County Payments Reauthorization Act of 2011

Madam President, I rise today in support of American jobs and national security.

First, I would like to take a moment to express my condolences to families who have lost loved ones in the tornadoes that struck Indiana and other States on March 2.

Last weekend Senator Coats and I toured the damaged areas of southern Indiana and met with people who are dedicated to a full recovery from total devastation. I wish to pay special tribute to advanced preparedness by the schools and many others that prevented an even greater loss of life. Also, our gratitude goes out to the first responders who are doing amazing work, in some cases while facing their own devastating circumstances.

I am returning this weekend to encourage the continuing progress toward recovery, and I am working closely with Governor Daniels and other State officials to coordinate Federal assistance that is appropriate given the level of devastation.

Amendment No. 1537

Madam President, I rise in support of American jobs and national security in a very strong way and to encourage my colleagues to support the Keystone XL Pipeline amendment I have offered with Senators Hoeven, Vitter, and others. The Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter amendment No. 1537 mirrors legislation that 46 Senators from both parties have cosponsored. Let me give special thanks to John Hoeven for his partnership and his leadership in this effort.

My own advocacy for the Keystone XL pipeline derives from its benefits for national security, job creation, and economic growth. Keystone XL will reduce our vulnerability to oil market

manipulation by unfriendly foreign regimes, thereby giving our military and diplomats more flexibility in addressing national security priorities such as stopping Iran's nuclear weapons capability. Keystone XL will create thousands of private sector American jobs almost immediately and without taxpayer subsidy. The more than 7 billion private sector dollars invested for Keystone XL will benefit American workers far beyond those installing the pipeline.

Moreover, analysis from the Department of Energy just last year found that oil supplies coming via Keystone XL would most likely lower gas prices.

President Obama's denial of the Keystone XL pipeline permit is not in the national interest. Americans are screaming for more affordable oil supplies. The irony is that Democratic Senate leadership is calling for more oil from Saudi Arabia even as they continue to oppose oil from Canada.

The Obama Administration's failure to approve Keystone XL detrimentally impacts Americans today. If the State Department had conducted its review in a timely manner of 18 to 24 months, the southern half of Keystone XL would already have been in operation, relieving the bottleneck currently keeping more affordable U.S. oil away from consumers. The remainder of Keystone XL would have been in operation any day now, so today's markets, tighter from supply reductions in Iran and Sudan, would have had reliable sources online soon. We should not delay needed market liquidity any longer.

The Democratic alternative to our legislation would add more delay to American jobs, enable a large government overreach into private industry decisions, and jeopardize the jobs of American refinery workers.

It is not the normal course of events that Congress would be acting on a single private sector project. As ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for months I encouraged timely evaluation of this the project on the merits, even while sharing my own support for its completion. Historically, pipeline applications have been treated in a technocratic matter by both Republican and Democratic administrations. For that reason, Congress has not generally been compelled to assert its constitutional authority over border crossings for oil pipelines as we have for bridges, ports, and immigration.

Regrettably, actions by the Obama Administration to first delay and then deny the Keystone XL application point to election year politics overwhelming the need for objective consideration of the national interest.

In that circumstance, last December 89 Senators voted to pass into law the Lugar-Hoeven-Vitter legislation, S. 1932, which required President Obama to conclude more than 3 years of analysis. In other words, we tried to give President Obama a chance to finish the job. Immediately upon passage, the White House complained that they did not have sufficient time to make a decision. In reality, the Obama Administration issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement on August 26, 2011, and pondered the Keystone XL application for 1,217 days before rejecting it in January.

The lengthy delay in permitting Keystone XL is incongruous with our country's dire need to diversify oil sources and promote job creation. The first Keystone pipeline's permit was granted in 693 days. The Obama Administration approved the Alberta Clipper permit after an 829 day review.

Incredibly, even after 1,217 days the Obama Administration still was unable to determine the national interest, even at this time when oil markets are the tightest they have been in years, gas prices are soaring, and unemployment remains at 8.3%.

The only reason that has been given for delay is that the Keystone XL route through Nebraska is being shifted to avoid some sensitive areas. Benefiting from the diligent efforts of Senator Johanns and his staff, the Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter amendment protects that state process, giving Nebraskans all the time they need while not unduly holding up construction in other states. The Federal government need not tell Nebraskans where to put the pipeline on their territory; our legislation trusts Nebraskans to do what is best for Nebraska.

Mr. President, it may surprise some colleagues to learn that it is not the Federal government's role to decide when an oil pipeline should be built or where it will be placed. The primary Federal role is to ensure safety and environmental standards are met. Our legislation contains safety and environmental requirements in excess of current law and already endorsed by 89 Senators in December. With our bill, Keystone XL would be perhaps the most advanced oil pipeline in the country.

It is only by virtue of crossing our international border with Canada that Keystone XL came into the unfortunate situation of requiring Presidential permission. Our legislation removes the need for an international border-crossing permit for Keystone XL, which currently is required only by Executive Order and not U.S. law. The pipeline could enter the United States at Phillips County, Montana, and nowhere else. In doing so, it recognizes not only that trade in reliable and affordable oil with our closest economic and strategic ally is in the national interest, it also recognizes that in large part the U.S. and Canadian energy systems are integrated to our mutual advantage.

The Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter bill resets evaluation and permitting for all portions of the pipeline to where it was before November 11, 2011, when the President announced he would delay a decision for more than a year until after the 2012 election. The Final Environmental Impact Statement issued by the State Department would be reinstated, along with associated Federal permissions. Keystone XL would still be required to go through regular order in receiving permits that it had not received prior to that date, including from the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Land Management.

Importantly, our legislation recognizes the vital role of individual states in approving oil pipelines. Keystone XL must have all State permissions required by the States that it proposes to cross. That also applies to eminent domain, which is the jurisdiction of the States when it comes to oil pipelines.

I recognize that there is opposition to Keystone XL among certain segments of the environmental community. I take these concerns seriously. That is why our legislation contains perhaps the strongest environmental and safety safeguards for a pipeline ever put into U.S. law. It reflects work of the State Department, the Transportation Department, and other Agencies that identified expansive and specific requirements for pipeline construction and operation. TransCanada has pledged to follow those guidelines, which would have the force of law through our legislation.

In the course of debate we will likely hear a number of Democratic colleagues attest their support for pipelines and for Keystone XL in particular. Surely more will profess their concern for the thousands of workers that would earn incomes with Keystone XL, as well as for the numerous unions that support them. I have no doubt that many Senators, regardless of party affiliation, share those sentiments. Yet, sentiments mean little if in the next breath they oppose reasonable legislation we have offered to make it happen, namely the Hoeven-Lugar- Vitter bill.

I understand that there can be reasonable questions, even concerns on a project of this size. I, along with Senator Hoeven and other cosponsors, have repeatedly offered to Democratic colleagues to hear any genuine concerns with our legislation and to negotiate changes that would earn their votes. Those offers have been refused. Instead, the Democratic leadership has offered a last minute side-by-side amendment that would add more delay, jeopardize the prospect of any Keystone XL jobs being created, and undermine the job prospects of American refinery workers.

I am hopeful that Democratic colleagues will join me in supporting jobs and energy security by voting in favor the Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter amendment. Voting against the Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter amendment while simultaneously refusing to negotiate is a vote against Keystone XL, against the private sector jobs it will produce, against the chance it brings for lower gasoline prices, and against the relief it can provide from our dangerous dependence on

oil from the Middle East and Venezuela.

Mr. President, in my judgment, there is no doubt that the Keystone XL pipeline would benefit United States national security, energy reliability, economic growth, and job creation. It would be the most advanced pipeline in the United States, thus minimizing environmental risks.

United States dependence on foreign oil is one of our foremost national security vulnerabilities. Iran's threat to shatter global economic recovery and splinter allied opposition to their nuclear weapons program by using their oil exports as leverage is just the most visible example today. The dollars we use to buy oil from autocratic regimes complicate our own national security policies by entrenching corruption, financing regional aggression and repression, and inflating Defense Department costs. Crude oil from Canada, North Dakota, and Montana delivered by Keystone XL will replace a substantial part of future imports of heavy oil from Venezuela and the Middle East.

The less we are directly dependent on oil from unstable and unfriendly regimes, the more flexibility we will have in diplomatic and defense options. Consider, for example, some of the flashpoints in oil- rich countries over the more than three years that the Obama Administration examined the Keystone XL pipeline application: Iran threats against Israel, the Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S. Navy; Venezuelan antagonism; war in Libya; hostilities in Iraq; a stalemate in Sudan; unrest in Russia; the Arab Spring; strained relations with Saudi Arabia; violence in Nigeria; and the ongoing threat of terrorism against energy infrastructure.

