating jobs, one would think the first thing he would want to do is support projects that create shovel- ready jobs, in this case 20,000 shovel-ready jobs and an investment of $7 billion, and bring energy into this country that will make us more energy independent. That is absolutely right in the wheelhouse of what we ought to be looking for in terms of getting this country's economy back on track. Yet last week the President turned thumbs down on this proposal. I would say again, in closing, in my view, if we are going to get our country back on track, we have to get our fiscal house in order, which means we have to reduce spending, get our spending as a percentage of our entire economy back into a form of historical norm of revenues. As I said, for the past 40 years that has been 18 percent of our economy. Today we are spending 25 percent, and we are on a trajectory such that not too far from now we are spending our entire economy on the Federal Government, not to mention State and local control. We have to get policies in place that will promote long-term economic growth and reverse the decline we have seen, the massive amount of debt we racked up over the past 3 years, and the huge job losses we have seen at the same time. If we can do that, we will at least be doing the people's work in terms of trying to address the major problems I think face most Americans and the things they are most concerned about every single day. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I think there are a few things that many people across the country, and, hopefully, in the Congress, agree upon. One is that we need to focus like a laser on creating jobs. That is something I think there is universal agreement on here. I also think there is universal agreement that we ought to become more energy independent as a nation. We need to look for ways in which our country can lessen that dangerous dependence we have on foreign sources of energy. We import a good amount of our oil from other places around the world--some of them not so friendly regimes. That is why it is such a mystery as to why the Keystone XL Pipeline project is running into such resistance from the administration. It is ironic in many respects because we had the President of the United States, several months ago, saying: We are going to have to import some oil; and when it comes to the oil we import from other nations, obviously, we've got to look at neighbors like Canada and Mexico that are stable, steady, and reliable sources. That is what the President said earlier this year, that if we are going to get energy, if we are going to import oil, we ought to import it from countries that are friendly to the United States. I argue there is no country more friendly to the United States than Canada, with whom we have a very robust trading relationship. We do about $640 billion of bilateral trade annually with our Canadian neighbors. So thinking that we might be able to get oil from Canada, as opposed to from Venezuela or somewhere in the Middle East, seems like a good option for this country--a good option that policymakers here ought to be very supportive of. That, again, makes it an even greater mystery as to why the administration has insisted on blocking or even making a decision about whether we can develop a project called the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would take advantage of those oil resources available in Canada and bring them into the United States, transport them through a pipeline that is 1,700 miles long to refineries where that product can be refined, and people here could benefit from it or it could be sold perhaps somewhere else. Nevertheless, it would benefit the economy. Both in the initial stages when the project is under construction, as well as later on, it will create lots of jobs. In my State of South Dakota--the pipeline would come through South Dakota as it makes its way down to the refineries, and we would benefit from hundreds of jobs that would be created and $\1/2\ billion in economic activity will be created alone in South Dakota. That is during the construction phase, not to mention all the State and local tax revenue that would benefit many of the local governments across my State and other States through which the pipeline would traverse. It is increasingly a mystery--I don't know how else to describe it--a curiosity or something--to those of us who see the great benefit in getting our oil resources from a friendly country like Canada as to why this administration would be so opposed even to issuing a decision on permitting this pipeline project that would enable that oil to come from Canada through to refineries in this country. The other issue on which there is universal agreement is that we ought to put policies in place that create jobs. There is no greater shovel-ready project than the Keystone XL Pipeline. It would have an immediate impact of 20,000 jobs that will be created immediately--a $7 billion initial investment and billions more over the years as this project continues to be utilized. Furthermore, I argue that it will create other opportunities for energy project development. Certainly, the Bakken oil find in North Dakota would stand to benefit from having a pipeline this accessible to it. It creates all kinds of spinoffs and other types of economic activity that would be good for jobs. We will have something that lessens our dependence upon foreign sources of energy by about 700,000 barrels of oil a day, creates hundreds of thousands of jobs, and enhances the ability of State and local governments to collect revenues, which they desperately need for their own purposes and needs. Yet here we are looking at this project-- or at least a decision on it--being blocked by this administration for no apparent reason other than politics, I argue. We are heading into a political year, and the President is running for reelection next year. I think it is clear that the delay on a decision on this project for 18 months was clearly designed to get past the Presidential election so the President would not have to make a decision that splits his political base. We have the labor groups that are for it and the environmental groups that are opposed to it. I guess it must be a political decision for this administration to delay this project. It doesn't make sense for America and American workers. The President says he gets up every day and he thinks about what he can do to create jobs. Well, here are 20,000 immediate jobs that we can benefit