In contrast, the only uncertainty in oil trade with Canada has been the U.S. indecision over Keystone XL. This delay has caused the Canadian government to openly question whether the U.S. is a reliable market and whether it should devote new oil capacity to supplying China's voracious appetite for energy.

No single project or policy is a cure-all, but having more independence from unstable regimes will give more options to avoid being drawn into oil-driven conflicts and to diplomatically advance national security objectives. For example, among the most significant challenges to enforcing strong sanctions on Iranian oil is concern over high gas prices driven by a weakening global supply margin. More than 3 years of bureaucratic delay on Keystone XL means that the Obama Administration has prevented Keystone XL oil from helping Americans hit by high gas prices today. Approval now would send a strong signal to markets of coming supply, and with our legislation, Keystone XL would be in place to help address future emergencies.

Having built-in first access to Canadian crude via pipeline is a strategic and economic advantage when global oil markets are under threat of shortage, as powerfully illustrated by Iranian threats against 20 percent of world oil that traverses the Strait of Hormuz.

The global oil market has fundamentally changed. Booming demand by China, India, and other emerging economies is quickly absorbing new supplies. Old oil fields are running low and new ones are expensive and harder to find. World markets are likely to remain tight for the foreseeable future, which means that supply disruptions due to political, terrorist, or weather events can lead to shortages much more easily than in the past. Tight global oil markets will invite threats to supplies for years to come, whether by Iran or other hostile actors. Having oil flow to the United States, instead of to China, via Keystone XL would give Americans the benefits of first access in times of trouble.

In Indiana job creation is the number one priority. The situation is urgent for families struck by our 9 percent unemployment rate, and many more are underemployed. Having the private sector willing to inject more than $7 billion into the economy for the Keystone XL pipeline is a tremendous vehicle for putting people back to work, and it will have a multiplier effect for economic growth. Moreover, it is estimated that approximately 90 percent of the money Americans send to Canada for imports is returned to the United States, thereby encouraging more trade beyond the energy sector.

Keystone XL is perhaps the largest private infrastructure project available for construction almost immediately. It is expected to directly create 20,000 jobs, particularly in the hard-hit construction and manufacturing sectors. In addition, tens--if not hundreds--of thousands of other American workers will have their jobs bolstered through the supply chain. Many of these are small American businesses that manufacture specialty parts or provide services.

Already Hoosiers working at Koontz-Wagner in South Bend, IN, have benefited from some of the $800 million that has already been spent for Keystone XL supplies. As a subcontractor for Siemens, Koontz-Wagner last week finished the last of 78 equipment shelters for Keystone XL. The largest of the shelters measures 62 feet long, 14 feet wide, and weighs about 8,500 pounds. Manufacture of the 78 units for Keystone XL generated 140,000 ``man hours'' of work, allowing 50 60 new employees to be hired. It is the single largest contract for that company in South Bend. The people of Koontz-Wagner are fortunate that they are an early contractor. Meanwhile, thousands of additional workers are waiting for their chance.

Other Indiana firms stand to benefit from the Keystone XL pipeline. I visited Endress+Hauser in Greenwood where they already have manufactured $600,000 worth of flow and temperature devices, Caterpillar in Lafayette where they manufacture the engines for the heavy equipment developing the oil sands, and Fairfield Manufacturing in Lafayette where they manufacture large gears and other components of the Caterpillar machines, in addition to other industrial machinery.

More than 2,400 American companies in 49 States, including over 100 in Indiana, supply goods and services for oil sands development and transport, according to industry estimates. Virtually all of these American companies stand to benefit from robust trade with Canada, and stand to lose from Canada turning its trade preferences toward Asia.

An important testament to the job-creating opportunities of Keystone XL is the strong support of several unions, such as the AFL CIO Building and Construction Trades Department, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. & Canada, International Union of Operating Engineers, Laborers' International Union of North America, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

Private sector job creation must be our top domestic priority. Some argue that the estimate of 20,000 new jobs from Keystone XL construction is too high even while they admit that many thousands of new jobs will be created. Even a smaller number of new private sector jobs are important gains during this time of 8.3 percent unemployment nationally and 9 percent in Indiana. Whether it is a pipeline, a road, or a house, it is the nature of the construction industry that jobs created are temporary in the sense that once a single project finishes, another needs to take its place. A benefit of a project as large as Keystone XL is that the temporary employment is actually quite long and desperately needed by workers and their families.

Keystone XL is privately financed. No taxpayer money is needed to bring these jobs--all that is needed is for government to get out of the way.

In my judgment, further delaying these benefits is not in the national interest. With the firm go-ahead offered by our legislation, Americans can get to work almost immediately in manufacturing goods and in building the pipeline.

Kicking the can down the road is not simply a delay in construction. Delay opens more rounds of duplicative review with no definite conclusion that the pipeline will be built. Meanwhile, the Government of Canada is racing ahead with plans to export crude to China. Recent high-level agreements between Canada and China demonstrate no reluctance for oil trade through Puget Sound and across the Pacific.

The national imperative to reduce dependence on foreign oil from adversarial and unreliable regimes is not a partisan issue. Increased development

of domestic energy resources, including domestic oil, alternative liquid fuels from biomass and coal, and innovation for fuel efficiency and electrification are all needed. I have offered my Practical Energy Plan, REFRESH farm bill, and Open Fuels Standard with Senator Cantwell to aid in those efforts. My legislation, if implemented, would reduce our need for foreign oil by 6.3 million barrels per day by 2030--more than two-thirds of current imports.

It is ultimately the expected resilience of higher average global oil prices and technological breakthroughs that will determine the success of alternatives, not the presence of oil pipelines. We must be realistic: Even with rapid improvement in alternatives and efficiency innovations, oil will continue to be an important part of our economy, and oil from domestic sources and reliable neighbors will be more affordable and secure than far-flung imports.

Even if we achieve domestic production and efficiency goals, we cannot afford to ignore the source of our foreign oil. Canada is our most reliable and safest oil trading partner. The Keystone XL Pipeline alone could virtually eliminate the need for oil from Venezuela. Even if in the future we do not ourselves consume all the Canadian oil imported, having that crude in the U.S. system would give us tremendous flexibility to deal with supply shortages caused by conflict, political manipulation, terrorism, or natural disaster.

But perversely, opponents of the pipeline have thrown up a series of canards against the project to distract from the overwhelming arguments in favor of it. One such canard is that Keystone XL is intended to use American soil to convey Canadian oil to markets abroad. The facts are otherwise. The United States is a huge net importer of crude oil about 9 million barrels every day. It is that reality that has perverted our national security policy for decades. Analysis from the Department of Energy finds the likelihood of crude exports from Keystone XL to be extremely low because U.S. refinery capacity for heavy oil is expected to exceed supply from Canada and because transport of oil via Keystone XL, then tanker would be considerably more expensive than domestic Canadian export options.

Overall U.S. exports of refined products are running at an unusually high 15 percent of total production because America's struggling economy has sapped domestic demand, and those export levels likely will shrink again as the economy gains steam. Simply put, we are keeping some of America's 108,000 refinery workers, including about 2,245 in Indiana, employed by selling at home and overseas.

Moreover, it is especially curious that the prospect of even a small amount of exports manufactured at U.S. refineries comes under scrutiny since President Obama has identified the doubling of U.S. exports as a goal. According to the Department of Commerce, the President already has the authority to prohibit petroleum exports if he deems it to be in the national interest.

In my view, exporting a small percentage of refined products to maintain refinery capacity is not a problem to be solved. In the event of a global energy crisis, exports from U.S. Gulf refineries could quickly be diverted back to American gas pumps, providing that their source is a secure supply from the U.S. or Canada, not overseas.

Even as Democrats seek to block the prospect of even a small amount of manufactured petroleum products from being exported, they are also arguing to block the import of products through ``domestic content'' mandates. The Keystone XL Pipeline is a private project and does not receive taxpayer subsidy. The Federal Government has no place in making procurement decisions of private companies. According to TransCanada, of the expected total procurement for Keystone XL, 98 percent is already under contract. In other words, a domestic content requirement may force it to violate existing contracts.

In the end, the most vigorous opposition to Keystone XL is not over the pipeline itself; it is against further development of the Canadian oil sands in an effort to stem greenhouse gas emissions. In considering this issue, it is important to understand that extensive investment in coking capacity at U.S. refineries means that oil from the oil sands will mostly replace other heavy oil, such as that from Venezuela.

But more to the point, there is no doubt that Canada will continue to develop the oil sands regardless of U.S. decisionmaking on Keystone XL. The Canadians have already spent billions of dollars developing this resource, which they see as an essential national asset and job producer. The value of this asset will increase over time as the growth in global populations and living standards increases the demand for oil. Shipping the oil to the Canadian Pacific or Arctic coasts and onward via tanker for sale to China would compound environmental risks, while denying our country the strategic and economic benefits associated with oil sands production.

The strong majority of American people agree with our support for the Keystone XL Pipeline. Polling by Rasmussen and United Technologies/ National Journal clearly indicates that a majority of Americans support the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Pew Research Center released a poll on February 23, 2012, that found 66 percent of people who have heard about Keystone XL support its approval, while just 23 percent oppose. These findings are reinforced by the dozens of Hoosier citizens, mayors, and retired service personnel who have written in favor of Keystone XL and the Indiana State Senate that voted in unanimous support.

America's overdependence on oil imports from unstable and hostile regimes endangers our national security and puts our warfighters and civilian personnel at risk. It also worsens our national budget situation, as we spend billions of dollars to ensure safe passage of oil around the world. But today we have a dramatic opportunity to change that energy and national security equation by building the Keystone XL Pipeline to bring oil from Canada, our good friend, to North Dakota and Montana and then to the gulf refineries.

Better yet, building Keystone XL, a private sector project, will create thousands of American jobs now. Job creation is the No. 1 issue in our Nation. The Keystone XL Pipeline is the country's largest shovel-ready infrastructure project. President Obama had the opportunity to create thousands of new jobs right away, plus bolster job prospects for thousands more throughout the manufacturing supply chain, such as our Hoosiers firms Endress+Hauser, Koontz-Wagner, and Caterpillar. Allowing $7 billion of private economic activity should be a no-brainer.

Incredibly, even after reviewing Keystone XL for 1,217 days and in the midst of Iranian threats against global oil supplies and the U.S. Navy, President Obama caved to pressure from extreme environmentalists by rejecting Keystone XL jobs and security. The President ignored analysis from his own Department of Energy that said oil supplies coming via Keystone XL would most likely lower gas prices.

President Obama's rejection of Keystone XL implicitly says that the administration prefers to send billions of dollars to unfriendly regimes rather than expand trade with Canada. It says that Democratic leadership prefers going hat-in-hand seeking more oil from Saudi Arabia rather than taking control of our energy future. It is incomprehensible. No objective standard of U.S. national security interest could justify such a decision.

I recognize there is opposition to Keystone XL among certain segments of the environmental community, and I take those efforts and concerns seriously. That is why our legislation contains perhaps the strongest environmental and safety safeguards for a pipeline ever put into U.S. law. It ensures that the Federal Government will not interfere with individual property rights or tell Nebraskans what to do in their own State.

Opponents believe that by blocking the pipeline, they will stop development of the oil sands in Alberta. That is a false hope. There is no doubt that Canada will continue to develop the oil sands regardless of U.S. decisionmaking on Keystone XL. The Government of Canada is racing ahead with plans to export crude to China. Recent high-level agreements between Canada and China demonstrate no reluctance for oil trade through the Puget Sound and across the Pacific.

Others say we should encourage alternatives to oil, and greater fuel efficiency, and I agree with that, but even under the most optimistic scenarios, oil will continue to be an important part of our economy, and oil from domestic sources and reliable neighbors will be more affordable and secure than far-flung imports.

Crude oil from Keystone XL will replace heavy oil imports from Venezuela and the Middle East. The less we depend on oil from adversarial and unreliable regimes, the more protection Americans will have from price spikes and shortages and the more flexibility we will have in diplomatic and defense options in oil-rich lands.

Finally, let me say that Politico reports that President Obama is so anti-Keystone that he is personally calling Senators to oppose our bill. The Democratic alternative aligns with President Obama's rejection of Keystone XL and is a massive overreach into the private sector. Senator Wyden's bill would ultimately hurt the workers it claims to help and would penalize America's 108,000 refinery workers directly.

In sum, the Keystone XL Pipeline will create thousands of private sector jobs, and it will help protect the national security interests of the United States. It comes at no taxpayer expense, and it will strengthen vital ties with our ally Canada. I urge my colleagues to support the Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter Keystone XL amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am going to speak against the Vitter amendment because I think it is a huge danger to our economy, and I will explain why. It is a huge overreach by the Federal Government into the ability of States to determine if they want a recreation industry, if they want a fishing industry, if they want a tourist industry. So I will speak more about it.

Before I do that, I want to let people know where we are. Thanks to the extraordinary patience of our majority leader, Harry Reid, today, we finally have a path forward to the transportation bill. And normally I would name lots of other people--yes, we have all been involved--but Senator Harry Reid is extraordinary.

He sat in his office last night, 7, 8, 9, 10, I was calling him finding out what was happening. I was calling the great staff he has, working with my staff and Senator Inhofe's staff, whom I have grown to respect so much. Given all the issues that are facing us, we all knew that having a transportation bill is critical. We do debate very fiercely on lots of things, and we are going to see that this morning. But when it comes to infrastructure, we have found common ground with most of our Republican friends.

I do wish to say, those who tune in to this debate are going to be a bit confused because they are going to hear debates on amendments that are not about highways, bridges, roads. They are not going to hear too much about that for a while. Why is that? Because the Senate is the Senate is the Senate. We tried very hard to limit the debate to relevant amendments, but we were thwarted a couple times. We couldn't get the 60 votes, pretty much party line; colleagues wanted to have votes on very controversial amendments, which I do not think are going to pass, but we will find out. One of them is the amendment offered by Senator Vitter of Louisiana.

This amendment would essentially take the drilling plan that was released in the last few days of the Bush administration and would open for drilling entire new areas on the Atlantic, Pacific, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and Bristol Bay. The fact is, since that plan was offered, we have to understand we are drilling more now than ever before. We have four times the number of rigs out there. We are now exporting oil.

Does everyone agree we want more oil? I want more oil. I want it to stay in America. But I don't want to endanger entire economies by saying to our friends in the States: Uncle Sam says to forget about their fishing industry, forget about their tourist industry, forget about all the restaurants and the hotels and everybody else who depends on it.

I can tell you, in my State, tourism is one of the biggest industries we have and the beauty of our State and the beauty of our coast is what draws so many people there. So this heavy-handed amendment says we don't care what you think, we are going to just open everything.

In 2006, this body passed the Gulf of Mexico Energy and Security Act. I know my friend from Florida is on the floor. That act offered 8.3 million acres for drilling in the central and eastern gulf planning areas in exchange for protecting Florida's coast until 2022. We will see, if this were to pass, lease sale No. 220 off the coast of Virginia go forward, despite concerns that this will interfere with the Navy's and NASA's activities in the region. The Vitter amendment requires drilling in Bristol Bay, one of the world's richest fishing grounds, which supports a commercial fishery worth $2 billion a year.

Let's be clear, America. We have 2 percent of the world's proven oil supplies and we use 20 percent of the world's energy. So we can't drill our way out of this. What one can do, if one votes for Vitter, is maybe feel they are doing something, but we are destroying whole areas of our Nation that are so dependent upon the beauty of our coastline.

On top of it all, this amendment would waive environmental review of this entire plan--no environmental review. So nobody in the country would know what lies ahead.

Look, we don't need any more giveaways to Big Oil. They are having raging profits even at the height of the recession, raging profits, billions of dollars. Here is the point. They are sitting on 50 million acres of onshore and offshore leases they have yet to drill upon.

Let me repeat that. Senator Vitter wants to open huge swaths of the coastline to Big Oil companies that are making record profits, the price of gas is soaring, and they are sitting on 50 million acres of land, onshore and offshore leases they have yet to drill upon. They have done nothing with more than 70 percent of the offshore acres and nearly 60 percent of the onshore acres in which they currently hold leases. When they had a chance to bid on more lease sales, they only bid on 5 to 6 percent of those offshore acres in 2009 and 2010. So they are not taking advantage of the leases they hold. But Senator Vitter wants to open huge swaths, waive all environmental review, put at risk how many jobs in California alone--400,000 fishing and recreation-- 400,000 jobs. That is larger than some of our tiny States--well, maybe a little bit smaller. I think one of our States has about 500,000. This is 400,000 jobs, folks. We have to defeat this.

It is a great bumper sticker. ``Drill, Baby, Drill'' is a great bumper sticker. But I could write another one that says, ``Keep the Oil Here in America,'' and they are exporting the oil. We are exporting oil. We are going to have more of that debate when we come to the Keystone Pipeline.

Here is the deal. The Vitter amendment is a giveaway to Big Oil. They made a combined $137 billion in profits last year. The American consumer doesn't see a dime of savings at the pump. It would do nothing to lower gas prices. It would encourage them to continue to sit on their assets, and that is what I think this is about. They list their assets in their yearly report to their shareholders, and those assets have value. So they just show them year after year and they never drill. In reward for that, we are going to give them even more assets they can brag about.

I am going to put again into facts what I said before: Domestic oil production under President Obama is up. There are 1,272 active oil rigs in the United States right now, more than four times the amount than in 2009. In 2010, for the first time in 13 years, imported oil accounted for less than 50 percent of the oil consumed in America.