from right away--not to mention the many jobs that would come if this project was built. As we look at the legislation sent to us from the House of Representatives, it includes this Keystone XL Pipeline language that would allow a decision to be made 60 days from its enactment. So we could accelerate at least the period in which this decision could be made. Why is that important? Because this project is going to go on one way or the other. If it is not built in this country, it will be shipped somewhere else around the world--perhaps China or another country--and the American workers and the American economy will suffer, and the American need that we have for energy will not be met. We are not going to benefit or be advantaged by not having this project here or if it goes someplace else. That makes absolutely no sense for our economy, no sense for jobs and for many States that are in support of this project. I hope as this debate gets underway on the proposal sent from the House of Representatives, the sticking point, the thing that hangs it up is not the Keystone XL Pipeline. People will probably have honest disagreements about various provisions in the legislation being sent to us from the House, but one thing that should not delay or in any way detour this from being considered in the Senate is resistance or objections to a final decision being made on the Keystone XL Pipeline. I want to read a few things for you that have been said by some of the folks across this country who think this is a good idea. Many represent working people--the labor unions. The Teamsters said: The Keystone Pipeline project will offer working men and women a real chance to earn a good wage and support their families in this difficult economic climate. The AFL-CIO said: For America's skilled craft construction professionals, any discussion of the Keystone XL project begins and ends with one word: Jobs. Look at what has been said by the Brotherhood of Electrical Workers: At a time when jobs are the top global priority, the Keystone project will put thousands back to work and have ripple benefits throughout the North American economy. Our members look forward to being part of this historic project and pledge to deliver the highest quality work to make it a success. That is what some of the labor leaders are saying. I want to read what some key Democrats in Congress have said about this. These are a few excerpts from Democratic Members of Congress: America truly cannot afford to say ``no'' to this privately funded, $20 billion jobs-creating infrastructure project, which could bolster our economic, energy, and national security. To that end, we respectfully urge you to ensure that the Presidential permit is issued for Keystone XL. Here is another quote: Mr. President, America needs the Keystone XL pipeline. It is in our national interest to have a permit issued for Keystone XL as soon as possible. The Department of State's final environmental impact statement reaffirmed the findings of the two previous environmental impact statements; namely, that the pipeline will have no significant impact on the environment. So we have a project that has been OK'ed by the environmental agencies in this country, the people who look at the environmental impacts, who have said this project is ready to go. We have labor organizations that are waiting and are saying this is important to getting people back to work. We have Democrats in Congress who have said this is a project that we should be for. In fact, there was a vote on this language in a freestanding bill in the House recently. There were 47 Democrats who came out in support of the Keystone XL Pipeline legislation. So we have 47 Democrats on record.

Mr. THUNE. I appreciate the question and comments of the Senator from North Dakota. I couldn't agree more with the sentiments he expressed. I do believe we have in front of us something for which there is a lot of bipartisan support--an extension of unemployment insurance benefits, with some reforms, a payroll tax cut extension, a fix for the physician reimbursements under Medicare, and a number of other things that have been put into this with an eye toward not only addressing what are some very serious concerns--many of these things expire at the end of the year--but also something that would really create jobs, that has a jobs component to it that would do something positive for our economy. I hope that we can find a way to come together and that this does not become a deterrent to the legislation that is going to be before us in the not too distant future--the proposal that came to us from the House of Representatives. I certainly hope that doesn't unravel as a result of the Keystone XL Pipeline language being included because I recognize--as the Senator from North Dakota has expressed, and many of his colleagues on his side, along with many of my colleagues on our side--the value of what this could do for jobs, what this could do for our economy, and what this could do for America's energy needs. This will enable us to do business with a friendly partner to the north-- Canada--as opposed to continuing to import oil from other countries around the world with which we do not have that kind of a friendly and stable relationship. I would hope the President would make a decision not to get in the way or assert pressure on Members on his side to vote against this simply because it includes this particular provision. It is good for America, it is good for the States that are impacted, and many of the local governments would benefit. It is certainly good for jobs and the economy, as has been voiced by the various labor unions across this country that represent working Americans. With 700,000 barrels of oil coming to America from Canada, we would be creating economic activity and jobs versus 700,000 barrels of oil going someplace else around the world and some other country benefitting and our becoming even more dependent on foreign sources of energy. So, Madam President, again, I don't know what to say. This is a no- brainer, and so I hope the Senate will find its way before we adjourn for the Christmas holiday to enact this legislation that has been put forward that would enable this project to be decided. It doesn't prescribe one way or the other what the President does; it just says the President either has to approve it or give a reason why it is not in the national interest. I see the other Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Hoeven, is here as well. He has been a leader and involved in getting this legislation introduced. I thank both my colleagues for recognizing its importance, and I hope we can move legislation that will get this project decided one way or the other. In my view, an affirmative decision would be preferable and would allow us to move forward. Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, through the Chair, I would say to my colleague from North Dakota that my understanding is the legislation does permit that to happen, and that is why I believe the State of Nebraska, including the Governor and our colleagues here in the Senate from Nebraska, have now come out in support of this. Whereas previously there had been some concern about the Ogallala aquifer, my understanding is the legislation allows for that issue to be addressed. And I have a statement here from the Governor of Nebraska expressing his support for this legislation. So it does strike me that at least that should not be an issue that in any way deters consideration of this pipeline and that we shouldn't have to wait 18 months. I am saying to my colleague from North Dakota--and I think he recognizes the value of this, as he is from North Dakota, and obviously his is a State that could be favorably impacted by the economic activity resulting from this pipeline--that if we don't do this, somebody else is going to benefit from it. This is not going to wait around. There are vast oil sands reserves up in Canada, and they are looking for a place where they can get this to a refinery and get it refined. If the United States doesn't move forward, some other country is going to benefit.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Richard L. Cotta on the occasion of his retirement from California Dairies, Inc., CDI. Since 2007 Richard has held the title of president and CEO of California Dairies, Inc., CDI. He has spent his entire career in the dairy industry in virtually all aspects of the business. Richard Cotta's career at CDI began in 1993, when he joined San Joaquin Valley Dairymen, a dairy processing and marketing cooperative, as its general manager. In 1999, San Joaquin Valley Dairymen merged with Danish Creamery and California Milk Producers to form CDI. Cotta was named senior vice president of producer affairs and government relations at CDI, a role he held until he was named CEO in 2007. Under his leadership, CDI profits have reached record levels. Today, CDI is California's largest dairy provider and the second largest in the United States. From 1980 to 1984 Richard was the CEO of United Dairymen of California, a producer trade organization, until it merged to form Western United Dairymen. Then from 1984 to 1993, he served as the CEO of Western United Dairymen, the largest producer trade association in the state. Previously, Richard worked as a sire analyst for American Breeders Service, a classifier for the Holstein Association of America, and a principle in Genetics, Inc. For several years he was a dairy consultant on feeding, breeding and management systems. Richard is a graduate, with honors, of California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, with a degree in dairy husbandry. He also owns and operates Cotta Farms and is a partner in Terra Bella Farms, both almond farming operations. Richard sits on the following boards: U.C. Davis Deans Advisory Council, California State University Chancellors Ag Advisory Council, Sacred Heart School Foundation, and the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy. In addition, he sits on the Globalization Operating Committee for the U.S. Dairy Export Council. At the request of the Secretary of Agriculture, he has participated in world trade missions to open the U.S. dairy market overseas. Please join me in congratulating Richard Cotta on his notable career and his retirement from California Dairies, Inc.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Kati M. Seymour, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Kati is a graduate of Jones County High School in Murdo, SD. This past August, Kati graduated from Sinte Gleska University in Mission, SD, where she majored in English and American history. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Kati for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Michelle Matthies, an intern in my Sioux Falls, SD, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Michelle is a graduate of Parker High School in Parker, SD. Currently, she is attending Augustana College, where she is majoring in English and secondary education. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Michelle for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Christopher L. Cugini, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Chris is a graduate of Glen Oak High School in Canton, OH. Currently, he is attending the University of Mount Union in Alliance, OH, where he is majoring in communication. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Chris for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Robert Cuyler Haskins, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Cuyler is a graduate of L.D. Bell High School in Hurst, TX. Currently, he is attending Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, TX, where he is majoring in political science. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Cuyler for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the President of the United States has said repeatedly that he makes jobs his top priority, he wakes up every morning thinking about what he can do to create jobs and how he can create jobs. Yet we have the greatest shovel-ready project in the country right in front of us, and when it comes to that particular project, for some reason the President is suddenly not interested. I think we have to ask the question of why that is. I think there are probably a number of reasons, most of which have to do with politics and not the economy and not jobs because clearly this is a subject on which there is no debate when it comes to the job-creation potential there, the impact it would have on the economies of multiple States in our country and what it would do for the issue of energy security. The project to which I am referring is the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Keystone XL Pipeline is a project that has been under review now for the better part of 3 years. In fact, there have been two environmental studies. If you look at all of the due diligence that has been done, it has clearly been reviewed, it has been