Why is this happening? It is happening for many different reasons; one is we are drilling more and we are doing it in a sensible way, not destroying areas that need to be protected and jobs that need to be protected but in a wise way, in the regular order, in the

regular process. But also, we are driving more fuel-efficient vehicles. That is extremely important because I already told everyone, we can't drill our way out of this mess with only 2 percent of the supply, using 20 percent of the world's energy. It is a tilt. It is a mismatch. So we have to have more fuel-efficient cars. Of course, our President led the way on that, and Detroit has rebounded because of this President and those in this Senate and House who voted to assure they wouldn't go bankrupt.

The truth is, the Vitter amendment is dangerous. It is very dangerous. If he wanted to come here with an amendment that had any hope of passing, in my opinion, why doesn't he go after the speculators on Wall Street who are driving up prices? The CFTC Commissioner, Bart Chilton, has calculated that consumers pay an additional $7 to $15 on each tank of gas due to oil speculation. So if one wants to come and do something we could all support, come with an amendment that says the oil companies should drill on the lands they already have leases on; that we are very willing to open more acres that make sense, with the understanding that oil will stay here. We will work to stop the speculation on Wall Street that is driving up prices. Frankly, I think if we see this continued upswing in prices, my belief is we should go to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which has been done time and time again under Republican and Democratic Presidents, and we have seen the salutary impact on gas prices. They go down at least one time was 10 cents--I remember 10 cents a gallon right away. One time they stabilized the prices. So we have seen it happen before. That is why we have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

So one wants to come with a balanced plan and talk about how the oil companies have to drill on lands they have, how we support drilling where it makes sense and doesn't put people out of work who are in the recreation and tourism and fishing industry, go after the speculation on Wall Street, and tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is 97 percent full, if it looks like we can't get a handle on these prices. That is a plan, in addition to which we should continue to give tax credits and tax writeoffs to those people who buy fuel-efficient vehicles. I would love to see an added benefit for those made in America.

Vitter should be defeated. It is very controversial. It doesn't help us at all, and it would only pad the paychecks of the oil companies.

Yes, I would.

I was just going to suggest that Senator Nelson continue with the time because I do not need any more time at this point. So please continue.

Amendment No. 1822

(Purpose: To provide for the restoration of the natural resources,

ecosystems, fisheries, marine and wildlife habitats, beaches, and coastal wetlands of Gulf Coast States and to provide funding for the

Land and Water Conservation Fund)

Mr. President, just for the people who are watching this debate, we are talking about the Transportation bill. We are talking about preserving the jobs that go with that, 1.8 million jobs, and an additional 1 million that will be created. But we are hearing a debate about whether we should roll back a proposed rule that controls the following poisons: mercury, arsenic, lead, chromium, benzene, and toxic soot, just to name a few.

If anyone believes all this legislation is about is delay, then they don't know because this amendment, which has been called the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, would forever change the current standards allowed for mercury, arsenic, lead, chromium, benzene, toxic soot, and other dangerous pollutants. So it not only delays a rule that is critical--and I will tell my colleagues the numbers of lives that will be saved because of it--but it changes the standards for these toxins forever.

I don't know about the Senator from Maine, but I have never had one constituent come up to me and say: Senator Boxer, there is one thing you can do for me. I beg you. Increase the arsenic in the air. I need more mercury. Oh, I am desperately in need of more benzene, chromium, and lead.

I have never heard one say: I am willing to risk the fact that my grandchild, who is going to be born in a few months--I am willing to risk the fact that they may have brain damage. Oh, repeal the Clean Air Act. Repeal the rules.

I hope we will vote down this amendment. This amendment is described as being nothing but a delay when it actually changes the standards for the most poisonous pollution known to humankind. Instead of the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, I would call it the Increased Poisonous Pollution in America Act.

My friend read names supporting her amendment. Let me tell my colleagues who opposes it--people from her own State: the National Association of County and City Health Officials; the American Lung Association; the American Public Health Association; the American Thoracic Society; and the Asthma and Algae Foundation of America. That is just a partial list.

We need to vote this down. My friend makes a number of points about biomass--and we have the great Senator from Oregon here who actually took this issue on in the beginning, and he is going to have some time to talk about it--and resolved a lot of our problems with this. He is to be credited for a compromise with EPA that will work.

I just want to say--and everything I say is fact; it is peer-reviewed fact--these toxins cause cancer, heart disease, and premature death.

The Senator from Maine said all this amendment does is give EPA another year because they are not ready anyway.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the EPA saying they are ready by spring.

My friend says EPA needs more time. They have had 20 years--20 years--on this in terms of regulating these pollutants.

Senator Carper from Delaware, who is a very moderate Member of this body, has stood in front of our caucus and made a passionate plea: We don't need any more delays. We need action, and we need wise action. EPA has said they will work with our States, State by State; they will work with the polluters, polluter by polluter. Because of the leadership of the Senator from Oregon, they have written letters to many of us who are concerned saying they will work on this.

I am not going to talk too long because I want to leave time for my friend, but I must put in the Record the following facts: If we vote for the Collins amendment and if it were to become the law, A, it doesn't belong on a transportation bill. We should be debating the Clean Air Act for weeks on end if we are going to start repealing standards for these pollutants. So just on that issue alone we should vote against it. If it were to pass, which I don't believe it will, 300,000 newborns each year may well have increased risk of learning disabilities from toxic mercury exposure in the womb.

We know because of peer-reviewed science, if this were to pass and we would not have this rule go into effect, for every year it is delayed we would see 8,100 premature deaths, 5,100 heart attacks per year, and 52,000 cases of aggravated asthma. I wish to show my colleagues a picture of what it looks like when a child has asthma. What does it look like when a child has asthma and they are gasping for air? Too many of our children have asthma. I don't know about my colleagues, but when I go to the schools I ask the kids: How many of you have asthma or know someone who has asthma? About 50 percent of the kids raise their hands. I suggest my colleagues do that.

This is our legacy--these kids. They are who we live for. They are why we are here, to make life better for them.

People say we are going to save jobs. First of all, let me tell my colleagues something: If you had a heart attack that you didn't need to have, you are not going to be working. I think there are also 400,000 lost workdays per year--scientifically peer-reviewed. If this is delayed, for every year--and it has been 20 years in the making, control of these pollutants--400,000 lost workdays per year.

Here is another fact: We talk about the cost. Yes, it will cost $1.5 billion per year to clean up this poison. The annual benefits are $67 billion. I would say to my friends, that is a heck of a good ratio--a good ratio.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the American Boiler Manufacturers Association.

The letter from ABMA strongly says the following: ``We urge Senators to oppose the EPA Regulatory Relief Act.''

This is business. This is American business, made in America. The American Boiler Manufacturers Association: ``We encourage Senators to vote it down.''

I have that letter, and that is what they say. My friend from Maine said it is not technically feasible to clean up these poisons. They said anyone who tells you it is not technically achievable by real world boilers ``doesn't know what they are talking about.'' This is not me speaking. I didn't say that. This is what the American Boiler Manufacturers Association said.

So everywhere we look, when it comes to this vote, it says: Vote no, vote no, vote no. At a minimum, we should do no harm to our people's health. We have it in our hands now to stop a permanent rollback not just of the rule--that is a delay--but a permanent rollback of standards for the most poisonous pollutants there are: chromium, arsenic, mercury, lead, benzene, toxic soot. I would say all the arguments we have heard do not hold water.

In closing, let me say this: The polls on this are as clear as they can be. The people want us to get out of the way and allow the Environmental Protection Agency to do its work. Lisa Jackson is not a radical person. She is one of the most--how can I say--she is a coalition-building type of person. She is someone who reaches out. When Senator Wyden called her and said he was very upset about the way this rule was going, she sat down with him and, I think, rose to the occasion. When other Senators met with her--and I was in the room with several--she said: We can deal with your problems.

So let's vote no. This rollback of the Clean Air Act standards for the most poisonous pollutants doesn't belong on this bill. There is no way it belongs on this bill. That is No. 1.

No. 2, it is opposed by every health entity we know. It is opposed by our local county health officials and city health officials. I would say to my colleagues, when we look at the polls, it is opposed by 70 percent of the American people. That is the last poll I saw. They want to be able to breathe clean air. They know their people suffer when the air is filled with soot, and particularly toxic soot, which results in devastation for our families in very, very, very large numbers.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I hope we will vote no on the Collins amendment.

Madam President, I am very happy to see we are making progress. I still continue to believe that these controversial amendments did not have to be on this bill. But having said that, we have our agreement. So our understanding is, I want for all Senators to say our hope is to begin voting sometime around the 2 to 2:30 timeframe and to do a great number of votes at that time, maybe as many as 8, 9, 10 votes.

We are waiting for people to come to the floor to speak on different amendments. We expect that Senator Hoeven will be here shortly to call up amendment No. 1537. We urge him to do that.

Senator Merkley wants to speak on the underlying bill. Senator Corker wants to speak for 10 minutes at approximately 12:45. Senator Inouye would like to address us for 10 minutes about one. Senator Lautenberg wants to speak about the environmental amendments about 1:15, and Senator Landrieu wants to talk about a number of things but particularly the RESTORE Act, I would assume, at 1:15. Senator Sanders wants to speak on the issue of Keystone. Senator Durbin also has some comments he wanted to make.

So I would urge colleagues, if you wish to speak before we start voting, now would be a very good time. We hope you will come over here. We are making progress. This has been a very convoluted process, a very difficult process to satisfy everyone. Of course, we cannot satisfy everyone. But Senator Inhofe and I, when we wrote the

bill originally, knew he would not get everything he wanted and I certainly would not get what I wanted. We had to find those sweet spots where we could come together. That is what happened. The other committees did a wonderful job in doing the same: The Banking Committee, unanimous in their part of this bill; Commerce had some bumps, but they resolved those bumps in the road and now they are bipartisan; Finance Committee, that is a tough one. They had to raise funds to put into the trust fund. The trust fund needs some more dollars in it.

I see Senator Hoeven is here. I am so delighted that he is here to lay down his amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, with great respect to my friend, and I appreciate his opinion on this, this bill is paid for. It is paid for through the highway trust fund, and it is paid for through bipartisan work in the Finance Committee, which has worked overtime to come up with a plan to ensure this trust fund has enough in it to support the work we need to do to fix our bridges and our highways and to support 1.8 million jobs and more than 11,000 businesses out there, as well as the real possibility of creating an additional 1 million jobs with an enhanced program we call TIFIA, which leverages Federal funds.

So, Madam President, with due respect but pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, and section 4(g)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote; that all after the first vote be 10-minute votes; that the Baucus amendment relative to rural schools be listed as No. 1825; further, that if a budget point of order is raised against the underlying bill and a motion to waive the budget point of order is made, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to waive occur today within the sequence of votes this afternoon at a time to be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the Republican leader; that the time until 2 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; finally, that Senators on the majority side be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, and they would be in this order: Lautenberg, Landrieu, Wyden, Stabenow, and Merkley.

Madam President, I ask for 30 seconds before we turn to Senator Vitter. I want to say to the Senator from Louisiana and her colleague, Senator Vitter, what an honor it has been for me to work with them. Senator Landrieu is the most passionate person I have ever met when it comes to fighting for her State. What her State went through was a disaster manyfold. I was there. I saw it.

Senator Vitter on the committee was eloquent in pointing out the problems. Senator Sessions worked hard on the committee as well. Every Democrat supported them.

I would only say to my colleagues who may be watching this debate: Please vote yes. We need 60 votes. This is going to take funding from BP directly to fix up the areas they wrecked. It is not costing the taxpayers any money. Because of the negotiations, every State will now benefit if it has a coastline.

I was honored to do it. I was excited we got this out of our committee. But we do not have forever. We have to take care of this today. Vote aye. This is bipartisan.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, in my one minute, I hope we are going to vote down this antijobs amendment that threatens our coastal economies. Many of our coastal States treasure their coasts, and they are an economic engine of growth because the tourists come there. We have recreation. We have the fishing industry. Therefore, it is very important that we vote this down because this amendment is a big brother amendment. It tells the States what they have to do, what they must do, even if their value is to protect those coastal-related economies.

We have 2 percent of the proven oil supplies in the world and we use 20 percent of the world's energy. So we all know we can't drill our way out of this. Yet the Senator from Louisiana wants to open every area of our State to drilling when the oil companies are sitting on more than 50 million acres. It is a giveaway to big oil. We should go after the oil speculators. If we want to bring down gas prices, let's do that. Let's vote down this bad amendment.

I move to lay that motion upon the table.

The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1660

Mr. President, what we do here makes a difference in people's lives. We have peer-reviewed studies that show if the Collins amendment passes and we go back to square one, we will see 8,100 premature deaths per year, 5,100 heart attacks per year, 52,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and--talk about jobs--400,000 lost workdays per year. Why is that? What the EPA is trying to do under the Clean Air Act is make sure we don't have too much arsenic in the air or too much chromium, lead, or mercury. These are devastating toxics, especially to our children.

The manufacturers of boilers say there will be many jobs created. I submit this letter for the Record. They say anyone who tells us otherwise is not a boiler manufacturer and doesn't know what they are talking about. Senator Wyden, an original cosponsor, is off this bill because the EPA has worked with him and managed to answer his concerns.

Please vote no on this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1738

There is now 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the Coburn amendment No. 1738.

The Senator from Oklahoma.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. President, colleagues, we must waive the Budget Act in order to continue working on this bill. My friend from Tennessee will tell you otherwise. This bill is 100 percent paid for. The CBO score actually shows a $5 billion surplus over the next 10 years.

How is it paid for? I can tell you, my friend Jim Inhofe made sure it would be paid for, and we agreed on it. Through the highway trust fund, plus the bipartisan work of the Finance Committee, we have filled this trust fund to cover this bill.

Mr. President, 2.8 million jobs hang in the balance. All the work we did today hangs in the balance. We need 60 votes. So if one is for the Transportation bill, please vote aye so we can continue our work next week.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. Most of them have gone, but I feel it is important that the Record reflect this last vote that we had. Basically, it was a vote to undo everything we worked so hard on all day. It was basically a backdoor way of killing the transportation bill--a bill that is fiscally responsible. It is at current levels plus inflation fully paid for. Senator Inhofe and I agreed at the outset in the EPW Committee we would only support a bill that was fully paid for.

I was honored that we got so many Republican votes on that. I am looking forward to next week when we get this done. I understand the Senator from Michigan has something he wants to get accomplished by a voice vote. I ask unanimous consent that he be able to explain that so that we can continue making progress, and then he will yield the floor to the Republican side.

Madam President, I am waiting for my associate who has some charts, but I certainly can proceed at this point. I am here to speak in regard to my amendment No. 1537, which is at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that it be reported by number.

This is an amendment that would provide for approval of the Keystone Pipeline project. Congress has, under the commerce clause of the Constitution, express authority to regulate commerce with foreign countries. That provides the very clear constitutional authority for Congress to approve the Keystone Pipeline project. That is something we absolutely need to do.

Today there will be a very clear choice. There will be a very clear choice for the Members of the Senate. Make no mistake, I do not want to leave any doubt. This is a clear choice. My amendment provides that the Keystone Pipeline project will move forward, authorized by Congress. It is very clear that all the protections, all the environmental protections are incorporated, as has been provided over 3\1/2\ years-- 3\1/2\ years this project has been under review by the EPA, by the Department of State, by this administration. They have gone through not one but two environmental impact statement processes.

They have met all the environmental requirements. Our legislation incorporates all that and in addition provides whatever time is necessary for rerouting the pipeline through the State of Nebraska. Here is a schematic of the project. The one issue in terms of the

routing was through the State of Nebraska. This legislation provides whatever time is necessary for the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality to work with State, to work with EPA, and reroute the pipeline through the State of Nebraska.

So my point is, we incorporate all necessary environmental safeguards into the project. But it authorizes that the project, after 3\1/2\ years, can go forward. So I would like to talk for just a minute about why that is so important. Because there is another amendment, an alternative that has been presented by Senator Wyden. That amendment-- let me be clear. That amendment will block this project. That amendment will block this project. Let there be no confusion.

The Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter amendment will advance the project. The amendment that is being put forward by my esteemed colleague Senator Wyden as a Democratic alternative, that will block the project. This is a clear choice. Nobody should be confused.

Gas prices. This chart is a few days old. So it is a little bit behind the curve. But since this administration took office, gas prices have gone from $1.85 a gallon--more than doubled--to $3.70 a gallon. This is a little bit old, so the national average is actually higher. The last time I checked it was $3.76 a gallon, going up. So it is probably higher than that today. That is from AAA.

The projections are that gasoline prices will be $4 a gallon by Memorial Day and possibly more than $5 a gallon later this summer. That means every American is paying that at the pump. They are paying that at the pump. That is affecting our American consumers. That is affecting our businesses. That is affecting our economy.

What is the administration doing about it? What is Congress doing about it? The Obama administration has said, when it comes to energy, we are going to have an all-of-the-above strategy. I agree with that. We should have an all-of-the-above strategy. But the point is, we cannot just say it. We have to do it. We cannot just say it. We have to do it. The administration, at this point, not only are they just saying it and not doing it, they are, in fact, blocking it. I am giving you as clear an example as I can think of. I do not know how it could be any clearer that they are blocking energy development in our country.