analyzed, it has been studied, and it has been scrutinized. It has gotten to the point now where it is time to move forward, time to make a decision on this. Ironically and I think sort of surprisingly to a lot of people, recently the administration said they are not going to decide this now, for 18 months. They are going to put it off for 18 months-- interestingly enough, from a timing standpoint, until after the next election. I think it is unfortunate that is the case because, again, if your No. 1 priority is job creation, you have one here ready to go today that could be under construction, and it would immediately create 20,000 jobs in this country, and it would create $7 billion of investment and a lot of revenue for State and local governments, many of which desperately need it. In my own State of South Dakota, the Keystone XL Pipeline would traverse my State of South Dakota as the oil that comes from the oil sands area up in Canada makes its way down to the refineries and other parts of the country, comes through South Dakota, and just in our State alone that would be about $\1/2\ billion of economic activity, meaning hundreds of jobs and revenue for a lot of State and local governments. This project in my State, like so many States where it comes through, where it impacts--there have been a number of opportunities for people to be heard, to get their input made on this. It has been going on now for 3 years. You finally get to a point where you have to say it is time to make a decision one way or the other. Clearly, my view on this is that this is a project that should move forward. But one way or the other, the President of the United States and his administration ought to be acting with some finality on this subject now, not waiting 18 months, not waiting until after the next election because it is politically expedient to do that, but making a decision now. Why is that? Because, if it does not get done here, that oil from the oil sands area in Canada will go somewhere else and some other country around the world will benefit from that. It will not be the United States, it will not be refineries here in this country, it will not be the citizens of America--who have a good relationship with our neighbor to the north. Canada is our biggest single trading partner. We do about $640 billion of bilateral trade every single year with Canada. It makes a lot of sense, if you are thinking about energy security, if you are worried about the dangerous dependence that we have on other countries around the world for our energy needs, that if we are going to get energy we get it from a country with which we have a good relationship, a country that is friendly and a country with which we do a tremendous amount of trade. If we cannot move forward, it is going somewhere, probably to Asia, probably to China. China will get the benefit. The citizens of China will get the benefit of this project rather than having the American people benefit from all this project would entail if we could get it approved here. But we ought to at least make a decision. We have all these discussions in this country, all the rhetoric coming from the other side about how it is so important that we create jobs in this country. Yet the administration seems willing to disregard that and say we are going to make what is clearly a political decision and put this off for 18 months until after the next election. I think it is interesting to note what some are saying about this, and frankly even what the President himself has said as recently as last April about the importance of getting energy from countries that are stable and friendly. This is something the President said: Importing oil from countries that are stable and friendly is a good thing. That is something the President of the United States said as recently as last April. There is a letter that went from 22 congressional Democrats to the President, telling him that America needs the Keystone XL Pipeline. Twenty-two Democratic Members of the House of Representatives weighed in on this issue. We have had Democratic Senators here as well who weighed in with the administration and weighed in publicly and said this is an important project that needs to be completed. You even have the labor unions. Traditionally you would think of them as part of the President's political base. What are they saying about this? The AFL-CIO said: For America's skilled craft construction professionals, any discussion of the Keystone XL Pipeline project begins and ends with one word: JOBS. That is what the AFL-CIO is saying. Laborers' International Union of North America says it is: . . . not just a pipeline, but it is a lifeline for thousands of desperate working men and women. You have bipartisan support here in Congress. You have the working people, the organizations of this country that represent working people, weighing in saying this is a project that needs to be approved, that would create jobs, that would address some of the economic angst we are feeling in this country, and here we are faced with this unnecessary delay. We have legislation that has 40 cosponsors in the Senate. It was introduced last week. Many of our colleagues have taken the lead: Senator Hoeven of North Dakota, Senator Johanns from Nebraska, Senator Murkowski, Senator Barrasso, who is here on the floor, and others who believe so strongly in the issue of economic growth, job creation, energy security, national security, that we have introduced a bill that would allow this project either, No. 1, to move forward or to have to provide a rationale why it would not move forward. It is pretty simple, straightforward legislation. It would allow 60 days from enactment of the legislation for a decision to be made about the permit, one way or the other. Either it gets permitted or, on the contrary, the President gives an explanation as to why it should not be permitted. But at least we get a decision made so there is some economic certainty for the people behind this project, the people who are making this investment, about whether it is going to go forward. One thing we hear over and over from small businesses across this country--and large businesses, job creators--is we need economic certainty. We cannot continue to operate in this complete cloud of economic uncertainty if we are going to put investment out there and create the jobs that go with that investment. Mr. President, 700,000 barrels a day is the equivalent of what we get daily from Venezuela. If we could get 700,000 barrels