This pipeline project would bring 830,000 barrels a day of crude oil to our country. That is more than 700,000 barrels a day from Canada. That is more than 100,000 barrels a day from my home State of North Dakota and our sister State Montana--830,000 barrels a day of product coming to our refineries.

The administration has said no to this project. They continue to say no to the project. They have approved this portion of it. That does not bring one single drop of product to our country. So I do not know. They are kind of confused about exactly what they are doing, but they continue to block this project. So that means 830,000 barrels a day that we have to get from the Middle East. Everybody knows what is going on in the Middle East. They have incredible turmoil. They have incredible tension in the Middle East. Iran may close the Strait of Hormuz; they have threatened to do that. As a result, crude oil prices continue to go up and consumers continue to pay more at the pump.

So in the face of all that, in the face of real hardship to working Americans, the administration is saying no to this project. They are saying no to my home State of North Dakota. They are saying no to Montana. They are saying, no, we are not going to allow them to build this project that gets that product to market and no to Canada, saying we are not going to allow them to bring that oil into the United States, instead they are going to have to send it to China and we are going to get oil from the Middle East and our consumers are going to continue to pay higher prices.

Again, make no mistake. This choice today is a choice. It is a choice whether we vote for an amendment to move forward with this project or whether we vote for an amendment to block the project. Again, there should be no confusion about that.

Why would the administration hold up this project? Why in the world, with gas prices we know going to $4, maybe $5 a gallon, why in the world would anyone oppose the project? The opponents have put forward three arguments. So let's go through them. Let's go through them and see if they hold water. Let's see if they pass muster. Let's see if they make sense.

The first argument is that somehow this pipeline is going to leak.

Now here is the route. Somehow we will build this pipeline that is going to leak. But we built a sister project that is working just fine. There have been no underground leaks in that project. While building it, there were minimal leaks as they put it together, and that was in the normal course of construction. But there have been no other ground leaks from this sister pipeline. It is working fine. So why would this one be a big concern about leaking? It doesn't make much sense.

If you don't buy that, just look at this chart and the network of pipelines in this country that carries oil and gas. There are thousands of pipelines, millions of miles of pipeline right now operating in this country right through the very region through which the Keystone XL Pipeline would pass. But somehow this one is a problem and these thousands are not? That is a reason to say no, after 3\1/2\ years? Come on. That doesn't pass anybody's test, and it doesn't make any sense.

The second argument that has been put forward is that the crude oil will come from Canada, and it will be then exported to China; we won't use it in the United States; and it won't help with gas prices. For starters, let's use some common sense on that one. I am pretty sure if we don't build the pipeline, it is for sure going to China. That is just flat-out common sense, for starters.

Even beyond that, the Department of Energy for this administration did a study in June of last year. In that study, they said the oil will be used in this country, and it will--not ``may'' but ``will''--lower gas prices on the east coast, the gulf coast, and in the Midwest. I had Secretary Chu in front of me at one of our hearings, and he acknowledged that, in fact, that is what the Department of Energy of this administration provided--that the product will be used here, that we are going to need more crude, and it will lower gas prices. Of course, that just stands to reason, doesn't it? If we are importing 30 percent of our oil from the Middle East today, obviously, we are going to continue to need crude from outside our borders.

Let's go to the third argument I have heard against the pipeline project, which is that Canada should not produce oil in the Canadian oil sands. The reason: Greenhouse gas emissions are 6 percent higher than conventional, and that the excavating process has a negative impact on the boreal forest.

Let's deal with the real situation, the current situation. The current situation is that 80 percent of the development in the Canadian oil sands is in situ--80 percent. What does that mean? That means drilling--not excavating but drilling--like we do in the United States. So you have about the same footprint in gas emissions as conventional drilling. Those arguments don't hold muster.

Here we are faced with a very clear choice. Do we go ahead and get oil from our closest friends and trading partner, Canada, or say no to them and have them send it to China? Do we reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and reduce the price of gas for hard-working American consumers? How about national security? Would you rather rely on oil from the Middle East or from Canada? Would you rather have oil produced here, in North Dakota, Montana, and in Canada, or would you rather get it from the Middle East?

I know how Americans will answer that question. I am looking forward to seeing how the Senate answers that question and how the administration answers that question.

Again, this is a clear choice. These amendments are clear. They are not similar. One is for the project; the other is against the project. The amendment that my esteemed colleague has put forward, the Democrat alternative, will block the project. It says after 3\1/2\ years of study, start over. After 3\1/2\ years of studying this project, start over.

What does that mean? Another 3\1/2\ years before we build it or another 5

years? How long do we have to study vital infrastructure projects before we can build them?

Do you think that might be one of the problems with our economy? Do you think that might be one of the problems with energy development? That is where it starts, by saying: TransCanada, start over, after 3\1/ 2\ years.

Then it adds additional impediments. What are they? Well, it says, for starters, none of the crude and none of the refined product can be exported from this country--not one drop. We cannot export any of it. The reality is there are refined products that we don't even use in this country. You can't. They are some of the coking products, and so on and so forth. There isn't demand or we cannot use them. If the refineries cannot sell them, they have to recoup that revenue stream. How? When they sell gasoline and diesel in our country. That pushes gasoline prices higher when they are already going higher by the day. Does that make sense to anybody? I don't think so.

Another impediment in the legislation is that not one penny of the inputs can come from outside the United States, even though 75 percent of the steel and 90 percent of all of the other materials in this multibillion-dollar project, paid for by private enterprise--75 percent of the steel and 90 percent of the other inputs come from North America. But that is not good enough. We are going to say every single penny of the inputs has to be bought in the United States. Of course, the companies cannot do that because they have already bought a lot of the steel and other materials. It is just a way to block the project.

Think about that absurd level of protectionism. Are we really going to grow our economy, create a lot of good jobs with that kind of protectionism? We cannot import anything and we cannot export anything, we are going to grow and expand and diversify this American economy and put people to work, and we are going to raise income with that approach? I don't think so.

Again, I go back to where I started. We have a clear choice to make, a very clear choice. We can stand with the people of America, stand with the workers, with the families, with the small business, and we can work to grow our economy and create jobs, and we can work to strengthen our national security or we can choose to say: No, we are going to continue to rely on oil from the Middle East. We are not going to increase supply, and we are not only going to turn down Canada, we are going to turn down our States such as North Dakota and Montana and say we would rather get that oil from the Middle East.

Today we have a clear choice about building a better energy future for our country, more jobs, and more security. I ask my colleagues to vote for the amendment I have put forward, to move the Keystone Pipeline project authority forward so they can advance the project, and vote against the amendment offered as a Democratic alternative, which will block the project.

I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Keystone XL Pipeline will bring more than 830,000 barrels a day of crude oil from Canada and also from States like mine, such as North Dakota and Montana. We need that crude oil rather than relying on the Middle East.

This is a vote to block the project. Make no mistake, this not only requires the TransCanada start-over, it says start over after 3\1/2\ years. What does that mean, another 3\1/2\ years before they can go forward? And it adds additional impediments to the project. With gasoline prices going up every day, we need more supply, we need it from Canada, we need it from North Dakota and Montana, not from the Middle East.

Please vote no on this amendment and yes on the next one, which will allow us to move forward for American workers, American consumers, for our businesses, for our economy, and for national security.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of this amendment which would authorize the Keystone XL Pipeline project to move forward. It provides an authorization after more than 3\1/2\ years of study. It incorporates all of the safeguards that have been developed through the environmental impact statement process with both EPA and the Department of State, and it allows whatever time may be necessary for rerouting in Nebraska. So it addresses the concerns that have been raised as far as the environmental impact statement but authorizes the project to proceed.

This project will bring 830,000 barrels a day of crude to our refineries, as I mentioned earlier, not only from Canada but from my home State of North Dakota, as well as from Montana. This is about not only producing more energy both at home and with our closest friend and ally, Canada, but it is also about national security. It is about reducing our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

I urge my colleagues' strong support for this amendment on behalf of American workers and consumers.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, we had a discussion, a very important discussion--I know the Presiding Officer cares a great deal about this topic, as well as Senator Collins and also Senator Boxer--on this issue about boilers. I want to be clear about what is at issue in this debate.

The debate about boilers stems from the fact that the EPA did not originally get the boiler rules right. The agency admitted they did not get them right, and the agency said they needed 15 months to fix the boiler rules. But the courts said the agency could not have the time. They said that EPA could have 30 days to fix the rules.

As colleagues have said, this debate has gone on for so long there is no way it is going to be turned around in 30 days. So I joined in the legislation to give the EPA 15 months to rewrite the rules so as to protect good-paying jobs and communities that are affected by the boiler rules, while ensuring the health of our people and the protection of our environment.

That was 15 months ago. EPA got the time it said it needed to rewrite the rules, and the new final rules will be out within 90 days. I wish to outline for the Senate what the new rules will do.

First, the new rules, as proposed in the legislation, change what constitutes solid waste so that boiler fuels, for example, that are wood waste can be used for fuels such as biomass; and waste from steel mills, as another example, can be used as a fuel, as they are today, rather than to be regulated out of existence as a fuel source.

Second, as proposed in the legislation, the new rules will create an open-to-the-public list of what can and cannot be burned in a boiler. This is going to provide important predictability and certainty to American industry, and it will provide new accountability to our communities. All across the United States, folks are going to be able to know, as a result of these new rules, what can and cannot be actually burned in a boiler.

Third, again, just like the legislation, the rules address the fact that because EPA was unable to get the rules right at the outset, more time is needed for compliance.

I know the distinguished Presiding Officer has been interested in this issue as well: the question of compliance and

the time that would be provided for industries to meet the standards.

In the final rule, the compliance clock is reset with a rule providing additional time for industry to comply. This is like what was in the original legislation. So industry will have 4 years to comply, and Administrator Jackson stated in writing that she will assist any hard-hit community, any company facing extra duress in terms of complying. Administrator Jackson has indicated on a case-by-case basis she will provide additional time to help those communities and to help those companies.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Administrator's letter to me be printed in the Record.

I want to address the discussion we heard from our colleagues, particularly Senator Collins and Senator Boxer, on the key point.

The changes I have described--the fact that we have made the rules changes so that so many of these materials will be treated as fuels, which is important in timber country that I and the distinguished Presiding Officer represent; the fact that we have this new process that provides predictability and certainty about what can be burned in a boiler; the fact that there is the additional time--all of this, in my view, has been spurred by the legislation introduced by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins. We ought to make no mistake about it. The important rules changes I have outlined this morning that I think are going to provide certainty and predictability to our businesses--while at the same time protecting the health of our people, the environment of our country--have been spurred because Senator Collins was willing to pick up the challenge and address this issue.

These new rules are going to finally take effect in less than 90 days. But the question I would ask Senators is, who knows what will happen to these important rules that are just about ready for implementation if, in effect, we say, as the amendment does, let's go back to the beginning and talk about addressing this again over 15 months?

If the amendment passes, and the EPA is told--as I have been advised under the text of the amendment--to take another 15 months, in my view, what would happen is, the agency would go back to spending this additional time working to try to get to the point where we are today.

That, in my view, just does not add up. It does not add up for the industries that have been concerned about this. It does not add up for the communities. It does not add up for the health of our people and the protection of our environment.

Let me close with this. Having been involved in the legislation, No. 1, having tried to make clear this afternoon that these important rules, in my view, have been spurred by the legislation Senator Collins has talked about, I wished to state that I intend, and I know others in the Senate will do as well, to watchdog the rules that will be out shortly every step of the way to ensure that they are fully implemented, to hold the Environmental Protection Agency to the commitments that have been made in these rules that are forthcoming, and to ensure that all our communities--all our communities--can see that finally this issue is being addressed and it is being addressed in a way that makes sense for the jobs we are going to need in our communities and to the public health and the environment.

I hope colleagues will look finally at the letter Administrator Jackson has sent me. I think it addresses, in particular, the timetable so many Senators have been concerned about. I have tried to outline some of the other issues that I think are critical, particularly the fact that we have the changes in the definition of solid waste that is so important. A whole host of materials have been added to that list of fuels. That means we can protect the jobs that stem from countries that use--the products that use these materials and at the same time protect the environment.

So this makes sense from the standpoint of a realistic rule on what constitutes a fuel, openness and transparency, because the American people will see what actually can be burned in a boiler. To me--and Senator Boxer has touched on this question of the years that have already gone into this effort--Administrator Jackson, in my view, has gone to substantial lengths to address this timetable that industry has been so concerned about.

In fact, I think it is fair to say that when I add what she has committed to, it is almost the same timetable as in her original legislation. So why in the world would we want to set aside those rules and go back again to the period of starting a new 15-month clock, only to see, in my view, that after those additional 15 months, we would be back to the place we are today, in terms of the rules that will be shortly implemented.

I urge the Senate to reject the amendment. We are going to continue to watchdog this issue until these rules are fully implemented.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have filed an alternative to the amendment offered by my friend from North Dakota. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1817.

Madam President, I yield the floor at this time.

Madam President, the Senator from North Dakota earlier offered a proposal to develop the Keystone Pipeline. I rise to speak on the alternative this afternoon. The alternative ensures expedited approval of the pipeline once the current environmental requirements are met. The alternative ensures that the thousands of jobs associated with building the pipeline go to the workers of the United States. The alternative says there is to be a ban on the export of all Canadian crude oil transported on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Obviously there may be some exceptions, and we have worked out a process to waive that. But if this oil is intended for Americans, then the export restrictions we offer in this amendment ought to be very clear, and that is the heart of the concern reflected by the backers of this amendment.

We believe there is substantial evidence on the Record that this oil will be for the export market. According to the TransCanada application to the Canadian Government, the Canadian oil companies expect to reap as much as $3.9 billion more in annual revenues from the higher prices they can tap once the oil reaches the gulf coast. Once it reaches the gulf coast, it competes at the same prices as other oil supplies on the global market. It will be extremely lucrative for the company and the incentives clearly are for the export market, and that is why the TransCanada application to the Canadian Government even admits that.

The fact is U.S. gulf coast refineries are already responsible for 75 percent of U.S. refined products and those exports are rising rapidly. Gulf coast refineries also have a cost advantage over struggling refineries along the east coast, and in effect the Keystone XL Pipeline can accelerate that advantage and likely accelerate the closure of east coast refining capacity. Less east coast refining capacity means higher gasoline and heating and oil prices for our country.

Perversely, according to a separate report we received from the Energy Information Agency, closure of east coast refineries could result in more imports of gasoline and other petroleum products, some possibly from as far away as India. That is particularly perverse because this is the first time since 1949 when we have actually seen exports of a number of our refined products, such as gasoline, have that dramatic change compared to previous years when we were always importing so many of those energy resources.

So contrary to the assertion by the pipeline backers, more supply from Canada does not automatically mean more U.S. supply and lower prices for U.S. consumers, especially when the evidence indicates that that supply is going to be hardwired by the pipeline and world prices and world markets once it reaches the Gulf of Mexico.

I simply say to Senators: This debate has always been about domestic energy security. That is the centerpiece of the argument that was made by my distinguished friend from North Dakota, and we have heard on television commercials for weeks and weeks. The argument is to build this pipeline, the energy is going to go for Americans. This amendment guarantees that will be the case. In effect, this amendment puts teeth behind all of the debate that this energy is going to be for the American consumer.

I think the evidence shows, particularly as you look at how you are going to see refineries bypassed in the Midwest, that it is going to go to the gulf ports and you are going to see this energy used in the export market. That may be good for the Chinese, but the evidence could indicate it would produce higher prices for Americans. In fact, this trend with respect to putting the export of American energy on auto pilot--assuming that it is automatically good--is something I think we ought to look at more carefully. In this amendment we make it clear we want to protect American workers, American consumers, and we are going to have expedited approval of the pipeline.

The only point I would make is the Secure Rural Schools legislation-- which we are going to be voting in a few minutes--has always been bipartisan. I have been working with Chairman Baucus to ensure that it remains bipartisan. I hope colleagues will keep faith with rural communities, and when it comes up for a vote here in a few minutes, support the Baucus amendment and our rural schools and law enforcement and road programs that are a lifeline to those rural communities.

Mr. President, the Baucus amendment is a lifeline for rural America, particularly for the West and the South, where the Federal Government owns so much of our land. This money is absolutely essential to keep school doors open, to keep cops out there protecting our people, and to provide for our roads program. This program has always been bipartisan since the days when our former colleague Senator Craig and I authored it.

I urge my colleagues to support Chairman Baucus on this amendment to provide a lifeline to rural America.

Madam President, this amendment ensures that the Keystone Pipeline is built by American workers using American steel; that our priority is reasonably priced energy for American families and American businesses, rather than their Chinese competitors. It contains an expedited approval process so that when air and water and environmental laws are complied with, the pipeline application must be approved within 90 days. Put simply, when you build a pipeline that is 2,000 miles across the Nation, our challenge is to do it right.

Madam President, there are two alternatives. This one gives us a chance to do it right for our workers, our businesses, the well-being of all our communities. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I urge opposition to this amendment. I wish to outline just very briefly why.

First, under this amendment the oil is not going to be going to the United States. This oil is going to be going to the export market, and the TransCanada application to the Canadian Government showed this beyond any question. The Canadian oil companies expect to reap as much as $3.9 billion more in annual revenue from the higher prices they can tap once their oil reaches the gulf coast. It competes at the same price as other oil supplies on the global market--no protection for workers, no protection on the environment, and, I believe, higher prices for American businesses and American consumers.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment.

Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield.

I just wish to underscore the statement of the Senator from California with regard to the Outer Continental Shelf and point out that the Vitter amendment would allow drilling in the one place on the Outer Continental Shelf that is off-limits in law; that is, the Gulf of Mexico off Florida.

There are several reasons that was passed in a bipartisan way with my colleague Senator Mel Martinez back in 2005. In the first place, there is no oil out there of any appreciable amount. The Senator has already pointed out there are 50 million acres under lease that are not drilled. Well, 30 million of those acres under lease that have not been drilled are in the Gulf of Mexico, where the oil is, in the central and western gulf. There is very little oil and gas in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Why? Because Mother Nature had those sediments coming for millions of years down the Mississippi River, and then the Earth's crust compacted for millions of years and made that oil and the oil is where the sediments were.

It is not out there and the oil companies know that and that is why they have 37 million acres under lease and only 7 million in the Gulf of Mexico are drilled, are producing of the 37 million acres.

That ought to be prima facie evidence of why we don't need to go in the Gulf of Mexico off Florida. But there is more. Didn't we have some lessons from the BP oilspill 2 years ago of what happens to tourism when oil comes up on the beach? It came very little on the Florida beaches, thank the good Lord, but the tourists thought the beaches were covered. So that tourist season on our gulf coast beaches was a bust from the Alabama-Florida line all the way down the west coast of Florida. We get down to Clearwater Beach, St. Petersburg Beach, lo and behold, they had a devastating dropoff of tourists who didn't come to those hotels and those restaurants and all those ancillary businesses. Part of what we have been doing with the BP money is trying to make people whole for all the income they lost. That ought to be reason enough. But there is another reason, and this is where people often are so surprised when I tell them.

The Gulf of Mexico off Florida is the largest testing and training area for the U.S. military in the world. This Senator from Florida has two letters from two successive Secretaries of State--by the way, both Republican--Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Gates, that say we can't put oil drilling and oil-related activities in the Gulf of Mexico off Florida in the test and training range, which in effect is the Gulf of Mexico off Florida.

I just wanted to bolster the Senator's statements about why we have to vote down this Vitter amendment.

Mr. President, if I may be recognized, I want to point out that later on today we are going to have an amendment that is bipartisan. It is an amendment that, of its original filing with 10 Senators, 3 of them are Democrat and seven of them are Republican. It is called the RESTORE Act. What it does is when the fine is determined on BP because of the 5 million barrels of oil they spilled--the fine allocated according to the Water Pollution Act, which says that a fine will be levied upon anyone who spills a barrel of oil in public waters, and, of course, because of the enormous amount of oil that was spilled, this could be a very substantial fine, 5 million barrels of oil--once that fine is determined, then the question is how is it going to be allocated.

If nothing is done, only about $1.5 billion would go into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The rest of it is undeclared. Naturally, what the Gulf Coast Senators wanted to do was to have some of that money come back to restore the gulf--the critters, the water, and the people who are the ones who suffered as a result of the BP oilspill.

What we have worked out is a formula, that 20 percent of whatever the fine is would go back to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and the remaining 80 percent would be allocated according to a formula devised by the National Gulf Restoration Council, appointed by the States and the Federal Government. It would go to make the environment of the gulf whole. It would go to help the economic development along the gulf that had suffered. And, very critically to this Senator, it would go to help research the long-term health effects on the gulf because there is no telling the effects. With all that oil sloshing around out there, we are already seeing enormous effects and we are going to be seeing that for years and years.

For example, there are two professors down at LSU with whom I visited who have been doing research on a little fish that roots around in the marshes to get its food. This little fish, called killifish--it is about the size of a silver dollar--they took that little fish and took slices of its gills, put them under a microscope, and have shown dramatic results in fish that live in the marshes where the oil penetrated, such as Barataria Bay, where it is all mixed up down into the sediment, and then taking samples of the killifish that came from marshes where not much oil hit. The dramatic result shows that these little fish do not reproduce. The ones that are there are stunted in their growth. They have all kinds of aberrations in their actual biological makeup. This spells bad news for the future of the gulf.

It is one of the amendments to the transportation bill. It is about five down on the list. Hopefully we will vote on it this afternoon. With seven Republican Senators being the sponsors of the original legislation, we are going to have this up. I plead with Senators, if you are concerned that you do not want all this money that is being fined as a result of the spill in the gulf--if you want it to go elsewhere in the country, I plead for you to recognize if you were in our shoes what you would want. But acknowledging that you want some of the money--because we had to get a pay-for, and the pay-for is not controversial, yet it produces about $1.5 billion additional--that can go to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The pay-for is something that the Senate has extended every year, a portion that was passed back in 2004 having to do with the World Trade Organization.

It is a very complicated thing. Each year the Senate has put that in abeyance for another year. That is our pay-for, to put it in abeyance for the ninth year of the 10 years that this provision is to be in effect. What it does is it produces about $1.5 billion for the Land and Water Conservation Fund so that it will have an effect for those concerned outside of the area of the Gulf of Mexico.

As you know, the Deepwater Horizon oilspill was right at 5 million barrels. It coated the beaches. It seeped into the wetlands. It kept fishermen at the dock during one of the busiest fishing seasons. It killed wildlife. It kept the tourists away from the gulf. The long-term impacts are not known because there is still a lot of oil out there at 5,000 feet, on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. The fish and the wildlife that were not immediately killed are showing the signs of damage, as I have indicated with the killifish.

The gulf residents and the communities continue to suffer. In the Senate today, we have a chance to take a step to make the gulf coast whole again. As a sign of solidarity for the gulf, of the five Gulf Coast States that collectively have two Democratic Senators and eight Republican Senators, all but one Senator of those five States signed as a sponsor of the bill. It is bipartisan. This commonsense legislation is supported by so many people who looked at this: National Environmental Policy Act groups, sportsmen, chambers of commerce, academic institutions, local governments, the business community. Today's vote is going to be a huge step toward making sure that the fine that is going to be imposed upon BP, however much it is, ends up in the local communities that were harmed by BP's oilspill; otherwise, the money is going to end up in the Federal Treasury, and there is no telling, then, where it is going to be spent.

The RESTORE Act amendment provides funding to each Gulf State for ecosystem restoration and economic recovery. It also creates a Federal- State council responsible for developing and executing a holistic plan to increase the resiliency of the gulf ecosystem. Why were baby dolphins dying in record numbers? We don't know. We have to find out. We have to test these results for years to come.

The amendment is also going to ensure that each Gulf State would come up with a State plan that is consistent with the Federal-State council plan.

Finally, this bill sets aside funding for science, specifically dedicating funding for data collection for our fisheries, for our wildlife, for long-term observation and monitoring, and sets up centers of excellence to carry out research on the gulf for years to come.

But there is also a national component in this bill. It creates a set-aside funding for an endowment for the oceans, an endowment for the Great Lakes, so in addition to restoring the gulf where the harm occurred, we can better protect all of our coasts from environmental harm. It provides substantial investments in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which I mentioned, which protects and conserves land in each and every State in this Union.

I believe our people, the whole of America, deserve a healthy and productive gulf too, and the civil fines that are going to be assessed to BP can ensure that.

I wish to share with my colleagues a vision for a restored Gulf of Mexico. One of the lessons we learned--and we learned it too late--is that we do not have sufficient understanding of the gulf ecosystem. We know that one-third of our domestic seafood comes from the gulf waters but we did not have a clear picture on the biological status of two- thirds of the federally managed fish stocks that call the gulf home, so it is important that some of these fines go toward dedicated, long-term science about the gulf ecosystem.

That was one of the main things I wanted to get into the RESTORE Act, because of the obvious implications for the long term. A restored gulf is one in which clean water that is free from algae blooms and free from tar mats, is home to oyster reefs and fish habitat and sea grass beds, where charters ferry tourists from hotels to pristine beaches and then on out to the productive fishing spots. An integral part of the restoration is to shore up the coastal communities that were hardest hit by the economic impacts of the oilspill. It is going to take a substantial investment to achieve those goals.

The gulf cannot wait. The rigid partisanship that has sometimes gridlocked this body has given way to a spirit of strong collaboration and bipartisanship in this Senate when it comes to the RESTORE Act.

I thank all the cosponsors of the amendment and the cosponsors of the RESTORE Act, and I urge and plead with our colleagues to support this amendment. It is right for the gulf. It is right for the country.

I call up my amendment, No. 1822, which is at the desk, and ask that it be reported by number.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, we are going to divide 1 minute; 15 seconds here, 15 seconds there, and 30 seconds for Senator Shelby.

I will just say this is the BP fine money to come back and restore the Gulf of Mexico and people who earn their living from the gulf.