of oil today from Canada, a friendly neighbor to the north, or 700,000 barrels from Venezuela or any other countries from which we import oil, it seems so logical and such a no-brainer for us to be able to trade and interact and to have this economic relationship with Canada on this particular project. It does come across that way, as I said, in many parts of the Dakotas and Montana. It would encourage greater oil production here in this country as well, because you have the Bakkan Reserve in North Dakota and Montana which we would be able to access for this pipeline to be able to get some of their energy to refiners around this country. It is an ``all of the above'' domestic energy strategy: More domestic oil, more alternative fuels, more innovation. It is all these things we need when we talk about energy security. But clearly in this case, for some unexplained reason, the administration has concluded that this project should not go forward. There was a concern raised earlier on about the State of Nebraska and the route the pipeline was taking. That issue has been addressed. The leaders in Nebraska--Senator Johanns and the Governor of Nebraska--have come together behind an alternative route which I believe was agreeable to the company, TransCanada, so you can no longer hide behind that and use that as a shield. The legislation we are introducing would make, of course, this subject to States rights and having States such as Nebraska intervene and work with the company to find this alternative route. It also would ensure and require strong environmental protections in the legislation. So that issue is something the legislation has addressed. More than anything else, what it does is it at least forces some action. It at least says we are going to be serious about job creation in this country or we are not. We are going to support a shovel-ready project that could create 20,000 jobs and start immediately or we are not. All this rhetoric and all the hot air that comes from people here in Washington, DC, about wanting to create jobs, this is putting it to the test. This is where you have to put up or shut up when it comes to whether you are serious about creating jobs in this country. I hope my colleagues here in the Senate on both sides of the aisle-- because I believe this is a bipartisan issue--will work with us to advance this legislation. There is some thinking that perhaps the House of Representatives, the other body, may include it in some legislation they send us that could be coming this way in the not too distant future. If that is the case, I hope we will pick that up and act on it because if we are serious and mean what we say about job creation in this country, there is no better way than to put some certainty behind this project. Again, it would be one thing if this had not been studied and overstudied and evaluated and analyzed and scrutinized--but it has, over and over again, now for the better part of 3 years. Mr. President, 700,000 barrels of oil today from Canada and the Bakkan region in North Dakota and U.S. refineries or 700,000 barrels of oil to some other place around the world that will benefit from it and, just as important if not more important, 700,000 barrels of oil the United States will have to import from some other country around the world that perhaps is not nearly as friendly as our neighbors to the north. This is not complicated. This is a pretty straightforward issue and one where I don't think there is anything but support from the States that are impacted by this, anything but support from the leadership, political leadership at the State level and local levels. I am not suggesting there is--there is no project that has unanimous support. There are people who oppose this as there are people who oppose almost anything that happens in this country. But the huge majority of people I think in the States that are impacted see this for what it is--a positive, forward-looking project that would address so many of the important priorities for this country right now: economic growth, job creation, energy security, national security, addressing some of the needs the State and local governments have for additional revenue. All these issues are addressed with regard to this project. It is mystifying as to why the President of the United States and his administration would put this decision off until 18 months from now after the next election, other than purely and simply political reasons and motivations. That is wrong for the American people. It is wrong for this project. It is wrong for jobs. It is wrong for the economy. I hope this body, the Senate, will take steps to rectify that by putting a date certain out there by which this project is at least acted on, at least decided, at least permitted or not permitted--hopefully permitted--so these jobs can be created and we can get this economic activity underway in these many States. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when I complete my remarks, the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso, be allowed to follow me.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. THUNE. Reserving the right to object, could the manager clarify exactly what that is?

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, there are a lot of Republicans here who agree with one of the basic principles in the Democratic bill; that is, there is no reason why people ought to suffer even more than they already are from the President's failure to turn this job crisis around. What the Republicans have proposed is an alternative to this bill that ensures that no one sees a tax hike this year. The biggest difference is that the Republican proposal ensures that no one's taxes get raised in a down economy. There is simply no reason that preventing a tax hike in this bad economy needs to be paid for by raising taxes on the very employers whom we are counting on to help jolt this economy back to life, which is exactly what the Democrats have put forward. So the Republican proposal would ensure that no one sees a tax increase next year. It avoids the gratuitous hit on job creators, and, even better, our plan reduces the Federal deficit by more than $111 billion. This is a dramatic expansion of this particular provision, which we cannot afford when we already have a $15 trillion debt. There is a right way and wrong way to do this. This is the wrong way in the Democratic proposal. The Republican proposal is the right way. I urge our colleagues to vote against this bill.